AJC Passport

John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, joins guest host Casey Kustin, AJC's Chief Impact and Operations Officer, to break down Israel's high-stakes strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and the U.S. decision to enter the fight. With Iran's terror proxy network reportedly dismantled and its nuclear program set back by years, Spencer explains how Israel achieved total air superiority, why a wider regional war never materialized, and whether the fragile ceasefire will hold. He also critiques the international media's coverage and warns of the global consequences if Iran's ambitions are left unchecked. Take Action: Take 15 seconds and urge your elected leaders to send a clear, united message: We stand with Israel. Take action now. Resources and Analysis: Israel, Iran, and a Reshaped Middle East: AJC Global Experts on What Comes Next AJC Advocacy Anywhere - U.S. Strikes in Iran and What Comes Next  Iranian Regime's War on America: Four Decades of Targeting U.S. Forces and Citizens AJC Global Forum 2025: John Spencer Breaks Down Israel's War and Media Misinformation Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  Iran's Secret Nuclear Program and What Comes Next in the Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran's Nuclear Program Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Casey Kustin:   Hi, I'm Casey Kustin, AJC's Chief Impact and Operations Officer, and I have the pleasure of guest hosting this week's episode. As of the start of this recording on Wednesday, June 25, it's been 13 days since Israel launched precision airstrikes aimed at dismantling the Iranian regime's nuclear infrastructure and degrading its ballistic missile capabilities to help us understand what transpired and where we are now, I'm here with John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, co-director of the Urban Warfare Project and Executive Director of the Urban Warfare Institute.  John, welcome to People of the Pod. John Spencer:   Hey, Casey, it's good to see you again.  Casey Kustin:   Thanks so much for joining us. John, you described Israel's campaign as one of the most sophisticated preemptive strike campaigns in modern history, and certainly the scope and precision was impressive. What specific operational capabilities enabled Israel to dominate the Iranian airspace so completely? John Spencer:   Yeah, that's a great question, and I do believe it basically rewrote the book, much like after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, where Israel did the unthinkable, the United States military conducted 27 different studies, and it fundamentally changed the way we fight warfare. It's called Air-Land Battle. I think similarly with Operation Rising Lion, just the opening campaign rewrote what we would call, you know, Shock and Awe, Joint Forcible Entry, things like that. And the capabilities that enabled it, of course, were years of planning and preparation. Just the deep intelligence infiltration that Israel did before the first round was dropped. The Mossad agents texting the high command of the IRGC to have a meeting, all of them believing the texts. And it was a meeting about Israel. They all coming together. And then Israel blew up that meeting and killed, you know, in the opening 72 hours, killed over 25 senior commanders, nine nuclear scientists, all of that before the first bomb was dropped.  But even in the opening campaign, Israel put up over 200 aircrafts, almost the entire Israeli air force in the sky over Iran, dominating and immediately achieving what we call air supremacy. Again, through years of work, almost like a science fiction story, infiltrating drone parts and short range missiles into Iran, then having agents put those next to air defense radars and ballistic air defense missile systems. So that as soon as this was about to begin, those drones lost low cost drones and short range missiles attacked Iranian air defense capabilities to give the window for all of the Israeli F-35 Eyes that they've improved for the US military since October 7 and other aircraft.  Doing one of the longest operations, seconded only to one other mission that Israel has done in their history, to do this just paralyzing operation in the opening moment, and then they didn't stop. So it was a combination of the infiltration intelligence, the low-tech, like the drones, high-tech, advanced radar, missiles, things like that. And it was all put together and synchronized, right? So this is the really important thing that people kind of miss in military operations, is how hard it is to synchronize every bit of that, right? So the attack on the generals, the attack on the air defenses, all of that synchronized. Hundreds of assets in a matter of minutes, all working together. There's so much chance for error, but this was perfection. Casey Kustin:   So this wasn't just an operational success, it was really strategic dominance, and given that Iran failed to down a single Israeli Aircraft or cause any significant damage to any of Israel's assets. What does that tell us about the effectiveness of Iran's military capabilities, their Russian built air defenses that they have touted for so long? John Spencer:   Absolutely. And some people say, I over emphasize tactics. But of course, there's some famous sayings about this. At the strategic level, Israel, one, demonstrated their military superiority. A small nation going against a Goliath, a David against a Goliath. It penetrated the Iranian myth of invincibility. And I also failed to mention about how Israel, during this opening of the campaign, weakened Iran's ability to respond. So they targeted ballistic missile launchers and ballistic missile storages, so Iran was really weakened Iran's ability to respond. But you're right, this sent a signal around the Middle East that this paper tiger could be, not just hit, it could be dominated. And from the opening moments of the operation until the ceasefire was agreed to, Israel eventually achieved air supremacy and could dominate the skies, like you said, without losing a single aircraft, with his really historic as well. And hit what they wanted with what they wanted, all the military infrastructure, all the senior leaders. I mean, eventually they assigned a new commander of the IRGC, and Israel found that guy, despite him running around in caves and things.  It definitely had a strategic impact on the signal to the world on Israel's capabilities. And this isn't just about aircraft and airstrikes. Israel's complete dominance of Iran and the weakness, like you said. Although Israel also taught the world back when they responded to Iran's attack in April of last year, and in October of last year, is that you probably shouldn't be buying Russian air defense systems like S-300s. But Iran still, that was the backbone of their air defense capabilities, and Israel showed that that's a really bad idea. Casey Kustin:   You mentioned the component of this that was not just about going after infrastructure sites, but targeting Iranian military leadership and over 20 senior military and nuclear figures, according to public reporting. This was really a central part of this campaign as well. How does this kind of decapitation strategy alter the regime's military capability now, both in this immediate short term, but also in the long term, when you take out that kind of leadership? John Spencer:   Yeah, absolutely. I mean, much like when the United States took out Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force, who had been decades of leadership of the Quds Force, the terror proxies, which I'm sure we'll talk about, overseeing those to include the ones in Iraq, killing my soldiers. It had a ripple effect that was, it's hard to measure, but that's decades of relationships and leadership, and people following them. So there is that aspect of all of these. Now we know over 25 senior IRGC and Iranian basically leadership, because they killed a police chief in Tehran and others. Yet that, of course, will ripple across.  It paralyzed the leadership in many ways during the operation, which is the psychological element of this, right? The psychological warfare, to do that on the opening day and then keep it up. That no general could trust, much like Hezbollah, like nobody's volunteering to be the next guy, because Israel finds him and kills him. On the nuclear though, right, which all wars the pursuit of political goals. We can never forget what Israel said the political goals were – to roll back Iran's imminent breakout of a nuclear weapon, which would not only serve to destroy Israel, because that's what they said they wanted to do with it, but it also gives a nuclear umbrella, which is what they want, to their exporting of terrorism, and the Ring of Fire, the proxy networks that have all been defanged thanks to Israel. That's the reason they wanted. So in taking out these scientists.So now it's up to 15 named nuclear scientists. On top of the nuclear infrastructure and all the weaponization components. So it's not just about the three nuclear enrichment sites that we all talked about in the news, you know, Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. It's about that complete, decades-long architecture of the scientists, the senior scientists at each of the factories and things like that, that does send about, and I know we're in right now, as we're talking, they're debating about how far the program was set back. It holistically sets back that definitely the timeline.  Just like they destroyed the Tehran clock. I'm sure you've heard this, which was the doomsday clock that Iran had in Tehran, which is the countdown to the destruction of Israel. Israel stopped that clock, both literally and figuratively. Could they find another clock and restart it? Absolutely. But for now, that damage to all those personnel sets everything back. Of course, they'll find new commanders. I argue that you can't find those same level of you know, an Oppenheimer or the Kahn guy in Pakistan. Like some of those guys are irreplaceable. Casey Kustin:   So a hallmark of Israeli defense policy has always been that Israel will take care of itself by itself. It never asks the United States to get involved on its behalf. And before President Trump decided to undertake US strikes, there was considerable public discussion, debate as to whether the US should transfer B2s or 30,000 pound bunker busters to Israel. From purely a military perspective, can you help us understand the calculus that would go into why the US would decide to take the action itself, rather than, say, transfer these assets to Israel to take the action? John Spencer:   Sure. It's a complex political question, but actually, from the military perspective, it's very straightforward. The B2 stealth fire fighter, one of our most advanced, only long range bomber that can do this mission right, safely under radar, all this stuff. Nobody else has it. Nobody else has a pilot that could do it. So you couldn't just loan this to Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East, and let them do the operation. As well as the bomb. This is the only aircraft with the fuselage capable of carrying this side. Even the B-52 stratomaster doesn't have the ability to carry this one, although it can push big things out the back of it. So just from a logistics perspective, it wouldn't work.  And then there's the classification. And there's many issues with, like, the somebody thinking that would have been the easiest, and even if it was possible, there's no way to train an Israeli pilot, all the logistics to it, to do it. The Israel Begin Doctrine about, you know, taking into their own hands like they did in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, is still in full effect, and was shown to be literally, a part of Israel's survival is this ability to, look, I understand that allies are important. And I argue strongly that Israel can never go at it alone, and we should never want it to. The strength of any nation is its allies.  And the fact that even during this operation, you saw immense amounts of American military resources pushed into the Middle East to help defend Israel and US bases but Patriot systems on the ground before this operation, THAAD systems on the ground before the system. These are the advanced US army air defense systems that can take down ballistic missiles. You had Jordan knocking down drones. You had the new Assad replacement guy, it's complex, agreeing to shoot things down over their airspace. That is part of Israel's strength, is its allies.  I mean, the fact that you have, you know, all the Arab nations that have been helping and defending Israel is, I think, can't be underscored under Israel doesn't, shouldn't need to go it alone, and it will act. And that's the Begin Doctrine like this case. And I do believe that the United States had the only weapon, the only capability to deliver something that the entire world can get behind, which is nuclear proliferation, not, you know, stopping it.  So we don't want a terror regime like the Islamic regime, for so many different reasons, to have a nuclear weapon close to breakout. So United States, even the G7, the United Nations, all agree, like, you can't have a nuclear weapon. So the United States doing that limited strike and midnight hammer, I think, was more than just about capabilities. It was about leadership in saying, look, Iran's double play that the economic sanctions, or whatever, the JCPOA agreement, like all these things, have failed. Conclusively, not just the IAEA statement that they're 20 years that now they're in violation of enrichment to all the different intelligence sources. It was not working. So this operation was vital to Israel's survival, but also vital for the world and that too, really won in this operation. Casey Kustin:   Vital both in this operation, in the defense of Israel, back in April 2024 when Iran was firing missiles and we saw other countries in the region assist in shooting them down. How vital is Israel's integration into CENTCOM to making that all work? John Spencer:   Oh, I mean, it's life saving. And General Carrillo, the CENTCOM Commander, has visited Israel so much in. The last 20 months, you might as well have an apartment in Tel Aviv. It's vital, because, again, Israel is a small nation that does spend exponential amounts of its GDP in its defense. But Iran, you know this, 90 million much greater resources, just with the ballistic missile program. Why that, and why that was so critical to set that back, could overwhelm Israel's air defense systems. Could. There's so much to this, but that coordination. And from a military to military perspective, and this is where I come and get involved, like I know, it's decades long, it's very strong. It's apolitical on purpose. It's hidden. Most people don't know it, but it's vital to the survival of our greatest ally in the Middle East. So it meets American interest, and, of course, meets Israel's interest. Casey Kustin:   Can you help us understand the Iranian response targeting Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, because this seemed like a very deliberate way for the regime to save face and then de-escalate. But if the ceasefire falls apart, what are the vulnerabilities for us, troops and assets in the region. How well positioned are our bases in Qatar, Al Dhafra in the UAE, our naval assets in Bahrain, our bases in Iraq? How well positioned are we to absorb and deter a real retaliatory response? John Spencer:   Yeah, it's a great question. I mean, first and foremost, you know, there is a bit of active defense. So, of course, all of our US bases are heavily defended. A lot of times, you can see things are about to happen, and you can, just like they did, they moved to naval aircraft that would have been even vulnerable in some of these locations, out to sea, so they can't be touched. Heavily defended. But really, active defense is absolutely important, but really deterrence is the greatest protection. So that has to be demonstrated by the capability, right? So the capability to defend, but also the capability to attack and the willingness to use it.  This is why I think that supposedly symbolic to the 14 bunker busters that the United States dropped during Operation Midnight Hammer. Iran sent 14 missiles. President Trump says, thanks for the heads up. You know, all of it was evacuated, very symbolic, clearly, to save face and they had a parade, I guess, to say they won something. It's ludicrous, but sometimes you can't get inside the heads of irrational actors who are just doing things for their own population.  Our bases, the force protection is heavy. I mean, there's never 100% just like we saw with all the air defenses of Israel, still about 5% or if not less, of the ballistic missiles got through one one drone out of 1000 got through. You can never be 100% but it is the deterrence, and I think that's what people miss in this operation. It set a new doctrine for everyone, for the United States, that we will use force with limited objectives, to send an immense amount of strength.  And when somebody says there's a red line now that you should believe that, like if you would have injured a single American in the Middle East, Iran would have felt immense amount of American power against that, and they were very careful not to so clearly, they're deterred. This also sent a new red line for Israel, like Israel will act just like it did in other cases against even Iran, if they start to rebuild the program. War is the pursuit of political objectives, but you always have to look at the strategic on down. Casey Kustin:   On that last point, do you think we have entered a new phase in Israeli military doctrine, where, instead of sort of a more covert shadow war with Iran, we will now see open confrontation going forward, if necessary? John Spencer:   Well, you always hope that it will not be necessary, but absolutely this event will create, creates a new doctrine. You can see, see almost everything since October 7, and really there were just things that were unconceivable. Having studied and talked to Israeil senior leaders from the beginning of this. Everybody thought, if you attacked Hezbollah, Iran, was going to attack and cause immense amounts of destruction in Israel. Even when Israel started this operation, their estimates of what the damage they would incur was immense. And that it didn't is a miracle, but it's a miracle built in alliances and friendships with the United States and capabilities built in Israel.  Of course, Israel has learned a lot since October 7 that will fundamentally change everything about not just the military doctrine, but also intelligence services and many aspects that are still happening as they're fighting, still to this day in Gaza to achieve the realistic, measurable goal there. Yes, it absolutely has set forth that the old ways of doing things are gone, the you know, having these terror armies, the ring of fire that Israel has defanged, if not for Hamas dismantled and destroyed.  It sets a new complete peace in the Middle East. But also a doctrine of, Israel is adapting. I mean, there's still some elements about the reserve forces, the reigning doctrine, that are evolving based on the magnitude of the war since October 7. But absolutely you're right about they will, which has been the doctrine, but now they've demonstrated the capability to do it to any threat, to include the great, you know, myth of Iran. Casey Kustin:   So when you talk about this defanging of the Iranian proxy network obviously, Israel undertook significant operations against Hezbollah. Over the last year, they've been in active conflict with the Houthis. How does this operation now alter the way that Iran interacts with those proxies and its capacity to wage war against Israel through these proxies? John Spencer:   Yeah, cripples it, right? So Iran's nuclear ambition and its terror campaign are literally in ruins right now, both literally and figuratively. Hezbollah was defanged, the leadership, even taking out Nasrallah was believed to have caused catastrophic consequences, and it didn't. So, absolutely for Iran, also during this operation, is sniffing because all of his proxies were silent. I think the Houthis launched two missiles because thanks to Israel and the United States, the Houthi capabilities that should never have been allowed to amass, you know, this pirate terror empire. They didn't make those greatest shore to sea arsenal out of falafels. It got it straight from Iran, and that pipeline has already been cut off, let alone the capabilities.  Same thing with Hezbollah, which relied heavily on pipelines and infrastructure of missiles and everything being fed to it by Iran. That's been cut. The Assad regime being the drug empire, support of Hezbollah to rule basically, in Lebanon, has been cut. Hezbollah couldn't come to the aid of Assad. All of these variables. And of course, Hamas will never be able to do anything again, period. It all causes Iran to have to rethink everything. From, you know, not only their own national defense, right air defense capabilities and all this, but their terror campaign, it isn't just in ruins. There's a new doctrine, like it's not acceptable.  Now, of course, that's going to be hard to fully reign in. You have Shia backed groups in Iraq, you have a lot of bad things going on, but the Quds Force, which is its job, it's all shattered. Of course, they'll try to rebuild it. But the fact that these terror proxies were already so weakened by Israel that they couldn't do anything and remain silent. Hezbollah just was silent basically during this, is very significant to the peace going forward. I mean, there, there's still a lot of war here, but Israel and the United States have rewritten the map of the Middle East. Casey Kustin:   in the hours days that followed the US deciding to engage here. A lot of the conversation focused on the possibility of triggering now broader regional escalation, but we didn't see that, and it sort of shattered that myth that if Israel or the US were to go after Iran, that it would spiral into a broader Middle East conflict. Why did we not see that happen? Why did this remain so controlled? John Spencer:   So many reasons that really go back a few months, if not years? Mean going back to the first the Abraham Accords, President Trump's recent tour of the Gulf states and his story. Turic financial deals Israel's like we talked about with the Arab nations that were part of protecting it, the fact that the so on, that very geopolitical aspect. And we saw Iran turn to Russia, because there's always geopolitical considerations. Iran turned to Russia. Said, you're going to help us out. We signed this security agreement last year. We've been helping you in Ukraine do the awful things you're doing there.  And Russia said, No, that's not what we said. And it called called President Trump. President Trump says, how about you worry about mediating a ceasefire in Ukraine? And well, so they turned to China and the fact that there was nobody again, and that all the work that had been done with all the people that also disagree, nation states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, all those others. Those are many of the contributing factors.  But war also, I wrote this piece about, this isn't Iraq, this isn't Afghanistan, this isn't Libya. I really hate the lazy comparisons. This was contained and not able to spill out by constant communication from day one of what the goals were. Limited objective to roll back a threat to the world nuclear program and the ballistic program as well. That prevents the ability for even the Islamic regime to say, you know, my survival is at risk, I need to escalate this, right? So, being clear, having strategic clarity from Israel, and when the United States assisted, from the United States. You know, war is a contest of wills, not just between the military is fighting it, but the political element and the population element. So, you know, being able to communicate to the population in Israel and like, what's the goal here? Like, how long are we gonna have to do this? And to the United States. Like, what are our interests? Keeping it the goal limited, which all parties did.  And even, in fact, you had the G7 meeting during this and they signed an agreement, we agree Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That is a big part of how you permit the spill out. But it does have many contextual elements of the broader, this isn't black and white between Israel and Iran. It's much bigger than that. And that, and we saw all that work that has been done to show strength through peace, or peace through strength, in all the forms of national power that have been rallied against what is chaos that the Islamic regime wants in the Middle East. Casey Kustin:   So now that we've had a few days to begin to assess the impact of both the US and the Israeli strikes based on what's publicly available. I think you wrote that the nuclear timeline has been pushed back years. We saw some reporting in the New York Times yesterday saying it's only set back months. It seems this morning, the US is concurring with the Israeli assessment that it's been set back years. A lot of talk about where certain Where did certain stockpiles of enriched uranium, and how confident can we be at this point in any of these assessments? John Spencer:   So yes, as we're talking, people are trying to make it political. This should be a non partisan, non political issue. I'm an objective analyst of war. If you just write down all the things that Israel destroyed, validated by satellite imagery. then the fact that somebody And even the spinning of words where like we saw with that leaked report, which was the preliminary thoughts about something, it isn't comprehensive, right?  So one, BDA has never come that fast. Two, we do know, and Iran has validated, like all these scientists dead, all these generals dead, all these components of the nuclear program, damaged or destroyed. The idea that somebody would say, well, you only set it back a couple months to me, it's just anti-intellectual. Look, Natanz, Esfahan, Fordo, we can debate about how much stuff is inside of that mountain that was destroyed, although 14 of the world's best bunker buster munitions, 30,000 pounds punching through.  I just think, it's not a silly argument, because this is very serious. And yes, there could be, you know, hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium up there, a certain percentage that got floated around. That's not the, the things that set the timeline of breakout. Breakout included all the components of the knowledge and capability to reach breakout and then weaponization of a nuclear bomb. There's nobody, I think, who can comprehensively, without nuancing the words say that Israel wasn't very effective, and the United States assistance in only what the United States could do, at setting this program back and actually stopping the immediate danger. Of course, Iran is still a danger. The program is still a danger, but I just think it's so political that they're trying to say that, well, you only said it back a couple months. That's like, that's ridiculous. Casey Kustin:   So as an objective analyst of war, but also as someone who's really been a voice of moral clarity and has called out the international media over the last 18 months for a lot of this disinformation, misinformation, bias reporting. Before we go, John, what is one consequence of this operation that the international media is just missing? John Spencer:   One is that, I think the international media who are debating whether Iran was literally using an opposing opinion against global thought that Iran was close to a nuclear bomb, they missed that completely and tried to politicize it to where, just giving disinformation agents that tidbit of a headline that they need. I do believe in journalistic standards, fact checking, those elements and holding those people accountable. I live in the world of experts. People on the platform X who think they're experts.  But when you have national media running headlines for sensationalism, for clicks, for you know, struggling for opposition to just political administration, we should learn to really question a single report as valid when there's overwhelming opposition. I don't know how to put that succinctly, but you think we would learn over the last, you know, 20 months of this lies, disinformation, statistical warfare, the things like that that, yeah, it's just crazy that that somebody would think in any way this wasn't an overwhelming success for the world, that this program was set back and a new doctrine for treating the program was established. Casey Kustin:   Finally, John, before we wrap up here, the question on everyone's mind: can the ceasefire really hold? John Spencer:   So, you know, I don't do predictions, because I understand wars uncertainty. It's human. It's political. It looks by all signs, because of how Iran was dominated, and how the United States showed that if it isn't contained, then immense amounts of force and of course, Israel's superiority, I believe that the ceasefire will hold. It was normal. And I made some some posts about the historical examples of wars coming to an end, from the Korean War, to the Yom Kippur war, Bosnia War, where you had this transition period where you're rolling back forces and everything. But the by the fact that Iran has said, Yeah, we agreed. We have stopped our operation. All signs for me are saying that this ceasefire will hold, and now the world's in a better place. Casey Kustin:   John, thank you so much for the insight, for, as I said, your moral clarity that you bring to this conversation. We appreciate you joining us today on People of the Pod. John Spencer:   Thank you so much.   

Since Israel launched Operation Rising Lion—a precise and defensive military campaign aimed at preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons—Iran has responded with a barrage of ballistic missiles and drones, indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians. Dr. Matthew Levitt, director of the Reinhard Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a leading expert on Iran's global terror network, explains what's at stake—and what could come next. Take Action: We must stop a regime that vows to murder millions of Israelis from gaining the weapons to do it. Urge your elected leaders to assure that Israel has all the necessary support to end Iran's nuclear threat. Resources and Analysis: Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Explained: What You Should Know AJC Advocacy Anywhere: Israel and Iran: Latest Updates, Global Responses, and the Path Ahead 5 Key Reasons Behind Israel's Defensive Strike on Iran's Imminent Nuclear Threat Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod: Latest Episodes: Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran's Nuclear Program What Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks' State of the Jewish World Teaches Us Today Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Israel's shadow war with the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, erupted into open conflict last week following a stunning report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that confirmed Iran was much closer to obtaining nuclear weapons than previously known. Since Israel launched a wave of attacks on nuclear sites and facilities, Iran has fired missiles toward Israel's most populated cities. Joining us to discuss what this all means is one of the foremost experts on Iran and its global threats, and a regular guest when trouble arises with Iran. Dr. Matthew Levitt, director of the Reinhard Counterterrorism Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  Matt, welcome back to People of the Pod. Matthew Levitt:   It's a pleasure to be back, but I need to come sometime when the world's okay.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   That would be nice. That'd be nice. But what will we talk about? Matthew Levitt:   Yeah, just call me one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, you are one of the foremost experts on the dangers posed by Iran, especially its terror proxies. And you've written the definitive book on Hezbollah, titled Hezbollah: the Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God. And I say that whole title, I want to get in there, because we are talking about global threats here.  Can you explain the scale of Iran's global threat and the critical role that its terror proxies, like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, play in advancing that strategy? Matthew Levitt:   So I really appreciate the question, because it's really important to remind listeners that the Israel Iran war did not start Thursday night US time, Friday morning, Israel time. In fact, it's just the latest salvo where the Israelis, after years and years and years of Iranian we call it malign activity, but that's too soft a term. We're talking about Iran sending weapons and funds to proxies like Hamas to carry out October 7, like Hezbollah to fire rockets at Israel almost daily for almost a year. Like the Houthis, who were much more than a thorn in the Saudi backside until the Iranians came and gave them more sophisticated capabilities.  We're talking about an Iran that a few years ago decided that instead of making sure that every gun that it sent to the West Bank had to go to Hamas or Islamic Jihad. They decided to just flood the West Bank with guns. Who cares who's shooting at the Israelis so long as somebody is. And an Iran that not only carries out human rights abuses of all kinds at home, but that threatens Israel and its neighbors with drones, low altitude cruise missiles, short range ballistic missiles, and medium and long range ballistic missiles.  And so the totality of this, much like the totality of Hezbollah's striking Israel for almost a year, ultimately led Israel to do what most people thought couldn't be done, and just tear Hezbollah apart, that the Israel war on Hezbollah is the prequel to what we've been seeing over the past few days in Iran. Similarly, for the Israelis, it got to be too much. It wasn't even really that President Trump's 60 days expired and Israel attacked on day 61. It wasn't only that the IAEA came out with a report saying that the Iranians have refused to explain certain activities that can only be explained as nuclear weaponization activities.  It was that the Israelis had information that two things were happening. One, that Iran was working very, very hard to rebuild its capability to manufacture medium, long range ballistic missiles that can hit Israel. After the Israeli reprisal attack last October took out a key component of that program, the mixers that are important for the solid propellant, without which you can't make ballistic missiles. And Iran is believed to have, at least the beginning of this recent round of the conflict –Thursday, Friday–about 2000 such missiles. Far fewer now, the Israelis say they've taken out about a third of them, plus launchers, plus radars, et cetera. But that Iran had a plan within just a few years to develop as many as 8000 of these. And that simply was not tolerable for the Israelis.  And the second is that the Israelis say that they compiled evidence that Iran had a secret, secret nuclear weapons program that had been going on predating October 7, but was fast tracked after October 7, that they were planning to maintain this program, even as they were negotiating over the more overt program with the Trump administration. President Trump has even taken issue with his own Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that the US intelligence committee does not assess that Iran is weaponizing. And President says, I don't care what she says, I think they were very close to weaponizing.  The Israelis say they have shared this information at least recently with their US counterparts and that was not tolerable. So the primary goals that Israel has set out for itself with this campaign is beyond the critically important shattering the glass ceiling. Think where people in particular, in Iran thought this would never happen, was two things, one, addressing and significantly degrading and setting back the Iranian ballistic missile production program, and second, doing the same to the nuclear program. They've already carried out strikes at Isfahan, Natanz, even at the upper parts of Fordow. And there is an expectation that the Israelis are going to do something more. The Israeli national security advisor said on Israeli television today, We are not going to stop without addressing the nuclear activities at Fordow. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You know, you called it a prequel, Israel's operations against Hezbollah last year. Did you know that it was a prequel at the time and to what extent did it weaken Iran and leave it more vulnerable in this particular war? Matthew Levitt:   I'm going to be the last person in Washington, D.C. who tells you when he doesn't know. And anybody who tells you they did know is lying to you. None of us saw what Israel did to Hezbollah coming. None of us saw that and said, Oh, they did it to a non-state actor right across their border. So they'll definitely be able to do it to Iran, 1000+ kilometers away, big nation state with massive arsenals and a nuclear program and lots of proxies. One plus one does not equal three in this.  In other words, the fact that Israel developed mind boggling capabilities and incredible intelligence, dominance and then special tools, pagers and walkie talkies, in the case of Hezbollah, did not mean that they were going to be able to do the same vis a vis Iran. And they did. The same type of intelligence dominance, the same type of intelligence, knowing where somebody was at a certain time, that the protocols would be that certain leaders would get in a certain secret bunker once hostilities started, and they'd be able to take them out in that bunker. As they did to a bunch of senior Hezbollah commanders just months ago. Drone operations from within Iran, Iran being hit with missiles that were fired at Iran from within Iran, all of it. One case did not necessarily translate into the other. It is exponentially impressive. And Israel's enemies have to be saying, you know, that the Israelis are just all capable. Now you're absolutely right. You hit the nail on the head on one critical issue. For a very long time, Israel was at least somewhat deterred, I would say very deterred, from targeting Iran. Because Iran had made very, very clear if Israel or the United States or anybody else targeted Iran or its nuclear program, one of the first things that would happen would be that Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel, Iran's first, most important proxy would rain hellfire in Israel in the form of 1000s upon 1000s of rockets. Until Israel addressed the problem, Hezbollah is believed to have had 150 to 200,000 different types of projectiles, up to and including precision guided munitions.  Not only have the overwhelming majority of those been destroyed, Hezbollah still has 1000s of rockets, but Hezbollah leadership has been decimated. There's a new sheriff in town in Lebanon. There's a new government that immediately, when hostility started with Iran's, went to Hezbollah and said, You're not doing this, not dragging Lebanon back into a war that nobody wanted again. We are finally coming out of this economic crisis. And so Iran was faced with a situation where it didn't have Hezbollah to deter Israel.  Israel, you know, paved the way for a highway in the air to Iran, taking out air defense systems. It was able to fly over and through Syria. The Syrians are not shedding any tears as they see the Quds Force and the IRGC getting beaten down after what Iran did in Syria. And the Israelis have air dominance now. President Trump said, We, using the we term, air dominance now, earlier today. And they're able to slowly and methodically continue to target the ballistic missile program. Primarily, the medium and long range missiles that target Israel, but sometimes it's the same production lines that produce the short range missiles that Iran uses to target U.S. Forces in the region, and our allies in the Gulf. So Israel is not just protecting itself, it's protecting the region. And then also taking out key military security intelligence personnel, sometimes taking out one person, then a couple days later, taking out the person who succeeded that person, and then also taking out key scientists who had the know-how to potentially rebuild all the things that Israel is now destroying. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But Israel is also not hearing from the Houthis, is not hearing from Hamas. It's not hearing from other terror proxies either. Very few attacks from Iran's terror proxies in the aftermath of this wave. Why? Why do you think that is? Matthew Levitt:   The crickets are loud. The crickets are loud. Look, we've discussed Hezbollah. Hezbollah understands that if it were to do something, the Israelis will come in even harder and destroy what's left. Hamas is still holding hostages. This is still an open wound, but it doesn't have the capabilities that it once had, and so there have been a couple of short range things that they tried to shoot, but it's not anything that's going to do huge damage, and the Israeli systems can deal with those.  The Houthis did fire something, and it hurt some Palestinians near Hebron. You know, the Houthis and the Iranians in particular, in this conflict have killed Palestinians, and in one case, Syrians. They're continuing to hurt people that are not Israelis. One of the things that I think people are hopeful for is that as Iran tries to sue for peace, and it already is, it's been reaching out to Cyprus to pass messages, etcetera. The hope is that Iran will recognize that it's in a position whereby A) there has to be zero enrichment and the facilities have to be destroyed, whatever's left of them. And B) there's a hope that Israel and the United States together will be able to use this diplomatic moment to truly end the conflict in Gaza and get the hostages home. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, that was what I was going to ask. I mean, if Israel achieves its objectives in this war, primarily eliminating Iran's nuclear threat, how significant a setback would that be for Hamas and Iran's other terror proxies, and could it indeed pave the way for an end of the war in Gaza and the return of the hostages? Matthew Levitt:   Like everybody else, I'm so scarred, I don't want to get my hopes up, but I do see this as a distinct possibility, and here's why. Not Hezbollah, not the Houthis, not Hamas, none of them, and plenty of other proxies that don't start in the letter H, none of them could have been anywhere as capable as they've proven to be, were it not for Iranian money and weapons. Also some training, some intelligence, but primarily money and weapons.  And so Hamas is already on its back foot in this regard. It can still get some money in. It's still being able to make money off of humanitarian aid. Iran is still sending money in through money exchange houses and hawaladars, but not weapons. Their ability to manufacture weapons, their military industrial complex within Gaza, this is destroyed. Hezbollah, we've discussed, discussed, and a lot of their capabilities have been destroyed. And those that remain are largely deterred. The Houthis did shoot up some rockets, and the Israelis did carry out one significant retaliatory attack. But I think people are beginning to see the writing on the wall. The Israelis are kicking the stuffing out of Iran with pinprick attacks that are targeting the worst of the bad guys, including people who have carried out some of the worst human rights transgressions against Iranians. Let's not pretend that this is not affecting the average Iranian. It is. The president says, Everybody get out of Tehran. That's just not possible. People, average Iranians, good people. It must be just an absolute terror.  But Israel's not bombing, you know, apartment buildings, as Iran is doing in Israel, or as Russia is doing in Ukraine. And so it really is a different type of thing. And when the Houthis, when Hamas, when Hezbollah, look at this, you don't you don't poke the tiger when it's angry. I think they also understand now's the time to get into survival mode. What you want is for the regime in Iran not to be destroyed. This is no longer a moment, as it's been since long before October 7, but certainly since then, of how Iran as proxies, export Iran's revolution. This is now a question of how they maintain and preserve the revolution at home. And it's extremely important to the proxies that Iran remain, so that even if it's knocked down over time, hopefully, theoretically, from their perspective, it can regain its footing. It will still have, they hope, its oil and gas, etcetera, and they will get back to a point where they can continue to fund and arm the proxies in. Maybe even prioritize them as it takes them longer to rebuild their ballistic missile, drone, and nuclear programs. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Which is a scary prospect as well to know that terror proxies could be spread throughout the world and empowered even a little bit more. President Trump left the G7 summit a day early to meet with security advisors, and just a few hours ago, prior to this interview, President Trump called for Iran's, quote, unconditional surrender, saying that the US knows where the Supreme Leader is, and some other threatening language. But I mean, this appears to be a kind of a clear commitment to Israel. So I'm curious how you assess his administration's actions before and during the war thus far, and do you see the United States edging toward direct involvement? Matthew Levitt:   All politics is local, and there is a tug of war within the MAGA movement over whether or not the US should be getting involved. Not only in supporting an important ally, but in removing a critical threat. The President is clearly frustrated that Iran was not being more forthcoming in the negotiations. He said many times, we'd offered you a great deal, you should have taken the deal. He's very aware that his deadline ended, and they didn't particularly seem to care. There's also the background that once upon a time, they tried to assassinate him, I think, after the Israelis did what they did, the President appreciates capabilities. He appreciates success. He likes backing the winning horse. And so the New York Times is reporting that after getting off the phone with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump reportedly turned to some aides and said, maybe we need to help him. Now it's not clear that's what's going to happen, and my understanding is that the Israelis have plans of their own for things like the heavily fortified facility at Fordow, which is the most important and highly fortified, protected of the nuclear installations. The Israeli National Security Advisor spoke today and said, you know, we're not going to be done until we do something with Fordow.  The United States can do multiple things only the United States has the MOP: the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, and the airplanes to deliver it, and they could end Fordow if they wanted. Short of that, they could do other things to support Israel. There's been defensive support for the State of Israel already, but there's other things they could do, refueling and other things if they wanted to. And at a minimum, I don't see the president restraining Israel at all. Now, I've heard some people say that so far, the President has fired nothing more than some social media postings, some of them even in all caps.  But the truth is, those do have an effect, and so long as Israel is not restrained. I think the Israelis went into this with a plan. That plan is not necessarily to entirely destroy the entire nuclear program, but if the ballistic missile program and the nuclear program are sufficiently degraded so that it will take them years and a tremendous amount of time and money to rebuild, knowing that Israel has broken the glass ceiling on this idea of targeting Iran, that if the Israelis feel they need to, they will come back. If the Iranians rebuild their air defense systems, the Israelis will address them and create a new highway going if they need to. I think the Israelis are making that clear. Knowing that it's going to be a little bit of a road for Iran, especially when it will have to deal with some domestic issues coming out of this.  Finally, the Israelis have started signaling there's other things they could do. The Israelis have not yet fully targeted oil and gas fields and facilities. For example, they had one set of attacks where they basically knocked at the front door of some of these facilities without walking in the house. That's signaling, and I think it's one of the reasons you're seeing Iran quietly trying to reach out for some type of a ceasefire. Other signaling, for example, is the Israelis deciding to fly all the way to Mashhad, which is in far eastern Iran, to take out an airplane. That airplane was not particularly important. It was the message. There is nowhere in Iran we can't go. It's not a question of distance, it's not a question of refueling, it's not a question of air defense systems. We can do what we need to do. And I think the Iranians understand that now. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So we talked about the commitment to Israel, and how clear, how important it is to clarify that commitment to Israel. How important is it to clarify the United States commitment to Arab partners in the Middle East to help defend them in other words, if this conflict escalates? Matthew Levitt:   This is critically important. You know, one of the individuals who was taken out, for example, was the person who was in charge of the drone attack on the Abqaiq oil facility in Saudi Arabia. If you look, for example, at the Saudi statement condemning the Israeli actions, it was issued by the Foreign Ministry without a single name attached to it. Wasn't issued by the Crown Prince, wasn't issued by the foreign minister. So I think you should expect a whole lot of public criticism. I imagine there's a different conversation going on behind closed doors. It's not necessarily, you know, pom-poming. This makes the Gulf states very, very nervous, in part because they understand that one way Iran could try and get out of this is to expand the conflict.  And that the reason they haven't is because, short of trying to prevent Iranians from taking to the streets and potentially doing something to maybe overthrow the regime, short of that, the number one thing that the Iranian regime is most desperate to avoid is getting the United States involved militarily. And I think the Iranians really understand and the messaging's been clear. If you target US Forces in the region, if you target our allies in the region, we'll get involved. If you don't, then we might not.  Now the President now is talking about potentially doing that, and as a lot of maybe this, maybe that, nothing very clear. I think what is clear is that the Israelis are going to continue doing what they need to do for another one to two weeks. Even going so far as doing something, though they haven't made clear what to address the really complicated problem of the fortified facility at Fordow. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So how important is it for global security if Israel is successful in eliminating the nuclear threat in Iran? Matthew Levitt:   Look, Iran has been the single most destabilizing factor in the region for a long time now. Imagine a region without a destabilizing revolutionary regime in Iran without a regime that is supporting Shia militants in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries.  Imagine the Shia militias in Iraq suddenly without a funder and a patron, enabling the Shia government in Iraq to actually be able to take control of the country and establish a monopoly over the use of force. At a time when the Shia militias, because of Iran's backing, are becoming more dangerous and more powerful in Iraq.  Imagine the Lebanese government being able to be more forward leaning in their effort to establish a monopoly over the use of force in that country, reclaim bases that Hezbollah has used for all this time, and establish a new Lebanon that is not beholden to Iran and Hezbollah.  And imagine an Israeli-Palestinian situation where you didn't have Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as spoilers. Recall that October 7 happened in large part because Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran could not tolerate the prospect of Israeli-Saudi normalization. For most Palestinians, this was great news. The Saudis were demanding real dividends for the Palestinians from the Netanyahu government, which was likely going to do them. This was great for Palestinians, bad for Hamas.  Imagine Hamas no longer getting that support from Iran. Imagine Iran no longer able to send or being interested in sending millions upon millions of dollars to its proxies, and instead spending what money it has on helping its population, instead of cracking down on it with human rights violations. You could have a very, very different region, let alone imagine Iran no longer carrying out acts of terrorism, kidnapping plots, abduction plots of dissidents and Jews and Israelis and others around the world of the type that we've seen throughout Europe and throughout the Middle East and even in the United States over the past few years. Manya Brachear Pashman:   That's quite an imagination you have. But I take your point. Let me ask you this then. Did you ever imagine that Israel would take this dramatic step?  Matthew Levitt:   What the Israelis have achieved, when you are so against the wall and you're forced to come up with solutions, because it's a matter of life or death – you make the impossible possible. And I think that perhaps the Iranians assumed that the Israeli post-October 7 doctrine applied to non-state actors only. And that doctrine is very simple. Israel will no longer allow adversaries who are openly committed to its destruction to build up weapons, arsenals that they can then use at some point to actually try and destroy Israel. They will not allow that to happen.  They allowed it to happen with Hamas. It was a mistake. They allowed it to happen with Hezbollah. It was a mistake that they corrected. And Iran is the biggest, arguably, really, the only existential threat as huge, as a tasking as that was, clearly they invested in doing it. And the question became, not, why can't it be done? What is it that has to be overcome? And I don't think sitting here with you right now, you know, what is it, 3:30 on Tuesday, the 17th, that we've seen the last of the tricks up Israel's sleeve.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   I only have one last question for you, and that is about the United States. The importance of the United States getting directly involved. I mean, we've talked about previously undisclosed nuclear sites, and who knows how many there could be. We're talking about more than what, 600,000 square miles of Iran. If the goal is a non nuclear Iran, can Israel finish this war without the United States, or does it even matter? I mean, is this just a step to force Iran back to the negotiating table with virtually zero leverage? Matthew Levitt:   So look, I don't think the goal here is completely destroying the Iranian nuclear program, or even completely destroying the Iranian ballistic missile program. The goal is to so degrade it that it is set back many, many years, and break that ceiling. People now understand if Israelis need to come back, they're coming back. I think they would like to do as much damage to these destructive programs as possible, of course, and I don't think we've seen the end of it. I think there are more tricks up Israel's sleeve when it comes to some of these complicated problems.  Judged by this yardstick, by the way, the Israeli operation is a tremendous success, tremendous success, even though there have been some significant casualties back in Israel, and even though this has caused tremendous trauma for innocent Iranians who have no love for the regime. This is a situation that the Iranian regime has brought down on all of us.  I do think that the Israelis have made very, very clear that this doesn't end until something is done to further disrupt and dismantle Fordow, which is the most important and the most heavily fortified, underground, under a mountain facility. It's not clear what the Israelis have in mind. It seems they have something in mind of their own. It's clear they would love for the United States to get involved, because the United States could do real damage to that facility and potentially end the Iranian nuclear program. But at the end of the day, if it can't be completely destroyed, I anticipate it's going to be damaged enough to significantly set it back. This phase of the Israel-Iran war, which didn't start last week, is not about pushing them back a week or a month or two months. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, Matt, thank you so much for your wise counsel and perspective on this matter, and yes, hopefully we can have you back another time to talk about peace and love and things that have nothing to do with war and conflict with Iran or its terror proxies. Matthew Levitt:   I would really look forward to prepping for that interview. In the meantime, I want to thank AJC for all the important work it does, and thank you guys for having me on the podcast. Manya Brachear Pashman:   If you missed last week's episodes, be sure to tune in for our crossover episode with Books and Beyond: The Rabbi Sacks Podcast, a podcast of the Rabbi Sacks Legacy, and my conversation with AJC's Jerusalem Director Avital Liebovich. During a special breaking news episode the day after Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, the latest in Israel's ongoing war of self-defense against the Iranian regime.  

Why did Israel launch defensive strikes against Iran's nuclear sites — and what does this mean for regional security? AJC Jerusalem Director Lt. Col. (res.) Avital Leibovich joins from IDF reserve duty to explain Operation Rising Lion — Israel's precision military strikes aimed at dismantling Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities. Find out why Israel saw this defensive action as vital to protect millions of lives and prevent Iran's nuclear breakout. Resources: 5 Key Reasons Behind Israel's Defensive Strike on Iran's Imminent Nuclear Threat Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  What Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks' State of the Jewish World Teaches Us Today AJC's CEO Ted Deutch: Messages That Moved Me After the D.C. Tragedy Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman  Late Thursday night, Israel launched a series of preemptive strikes against Iran in a military offensive dubbed Operation Rising Lion. The wave of strikes comes after the International Atomic Energy Agency censured Iran for obstructing its inspections after the revelation of a secretive nuclear site. What is happening on the ground, what's next, and what are the implications for Israel, Iran, and the broader Middle East? AJC Jerusalem director, Avital Leibovich, who also serves as Lieutenant Colonel in the IDF reserves, joins us now from reserve duty as counterattacks from Iran have begun. Avital, thank you for joining us with pleasure. Avital, negotiations for a new nuclear deal with Iran have been underway since April. There have been five rounds, maybe six, and another was going to begin on Sunday. President Trump also asked Israel to hold off on this preemptive operation. So why did Israel choose to launch these strikes? At this particular time, Avital Leibovich  Israel took a decision already to prepare for a preemptive attack on Iran. Since November, what happened in November? In November, Hezbollah lost the majority of its capabilities, of its military capabilities, and also of its leadership. Actually, a lot of his leaders, military leaders, have been eliminated, starting with Nasrallah, Hassan, Nasrallah, and going on to all the major generals of the organization. And basically the Shiite axis, as we call it here in Israel, was broken. Add to this, what happened a month later in December, when Assad's regime crashed, collapsed and was replaced by an anti Iranian man, jihadist, which jihadist background, by the name of Ahmed al Shara. So Iran was actually by on its own, really, because instead of circling Israel from the north, both from Syria and from Lebanon. Now it was circling in a very one dimension way, only from the east. So in order to do that, Iran figured out it needed to really upscale its nuclear capabilities, and for that, they sped up a few processes, for example, uranium enrichment, but not only that, also the weaponization of a potential nuclear bomb. And all of these steps actually brought us to a point that we are today, the point of no return. Iran will not be able to return to 20 years ago, 30 years ago, when it did not have those capabilities as it has today. For us in Israel, this is an issue of existence, either we exist or we don't, and that is the sole reason why the preemptive strike actually began today. This is according to Israeli intelligence, we have all the indications and data showing us this really major leap. And look the IAEA, you know, they issue reports every couple of months. It's their kind of responsibility for us. It's a matter of life and death. We cannot, you know, comply only with reports. And the reports sit on some shelf somewhere and and there's a lot of dust which is piling up on these reports for us, we needed action. So based on this very accurate intelligence, and some of this intelligence that has been accumulated for many, many years, you can see in the attack in Iran, you can see the very accurate attacks, the pinpointed strikes, which actually are directed at specific terrorists and not causing damage to uninvolved civilians, just To the locals. Yeah, Manya Brachear Pashman And how do you evaluate the Trump administration's response so far, given the diplomatic efforts underway? Well, Avital Leibovich I think that he is using the attacks to leverage and put pressure on Iran to resume the negotiation table in a few days. And as you know, there were six rounds of talks, and the best of my knowledge, there were huge gaps between the two sides, the American side and the Iranian side. I'm not sure these gaps can be bridged. We heard over and over again, President Trump say that Iran will never be able to enrich uranium. And then we heard Iranian leaders like Hamina say, this is the basic right of the Iranian people to enrich uranium. So I'm not sure how you can get you can bridge such a deep gap overall, I think that the President. Uh, has been congratulating Israel on its excellent attacks until now. But again, we are in the beginning. We're in the beginning phase of the attacks, although they're spread all over Iran. This is still the first day. We need to keep this in mind. Manya Brachear Pashman  The targets included more than nuclear sites. It included ballistic missile sites as well, and we're receiving word that Iran has fired ballistic missiles toward Israel as we speak, they fired ballistic missiles on Israel in April. If this counterattack continues, do you expect the United States to step in to defend Israel, and do you expect some of your neighbors to step in and help as well as they did in April the United Arab Emirates or Bahrain Avital Leibovich So as for the neighbors, I think that if their aerial space will be violated and breached by Iran, then of course, they have the right, like any other country, they're sovereign, to protect their own airspace. First of all, they will be protecting themselves and their people, not Israel, as for the US. This really depends on what Iran chooses to do next. The retaliation that Iran had practiced until now was launching 100 plus drones, explosive drones, to Israel. Almost all of these drones have been intercepted. This happened in the morning today. Now if Iran will decide that the ballistic missiles or the cruise missiles that it will launch here, will attack not only Israel, but also US bases across the region. Then here, there's a question, how will the US respond? Will the US retaliate as well? If that would happen, we could have even a more significant strike together the US and Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman  These attacks killed two lead scientists, IRGC commanders, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leaders. Is there a long-term goal of prompting a regime change? Avital Leibovich  So first of all, there are few types of targets in Iran, and you mentioned some of them. Physics and nuclear scientists are, of course, a critical human resource to the Iranian regime, as they rely on their long term knowledge and expertise on producing the bomb as soon as possible, as quick as possible, and by eliminating them in a way, you are removing the immediate threat. Other options are economic options. For example, really Iran relies on oil and buys it from China and maybe other countries as well. So obviously, Israel could decide to target its oil reserves, and this will be, of course, a significant economic blow. The third option is to target the government, leadership, politicians. Now, Israel, up to this moment, did not choose an economic target or a political target, but this may change in the future. The military targets, of course, are the most immediate targets that Israel is attacking, and the idea is to eliminate the immediate threat on Israel for the long range? Well, in the Middle East, in this part of the world, unfortunately, long range is something we can only put as a vision which is not bad. I'm happy to dream. I'm dreaming often Iran, which is similar to the Iran we knew before 1979 before the revolution, a moderate country, a human, loving country with values that I can share and adopt just the same. I'm looking at a different Middle East, maybe in a few years, with an expansion of the Abraham Accords, and creating an axis of moderate countries and other Shiite countries. So all of these changes that we're witnessing right now in the region and may still witness in the future, may all have an impact also on the long range outcome of the current war, which is unprecedented. Manya Brachear Pashman   I know Israel calls this a preemptive attack, but what do you say to countries who have already expressed concern about what they call an unprovoked attack? Avital Leibovich Well, I think it's enough for them just to look at the many kind of materials, which Israel and the Israeli. Army released today, showing what they have done, what Iran has done on its own soil. Now, when you follow the targets we just spoke about, you can see that these are not civilian targets. In other words, Israel is not attacking a school or a building just in the middle of Tehran for nothing. It's attacking deliberate military related sites. Actually, I think that, if I'm daring to dream again, I think that the people of Israel and the people of Iran have a lot in common. They're both people with deep heritage, with beautiful cultures. So I do envision one day a different regime in Iran, such a regime that could really bring the two countries together, opening a new page. And I think it will do a better Middle East here for all of us. Manya Brachear Pashman  We have talked about how Hamas embeds itself among the Palestinian civilians in Gaza. So no matter how precise Israel's attacks are, civilians are killed. Does Iran do the same thing? Or, I should say, does the Iranian regime do the same thing in Iran? Avital Leibovich  Obviously, Iran is not a democracy, and there is a similarity here with Hamas. We are talking about almost a fanaticist religious kind of aspect, which is also very similar to Hamas. Actually, Hamas and Iran have been connected for decades, for many, many decades, so they do share a lot of similarities. But unfortunately, the freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of of culture, is not something which is of an ordinary situation in Iran. It's very unfortunate. You know, I'm sometimes following the social media in Iran, and I see how people speak about the regime. I see how they curse the regime. I see how they aspire for better lives. I see them organize parties in basements and so so the regime will not find out. I see them the women wearing jeans underneath hijabs long dresses, trying to conceal them for God forbid, so they would not be considered as not modest. So it's very unfortunate that the public is suffering in Iran, and we see that, not only in the general atmosphere, but also we see it with the standards of life, they have only electricity a couple of days of couple of hours a day. Water is scarce. The the prices of food, they are huge. Take, for example, today, one American dollar, it equals almost 1 million rials. For comparison, $1 equals three point 60 Israeli shekels. So yeah, they're suffering from many, many perspectives. Manya Brachear Pashman  Thank you so much for joining us stay safe.  Avital Leibovich   Thank you, Manya, and I'll just thank everybody for their support. I'm Israel. If Manya Brachear Pashman  you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for a special crossover episode between people of the pod and Books and Beyond, the podcast of the Rabbi Sacks legacy, Dr Tanya white, host of Books and Beyond, and Joanna benaroche, global, Chief Executive of the legacy, sit down with my colleague, Maggie wishegrad Fredman to discuss how the wisdom and perspective of the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks still endures today.  

In 2014, the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks stood on the AJC Global Forum stage and delivered a powerful call to action: “We have to celebrate our Judaism. We have to have less oy and more joy… We never defined ourselves as victims. We never lost our sense of humor. Our ancestors were sometimes hated by gentiles, but they defined themselves as the people loved by God.” Over a decade later, at AJC Global Forum 2025, AJC's Director of Jewish Communal Partnerships, Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman, revisits that message in a special crossover episode between People of the Pod and Books and Beyond, the podcast of the Rabbi Sacks Legacy. She speaks with Dr. Tanya White, one of the inaugural Sacks Scholars and host of Books and Beyond, and Joanna Benarroch, Global Chief Executive of the Legacy, about Rabbi Sacks's enduring wisdom and what it means for the Jewish future. Resources: The State of the Jewish World Address: Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks The Inaugural Sacks Conversation with Tony Blair Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  “They Were Bridge Builders”: Remembering Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky AJC's CEO Ted Deutch: Messages That Moved Me After the D.C. Tragedy Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: On this week 16 years ago, the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks published Future Tense, a powerful vision of the future of Judaism, Jewish life, and the state of Israel in the 21st Century. Five years later, he delivered a progress report on that future to AJC Global Forum.  On the sidelines of this year's Global Forum, my colleague Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman spoke with two guests from the Rabbi Sacks Legacy, which was established after his death in 2020 to preserve and teach his timeless and universal wisdom. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:   In 2014, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks addressed our Global Forum stage to offer the state of the Jewish world. Modeled after the US President's State of the Union speech given every year before Congress and the American people, this address was intended to offer an overview of what the Jewish people were experiencing, and to look towards our future. The full video is available on AJC's website as well as the Sacks Legacy website. For today's episode, we are holding a crossover between AJC's People of the Pod podcast and Books and Beyond, the Rabbi Sacks podcast. On Books and Beyond, each episode features experts reflecting on particular works from Rabbi Sacks. Channeling that model, we'll be reflecting on Rabbi Sacks' State of the Jewish World here at AJC's 2025 Global Forum in New York. AJC has long taken inspiration from Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks and today, AJC and the Rabbi Sacks legacy have developed a close partnership. To help us understand his insights, I am joined by two esteemed guests. Dr. Tanya White is one of the inaugural Sacks Scholars and the founder and host of the podcast Books and Beyond, the Rabbi Sacks podcast. Joanna Benarroch is the Global Chief Executive of the Rabbi Sacks legacy. And prior to that, worked closely with Rabbi Sacks for over two decades in the Office of the Chief Rabbi.  Joanna, Tanya, thank you for being with us here at AJC's Global Forum.  Tanya White:   It's wonderful to be with you, Meggie. Joanna Benarroch:   Thank you so much, Meggie.  Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:   I want to get to the State of the Jewish World. I vividly remember that address. I was with thousands of people in the room, Jews from different walks of life, Jews from around the globe, as well as a number of non-Jewish leaders and dignitaries. And what was so special is that each of them held onto every single word.  He identifies these three areas of concern: a resurgence of antisemitism in Europe, delegitimization of Israel on the global stage, and the Iranian regime's use of terror and terror proxies towards Israel.  This was 2014, so with exception of, I would say today, needing to broaden, unfortunately, antisemitism far beyond Europe, to the skyrocketing rates we're living through today, it's really remarkable the foresight and the relevance that these areas he identified hold.  What do you think allowed Rabbi Sacks to see and understand these challenges so early, before many in the mainstream did? And how is his framing of antisemitism and its associated threats different from others? And I'll let  Tanya jump in and start. Tanya White:  So firstly, I think there was something very unique about Rabbi Sacks. You know, very often, since he passed, we keep asking the question, how was it that he managed to reach such a broad and diverse audience, from non Jews and even in the Jewish world, you will find Rabbi Sacks his books in a Chabad yeshiva, even a Haredi yeshiva, perhaps, and you will find them in a very left, liberal Jewish institution. There's something about his works, his writing, that somehow fills a space that many Jews of many denominations and many people, not just Jews, are searching for. And I think this unique synthesis of his knowledge, he was clearly a religious leader, but he wasn't just uniquely a religious leader.  He was a scholar of history, of philosophy, of political thought, and the ability to, I think, be able to not just read and have the knowledge, but to integrate the knowledge with what's going on at this moment is something that takes extreme prowess and a very deep sense of moral clarity that Rabbi Sacks had. And I would say more than moral clarity, is a moral imagination. I think it was actually Tony Blair. He spoke about the fact that Rabbi Sacks had this ability, this kind of, I think he even used the term moral imagination, that he was able to see something that other people just couldn't see.  Professor Berman from University of Bar Ilan, Joshua Berman, a brilliant Bible scholar. So he was very close to Rabbi Sacks, and he wrote an article in Israeli, actually, an Israeli newspaper, and he was very bold in calling Rabbi Sacks a modern day prophet.  What is a prophet? A prophet is someone who is able to see a big picture and is able to warn us when we're veering in the wrong direction. And that's what you see in the AJC address, and it's quite incredible, because it was 11 years ago, 2014. And he could have stood up today and said exactly the same thing. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:  But there is nonetheless a new antisemitism. Unlike the old it isn't hatred of Jews for being a religion. It isn't hatred of Jews as a race. It is hatred of Jews as a sovereign nation in their own land, but it has taken and recycled all the old myths. From the blood libel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  Though I have to confess, as I said to the young leaders this morning, I have a very soft spot for antisemites, because they say the nicest things about Jews. I just love the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Because, according to this, Jews control the banks, Jews control the media, Jews control the world. Little though they know, we can't even control a shul board meeting. Tanya White:  So what's fascinating is, if you look at his book Future Tense, which was penned in 2009.The book itself is actually a book about antisemitism, and you'll note its title is very optimistic, Future Tense, because Rabbi Sacks truly, deeply believed, even though he understood exactly what antisemitism was, he believed that antisemitism shouldn't define us. Because if antisemitism defines who we are, we'll become the victims of external circumstances, rather than the agents of change in the future.  But he was very precise in his description of antisemitism, and the way in which he describes it has actually become a prism through which many people use today. Some people don't even quote him. We were discussing it yesterday, Joanna, he called it a mutating virus, and he speaks about the idea that antisemitism is not new, and in every generation, it comes in different forms. But what it does is like a virus. It attacks the immune system by mutating according to how the system is at the time.  So for example, today, people say, I'm not antisemitic, I'm just anti-Zionist. But what Rabbi Sacks said is that throughout history, when people sought to justify their antisemitism, they did it by recourse to the highest source of authority within that culture. So for example, in the Middle Ages, the highest recourse of authority was religion. So obviously we know the Christian pogroms and things that happen were this recourse the fact, well, the Jews are not Christians, and therefore we're justified in killing them.  In the Enlightenment period, it was science. So we have the and the Scientific Study of Race, right and Social Darwinism, which was used to predicate the Nazi ideology. Today, the highest value is, as we all know, human rights.  And so the virus of antisemitism has mutated itself in order to look like a justification of human rights. If we don't challenge that, we are going to end up on the wrong side of history. And unfortunately, his prediction we are seeing come very much to light today. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  I want to turn to a different topic, and this actually transitioned well, because Tanya, you raised Prime Minister Tony Blair. Joanna, for our listeners who may have less familiarity with Rabbi Sacks, I would love for you to fill in a larger picture of Rabbi Sacks as one of the strongest global Jewish advocates of our time. He was a chief rabbi, his torah knowledge, his philosophical works make him truly a religious and intellectual leader of our generation.  At the same time, he was also counsel to the royal family, to secular thought leaders, world leaders, and in his remarks here at Global Forum, he actually raised addressing leading governing bodies at the European Union at that time, including Chancellor Merkel. These are not the halls that rabbis usually find themselves in. So I would love for you to explain to our audience, help us understand this part of Rabbi Sacks' life and what made him so effective in it.  Joanna Benarroch:  Thanks, Meggie. Over the last couple of weeks, I spent quite a bit of time with people who have been interested in learning more about Rabbi Sacks and looking at his archive, which we've just housed at the National Library in Israel. Then I spent quite a significant amount of time with one of our Sacks Scholars who's doing a project on exactly this.  How did he live that Judaism, engaged with the world that he wrote so eloquently about when he stepped down as chief rabbi. And a couple of days ago, I got an email, actually sent to the Sacks Scholar that I spent time with, from the gifted archivist who's working on cataloging Rabbi Sacks' archive. She brought our attention to a video that's on our website.  Rabbi Sacks was asked by a young woman who was a student at Harvard doing a business leadership course, and she asked Rabbi Sacks for his help with her assignment. So he answered several questions, but the question that I wanted to bring to your attention was: what difference have you sought to make in the world?  The difference that he sought to make in the world, and this is what he said, “is to make Judaism speak to people who are in the world, because it's quite easy being religious in a house of worship, in a synagogue or church, or even actually at home or in the school. But when you're out there in the marketplace, how do you retain those strong values?  And secondly, the challenge came from University. I was studying philosophy at a time when there were virtually no philosophers who were religious believers, or at least, none who were prepared to publicly confess to that. So the intellectual challenges were real. So how do you make Judaism speak to people in those worlds, the world of academic life, the world of economy?  And in the end, I realized that to do that credibly, I actually had to go into the world myself, whether it was broadcasting for the BBC or writing for The Times, and getting a little street cred in the world itself, which actually then broadened the mission. And I found myself being asked by politicians and people like that to advise them on their issues, which forced me to widen my boundaries.” So from the very beginning, I was reminded that John–he wrote a piece. I don't know if you recall, but I think it was in 2005, maybe a little bit earlier. He wrote a piece for The Times about the two teenagers killed a young boy, Jamie Bulger, and he wrote a piece in The Times. And on the back of that, John Major, the prime minister at the time, called him in and asked him for his advice.  Following that, he realized that he had something to offer, and what he would do is he would host dinners at home where he would bring key members of either the parliament or others in high positions to meet with members of the Jewish community. He would have one on one meetings with the Prime Minister of the time and others who would actually come and seek his advice and guidance.  As Tanya reflected, he was extremely well read, but these were books that he read to help him gain a better understanding into the world that we're living in. He took his time around general elections to ring and make contact with those members of parliament that had got in to office, from across the spectrum. So he wasn't party political. He spoke to everybody, and he built up. He worked really hard on those relationships.  People would call him and say so and so had a baby or a life cycle event, and he would make a point of calling and making contact with them. And you and I have discussed the personal effect that he has on people, making those building those relationships. So he didn't just do that within the Jewish community, but he really built up those relationships and broaden the horizons, making him a sought after advisor to many.  And we came across letters from the current king, from Prince Charles at the time, asking his guidance on a speech, or asking Gordon Brown, inviting him to give him serious advice on how to craft a good speech, how long he should speak for? And Gordon Brown actually gave the inaugural annual lecture, Memorial Lecture for Rabbi Sacks last in 2023 and he said, I hope my mentor will be proud of me.  And that gave us, I mean, it's emotional talking about it, but he really, really worked on himself. He realized he had something to offer, but also worked on himself in making his ideas accessible to a broad audience. So many people could write and can speak. He had the ability to do both, but he worked on himself from quite a young age on making his speeches accessible. In the early days, they were academic and not accessible. Why have a good message if you can't share it with a broad audience? Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  What I also am thinking about, we're speaking, of course, here at an advocacy conference. And on the one hand, part of what you're describing are the foundations of being an excellent Jewish educator, having things be deeply accessible.  But the other part that feels very relevant is being an excellent global Jewish advocate is engaging with people on all sides and understanding that we need to engage with whomever is currently in power or may who may be in power in four years. And it again, speaks to his foresight.  Joanna Benarroch:  You know, to your point about being prophetic, he was always looking 10, 15, 20 years ahead. He was never looking at tomorrow or next week. He was always, what are we doing now that can affect our future? How do I need to work to protect our Jewish community? He was focused whilst he was chief rabbi, obviously on the UK, but he was thinking about the global issues that were going to impact the Jewish community worldwide. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  Yes. I want to turn to the antidote that Rabbi Sacks proposed when he spoke here at Global Forum. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:  I will tell you the single most important thing we have to do, more important than all the others. We have to celebrate our Judaism. We have to have less oy and more joy.  Do you know why Judaism survived? I'll tell you. Because we never defined ourselves as victims. Because we never lost our sense of humor. Because never in all the centuries did we internalize the disdain of the world. Yes, our ancestors were sometimes hated by gentiles, but they defined themselves as the people loved by God. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  So he highlights the need to proudly embrace the particularism of Judaism, which really in today's world, feels somewhat at odds with the very heavy reliance we have on universalism in Western society. And underpinning this, Rabbi Sacks calls on us to embrace the joy of Judaism, simchatah, Chaim, or, as he so fittingly puts it, less oy and more joy. How did both of these shape Rabbi Sacks's wider philosophy and advocacy, and what do they mean for us today? Tanya White:  Rabbi Sacks speaks about the idea of human beings having a first and second language. On a metaphorical level, a second language is our particularities. It's the people, it's the family we're born. We're born into. It's where we learn who we are. It's what we would call today in sociology, our thick identity. Okay, it's who, who I am, what I believe in, where I'm going to what my story is. But all of us as human beings also have a first language. And that first language can be, it can manifest itself in many different ways. First language can be a specific society, a specific nation, and it can also be a global my global humanity, my first language, though, has to, I have to be able to speak my first language, but to speak my first language, meaning my universal identity, what we will call today, thin identity. It won't work if I don't have a solid foundation in my thick identity, in my second language. I have nothing to offer my first language if I don't have a thick, particular identity.  And Rabbi Sacks says even more than that. As Jews, we are here to teach the world the dignity of difference. And this was one of Rabbi Sacks' greatest messages. He has a book called The Dignity of Difference, which he wrote on the heels of 9/11. And he said that Judaism comes and you have the whole story of Babel in the Bible, where the people try to create a society that is homogenous, right? The narrative begins, they were of one people and one language, you know, and what, and a oneness of things. Everyone was the same. And Rabbi Sacks says that God imposes diversity on them. And then sees, can they still be unified, even in their diversity? And they can't.  So Rabbi Sacks answers that the kind of antidote to that is Abraham. Who is Abraham? Abraham the Ivri. Ivri is m'ever, the other. Abraham cut this legacy. The story of Abraham is to teach the world the dignity of difference.  And one of the reasons we see antisemitism when it rears its head is when there is no tolerance for the other in society. There is no tolerance for the particular story. For my second language. For the way in which I am different to other people. There's no real space for diversity, even when we may use hashtags, okay, or even when we may, you know, proclaim that we are a very diverse society. When there is no space for the Jew, that's not true dignifying of difference. And so I think for Rabbi Sacks, he told someone once that one of his greatest, he believed, that one of his greatest novelties he brought into the world was the idea of Torah and chochma, which is torah and wisdom, universal wisdom. And Rabbi Sacks says that we need both.  We need to have the particularity of our identity, of our language, of our literacy, of where we came from, of our belief system. But at the same time, we also need to have universal wisdom, and we have to constantly be oscillating and be kind of trying to navigate the space between these two things. And that's exactly what Rabbi Sacks did.  And so I would say, I'll actually just finish with a beautiful story that he used to always tell. He would tell the story, and he heard this story from the late Lubavitcher, Menachem Schneerson, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, who was a very big influence on Rabbi Sacks and the leader of the Chabad movement.  So in the story, there's two people that are schlepping rocks up a mountain, two workers, and one of them just sees his bags that are full of rocks and just sees no meaning or purpose in his work. The other understands that he's carrying diamonds in his bag.  And one day they get a different bag, and in that bag there's rubies, and the person who carries the rocks sees the rubies as rocks, again, sees that as a burden. But the person who's carrying the rubies and understands their value, even though they may not be diamonds, understands the values of the stones, will see them in a different way.  The Lubavitcher Rebbe said, if we see our identity, our Judaism, as stones to carry as a burden that we have to just schlep up a mountain, then we won't see anyone else's particular religion or particular belief system or particularity as anything to be dignified or to be valued.  But if we see our religion as diamonds, we'll understand that other people's religions, though for me, they may be rubies, they're still of value. You have to understand that your religion is diamonds, and you have to know what your religion is, understand what it is. You have to embrace your particularity. You have to engage with it, value it, and then go out into the world and advocate for it. And that, to me, was exactly what Rabbi Sacks did. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  So much of what you're outlining is the underpinning of being a successful engager in interfaith and inter religious work. And Rabbi Sacks, of course, was such a leader there. At  AJC, we have taken inspiration from Rabbi Sacks and have long engaged in interfaith and inter-religious work, that's exactly a linchpin of it, of preaching one's own faith in order to engage with others. Tanya White:  That's the oy and the joy. For Rabbi Sacks, it's exactly that, if I see it as the oy, which is schlepping it up the mountain, well, I'm not going to be a very good advocate, but if I see it as the joy, then my advocacy, it's like it shines through. Joanna Benarroch:  It's very interesting, because he was interviewed by Christian Amanpour on CNN in 2014 just after he stepped down, as she she quoted the phrase “less oy and more joy” back to him, referring to his description of the Jewish community. When he came into office in 1991 he was worried about rising assimilation and out-marriage. And she said: How did you turn it around?  He said, “We've done the book of Lamentations for many centuries. There's been a lot of antisemitism and a lot of negativity to Jewish identity. And if you think of yourself, exactly as you're describing, as the people who get hated by others, or you've got something too heavy to carry, you're not going to want to hand that on to your children.  If you've got a very open society, the question is, why should I be anything in particular? Being Jewish is a very particular kind of Jewish identity, but I do feel that our great religious traditions in Judaism is the classic instance of this.  We have enormous gifts to offer in the 21st century, a very strong sense of community, very supportive families, a dedicated approach to education. And we do well with our children. We're a community that believes in giving. We are great givers, charitably and in other ways.  So I think when you stay firm in an identity, it helps you locate yourself in a world that sometimes otherwise can be seen to be changing very fast and make people very anxious. I think when you're rooted in a people that comes through everything that fate and history can throw at it, and has kept surviving and kept being strong and kept going, there's a huge thing for young people to carry with them.” And then he adds, to finish this interview, he said, “I think that by being what we uniquely are, we contribute to humanity what only we can give.” What Rabbi Sacks had was a deep sense of hope. He wore a yellow tie to give people hope and to make them smile. That's why he wore a yellow tie on major occasions. You know, sunshine, bringing hope and a smile to people's faces. And he had hope in humanity and in the Jewish people.  And he was always looking to find good in people and things. And when we talk about less oy and more joy. He took pleasure in the simple things in life. Bringing music into the community as a way to uplift and bring the community together.  We just spent a lovely Shabbat together with AJC, at the AJC Shabbaton with the students. And he would have loved nothing more than being in shul, in synagogue with the community and joining in.  Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  Thank you Joanna, and that's beautiful. I want to end our conversation by channeling how Rabbi Sacks concluded his 2014 address. He speaks about the need for Jewish unity at that time. Let's take a listen.  Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:  We must learn to overcome our differences and our divisions as Jews and work together as a global people. Friends, consider this extraordinary historical fact: Jews in history have been attacked by some of the greatest empires the world has ever known, empires that bestrode the narrow world like a colossus. That seemed invulnerable in their time. Egypt of the pharaohs, Assyria, Babylonia, the Alexandrian Empire, the Roman Empire, the medieval empires of Christianity and Islam, all the way up to the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. Each one of those, seemingly invulnerable, has been consigned to history, while our tiny people can still stand and sing Am Yisrael Chai. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  In Rabbi Sacks' A Letter in the Scroll, he talks about the seminal moment in his life when he most deeply understood Jewish peoplehood and unity. And that was 1967, the Six Day War, when the Jewish people, of course, witnessed the State of Israel on the brink of existential threat. To our AJC audience, this may ring particularly familiar because it was evoked in a piece by Mijal Bitton, herself a Sacks Scholar, a guest on our podcast, a guest Tanya on your podcast, who wrote a piece about a month after 10/7 titled "That Pain You're Feeling is Peoplehood'.  And that piece went viral in the Jewish world. And she draws this parallel between the moment that Rabbi Sacks highlights in 1967 and 10, seven, I should note, Tanya, of course, is referenced in that article that Mijal wrote. For our audiences, help us understand the centrality of peoplehood and unity to Rabbi Sacks' vision of Judaism. And as we now approach a year and a half past 10/7 and have seen the resurgence of certain communal fractures, what moral clarity can we take from Rabbi Sacks in this moment? Tanya White:  Okay, so it's interesting you talked about Mijal, because I remember straight after 7/10 we were in constant conversation–how it was impacting us, each of us in our own arenas, in different ways. And one of the things I said to her, which I found really comforting, was her constant ability to be in touch. And I think like this, you know, I like to call it after the name of a book that I read to my kid, The Invisible String. This idea that there are these invisible strings. In the book, the mother tells the child that all the people we love have invisible strings that connect us. And when we pull on the string, they feel it the other side.  1967 was the moment Rabbi Sacks felt that invisible pull on the string. They have a very similar trajectory. The seventh of October was the moment in which many, many Jews, who were perhaps disengaged, maybe a little bit ambivalent about their Jewish identity, they felt the tug of that invisible string. And then the question is, what do we do in order to maintain that connection? And I think for Rabbi Sacks, that was really the question. He speaks about 1967 being the moment in which he says, I realized at that moment every, you know, in Cambridge, and everything was about choice. And, you know, 1960s philosophy and enlightenment philosophy says, at that moment, I realized I hadn't chosen Judaism. Judaism had chosen me.  And from that moment forth, Rabbi Sacks feels as if he had been chosen. Judaism had chosen him for a reason. He was a Jew for a reason. And I think today, many, many Jews are coming back to that question. What does it mean that I felt that pull of the string on the seventh of October?  Rabbi Sacks' answer to that question of, where do we go from here? I think very simply, would be to go back to the analogy. You need to work out why Judaism is a diamond. And once you understand why Judaism is a diamond and isn't a burden to carry on my back, everything else will fall into place.  Because you will want to advocate for that particularity and what that particularity brings to the world. In his book, Future Tense, which, again, was a book about antisemitism, there was a picture of a lighthouse at the front of the book. That's how Rabbi Sacks saw the antidote for antisemitism, right? Is that we need to be the lighthouse. Because that's our role, globally, to be able to be the light that directs the rest of the world when they don't know where they're going. And we are living in a time of dizziness at the moment, on every level, morally, sociologically, psychologically, people are dizzy. And Judaism has, and I believe this is exactly what Rabbi Sacks advocated for, Judaism has a way to take us out of that maze that we found ourselves in. And so I think today, more than ever, in response to you, yes, it is peoplehood that we feel. And then the question is, how do we take that feeling of peoplehood and use it towards really building what we need to do in this world. The advocacy that Judaism needs to bring into the world. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  We all have a role, a reason, a purpose. When Rabbi Sacks spoke to us a decade ago, more than a decade ago, at this point, those who were in the room felt the moral imperative to stand up to advocate and why, as Jews, we had that unique role.  I am so honored that today, now with Rabbi Sacks not here, you continue to give us that inspiration of why we are a letter in the scroll, why we must stand up and advocate. So thank you, Tanya and Joanna, for joining us at Global Forum and for this enlightening conversation. Tanya White:  Thank you so much for having us. Thank you. Joanna Benarroch:  Thank you so much.  Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, please be sure to listen as two AJC colleagues pay tribute to their friends Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky who were brutally murdered outside the Capital Jewish Museum in May.   

We remember Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky through the voices of those who knew them. Hear about Sarah's peacebuilding in Morocco and Yaron's diplomatic efforts to forge stronger ties between Israel and its neighbors. Both were members of the Israeli diplomatic corps and AJC's extended family. They were tragically murdered after leaving an AJC event in Washington, D.C. Dr. Dana Walker, the director of AJC ACCESS, the young professional program that hosted the reception, shares memories of traveling with Sarah to Morocco last fall as part of the Michael Sachs Fellowship for Emerging Leaders, organized by AJC and the Mimouna Association.  Then, Benjamin Rogers, AJC's Director for Middle East and North Africa Initiatives, reflects on his conversations with Yaron, who held a parallel diplomatic portfolio at the Israeli Embassy. Benjy and Yaron spoke quite often about their diplomatic work and the importance of Israel's relationship with its neighbors. Benjy recalls their last exchange, just moments before Yaron was gunned down. Resources: What To Know About The Murder of Sarah Milgrim z"l and Yaron Lischinsky z"l in Washington, D.C. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episode: AJC's CEO Ted Deutch: Messages That Moved Me After the D.C. Tragedy Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman:   American Jewish Committee and Jews around the world have been left completely shaken by the devastating events in Washington, D.C., where two members of the Israeli diplomatic community and AJC's community—Sarah Milgrim  and Yaron Lishinsky were brutally murdered after leaving an AJC reception.  Last week, AJC CEO Ted Deutch returned from Sarah's funeral in Kansas City to share what he's learned about Sarah and Yaron. He also shared how graciously people have reached out to express their support, including families of Israeli hostages.  This week, to remember Sarah and Yaron, we invited two AJC colleagues who knew them personally to help us remember.  Dana Levinson Walker is the director of AJC ACCESS, the program for young Jewish professionals. In that role, she traveled to Morocco with Sarah and two dozen other young bridge builders as part of the Michael Sachs Fellowship for Emerging Leaders organized by AJC and the Mimouna Association. Dana is with us now to share her memories. Dana, thank you for being here.  Can you please tell us about that trip last fall? Dana Walker:   I had the privilege of traveling with Sarah and 25 other young professionals and staff from the US, Israel, Morocco and France. And it was an extraordinary seven days. We traveled to six different cities in seven days. Normally, we backend an Israel trip as a part of this delegation. But due to some geopolitical issues happening in the region, we made a decision to just go to Morocco at that time, and then we were going to go to Israel later. And we are indeed scheduled to go to Israel in September of 2025.  It was an extraordinary experience for all different kinds of reasons. I think that the environment that we were walking into in Morocco was not only an embracing one, but it was also a challenging one. The day that we arrived in Morocco was the day we found out that the six hostages had been murdered in Gaza, and it was an incredibly painful moment for the Jewish participants, many of whom had a connection to the hostages or their families. And especially for someone like Sarah, who worked at the embassy, it felt really personal, because she had been advocating, of course, for their release, but also had just been a voice for many of them. And it was deeply devastating.  But the trip could have taken a really depressing and sad turn, and in reality, it actually took an incredible turn where I've often told people that it wasn't necessarily the trip we planned for, but it was the trip we needed. In that it really fostered and created a family that is bound together now for life. They wept together, they laughed together.  And I think what was so powerful is that it was Sarah's first time in Morocco, and she really just had this look of awe most of the time we were there. It was a look of deep reflection, a look of kind of taking it all in. We have really amazing photos of her, where she's just kind of looking very ethereal and like looking up in awe walking around the kind of old city of Marrakesh and things like that. And she was an incredible addition to our trip. She was a calming figure, a grounding figure.  She spent a lot of late nights with the folks, just talking on the bus, talking by the pool. I know that on the last night of our trip in Marrakech, she and a couple of other participants, Israelis and Moroccans and Americans, were up until 5:30 in the morning just talking about life and their ambitions and their goals and just understanding one another by the pool for hours and hours and hours. And Sarah was one of the people in that conversation.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Can you share what perspectives she added to the conversations? What did she contribute? And also, if you know anything about those ambitions and life goals that she shared with others. Dana Walker:   Sarah was really passionate about the environment. She was really passionate about sustainability. She loved her dog. She was really passionate about animals, and specifically dogs. I remember one of the things that we were talking about when she was preparing to go on the trip, and we had to kind of navigate when we were going and if we were still going, because of the geopolitics of the region, and she was really concerned about boarding her dog. It's just so clear that she cares so much about everyone in her life, and especially in this case, her dog, who was a really focal part of her heart.  You know, she studied agriculture and sustainability, primarily sustainability. She was really interested in leaving the world a better place than she found it.  And when we were going through the acceptance process for the Sachs Fellowship, we had a ton of applicants. And I think really what drew us to Sarah's application was that she was someone who was literally about to start her job at the embassy. We decided to put her in the agriculture and sustainability track because that's what she cared about. She was really passionate about finding sustainable solutions, especially in the region, because the region is growing hotter with each kind of succeeding year. Food and water security is becoming a challenge.  Although, you know, after she started her role at the embassy, she really was doing a little bit of everything, but one of the key features that she worked on was working with survivors who had experienced gender and sexual based violence after October 7, and we couldn't really fathom anyone being more suited to do that work because of her gentle and calm and compassionate, assuring disposition.  So she was ambitious in that she had a lot of big dreams for the future, about what she wanted to do, and she was really figuring out what was going to come next for her. The diplomat's life is never easy, especially in these incredibly uncertain and overwhelming times after October 7, and she and Yaron were planning a future, and they were really figuring out what was coming next for them.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Was that trip to Morocco the only time you spent with Sarah?  Dana Walker:   I met her in person for the first time at last year's AJC Young Diplomats reception, where we focused on talking about regional integration, which was something she was really passionate about. She was with her other embassy friends and colleagues, and it was great to meet her, because I knew I was going to be traveling with her in the fall.  So it was great to meet her in person. And then I saw her a few more times in DC over the course of our year, getting to know her. And then the last time I saw her was at the AJC Global Forum in April of just this year. Manya Brachear Pashman:   The Sachs Fellowship is named in memory of Michael Sachs. He was someone who dedicated his life to promoting Arab-Israeli engagement. We've heard a lot of people talk about Sarah's commitment to that as well. How could you tell? Is there a moment in your mind that stands out? Illustrates her belief that interfaith, intercultural engagement could and should happen? Dana Walker:   I believe in Essaouira–I believe that's where we were–and they had given us the option that we could either go around the souq and do a little bit of shopping, or we could go to a mosque and participate in an opportunity with this incredible singer and spiritual leader. And there were a few of us who said, Okay, we're gonna go. And Sarah was one of them, and she came with me and with the others. And it was so extraordinary, not only the experience of being in the mosque and hearing this unbelievable. Whole singing and just being kind of enveloped in this like spiritual warmth, which was just so wonderful.  But she could have gone shopping, and she chose to go to the mosque, and she chose to put herself out there and experience something that she would likely not get to experience again, in this kind of environment. She really took advantage of it. She was really eager to learn.  In order to be a peace builder, in order to be someone who can really transform hearts and minds, you have to understand the people that you're working with, and she really took advantage of that in the best way possible. I have some really great photos and videos of us in the mosque. And of course, they have this amazing tea ceremony. So the spiritual leader of the mosque had this really, really, really cute child who must have been maybe four or something. And, you know, hospitality is one of the pillars of Moroccan society, and everybody always does kind of the double cheek kiss.  And the spiritual leader wanted to make sure that his child went around and gave everybody these little kisses. And I remember Sarah, and I were like, Oh my God, this kid is so cute and so well behaved. Like, I can't believe it. So he came over and gave us these little you know, these little bissou or, you know, whatever, the cheek kisses. And we were just melting. He was so adorable.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   It sounds like you were met with so much warmth and kindness in Morocco. As you said, it was what it was the trip you needed. And it sounds like she didn't hesitate to immerse herself, to really engage with that, that kind of cross-cultural experience. Do you know of any examples of when she engaged with a not-so friendly crowd? Dana Walker:   One of the things that Sarah talked a lot about on the trip, and I know that my ACCESS leader and friend Laura mentioned this at the vigil yesterday is that, after Sarah started working for the embassy, a lot of her friends from graduate school and other places were really unkind to her and were really, really awful to her about her decision to work for the Israeli embassy. And in many cases, they stopped talking to her, they blocked her, they cropped her out of photos, they excluded her, and that was the kind of hostility she was facing. So I think what's really telling is that the people who love her and embrace her so much include Moroccan Muslims who saw her for the kind of person that she was. Which was this extraordinarily warm and caring and kind and compassionate person, but also someone who had a vision for securing a better future for everyone in the region, regardless of whether they were Jewish or Muslim, regardless of whether they were Israeli or Palestinian or Moroccan. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Did she ever talk about how she handled those broken friendships?  Dana Walker:   I think they were just really painful for her. I think they were really hard. I think she found a lot of comfort in hearing from the other Americans on the trip who had also lost friendships and relationships and relationships after October 7. It was a very common refrain from a lot of the participants that some of their coworkers or long friendships, relationships, even with family, had been fractured or damaged or kind of beyond a place of repair.  And I think in many ways, not misery loves company, but you know, she was surrounded by others who understood her experience and vice versa. That they all could appreciate, because they had all been through it in some way or another. So her experience was a familiar one, unfortunately, and a familiar one for many American Jews. So I think she took comfort in knowing that other people on the trip were experiencing similar things. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Dana, how are you finding any glimmers of hope going forward, after that evening? Dana Walker:   You know, I . . . in my almost seven years of working at AJC, which is a long time, I think at this point, have discovered that the key to keep doing what we do is looking at our work through a glass, half full lens, because If we don't, it's just exhausting and debilitating. And I what gives me hope is knowing that even in her last sort of moments, that she was fulfilling her desire to be a glass half full person. She had vision for how to support a sustainable region, how to deeply invest in her relationships with her colleagues and friends across many nations and many backgrounds.  And I urge others to try and embody that sense of optimism and glass half full approach, because the person who perpetrated this brutal act sought to destroy the work, and the only way forward is to amplify it and double down on it. So that's the hope that I get out of this experience. Is just knowing that we owe it to Sarah and to Yaron to keep amplifying their vision for what was possible. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Sadly, Sarah is not the first Sachs Fellow that the current cohort lost this past year. At AJC Global Forum in New York in April, AJC honored Laziza Dalil, a co-founder of Mimouna Association. She was a Moroccan Muslim who dedicated her life to repairing Arab Israeli relations. She posthumously received the Ofir Libshtein Bridge Builder Award at Global Forum. Dana, how are you and the Sachs Fellows doing through what I can only imagine has been a difficult time? Dana Walker:   It just all seems so unfair. Deeply unfair and deeply painful. That two of the best and brightest were taken from us. Were stolen from us, really. And it's something that we are grappling with. We're still processing. We're still dealing with it. I think what has been tremendously helpful is that we are grieving as a family.  We are grieving as a group of not Moroccans or Israelis or Americans or French people, but as a collection of people who by fate and circumstance, are now bound to each other forever by both the trauma and the joys of what we've experienced as a community in service of trying to make the world a better place. And it's hard. But we are going to keep going because of it. Manya Brachear Pashman:   If only that shared sense of grief was as powerful in the region. Dana, thank you so much.  Dana Walker:   Thank you, Manya.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  As AJC's Director for Middle East and North Africa Initiatives, Benjamin Rogers handles the Middle East portfolio for American Jewish Committee. The same portfolio that Yaron Lischinsky handled for the Israeli Embassy.  Benjy and Yaron spoke quite often about the importance of Israel's relationship with its neighbors. Benjy is with us now to recall his last conversation with Yaron, moments before his death. Thank you for joining us, Benjy. You were at the event in Washington that night. Where were you when the shots were fired just after 9 p.m.? Benjamin Rogers:   I left the museum around 8:55pm and I was in a taxi heading home, when I got a text message letting me know that there's been shots fired. Talked to a lot of people from the Israeli embassy, from AJC, trying to get a sense of what was happening. I remember calling Yaron, asking if he was okay, texting him if he was okay. And then everything kind of unfolded once I got home. A lot of confusion initially, and then kind of everyone's worst fears were soon realized. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You knew Yaron through the particular work that you both did, correct?  Benjamin Rogers:   I have the privilege of working on the Middle East file for AJC and Yaron also had the privilege of working on the Middle East file for the Embassy of Israel. And the Embassy of Israel is quite large, but believe it or not, there's only two people that really focus on the Middle East–Yaron and then his supervisor, Noa Ginosar. So Yaron was someone who I used to see frequently in Washington. He would always be at various events. It was always fun to have Yaron, an Israeli representative at different programming with Arab diplomats, Arab representatives. Something that was clearly important to us at AJC, but also deeply personal to Yaron. Israel at the time of the Abraham Accords, Israel post October 7, Israel at a time of difficulty, how could we work together on a shared mission of advancing regional integration. And this was something that – you know, Yaron was not the loudest person in the room ever. He, in that sense, was not your typical Washingtonian. But he always had this presence. He always had this smile on his face.  So whenever he was there, you knew you felt this comfort. People have been saying a lot, who have been meeting his family, that he comes from a very noble family, and I think that perfectly describes Yaron. He was a noble guy. He was always somebody who was happy to be where he was. You could tell the work meant a lot to him, and someone who I always enjoyed being able to see.  That night, I got to spend a good amount of time with him. I had seen him a few weeks prior, but we didn't really have the time to catch up, and it was just a great opportunity to be able to talk with him. He shared, he was very excited to go home. He hadn't been home in close to a year. Was going to see his family. He was going to go over Shavuot. Again, with that typical Yaron smile, calm energy, noble engagement.  He was really happy that night, and that's something, the more I talk about this, the more that's important for me to share. Just because I am a new father, I can only imagine what his parents are going through. But he was happy that night. He was at a really good place. And I think that that, I hope, that brings some solace and meaning to all who knew and loved him.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   I know people did more than mingle at this reception. Much has been said about the cruel irony that this was a program about humanitarian aid to Gaza. Could you speak a little more about that? Benjamin Rogers:   The event on Wednesday night was one that I moderated, and one that I was actually quite nervous to moderate. It was on humanitarian diplomacy. This is not an easy topic to discuss right now. There's a lot of complexity, a lot of hardship, a lot of heartbreak, but the fact that he was there for this conversation showed his willingness to engage, his willingness to hear a conversation. It was not a political discussion.  It was a discussion with representatives from IsraAID and representatives from Multifaith Network–that was really working on showcasing how interfaith engagement, how IsraAID came together to say, how do we do something good? How do we do something good at a time when there's not so much humanity right now.  And it was about trust. It was about doing better. It was about looking forward. And that I think encapsulates not only Yaron's spirit, but very much Sarah's as well, who I knew less well, but was very much part of the AJC family. Very much also deeply believed in being a bridge, bringing people together.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Is there a conversation or a moment, an encounter that really stands out for you as your key memory, core memory, if you will, of Yaron? Benjamin Rogers:   We always used to joke about diplomats that we had engaged together. There's a lot of sensitivities in this, but we would always seem to be at events where it was a great networking opportunities and great opportunities to expand understanding throughout the Middle East. And we would always kind of laugh and talk about how happy we were to be able to do some of those small engagement, small steps together.  That and his smile. This was always somebody who walked into a room and again, not the loudest person, but someone who you could just tell was good natured, had a good heart, and that's essential in this work. There are a lot of good people in this field. Not everybody, though, is to the level of Yaron and to the level of Sarah, and I think…I've been going through many different emotions. Most of it is just this feeling of surrealness. This is somebody who I just saw and is now gone. I still haven't fully processed that. But what I'm coming to more and more is that we've got to do better. We're better than this. We're all better than this. Yaron and Sarah were better. We need to find a way to live up to their ideals. Professing kind of what he stood for.  How do we get out of this period? How do we find a more understanding, a more hopeful, more empathetic world where we pull away from this black and white, good and bad, explain this to me in a tweet or a five second clip. This is complex. We've seen just how tragic this environment can be, how tragic and costly words can be, and I hope that for everyone, it is a rallying call to be better.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much, Benjy. Benjamin Rogers:   Thanks Manya.   

In this episode about the week following the antisemitic murders of Israeli embassy employees Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, AJC CEO Ted Deutch shares how leaders and allies around the globe, as well as hostage families, despite their own state of grief, have reached out to offer comfort and condolences, and what we all must do to shape a new future for the Jewish people. Resources: What To Know About The Murder of Sarah Milgrim z"l and Yaron Lischinsky z"l in Washington, D.C. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes: Why TikTok is the Place to Talk about Antisemitism: With Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman Related Episodes: Higher Education in Turmoil: Balancing Academic Freedom and the Fight Against Antisemitism Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: On May 21, Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky were murdered outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., following the Young Diplomats Reception hosted annually by American Jewish Committee.  Yaron returned to his home in Israel to be buried on Sunday. Sarah's funeral in Kansas City took place on Tuesday. AJC CEO Ted Deutch was there and is with us now to talk about this incredibly sad and significant loss for the Jewish community –  really for the world. Ted, thank you so much for joining us.  Ted Deutch:   Thanks, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Ted, I have to ask, Where were you when you heard the news of what happened? Ted Deutch: Well, I had been in Washington with the team there. I had done meetings in the capital. I've had some meetings in Atlanta. I flew to Atlanta, and there were some questions as I was flying. But it wasn't until I landed that it was clear what had happened. And the rest of the night on into the morning, obviously, we're all completely tied up trying to address the crisis and make sure that everything was being addressed for our people. For those who were there with law enforcement, with the administration, was a really, really horrible, horrible night. Manya Brachear Pashman: This was an annual reception for Young Diplomats. What was the theme of the event this year, though, was it different from years past? Ted Deutch: The theme was humanitarian diplomacy, which is the cruel irony here. This brutal, violent terror attack came immediately after a big group of young leaders from across Washington came together. AJC leaders, Jewish leaders, young diplomats, literally Young Diplomats from across the diplomatic corps all came together to focus on how to bring people together to provide humanitarian assistance, ultimately, to make life better for everyone. For Jews and Muslims and Christians, for Israelis and Arabs, Palestinians. Everyone coming together with this sense of hope, and then that was, of course, followed with the despair that we felt immediately after, as a result of this tragedy. Manya Brachear Pashman: Given the climate since October 7, given the rise in antiSemitism and the virulence of a lot of the protests, was this predictable, sadly, or was it really unimaginable? Ted Deutch: Strangely, I think both of those things can be true. It was, on the one hand, absolutely predictable. We've been saying since before October 7, but certainly since we've seen these horrific protests and people chanting to globalize the Intifada and Palestine from the river to the sea and calling for the destruction of Israel, and the attacks against Jews on the streets. We've been saying that words can lead to violence. We've seen this happen. We've seen it happen throughout our history. We've seen it happen across Europe, and we've seen the kind of deadly violence here in the United States. At Tree of Life and Poway and elsewhere. And so, on the one hand, completely predictable, at the same time, unimaginable. How is it that a group of dedicated young Jewish leaders and their allies from around the world could come together in a Jewish museum, to focus on the hope for a better future for everyone and be a target for a brutal, vicious antisemitic killer? And that's the point we've been trying to make since. Is that sure, that incitement, that words aren't just words because they can lead to violence, but also that we shouldn't live in a place where we just expect that the Jewish community is always going to be under threat. That's not normal. It's not normal in the United States. It shouldn't be normal anywhere.  Manya Brachear Pashman: What have you learned about Yaron and Sarah, since last Wednesday? Ted Deutch   I have…Yaron was a partner of AJC on a lot of work, but among the many messages that I received since last Wednesday, there was a really touching message from a diplomat, from an ambassador in Washington, who had just recently met with a group of hostages, hostage families, I should say, that Yaron brought to them, and he wanted to share how meaningful was, and in particular, the care that Yaron showed for these families who have been struggling now as we're recording this, 600 days. I thought that was really meaningful to hear from someone who had only recently spent considerable time with him.  In Sarah's case, I just got back from her funeral and Shiva in Kansas City, and I learned a lot. And I had met her before, but I didn't know a fraction of the ways that she's made so many meaningful contributions to her community in Kansas City, to the work that she's done in all of the jobs that she's had, to the incredible work that she's done at the Embassy in Washington, working to go out into the community, to groups. In particular groups that included people who had ostracized her because of her strong positions, and when she took this job at the Israeli embassy and worked to bring people together and to build bridges in all of these different communities across Washington and around the country, really, really meaningful.  We knew that both of them, I've said this a lot, and you can tell, even just from the photo, they're a beautiful couple, and they really represented the best of us. But when you hear her rabbis, her friends, her family talk about all that Sarah really was. It's a really, really tremendous loss.  And there's this feeling in Kansas City. There was this feeling in the synagogue yesterday, which was, of course, filled to overflowing, that–everyone there felt invested in Sarah's life, her development, her success, the impact that she's had on the Jewish community and the world.  And everyone felt the loss personally, and it really speaks to the way that we've all reacted to this. The more that we get to know about Sarah and Yaron the more we understand just how dramatic a tragedy this really was.  Manya Brachear Pashman: You know, your story about Yaron, bringing the hostage families together just is heartbreaking, because I just can't imagine the pain that's amplified now for those families having met and worked with Yaron, and now this. Ted Deutch: Manya, among the most powerful messages that we've received since last week were the many messages from the hostage families that we at AJC have gotten to know so well now for 600 days, because of all of the times that we've spent with them and getting to know them and trying to lift up their voices with leaders in Washington around the world, to think about what they have experienced, the loss that some of them have felt, the tragedy of knowing that their loved ones are gone, but being unable to bury them and have closure, and yet the decency and the humanity to reach out to express their sadness over these losses, it's just really, really powerful. Also, not in the Jewish community, but along these same lines. I mean, as you know, when I was in Congress, I got to know many of the families who lost loved ones in the school shooting in Parkland, and after spending a lot of time with them and trying to be there for them, it's just unbelievable to me, the number of those families who almost immediately reached out to see if there's anything they could do. Manya Brachear Pashman: Oh, wow, wow. That's amazing. That encounter you had with gun violence that took other young lives–how was that experience similar to this one, and how is it very different? Ted Deutch:   Well, I've actually been thinking about this a lot. And the greatest similarity, is really beyond the sadness, obviously, which is profound. It's the outrage in in the case of Parkland, it's the fact that students went to school that day to a place that should be safe and never returned to their families, that their school became the most dangerous place they could have been. And last Wednesday, for Sarah and Yaron, they were with peers, friends, leaders in the Jewish community and beyond in a hopeful setting, talking about the way to address suffering, really the best of what we would want anyone, anyone, especially our young people, to be spending their time on. And this was the most dangerous place for them. And ultimately, when, when the event ended and they walked outside, they lost their lives as well. And the world that we live in, in which both of those things happen, that's what I've really struggled with. Manya Brachear Pashman: We're all struggling with this. What is the takeaway? How do we find any glimmer of hope in any of this? Ted Deutch: Well, Rachel Goldberg-Polon has, we've all heard her say over and over that hope is mandatory. And for the hostages and look, I think, for where we go as a Jewish people, hope is also mandatory. But hope alone isn't enough. We have work to do.  We if, if we're going to if, if we're going to come through this as a community that is, that is different and, and, frankly, safer and living in a world which is different than the one that we live in now, then, then we have to, we have to honor Sarah and Yaron's lives by making this conversation different than it normally is. Yes, we have to focus on increasing security and making sure that the community is safe and but if all we're doing is, if the only thing that we're doing is talking about how to get more money for security and and police officers with bigger guns and metal detectors and and and creating turning our synagogues and day schools and JCC's into fortresses. Some of that is necessary at this moment, but we have to change the conversation so that no one thinks that it's normal in America for Jews to be the only group that has to think about how they represent a target, just by being together, that that has to change  It's not just about making people care about antisemitism and fighting antisemitism and acknowledging this, the loss of the tragic loss of life that has happened. I mean, there the messages from around for the highest levels of government, from around the United States, from around the world, so much sympathy and and it's important. But as I told one governor yesterday, I am grateful for the additional security that you'll be providing. But there is so much more than that in terms of changing this conversation, the conversation about why it's not normal for Jews to be afraid, why we have to recognize once and for all, that calls for globalizing the Intifada are not the calls of a social justice movement. They're the cause of a terrorist movement.  We have to understand that when people that when people decide that because of something that's happening in Gaza, that they're going to they're going to protest outside of synagogues and and they're going to vandalize Jewish owned restaurants, and they're going to get on the subway in New York, and they're going to march in other places, and they're going to accost Jews, that can't be tolerated, and that's a different conversation than we then we've been willing to have, and we need to force that conversation and force it upon our leaders. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, I do hope that this is a turning point in that direction so Ted, thank you so much for joining us. Ted Deutch: Manya, I appreciate it. Since you had asked about hope, I want to make sure that we try to end on a hopeful note, which is, what's been especially striking for me is not the responses from all of the leaders for which we are really grateful. It's the responses from people, especially young people, especially like the ones that I saw yesterday at Sarah's funeral, who understand that the world has to change, and that they have to play a role, helping to change it and to really honor Sarah and Yaron's memory, providing more and more opportunities for young people to play exactly the roles that the two of them were playing on the night that they were killed, where they were trying to change the conversation, to build bridges, to bring people together. That's what has to happen. Those are the opportunities that we have to provide going forward.  Manya Brachear Pashman: Thank you so much, Ted. Ted Deutch: Thanks, Manya. I appreciate it.   

“This has been my favorite session of the three days. Thank you,” said one attendee following a powerful live conversation at AJC Global Forum 2025. This exclusive episode of AJC's People of the Pod, presented by AJC's Women's Global Leadership Network, features a candid discussion on the critical impact of Jewish women leaders in global diplomacy and conflict resolution. Casey Kustin, AJC's Chief Impact and Operations Officer, joins former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Mira Resnick and Dana Stroul, Research Director and Kassen Family Senior Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, to share how they've navigated the corridors of power, shaped international policy from the Middle East to Europe and beyond, and opened doors for the next generation of women in foreign affairs. ___ Resources– AJC Global Forum 2025 News and Video AJC Global Forum 2026 returns to Washington, D.C. Will you be in the room? Listen – AJC Podcasts: Most Recent Episodes: A United Front: U.S. Colleges and AJC Commit to Fighting Campus Antisemitism What is Pope Francis' Legacy with the Jewish People? Why TikTok is the Place to Talk about Antisemitism: With Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the PodFollow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Interview Transcript: Manya Brachear Pashman:  Live from AJC Global Forum 2025, welcome to People of the Pod. For audience members who are not in this room, you are listening to a show that was recorded in front of a live studio audience on April 29 at AJC Global Forum 2025 in New York. I'm your host, Manya Brachear Pashman. Thank you all for being here. In countries around the world, women are working more than ever before. But compared to men, they are not earning as much or being afforded an equal voice – at work, at home, or in the community. In no country in the world do women have an equal role. Let me repeat that. In no country in the world, do women have an equal role–when it comes to setting policy agendas, allocating resources, or leading companies.  With us today are three modern-day Miriams who have raised their voices and earned unprecedented roles that recognize the intellect and compassion they bring to international diplomacy. To my left is AJC Chief Impact and Operations Officer, Casey Kustin. Casey served as the staff director of the Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee on the House Foreign Affairs Committee for 10 years. She has worked on political campaigns at the state and national level, including on Jewish outreach for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Welcome, Casey.  To Casey's left is Dana Strohl. She is the Director of Research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. She was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East. In this role, she led the development of U.S. Department of Defense policy and strategy for Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq–I'm not done–Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Prior to that, she also served on Capitol Hill as the senior professional staff member for the Middle East on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Welcome, Dana. And last but not least, Mira Resnick. Mira was the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs and Arabian Peninsula Affairs, in which she handled two crucial Middle East portfolios, usually helmed by two separate people. Previously, she oversaw the Department's Office of regional security and arms transfers, where she managed foreign arms sales and shepherded the Biden administration's military assistance to Ukraine and Israel after Russia's invasion and after the October 7 Hamas attacks. Like Casey, Mira has also served as a senior professional staff member with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, focusing on the Middle East and North Africa. Thank you for being here, Mira.  Welcome to all of you, to People of the Pod.  I think it's safe to say, this panel right here, and all the knowledge and experience it represents could solve the Middle East conflict in one day, if given the chance. Casey, you served for a decade as staff director for the Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee. A decade, wow. You witnessed a lot of transition, but what were the constants when it came to regional cooperation and security needs?  Casey Kustin: What's the saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that's the world that we're all trying to build. So, you know, from an American perspective, which we all came from in our government work, it was trying to find those shared interests, and trying to cultivate, where we could, points of common interest. And even with the challenges of October 7 now, perhaps stalling some of those areas of progress, you still see that the Abraham Accords haven't fallen apart. You saw when Iran launched missiles at Israel. You saw other countries in the region come to, maybe they wouldn't say Israel's defense. It was their airspace defense. But you saw that still working. You see that still working now. And it's every day when we come to work at AJC, we're thinking about how to increase and strengthen Israel's place in the world. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So Mira, your role encompassed both Israel and the Gulf for the first time, right? Mira Resnick:   That was the first time at my level. Yes.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Okay, so whose idea was that, and did that put you or the US in a position to work for the good of the neighborhood, rather than just Israel, or just the Gulf States? Mira Resnick:   Yeah, this was an opportunity for the State Department to be able to see all of the different threads that were coming throughout the region. This is something that Dana did on a daily basis. This is something that our colleagues at the NSC did on a daily basis. The Secretary, of course, needs to be able to manage multiple threads at the same time. When I was overseeing arms sales, of course, I would have to consider Israel and the Gulf at the same time.  So this wasn't a new idea, that our interests can be aligned within one portfolio, but it was particularly important timing for the United States to be able to see and to talk to and to hear our Gulf partners and our Israeli partners at the same time within the same prism, to be able to truly understand what the trends were in the region at that particularly critical moment, post-October 7. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Dana, in your role as Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense, you met with military leaders in the Middle East, around the world, and you were often the only woman at the table. What do women contribute to international conflict resolution that's missing when they're not given a seat at the table? Dana Strohl:   Well, let me start out by stating the obvious, which is that women make up 50% of the global population of the world. So if 50% of the world is missing from the negotiating table, from the peacemaking table, from conflict prevention mechanisms, then you're missing 50% of the critical voices. There's evidence, clear evidence, that when women are part of peace processes, when they are part of negotiations, the outcomes on the other side are 35% more sustainable. So we have evidence and data to back up the contention that women must be at the table if we are going to have sustainable outcomes.  When I think about the necessity, the imperative, of women being included, I think about the full range of conflict. So there's preventing it, managing it, and then transitioning to peace and political processes in a post-war or post-conflict situation. In every part of that, there's a critical role for women. As examples, I always think about, when you make policy, when you have a memo, when there's a statement that's really nice, in the big capital of some country, or in a fancy, beautiful palace somewhere in the Middle East or in Europe.  But peace only happens if it's implemented at a local level. Everyone in the world wants the same things. They want a better life for their kids. They want safety. They want access to basic services, school, health, clean water and some sort of future which requires jobs. Confidence you can turn the light on. You can drive your car on a road without potholes. Those are details that often are not included in the big sweeping statements of peace, usually between men, that require really significant compromises.  But peace gets implemented at a very local level. And at the local level, at the family level, at the community level, at the school level, it's women. So how those big things get implemented requires women to champion them, to advance them. And I will also just say, you know, generally we should aspire to prevent conflict from happening. There's data to suggest that in countries with higher levels of gender equality, they are less likely to descend into conflict in the first place.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Can you recall a particularly consequential moment during your tenure, when you were at the table and it mattered? Dana Strohl:   So my view on this is that it was important for me to be at the table as a woman, just to make the point. That women can serve, just like men. Do the same job. And frankly, a lot of the times I felt like I was doing a better job. So what was really important to me, and I can also just say sitting up here with Mira and Casey, is that all of us have worked together now for more than a decade, at different stages of, getting married, thinking through having kids, getting pregnant, taking parental leave, and then transitioning back to work. And all of us have been able to manage our careers at the same time. That only happens in supportive communities, in ecosystems, and I don't just mean having a really supportive partner.  My friends up here know, I ask my mom for a lot of help. I do have a partner who really supported me, but it also means normalizing parenthood and being a woman, and having other obligations in the office space. I would make a point of talking about being a parent or talking about being a woman. To normalize that women can be there. And often there were women, really across the whole Middle East, there were always women in the room. They were just on the back wall, not at the table. And I could see them looking at me.  And so I thought it was really important to make the point that, one, a woman can be up here, but I don't have to be like the men at the table. I can actually talk about, well, I can't stay for an extra day because I have a kindergarten, you know, theater thing, and I have to run back and do that.  Or there were many times actually, I think Mira was Zooming for parent teacher conferences after we were having the official meeting. But I think it's important to actually say that, at the table, I'm going to leave now and go back to my hotel room because I'm making a parent teacher conference. Or, I have to be back by Friday because I'm taking a kid to a doctor's appointment.  So all the women that come after us can see that you can do both, and the men at the table can understand that women have a right to be here. Can do the jobs just as effectively and professionally as the men, and do this other absolutely critical thing. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But your point about, it requires a supportive network, a supportive work community. You told me a story before we got up here about just how supportive your colleagues were in the Department of Defense.  Dana Strohl:   I will give a shout out to Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense. So one of the things you do in our positions is travel with the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. And these are not the kind of things where they get on a plane and you land in whatever country. There's a tremendous amount of planning that goes into these. So on a particular trip, it was a four country trip, early in 2023. Secretary Austin was going to multiple countries. He had switched the day, not he, but his travel team, of his departure, which then caused us to switch the day of my son's birthday party. And then they switched the time of his departure from Andrews Air Force Base, and we could not change the birthday party.  So I called Secretary Austin's office and said, Listen, I want to be at my son's birthday party. So I've looked and it looks like I can take this commercial flight. So I won't be on the Secretary of Defense's plane, but I can largely land around the same time as you all and still do my job in the region. And to their credit, they said, okay, and then one of the things that you do in my position is you get on the airplane and you talk to the Secretary of Defense about the objectives and the goals and the meetings. So they said, Okay, we'll just change that to earlier. You can do it the day before we depart, so that he can hear from you. You're on the same page. You can make the birthday party. He can do the thing. So we were actually going to Jordan for the first stop. And it turns out, in his itinerary, the first thing we were doing when we landed in Jordan, was going to dinner with the King. And it was very unclear whether I was going to make it or not. And quite a high stakes negotiation.  But the bottom line is this, I finished the birthday party, had my mother come to the birthday party to help me clean up from the birthday party, changed my clothes, went to Dulles, got on the airplane, sort of took a nap, get off the airplane. And there is an entire delegation of people waiting for me as you exit the runway of the airplane, and they said, Well, you need to go to this bathroom right here and change your clothes.  I changed my clothes, put on my suit, ran a brush through my hair, get in a car, and they drove me to the King's palace, and I made the dinner with the king. It's an example of a team, and in particular Secretary Austin, who understood that for women to have the opportunities but also have other obligations, that there has to be an understanding and some flexibility, but we can do both, and it took understanding and accommodation from his team, but also a lot of people who are willing to work with me, to get me to the dinner. And I sat next to him, and it was a very, very good meal. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I find that so encouraging and empowering. Thank you so much. Casey, I want to turn to you. Mira and Dana worked under particular administrations. You worked with members of Congress from different parties. So how did the increasing polarization in politics affect your work, or did it? Casey Kustin:   It's funny, I was traveling last week for an AJC event, and I ended up at the same place with a member of Congress who was on my subcommittee, and I knew pretty well. And he looked at me and he said, the foreign affairs committee, as you know it, is no longer. And that was a really sad moment for me, because people always described our committee as the last bastion of bipartisanship. And the polarization that is seeping through every part of society is really impacting even the foreign policy space now. As you see our colleague, our Managing Director of [AJC] Europe, Simone Rodan[-Benzaquen], who many of you know, just wrote a piece this week talking about how, as Israel has become to the progressive, when Ukraine has become to the far right.  And I think about all the years I spent when Ted Deutch, our CEO, was the top Democrat on the Middle East subcommittee, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), a great friend of AJC, was the chair of the subcommittee. And Ted and Ileana would travel around together. And when she was the chair, she always made a point of kind of joking like Ted's, my co chair, and we did so many pieces–with Mira's great support of legislation for the US, Israel relationship, for Syria, for Iran, that we worked on together, really together. Like at the table with my staff counterparts, trying to figure out, you know, what can your side swallow? What can your side swallow? And I hear from so many of our former colleagues that those conversations aren't really taking place anymore. And you know, the great thing about AJC is we are nonpartisan, and we try so hard to have both viewpoints at the table. But even that gets harder and harder. And Dana's story about the King of Jordan made me laugh, because I remember a very similar experience where I was on a congressional delegation and Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, and I was six months pregnant at the time, and I wanted to go on the trip, and the doctor said I could go on the trip. And we were seated around the table having the meeting.  And I, as you won't be able to hear on the podcast, but you in this room know, look very young, despite my age. And you're self conscious about that. And I remember Ileana just being so caring and supportive of me the entire trip. And I wasn't even her staffer, and I remember she announced to the King of Jordan that I was six months pregnant, and you could kind of see him go, okay. That's very like, thank you. That's very nice. But even just having that moment of having the chairwoman on the other side of the aisle. That whole trip. I think I've told some AJC people another funny story of on that same trip, we met with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Jerusalem, and she pulled me up to him, and she said to the patriarch, will you bless her unborn child? Knowing I'm Jewish, she leaned over and said to me: Can't hurt. So I hope that we return to a place like that on Capitol Hill. I think there are really good staffers like us who want that to happen, but it is just as hard a space now in foreign policy as you see in other parts of politics. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Mira, I want to ask you another policy related question. How did the Abraham Accords change the dynamics of your combined portfolio, and how could it shape the future? Mira Resnik:   My first, one of my first trips, certainly my first trip to the Middle East, when I was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security, overseeing security assistance and security cooperation, was to Dubai, as the State Department representative for the Dubai Airshow. And it is a huge event that showcases the world's technology. And I remember walking into the huge hangar, that every country that has a defense industry was showcasing their most important, their most important munitions, their most important aircraft. And I remember seeing the enormous Israeli pavilion when I was there. And I was staying at a hotel, and I get to the breakfast and they said, Would you like the kosher breakfast or the non-kosher breakfast. And I'm like, Am I in Israel?  And I was blown away by the very warm relationship–in the security space, in the humanitarian space. I agree with Casey that things have gotten a little tougher since October 7, and since the aftermath in Gaza. But what I would also point out is that April and October, during the time when when we witnessed Israel under cover, when we witnessed Iran's missiles and projectiles going toward Israel and going toward other regional airspace, our diplomats, our militaries, our intelligence officials, all had earlier warning because of the work of other Gulf governments, even those who have not joined the Abraham Accords. And that is a prime example of where this security cooperation really matters. It saves lives. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Casey, so much of what AJC does has to do with international diplomacy and maintaining that regional cooperation and security, and that sounds a lot like your previous role. So I'm really curious how much your job truly has changed since you came to AJC? Casey Kustin:   You're absolutely right. There are so many similarities in what we do at AJC and what we did in the government. And the core of that is really those relationships that you build with partners and interlocutors in other countries and other governments, and the foundation, over decades that AJC has laid. Particularly in the Middle East, thanks to 30 years of quiet travel to the region.  It struck me when I first came here, the access that AJC has is nearly the same that we had traveling as members of Congress. And the meetings and the quality and the level of meetings that AJC is afforded in these other countries.  Our missions, which many of you have been on, often feel like congressional delegation trips to me, and the conversations and the candor with which partners speak to AJC is almost the same that was afforded to members of Congress. And that has been comforting, in a way, as you said Manya, Because there feels like there's continuity in the work that we're doing, and it has made me realize that organizations, non-governmental organizations, advocacy organizations, play such a crucial role in supporting the work of a government, of your country's government. And in reinforcing the values and the interests that we as AJC want to communicate that very much dovetail, with hopefully any US administration.  I think that the role that an organization like ours, like AJC, can play in a particular moment, like we're in, where, as we've discussed, there's hyperpartisanship, and we hear a lot, Dana mentioned this. We hear a lot from foreign partners that the way our democracy works with a change in administration every four years is unsettling to some of them, because they don't know if a particular policy or agreement is going to continue the role that we can play, providing some of that continuity and providing a nonpartisan and thoughtful place to have conversations. Because they know that we have that kind of nuanced and thoughtful and nonpartisan insight. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I really appreciate your insights on the roles that you've played, and I think the audience has as well. But I want to pivot back to your role as women. Dana, I mentioned that you were often the only woman at the table. Would you discover that when you arrived at meetings and events? Dana Strohl:   In Washington, DC, and in particular, I'm very proud to have served in the Biden administration, where there were always women at the table. And I will also say that there was a network of women, and it was the same on the Hill. On the hill, there was actually a box of maternity clothes that was kept in then-Senate Leader Harry Reid's office.  And his National Security Advisor called me when she heard I was pregnant the first time, which was during the 2015 JCPOA negotiations on the Hill, which meant that I was super tired and doing all of those congressional hearings and briefings, but there was a network of women who were supporting each other and giving me clothes as I got bigger and bigger. And it continued into the Pentagon and the State Department, where there were always women and when we saw each other at the White House Situation Room or in the different meetings, there was always the quiet pull aside. How are you doing? How are your kids? Are you managing? What's the trade off on your day to day basis? Can I do anything to help you?  And in particular, after October 7, that network of people really kicked into high gear, and we were all checking in with each other. Because it was the most intense, most devastating time to work in the government and try to both support Israel and prevent World War III from breaking out across the Middle East. So that was DC. In the Middle East, I largely assumed that I was going to be the only woman at the table, and so I decided to just own it. There are some great pictures of me always in a pink jacket, but the point you know, was that I expected it, and there were always women, again, against the back walls. I made an effort whenever possible to make sure everyone at the table, regardless of your gender, had an opportunity to speak and participate, but I was also not just the only woman.  A lot of times, I was the co-chair with whatever partner it was in the Middle East, so I had a speaking role, and I felt was incumbent upon me to present a model of leadership and inclusivity in how we engage with our partners, spoke to our partners, listened to our partners concerns, and that that was part of the job. And only once, I remember it very clearly. We were at a dinner after a big meeting, and somebody looks at me, it's a meeting with all, y7all men, all men for a dinner. And they said, Is this what it's like for you all the time? And I said, Yes, it is. And you know, it took two and a half years for somebody to notice, so. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Mira, what have you experienced? And have you ever worried as a woman that you weren't being taken seriously? Mira Resnick:   I think that every woman in one of these jobs has imposter syndrome every so often, and walking into the room and owning it, fake it till you make it right. That's the solution. I will. I agree with Dana wholeheartedly that in Washington, I was really proud to walk into the room and never fear that I was the only woman. And I even remember traveling where another delegation was all women, and our delegation was all women, and how surprising that was, and then how disappointing, how surprising that was, but to take notice of the moment, because they don't happen very often.  I think that in Washington and throughout diplomacy, the goal is to pay it forward to other women. And I wasn't the last person to pump in the Ramallah Coca Cola factory, and I wasn't the first person to pump in the Ramallah Coca Cola factory. But that is, that was, like, my moment where I was like, Oh, this is a strange place to be a woman, right?  But I do find that women really bring holistic views into our policy making, and whether it's meeting with civil society, even if your job is strictly security cooperation to understand the human impacts of your security decisions, or making sure that you are nurturing your people, that you are a good leader of people.  I remember post-October 7, I was looking for some way that I could nurture in the personal life. And I see Nadine Binstock here, who goes to my shul, and Stephanie also. Stephanie Guiloff is also in the audience. She's my neighbor, and also goes to my shul. And after October 7, I took on the Kiddush Committee Coordinator at my shul. So that every week, no matter what I was experiencing at the office and no matter where I was in the world, our community would be a little bit more nurtured. And it was a way for me to like to give back to the community, and at the same time be able to continue to do the hard power work of security cooperation. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Mira, Casey, Dana, thank you so much for joining us, sharing your modern-day Miriam experiences. I want to open it up for questions from the audience. Just raise your hand and someone will bring you a microphone. Audience Member: Hi, I'm Maddie Ingle. I'm a Leaders for Tomorrow alum. What is some advice that any of you have for young women like me in the advocacy space and in general. Casey Kustin:   First of all, thank you for taking the time to come to Global Forum and for joining LFT. You've already taken the first step to better arming yourself as an advocate. I think there is, I wish someone had said to me, probably before I met the two of them who did say it to me, that it was okay to take up space around the table. I remember sitting in secure facilities, getting classified briefings from ambassadors, male ambassadors who were 30 years my senior, and watching the two of you in particular i. Not be scared to challenge the back and forth when I as a probably still, you know, mid 20s, early 30s, did have fear of speaking up.  And I wish someone, when I was your age as a teenager, had, and obviously, I had supportive parents who told me I could do anything, but it's different. It's different than seeing it modeled by people who are in the same space as you, and who are maybe even just a couple years older than you. So I would just say to you not to ever be afraid to use your voice. This is a memory that has stuck with me for 15 years. I was in a meeting, sitting next to my congressman boss, with two men who were probably in their 60s, and a vote was called. And you never know on the Hill when a vote is going to be called. So it interrupts a meeting. And he had to go vote, and he said, Casey will finish the meeting with you. And they looked at him and said, Does she know what we're talking about?  Dana Strohl: We have all been there, Casey. Casey Kustin: We have all been there. So even if you're met with a response like that when you try to use your voice, don't let it deter you. Audience Member: Hi, guys. I'm Jenny. This has been my favorite session of the three days. Thank you guys. My mom is the first female, woman brakeman conductor on Amtrak. So you guys are just so empowering. As a long time Democrat, you guys talked about bipartisan issues. With how the Democratic Party is. I know you guys probably can't go fully into this. Do you have any inspiring words to give us hope when it feels very scary right now, as a Democrat, how divided our party is. Casey Kustin: I work for a nonpartisan organization now, so I'll let them handle that one. Dana Strohl:   I, so were we all on the Hill during the first Trump administration? And there was still bipartisanship. And what I'm looking for right now is the green shoots of our democracy. And I see them. There is thinking through what does it mean to be in this country, to be an American, to live in a democracy? What does democracy do? I think, first of all, it is healthy and okay for Americans to go through times of challenge and questioning. Is this working for us? And you know, the relationship between the government, whether it's legislative, judicial, executive and the people, and it's okay to challenge and question, and I think it's okay for there to be healthy debates inside both the Republican and the Democratic Party about what what this stands for, and what is in the best interest of our country.  And you can see both in polling data and in certain areas where there actually are members of Congress coming together on certain issues, like economic policy, what's in the best interest of our constituents and voters. That there is thinking through what is the right balance between the different branches of our government.  I was talking to somebody the other day who was reminding me this actual, you know, we are, we are in a time of significant transition and debate in our society about the future of our country and the future role of the government and the relationship. But it's not the first time, and it won't be the last. And I found to be that part of my job was to make sure I understood the diversity of voices and views about what the role of the government should be, general views about American foreign policy, which was our job, was just such a humble reminder of democracy and the importance of this back and forth. Audience Member:  [My name is Allie.] My question for you is, what are your hopes and dreams for generation alpha, who will be able to vote in the next election?  Casey Kustin:   I think we all have, all our kids are still in elementary, or Mira, your one is going into middle school now– Mira Resnik: To middle school. Casey Kustin:   So the vast majority of our children are still elementary school age. And for me, I have a very interesting experience of moving my family out of a very diverse community in Washington, DC to Jacksonville, Florida. And it's a very different environment than I thought that my children were going to grow up in, because at the time, we didn't anticipate leaving DC anytime soon, and it's made me realize that I want them to live in a world where no matter what community They are growing up in, they are experiencing a world that gives them different perspectives on life, and I think it's very easy now that I have gone from a city environment to suburbia to live in a bubble, and I just, I hope that every child in this next generation doesn't have to wait until they're adults to learn these kinds of really important lessons. Dana Strohl:   I have two additional things to add. I'm very concerned at what the polling suggests, the apathy of young people toward voting, the power of voting, why it matters. And participation, that you need to be an active citizen in your governments. And you can't just vote every four years in the presidential election, there's actually a ton of voting, including, like the county boards of education, you got to vote all the way up and down you continuously. And that it's okay to have respectful debate, discourse, disagreements in a democracy. So I would like this generation to learn how to have respectful discourse and debate, to believe that their votes matter and just vote. And three, on the YouTube thing, which is terrifying to me, so I'm hoping the educators help me with this is, how to teach our kids to separate the disinformation, the misinformation, and the fiction that they are getting because of YouTube and online. So mine are all elementary schoolers, and I have lost positive control of the information they absorb.  And now I'm trying to teach them well, you know, that's not real. And do I cut off certain things? How do I engage them? How do I use books and when? So they need to not just be active participants in their society, all up and down the ballot, multiple times every year, but they need to know how to inform themselves. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And Mira? Mira Resnick:   I do hope that our children, as they approach voting age, that they see the value in cooperation with each other, that they see the value of face to face conversation. I think that honestly, this is the value of Shabbat in my household. That you take a break from the screens and you have a face to face conversation. My children understand how to have conversations with adults now. Which is, I think, a critical life skill, and that they will use those life skills toward the betterment of their communities, and more broadly, our Jewish community, and more broadly than that, our global community. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much. Thank you to everyone.

This week, groups representing more than 1,600 colleges and universities pledged reforms to fight campus antisemitism—a major breakthrough in the effort to end anti-Jewish hatred and create campuses where Jewish students feel safe. In collaboration with American Jewish Committee (AJC), the groups urged the Trump administration to continue making the eradication of antisemitism a priority, but without endangering the research grants, academic freedom and institutional autonomy of America's colleges and universities. Here to discuss this collaboration are Sara Coodin, Director of Academic Affairs for AJC, and Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. ___ Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes: Why TikTok is the Place to Talk about Antisemitism: With Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman Related Episodes: Higher Education in Turmoil: Balancing Academic Freedom and the Fight Against Antisemitism Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview:  Manya Brachear Pashman   This week, groups representing more than 1,600 colleges and universities pledged reforms to fight campus antisemitism -- a major breakthrough in the effort to end anti-Jewish hatred and create campuses where Jewish students feel safe. In collaboration with American Jewish Committee, the groups urged the Trump administration to continue making the eradication of antisemitism a priority, but without endangering the research grants, academic freedom and institutional autonomy of America's colleges and universities. Here to discuss this collaboration  is Sara Coodin, Director of Academic Affairs for AJC and Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. Ted, Sara, welcome to People of the Pod. Ted Mitchell   Thanks, Manya, good to be here.  Manya Brachear Pashman   So Ted, if you could please give our listeners an overview of who signed on to this. Who are the six organizations, and do they encompass all of the higher ed institutions in the country? Ted Mitchell   We represent everybody. And so it's everybody, from the Community College Association to the land grant universities, to AAU, the big research universities, the state colleges and universities, and then ACE is an umbrella organization for everybody. So we've got built in suspenders, and we've got every institution in America on the side of eliminating antisemitism. Manya Brachear Pashman   And then, I guess, the next question is, why? I mean, why was it necessary for American Council on Education and these other associations to join this effort? Ted Mitchell   Well, a couple, a couple of things. I mean, first of all, we have partnered. AJC and Ace have partnered for a number of years to identify and try to address issues of antisemitism. So feel like we've been in partnership for some time on these issues. And unfortunately, the need has continued to grow. I think that last spring was a real wake up call to a lot of our institutions, that they might have been comfortable believing that there was no antisemitism on their campus, but boy, they got up. They got a notice in the mail. So I think that we have, as a group, all six of us, we have worked with our institutions since last spring to create opportunities for institutions to do better. And so we had long conversations over the spring and summer about changes in disciplinary policy, everything from masks to how to make sure that every group that was seeking to have a voice make a protest was operating under the same rules, make sure that everybody understood those rules. And frankly, I think we've made we've made great progress over the course of the summer. There are still things that we can do better. There are always things we can do better. But I think the call for this letter was the conflation by the Trump administration of antisemitism and efforts to eradicate antisemitism with all of the other activities that go on on a university campus that are not really related to antisemitism. And case in point is the administration's willingness to hold research funds hostage to institutional changes and behaviors that have never been stipulated. So we're in this interesting spot where we want to do better. We're working on doing better, and the administration is saying, well, just do more. We can't tell you when you'll get there. Not only is that sort of fruitless, we also think it's illegal. Manya Brachear Pashman   So Sara, I know AJC published an action plan for university administrators last year, and that not only includes concrete steps to address antiSemitic incidents when they happen immediately, but also ways to cultivate a healthier culture. Does AJC expect the member schools of these six associations to draw from that action plan? Sara Coodin   so we hope so. You know, we don't, we don't have the power to mandate that any university in particular, much less a range of universities representing all of higher ed the entire spectrum adopt our specific action plan, but our action plan is really, I think, quite thoughtful, and covers a lot of territory. So we're thinking about all of the citizens of campus. We're thinking about administrators. We're thinking too about how administrators can create frameworks so that students can get the education that they're meant to receive on site, and for which they, you know, attend university in the first place, we're thinking too about the role of faculty, and specifically at this crucial moment, because so much attention has been paid to the experience of students and to what happens when you create clear expectations and convey. Them to students through codes of conduct and other kinds of regulatory initiatives. We're thinking very seriously about what it would mean for administrators to convey those expectations to their faculty as well, and we think that there are lanes through which they can do this that have been under scrutinized and underutilized, and usually that falls into the bucket of professionalization.  What do you do with faculty who are showing up fresh out of grad school on your campus? How do you as an institutional leader or a provost, convey the expectations that you have about the rights and responsibilities of being a teacher, a research supervisor, someone who might be supervising student activities and clubs like the student newspaper. How do you convey your institutional expectations and your expectations of these folks who are in positions of leadership for a generation or more? So it's it's an area that we think is really ripe for conversation and for folks to be convening in meaningful discussions about what the next steps consist of Ted Mitchell   Anya, if I can, if I can interject, I really applaud the framework. I think is a great place for us to start. And I know that one of the things that was important and beginning to get support from my members and other people's members was the convening that we that we held a while ago in Washington that drew 85 college presidents together, and that was a solutions focused meeting. And I think it really suggests to me that there is quite an opening for us to work together on creating a framework that could be adopted either formally or informally by many institutions. As you say, none of us can mandate what's going to happen. That's also true for the government, frankly. But I think the more and the sooner we can build a common common consensus around this, the better. And to your point about faculty responsibilities. We hear a lot about academic freedom. We hear a lot about faculty rights. We often forget that there is a responsibility for faculty to be the adults in the room and to expand the dialog and raise the level of discussion, and we need, we need to promote that. You Manya Brachear Pashman   know, I'm curious, are there any examples of institutions that have made a change have drawn from that action plan, and it created positive results. Sara, Sara Coodin   so I think we're seeing the effects of time, place and manner restrictions, and we first saw those being articulated through the task force at Columbia. And we know Columbia is not, not exactly an ideal institution right now for for a lot of different reasons, but that's not to disparage the efforts of the folks who sat on that antisemitism Task Force who came up with very specific and extremely thoughtful recommendations for their school. And I pride myself on having worked with a team that took those ideas and made sure that other schools were aware of them, so that they weren't trying to reinvent the wheel. And I think that's often the function that we've served, and particularly in the last year, because schools can and do operate in silos, whether they're geographical silos or silos within their own particular brand of school, big research institutions, Ivy League institutions, sometimes they're in conversation, but it can be very useful to serve, for us to serve as a convening function. We're not also not reinventing the wheel necessarily, but we're working in partnership to try to bring a solutions focused kind of perspective to this, because we think there are solutions in view? Obviously, leadership plays a key role in any institutional context. Are people emboldened enough to actually feel like they can convey those solutions to their communities and stand by them? And that's something that we have seen happen. I wish it were pervasive. I wish it were happening in every case. It's not, but there are certainly institutions that have taken the lead on this, whether quietly or very loudly, and I think it's important to bring our solutions to the attention of other institutions as well. Dan, I'm curious, can Manya Brachear Pashman   you shed light on the conversations that have unfolded since October 7, 2023 I mean, as students were setting up encampments and staging sit ins. Was there hand wringing, or was it considered, well, at least at first, typical college activism part of university life, Ted Mitchell   I think it started off as I certainly would never say ho hum. It started off with a sense that there has been a horrific event in the world. And of course, our campuses are going to be places where students need to respond to that and reflect on it. So I think in the early days, there was a sense that this was a right thing for campuses to be engaged in. I think the surprise came in the following weeks. 90s when the pro Palestinian, anti Israel and antiSemitic counter protests began to happen and and that was something that we really didn't expect, certainly not in the volume and intensity that took place. And I think I've said this from from the beginning, I think that we were taken by surprise and on our back foot, and so I can't, I don't know a college president who would say, stand up and say we did everything right after October 7. And you could see this in, you know, presidents making a statement on a Tuesday that they had to either retract or revise on a Thursday, and then by Monday, everything was up in the air. Again, I think that there was a lack of a sense of what the framework is looking for. There's a there was a lack of a sense of, here's where we stand as an institution. Here's what's permissible, here's what's not permissible, and we're going to be even handed in the way we deal with students who are protesting and expressing expressing their beliefs. We need them to be able to express their beliefs, but under no circumstances can those expressions be violent. Under no circumstances can they discriminate against other groups or prevent other groups from access to the education that they came for. Manya Brachear Pashman   Is some of what you're saying informed by 2020, hindsight, or is it informed by education? In other words, have you? Have you yourself and have have college presidents learned as as this year has progressed, Ted Mitchell   Well, this goes to Sara's really good point. I think that there have been two kinds of learning that have taken place. One is sort of informal communication back and forth between Presidents who sort of recognize themselves in other circumstances. And I think that that's been very powerful. We for a while, in the spring, had informal Friday discussion discussions where any president who wanted to come and talk would come and talk, and they were avidly taking notes and trying to learn from each other in real time. I think the second kind of learning was after students went home, and there really was a broad agreement that institutions needed to tackle their policies. We ran into presidents in the spring who had not read their student conduct policies, and from from there to people who had very elaborate Student Conduct policies but weren't actually following them very well, or had a lot of exceptions, or, you know, just crazy stuff.  So summer was an incredible time of calculated learning, where people were sharing drafts of things. Sara was deeply involved in, in making sure that institutions were learning from each other, and that Sara and her colleagues were pulling these together in the framework, in the framework that we have, you know it's still happening. I talk often with with presidents, and they're still exchanging notes and tactics about things that are going on, going on this fall, but they're doing so from a position of much more stability, Manya Brachear Pashman   Having taken that breath over the summer and prepared. Ted Mitchell   Having taken that breath, having sort of been through the fire, having taken that breath and having really regrouped. And one of the things that has been most essential in that regrouping is to make sure that all parties on campus understand what the rules and regulations are. From faculty to staff to Student Affairs personnel, to make sure that when a campus takes an action that it's understood to be the appropriate response to whatever the event might have been. Sara Coodin   And just to add to that point, about how, many institutions were caught flat footed. And I won't attest to whether I experienced this first personally, but thinking back to the history, the days of, you know when, when protests were either about apartheid in South Africa or it, it seemed like there was a very clear position and a clear kind of moral line there when it came to protests. So that's one example where it seems like there was a right side to be on.  And I think that that is much, obviously we look at the protests from last year as being far more out of line with with any sense of a moral right, they were in some cases host to horrific antisemitism and directly responsible for making Jewish students feel unsafe on campus. So the other example of protest, which is before my time, were the Vietnam protests on college campuses. Were really directed against the government. And last year and two years ago, we saw protests where one group of student was effectively protesting against another student group, another student population. And that is something that university administrators haven't seen before. If they were caught flat footed, it's because this was a novel set of circumstances and a really challenging one, because if you have students being activists about a geopolitical event, the focus is somewhere out there, not a population that has to live and learn on your campus. And so we're seeing the kind of directed impact of those protests on a particular group of students that feel like they no longer have a home on campus or on particular campuses, and that is a uniquely challenging set of circumstances.  Of course, we would have loved it if everyone had a playbook that worked, that could have really caught this stuff from the get go and had a very clear plan for how to deal with it, but that simply wasn't the case. And I think there are good reasons to understand why that was the case. Those codes of conduct hadn't been updated, in some cases, in 70 years.  Ted Mitchell   Your insight is really powerful, that this was one group of students against another group of students, and that's very different. But taking it back, not historically, but just sociologically, one of the things that we also learned is that this generation of students comes to our campuses with almost zero muscle and no muscle memory of how to deal with difference. And so this generation of students is growing up in the most segregated neighborhoods since the Civil Rights Act. They're growing up in the most segregated schools since Brown. And they are parts of these social media ecosystems that are self consciously siloing. And so they come to our campuses and they confront an issue that is as divisive as this one was last spring, and they really don't know how to deal with it. So that's the other learning that we've taken. Is that we need to get very serious about civic education, about how to have conversations between left and right, Jewish students and non-Jewish students, Muslim students and others, and white and black. And we need to get better at that, which, again, comes into the where's the faculty in this? And if they're not a part of that kind of engagement, especially if they take sides, then we've really lost a lot of our power to create a kind of contentious but productive democratic citizenship.  Sara Coodin   What we have been privy to, and in the conversations that we've had with, I think leading university presidents and chancellors who really have have done the right thing, I think in the last year, they're, they're affirming a lot of what you're saying, Ted, about this inability to engage in in civil discourse. And in some ways, it's an admissions problem. It's admitting students who are, you know, they're writing to an audience that is looking for world-changing activism. And when you do that, you're going to get a lot of really inflamed activists on your campus.  I think the faculty piece is more complicated. I think that speaks to a couple of generations' worth of lack of framing, of what academic freedom even is, and a kind of entry into the conversation through all kinds of back channels, that the most powerful thing you can be as a teacher is a world changer. And that means gravitating towards the extremes. It doesn't mean cultivating civil discourse, because that's boring. Why would you want to do that? That's, that's not the way to make a splash. It's disappointing to see that kind of ethos take hold. But I think there are ways in which it can be more actively discouraged. Whether it's through admissions, through looking to hire on the basis of different criteria when you're looking for faculty. And it's also a K-12 problem, and we affirm that, and that's something our Center for Educational Advocacy looks at very seriously in the work that we do in the K-12 space.  How do we work with instructors and heads of school in that space to better prepare students who arrive on a college campus, knowing how to engage in civil discourse, knowing how to disagree in a way that doesn't have to result in everyone holding hands at the end and singing Kumbaya. But it shouldn't produce the culture that we saw last year. It shouldn't. It's incredibly damaging. And I think we've seen how ineffective that model is and how turbulent it is.  Ted Mitchell   It's interesting that you raise the admissions question, because I think that, Manya, to your question about what have people done? A lot of this gets really granular, like, what essay questions do you ask? And a lot of them are, what have you done to advance something you believe in?  And I was talking with a president who came in right before the springtime, who changed the essay question to be a question about bridging. Tell the committee of a time when you helped, you know, bridge an issue, a group, whatever. And I think that the attention on antisemitism in particular is really that is driving us to think about those micro-elements of our processes that actually foster, in some ways, this kind of segregation and combat that we saw in such grotesque detail last spring. Sara Coodin   Yeah, it's interesting. I know you work with faith-based colleges as well, and that notion of service, which is not part of the infrastructure for most schools, seems like a productive part of, maybe, a future conversation about a different model for being in the world.  Ted Mitchell   I think that that's right, and I love all of our members, but the faith based institution, because this has always been front and center for so many of them, who will you be in the world as a question to ask every single student, who are you in the world, to ask every faculty member that those are natural questions in many of our many of our faith based institutions. And I really admire them. Admire them for it.  Manya Brachear Pashman   And of course, that's the purpose of going to a college or university, is to figure that out, right? Who you are going to be in this world.  I want to ask both of you, what is the next step? Will there be an effort to reverse some of the measures that have been taken by the federal government to get universities to comply, or is this more about proactive measures? Sara Coodin   I mean, I can say, for our part, we have no leverage over the federal government. We're not in a position to tell them to do anything. We can appeal to them to be more measured, as we have, and we've appealed to them to be part of a larger conversation about what's going on right now and we make those efforts routinely. I think the path forward is for universities to really think carefully about who their partners are in this work.  And that's, I think part of the effect of this statement is that we are, we, AJC, are there to work towards constructive solutions, and that has always been our basic mission in terms of our advocacy, but we now have it in a very public form. And we're not there to simply hold accountable. I mean, we all hold one another accountable perpetually. We are actually there to do the work and to engage in constructive solution seeking. And I think we're at a moment now where we've seen enough, we've kind of seen enough of this film, that we can come up with some better solutions going forward. It's not catching us kind of flat footed in the same way, because we've had some time to reflect.  And I think that's where the future of this leads to. It leads to constructive solutions. It leads to coming up with really effective strategies to migrate knowledge and approaches, and tailor them to the specifics of campuses that you know are very unique, are very distinctive, and are broad in this country. As you know, Ted, this is a country with so many types of educational institutions, so many. Ted Mitchell   So the statement is important from a number of different perspectives. One is that it's great that we have come together to ask the federal government to separate the important issue of antisemitism from the other interventions that the federal government is attempting. But the other really important thing that we want the letter to signal is our helping institutions develop the right way to combat antisemitism and, more importantly, prevent it, and through its work on antisemitism, really develop this kind of more inclusive civic culture on our campuses. Manya Brachear Pashman   You know, AJC does a state of antisemitism in America report every year, and the most recent report found that roughly a third of current American Jewish college students or graduates had experienced antisemitism personally at least once in the past year, and about little over 20% reported being excluded from a group because they were Jewish. And I'm curious if university administrators pay attention to these kinds of statistics, or maybe, did they pay attention before October 7, and are they paying attention? Now, Ted Mitchell   I think, with some embarrassment, I'll say that before October 7, antisemitism was a back burner issue, and in many cases, was seen as yesterday's problem or even a historical problem. History has that nasty way of never quite going away. And you know, we see it again here. You know I remember. Was it three years ago that we co hosted a symposium in New York on antisemitism on campus, and it was it was striking. It was well attended, and people really heard a lot. But the the most striking thing that we all heard was testimony from Jewish students, not only about the frequency of antiSemitic activity, but their exclusion from what we used to be able to call dei initiatives, and that somehow whatever was happening to Jewish students wasn't the same thing. And I went away heart's sake about that. And I think that we, you know, we let two years pass without doing much about it. And we were we were called, we were called to account for that. So I think that now that, now that antisemitism has the attention of colleges and universities, we can't squander it. But instead, we really need to move forward and say, what is it that institutions need? Can I take one more second so about about data and statistics? What's When? When I when I read that report? The first thing that I noted was that those numbers are almost precisely the same numbers that women on American colleges have experienced assault, sexual assault, 30% of women on college campuses have felt that they were assaulted in one way or another verbal and 20% feel like they were physically endangered. And so it's not a good thing, but it speaks to the scope of the problem. And in our little world, there really was a lot of attention placed on safety and security for female students, prevention sexual assault prevention, identification of the places where sexual assault was more prevalent, fraternities, alcohol as a as a fixture of that and I hope that we're going to have the same data driven conversations about antisemitism that we did about women's women's safety issues on our on our campuses. Manya Brachear Pashman   That is such an interesting observation.  Sara Coodin   Just to latch on to that point, about data and about how, how. I mean, we too, were surprised by some of the returns this year. We knew it had been a tough year, but we didn't exactly know what students were going to report. We asked specific questions about specific aspects of their experience. But I think you know, one of the things that stands out about the data, for me is, is the framing that we had for students when we asked about their experiences, we asked about their subjective experience, something that's occasionally used to discount our data. Hey, you're asking about people's feelings, but actually, we want to know about the experience, the subjective experience. This is a key component of what the college experience actually amounts to for students going through it.  And of course, we want a solid record of the number of incidents that students are exposed to, whether it's violence or, you know, whether it's coming through the form of words. There's a range of different options, but I think when you look at things like numbers of Jews on college campuses, you get a particular story about the presence of a fractionally tiny minority at elite institutions. Particularly, the numbers are fairly good, although they've dropped in the last number of years. But I think that that doesn't tell the full story. And I think you need that subjective aspect to find out how Jewish students are feeling in those roles in those institutions. And I kind of want to use this just as an opportunity to double down on the importance of that, the feeling that student have about their experience in college, which is an experience they've worked terribly hard to arrive at, and that they tend to take extraordinarily seriously once they've arrived it is It is unthinkable to allow that experience to continue to be shaped by antisemitism. It's flatly unacceptable. Manya Brachear Pashman   Well, Sara Ted, thank you so much to you both for elaborating and explaining what this means, and I wish you both luck in carrying out the mission. Ted Mitchell   Thank you so much. Sara Coodin Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman  If you missed last week's special episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman and Lisa Marlowe, director of the Holocaust Awareness Museum and Education Center outside Philadelphia – a conversation that was recorded live at the Weizmann National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia. Be sure to listen.  

Tova Friedman was just six years old when she walked out of Auschwitz.  Now, 80 years later, Tova is devoted to speaking about her experiences as a child survivor of the Holocaust and being vocal about the threat of antisemitism. She knows how easily a society can transition from burning books to burning people, and she is determined to ensure that never happens again. Tova speaks to audiences worldwide–in person and on the social media platform TikTok, where she has amassed over half a million followers. Listen to Tova's harrowing, miraculous testimony of survival, as part of a live recording at the Weizmann National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia, in partnership with AJC Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey.  Lisa Marlowe, director of the Holocaust Awareness Museum and Education Center (HAMEC), joined us to discuss the museum's mission to bring Holocaust survivors to schools, the importance of teaching history through eyewitness accounts, and the significance of preserving stories of righteous individuals like her Danish great-grandmother, who saved thousands of Jews during WWII. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Photo credit: Christopher Brown Resources: -About Tova Friedman and TovaTok -Holocaust Awareness Museum and Education Center (HAMEC) -AJC Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey Listen – AJC Podcasts: -The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran -People of the Pod Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of Interview with Tova Friedman and Lise Marlowe: Manya Brachear Pashman:  Yom HaShoah, Israel's Holocaust Remembrance Day, begins on the evening of April 23. To mark this remembrance, our broadcast this week features our recent live event at the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia. There I had a conversation with Lise Marlowe, of the Holocaust Awareness Museum and Education Center in suburban Philadelphia and author and Holocaust survivor Tova Friedman.  __ Thank you to all of you for being here today to participate in a live recording of People of the Pod, American Jewish Committee's weekly podcast about global affairs through a Jewish lens. I'm your host, Manya Brachear Pashman. Down here on this end is Lise Marlowe, our partner and organizer of this wonderful event. She is the program and Outreach Director of the Holocaust awareness Museum and Education Center, otherwise known as HAMC in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, which is just outside here in Philadelphia. She is also a long time teacher who has come up with some quite innovative ways to teach Holocaust history to middle school students. But before we begin and get to all of that, I do want to turn to Lisa for a few minutes. If you could just tell us a little bit about HAMC. What is it? Because we are in a different museum venue now.  Lise Marlowe:   Thank you Manya, and thank you everyone for being here today. So HAMC is America's first Holocaust Museum, which started in 1961 by Holocaust survivor named Jacob Riz, who lost 83 family members to the Nazis. Our Museum's mission is to bring Holocaust survivors to schools and organizations. We believe it's important to give students the opportunity to learn history through an eyewitness. When we host a school program, we tell students that they are the last generation to meet a survivor, and once they hear a survivor's story, it becomes their story to tell. It also becomes their responsibility to speak up and stand up to the Holocaust deniers of the world and to say, I know you're lying because I met a survivor. It's not easy for our survivors to tell their story, but they want to honor the family they lost. And to make sure students know what happened so history hopefully doesn't repeat itself.  Hearing about the rise of antisemitism, seeing hate towards other groups, can bring trauma to our survivors, but our survivors teach students that there are things we can do to stand up to hate. We can remember that words matter, kindness matters, that we can support and help each other when bad things happen. The Holocaust did not begin with concentration camps. It began with words.  Our museum brings hundreds of programs all over the world, so please reach out to us at HAMC.org. Because we believe education is stronger than hate. We find that students are inspired by the messages our survivors tell them, which is to not hate others. Even though they lost everything. Their families, their property, their identity, their childhood, they teach students that hate can only destroy yourself. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much, Lise. I met some of Lise's former students who are here in the audience today. You have some really remarkable ways of teaching Holocaust history so that it sticks. I would like to get into that a little bit later. And you also have your own family story to share, and we'll learn more about that later, as she is one of our two guests on today's podcast.  You see, there are three pieces to our podcast today, including the traditional format of a conversation with our guests, which will come later, and then your opportunity to ask questions. But to really comprehend what we discuss, you must first hear the powerful story that our guest of honor, the woman next to me, Tova Friedman, one of the youngest people to emerge from Auschwitz, the Nazi's concentration camp and extermination camp in occupied Poland. You must hear her story first.  Tova has worked tirelessly to share her story in every format possible, to reach the widest audience. In addition to telling her story in person, at venues such as this, she worked with a journalist to produce an accurate and comprehensive memoir, and next month, a young adult version of that memoir will be released.  She's worked with her grandson, Aaron, a student at Washington University, to share portions of her story on Tiktok on a channel called TovaTok, that has about 522,000 followers, and she is here today to reach our podcast listeners. And you. After her presentation, Tova will have a seat once again, and we'll continue the conversation. But right now, it is my honor to turn the mic over to Tova Friedman:. Tova Friedman:   Thank you. I have no notes and I can't sit because I'm a walker. You know, I think better when I walk. I think better on my feet. Let me tell you, a few months ago, I was in Poland. I was invited as a speaker to the 80th commemoration of Auschwitz liberation.  Five years ago, I was there also–75th. And there were 120 Holocaust survivors there with their families and their friends from Auschwitz. This time there were 17 [survivors], and we'll have no more commemoration. We're done. People, the lucky people, are dying from old age. You know, they're, or they're Florida, or they're gone, okay, they're not available.  So what's scary is that many young people will not meet a survivor, and they will be told in colleges and high schools, probably it never happened. It's an exaggeration. You know, the Jews. They want everybody to be sorry for them. That will happen. And that's been happening here and there to my grandchildren.  Right now, I've got eight grandchildren, but two are in colleges, and one is in Cornell. And I got the saddest phone call on Earth. To me it's sad. He got a beautiful Jewish star when we went to Israel. He called me to ask me if he should wear it inside, hidden, or if he should wear it outside. That's so symbolic.  And I said to him, do you want to be a visible Jew, or do you want to be a hidden Jew? Do what you want. I will not criticize you. I know that life is changed from when I went to college. America is different, and I'm just so upset and unhappy that you, at age 18-19, have to go through that. One of my grandkids had to leave the dormitory because of the absolute terrible antisemitism. She is in McGill in Canada, and she has to live by herself in an apartment because even her Jewish friends stopped talking to her. So what kind of a world are we living in? Extraordinarily scary, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I talk. You can hear my voice. I talk as much as I can for a number of reasons. First, I talk in order for those people who were murdered, million and a half children, some of the faces I still remember, and a total 6 million Jews, they cannot be forgotten. They cannot be forgotten.  This is such a wonderful place here that I hear you have classes and you have survivors talking to kids. You take them to schools. I think it's fabulous, but you got to do it fast, because there's just not many of us going to be here for a long time. So one thing is memory.  The other reason I speak is a warning. I really feel that this world is again turning against us. We have been scapegoats all through history. Books have been written. Why? Why this? Why that? Why this? Why that? I can't figure out why. They're jealous, we feel with the chosen people. Oh, my God, it goes on and on. But why us? It started 2000 years ago.  So I'm here to remember, so that all those people didn't just die and became ashes. But we're living in a world where we have to be aware. We have to be aware. You heard statistics that were scary. You know, I didn't even know some of the statistics. That Jews are stopping to use their Jewish last name when they make reservations somewhere? In America.? You know, I remember when I walked out from Auschwitz with my mother. My mother survived, and I'll take you back and just give me a certain amount of time. What happened? She said to me, remember I was exactly six and a half years old. And I do, I remember. And one of the reasons I remember is because my mother was a big talker. Talker just like I am. I inherited it from her. She would tell me everything. We were in all kinds of conditions. And I'd say, Mom, what is that? She says, Yeah, that's the smoke, people are being burned. She didn't say, you know, Oh, it's nothing. Don't worry about it. No, no, no, no. She talked and she talked as long as I was with her, until we were separated. That's why my memory is so sharp, and I always tell the younger generation: stop texting and start talking. Texting, you won't remember anything. It doesn't go into your brain. When somebody talks to you, you will never forget. When your mom or dad says things to you, you will remember them. If they text it to you, it lasts a few minutes and it's gone. So that's why I remember so much.  My mother lost 150 people. She was the only survivor of Auschwitz. The only survivor, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, all gone, and she died very young. She died at 45. Her war never ended. Her Auschwitz, she brought with her to America because she just couldn't get over it. My father lost about all his brothers and sisters except two, and he was able to handle life a little bit better, but she wasn't.  In my town, there were hundreds of Jewish children at the end of the war. There were five left. Five. I'm the youngest. That's why I'm still here talking. Two have died, and one is in her 90s, and she doesn't talk much anymore. So I feel like I'm representing an entire town that's gone, just gone. A town that had synagogues and they had football and they had a very vibrant town. Where my mother was a young woman. She was studying. My father was an actor, a singer, and a tailor, so he should have some money, but they were all functioning. It's all gone.  When I went to visit, because I took my grandchildren so they can see, there was no sign the Jews even were there. It's like we disappeared. My memory of the war starts when I was four, not so much before. My parents lived in a very modern town. And because they left the shtetl, my mother wasn't interested in all the religious and the sheitles, and you know, the wigs people used to wear, which, by the way, my daughter now is wearing a wig, which is sort of strange, right?  And they went to live a modern life. As soon as Kristallnacht came, he knew right away that this is not a place for him. And what do you do when you're scared? You go home, you go to your parents. So my mother and father, I was one year old, went back to their parents' home. What did they find there? That they were already in a ghetto.  Now, I remember the ghetto at the age of four, there were lots and lots of people in a tiny apartment, no running water, no bathrooms, no food, no room. So I was under the table. All my memories were under the table. And I knew things that were going on. How did I know? Because I heard it.  You know, a kid at four, four and a half, people make mistakes. The children don't know. Children know everything. They may not be able to verbalize it, but they know. And I knew what was the issue. I knew that they killed children and that I have to be under the table. I knew that. I knew that my grandparents are going to die soon. I heard it. I heard my father talking. I heard my mother talking. I heard the other people talking in the apartment in Yiddish. I still remember the words, oh, they name it. They're taking the elderly. They're taking this.  Well, one day they came in, they took my grandmother, and they shot her, right outside our window, you know, took her outside. You know what's amazing when I think about this? Because I've tried to get some perspective. I've always tried to figure out, how did that happen? Why?  How is it possible? Hitler was brilliant, and if he wasn't brilliant, he had brilliant people helping him. Idiots could not have done what he did. They were educated people. He had therapists. He had a nutritionist. And you know what they said, break up the family, and you will break up people. People die when their family is killed, they die sometimes physically, sometimes emotionally. Listen, I'm a grandmother. I have eight grandchildren. I know what it means to be a grandmother in my role, and I'm sure many of you feel the same way. So they took away the elderly.  One day, my father comes in, and he says to my mother, I just put them on the truck. I know what he meant. I was exactly four and a half because I was standing by a table. I could tell my size. The table went up to my chin, and I knew that there were because the day before these people in their 20s and 30s, they were the strong guys. They dug graves for their own parents. We, the Jews, dug graves for our children and our parents.  You know when the Nuremberg Trials came, some of the guys said, we didn't do anything. We never killed any…you know why? Because they used us to kill our own people. So that time, my father told my mother what was going on. He was sitting, his tears were coming down. And I could picture it, because, by the way, whatever I tell you, multiply by hundreds. This was a template, you know, like you have a template on a computer, you just fill in the name and everything is the same. You can fill in all kinds. You apply for a job. There is a special way. That's what happened. The Germans when they came to a town, they didn't have to think what happened. They had the piece of paper, kill the elderly, kill the children, as soon as possible. So I knew. I knew exactly what was going on. I knew that my grandparents were gone, my father's parents, my mother's mother was killed. Her my grandpa died before the war from some disease. He was very lucky. So here we are. One day. I had this uncle, James. He was a German Jew. He spoke a perfect German.  So he thought, look at our minds. He thought, he speaks German. He's going to volunteer. He didn't have working papers, and he was scared to die. His wife, my aunt, she had working papers. So he went to the Gestapo, and he said, I'll be your translator. I speak a perfect German. I was born in German. And they shot him on the spot.  So I remember he used to come and visit us. I sat on his lap one day. My father said, you won't go to see Uncle James anymore. He's not coming back. I didn't say anything. I know he was dead. I didn't know how he was dead. So the reason I'm telling you all the different things is because this happened in every other ghetto.  We were living 16,000 Jews in 250 apartments, and we couldn't go in, and we couldn't get out, except certain people who had privileges. They had working papers, they had special papers. They could go out. That's how the smuggling started. Also, certain people could go out, bring some food, because we were starving. We were starving to such a point. You know why? Because the nutritionist, the PhD, the best nutritionist in Germany, told Hitler how much to feed us in order to die. You want them to die in two months? Give them that much bread. You want them to die in two weeks? Give them that. My town, which was called Tomaszow Mazowiecki, has no Jews anymore. I just wanted to mention the name because my family was there for 200 years, because the Poles in the beginning were very good to the Jews.  They wanted the Jews because we were good business people. Every time the Jews were there, the place thrived. There were close to 100 tailor shops in town, all Jewish. So how could you go wrong? They brought business from everywhere. But now, of course, there isn't anybody. And slowly,  all those people were sent to Treblinka. There were left about 50-60, people, my parents, I among them. There were very few kids left. And we were the cleanup squad. Not only did my father had to dig the graves, I don't think my mother did. My father, dig the graves, but afterwards you have to clean up. You can't leave a town so dirty because they wanted to leave no witnesses. Hitler had an order all the way from Berlin, no witnesses. That's another reason he killed the children. Kids can grow up and be a witness like me, and that was very dangerous for him. Because, you know, it's interesting from the psychological point of view, no matter what atrocities he and his people did, in the back of their mind, they were afraid of the consequences. They were afraid of consequences. That's why you leave no witnesses.  But at that time, my father buried people and he said Kaddish. I didn't know what Kaddish was. I didn't know what being Jewish was. I don't remember any Jewish holidays. I knew that being Jewish means death, but I wasn't sure what that meant, Juden. What is this Juden business? But look at four and a half. I wasn't going to think about it. Anyhow, they moved the camp. We cleaned it up. We came to the next camp, and the next camp was the labor camp. Only work. We worked for more, not me, my parents did, and I want to tell you something about that.  Slowly they did the same exact thing they did in every other camp. People were taken away. The moment you were sick, the moment you were tired, straight into some camp. One day, I heard, I heard– my mother told me, I didn't hear anything. She said they're taking the children, whoever, whatever, there were very few children left, maybe 20-30–we've got to hide you. And she hid me in like a crawl space, like they had these tiles or something. I don't know it was tile, something. And she put me in there, and she followed me, just the two of us, my father didn't get in there. And she put me on her lap, I remember. And she put her hands on my mouth. I shouldn't scream.  I remember it was so tight that for weeks I had blue marks right here. And from the little window, I see where all my friends that I was playing with outside, because my parents were gone a whole day, I was outside with the other kids, put on trucks, but I knew where they were going. They were going to the place where the big graves were dug for them.  So anyhow, when my mother said, we have to hide, we were there for maybe an hour or two. After it was all done, the kids were gone. We went up downstairs in a little room. She said, from now on, you can no longer be on the street. Okay, so I couldn't go out. I stayed in the dark room for a few weeks. It's another story, but one day I remember, and she came every day from work, she gave me food, and I slept with my parents. Because they were in the room with me.  One day, she said, Oh, you don't have to go to the room anymore. I was delighted. I said, I don't have to? No, you can go outside. I haven't been outside for weeks, and I saw she was sort of packing, moving things. We had so few things. I said, What are you doing? She says, We're packing. We're going to Auschwitz. Again, they had, you know, cleaned up the ghetto.  The place was called Starachowice. It was a Polish place. Had a town next to it even, and people who lived around, the non Jews, knew what was going on. They all knew, because there was always a town nearby. There was also a town near Auschwitz. Auschwitz, people lived a normal life there. So anyhow, I knew. I said, Auschwitz. We're going to Auschwitz, okay? I didn't care. I was so happy that I was outside.  Within a very short time, we started walking. The train was waiting. My parents were separated. That's the first time. We were always together. My father was crying, and I remember I was little, so my mother picked me up, because I don't know if anybody of you either have been either to Auschwitz or to New York City. They have the cattle car by the museum, right outside, right. You saw the cattle car and it's that high, very hard to get on it. So she had to pick me up. She put me in and my father said, Be a good girl. I said, Yeah, I'll be a good girl. And he went to another cattle car. I was with my mother, and then a 36 hour drive began, no food, no no food and no drink, very hot, because they were all women. 150 women, and no bathrooms.  And I remember, I said, Mom, I have to go. I have to go. She didn't answer me. And then I said to myself, Oh, I know everybody's going where they're standing. I think that that was a dividing line between being human and being inhuman. We're all dressed like normal kids. I had braids, you know, when we walked out, we were all covered with feces, because everybody was going everywhere. And many people had died, and I am outside standing watching all this going on, and my mother says to me, Get undressed.  And I said, why? It was about July, August. It was summertime. Why? She said to me, they want to check if we're healthy. So I, very obedient, by the way, very, very. My mother taught me rules, and I'll tell you about the rules. So I took off my clothes, and she said, don't look at the eyes of the dogs. Don't look at anybody's eyes, because these the Germans came with their dogs. And When I was by myself, in the in the labor camp, she also taught me, because I was alone, never have eye contact. She said, eye contact will make you recognize and when you see a dog stand still, which is counterintuitive.  I was frightened, terrified of the dogs more than of the Germans, but she said, the dogs will think that you're running away, and they are trained to kill when somebody's trying to run away. So in other words, she always trained me how to be self sufficient, how to recognize danger and what to do with it. So eye contact is pure danger, and running is pure danger. So I learned very, very easily how to do that. So when I'm there, I'm standing very still, the dogs are passing by. And then I say, what's the smell, it stinks here. I said, it stinks. She pointed to the crematorium. They were taking the burning bodies from the gas chamber, and it was all black, and you could smell it. And you know what? She didn't have to say anymore. I knew it. So I remember saying, Mom, how do I look? How do I look? And she said, Oh, you look good. I said, Am I healthy? She said, Yeah, you're very healthy. I said, what about you? Oh, I'm healthy too. She said. And somehow we made it.  I tried to find out. I wrote a book together with a researcher. He tried to research. He lives in England. What happened that day? Every child under the age of 12 or 13 was taken straight to the crematorium. We're useless. Old people, pregnant people, sick people. What is old, 50 and over, because you can't work. Even in Auschwitz, you had to work. Even when you waited for your death, there was some job they gave you. So that you had to be healthy, at least. Anyhow, I don't really know. I was told that we arrived on a Sunday, and Sunday they were the Germans were Christians, so they didn't want to open another crematorium. They had four going. They didn't want the fifth. That's somehow how I and my mother survived. My whole transport, not just me. We were all, you know, a bunch of people. We went to another room. They shaved my head. I remember that very well, because they picked me up and I was, I was quite small, so they picked me up, put me on a bench, and the woman did my hair. And she herself, and I couldn't find my mother, and they gave me some clothes, because they've taken my clothes by the train. And then she found me, and then she took my hand, and we followed a whole bunch of people into Auschwitz proper. This was outside of Auschwitz before you were like, ready, and so you went inside. We got a middle bed, and then she started teaching me again.  She said, you know, there'll be a lot of people here sleeping. More women, so when you're asleep, you can't move around so much, because then everybody else has to move. Okay. And I said, What about if I have to go to the bathroom? She says, No, you can't. That was a terrible thing for me as a child. I had to hold it, because they had it twice a day to the bathroom. And then she said, Look, you're going to get a cup. I didn't get it yet. We were going to be getting a cup, a tin cup, a spoon and a bowl. If tyou lose it, and if somebody steals it, you'll go hungry and you'll die.  She said, they don't look at you. You take out the bowl. Somebody gives you something to eat. Nobody touched it, by the way. I was so aware of it. I just want to go a little fast forward, because I need your questions. I need to know what you want to know. And then one of the things I told you is bathroom for kids. It was hard for me to hold it. Well one day, we were all on line, and I really had to go. So I went in front of the line, and I was in such a hurry that I fell. The way the bathrooms were, I don't know if anybody's been to Auschwitz. The slabs of the boards. It was big, gigantic holes. The holes were like, maybe this size. My grandkids, who are, one of them is 6”2, got the privilege, because of me, to try out those bathrooms.  He sat on it and he said, Grandma, I don't know how you didn't of course, you fell in. He said, It's too big for me. I fell inside. And of course, they got me out and they hosed me down, but I must have picked up some kind of a bug. There were rats there, there were feces up to here. And I got very sick, but I knew that sickness meant death, so I was very careful not to tell anybody, but that somebody saw me, and they said, this child, this child is ill.  And they were so scared of illness, because illness meant death immediately. Because every morning they came, they picked up the dead, the sick, on one of those three wheel things. Wheelbarrow, wheelbarrow, to the crematorium. So I was afraid to be one of them. And then somebody said she's sick. She's going to infect all of us.  They picked me up. I don't remember much about that, because I was really ill, and they took me to one of those places, a hospital, without doctors. When I woke up, I must have had fever, they told me no more. You can't go back to your mother. And that's when they took me to the children's place. For the first time, I saw so many children, I never knew they even existed, and they tattooed me. I remember. They said, Oh, your name is such and such. No, it's 27,633. And the woman said, Say it. Say it. I couldn't say it. I don't know what numbers were. Never went to school, but she was so kind. She taught me. She said it again. She said, just say the words, say the words. And I did it, and I learned.  And she gave me a rag with cold water. She said, press it hard. Don't rub. It'll swell. I was there just about towards the end of the war. But one day, I got a package and it said, Happy sixth birthday. I'm six. I didn't know it. I said, Oh, my mother must be somewhere, and she's alive, because she gave me a package. It was a piece of bread, but I was going to save it until I'm dead. I imagine there's a little girl I'm going to be dying, dying, dying, like everybody is dying, but I won't, because I'll take that piece of bread and I'll eat it. I didn't know anything about bread getting stale. I know nothing about bread, so I remember keeping it here, just like that, because it was on a piece of string. In the middle of the night, rats came, ate up everything, tore my clothing, but they didn't touch me. Miracle. There were a number of miracles that, I should have been dead.  All I can tell you is, within a few weeks, something weird was going on at Auschwitz. I did not know. Terrible noise, terrible shooting. Dogs were barking, and the person who was in charge of us, it was always a kapo, an adult woman, was gone. The door was open, but we didn't dare open the door. We heard the dogs outside, and shooting. We were frightened and we were hungry. There wasn't even the little bit that we got every day, even that wasn't there.  And all of a sudden, the door opens, and my mother–I didn't know it was my mother–a woman comes in full of rags. She looks terrible. She looks around. Nobody's saying a word. She looks around, she looks around, she comes over to me, and she looks at me, and she bends down like on her knees a little bit. She says my name, and she says, You don't know me. I'm your mother. I thought to myself, my mother, she doesn't look like my mother. I only saw my mother six, seven months earlier, but she didn't look anything like it.  She just looked just, I can't even describe it. But she convinced me and listen to what she said. She looked at me. She said, You look like you can survive. Look at me. Her feet were swollen, and she said, listen, we're going to try to hide. We will either survive together or die together. What do you think? I said, I want to be with you. I don't care what. She takes my hand and we snuck, we didn't even have to sneak out because the door was open, but the other kids refused to leave. We were all so frightened, but somehow we got out.  She's walking. She's walking. Outside the dogs are barking. It's terrible. We're walking very close to the barracks, and she comes to a house, door. She walks. She must have had a plan. I didn't know that. And it's a hospital without doctors. All these people are screaming and crying and she goes from bed to bed. She touches everybody. I don't ask a question. And I'm wondering, why is she doing that?  She found a corpse that she liked. It was a corpse of a young woman, maybe twenty, now I look back at it to me, she was an adult, in the 20s, nice, nice looking woman who must have just died because she was warm. So she could manipulate her body. I remember my mother took off my shoes, picked me up, and she said, Listen, don't breathe. I'm going to cover you up. No matter what you hear–because she knew I couldn't see anything–what you hear don't get uncovered. Try to breathe into the ground.  She takes my face, she puts it towards the floor, and she manipulates my body, and she puts me very close to the corpse, and then she covers it up, and outside, you only see the head of the woman who died, and her hands, and her hands are holding like the blanket, so you can't see. All of a sudden, I can hear screaming and yelling. I don't move. I obey orders. And I can hear steps. I remember the steps, and somebody stopped, and I say to myself, Oh, I'm going to stop breathing. I stopped breathing. I was afraid that the blanket would move. Well, I just couldn't anymore.  The person walked away, and then screaming and yelling went on, I didn't move. And all of a sudden I smelled smoke, and I said, How can I not get uncovered? In the beginning, I still breathed very shallow, but I couldn't. And I said, I'll have to get uncovered to get air. And then all of a sudden, my mother pulls the blanket off me and says in Yiddish, they're gone. The Germans are gone. And she must have hidden with another corpse. And when I sit up in the bed, all these people have been hiding with other corpses. And in order to get out, they were pushing the corpses off the beds, so the corpses were flying everywhere, you know, while the people who were hidden under the corpses. So she says to me, come. I couldn't find my shoes, so I walked without and she takes my hand, and we were all walking. It was January 25, 1945. Germans have all gone. Taken with them, 50,000 people. Other people were just dying everywhere, and the Russians had not come yet. The Russians came two days later.  So we had two days inside the camp, without anybody, without the Germans. And we waited until they came, but there was electrified still. We couldn't get out. There was electricity everywhere. So we waited till the Russians came. And while we were standing by the barbed wires, I saw all these soldiers jump off trucks, and they were doing something with electricity. Then they could open the doors. And it was January 27 the liberation of Auschwitz, where children, whoever was left, was left. But many were in the process of dying, and you couldn't stop it.  Hundreds and hundreds of people died while the Russians were there, because you couldn't stop whatever they had, you know. And I remember, the Russians said, show us your number. Some kids were standing there. There's a picture of it, and I'm standing in front showing my number. And I'm talking for all the kids who didn't make it to that day. So thank you for listening.  Did I take too much time? I'm sorry.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   I don't think you can take too much time sharing that story. I know that there's so much more to share.  So many miracles, Tova. Tova Friedman:   Yes. Manya Brachear Pashman:  You have spent most of your adult life sharing your story to advance Holocaust education, and I'm curious what was the catalyst for that? Did someone ask you to share your story? Tova Friedman:   I tried to talk to people when I came to America. Because my teachers, I could read. I didn't go to school till I was 12. So I wanted to tell them why, but nobody heard me. Nobody cared. Nobody wanted to talk about it. But one day, when my oldest daughter was 15, she said to me, they're looking for a Holocaust survivor in school. Can you come to my class? That's how I started. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And then your grandson, many years later, introduced you to this thing called Tiktok, right? Tova Friedman:   I didn't know what Tiktok was because my daughter worked for a candy company called Tic Tac. You know the Tic Tac that you eat, the little white things that you have, like they make noise and stuff. So that's her company. Well, it's not her. She works for them. So I said to my son, what would a candy company be interested in the Holocaust? It's the same word. In fact, I still don't know the difference. Tik tok? Tic Tac? Manya Brachear Pashman:  Tic Tacs. Tova Friedman:   Tic Tac and TikTok? Manya Brachear Pashman:  Yes. Right, that's what you're on, TikTok. Tova Friedman:   A refugee is always a refugee. So he said to me, we had Shabbos dinner in his house, and he said, Can you give me two minutes? I said, Of course. He said, Just tell me something about yourself. Two minutes, because the people who are going to hear it have a two minute span. They can't listen to more than two minutes. I said, What should I say? Anything? Okay, my name and two minutes. Goes very quickly. And then all of a sudden, a half hour later, he said, people are interested. I said, what people? He said, on this. I said, on what?  You have a phone in your hand. What are they, who? And that's how it started. He first explained to me the system, what it means, and he got questions. He said, Would you like to answer the questions? I said, Who's asking? You know, I mean, I'm not in the generation of social media. I don't even have Facebook. I don't know any of that stuff. So he explained to me, he taught me, and he's very good at it. He's a wonderful guy. He's now 20. He's at WashU. And he became the person who's going to try to keep it going. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, your presence on Tiktok is really this wonderful, really, very innovative way of reaching people, of reaching young people, Jewish and non-Jewish. Tova Friedman: Right. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Lisa, you've come up with some unusual ways to reach young people. You were a middle school teacher until two years ago. Is that right? But you had this project where you had your students draw stick figures, and this was more than two decades ago when you started this. Can you tell us a little bit about the stick figures, which is like the polar opposite of Tiktok, but just as innovative?  Lise Marlowe:   So when I started teaching the Holocaust, and the first thing you say is 6 million Jews were murdered just for being Jewish, I realized the number did not shock students. I mean, it was sad, and they were empathetic, but the number 6 million…when we think about this generation and our sports heroes and our celebrities making millions of dollars, 6 million didn't sound like a big number. So at the time, I just had students take out a piece of paper and draw 20 stick figures across the paper. And to keep doing that for five minutes to see how many we could draw in five minutes. And my class, on the average, could draw, almost all of our elementary schools and middle schools in five minutes time, thousands of stick figures in five minutes time. And then the next day, when I went to my lesson, I'm teaching the Hitler's rise to power, one of my students stopped me and said, Wait, Mrs. Marlowe, aren't we going to draw stick figures? And I said, What do you mean?  And she said, Well, I went home and I talked to my grandmother, and the other students were jealous that we're drawing stick figures. And I think if we get together, my church and all of our friends, we pull together, I think we can draw 6 million. Tova Friedman: Wow.  Lise Marlowe:   And I said, you want to do this? And she said, Yes, I want to do that. So it warms my heart that every year I had hundreds and hundreds of students drawing stick figures, mostly not Jewish students. We are in a very diverse community in Shawnee school district, one of the most diverse in the state, mostly students of color, and I had them handing me in 1000s of stick figures every week, it covered our whole entire gym floor. And when I retired, sadly, we did not get to all the children, because we know 1.5 million children were murdered.  There was 1.6 million children to start with, and that means 94% of all the Jewish children were murdered in Europe, and we did not reach that milestone. And that shows that 6 million is a big number. And I have students like, you know, they're in their 30s and 40s now, who will always stop me on the street and say, did you get to 6 million. They always remember that's that project, and I have to, sadly tell them, we didn't even finish the children. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Tova, I would say that teaching is your side gig, right? You certainly have done so much to advance education, but professionally, you're a therapist, and I'm curious if your experience, your lived experience, has informed how you communicate with your patients? Tova Friedman:   I think it does. You know, to me, time has been always of essence. Time is the only thing we have. Money comes and goes. You look at the stock market. Tight now, it goes. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. Time is the only thing. Once you lose it, it's done.  So when I get a therapist, that's how I always thought, because timing to me, like, how many people just died that didn't have the time, like those 6 million people that you drew. And the children, how much they could have accomplished, had they had time, right? Time was taken from them. So when I get a client, the first thing I say, listen, we're not going to be here forever. We're not going to sit and talk about your parents and your grandparents. Five years from now, you'll be able to maybe. No, it's going to be time-limited, and it's going to be quick. And you have to accept my style, or there's so many people who love having you for 10 years. I need 10 weeks or less.  That means that their goals, you accomplish them. I'm a little tough, and I say I'm not going to hold your hand, even if I could. I can't anymore because of COVID and because a lot of it is on Zoom. But even when I had them in my office, I said, I will not be a therapist who's going to sympathize, sympathize, sympathize. I'll sympathize for five minutes, then we're going to work. And a lot of people will say to me, Oh, that's exactly what I needed, somebody to really push me a little bit. I said, Yeah, but that's the way it's going to be.  And others say, Wow, you're a mean person. I don't want to want to be here. I said, there are hundreds of other therapists. So yes, Holocaust has taught me, eat it fast, or somebody else will take it. I'm sorry, but also that's one thing. But let's talk about the good things. This is good too, but. My degree was in gerontology, because Hitler was, that's the most vulnerable in our society.  You know, the elderly become alcoholics. Loneliness is among the elderly, financial issues. You know, loneliness is a killer. And I worked with the elderly to help them. I felt that's, that's the people that are sort of redundant. So that's where I worked with. I did it for years. And then I went to other age groups. I feel that my experience gives them courage.  You know, come on, come on. Let's do it. Try it. Don't worry. What can happen? What can happen if you speak to your to your father or to your mother and you say this and this, what can happen? In my mind, I said–I don't tell them that, and don't say I said that–I said there are no gas chambers here. So just you know, in my mind, I said, the consequences are minor, so let's do it. And it works. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And I wondered if it was the level, the level of trauma, pales in comparison to what you went through?  Tova Friedman:   No, no. Manya Brachear Pashman:   That's what I was wondering.  Tova Friedman:   I feel that every trauma is different than, you know. You can't say, Well, my foot hurts, and it's so, big deal. So your foot hurts, my two feet hurt. No. Every pain deserves a healing, even if it's a little toe, it deserves it. And I take it very seriously. Most clients don't know about me, hopefully. I don't talk about anything personal. But I'm a little bit, you know, we don't have time on this earth. Let's make it as good as possible.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you, thank you for sharing that. Lisa, I want to ask about your family, about your great grandmother's efforts. She was not Jewish, but she saved thousands of Jews in Denmark, and I'm curious how that story was passed down in your family. Lise Marlowe:   So I started learning the Holocaust at a very young age, because my grandfather was from Denmark, and he actually fought against the Nazis for the Danish Navy, and he would share with me how his mother rescued Jews in boats, in fishing boats, and take them to Sweden. And I never really heard that story before. And I was able to go to Denmark and go to Sweden and do more research. And I learned that she was actually the editor of Land of Folk newspaper, which was a major resistance newspaper. 23 million copies were given out secretly to make sure that people knew what was happening. But I was so proud, you know, being Jewish that my non-Jewish side of my family helped to rescue people, and I think it really helped me with the work that I do now, and standing up, and social justice, that's always been a passion of mine, and I think just her story inspired me to stand up for others. And they literally saved 99% of the population by getting them to Sweden. And it's really a truly heroic story that's not told that much. But the Danish people, if you ask them, they're very humble, and their attitude is, it's what people are supposed to do. So I'm just very proud of that Danish heritage.  Tova Friedman:   Do you think that their king or something has something to do with it? Leaders? Tell me about that? Lise Marlowe:   It's a myth, right, that King Christian wore a Jewish star. He did say, if the Nazis require our Danish Jewish people to wear the star, I will wear it with the highest dignity. Along with my family. And Danish people didn't treat the Jews as the other. They considered them their friends and their neighbors, and that's why they did what they did.  Tova Friedman: Wonderful.  Lise Marlowe:   They didn't see them as the other, which is such an incredible lesson to teach students.  Tova Friedman: Yes, yeah. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Preserving these stories is so important, your experiences. Have you witnessed as lasting an effort to preserve the stories and pass down the stories of the righteous among us, like your great grandmother. And I ask you both this question, is it as important? Tova Friedman:   I think it's, you know, Israel, there is this wonderful, in Yad Vashem, the big museum, there's a whole avenue of the righteous. You know, I ask myself, what would I do if my family would be in danger in order to save somebody else, and the answer is, I don't know. But I am so utterly amazed that people do that. And there are many–well, not enough–but this is very impressive, your story, and I would love to learn. I don't know the answer, what separates one person from the other, that one is selfless and looks at humanity and one only at their own families?  I wish some studies would be done and so forth. Because we have to do something right now. We are now considered the others. You know, we are, in this world, all over Europe, except, ironically, not in Germany. I was in Germany, and I spoke to German kids, high school kids in German. I didn't know I knew German. I just got up and I saw they were trying so hard to understand. I had an interpreter, and I didn't understand the interpreter. And I said, Let me try. Let me try. I speak Yiddish fluently and German a little bit like that. Also, I lived three years in Germany, so I didn't speak it, but it must have come into my head. And do you know what they did after my speech? 250 kids? They came over. They apologized. I mean, they're a generation separated. I went to Dachau, where my father was, and there were two women whose parents or grandparents were Nazis, and they said to me, we're dedicating our entire life to preserve this Dachau andcamp and and they they have, they give talks and Everything, because my family killed your family, but they admit it. So right now, Germany has laws against it. But what about the rest of the world? What's happening in America? So I would love to know how the Danish did that. It's a wonderful story. It makes your heart feel good, you know. Thank you for the story. Lise Marlowe:   I would just add, the survivors we have today were the children who survived, right? Most of the adults are gone. And they were the hidden children. And most of them were hidden by non-Jewish people. Actually, all of them were. The Catholic Church, a farm lady, you know, who said, she took kindness on them. So you know, the hidden children were mostly hidden by non-Jewish people in terms of the righteous of the nations. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you both so much for your insights. This has been a really illuminating conversation.  If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Advisor Jason Isaacson, about legacy of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, the U.S. withdrawal from that deal in 2018, and Iran's dangerous stockpiling of uranium that's getting them closer to nuclear weapons capabilities. You can also listen to our latest episode about the impact of Pope Francis on Jewish-Catholic relations. From April 27-29, 2025, we will be at AJC Global Forum in New York City. Join American Jewish Committee (AJC) and over 2,000 committed activists at the premier global Jewish advocacy conference of the year. After the horrific attack on October 7, 2023, and in this fraught moment for the global Jewish community, escalating threats worldwide underscore the importance of our mission. All who care about the fate of the Jewish people, Israel, and the values of the civilized world must respond now with action, urgency, and resolve. If ever there was a time to stand up and be counted, that time is now. Your voice is needed now more than ever.  If you won't be with us in person, you can tune into the webcast at AJC.org/GlobalForum2025.  

Rabbi Noam Marans, AJC's Director of Interreligious Affairs, reflects on Pope Francis' legacy—from his deep ties with Argentina's Jewish community to his historic visit to Israel and strong stance against antisemitism. He also addresses recent tensions over the Pope's comments on the Israel-Hamas War and highlights the ongoing collaboration between AJC and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in combating hate and building interfaith understanding. ___ Resources: The Francis I Knew: A Warrior Against Antisemitism, a Sometimes Impolitic Critic of Israel Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes: Inside the New U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks: What's at Stake?  This Often Forgotten 1929 Massacre is Key to Understanding the Current Israel-Palestinian Conflict Related Episodes: The Next Chapter in Catholic-Jewish Relations What We Can All Learn from Rabbi Heschel on Confronting Injustice Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.  

As new negotiations begin to tackle Iran's nuclear program, missile development, and support for terror proxies, tensions are escalating. Jason Isaacson, AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, joins us to unpack the legacy of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and withdrawal in 2018, and Iran's dangerous stockpiling of uranium, getting them closer to nuclear weapons capabilities. With U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff leading talks and key UN sanctions expiring soon, the stakes are higher than ever. Don't miss Jason's insights on what the U.S. is demanding, the potential for successful diplomacy, and the global risks posed by Iran. ___ Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran Social media influencer Hen Mazzig on leaving Tunisia Chef Einat Admony on leaving Iran Playwright Oren Safdie on leaving Syria Cartoonist Carol Isaacs on leaving Iraq Novelist Andre Aciman on leaving Egypt People of the Pod:  Latest Episode: This Often Forgotten 1929 Massacre is Key to Understanding the Current Israel-Palestinian Conflict Higher Education in Turmoil: Balancing Academic Freedom and the Fight Against Antisemitism Held Hostage in Gaza: A Mother's Fight for Freedom and Justice Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.  

On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust, calling it Operation Al Aqsa. For journalist Yardena Schwartz, the massacre was a chilling echo of the 1929 Hebron Massacre—the brutal slaughter of nearly 70 Jews, incited by propaganda that Jews sought to seize the Al Aqsa Mosque. At the time, she was deep into writing her first book, Ghosts of a Holy War: The 1929 Massacre in Palestine That Ignited the Arab-Israeli Conflict. In this episode, Yardena shares how history repeated itself, how the October 7 attack reshaped her book, and why understanding the past is essential to making sense of the present. ___ Read:  Ghosts of a Holy War: The 1929 Massacre in Palestine That Ignited the Arab Israeli Conflict Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran Social media influencer Hen Mazzig on leaving Tunisia Chef Einat Admony on leaving Iran Playwright Oren Safdie on leaving Syria Cartoonist Carol Isaacs on leaving Iraq Novelist Andre Aciman on leaving Egypt People of the Pod:  Latest Episode: Higher Education in Turmoil: Balancing Academic Freedom and the Fight Against Antisemitism Held Hostage in Gaza: A Mother's Fight for Freedom and Justice Yossi Klein Halevi on the Convergence of Politics and Religion at Jerusalem's Temple Mount Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Interview with Yardena Schwartz: Manya Brachear Pashman: Hello, and welcome to People of the Pod, brought to you by American Jewish Committee. Each week, we take you beyond the headlines to help you understand what they all mean for America, Israel and the Jewish people. I'm your host Manya Brachear Pashman:. In October 2023 journalist Yardena Schwartz was in the middle of writing her first book exploring the rarely talked about 1929 Hebron massacre, in which nearly 70 Jews were murdered, dozens more injured by their Muslim neighbors during riots incited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spread lies that Jews wanted to take over the Al Aqsa Mosque. When she heard reports of the October 7 terror attacks by Hamas dubbed Operation Al Aqsa, she realized just how relevant and prescient her book would be, and began drafting some new chapters. Yardena is with us now to discuss that book titled Ghosts of a Holy War: The 1929 Massacre in Palestine that ignited the Arab Israeli conflict. Yardena, welcome to People of the Pod.  Yardena Schwartz: Great to be here, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman: So full disclosure to you and our audience. You attended Columbia Journalism School 10 years after I did, and you took Professor Ari Goldman's class on covering religions 10 years after I did that, class had always traveled to Israel, and I had hoped it would be my ticket to go to Israel for the first time, but the Second Intifada prevented that, and we went to Russia and Ukraine. Instead, your class did go to Israel, and that was your first visit to Hebron, correct?  Yardena Schwartz: So it was in 2011 and we went to Hebron for one day out of our 10 day trip to Israel, and it was my first time there. I was the only Jewish student in our class. It was about 15 of us, and I was the only one who had been to Israel. I had been all over Israel, but I had never been to Chevron. And our tour was with Breaking the Silence, an organization of former Israeli soldiers who had served in Hebron or in other parts of the West Bank and wanted Israelis to know what was happening in Hebron and how Palestinians were living there, and the various restrictions that were put in place as a result of terrorist attacks. But nevertheless, you know, those restrictions were extremely disturbing, and that brief visit in 2011 made me really never want to go back to Hebron. And when I moved to Israel two years later to become a freelance journalist there, and, you know, to move to Israel because I loved Israel, and still obviously love Israel, I didn't really go back to Chevron because I, you know, was really troubled by what I saw there. But this book took me, of course, back to Chevron hundreds of times, spending hundreds of hours there. And it came to be, you know, my expertise in this conflict, in my reporting. And you know, of course, Heron is kind of the main character in this book, Manya Brachear Pashman: Tell us how you came to find out about this massacre. Was it mentioned during that class visit in 2011 or was it later that you learned about it? Yardena Schwartz: So that was one of the most interesting things about my early adventure into writing this book, was that I had of course been to have Ron, and yet, during that day that we spent there learning so much about the history of this place, this deeply holy place to so many people, there was no mention of the massacre of 1929, so, you know, I knew that Chevron is, you know, the second holiest city in Judaism, the burial place of Abraham And the matrix and patriarchs of the Jewish people. And you know the first place where King David established his kingdom before Jerusalem. So it was holy before Jerusalem. And yet I had no idea that this ancient Jewish community in Hebron had been decimated in 1929 in one of the worst pogroms ever perpetrated. We all know about the kishineff pogrom of 1904 and yet the pogrom in 1929 in Hebron, perpetrated by the Muslim residents of Hebron, against their Jewish neighbors, was more deadly and more gruesome than the kishineff pogrom, and it effectively ended 1000s of years of Jewish presence in this holy city. And so when I was told by my mentor, Yossi Klein Halevi, the amazing writer, that there was a family in Memphis, Tennessee that had discovered a box of letters in their attic written by a young American man from. Memphis, who had traveled to Chevron in 1928 to study at the Hebron yeshiva, which was at the time, the most prestigious yeshiva in the land of Israel in what was then, of course, British Mandate Palestine. And that this young man had been killed in that massacre. Yet his letters, you know, painted this vivid portrait of what Chevron was before the massacre that took his life. I was immediately fascinated. And I, you know, wanted to meet this family, read these letters and see how I could bring the story to life. And I was introduced to them by, yes, in 2019 so that's when I began working on my book. And you know, as you mentioned, I was still writing the book in 2023 on October 7, and this book I had been writing about this massacre nearly a century ago immediately became more relevant than I ever hoped it would be.  Manya Brachear Pashman: The young American man from Memphis. His name was David Schoenberg. Give our listeners a history lesson. Tell us about this 1929 massacre. So Yardena Schwartz: On August 24 1929 also a Shabbat morning in crevorone, every Jewish family had locked their doors and windows. They were cowering in fear as 1000s of Muslim men rioted outside their homes, throwing rocks at their windows, breaking down their doors and essentially hunting down Jews, much like they did on October 7, families were slaughtered. Women and teenage girls were raped by their neighbors in front of their family members. Infants were murdered in their mother's arms. Children watched as their parents were butchered by their neighbors, rabbis, yeshiva students were castrated and Arabic speaking Jews, you know, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Jews, who composed about half of the Jewish population in Hebron at the time, and were very friendly with their Arab neighbors. You know, they went to each other's weddings and holidays, went to each other's shops, and these people were also slaughtered. It wasn't just the yeshiva students who had come from Europe or from America to study there, or, you know, the Ashkenazi Jewish families. It was, you know, Arabic speaking Jews whose families had been there for generations and had lived side by side in peace with their Muslim neighbors for centuries. They too were slaughtered. Manya Brachear Pashman: Why did their Muslim neighbors turn on them so suddenly and violently? The Yardena Schwartz: rioters that day were shouting Allahu Akbar. They claimed to be defending Islam and Al Aqsa from this supposed Jewish plot to destroy Al Aqsa in order to rebuild the Third Temple. This is what they had been told by their leaders and by Imams and their mosques and in Hebron, that Lai had also extended to the tomb of the patriarchs and matriarchs, which is known in Arabic as the Ibrahimi mosque. Imams there had told Muslims in Hebron that the Jews of Hebron were planning to conquer Ibrahimi mosque in order to turn it into a synagogue. So this incitement and this disinformation that continues to drive the conflict today. Really began in 1929 the rumors about this supposed Jewish plot to destroy Al Aqsa that began in 1928 around the same time that David Schoenberg arrived in Palestine to study at the yeshiva. Manya Brachear Pashman: So in addition to the letters that David Schoenberg wrote to his family back in Tennessee. How else did you piece together this history? How did you go about reporting and researching it? Who kept records?  Yardena Schwartz: So it's really interesting, because I was so surprised by the lack of literature on this really dramatic moment in history, in the history of Israel, the history of this conflict. And yet, despite the fact there are really no books in English, at least, about the massacre and about these riots and what led to them, there were mountains of, you know, testimony from victims and survivors. The British carried out this commission after the riots that produced this 400 page report filled with testimony of British officials, Arab officials, Jewish officials, survivors. So there was just so much material to work with. Also, survivors ended up writing books about their experiences in Hebron, very similar to David's letters, in a way, because they wrote not only about the riots and the massacre itself, but also what they experienced in Hebron before they too, wrote about, you know, the relatively peaceful relations between the city's Jewish minority and the Arab majority. And I also relied on archival newspaper reports so the. Riots really occupied the front pages of American newspapers for about a week, because it took about a week for the British to quell the riots, and they did so with an air, land and sea campaign. They sent warships and war planes from across the British Empire and sent troops from other parts of the British Empire. Because one of the reasons the riots were so effective, in a way, you know, were so deadly, especially in kharag, was because there was just no military force in Palestine. At the time, the British did not have a Palestine military force, and it was only after the 1929 riots that they did have troops in Palestine. Until then, they had the Palestine police force, and that police force was mostly Arabs. In Hebron, for example, there were about 40 policemen under the stewardship of one British police chief, and all but one of those policemen were Arabs, and many of them participated in the massacre or stood by outside of Jewish homes and allowed the mobs to enter the homes and carry out their slaughter. And Manya Brachear Pashman: I'm curious. There was a lot of newspaper coverage, but what about the international community's response beyond the British Empire? Yardena Schwartz: So there were actually protests around the world against the massacre in New York. 35,000 people marched through the streets of Manhattan to protest the British failure to protect their Jewish subjects from these riots. Most of the marchers were Jewish, but nevertheless, I mean 35,000 people. We didn't see anything like that after October 7. Of course, we saw the opposite people marching through the streets of New York and cities around the world supporting the mass of October 7. You know, I mentioned this March in New York, but similar protests were held around the world, mostly in Jewish communities. So in Poland, Warsaw and in England, there were protests against the British failure to protect Jews in Palestine from these riots. And the American government was livid with the British and they sent statements put out, statements to the press, criticizing the British inaction, the British failure to protect the Jewish subjects and the American citizens who were in Palestine at the time, there were eight Americans killed in Hebron on August 24 1929. Out of the 67 Jewish men, women and children who were killed, and all of them were unarmed. The Haganah at the time, you know, the underground Jewish Defense Force that would later become the nucleus of the IDF, the Haganah was active then, mostly in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, there were no Haganah members in Hebron. The Hebron Jewish community was very traditional, very religious, and when Haganah came to Hebron two days before the riots erupted, they because they knew that these riots were going to happen. There had been calls from Arab officials to riot, to attack Jewish communities across Palestine. And so the Haganah came to Hebron to warn Jewish leaders of Hebron that they could either come there to protect them or evacuate them to Jerusalem to safety until the riots subsided and the Jewish leaders of Hebron were unanimous in their opposition. They said, No, you know, we're friends with our Arab neighbors. They'll never hurt us. We trust them. If anything happens elsewhere, it won't happen here. And they believed that because, not only because they had such a good relationship with their Arab neighbors and friends, but also because in previous outbursts of violence in other years, like in 1920 1921 when they were much smaller riots and much less deadly riots. When those riots reached other parts of Palestine, they didn't reach Hebron because of those relations and because they weren't fueled by incitement and disinformation, which was what led the riots of 1929 to be so massive and so deadly, and what led them to be embraced by previously peaceful neighbors. Manya Brachear Pashman: How did that disinformation travel in 1929 How did it reach those neighbors in Hebron? Yardena Schwartz: When we talk about disinformation and misinformation today, we think of it as this, you know, modern plague of, you know, the social media era, or, you know our fractured media landscape. But back in 1929 disinformation was rampant, and it also traveled through Arabic newspapers. They were publishing these statements by Arab officials, mostly the Grand Mufti Hajime Husseini, who was the leader of Palestinian Muslims under British rule, he began this rumor that the Jews of Palestine were plotting to conquer Al Aqsa mosque to rebuild their ancient temple. Of course, Al Aqsa is built upon the ruins of the ancient temples. Temple Mount is the holiest place for Jews in the world. And in 1929, Jews were forbidden from accessing the Temple Mount because it was considered, you know, a solely holy Muslim site. But the closest place they could pray was the Western Wall, the Kotel. And Jews who were demanding British protection to pray in peace at the Western Wall without being attacked by Muslims as a result of this disinformation campaign were then painted by the Arabic press as working to conquer the Western Wall, turn it into a synagogue, and then from there, take Al Aqsa Mosque.  So this disinformation traveled from the very highest of Muslim officials. So the imams in mosques across Palestine, specifically in Al Aqsa and in Hebron, were repeating these rumors, these lies about this supposed Jewish plot. Those lies were then being published in flyers that were put in city squares. Jewish officials were warning the British and telling, you know, they should have known and they should have done more to end this campaign of disinformation, not only to achieve peace in this land that they were ruling over, but also because they were responsible for installing hajamina Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, into his position they had chosen him for that position, that all powerful position. And so they were responsible, in a way, for all of these lies that he was spreading. And yet they took no responsibility.  And even in the commission that they sent to Palestine from London to investigate the causes of the riots, despite the fact that, you know, if you read these, you know, 400 pages, I don't recommend it. It's a tough reading. But, you know, I did that for this book. And it's so clear from all of these hearings that this disinformation campaign was very obvious, very clear and very clearly to blame for the riots. And yet, because saying so would have made the British responsible for so much death, their conclusions in this commission was that it was Jewish immigration to Palestine and Jewish land purchases at the time that had sparked the riots, and that it was this Jewish demonstration, peaceful demonstration at the Western Wall on to Shabaab in August of 1929 that had sparked these riots.  So there's just, you know, this absolute lack of accountability, not only for the Mufti, who retained his position and became even more powerful and more popular as a leader after these riots, but also for the British and instead, you know, the Jewish victims were blamed for their suffering. At the time, Jews were just 20% of the Palestinian population, which was just 1 million people. Of course, today, Israel is home to more than 10 million people. So you know, clearly there was room for everyone. And the Jews at the time were very peaceful. The Haganah was a very, you know, weak, decentralized force, and after these riots, it became much stronger, and Sephardi Jews and Mizrahi Jews, more traditional Jews who had not joined the Haganah before 1929 had not really embraced Zionism before 1929 now agreed that if Jews were going to be safe in our homeland, then we would need our own army. Manya Brachear Pashman: Can we talk a little bit about the turn toward radicalization and extremism during this time, and what role that has played in the years since? Yardena Schwartz: you know, the Zionist leadership was very adamant that Jews in Palestine should not be carrying out attacks against Arabs in Palestine. You know, it should be really about defending Jews, preventing attacks, but not carrying out retaliatory attacks. But as we've seen throughout the century, of this conflict. You know, extremism begets extremism. And you know, when violence is being used by one side, it is going to be used by the other side as well. And so the rise of a more militant form of Zionism was a direct result of 1929 and this feeling of just helplessness and this feeling of relying on this foreign power, the British, to protect them, and realizing that no foreign power was going to protect the Jews of Palestine and that Jews would have to protect themselves, and the radicalism and the extremism within the Muslim population, particularly the Muslim leadership of Palestine, really just accelerated after the massacre, because they saw that it succeeded. I mean, the British punished the Jewish population of Palestine for the riots by vastly limiting Jewish immigration, vastly limiting Jewish land purchases. Notice, I use the word land purchases because, contrary to a lot of the disinformation we hear. Much today, none of this land was being stolen. It was being purchased by Jews from Muslim land owners. Many of them were absentee landowners. Many of them were from the wealthiest families in Palestine. And many of them were members of, you know, this anti Zionist, pro Mufti circle, who were then telling their own people that Jews are stealing your land and evicting you from your land, when, in fact, it was these wealthy Arab landowners who were selling their land to Jews at exorbitant prices. Manya Brachear Pashman: Did you establish a motive for the Mufti and what were his intentions spreading this disinformation? Yardena Schwartz: Great question. So it was very clear. I mean, he never admitted this, but it was very clear what his motives were, and that was to counter the criticism and accusations of corruption that had dogged him for years, until he began this campaign of propaganda which led much of that criticism and much of those stories of his corruption within the Arabic press and among his Arab rivals to essentially disappear, because now they had a much more threatening enemy, and that enemy was the Jewish community of Palestine, who was plotting to destroy Al Aqsa, conquer Al Aqsa, rebuild their temple, take over Palestine and his campaign worked. You know, after that propaganda campaign became so successful, there were very few people willing to stand up to him and to criticize him, because after 1929 when he became so much more powerful, he began a campaign of assassinations and intimidation and violence used against not only his political rivals and dissidents, but also just Anyone who favored cooperation between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. So there were various mayors of Arab cities who wanted to work together with the Jewish community of those cities or with other Jewish leaders to bring about various economic initiatives, for instance. And some of those mayors were assassinated by the muftis henchmen, or they were just intimidated into silence and into kind of embracing his platform, which was that Palestine is and has always been and should always be, a purely Muslim land, and that there is no place for any kind of Jewish sovereignty or Jewish power in that land.  So, you know, the Mufti, in 1936 he ended up leading a violent rebellion against the British. And the British at that point, had gotten tired of ruling Palestine. They realized it was much more work than they were interested in doing, and they were interested in leaving Palestine, handing over governance to the local population to the Jews and Arabs of Palestine, and they had been interested in figuring out what could be done. Could there be a binational state with equal representation, or representative governance? If Jews are 40% of the population and Arabs are 60% then there could be some kind of governance on those ratios, all of those solutions, including a two state solution, which was presented in 1937 all of those solutions were rejected by the grand mufti, and his platform was embraced by the other Arab officials within Palestine, because if it wasn't, they could face death or violence. And he even rejected the idea of Jews remaining in Palestine under Arab rule. You know when the British said to him, okay, so what will be done with the 400,000 Jews who are in Palestine right now? He said they can't stay. So he didn't only reject the two state solution. He rejected, you know, this bi national, equal utopian society that we hear proposed by so many in pro Palestine movement today. You know, all of these solutions have been on the table for a century and always. They have been rejected by Palestinian leaders, whether it was the Grand Mufti or his apprentice, his young cousin, yas Arafat. Manya Brachear Pashman: Ah, okay, so what happened to Grand Mufti Husseini? Did he stick around? So The Mufti was eventually, finally wanted for arrest by the British after his rebellion claimed the life of a British official. Until then, it had only claimed the lives of Jews and Arabs, but once a British official was killed, then the British had decided that they'd had enough of the Mufti, and they ordered his arrest. He fled Palestine. He ended up in Iraq, where he was involved in riots there the far hood in which many Jews were massacred, perhaps hundreds, if not over 1000 Jews were slaughtered in Baghdad, which was at the time home to about. 100,000 Jews. He then fled Iraq and ended up in Berlin, where he lived from 1941 to 1945 in a Nazi financed mansion, and he led the Arab branch of Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda. He was the Nazi's leading voice in the Arab world, he spread Nazi propaganda throughout the Muslim world and recruited 10s of 1000s of Muslims to fight for the Nazis, including in the Waffen SS and when the war ended, when world war two ended, and the UN wanted him for Nazi war crimes, he was wanted for Nazi war crimes, placed on the UN's list of Nazi war criminals. Once again, he fled, first to France, then to Cairo, eventually settling in Beirut, where he continued to lead his people's jihad against the Jews of Palestine. So when, in 1947, when the UN voted to partition British Mandate Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state so that the British could finally leave Palestine. He declared jihad, and he rejected the Partition Plan, along with every other Arab state which also rejected it. Of course, the Jews of Palestine embraced it, celebrated it, and the very next day after the UN vote, riots erupted throughout Palestine, and he helped. He was kind of pulling the strings of that Jihad taking place in Palestine. And in fact, 1000 Muslim men who he had recruited for the Waffen. SS joined that holy war in Palestine. The Mufti helped create the army of the holy war. Yasser Arafat, who was also in Beirut at the time, also assisted the army of the holy war. He actually fought in the war that began in 1947 alongside the Muslim Brotherhood. So, you know the legacy that the Mufti had? You know, it doesn't end there. It continued to his dying day in 1974 and Arafat took over his mantle as the leader of the Palestinian people. And you know, we see how the disinformation and incitement and rejection of Jewish sovereignty in any part of the ancient land of Israel has continued to be a prominent force in Palestinian politics no matter who was in charge. You know, the Fatah, Mahmoud, Abbas and Hamas, of course, perpetuate the same lies about Al Aqsa. They perpetuate the same denial of a Jewish right to live in peace in our homeland, deny the history of Jewish presence in Israel. So, you know, it's really astounding to me how little is known about the Grand Mufti and how little is known about his impact on this conflict, and particularly in the very beginnings, the ground zero of this conflict in 1929 Manya Brachear Pashman: It's so interesting. We talk so much about Hitler, right? And his antisemitism, but we don't talk about Husseini. Yardena Schwartz: Yeah, and they were good friends. I mean, they met in 1941 shortly after the Mufti arrived, he had a private chauffeur. He was lavishly paid by the Nazis, and he was good friends with Himmler. He toured concentration camps. He knew very well about the final solution. Hitler himself considered the Mufti an honorary Aryan. I mean, the Mufti had blue eyes, fair skin, light hair. Hitler believed that Husseini had Roman blood, and he saw him as someone who could lead the Nazi forces once they arrived in the Middle East. He saw him as, you know, a great ally of the Nazis. He didn't just participate in the Nazis quest to eradicate the Jewish population of Europe and eventually arrive in Palestine, but he also the Mufti worked to convince various European leaders not to allow Jewish refugees from fleeing Europe and not allowing them to come to Palestine. He told them, send them to Poland, and he knew very well what was happening in Poland. Manya Brachear Pashman: So I want to go back to this family in Tennessee, the genesis of this story, and I'm curious. David Schoenberg's niece said that at one point in the book, she said they're Southern, so they sweep ugly under the rug in the south. And so they just didn't talk about that. And when I read that, I thought, actually, that's kind of a Jewish approach, not a southern approach, except we wouldn't say we sweep things under the rug. We move on, right? We treasure our resilience, and we move on from that pain and we build anew. But is moving on really in the Jewish community's best interest? Is that how we end up forgetting and letting this history and this very important history fade?. Yardena Schwartz: Yeah, absolutely. You know, I think it is possible to do both. It is possible to take great pride in our resilience and in our strength and our ability to experience so much devastation and suffering, and yet every time emerge stronger.  I mean, think about the Holocaust. First of all, for many years, we did sweep that under the rug. Survivors were discouraged from speaking about what they went through. They were seen as, you know, especially in Israel, they were seen as, you know, people who went like sheep to the slaughter. It wasn't something to talk about. It was something to move on from. And yet now we are able to hold both in both hands. You know. We're able to honor and commemorate the memory and speak about the atrocities that millions of Jews suffered during the Holocaust, while also celebrating where we went after the Holocaust. I mean, three years after the Holocaust, Israel was born. You know, that's just, on its own, you know, a remarkable symbol of our resilience and our strength as a people. But I think the way we commemorate the Holocaust is a really great example of how we do both how we honor the memory and use that as a lesson so that it never happens again.  And yet, I think that when it comes to the conflict and the various forces that have led us to where we are today, there is this tendency to kind of try to move on and not really speak about how we got here. And it's really a shame, because I think that this is the only way we'll ever find a way out of this tragic cycle of violence, is if we learn how we got here, the forces that continue to drive this conflict after a century, and you know, the people who brought us here. Not only the Grand Mufti, but also, you know, the leaders today who are very much capitalizing on fear and religion, exploiting religion for their own, their own interests, and utilizing disinformation to remain in power. And I think that, you know, we can't afford not to speak about these things and not to know about our own history. It's really telling that, you know, even in Jewish communities, where people know so much about Israel and about this conflict, there is just a complete lack of knowledge of, you know, the very bedrock of this conflict. And I think without that knowledge, we'll never get out of this mess. Manya Brachear Pashman: Yardena, thank you so much. This is such a wonderful book, and congratulations on writing it.  Yardena Schwartz: Thank you so much.  Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Dr Laura Shaw Frank, Director of AJC Center for Education Advocacy. We discussed the delicate balance between combating antisemitism, safeguarding free speech, and ensuring campuses remain safe for all students.  Thank you for listening. This episode is brought to you by AJC. Our producer is Atara Lakritz. Our sound engineer is TK Broderick. You can subscribe to People of the Pod on Apple podcasts, Spotify or Google podcasts, or learn more at ajc.org/PeopleofthePod. The views and opinions of our guests don't necessarily reflect the positions of AJC. We'd love to hear your views and opinions or your questions. You can reach us at PeopleofthePod@ajc.org. If you've enjoyed this episode, please be sure to tell your friends. Tag us on social media with hashtag People of the Pod and hop on to Apple podcasts to rate us and write a review to help more listeners find us. Tune in next week for another episode of People of the Pod.

Following the Trump administration's decision to revoke $400 million in federal funding over Columbia University's failure to protect Jewish students, the university announced sweeping policy changes. Meanwhile, the U.S. moved to deport former Columbia student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, accusing him of concealing his ties to UNRWA and participating in antisemitic campus protests. Dr. Laura Shaw Frank, Director of AJC's Center for Education Advocacy, joins People of the Pod to discuss the delicate balance between combating antisemitism, safeguarding free speech, and ensuring campuses remain safe for all students. ___ Resources: Leaders for Tomorrow: AJC's Flagship Leadership Development Initiative for High School Students AJC Supports Action on Antisemitism, Warns Against Overly Broad Funding Cuts Guidance and Programs for Higher Education Spaces The State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report  AJC Statement on ICE Proceeding Against Mahmoud Khalil Listen – AJC Podcasts: -The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. -People of the Pod:  Spat On and Silenced: 2 Jewish Students on Fighting Campus Hate Meet the MIT Scientists Fighting Academic Boycotts of Israel Will Ireland Finally Stop Paying Lip Service When it Comes to Combating Antisemitism? Held Hostage in Gaza: A Mother's Fight for Freedom and Justice Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Laura Shaw Frank: Aaron Bregman: Hi, this is Aaron Bregman, AJC's Director of High School Affairs. If you're the parent of a Jewish high school student, you've probably asked yourself, "How can I help my teen feel proud and prepared to lead in today's world?" Well, that's exactly what AJC's Leaders for Tomorrow program, or LFT, is all about. LFT gives Jewish teens the tools to navigate challenging conversations and advocAte about antisemitism and Israel—whether in the classroom, online, or in their community spaces. Our monthly deep-dive sessions into the issues faced by Jews - both historically and today - become the place where LFT students find community, build confidence, and strengthen their Jewish identity. If your teen is ready to expand their understanding of what it means to be a Jewish leader — have them visit AJC.org/LFT to learn more. Let's give them the tools they need to step up, speak out, and lead with pride. Again, that's AJC.org/LFT.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Three federal agencies said this week that they welcomed the policy changes that Columbia University announced Friday, following the Trump administration's revocation of $400 million in federal funding. The government recalled the funding in response to the university's failure to enforce its own rules to protect Jewish students after the terror attacks of October 7, 2023. Masked protesters of the Israel Hamas War spewed antisemitic rhetoric, built encampments that blocked students from attending classes and, in some cases, took over classes.  Also this week, the government announced new charges against Mahmoud Khalil, an Algerian citizen and green card holder here in the United States, and a former Columbia University graduate student who was detained due to his activism on campus. International students on other campuses also have been detained in the weeks since. As a community that values academic freedom, as well as freedom of expression, and democracy, how do we balance those values with the importance of fighting antisemitism and making sure our campuses are safe for Jewish students?  With me to discuss this balancing act is Laura Shaw Frank, director of the AJC Center for Education Advocacy and director of AJC's Department of Contemporary Jewish Life. Laura, welcome to People of the Pod.  Laura Shaw Frank:   Thanks, Manya. Good to be with you.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let's start with the issue of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student. He was detained due to his activism on campus. And we're learning from government this week that he reportedly did not disclose that he was a member of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNWRA) as a political officer.  And he was also part of Colombia's Apartheid Divest movement when he applied to become a permanent resident in 2024. He was taken into custody, though, in a very troubling way. And frankly, he was one of the few who didn't conceal his identity during the protests and encampments. He negotiated with the University. What is AJC's stance on this? Laura Shaw Frank:   Great question Manya, and it deserves a very, very careful and nuanced answer. So I want to start by saying that AJC, as it has always done, is striving enormously to remain the very nuanced and careful voice that we always have about every issue, and particularly about the issues that we're talking about here, which are so so fraught in a moment that is so so fraught. AJC issued a statement that we published on X and on our website that talked about the fact that we deplore so many of Mahmoud Khalil's views and actions. And at the same time, it is critically important that the government follow all rules of due process and protections of free expression that we have in our country. And I wanted to emphasize, while I am an attorney, my law degree is incredibly rusty, and I'm not going to pretend to know all the legal ins and outs here, but I do know this, that free speech does attach, even for non-citizens in this country. So we're trying to express a very careful position here. It is possible that Khalil needs to be deported. It is very possible. What has to happen, though, is a trial with due process that is open, transparent and legal. And once those factual findings are determined, if it is the case that Khalil has violated United States law, and has provided material support for terror, and I know the government is actually no longer relying on that particular statute, or has endangered US interests, I don't remember exactly the language that the statute has, but endangered US interests, then he can be deported.  But we want to make sure that even as we deplore so much of what he has stood for--he's been the spokesperson for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, which is sort of an umbrella organization for many, many other student organizations at Columbia, including Students for Justice in Palestine, which was banned from campus, and some other groups which have espoused terribly antisemitic and anti-Israel views and actions on campus. They have engaged in protest activity that has been at times violent and exclusionary of Jewish students.  There's a lot to be horrified by there. And even as we abhor all of that, we love America, we love due process, we love democracy, and we feel very fiercely that those norms have to be upheld, and we hope that the government will uphold them. We expressed that concern because of the circumstances of his detention, and we're watching the case closely. Manya Brachear Pashman:   We also have the government threatening to cancel about $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia. This is a separate matter, but those cuts could include funding for scholarship and research and law. Education and health care. You know, a number of students and scholars alike are very afraid that this could backfire, if indeed, this is done at other universities across the country, in the name of protecting Jewish students. That the backlash could actually hurt the Jewish community.  Do you think that there is some credence to that? And if so, how do we prevent that? Laura Shaw Frank:   It's a great question, so I want to stop for a second before I answer the question, and talk a little bit about the position AJC has taken with respect to the $400 million. We issued a statement, a letter to the government, to the task force, about the $400 million. Where we, again, expressed our enormous gratitude to the administration for shining a light on antisemitism and for taking it seriously. Which it needs to be taken incredibly seriously in this moment. And we fear that it has not been taken seriously enough until this moment, so we're very grateful that the administration is taking it seriously.  And at the same time, we expressed our concern about the $400 million dollars being withheld because of what that $400 million will fund. That $400 million is largely funding for research, scientific and medical research, and we know that in this moment, there is a great deal of research money that is being withheld in various places in this country from universities that is funding really critical research. Pediatric brain cancer, Parkinson's disease, COVID. Whatever it is, that research is incredibly important.  So we want to make sure that even as the government is doing the good work of shining a light on antisemitism and ensuring that our higher education institutions are not harboring and fostering atmospheres of antisemitism. We want to make sure that they are simultaneously not using a hatchet rather than a scalpel in order to attack the problem.  We are keenly aware that much of the most antisemitic discourse that occurs on campus among faculty is discourse that comes out of humanities departments and not generally out of science, research, medicine departments. And it feels wrong to perhaps be withholding the funds from those who are not the problem. Generally, humanities departments don't get hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the federal government. The research that they do is of a different scale. It's less expensive. Frankly, they don't have to run labs, so the funding is really mostly in that medical and science realm.  So I wanted to just start by saying that, and would definitely encourage folks to take a look at the letter that AJC sent to the task force. With respect to your question about whether this is going to backfire against the Jewish community. It is definitely a concern that we've thought about at AJC. There have been many moments in Jewish history where Jews have become scapegoats for policies of governments, or policies in a society, or failures of a society. I'm thinking of two in this particular moment that are just popping into my head.  One of them was the Khmelnytsky massacres in 1648 and 49. I know that sounds like a long time ago, but feels kind of relevant. When Jews, who were representing the nobles in exchanges with peasants, collecting taxes, things of that nature, were attacked and murdered in tens of thousands. And Jews were really, you know, was there antisemitism involved? Absolutely. Were Jews being scapegoated for rage against nobles? Also, absolutely. So I'm thinking about that.  I'm also thinking about the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1920s and 30s, where this myth of the German population being stabbed in the back by the Jews who quote, unquote, made them lose World War I–which is, of course, obscene and ridiculous–led the way for Nazi ideology finding a foothold in German society. So I'm thinking of those moments when Jews became a scapegoat. And I'm keenly aware of how much our universities rely on research dollars to do their work, and also the anger that so many who are working in that space must be feeling in this moment. It does make me fearful to think that those who are working in the research and those who need the research, you know, people who are struggling with health issues, people who are relying on cutting edge research to help them, could say, No, this is all the Jews' fault. It's all because of them. They're causing the government to do this and that. You know, it feeds into that antisemitism trope of control. I do worry about the Jews becoming the target.  What should we do about that? I think it's very important for us to have the open lines of communication that we're grateful to have with government officials, with elected officials and appointed officials in the Administration and across the aisle in Congress, with Democratic and Republican elected officials. I think it's important for them to understand, at least, you know, from AJC's perspective, that we hope that as they continue to shine that very important spotlight on antisemitism, and continue to ensure that we hold our institutions of higher education to the standard which they must be held to, taking antisemitism very seriously and combating it with all of their power and strength. That at the same time, we want to make sure that the strategies that the government is using to address this issue are strategies that will truly address the problem. And we hope that our statements, our transparency about our stance, will help this country see the views of the Jewish community in this moment. That there are diverse views in the Jewish community, that we do care deeply about the success of higher education, about the success and the importance of research dollars, and that we also care deeply that the administration is taking antisemitism seriously. So really trying to hold that very special AJC nuance. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I know AJC offers an entire package of strategies to combat antisemitism in many different arenas, including university campuses. And I want to take a look at some of the changes that Columbia announced in response to the government's threats to cut funds, to restore those funds. They said that they would make it easier to report harassment and enable the provost to deal with disciplinary action against students who are involved in protests. These seem to reflect some of the strategies that AJC has shared, Yes? Laura Shaw Frank:   Yes, for sure. I want to say, before I respond, that there seems to be a bit of murkiness right now, as we are recording, regarding sort of where some of the some of the agreement stands. So I'm just going to just note that, that it could be that by the time we air this episode, things will be different. But AJC's strategy for higher education administrators, which could be found on our website, and you can probably link to that in the show notes too, calls for very clear codes of conduct. Calls for enforcement, clear enforcement of those codes of conduct.  We don't specifically say where discipline should be situated, because every university has a different kind of plan for how, how that should be situated. And I know that's an issue that appears to be ongoingly unclear between the government and Columbia right now, so I'm not going to say where that's landing. It's not clear to me where it's landing, yet.  But there's no question that the kinds of asks that the federal government or demands, really that the federal government has made of Columbia, are demands that are rooted in the same issues that we have highlighted on campus. So there's this issue of discipline. Not just codes of conduct, but also the enforcement of codes of conduct. We've seen very often, including at Columbia, that there are rules that are on the books, but they're not actually enforced in reality. And they're useless if they're not enforced in reality. So that's one thing that we have been very clear about in our plan.  We also have encouraged universities to think about faculty, to think about the role that faculty plays on a campus, and that's also been a part of the Columbia agreement with the federal government. Again, this is a little bit murky, still, but the federal government had asked for the Middle East and African Studies Department, maybe Asian Studies. I'm not sure exactly what the title of the department is to be put in receivership. That is a very extreme thing that can be done. Universities do it if a department is completely failing in whatever way. They could put it in receivership, give it over to somebody else to head.  And it seems, at least as of this moment, that what Columbia has done is appoint a new Vice President who is going to oversee studies in the Middle East and Jewish studies, but it's not really exactly receivership. So I'm not going to opine on what they've done, but what I will opine on is what AJC is asking campuses to do in this moment. We've alluded to it in our campus plan that we have up on the website, but we are going to shortly be issuing updated guidance specifically about how we think universities should be addressing the issue of faculty members who are creating an atmosphere that's making Jews feel harassed, or that they're advancing antisemitism. Our State of Antisemitism Report that was released about a month and a half ago showed that, I think it's 32% of students felt that their faculty members were advancing an antisemitic atmosphere or an atmosphere that was harassing of them.  And I want to be clear that obviously this is a question of feel, right? We ask the students, do you feel that way? And we know that feelings are not empirical data. Every person has their own set of feelings. And what some students might feel is antisemitic. Other students might say, no, no, that's not antisemitic. That's simply a different viewpoint. That's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint.  So with that caveat, I want to say that we're very concerned about that statistic, and we do think that it reflects a reality on campus, specifically on campuses like Columbia. And what we are asking universities to do at this moment is to think really carefully about how they're talking to faculty. How are they professionalizing their faculty?  Our Director of Academic Affairs, Dr. Sara Coodin, has been working a great deal on coming up with a plan of what we would like to ask universities to work on in this moment, to work on the summer when they have some downtime. How are they going to talk to their faculty, especially emerging faculty, TA's,graduate students and young, untenured faculty about what their responsibilities are. What are their responsibilities to have classrooms with multiple viewpoints?  What are their responsibilities to not treat their classrooms as activist spaces for their own political ideologies? What are their responsibilities to not require students to take actions that are political in nature. Such as, we're going to hold class in the encampment today, or I'm canceling class in order for students to go to protest. Those are not appropriate. They are not responsible actions on the part of faculty. They do not fall under the category of academic freedom, they're not responsible.  So academic freedom is a very wide ranging notion, and it's really important. I do want to emphasize very important. We do want faculty members to have academic freedom. They have to be able to pursue the research, the thinking that they do pursue without being curtailed, without being censored. And at the same time, faculty has that privilege, and they also do have responsibilities. And by the way, we're not the only ones who think that. There are national organizations, academic organizations, that have outlined the responsibilities of faculty.  So as we kind of look at this issue with Columbia, the issue of those departments that are the government has asked for receivership, and Columbia has appointed this vice president, the issue that we would like to sort of home in on is this issue of: what are we doing to ensure that we are creating campuses where faculty understand their role in pedagogy, their role in teaching, their role in upholding University spaces that are places of vibrant dialog and discourse–and not activism for the professor's particular viewpoints. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I'm curious, there's been a lot of talk about Columbia failing its Jewish students, and these measures, these threats from the government are really the government's way of trying to repair that. Trying to motivate Columbia to to fix that and serve its Jewish students. But I'm curious if it's not just the Jewish students that Columbia is failing by not protecting Jewish students. In what ways are–and not just Columbia, but–universities in general failing students in this moment, maybe even students including Mahmoud Khalil? Laura Shaw Frank:   I'm so glad you asked that question. I think it's such an important question. We look at universities, at the Center for Education Advocacy, and I think that so many Americans look at universities this way, as places where we are growing the next generation of citizens. Not even the next, they are citizens, many of them, some of them are foreign students and green card holders, et cetera. But we're raising the next generation of Americans, American leadership in our university and college spaces.  And we believe so firmly and so strongly that the ways that antisemitism plays out on campus are so intertwined with general notions of anti-democracy and anti-civics. And that solving antisemitism actually involves solving for these anti-democratic tendencies on certain campuses. And so we do firmly believe that the universities are failing all students in this moment.  What we need as a society, as we become more and more polarized and more and more siloed, what we need universities to do is help us come together, is: help us think about, what are the facts that we can discuss together, debate together, even as we have different interpretations of those facts. Even if we have different opinions about where those facts should lead us. How do we discuss the issues that are so problematic in our society? How will we be able to solve them?  And that, for antisemitism, plays out in a way about, you know, Jewish students are a tiny minority, right, even on campuses where there's a large Jewish population. What does large look like? 10, 15%? On some campuses it's more than that, but it's still quite small. And Jews are two and a half percent of American society. So Jews are a minority. It's very important for us to be in spaces where different views will be included, where different opinions are on the table.  Additionally, of course, discourse about Israel is so important to Jews, and we know from the Pew study and from our AJC studies that four in five Jews, over 80% of Jews, see Israel as important to their Jewish identity. So discourse on campus about Israel that ends up being so one-sided, so ignoring of facts and realities, and so demonizing of Israel and of Zionists and of the Jewish people, that's not healthy for Jews and fosters enormous antisemitism, and it simultaneously is so detrimental, and dangerous for all of us.  It's not solely discourse about Israel that is at issue. It is any time that a university is sending faculty members into the classroom who are all of the same mindset, who all have the same attitude, who are all teaching the same views and not preparing young people with the ability to debate and come up with their own views. Fact-based views, not imaginary views, fact-based views. That's incredibly, incredibly important.  One other piece that I want to mention, that I think when campuses fail to enforce their rules, why they're damaging not just Jewish students, but all students. When you think about a campus that has their library taken over by protesters, or their classrooms taken over by protesters, or the dining hall being blocked by protesters. That's not just preventing Jewish students from accessing those university facilities. It's preventing all students.  Students are on campus to learn, whether they're in a community college, a state university, a small liberal arts college, a private university, whatever it is, they are there to learn. They are paying tuition, in many cases, tens of thousands of dollars, close to $100,000 in tuition in some places, to learn and for these students to have the ability to take away other students' ability to learn is a way that the university is failing all of its students. That has to be stopped. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You talked about using classroom space, using library space, as you know, co-opting it for protest purposes or to express particular points of view. But what about the quad? What about the open space on campus? You know, there appears to be, again, it's still murky, but there appears to be an outright ban now on protests on Columbia's campus. Is that a reasonable approach or should campuses have some sort of vehicle for demonstration and expression, somewhere on its property? Laura Shaw Frank:   Absolutely, campuses should allow for protest. Protest is a right in America. Now, private campuses do not have to give students the right to protest, because that's private space. The government isn't allowed to infringe on protests, so public universities would not be able to do that. But most private campuses have adopted the First Amendment and hold by it on their campuses, including Columbia.  It is critically important that students, faculty members, anyone in American society, be permitted to peacefully protest. What can be done in order to keep campuses functional, and what many campuses have done, is employ time, place, and manner restrictions. That's a phrase that probably a lot of our listeners have heard before.  You're not allowed to curtail speech–which, protest is, of course, a form of speech–you're not allowed to curtail speech based on a particular viewpoint. You can't say, these people are allowed to talk, but those people, because we don't like their opinion, they're not allowed to talk. But what you can do is have something that is viewpoint-neutral. So time, place and manner restrictions are viewpoint neutral. What does that mean?  It means that you can say, on a campus, you're allowed to protest, but it's only between 12 and 1pm on the south quad with no megaphones, right? That's time, place, manner. I believe, and I think we all at AJC believe, that protests should be allowed to happen, and that good, solid time, place, and manner restrictions should be put into place to ensure that those protests are not going to prevent, as we just talked about, students from accessing the resources on campus they need to access, from learning in classrooms. There was a protest at Columbia that took place in a classroom, which was horrifying. I have to tell you that even the most left wing anti-Israel professors tweeted, posted on X against what those students did.  So campuses can create those time, place and manner restrictions and enforce them. And that way, they're permitting free speech. And this is what the Supreme Court has held again and again. And at the same time, prevented protesters from kind of destroying campus, from tearing it all down. And I think that that's really the way to go. Some campuses, by the way, have created spaces, special spaces for protest, like, if you're going to protest, you have to do it in the protest quarter, whatever it is, and I think that's a really good idea.  I'm an alum of Columbia, so I know how small Columbia's campus is. That might not work on Columbia's campus, but certainly time, place, and manner restrictions are critical, critical to campus safety and peace in this moment, and critical to protect the rights of all students, including Jewish students. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And on the topic of protests, as I was reading up on the latest developments, I saw a student quoted, she was quoted saying, ‘It's essentially going to ban any protest that it thinks is antisemitic slash pro-Palestine. I guess we're mixing up those words now.'  And I cringed, and I thought, No, we're not. And what are universities doing to educate their students on that difference? Or is that still missing from the equation? Laura Shaw Frank:   So I actually want to start, if I may, not in universities, but in K-12 schools. The Center for Education Advocacy works with people across the education spectrum, starting in kindergarten and going all the way through graduate school. And I think that's so important, because one of the things we hear from the many university presidents that we are working with in this moment is: we can't fix it.  We are asking our K-12 schools to engage in responsible education about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and we have particular curricular providers that we recommend for them to use in this moment, I want to say that they are terrified to do that, and I understand why they're terrified to do that. Everyone is worried that the minute they open their mouth, they're going to be attacked by some person or another, some group or another.  And I get that. And I also believe, as do the presidents of these universities believe, that we cannot send students to campus when this issue is such a front burner issue. We cannot send students to campus with no ability to deal with it, with no framework of understanding, with no understanding of the way social media is playing with all of us. That education has to take place in K-12 spaces. So I wanted to say that first.  And now I'll talk about campus. Universities are not yet there at all, at all, at all, with talking about these issues in a nuanced and careful and intelligent way. We can never be in a position where we are conflating antisemitism and pro-Palestinian. That is simply ridiculous. One can be a very proud Zionist and be pro-Palestinian, in the sense of wanting Palestinians to have self determination, wanting them to be free, to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  AJC has long, long been on the books supporting a two-state solution, which I believe is pro-Palestinian in nature. Even as we have very few people who are also in the Middle East who are pro two-state solution in this moment. And I understand that.  Education of students to be able to think and act and speak responsibly in this moment means helping students understand what the differences are between being pro-Palestinian and being antisemitic. I'm thinking about phrases like ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,' which lands on Jewish ears, as we know from research that's been done at the University of Chicago, lands on the majority of Jewish ears as genocidal in nature.  I'm thinking about phrases like 'globalize the Intifada,' which also lands on Jewish ears in a very particular way is targeting them, us, and education needs to take place to help students understand the way certain phrases the way certain language lands with Jews and why it lands that way, and how antisemitism plays out in society, and at the same time, education has to take place so students understand the conflict that's going on in the Middle East.  They might think about having debates between different professors, faculty members, students, that are open to the public, open to all, students that present this nuanced and careful view, that help people think through this issue in a careful and educated way. I also think that universities should probably engage in perhaps requiring a class. And I know some universities have started to do this. Stanford University has started to do this, and others as well, requiring a class about responsible speech.  And what I mean by that is: free speech is a right. You don't have to be responsible about it. You can be irresponsible. It's a right. What does it mean to understand the impact of your words?  How do we use speech to bring people together? How do we use speech to build bridges instead of tear people apart? So I think those are two ways that universities could look at this moment in terms of education. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Anything I haven't asked you, Laura, that you think needs to be addressed in this murky moment? Laura Shaw Frank:   I hope that our listeners and everyone who's following the stories on campus right now can take a breath and think carefully and in a nuanced way about what's going on and how they're going to speak about what's going on. I hope that people can see that we can hold two truths, that the government is shining a necessary light on antisemitism, at the same time as universities are very concerned, as are we about some of the ways that light is being shined, or some of the particular strategies the government is using.  It is so important in this moment where polarization is the root of so many of our problems, for us not to further polarize the conversation, but instead to think about the ways to speak productively, to speak in a forward thinking way, to speak in a way that's going to bring people together toward the solution for our universities and not further tear us all apart. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much for this conversation, Laura, it is one that I have been wanting to have for a while, and I think that you are exactly the right person to have it with. So thank you for just really breaking it down for us.  Laura Shaw Frank:   Thank you so much, Manya.

In late 2024, Israel closed its embassy in Dublin, accusing the Irish government of extreme anti-Israel policies, antisemitic rhetoric, and double standards. Meanwhile, the small Jewish community in Ireland, numbering nearly 3,000, has faced antisemitism in the streets. AJC's Director of International Jewish Affairs, Rabbi Andrew Baker, joins us to discuss his recent meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, examples of antisemitic activity in Ireland, including Holocaust inversion and the chilling impact of widespread anti-Israel sentiment on Irish Jews. He also shares insights on Ireland's adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and the future of Holocaust remembrance in the country. ___ Resources: AJC Directly Addresses Antisemitism and Vilification of Israel in Ireland with the Prime Minister Listen – AJC Podcasts: -The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. -People of the Pod:  U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Gaza Reconstruction, Israeli Security, and the Future of Middle East Diplomacy Why Germany's Antisemitic Far-Right Party is Thriving Instead of Disappearing Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Andrew Baker: Manya Brachear Pashman:   In December, Israel closed its embassy in Dublin, accusing the Irish government of extreme anti-Israel policies, antisemitic rhetoric, and double standards. Meanwhile, the small Jewish community in Ireland, numbering nearly 3000 has faced antisemitism in the streets. With us now to discuss the situation in Ireland, and his meeting with the Irish Prime Minister last week, is AJC's Director of International Jewish Affairs, Rabbi Andrew Baker, who also serves as the personal representative on combating antisemitism in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Andy, welcome to People of the Pod.  Andrew Baker:   Great to be here, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman:   This situation did not develop overnight. Can you take our listeners back to the first clues that the relationship between Israel and Ireland was deteriorating? Andrew Baker:   Ireland has a small Jewish community, perhaps about 3000 people. And a significant number of them, maybe upwards toward 1000, also people with Israeli citizenship who moved to Ireland to work there with a number of the social media tech companies based in Ireland. Over the years, and certainly even predating October 7, in Ireland there's been a fairly high degree of anti-Israel animus. It's not dissimilar to what we may find in a number of other northern European countries. They view the political scene in the Middle East through a certain prism that creates and maybe amplifies this form of animus.  But that said, there have also been, I think, issues between this community and government policy, even as it's reflected in ceremonies marking Holocaust remembrance in Ireland. In many cases, the particular focus in that history of what happened to the Jewish people in Europe during World War II, the genocide of the Holocaust. While there may be commemoration events, in principle to market, they've really, in many ways, washed out the Jewish nature of that.  In 2016 I was an invited speaker to the official Holocaust Commemoration Day in Ireland. Almost the entire focus was on the refugees, at the time coming in from North Africa and the Middle East. I was actually the only person who spoke the word antisemitism at that event. You also had an effort through legislation to really separate out Israel, the occupied territories, as they understood it, and the name of this bill that was passed by the legislature was called the Occupied Territories Bill. Which sought to separate Israel, at least the territories commercially from Ireland, but it would have a very onerous impact, frankly, on any anyone, certainly members of the Jewish community, who would choose to visit Israel. If they purchased a kippa in The Old City of Jerusalem, brought it back with them to Ireland, under this law, if it were enacted, they could literally be arrested for that action.  So I think also at the time I made a visit there in 2019 in my OSC role, Israel was preparing to host the Eurovision Song Contest in Tel Aviv, and there was a very public campaign in Ireland to boycott the Eurovision contest. Advertisements calling for this on the side of buses, people in the state media already indicating that they were going to refuse to attend. So you had this sort of environment in Ireland, again, a good number of years before what happened on October 7, which really changed everything throughout Europe. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And now there has been a more moderate government recently elected in Ireland. Prime Minister Micheál Martin was in the United States last week in Washington, DC, and you actually met with him when he was here, correct?  Andrew Baker:   That's correct.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Did you share some of these concerns? Did you address, for example, the Occupied Territories Bill with him? Andrew Baker:   Yes, we spent a bit over an hour together. I was joined also by Marina Rosenberg from the ADL. Our two organizations met. There were some initial plans that other organizations would also participate, but in the end, it was the two of us. One of the most significant issues that has arisen, it's partly why Israel closed its embassy, was the fact that Ireland has joined with South Africa in the charges brought before the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide. So our goal at this meeting was to raise a number of these issues, including that, including the status of the Occupied Territories bill.  But also, really to impress on him that the community itself was feeling, sieged, if you will, by these developments. And so we wanted him to understand that the anti-Israel animus, which at times, crosses over to a form of antisemitism, has had a direct impact on the Jews in Ireland.  It also was brought to the fore only this past January at this year's International Holocaust Remembrance event, Michael Higgins, the Irish president, spoke, even though the Jewish community had actually urged that he not be given a platform. He used the opportunity to focus on the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. And again, by that, drawing an analogy between Israel, between the Jewish experience during the Holocaust and somehow Israel's treatment of Palestinians today. So this, too, was an issue we brought up with the Prime Minister. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But this prime minister has made some overtures to address antisemitism, right? I mean, his administration, for example, just announced it was adopting the working definition. Andrew Baker:   Yes, in fact, several weeks before coming to Washington, the prime minister did announce that Ireland would accept the international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. And we also have a set of global guidelines that some, I think, over over 30 countries now have adopted, that lay out measures that government should take. So we did, of course, discuss this with the prime minister. He indicated to us that he was in the process of appointing a national coordinator, someone who could sort of oversee the development of national strategy to combat anti semitism. This is a very important step, by the way, it's one that almost all, with only a couple of exceptions, EU Member States, have already done. So. It is good that Ireland is doing this. Of course, it comes quite late to the game in this the IHRA definition is very important, because it offers old and new examples of antisemitism, and to digress only for a moment, this IHRA definition began as the definition endorsed presented by the European monitoring center on racism and xenophobia, already 20 years ago. And in my AJC role at that time, I worked closely with the EUMC in the drafting and the adoption of that definition. And notably, it speaks about antisemitism related to Israel. Frankly, if one had that definition in front of him or her, you would be able to look at some of the actions, even by members of government, and certainly the President's own remarks in January, and say, well, this could constitute a form of antisemitism itself. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And did he address the bill legislation that is so troublesome? Andrew Baker:   Yes, he did. He indicated to us that the Occupied Territories Bill as drafted is probably unconstitutional, since it really concerns international trade and economics. This is the purview of Brussels for all EU member states. So in that regard, they're really not expected or permitted to have their own economic international policy. He also said it was probably unenforceable.  Now I asked him to simply dispel with this bill altogether. That was not something that he could agree to, but he did inform me that it would be, at least for now, off the legislative calendar. So we know there are others in Ireland who are pushing for that law to be redrafted and enacted. So this was somewhat reassuring to be told that no, at least this will not happen this year. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Though he adopted the IRA working definition, I know that he also received some pressure from activists to dispense of that, to not adopt it and to reject it. And he assured them that it was not legally binding.  Was that discouraging to hear? Or did he seem to be willing to implement it in training of law enforcement and education of students?  Andrew Baker:   Look, these are the very elements that we speak of when we speak about employing the IHRA definition. And as you said, it's identified as a non legally binding definition, but it ought to be used to advise, to inform law enforcement, the judiciary, if and when they address incidents of antisemitism. Again, he made the decision to adopt the definition, to accept the global guidelines only, only a few weeks ago, really. So how it will be used to what extent remains to be seen. I have to say we, and my ADL colleague indicated we're certainly prepared to work with the government to offer advice on how these things can be employed. We hope that they'll consider and take up our offer, but at this point, we have to see what happens. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You mentioned that the small Jewish community there is largely Israeli expats doing business. And they were certainly uncomfortable at Holocaust Remembrance event. Are there other examples of harassment or antisemitic behavior, assaults, protests. What are they seeing on a day to day basis? Andrew Baker:   Yes, first, I mean, the majority of the community are not Israelis, but there's a significant number who are. And I think what they're finding is, it's not unique, but it's intensive for them, that in schools, in the workplace, there's a high level of discomfort. And a result of this, where people may have the choice they will try not to identify publicly in some way that would signal to others that they're Jewish. There are incidents. There haven't really been violent attacks but clearly kids in school have been harassed and made to feel uncomfortable. Because they're Jewish because of this sort of strong anti-Israel animus.  There was, only shortly after we had our meeting, an incident in one of the resort towns in Ireland where Israeli tourists in a restaurant were harassed by other patrons. They were cursed. They were spit at. It was the sort of thing, and the local council did issue a kind of apology. But I think it illustrates that when you have such a high level of anti-Israel animus, which at times can be just a harshly critical view of Israel or Israel's government, but it can spill over and create a sense that there is, as we've termed it, a kind of ambient antisemitism. It is sort of in the atmosphere, and so it does have an impact on this small Jewish community. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Last year, Israel recalled its ambassador to Dublin. It closed its embassy in December, but in May, it actually recalled its ambassador, after Ireland announced, along with other countries, Norway, Spain, Slovenia, that it would recognize a Palestinian state. And I'm curious if there's something about Ireland's history that informs this approach? Andrew Baker:   I think that's partly true. Look, first of all, Ireland had a somewhat checkered role, even during the Holocaust. You know, the Irish Ambassador government signed a condolence book when Adolf Hitler died. And it accepted German refugees after the war, but it was really quite reluctant to accept even some small number of Jewish refugees. And I think over time, Ireland in its own fight for independence with Great Britain, maybe drew the same analogy to Palestinians. This notion of being a colonialist subject. Perhaps there are those connections that people make as well.  But in the case with the Israeli ambassador first being withdrawn, and then the embassy closed, unfortunately, much of the normal diplomatic relations that an ambassador wants to do, is expected to do, were really precluded from Israeli Ambassador Erlich. Gatherings of political parties where diplomats as a kind of standard rule, invited to attend, she was not invited. Other events the same was true. So there was also a frustration to be ambassador in what ought to be a friendly country, a fellow democracy, a member of the European Union, and yet to be made a kind of de facto persona non grata was a quite troubling experience. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So whether there was an ambassador or an embassy there didn't seem to matter. They were still being excluded from diplomatic events already. Andrew Baker:   The Israeli government made the decision that they needed to do something dramatic to express the state of affairs and this discomfort, and that was first through recalling the ambassador, but ultimately, As you pointed out, essentially closing the embassy, that's a dramatic step, and some might disagree, particularly if you have Israeli citizens that would otherwise want the services of an embassy in that country, but they believe this was one way of sending a message, and I think it was a message that was received.  I would point out that following our meeting with the Prime Minister, it drew significant attention in the Irish press. Perhaps one of the most prominent read newspapers in Ireland, The Independent, this past Sunday, had an editorial that spoke about our meeting with the Prime Minister and really called on the government to reassess its relationship with Israel. In other words, to try and repair that relationship. So if it leads to that, then I think we will feel it was well worth it. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Going back to the Holocaust Remembrance events that seem to be a continuing issue. Did you speak with the Prime Minister about the Jewish community perhaps having a role in organizing those commemorations from now on? Andrew Baker:   We did. The fact is, there has been a Holocaust Educational Trust organization that had some government support, but it's separate from the Jewish community that has been responsible for organizing these events. As I noted when I was invited in 2016, this was the organization that organized it, but it has sort of fallen out of favor with the Jewish community. There have been internal tensions, and again, as a result of this last event in January, the Jewish community has asked the government to really be given the authority to to organize these events.  I have to point out that it does have, typically, the participation of senior figures in the government. When I was there, the prime minister at the time spoke, and members of the High Court participated, the Mayor of Dublin. So I think that level of participation is important and should continue. But I think the problem we're seeing is that even that history is being instrumentalized, so we need to be certain that doesn't continue. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Andy, a number of Jewish leaders declined to meet with Prime Minister Martin, given the tension and animosity Jews in Ireland have been facing. Why did you meet with him?  Andrew Baker:   AJC values, sees itself as playing an important diplomatic role, not simply with Ireland, but with various countries. And while some other organizations felt in the end, they should not participate, because by not talking to the Irish Prime Minister that was sending a message, our approach is rather quite the opposite. It's important to talk. I'm not sure that it's always the easiest conversations, and the results may not always be all that we would hope them to be, but I want to say we're in this for the long haul. We've been back and forth to Ireland, with other countries, of course, as well over the years. We hope that those visits and these meetings will continue. Frankly, it's only by this kind of ongoing engagement, I believe that we can really make a difference, and that's what we're all about. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well Andy, thank you so much for joining us.  Andrew Baker:  You're welcome, Manya.

“He told me: ‘We are the same. We are the same.' Meaning, me and the terrorists who penetrated the kibbutz are the same. They received the mission to murder and to burn, and I received the mission to hold you as bargaining chips for the release of the Palestinian prisoners. And this was a very cruel sentence, because while we were in captivity . . . they could do anything to us.” Former Israeli hostage Shoshan Haran, abducted during the Hamas terror attack on October 7, 2023, shares her harrowing story of survival and resilience. Shoshan was abducted from her home in Kibbutz Be'eri alongside her family, including her son-in-law Tal Shoham, her daughter, and her young grandchildren. While she and the other women and children were released after 50 days in November 2023, Tal remained in Gaza for 505 days and was released in February 2025. Now, as she welcomes Tal home, Shoshan opens up about the unbearable anguish of captivity, the emotional toll of waiting, and the devastating losses her family has endured. She sheds light on the humanity that persisted even in the darkest moments and issues a powerful call for continued global action to free the 59 hostages who are still being held. Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Gaza Reconstruction, Israeli Security, and the Future of Middle East Diplomacy Why Germany's Antisemitic Far-Right Party is Thriving Instead of Disappearing Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Shoshan Haran: Manya Brachear Pashman:   After 505 days as a hostage in Gaza, Tal Shoham returned to Israel to his wife and two young children and to an extended family whose lives have been on hold since the Hamas terror attacks on October 7, 2023. Tal had been taken hostage from his home in Kibbutz Be'eri with his wife, his children, his wife's aunt, his 12-year-old niece, and his mother in law, Shoshan Haran. Shoshan returned home with the other women and children on November 26, 2023. She is with us now to talk about welcoming Tal home, the tremendous loss she and her family have suffered, and the endless fight to get the rest of the hostages home.  Shoshan, welcome to People of the Pod.  Shoshan Haran:   Thank you. Nice being here.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, I'm glad that you are here to at least partially celebrate the return of your loved ones. It has been more than 500 days since that awful day in October. Can you take our listeners back a few days before the 7th, to October 4th: what were you doing that day? Shoshan Haran:   On October 4, we had a very big event of Women Making Peace in the Dead Sea, together with a sister movement, Women of the Sun. It's a Palestinian movement. Both women-led movements working for peace on both sides. And I went there with my sister Lilach and with the founder of this movement, Vivian Silver, who was my neighbor in Kibbutz Be'eri. And it was such an optimistic event, and heartwarming, we were there with thousands of women, some men also, and we were talking about the power of women to bring peace and how we should stop the bloodshed and how we should find a new way to live together in peace. That was on October 4.  Two days later, on October 6, we are getting ready for Simchat Torah, to celebrate with our family. We had the sukkah already since a week ago, and we invited my daughter, Adi, and her husband Tal and the little kids, Naveh, who was then eight years old, and Yahel (Yula), three years old, to join us for Simchat Torah. So we were cooking, getting ready for the holidays. It was a shabbat dinner, so cooking. And then we got a call from Avshal, Avshalom, he's my husband, his nickname is Avshal, and we got a call from his sister, Sharon, that wanted to join us for that evening with her daughter, Noam who was then 12 years old. And we celebrated together in the sukkah, having fun. The kids were playing all over. And then we went to sleep. We had kind of a loft above our house for hosting our guests, and that's where Tal and Adi and the kids stayed overnight. Sharon and her daughter stayed with us on the ground level, and we went to sleep. And then at 6:29am, we heard the red . . . color red is the code for attack. And we thought it is, I shouldn't say it, but the usual missile attack on us. So we went to the safe room. And then after a few minutes, we went out. My husband went up to the second floor to get Adi, Tal, and the kids down to be with us, and I started making hot chocolate for the grandkids. And then we got the warning on our–we have a community WhatsApp for alarms. And they told us that they suspect that some terrorists penetrated the kibbutz, and then we should go into the safe room. And a few minutes later, they confirmed that a terrorist attack was launched on the kibbutz. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Who was in that safe room with you? Shoshan Haran:   We were in the safe room, seven people. Tal, Adi, my daughter, the kids–my [2] grandkids, Sharon and Noam. Avshal stayed outside with a knife ready to protect his family, and also looking through the windows to understand what was going on. And then we started hearing shooting and grenades, and they got closer and closer to us. My cell phone was the only one that had reception inside the safe room. And after one hour and a half of terror, Tal texted my husband to join us in the safe room, because he understood that a knife is not gonna protect us, so there was no way. And so Avshal joined us, and Tal and him–we had a very large dinner table when we have guests, and the extensions were in the safe room, so very heavy pieces of wood. And they used it to protect the handle of the safe room door because there was no lock, but they were just pushing it against the safe room door. I heard them breaking into my neighbor's home. I heard a lot of glass and a lot of shooting and grenades. I didn't know what was happening there. And then they left.  And then they penetrated our house. They just broke into it. It's easy. It was full of windows that you could easily break into. And they started shouting at us: open the door, open the door. We did not. And then they had steel penetrating bullets that went through the safe room's iron door. And I even saw one bullet passing very close to my head. The movement of the bullet was a little bit slowed, so I could see it. And my husband shouted at me, just lie down, you know, because my head was a little bit upwards, looking at the cell phone and trying to call for help.  They couldn't break in the safe room door, and then they left, and we thought that maybe we were saved. But then after a few minutes, they brought a bulldozer, and they just cracked the safe room window. And the safe room window is composed of two steel parts that should be connected. But with the bulldozer, they were able to dismantle the window and create a crack.  And then we had a few seconds to decide to surrender or not. And then my husband and Tal decided to surrender. We were under the bed, so we didn't see much, but they understood that the crack will allow the terrorists to throw grenades into the room. So they decided to surrender.  And then the terrorist opened the window so we stopped resisting. They opened the window, and then my husband and Tal went out first, and that was the last glance that I had of my husband. And it took us a while, because we were under the bed, and we were three women and three little kids. So we went out of the room. They grabbed us through the window. And when my daughter was out, she saw her kids. They took her kids separately. And she just shouted at them, mother, kid, mother, kids. And she, she just kidnapped. She grabbed them from the terrorist. She's a real hero, my daughter.  And then they pushed us with a gun pointed at us. And when we were out of the safe room, which I saw already, six or seven members of the kibbutz were already murdered and were lying near our home, and they were pushing us towards the fence around the kibbutz, which they already destroyed.  And one of them that looks really lunatic, he handcuffed me with my hands behind my back, and they just pushed us into the car that they brought from Gaza and drove towards the Gaza Strip. We didn't see any IDF soldiers. The border was completely abolished. There was no border. We didn't see any Air Force. We saw nothing. It was just driving through the open fields into the Gaza Strip.  We were sitting in the back seat of the car. I had Naveh, my grandson, on my lap. Adi was holding Yula, and Sharon was holding her daughter, Noam. And the two terrorists were sitting in front. And when we crossed the border into Gaza–the theoretical border, there was nothing there–one of the terrorists told us, welcome to Gaza. And I said, thank you. And then we just entered into Gaza.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   You said that was your last glance of Avshal when he climbed out the window. Shoshan Haran:   So we were in captivity for 50 days, and during these horrible days, I was almost sure that both Tal and Avshal were hostages in Gaza, because they were kidnapped a few minutes before us, and I understood that the goal of the terrorists was to have hostages. And so I was very confident, I should say, that both of them are hostages in Gaza. And I knew, I knew by intuition, that Israel will demand to release women and children first. I just knew it.  And I told Adi and Sharon all the time. I said, we need to survive. Every day that we survive will get us closer to our release, because I knew that the terrorists see us as bargain chips to get their prisoners released. So I said our mission is just to survive. I need to keep my family. I need to survive.  And I thought that Tal and Avshal are also hostages, and I learned about the fact that they murdered my husband on October 7, only after I was released and I met my daughter and my son, and they had to tell me the horrible truth that he was murdered, but not only him. My sister was murdered, my little sister, my younger sister. Her husband, his caregiver.  102 people from my kibbutz, from the little community that we know, every one were murdered on October 7. Manya Brachear Pashman:   This was your sister, Lilach, who had been at the event on October 4 with you. Yes?  Shoshan Haran:   Yes, yes. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I am so sorry. May all of those memories be a blessing, every one of them in the kibbutz.  Did you stay with your daughter and grandchildren in Gaza the entire time? Or were you separated?  Shoshan Haran:   No, we were together, luckily. We were handed over by the kidnappers to what I used to term as guards in Gaza. And I use the term guards because we wanted the children to live in the belief that these people are guarding us, so we didn't call them terrorists, not even between ourselves. We call them guards.  We were moved from one house to another. So we were not in the tunnels. We were in top Hamas leaders' houses. What they did in all of these houses, they created a separate room for us, where we did not see the family of the Hamas leader, but we heard the voices. We heard the voices of the commander. We heard the voices of his wife and the children. So it was like a provisoric arrangement. And the guards were always in between us and the family. I mean, we didn't see the family, but we heard them. And the guards were the ones who brought us food and they were kind of in between.  We had an event in the second house that we stayed. We had an event of knock on the roof. Knock on the roof is a term that the IDF is using when the Air Force is aiming to hit a specific house without harming the people who live inside the house.  One time it was supposed to be two blocks away from us, so the terrorists, they know exactly the address, and they told us to get away, just to stay away from the window. So if the window is, if the glass is breaking, we will not be wounded. The second time, it was very close to where we stayed, maybe even the place we stayed, specifically so they evacuated us and the family of the Hamas terrorist who was holding us. We were evacuated to the street, and then we were taken to another house. And eventually we were taken to a fourth house, where we stayed 43 days. And in that house, the Hamas person who joined us knew English. So I started to talk. Before that the guards or the captors, didn't speak any English. They knew some very basic words, like bomb, far, go, come. You know, simple words. But in the fourth house that we stayed 43 days, the Hamas terrorist knew quite good English.  Manya Brachear Pashman: Did you seize on that and try to have conversations with your captors? We had lots of conversations and talks. I'm a very passionate reader, so I read a lot of books, including Holocaust survivors' books. I used a lot of the wisdom on how to survive when I was in Gaza. So the first thing I knew: that I should not show any weakness. I looked in their eyes, I talked straight forward, I didn't show any panic or hysterical or crying or stuff like that.  The other thing is, I knew I had to keep hope and be determined that we will be released. So that was very important, and that gave us strength. And also I counted the days. I knew the day of the week. And I knew the date. And to eat when you can. To sleep when you can. So to be very determined and very focused on the present. You don't have the capacity to think about the past or the future, you just focus on survival every second, every minute, every hour, how to protect your family and how to create some kind of a relationship with your captors. So they will get to know us, and this will give some some layer of protection. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Did you feel like you successfully fostered a relationship?   Shoshan Haran:   Yeah, it's a very tricky situation. So on one hand, I used to thank–his mother was cooking, was providing the food. We never saw her, but we heard her voice. We heard the babies on the other side of the apartment, but there was no eye contact. But when I knew that she was the one who is preparing food for us and for the captors and for her family. So every time that this guy, her son, brought us the food, I said, I want you to thank your mother. And I mentioned a few times that I appreciate the fact that they are guarding us and they are providing us the food, although it was very minimal, but still. And after a few days, we started to talk about life. I know about their salaries. I know their problems. I know how they get married or why they're not married yet.  I know about their mission. Their mission is very clear. They want to destroy Israel. It's a jihadistic mission. It's very clear. They talk about it very openly. And actually, they tried to convince us to leave Israel. He was saying, why don't you go back to Europe or go to Florida. I don't know for some reason, Florida is like, simple for them, for the Jewish community in the US. And he said, next time we're going to come harder on Israel, and I'm not sure that you'll have such a nice team to take care of you, so I advise you go, leave Israel.  And at a certain point he said, he asked me, if you go back to Israel, will you go back to the kibbutz? So said to him, I don't want to hear the word if. When we go back to Israel. And regarding the kibbutz, I said, it's a very good question, but I never gave him an answer. I knew what he wanted to hear. They were in a state of mind that, on one hand, you do create human interactions. And they played with the children. The children were so sweet, and they started to play. His family had the same age kids at the other side of the house, so there were human interactions, but it was very clear that their mission is to keep us as bargaining chips. And at one point after I felt more, I don't know, relaxed with the interaction with him, because all my talks were with this specific guy, because he was the only one who talked English. I said, you know, I am very, I don't know which expression I said, but I'm very angry about the people I saw who penetrated the kibbutz and murdered my my friends. And I saw the house of my sister was on fire. It was already bombed. You know, with, I don't know what, with whatever. Actually, I gave her and her husband like, 1% chances to be alive. What I saw in the house was, it would require a miracle for them to survive. So I told him that I'm angry at the people who penetrated the kibbutz and did these horrible things, but I do thank him and the guards and his family, to protect us and to feed us. Manya Brachear Pashman: Did you get any glimmer of remorse or compassion or empathy from them at that point? Shoshan Haran: He told me: We are the same. We are the same, meaning me and the terrorists who penetrated the kibbutz are the same. They received the mission to murder and to burn, and I received the mission to hold you as bargaining chips for the release of the Palestinian prisoners. And this was a very cruel sentence, because while we were in captivity, we were fully dependent on every expression of their faces, they could do anything to us.  So my mind couldn't handle this sentence, and I kind of buried it, I just put it aside. I didn't want to think about it, because it was so cruel. But I was sure that if anybody tried to rescue us, they will murder us. I was sure, I was not confused in that sense. I knew that they use us as assets. They see us as assets. And if they will feel that somebody is trying to rescue us by force, then they will kill us. And going to the situation now, you know that Tal, my son in law, Tal Shoham, was released two weeks ago. And actually it's the first time I started to breathe after a year and some months of fighting for his life, and, you know, taking care of helping my daughter and the grandkids and everybody, but we need To remember there are 59 more hostages in Gaza. And when we must keep on the fight. We must not give up. Manya Brachear Pashman:   A religion reporting colleague of mine, Dave Schechter in Atlanta, is a cousin of yours. When Tal was released, he wrote about how the extended family all around the world fought for and celebrated his release. Were you able to feel that love or sense that family energy? Shoshan Haran:   When I was a hostage in Gaza, I knew that my family and friends in Israel will not stay quiet, just because I know them. But as I said before, most of the time you don't think of anything else besides what's going on in your cell. Actually, I I looked at our situation as if we are astronauts in a hostile world, but unfortunately with terrorists pointing guns at our heads inside the satellite.  So when I was in Gaza, I thought about the fact that my family and friends will not stay quiet and will fight, but only on the way to Gaza. Once I was there, the focus is survival, focus. You just don't have any capacity to think of the past or the future or on anything that is beyond here and now. After I returned, first of all, Yuval, my son, told me that he organized a march from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem with 50,000 people when we were in captivity. And Shaked, my daughter, she was then nine months pregnant, and she flew to the US with AJC, by the way. Without insurance. She was nine months pregnant, no insurance company would cover her flight, but she still went, and she was all over. And when they told me, I suddenly felt the connection.  And of course, I mean, I got, while I was there, I got millions of emails and, well, WhatsApp I didn't have, because my phone was stolen, but emails from all over the world, including from Africa, the places that my my NGO is working with smaller farmers, Fair Planet, we call it. Now I think it's a bit naive name, but still.  Manya Brachear Pashman: And really the Jewish people as a collective have come together at this moment in history. Were you able to feel that sense of community in your circumstance? Or if not, can you feel it now that Tal is home and you can, as you just said, breathe? Shoshan Haran:   10 days after I was released on 26 of November, 50 days after we were taken, I came to the US and AJC people helped us get meetings with congressmen and Senate members. They took us all over. I was just in the meetings. But, you know, in the corridors of the Senate, at the corridors of the Congress and in and out with meetings. And I really, really, really appreciate not only this help, but this was my personal feeling. I mean, we just landed. I was still half in Gaza and half in my freedom. And here I am in the US, talking to decision makers and influencers, and this was done with the help of you guys, so I think it's a nice opportunity to thank you. Thank you for all the help that you are doing since then. I know it started very early on.  Actually, my daughter, my younger daughter, Shaked, came to the US to meet you guys and to meet Congressmen a few days after I was kidnapped. So, when I was in Gaza, actually.  So I think, the way I see it, I always knew the importance of the Jewish people all over the world, and of course, the importance of Israel being an independent Jewish democratic country, the importance of Israel to the Jews in the world, and the importance of the Jews in the world for Israel. I knew it, but the strength of these connections was much more evident after this horrific October 7 attack. So I felt that the Jewish world is is not only with us, but on a very practical level with us, and using all the network and all the professionals in Washington, in New York, I was invited to synagogues a few times, to big synagogues in Manhattan, what I felt is that a lot of Jewish people abroad that were not so much active in their connection to Israel understood the importance of Israel to them. And the urgency to work together on this crisis. And I think this will not go away. That's my feeling.  But now we need to focus on the 59 hostages. I know the feeling I had until two weeks ago. I couldn't breathe. I couldn't smile. I mean, it's your you look at the news and you get heart attacks every single news piece, and you just cannot breathe, and the families of these 59 hostages are still in this situation, we are not allowed to forget and let go. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you for expressing your gratitude. And I must echo that gratitude to you for sharing that story and reliving all of that trauma. I'm sorry that you had to remember some of those horrible moments, though I do think that they are illuminating for those who just simply can't grasp what your family went through.  You did not see Tal again until he returned to Israel. Is that correct?  Shoshan Haran:   Yes. Well, about my husband, I heard only when I returned. But there were evidence from October 7 that Tal was taken alive. People saw him in Gaza. So we knew that he was taken. We were just hoping and praying that none of the horrible things that could happen while you are in captivity will not happen to him. He had a horrible time, but it was released, and my daughter, Adi, his wife, told me it's either zero or one. Either you get your husband, your loved ones back alive, and you can rebuild your future and unite your family, or it's a zero.  And for the 59 hostages who are still in Gaza, we need to do anything that we can keep keep the pressure, keep the energy, keep the fight. If you care about the civilian Palestinians in Gaza, like I do–that all my life, I was working for peace–the only thing you need to focus on is releasing the hostages. Because the hostages, the fact that the Hamas terrorists are still keeping them there, is a devastating fact for the Palestinians, because the Hamas, they don't care about their own people.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Is it too soon to ask, once all the hostages return and they will, what comes next? Is there a movement already afoot to make sure Israel and others never forget what happened on October 7? Or is it too soon to ask that question?  Shoshan Haran:   I think once all the hostages are back, there will be as we will need, and also the Jewish people in the world will need to cheshbon nefesh (accounting of the soul). I don't know how to say it in English. To rethink and reconsider our views and our actions looking forward. I think we cannot be naive anymore and say to ourselves, you know that just saying that they want to kill us all, but they don't really mean it, and they will not be, they will not dare to do it and so and so forth. I think now we need to look at the facts as they are and recalculate our stance, our thoughts.  I think, first of all, we need to follow the money. Because one thing I can tell you, without funding, Hamas would never get to this stage, and neither Iran or the Houthis or Hezbollah, there are forces in the world who are supporting financially, the organizations or the countries who declare that they want to destroy and abolish Israel. We need to follow the money. We need to be smart. That's one. The other, and that's a big question. I'm just putting it on the table, but it's a big question how to do it, but this, we must do it. And the other thing is, the key for mutual existence is education. And what I learned recently, for example, is that the Palestinian Authority, or the people in Gaza, they do not teach about the Holocaust. They do not know about the Holocaust. The people that my captors, they were 24, 25, and 31 and then the commander was 40. Looking at the dates of the decision not to teach about the Holocaust, I'm sure they had no understanding why we are here. They think that we just came here like a colonialist or, you know, and then, if they will give us enough trouble, we will go away.  But we're not going to go away. We are staying, and until they change their mission to destroy us. We need to be stronger and smarter than them. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Shoshan, thank you so much for being with us, for sharing your story, and for giving us hope, sharing your hope, and then giving us hope that the hostages are all coming home, and that there is a future for Israel. Shoshan Haran:   There is a future for Israel. This, I'm sure, yes, but we need the Jewish people with us, and we need to work together. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much. Shoshan Haran:   Thank you. Thank you. And regards to my friends at AJC. Manya Brachear Pashman:   If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with two scientists at MIT who have created a foundation to ensure Israeli scholars and their American colleagues can collaborate freely, and foster research and innovation that benefits all of humanity.

The American Studies Association has boycotted Israeli academic institutions since 2013. The Association for the Advancement of Anthropology has refrained from formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions. And just this past summer, the American Association of University Professors opened the door to academic boycotts against Israel.  Enter: two scientists at MIT who see firsthand the consequences of academic boycotts and the damage it can cause to scholarship and scientific progress. To ensure Israeli scholars and their American colleagues can collaborate freely, and foster research and innovation that benefits all of humanity, they formed The Kalaniyot Foundation (pronounced Ka-la-nee-yought), named after Israel's national flower.  Hear from Drs. Or Hen and Ernest Fraenkel, co-founders of this initiative, on the impact of anti-Israel boycotts on academic collaboration with Israeli scholars, and what they're doing to rehabilitate the reputation of Israeli researchers in the eyes of the world.  Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Gaza Reconstruction, Israeli Security, and the Future of Middle East Diplomacy Why Germany's Antisemitic Far-Right Party is Thriving Instead of Disappearing Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Drs. Or Hen and Ernest Fraenkel: Manya Brachear Pashman:   Since the Hamas terror attacks of October 7, 2023 many university campuses have been riven by anti-Israel protests, demonstrations, often unfortunately fueled by disinformation and rife with rhetoric that too often crosses the line into antisemitism. But even before October 7, Israeli scholarship had become a target of the boycott divestment sanctions movement.  The American Studies Association has boycotted Israeli academic institutions since 2013. The Association for the Advancement of Anthropology has refrained from formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions. Even study abroad programs that give students an opportunity to live and study in Israel have come under scrutiny. Enter: two scientists at MIT who see firsthand the consequences of academic boycotts and the damage it can cause to scholarship and scientific progress. To ensure Israeli scholars and their American colleagues can collaborate freely, foster research and innovation that benefits all of humanity, they formed The Kalaniyot Foundation, named after Israel's national flower. Dr. Or Hen and Ernest Fraenkel are with us now to discuss this initiative. Dr. Hen, Dr. Fraenkel, welcome to People of the Pod.  Ernest Fraenkel:   Thank you very much.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I want to work backward here a bit with a purpose. I want to start by sharing with our audience a little about your research. Dr Fraenkel, you work in health science, technology. What is the goal of your research and scholarship? Are there particular diseases you're trying to cure or treat? Ernest Fraenkel:   We are interested in the diseases that are the hardest to treat, ones like Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's, where we don't really know the root cause, and we believe that by gathering many different kinds of data about genes and molecules, about RNA and also about people's lived experience of these diseases, and using computational models, we can identify new targets for drugs and hopefully better therapies. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Have you collaborated with Israeli scientists on this?  Ernest Fraenkel:   Yes, we collaborate with quite a few scientists all over the world, including top researchers in Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And Dr. Hen, you are a nuclear physicist, and you study the strongest force in nature, right? What is the goal of your research?  Or Hen:   So my research is very much on the fundamental curiosity driven science side of things, I am trying to understand how the fundamental building blocks of matter come about. We're building a new particle collider in the US called the electron hand collider. It's a $3 billion project funded by the Department of Energy, where we will try to understand why the proton and from that nucleus and all of us have mass. Trying to understand how we get the proton to a specific spin, which is the reason that we can go into an MRI machine and image ourselves. And I also try to understand things like, how do protons and neutrons interact with each other at extremely short distances, which tell us about exotic phenomena in the universe, like neutron stars. So trying to understand, really, the fundamental building blocks of matter and how they come about. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Wow. And is there promising scholarship in this realm in Israel? Or Hen:   Yes, there's quite a few groups working in this area. I did my own training in Israel. I am a graduate of the Hebrew University for undergrad and Tel Aviv University for grad school. And actually, ever since I came to MIT, I've still been collaborating with colleagues from Technion, Tel Aviv, Hebrew University, Weizmann, Ben Gurion. I've always had a strong collaboration with Israel, actually. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So after October 7, or maybe even leading up to it, what were you seeing when it came to support of Israeli scholarship and collaboration in your institutions, in your fields, in academia in general? Ernest Fraenkel:   I think before October 7, we were living in a bit of a bubble, because MIT is a special place which is very deeply immersed in science and technology. Where really, quite honestly, before October 7, I had no hint that there were biases against Israel, Israelis or Jews. I know that was not the experience in many other areas, especially in other fields. But things really turned 180 degrees on October 7, and what we've seen since then has been deeply disturbing. That some of the boycotts that have been bubbling for years in the humanities suddenly burst forth into the sciences and the engineering fields in ways that are both global and also very local. Seeing bias against individual researchers inside laboratories, as well as these kind of blanket attempts to boycott Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And Dr Hen, did you see the same?  Or Hen:   Yes, definitely. I work with a lot of international collaborations, actually, within collaborations, because there's structured bodies with bylaws and rules, It was very hard for anyone to object the presence of Israeli researchers. But what we have observed in many places is peer to peer collaborations dying down. We've seen a very significant social tax being applied to people who continue to collaborate with Israelis, and honestly, maybe in contrast a bit to what we know from academic boycotts in other areas, but are very much politically driven, within the STEM, within exact sciences, biosciences, etc, the social taxing is actually much stronger because we are people who usually instead, people keep a very clear separation between the politics and then, you know what they view from the work in the lab, which is very clear and data driven, and not a lot of room for opinions. It's very much exact.  But on the other hand, the second that walking within Israel, and you know collaborating with Israel, is start costing other corporations, other people will now not work, then you get a problem. And that's what people really avoid and that's how an academic boycott within the STEM areas is progressing. It's a very deeply bound social tax that is just running in the air of the institutions. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So what is the Kalaniyot Foundation doing to promote these collaborations? Can you give us some specific examples, or projects or partnerships? Or Hen:   Yeah, so one of the things that we really believe in is that, at the end of the day, actually, what we see, also data shows, is, well, there is existing strong collaboration, that peer to peer, that person to person connection, is so strong that it's very hard to break that. You can go into my department and you can talk to people about Israel. And they know Or, and they know the person, right? And they might have a positive opinion about, you know, negative opinion about me. But whatever that opinion is, right, it's stronger than anything.  They will try to protest and say, Okay, maybe there's a political issue. But you know, we know the researcher. We know the scientists. We know our colleagues. So the approach of Kalaniyot is to actually bring in more Israelis to campus, to bring in brilliant people who are excellent researchers that will come and enrich the academic environment, first and foremost, through this quality, and second, by the people that they are. Maybe Ernest, you want to continue with this? Ernest Fraenkel:   So it's really this dual mission. We think that if we bring more top notch Israeli scholars to us campuses, it will normalize interaction with Israelis, humanize the Israeli, but there's a problem, right? Because if you just bring Israelis into campus environments that are hostile, they won't thrive. Many of them won't want to come, right? And so the other piece of it that's necessary is to build community, and that's something that we've been doing since October 7 of last year, trying to figure out how to do that, and what we found is face to face interaction is really critical.  And so at MIT, we've been having weekly lunches of the Israelis, Jews, allies, everybody who felt isolated and left out of society by all the protests that were taking place. And the beautiful thing is that that started as a reaction, right, a sort of a safe place to retreat to, and it's actually become a wonderful, positive place. And still, now, you know, so far into this crisis, people are coming, and actually the numbers are even growing. And so on a typical week, we get more than 100 people in person. We, of course, feed them lunch, and it's just a wonderful place where you can make friendships, develop academic collaborations, and Israelis realize that there is a community here that appreciates them and welcomes them and it helps them thrive. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Because, of course, food is a vital currency, both on college campuses as well in Jewish as in Jewish life. Food heals all. But I am curious, do you? In addition to building these thriving communities, are you also so that people are surrounded and comfortable but are you also trying to build bridges with people who perhaps do tend to throw the word Israeli around in a negative capacity, but you need to actually have some face to face contact. Or is that really not the purpose of Kalaniyot. Or Hen:   I mean, it's a yes and a no. We certainly have done that, right. So if you think about how it all started very soon after October 7, basically after the first protest on campus at MIT. We went to talk to our president, three Jewish Israeli faculty, and we asked her. We said, Look, we hear from the students about what's happening in the dorms, what they're experiencing. It's really bad, and it's very hard to handle through the existing mechanisms.  Please actually give us the budget. We'll get kosher food. I'm a Mizrahi, that's what I know how to do, feed people. Let's put everybody together, and let's make sure everybody feel welcome. And we also said, you know, we'll be your bridge. We'll help the students communicate with administration through our guidance, right? We'll be able to filter, to guide them, but also to pick up on the important things that you need to know. But then we said something else. We said, Look, this is going to become very tough, also for the students who are protesting out there right now. It was before Israel responded, but we knew exactly what happened in the kibbutzim, and we knew this is not going to be just another round with Gaza. This is going to be something different.  So we actually suggested to the President that alongside starting our group, we will start a parallel group of peers who we might disagree with politically and have different perspectives on the Middle East, but we know that they are reasonable people that we can talk to, that we can collaborate with, that we can work with, despite or alongside disagreements. And so the idea was to start our lunch, to start a second lunch, and slowly, through the faculty leadership, bring the groups together. Some of it has worked. Some of it didn't work.  We used to meet once a week as the faculty and say, students tell us that this and this is happening. Can you maybe walk with your students to tone that down, and they would tell us what's bothering them, etc. Getting the students to come together, that was a bigger lift, a challenging one. And there was another initiative that came about called the Third Space Lunch, that maybe Ernest can elaborate more on. Ernest Fraenkel:   So just to add a little bit to that. So the faculty leads from the other group came to speak to our students. Were very respectful to them. The faculty listened quietly to the concerns of the Jewish students. And I think we did see an attempt by many of the faculty to bridge the gaps. Obviously, faculty are an extremely, you know, diverse group. We have extremists, we've got centrists, we've got moderates. And not everybody was trying to help, but many, many were, and I think that was very encouraging, and I've seen that continue throughout this. There are hidden allies. Probaby the average faculty member probably doesn't really want to know too much about Israel or Palestine. Doesn't want to have to understand the conflicts. They just want to go about their daily lives, teach what they love to teach, do the research they love to do, and they are natural allies in trying to bring order back to campus. And the more that we can engage them, the better off it is. Or Hen:   But I think in terms of the formal program for Kalaniyot - Kalaniyot is really meant to bring in researchers and make sure that they have a supporting environment. And if people want to take that extra step of building bridges and building, that's all great, but it's not kind of a mandatory part of the program. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I get it. You really just want to foster academic research and progress and innovation, right? Put political strife aside. You've named this foundation Kalaniyot after Israel's national flower. Can you describe for our listeners that flower and why you chose that name for this initiative? Ernest Fraenkel:   The Kalaniyah looks a lot like a poppy. It's a red poppy, and during good times, there actually was an annual festival where Israelis would flock to the south in the area right around Gaza to see the bloom of this flower that would cover the otherwise fairly barren, quite honestly, countryside. And it was called the South Red, Darom Adom, and people would rush there to see it. And it was a symbol, which actually takes place right around the time we're recording. People have been sending us photos from from Israel the last few weeks of these flowers, the more they hear about the program.  And it's a sign that the winter is going to end and spring is going to come, and everything will be renewed. And so it was the South in red, in a sense, that was all positive. And we think the same sort of thing is possible here, that while Israel is right now a touch point for conflict on campus, we want to see a time when Israel, this is something like, Oh, of course. You know, everybody wants to have some connection to Israel. That's where the best researchers are in every field.  I often tell the story, when I was first on the faculty here, one of my first assignees as an undergraduate advisee was somebody from Hawaii, and he told me, asked him what he was going to do this summer, and he said he's going to Israel. So no, really, what's, what's your connection to Israel? He said, Oh, I don't have any I thought, maybe he's a strong Christian. I asked him about that. Said, no, no, I don't have any particular faith. I just heard it's startup nation, and I want to go and experience it.  And I just think, how many students today is their first association with Israel, startup nation? Probably not that many anymore, but we can get back to that and realize that it's more than startups, right? It's basic science, it's the arts, it's culture. And so there's much that Israel has to offer the world, and we want to get back to the point where that's the first thing people think about Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So this initiative did start at MIT, but it appears to be sprouting, to use a pun, it appears to be sprouting on other campuses. Dartmouth is developing a chapter and Penn, right, the University of Pennsylvania. Are they being led by fellow scientists who have seen the consequence of this scholastic snub, for lack of a better word? Ernest Fraenkel:   So at each university, and there are several others in the works that are still working their way through the administration at each university, and by the way, this is not a renegade effort. At each university, the faculty form a faculty board, we encourage them to find a diverse group. So it's not all the sciences on our board. And on those boards, there seem to be many members of humanities departments. Not all Jews, not all Israelis.  And these diverse faculty boards are people who are allied with the goals, and we have bylaws. This is a program entirely about positivity. It's not attempting to suppress anybody else's speech. It's not attempting to make any political points. It's a purely academic program that will help restore the image of Israel as a place of academic excellence and help the United States maintain its academic edge through those collaborations. Or Hen:   And I think you're hitting on a very unique point, right? And that is that this is entirely faculty led program. When you think about the role of faculty in universities, especially faculty from STEM fields, right, we don't lead a lot of things in the academic world that are not our research, right? Honestly, that's kind of, why am I here and not in Google, right? I would probably make a much bigger salary for Google these days.  I'm here because I really care about my research, those open questions I really want to explore, and that's what I'm doing. So I'm teaching my class, and I'm focusing on my research. And me is everybody else around me, that's what we do. So there is a very high activation energy to get the faculty to do something that is not their research, their own research, but once you do that, faculty is a force of nature at the university. That's kind of what we're here to stay, right? We'll tenure, we're going to be at the retirement. We run the place eventually.  So it's both to activate the people who can really make an impact from within in a very strong way. That's number one, who have these decades of connections, right? Well before the challenge, you know, I've had my 10 years of collaborations here at MIT, and this has a lifetime of more than 10 years of collaborations here, right? And many of us and people remember those connections, right? Remember how we teach together, how I lent them something from my lab, and stuff like that, right? We have these personal connections.  So it is really the first and uniquely faculty led program that is very helping to come back, see faculty do that. There's a lot of power, and that's also why it's such an academically focused program, because that's what we know how to do. There's many other who can combat antisemitism and can give antisemitism training and title six and all that. And we don't do it, not because it's not important, just because we are not the people who bring in unique expertise in those areas, but when it comes to research collaboration, connections with Israel around those things, we are the ones who can really promote it from within in a way that's unpowered and parallel to anyone else. And that's the, I think the strongest point of Kalaniyot, the faculty leadership.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   In other words, you're not activists, you're not advocates. That's not what you set out to do. You are researchers, scientists who just want to do research in science. Or Hen:   And when I see everybody around us do the best research and science possible, which means engaging with the brightest minds anywhere in the world, and that includes Israel.  And we don't want to see that door shut down. There's no hiding it – Ernest and I are Zionists, we're not going to shy away from that. And we think that an academic boycott in the STEM is a risk to Israel. Israel doesn't have oil, right? What Israel has is the Jewish mind, and that mind is the thing that helps Israel, and that mind is the thing that helps the world. And we can go on and on about inventions and discoveries that came out of Israel and Israelis and Jews for the benefit of mankind. So both for the benefit of Israel and all of humanity, we don't want to see the Israeli Academy get isolated. It's going to be bad for all of us. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Now I know that there is a program at Indiana University called Olamot, focusing on the humanities. Does this only apply to STEM fields, or do you also have partnerships and collaborations developing across multiple disciplines? Ernest Fraenkel:   Yes, absolutely, this is a program that's open to all academic fields, and each university will craft a slightly different program, we're sure. At MIT, because we're STEM dominated, our Kalaniyot program is dominated by STEM, but it's not exclusively STEM here, either. We do have deep involvement with several of our board members in the humanities. Many of the people who come to our programming are in humanities. We're hoping that some of the scholars whom we will select in our first cohort of post doctoral and sabbatical visitors will be in the humanities, but that's going to be much a bigger component of it at other universities such as Dartmouth and Penn, where they have huge humanities programs. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And are you getting mostly support, or are you getting any pushback from faculty members?  Ernest Fraenkel:   So this is really fascinating. Early on, when we first started formulating this program, we wrote a memo explaining, a letter, explaining why we were doing this for something called the faculty newsletter, which is usually a place where people write fairly anti-Israel things, and we kind of braced ourselves for the pushback. And nothing came back. There was no pushback. Because if you believe in academic values in the United States, unless you're a hardcore BDS person, there's really nothing objectionable here.  Our goal is to bring brilliant scholars to campus and encourage them to be able to work broadly, without regard to nationality, religion, anything else, any other protective category. And so we were very pleased. And initially, you know, the administration was curious. They were interested. They wanted to review exactly what we're doing. The MIT administration went through everything we're doing, and they gave us the thumbs up, and they've now been helping us make connections and behind the scenes, I believe, I understand that, you know, some provosts and presidents occasionally talk about this when they meet and they, you know, tell each other it's not a bad thing to have at your University. Or Hen:   I remember when we kind of got people to know the program, we met with a very high ranking individual at MIT. And that person said, Look, MIT stands on three legs: research, education, and entrepreneurship. Israel excels in all three. Of course, we want those connections. Of course we want those collaborations. And who in the right mind can say that this is anything political, right? Now I'm sure that some people will try at some point. But like Ernest said, we've worked very hard on the language and the messaging to make sure that the language and messaging reflects the way we really see it, as a very strong academic program. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So, Dr. Hen, I do want to ask you a personal question. I have read that as a child, you navigated some pretty significant learning disabilities stemming from dysgraphia. You have difficulty translating your thoughts into written form, but the assessment to determine those disabilities also determined that you had a unique gift for abstract comprehension, the ability to conceptually pare down complex ideas to their fundamental core. So I wanted to ask you, in your opinion, what is at the fundamental core of these academic boycotts? Or Hen:   Honestly, I do believe that the academic boycotts come from antisemitism. That's the core. I do believe that there are a lot of people who engage in that, not understanding that is what they're doing. I'd like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think that a lot of people do see a difference between anti-Zionism, anti-Israel, antisemitism, right, which I personally do not share. And that's a different point of view, which is allowed. But I think at the end of the day, trying to isolate Israel, eventually is from a top level, and attempt to bring down the country, because that's the core. Core of Israel is its academics. That's really where it all starts. And if we don't have academia, if we're attacking the Israeli Academy, you're attacking Israel. And any person who takes the time to learn about the Israeli Academy, who listens to speeches by the head of Tel Aviv University about the judicial reform in Israel. Who listens to the head of the Israeli National Academy about how he sees democracy and what he sees about the war, situation, you would learn that the Israeli Academy is really the hallmark of independent academia that stands by itself, as an independent body that really promotes research and good for the world. And anyone who attacks that either doesn't know or doesn't care to know, and I'd like to hope that most people don't know, and once they'll know and appreciate the people, they will see different people. There is a core that doesn't want to know, and okay, we need to make sure that that call remains as small as possible. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Dr. Fraenkel, do you agree? Ernest Fraenkel:   I'm by nature, a centrist and not a political person, and I also have learned over time that it's very hard to understand other people's motivations. But I do think that one of the paths to it, to solving the problem, is to re-humanize Israel and Israelis in the minds of the people who are currently protesting. And I think we'll have good results if we do that. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I'm curious, we've been talking a lot about Israeli research and innovation. Can you kind of share a piece of Israeli innovation that you've heard about recently, that maybe our audience has not and should know about? Ernest Fraenkel:   I was just at a conference yesterday, and one of the best talks yesterday, this was at a conference on ALS, was given by a researcher from the Weitzman Institute, Eran Hornstein. And he spoke about an entirely new way to analyze what goes on inside cells in the course of disease. He calls it organellealomics, I think. It's kind of a mouthful, but it was completely innovative. No one has anything similar. It allows you to get a wonderful view of all the different processes that are going on in the cell at a very high level, in a way that is experimentally very accessible. And I think it's really going to transform a lot of how we research diseases, and may lead to some rapid advances in some of these tough cases. Or Hen:   Yeah, I can add to that, you know, from the more industry side of things, right? We all have technology in our pockets, in our homes, in our offices, developed in Israel. The most advanced processors by Intel are built on architecture that was developed in Haifa. Apple has engineering centers in Israel. Facebook has engineering centers in Israel, Nvidia. All of us use Israeli technology day in and day out. We either know it or we don't. But there's not a single person in the western world that does not rely on Israeli technology sometime, someplace, some point in his day. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And when you were at that conference, Dr. Fraenkel, or Dr. Hen, consider that, when you pull out your phone and consider the many ways in which we use Israeli technology, does that further validate, does it affirm that what you are doing is the right thing to do, and that this will only benefit humanity at large? Ernest Fraenkel:   In biology, we often do these experiments where we delete a gene, we make it stop working, and we see what happens to the cell or to the animal that we're studying, right? And just do the thought experiment. What would happen to American science if it didn't have these strong collaborations with Israel? And be weaker in consumer electronics, and be weaker in AI, we would be weaker in all the underpinnings of all the technology that we're all walking around with every day.  We'd be weaker in healthcare. Think about the contribution that Israel made to understanding what was going on during the COVID pandemic, right? It's just shocking how much we would lose from this small country not being there.  And absolutely, when we think about that, it just drives us even more to try to get this program to spread across all the best universities in the United States, and hopefully we'll make inroads in Europe as well and really bring Israel back to the forefront in everybody's mind as a place where positive things are happening. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, thank you both for joining us so much and for sharing about this program. Really do appreciate it. It's fascinating and refreshing to learn that academics are supporting academics. Ernest Fraenkel:   Thank you very much. Real pleasure to speak with you.

AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson sits down with U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, for a live discussion in Washington, D.C., to introduce AJC's Center for a New Middle East. They cover plans for rebuilding Gaza, the future of Israeli-Arab relations, and the evolving geopolitical landscape, including the impact of the Abraham Accords and shifting regional alliances. Tune in for insights on diplomacy, security, and what's next for the Middle East. The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Resources: AJC Center for a New Middle East Initiatives and Policy Recommendations Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  Why Germany's Antisemitic Far-Right Party is Thriving Instead of Disappearing Spat On and Silenced: 2 Jewish Students on Fighting Campus Hate University of Michigan Regent Jordan Acker: When Antisemitism Hits Home Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Jason Isaacson and Steve Witkoff: Manya Brachear Pashman: This week, AJC's Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, Jason Isaacson, sat down for a live conversation with Steve Witkoff, the US Special Envoy to the Middle East. They discussed plans to rebuild Gaza, political upheaval in Syria and Lebanon and expansion of the Abraham Accords. For this week's episode, we bring you that live conversation to you. Jason Isaacson:   Good evening, everyone. Thank you for being here, and thank you Special Envoy Witkoff for participating in this evening's program, introducing AJC Center for New Middle East, and extension and refocusing of the work that we've been doing for decades to advance Arab Israeli understanding, cooperation and peace. Your presence here means a great deal to us.  As you've heard from my colleagues, AJC looks forward to working with you and your team in any way that we can to help ensure the success of a secure Israel, fully integrated in the Middle East. Now let me begin by thanking you again, renewing our thanks and thanking President Trump for your relentless efforts, which began even before the President took office, to assure the liberation of the hostages still held by Hamas and Gaza now for 508 days, we know how dedicated you are and the President is, to gaining the release of Edan Alexander, the last living American hostage, and the remains of the four other Americans, Itai Chen, Gadi and Judy Weinstein-Haggai, and Omer Neutra, and all of the hostages living and dead, still held captive by the terrorists.  So I want to point out that leaders of the Hostage Families Forum are with us here this evening. As is Emmet Tsurkov, whose sister Elizabeth Tsurkov was kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq two years ago. We are all counting on your and your colleagues' continued efforts to free them all. Thank you again, Steve.  Now my first question to you, how does a successful real estate developer make the transition to Middle East diplomacy, as you certainly have. Clearly, there are profound territorial issues at play here, but there are also powerful and tangible factors, perhaps less easily negotiated, factors of historical narrative, of religion, of nationalism. How do you cut through all that? How do you achieve success given the very different career that you've pursued up to this point? Steve Witkoff:   Well, first of all, Jason, thank you for having me, and welcome everybody and to the hostage families, I just want to welcome you here. Some of the people I probably have talked to already, and just know that my heart is always with you. You know, President, I'm a very close friend of President Trump's, and I think he felt that, hopefully, that I could do a good job here. And so I think the job had a lot to do with miscommunication and correcting that. It had a lot to do with getting over to the region and understand what was happening, and maybe most importantly, it had a lot to do with his election and peace through strength and the perception that he was not he was going to take a different path, that the old policy prescriptions that that had not worked in the Middle East were not going to be tolerated by him anymore. And I think that's in large part what allowed us to get a positive result.  Adding to that, of course, was all of the good work that Prime Minister Netanyahu in his administration had achieved with Nasrallah Hezbollah in Lebanon, he had basically gutted Hamas. So many good things that happened. And you know, on top of that, the raids in Iran, and it created this perception that a lot of the a lot of what emanated out of October 7 was never going to be tolerated again. And that began the, you know, that began the pathway to achieving the result we achieved in the first phase. But that's just half of the problem. So we've got a lot more to go. Jason Isaacson:   I've got some questions about that, as well as you can imagine. Help us understand the President's priorities and therefore your focus in this very complicated region. There's the continued trauma of October 7, 2023 dozens of Israeli and other hostages still held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza, and the deep wounds inflicted on Israeli society in that attack. There's the need to rebuild Gaza and to assure it is no longer governed by Hamas.  There's the prospect of advancing normalization between Israel and Arab states building on the Abraham Accords of the first Trump administration. There are also political upheavals and some hopeful signs, although the jury is still out in Lebanon and in Syria, and there's the ongoing threat to peace and stability posed by the Iranian regime. How do you prioritize? What are your expectations for success on these many tracks. It's an awful lot to deal with. Steve Witkoff:   That was, I think I counted like 14 questions. Jason Isaacson:   This is my specialty, by the way. Steve Witkoff:   I can see. I have to, now you're testing my memory on all of this. Jason Isaacson:   Priorities.  Steve Witkoff:   Yeah, I would say, How does the President think about it? Well, first and foremost, he wants something different for the region, yeah, and different in the sense that the old way of thinking we've they've rebuilt Gaza three or four times already. Like that's just an unacceptable use of resources. We need to do it in a much more in a much better way, a. B, we need to get rid of this crazy, ideological, psychopathic way of thinking that Hamas thinks. What they did, it can never be tolerated. I saw a film that many in this in this room did not see, made by Southern Command when I was in Gaza, and it's horrific. I mean, it is a horrific film. What happened in this film and what they did to people.  So this is not, this is not the act of people who are going to war. This is the act of barbarians, and it can never be tolerated. Normalization is critical for the region. Saudi Arabia embraces it because they can't finance in their own markets today. And why? Because there's so much war risk. I actually saw Jamie Diamond today, and I discussed it with him, and I said to him, you know, think about an area like Saudi Arabia. They have tons of money, but they can't leverage their money. And they can't because the underwriting risk on war, it can't be underwritten. So you're not going to see typical senior financing. Go into those marketplaces they can finance if they do a deal in New York and they can't finance in their own country. Makes no sense. And that's going to lead to a lot of stability.  In terms of the Iranian crescent, it's basically been decimated. Look at what's happened with Syria. No one ever thought that that was going to happen. We've got an epic election in Lebanon. And so tons of things happening. Lebanon, by the way, could actually normalize and come into the Abraham Peace Accords, as could even potentially Syria. So so many profound changes are happening there, and yet it's been a flash point of conflict, and I think that there's a possibility that we end it. Now, do we have to make sure that Egypt is stabilized? Yes, they've got some issues, economic and financial issues, and also on their streets. Same thing with Saudi Arabia, and we have to be cognizant about that. But all in all, I think there are some really good, good things that are happening.  Jason Isaacson:   Yeah, and I hope with your intervention and the president's power, more good things will happen in the coming months.  Steve Witkoff:   We're hopeful.  Jason Isaacson: So you've recently returned from your latest trip to the region with meetings at the highest levels in Israel, in Saudi Arabia, in the United Arab Emirates, next Tuesday in Cairo, will be a meeting of the Arab League to discuss the future of Gaza. What is your sense of, drills down on your last answer, what is your sense of the region's readiness to advance to the next phase of negotiations, to free the Israeli hostages, to shift to a new Israeli force posture in and around Gaza, and put a governing structure in place that excludes terrorists. Can we assure that Hamas no longer rules, no longer poses a threat, that its missiles, tunnels and other infrastructure in Gaza are destroyed? Steve Witkoff:   Well, you know, central to the May 27 protocol that was signed with the Biden administration and the Israelis. Central to that is that Hamas cannot have any part of  a governor governing structure in Gaza. And that's from that's a red line for the Israelis, but it's a red line for us, too. You see the film. And we have to thread that needle in phase two of the negotiations.  Jason Isaacson: How do we get there?  Steve Witkoff:   We're not entirely sure yet, but we are working. You know, we're making a lot of progress. There is, Israel is sending a team right now as we speak, it's either going to be to Doha or to Cairo, where negotiations will begin again with the Egyptians and with the Qataris, and I may if that negotiation goes positively enough. This is the initial phase of the negotiation where we've set, we've set some boundaries, some contours about what we want to talk about and what the outcomes we expect to happen. This is from the United States at the direction of President Trump. If it goes well, maybe I would be able to go on Sunday to execute and finish an arrangement. That's what we're hoping for. Jason Isaacson: Put phase two on track.  Steve Witkoff:   Put phase two on track and have some additional hostage release, and we think that that's a real possibility. We had a lot of conversation this morning about that, and with all of the parties I'm talking about, and people are responsive. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. That's a very chaotic place the Middle East. Jason Isaacson:   But you've got cooperation from the Quint, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar.  Steve Witkoff:   Yes. All of those countries in that region, they want to see, they want to see stability. There's new young leadership there. Everybody understands that it's untenable to be at war all the time. It just doesn't work, and it's setting everybody back. Look at Israel, by the way, they're drafting, they're conscripting people at 50 years old to go to go to the fight. That's, uh… Jason Isaacson:   And reservists are being called back to duty again and again. Steve Witkoff:   Correct. People can't work, by the way, economies are suffering throughout there. But on the other hand, Hamas can't be tolerated either, and yet, we need to get the hostages back to their families. Pardon me? Jason Isaacson:   Israel is still resilient. Steve Witkoff:   Of course it is. Of course it is. But we, you know, look, I don't want to talk about all these things and not acknowledge that the most that the primary objective has got to be to bring those hostages home. It has to be. Jason Isaacson:   I mentioned the Quint before: Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar. Egypt and Jordan, longtime peace partners with Israel, were proposed by the president as the possible place in which Palestinians evacuated from Gaza could be housed temporarily, or perhaps more than temporarily. What is your sense of the possibility of the dislocation of Palestinians from Gaza? Is that essential to the idea of rebuilding Gaza, or not essential? Steve Witkoff:   Well, first of all, let me acknowledge King Abdullah, and also the Egyptians, General Hassan, who runs their intelligence unit. President Sisi, their ambassador. They're dug in. They're focused on solutions. It's a complicated situation right now, but they've done a great job, and they've been available, and whenever I call them, they're responsive.  The Jordanians have had a tough trip here, but, you know, they've managed through it. But let's just talk sort of about what the President talks about. Why is he talking about Gaza in the way he's talking about it? Because all the for the last four decades, the other ways of thinking have not worked. We sort of always get back to this place.  First of all, it's a giant slum. It really is, by the way, and it's a slum that's been decimated. On top of that, I was the first American official to go there in 22 years. I was literally there in the tunnels, on the battlefield. It is completely destroyed. There's 30,000 shells that are laying all over that battlefield, in large part because the Biden administration held up munitions shipments to the Israelis, and they were firing 1973 vintage ammunition that didn't explode. Who would let their children wander around these places?  In New York, there would be yellow tape around it. Nobody would be allowed to come in the they were digging tunnels. So everything underneath subterranean is swiss cheese, and then it got hit by 2000 pound bunker bombs. So you could have dust down there. It's so devastated. I just think that President Trump, is much more focused on, how do we make a better life for people? How do we change the educational frameworks? Right now, people are growing up there, in textbooks, in the first grade, they're seeing AK47's, and how you fire them. That's, that's, this is just insanity. What's going on out there.  So we have to directionally change how people are thinking there, how they're going to live together. People talk about two state we at the Trump administration, talk about, how do you get to a better life if you have a home in Gaza in the middle of a slum that hasn't been fixed up correctly, is that as good as aspirationally having a great job and being able to know that you can send your kids to college and they can become lawyers and doctors and so forth? That to me, is what we want to achieve. And when, when we began talking about Gaza, we were not talking about a giant eviction plan.  What we were talking about was the fact, unlike the Biden administration, and this is not a knock on them, it's that they didn't do their work correctly, the Biden administration, that May 27 protocol is based on a five year redevelopment plan. You can't demolish everything there and clean it up in five years, let alone x-ray it on a subterranean level and figure out what foundations exist, or what, what conditions exist to hold foundations, and then what we should build. It's easily a 15 year plan, and it might be 20 or 25 years.  And the Wall Street Journal, one of the most mainstream publications, two days ago, finally came out with a major article talking about that and basically validating what we've been talking about. Once you understand it from that perspective, you understand it's not about an eviction plan. It's about creating an environment there for whoever's going to live there that's better than it's ever been in the last 40 years. Jason Isaacson:   Steve, thank you. Before October 7, 2023 the betting in many foreign policy circles, as you know, was that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel were closing in on a deal to normalize relations, coupled with an enhanced security agreement between the US and Saudi governments and Saudi access to the full nuclear fuel cycle under US safeguards. Where would you say that formula stands today? Is that still the framework that you're expecting will describe the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia and between Saudi Arabia and Israel? Steve Witkoff:   Well, that's why I keep on going back to the May 27 protocol, because it's chock full of misinformation. And so the Saudis were operating, as were the Israelis, as if you could redevelop and reconstruct Gaza in five years. You can't. You can finish demolition, you can finish refuse removal, you can do all of that in five years. But for that, there's nothing else is going to get accomplished.  So when the Saudis talked normalization with the Israelis and defense treaty, they were thinking about it on a five year time frame. Once you begin to think about it as a 15 or a 20 year deal, it almost begs the question, are Gazans going to wait? Do they even want to wait?  I mean, if you're a mother and a father and you've got three kids, do you want to wait 20 years to maybe have a nice, safe home there? And this has nothing to do with relocation. Maybe we should be talking about relocation, or, excuse me, the ability to come back and, you know, later on. But right now, right here, right now, Gaza is a long term redevelopment plan, and I think once the Saudis begin to incorporate that into their thinking, and the Egyptians and UAE and everybody who has a vested interest in Gaza, I think you're going to see development plans that more mirror the way the President is thinking than what the May 27 protocol contemplated. Jason Isaacson:   Are you suggesting that the possibility of normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia will come after there is a fully formed Gaza redevelopment plan?  Steve Witkoff:   I think so. Because I believe that. I believe it's just sequentially logical, because that's when you begin to think about how Gazans are going to think about it. Right now, we're talking about it in the abstract. And there are many countries, by the way, out there, that from a humanitarian standpoint, we've talked to many of them, are actually extending themselves and saying, Hey, look, we'd, we'd love to be a part of some sort of permanent solution for the Gazan people.  No one wants to see the Gazan people in some sort of diaspora, they're sort of disengaged, and that doesn't work. That only is going to fester and lead to more radicalism in the region. So we've got to get a solution for it, but we need to levelset the facts first. And the facts have not been levelset. They've been thinking about this from a perspective of facts that are inaccurate. Now we've level set those facts. We're going to conduct a summit pretty soon with probably the biggest developers in the Mideast region, many of the Arab developers, lots of master planners. I think when people see some of the ideas that come from this, they're going to be amazed. Jason Isaacson:   Steve, thank you. Final question, from AJC's many contacts and visits over many years across the Arab world, including regular exchanges over three decades in Gulf Cooperation Council countries, we've come to believe in the inevitability of Israel's full integration in the region, that the more the region's leaders and elites focus on the potential advantages to their societies, including their security of normal relations with Israel, the more likely it is that we'll achieve that goal. Is that the sense that you have as well, from where you sit? Steve Witkoff:   I do. I think, look, I think that the people of Israel want to live in peace with with the people of the Middle East. And it could be incredible. Jason Isaacson:   And vice versa.  Steve Witkoff:   And vice versa. I had a discussion with His Royal Highness, His MBs, his brother yesterday, the defense minister, an exceptional man, by the way, and we talked about how Saudi could become one of the best investable markets out there, when it can be financed. Think about this. The United States today has the greatest capital market system that the world knows. And when you have a great capital market system, when. You can borrow, when you can lease a car, when you can buy a home and mortgage it all those different things. It drives an economy. It propels it.  Right now in the Middle East, it's very difficult to finance. The banks don't want to operate it. Why? Because tomorrow a Hootie missile could come in if you're building a data center, and puff it's gone. We don't have to. Banks don't have to underwrite that risk in New York City or Washington, DC or American cities. So I think as you get more stabilization there, I think the real estate values are going to go through the moon. And we talk about this, Israel is a bedrock of great technological innovation. I think you know, all of the Arab countries, UAE, Saudi, Qatar, they're into blockchain robotics. They're into hyperscale data centers. These are the things that interest Israel, and yet they're driving so much of the tech surge out there. Imagine all of them working together. It could be an incredible region, so we're hopeful for that prospect. That's that's the way the President thinks about it. We've we talk at length about this, and he gives us the direction, and we follow it, and that's his direction. Jason Isaacson:   I thought I heard applause about to begin, but I will, I will ask you to hold for a second, because I just want to thank you, Steve whitco, for sharing your vision and the President's vision for how to move forward to build a more stable and prosperous and peaceful Middle East and and you've laid it out for us, and we very much appreciate your Thank you.  Steve Witkoff:   Thank you.  Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with AJC Berlin director Remko Leemhuis about the victory of a centrist right government in Germany's recent election and its plans to build a coalition excluding the far-right, antisemitic political party, Alternative for Germany. Remko and I discussed why that party's unprecedented post war election returns are a cause for concern.

“In Germany after 1945 . . . it was always sort of an unwritten rule or law that the more radical these [right wing populist] parties become, the less votes they get, and at some point they just disappear. And what is troubling with the AfD is that the more radical they become, the more votes they get.” Following Germany's recent election results, the far-right party AfD, or Alternative for Germany, is now a more prominent force than ever, doubling its support. Director of AJC Berlin Lawrence and Lee Ramer Institute for German-Jewish Relations Remko Leemhuis breaks down the rise of AfD, the role of Christian Democrat's Friedrich Merz—widely expected to be Germany's next chancellor—and the challenges ahead for Germany's relationship with Israel and the United States. Leemhuis also discusses the dangers of political polarization and its consequences for the Jewish community in Germany. As the Christian Democrats form a coalition and Merz takes the lead, how will Germany navigate the rise of populism while strengthening its alliances on the global stage? Resources: -What is the Alternative for Germany or AfD Party? Listen – AJC Podcasts: -The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. -People of the Pod:  Unpacking Trump's Gaza Plan The Oldest Holocaust Survivor Siblings: A Tale of Family, Survival, and Hope Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What's Next Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Remko Leemhuis: Manya Brachear Pashman:   German citizens went to the polls on Sunday for the fourth snap election in that nation's postwar history. Public opinion surveys indicated that the far right party, AFD Alternative for Germany, was poised to play a larger political role than ever before.  The party also has attracted significant attention from US political leaders of late, including US Vice President JD Vance, who, in addition to visiting a Holocaust concentration camp during a recent trip to Europe, also met with Alice Weidel, the head of Germany's AFD party. Here to discuss the outcome of the election, its impact on Germany's relationship with Israel, and the German Jewish community is AJC Berlin director Remko Leemhuis. Remko, welcome to People of the Pod.  Remko Leemhuis:   Hello, and thanks for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So if you could just brief our audience on who exactly AfD is- what their history is and their ideology? Remko Leemhuis:   So the party started out in 2013 and started out as a – I don't want to make it a joke, but they started out as a sort of party of professors who were in opposition to the European austerity policy during the financial crisis. Meaning, especially keeping Greece, who was in a deep financial crisis, and they advocated for expelling Greece, for example, from the European Union, because they were afraid that their debt will be then sort of distributed among all member states of the Europeans. So that was their starting point.  But that was also their only issue. And I remember that in 2015 they were around 3-4%. But then the party changed. We had, as many of your listeners know, the influx of over a million refugees from mostly Syria, and the party sort of reinvented itself. And from then on, migration policy, illegal migration, all of the issues connected to these issues were at the center. And from there, they rose, and again, radicalized ever since. And right now, the migration issue is their central issue on which they are campaigning.  And it doesn't matter what you ask. I've seen a lot of these debates that we have before elections with all the heads of the parties, and it is really astonishing how the party is always able to tie every single issue to migration, be it taxes, be it–you can come up with every issue. At the end, it's always about migration, illegal migration, and migrants. And that is something that is their central platform. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well the Trump administration also made illegal immigration central to its platform, but I think what AJC here in America found so alarming about Vance's meeting with Weidel, perhaps there was alarm there in Germany too, was the party's clear record of antisemitism and hostility to America. Weidel herself has called Germany a “slave state” to America and Germany's Holocaust remembrance culture a “guilt cult”. AJC pointed these things out after the vice president's meeting.   So did AfD do as well as expected, Remko? What are the election results so far?  Remko Leemhuis:   So we had the highest voter turnout since 1990. We were above 80%. 83-84% which is the highest turnout since 1990, so the elections after reunification.  The AfD was able to double their result. In the last general election that around 10%, now they came in with 20%. And just for comparison, the Social Democrats came in with 15, close to 16%. So this is something that should concern us very much.  The Christian Democratic Union, so the German conservative center right party won the election. Although not with that many votes as expected. So their aim was 30% plus X. They now have 28-29% but still they are the strongest party. And given German election tradition, the party with the most votes then forms the government and invites other parties to form a government. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And that means that Friedrich Merz is poised to be the next chancellor. Is that correct? Remko Leemhuis:   Yes, if he's able to form a government, yes. I mean, at this point, he still has to talk to one party, and this will be the Social Democrats, even though they lost almost 10% compared to previous elections. Together, they have a majority, and everything indicates that they will form the next government. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Is there a possibility that Alternative for Germany or AfD could be part of the coalition as well?  Remko Leemhuis:   No, that has been ruled out by Friedrich Merz, given that he was ahead on the polls for at least over a year, he has ruled this out on numerous occasions. He has ruled it out yesterday in interviews, so there's no chance that the AfD will be part of a federal government. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So is there any reason for concern, given the trajectory of this election, and given AfD's results in this election? They came in second, correct? Remko Leemhuis:   There's a lot of reason for concern, because  we can say, of course, this is a broader trend in Europe and in the Western world, that you have the rise of these right wing populist parties. But in Germany, after 1945, it's not the first time that we have right wing extremist parties in Parliament, state or federal, but it was always sort of an unwritten rule or law that the more radical these parties become, the less votes they get, and at some point they just disappear.  And what is troubling with the AfD is that the more radical they become, the more votes they get. And this is something that is pretty hard to grapple with, and where I very honestly, also don't have an answer why they are able to sort of break with this rule. But this is very, very troubling, especially in light of the fact, and that is something that is well known to the German public, that the German domestic security services are surveilling the AfD and classifying them as a case of suspected right wing extremism.  So the whole party and three regional branches of this party are officially confirmed by German domestic security as far right. So which means that they are in opposition to liberal democracy. And this is something that, again, is very, very concerning. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Of course, AfD did not win. The Christian Democratic Union won. Could that victory have any impact on the special relationship between Germany and Israel? This is, of course, the return of the party of Angela Merkel, correct? Remko Leemhuis:   First of all, we have to get credit for the outgoing government coalition, because since October 7, this coalition has been a reliable ally of Israel. Of course, there were issues where there were differences, but in general, the outgoing coalition has stood by Israel's side, which was also recognized by Israel. And it is not just a talking point for Israel diplomats when they say that Germany is Israel's second most important ally.  And they have done it despite the fact that they had a lot of pressure from their respective voter bases, especially the Greens and the Social Democrats. So this is something where we really have to credit these parties. Now, the Christian Democratic Union, as you have mentioned, is the party of Angela Merkel, and it's the party that and she came up with the term of the staatsräson (reason of state), and that Israel's security is essential to Germany's policy.  I think there are areas where the relationship will even improve. And just to give you one example, we are talking, today on Monday, the day after the election. And it's really astonishing. Freidrich Merz gave a press conference today, the first after the election yesterday. And really the first question was about his call that he had with the Israeli Prime Minister yesterday.  And he stated very clearly that he has invited the Israeli prime minister to Germany, and that he will find a way to make sure that the Israeli prime minister will be able to visit Germany without being arrested, given the ICC warrant, something that the outgoing coalition didn't say this clearly or said they will adhere to the ICC arrest warrant. So this is something that, from our perspective, is very positive.  And also, I think that the military cooperation and the defense cooperation between Israel and Germany will again, first of all, all of that will not be, again openly debated, but again in the formats where they belong. And so in general, I would say the relations will improve. But this will not mean that also this government or the next government will only say, and do what Israel wants. But I think in general, the trend and the relationship will be more positive and even improve. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So what about relations with the United States? As I mentioned before, Vice President Vance met with one of the AfD leaders. Do you foresee that relationship changing significantly? Remko Leemhuis:   Well, first of all, I have to say Freidrich Merz is very committed to the transatlantic relationship. But yesterday, again, in a post-election interview, he said something that I thought I would have never hear from him. But he said that, We in Europe maybe have to grapple with the fact that the US will not be the sort of ally that it was before, and that we in Europe have to think about a situation where the US will only be very little or not present at all in Europe. Especially when it comes to war in Ukraine and the support for Ukraine. So even though he is very committed to the transatlantic relationship, given the recent developments he looks much more concerned to Washington and what is happening and what is coming out of Washington. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In other words, he sees a bit of a destabilizing effect when it comes to transatlantic relations and security from the direction of the United States, not within Europe itself. Remko Leemhuis:   Yes, destabilizing is the right word. And that doesn't mean that he doesn't see the failures that Europe and Germany has made over the past years. And I think that's something we also, as AJC, try to highlight every time. That the Europeans, especially the Germans, for decades, haven't lived up to their commitments when it comes to defense spending. And 11 years ago now, after Russia annexed Ukraine and the NATO states agreed on the 2% goal, Germany hasn't met this. And a lot of other European countries that are member of NATO haven't met that 2% goal.  And the discussion about this goes even, you know, way back longer. I think it was even started with President George W. Bush, who always highlighted this issue and that the Germans, the Europeans, have to do more. And especially the Germans as the third-largest economy in the world and the biggest economy in Europe, has to shoulder more responsibility, which means they have to spend more. So he's very aware of the fact of all these shortcomings, and he's very willing to fix that and to spend more money on defense if the US cuts its spending here, if the US withdraws troops from the European continent.  And still being aware that even if you know, Europe does its best, we will not be able to fill these gaps, because we just don't have the resources or the infrastructure to do that. So we still need the US, no matter what. So he will need to find a line, sort of working with the US, and then looking at what can Europe do to become a bit more independent from the US in all of these questions. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let's zoom in and talk about the impact of the rise of AFD on the German Jewish community. Has it given license to those who might otherwise keep antisemitic attitudes to themselves? Remko Leemhuis:   So in general, as I said at the beginning, nothing of this is a big surprise. The AfD in the polls over the past year or so, I would say, you know, fared around 20%. So the result yesterday wasn't a surprise, and it was also not a surprise because we have seen the AfD having even bigger successes in state elections. But of course, this is concerning.  This is concerning because the AfD is also a symbol of polarization, and polarization that we see across the western world, in all democracies at this point, I think, and historically speaking, times of polarization have never been good times for the Jewish community.  But I also have to say that the German Jewish community is also very aligned in how to deal with the AfD, and that means no Jewish organization speaks to the AfD. Every Jewish organization at some point in time has come out against the AfD.  We as AJC have had numerous publication on highlighting the threat to democracy, and by that also to the Jewish community, by the AfD. And the AfD so far, hasn't been successful in using Jews, or, you know, Israel, or pretending to be Israel's biggest friend and the Jewish community's biggest friends. No one, no one buys into that, and everyone can see through that, and everyone understands that this is performative at best. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Here in the United States, people of opposite political persuasions are honestly having a hard time facing each other. Those who voted for Kamala Harris, they see the speed with which Trump is enacting his campaign promises. They're having a hard time facing their neighbors who voted for him, or who had yard signs up for him. People are organizing boycotts of businesses and CEOs who are aligning themselves with Trump.  Is the same dynamic playing out on the ground in Berlin or Munich, for example. Do you see that kind of, as you said, the polarization. Does it play out on the very personal level? Can neighbors face each other? Remko Leemhuis:   Yes. I'm not sure if we see it to the extent that we see it in the US. But of course, we see that and that political questions, political issues, have become a dividing line among friends, among families, and that people stop talking to each other. And that is a very worrying trend, that this happens. I mean, of course, there is a line, where I would say it is legitimate to say, I'm not going to discuss these issues. And I personally, and we as AJC, don't talk to AFD. For the reasons we have talked about there's nothing for us to discuss with them. But yes, I have to say that, especially over the past weeks, we have seen even an increase in this polarization and in this lack of unity, at least in terms of, everyone agrees that it is okay to fight and to fight about the issues and to have even hard debates on issues. And this is part of democracy.  And I guess we Germans also have to learn that, more that democracy means debating things and having hard debates about issues. But the last weeks have seen that it then ventures into contempt and denigration, and if you are not having this position, then you're automatically on the other side, not even to be talked to. And that you don't often run into people that have an opposing view, because we all live in a bubble, and that, I guess, the only place where you encounter people with different opinions is social media. And I guess we can all agree that social media is, for sure, not the best place to debate controversial issues. We all have to come out of our bubbles, that we all have to you know, even if we have political differences with other people, still see that there's much more that aligns us with most of these people, and that if one person doesn't exactly hold the same view as you on any given policy, doesn't mean that it is an inherently bad person. But still, someone that isn't just inherently bad, but your neighbor, your co-worker. And I think that is the biggest challenge for all democratic societies in the West at this point. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Remko, thank you so very much for joining us and for explaining the outcome of this election and what it narrowly avoided. Remko Leemhuis:   Not narrowly but, one thing is clear, and I think that is that is much more what I'm thinking about is that certain issues aren't addressed in a way that people feel, you know, they are addressed and they are taken serious. I mean, we just have to look to our neighbor, Austria, where an openly right wing extremist party is now the strongest party. And we should do everything we can to avoid that scenario. But that means then even having difficult debates and making also difficult decisions.  But, if we want the center to hold, there is no alternative. And that's why our appeal as AJC is. And a lot of people find this lame or undecided, that we have appealed on numerous occasions, also in this campaign cycle, on all democratic parties to find solutions for the pressing issues and to find a middle ground. And this is what we will continue to do.  And also we'll try to continue to then bring together people from different parties to debate these issues and give, you know, these conversations a platform, and do what we can do in order to facilitate such discussions, and hopefully by that, have a healthier culture of debate and a healthier political culture. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much, Remko.  Remko Leemhuis:   Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for the second installment of our two-part series on the faces behind antisemitism as part of AJC's State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report. I ask two Jewish college students about the report's findings that nearly a third of Jewish students in the U.S. reported feeling uncomfortable or unsafe at a campus event because of their Jewish identity. Our guests shared their own experience.

Imagine being spat on as you walk across your college campus simply because you're Jewish or being asked whether you're a “good Jew” or a “bad Jew.” As part of AJC's State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report, AJC and Hillel International partnered to document the experiences of Jewish students on campus over the past year. The findings are deeply troubling: nearly a third of Jewish students in the U.S. reported feeling uncomfortable or unsafe at a campus event because of their Jewish identity, and 43% avoided expressing their views on Israel due to fears of antisemitism. In the second installment of this two-part series, meet two students whose experiences reflect these alarming statistics: Evan Cohen, a senior computer science major at the University of Michigan and Vice Chair of Hillel International's Israel Leadership Network, and Daniel Solomon, a junior studying political science and urban studies at Brown University who serves on AJC's Campus Global Board. Resources: -AJC's Center for Education Advocacy -5 Takeaways from AJC's State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report -Go Behind the Numbers: Hear directly from American Jews about what it's like to be Jewish in America  Test Your Knowledge: -How much do you really know about how antisemitism affects Americans? Take this one-minute quiz and put your knowledge to the test. Start now. Listen – AJC Podcasts: -The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. -People of the Pod:  Unpacking Trump's Gaza Plan The Oldest Holocaust Survivor Siblings: A Tale of Family, Survival, and Hope Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What's Next Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Evan Cohen and Daniel Solomon: Manya Brachear Pashman: As part of AJC's State of Antisemitism in America 2024 report, AJC and Hillel International partnered to document Jewish students' experiences during their time on campus. Last year, the report found that 43% of Jewish college students avoided expressing their views about Israel on campus or to classmates because of fears of antisemitism. 22% of Jewish students report feeling or being excluded from a group or an event on campus because they're Jewish, and 32% of American Jewish students said they have felt uncomfortable or unsafe at a campus event because of their Jewish identity.  Here to share their perspective on the ground are two students who have become advocates for their Jewish peers. Evan Cohen, a senior computer science major at the University of Michigan, is the vice chair of Hillel International's Israel Leadership Network. And Daniel Solomon, a junior political science and urban studies major at Brown University who serves on AJC's Campus Global Board. Evan, Daniel, welcome to People of the Pod. Evan Cohen:   I wish it was under better circumstances, but, you know, it's a pleasure to be here. Daniel Solomon:   Thank you so much for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman: So gentlemen, I just read a bunch of findings from the most recent report. Do they seem too high or too low based on your national vantage points? Evan? Evan Cohen:   So I think these findings are, sadly, not that surprising. We've seen and experienced an unprecedented amount of antisemitism over the past year and a half, give or take. Clearly, it's rising. Clearly students are experiencing this on their campuses, myself included. I definitely think that, you know, there's probably some cases where students are experiencing it more. In some cases it's less, but I think, you know, in general, it's way too high, like we should not be seeing as much antisemism on campuses. Manya Brachear Pashman: And Daniel, what do you think?  Daniel Solomon:   You know, the numbers seem about right. I have the opportunity of helping lead AJC's Campus Global Board, which really has a very wide perspective across the world and also across the United State. And we recently just met as a board in Lisbon where we discussed at length new trends over the past year in college antisemitism and around the world. And this really holds. We really found that this data is reflective of what we find in our qualitative experiences. Manya Brachear Pashman: One finding I did not just share at the beginning is that roughly 35% of American Jewish college students or recent graduates report having personally experienced antisemitism at least once during their time on campus. Did either of you have a personal encounter of your own over the past year?  Evan Cohen:   So a number of months ago, I was walking through the center of campus with a rabbi and a friend of mine, and we were spat at. And the unfortunate reality is, not only were we spat at, but when I tried to report this, I was basically told that, without identifying the individual by name, there was nothing that the university could do. And this was extremely frustrating, because we were spat at. That was a deeply upsetting experience.  It's something that no one should have to go through just for being Jewish, but the fact that there was almost nothing that could be done about it. Besides, you know, maybe you know, here's how we can support you, which was not something that I was particularly in need of. It was disappointing to see that there was no strong response to that. Daniel Solomon:   So shortly after October 7, my friends and I in our apartment, we held a small gathering, and you know, some friends brought mutual friends, and their friends brought mutual friends, which is totally fine. And so someone who I didn't know came up to me and looked at my door frame, and I have a mezuzah on my door frame. And she said, is that your Jew thing?  Which, yes, it is, but it's called a mezuzah. And she said, Well, are you a good Jew or a bad Jew? And I said, What do you mean by that? And I knew exactly what she meant by that. She meant, are you a Zionist? Or are you an anti-Zionist Jew? And the conversation ended shortly thereafter, and we asked her if she would leave.  Manya Brachear Pashman: This report came after the protests and the encampments that roiled college campuses, mostly in the spring of 2024 of the Jewish students who witnessed anti-Israel demonstrations after the October 7 terrorist attacks, 51% said that these protests or encampments made them feel unsafe on campus. How did your universities handle the encampments that popped up on your campuses? Evan Cohen:   There was an encampment on our campus, it sprung up the morning of the first Passover Seder of last year. And I remember receiving a text at six in the morning or something. I woke up, the first message I saw was, Evan, Do you know what's going on? And I said, Oh my god, another thing to deal with. You know, it's about to be Passover like we're supposed to be preparing for the Seder. And, you know, I think that at our university was handled extremely poorly, you know? We were told the encampment is contained, yet it grew in size, you know.  So at first it took over the main part of the center of the Diag, which is the main center of campus area at the University of Michigan, and slowly crept out into farther and farther areas of that center of campus Diag. And it was really disappointing, because at the end of the year, when it's finally warm, students are out there, they're hammocking, they're playing sports, even just reading and studying. And at that point, there was nobody besides those in the encampment. And so it really destroyed the end of year atmosphere that everyone always looks forward to. And again, like I said, I think it was handled very poorly. The university did not contain it. The university waited until after graduation.  They were hoping, I believe they were hoping, that if they waited until after graduation, there wouldn't be disruptions at the graduation. While I personally did not graduate last spring, I  had friends who did, and there were disruptions at that graduation. So clearly, that strategy did not work, did not pay off.  Sometime after graduation, they announced that the encampment was being removed because of fire hazards. Now these fire hazards were hazards the entire time the encampment was there, I saw students plugging in various electronic devices, keeping themselves warm with space heaters.  That's not something that you're supposed to be able to do there, and I do have experience, because I've had to reserve that space for, you know, pro-Israel activities in the past, and so I very much understand, first, what the rules and regulations are and how that process works. Very clearly, these rules were violated. And not only that, there was clear antisemitic imaging and speech that was spewing out of this encampment.  Daniel Solomon:   So, you know, first and foremost, our campus is a very big advocate of free speech, just collectively. So, you know, when the encampment originally went up, you know, the university made sure to emphasize the fact that, you know, it is free speech. But free speech, you know, has, you know, consequences, in the sense that setting up an encampment is against the university policy.  So, within those guidelines, you know, the encampment was up for probably a day or two, and then I remember one evening, the members of the encampment started yelling to globalize the Intifada. And this was sort of the call on the university's end to say this is actually not okay. This is when it teeters on free speech and free expression. And, you know, voicing your opinions, however different they might be than most, this is actually when it gets into hate speech. And so that's sort of the moment that our university leadership really, really took, took control of the encampment, and it ended shortly thereafter.  Manya Brachear Pashman: Of course, most antisemitic content and the anti-Israel vitriol is primarily spread online and on social media, and the data back that up, almost seven in 10 American Jews, 67% reported seeing or hearing anti semitism online or on social media in the past 12 months. The number jumps to 83% for young American Jews between the ages of 18 and 29 so your peers, how has social media, the digital landscape, shaped your encounters with antisemitism? Daniel Solomon:   Social media is a big part of of our generation, and a part of how we how we bond together. Similar to other universities, Brown has a platform called side chat. Other universities, they might be called Yik Yak or something else. But the only way to access this app, which is a private a private company, not, you know, affiliated with brown, but the only way to actually access the brown only channel in Sidechat is to use your Brown email. So it's sort of an anonymous message board where anyone can post whatever they feel, whatever they think. Sometimes it's funny memes. Sometimes it's satire.  In the context of the post October 7 world on Brown's campus, it was nothing, but, you know, atrocious really. It was really just a cesspool and a hotbed of antisemitism. And anti-Israel rhetoric that absolutely veered into antisemitism, but also really just classic, flat out antisemitism, you know, pointing out Jews in in, in great positions of authority in the country, and on college campuses specifically, and sort of trying to connect dots that really aren't connectable. And so Side chat was really just a really terrible hotbed of antisemitism.  And then also, you know, those who were more bold antiSemites would really just blatantly, you know, leave comments in Instagram posts, you know, with their profile name visible, so you knew exactly who they are. And so, you know, the digital, the digital landscape, was absolutely a pretty crucial part of what comprised, you know, the anti semitism happening.  You know, as I mentioned before, the campus, the campus that we see now is really the one, is really the one that I that I remember, you know, in my freshman year, the one that I made some of my closest friends, on the one where I developed some of my, you know, some of my academic ambitions. The campus that I really fell in love with is the one that I'm seeing now, and much different than the situation that we were in last year. Evan Cohen:   I could talk about, you know, two specific examples. One example was the president of our SJP chapter. Sometime, I want to say, around last March, posted something to her personal public account that said something along the lines of death to everyone who supports the Zionist state, death and more, death and worse. And I believe that Regent Acker, who was on the podcast relatively recently, actually spoke about this, I think.  And that was deeply disappointing to see, because, you know, studies have shown. I even read a study recently, I think it said that about 80% of American Jews support Israel, meaning they believe in Zionism, the right for Israel to exist safely and securely, for Jews to live there in our ancestral homeland. And so to say that, you know, that's basically calling for the death of Jews, the death of fellow classmates, fellow students. So that was, you know, extremely challenging to see and to deal with.  And ultimately, there were effectively no consequences. The student graduated last, last spring. And you know, we saw, we saw nothing, no repercussions from this, this activity. Another example of online anti semitism. What I experienced was during a trip to Israel last May. As part of this trip, I was going to be bearing witness to the atrocities of October 7, and so we were sharing, me and another student from the University were sharing some of our experiences, and a screenshot was taken of us, and then over, over, on top of it were overlaid messages like settlers scum, and these students were celebrating genocide.  Manya Brachear Pashman: Evan, how have these encounters, both on campus with the encampments and on social media? How have they informed your time working with Hillel on an international level? Evan Cohen:   You know, it's very clear that antisemitism is extremely prevalent. It's clear that anti-Zionism, anti-Israel sentiment, is very prevalent, and that we need to be constantly working toward combating it and supporting students on different campuses, this manifests in different ways. So it requires different tactics, different strategies, depending on what school you're at, depending on what your individual needs are.  But now being in this leadership position, it's amazing to be able to try to offer that support and use my experiences to then help other students on their campuses deal with the troubles that they are going through and what they are experiencing. Manya Brachear Pashman: I want to point out that a lot of this happened after the October 7 terrorist attack. A lot of what you're talking about, of course, the survey itself. But antisemitism doesn't just come from anti-Israel corners and Evan I know there were instances of demonstrators waving Nazi flags in Howell and Fowlerville outside a production of The Diary of Anne Frank. Those are small towns about 30 or 40 miles away from Ann Arbor. Have there been expressions of antisemitism from the far right on Michigan's campus? I think Evan Cohen:   I think it was like the 2022-2023, academic year, the students received hate mail specifically targeting Jews, saying that Jews run the media, that they're responsible for COVID messages similar to that. I want to say that was even around the High Holidays timeframe. And so this was found like, you know, passed out around off campus, student housing. And so a number of students received messages like that. You know, we also saw post October 7 swastikas on or near Jewish buildings, for example, at Hillel one time. And so, you know, we're definitely seeing anti semitism from both sides.  Manya Brachear Pashman: Daniel, your campus Antisemitism Task Force, for lack of a better term, it initially formed in response to hatred from the far right. Is that right or is that correct? Daniel Solomon:   Yeah. So when I was a when I was a freshman, in my freshman fall, a terrible anti semitic threat was sent to the campus rabbi and executive director of the Brown-RISD Hillel that serves both Brown University and the Rhode Island School of Design, and that's sort of where we sort of came together and started really having very proactive and very productive meetings with with Brown's administration.  Partially, I, you know, I will plug just a little bit that. I think that part, you know, the reason why I was so zealous to get involved was the training I received with American Jewish Committee, with the LFT program, the Leaders for Tomorrow High School Program.  So we really came together. Started having these conversations with Brown's administration, and created this really, really positive relationship, which I think is a pretty Hallmark component of being a Brown student, is this really, is this really great relationship that we formed? And I think that, you know, leading into October, 7, part of what made Brown's response so effective was that we had this really dynamic relationship with administrators already, and that, you know, there's really no gap in between Brown's institutional Jewish leaders and Brown's administration.  We have, you know, an incredibly supportive administration. And I think that was something that we saw following the incident and fall of 2022, and something that we continue to see all throughout you know, the post October 7 world. Manya Brachear Pashman: And Daniel, I'll ask you the same question I just asked Evan, how has that experience, that experience on Brown's campus, informed your time on AJC's Campus Global Board? Daniel Solomon:   To be honest, it's actually a little bit of the opposite. I feel as though my time on AJC's campus global board has really provided such an incredible opportunity to understand the global landscape of campus antisemitism. And also, of course, you know, we want to emphasize the global landscape of Jewish joy that's happening on college campuses, because that is definitely not in short supply. Manya Brachear Pashman: You know, I'm curious, do you get questions from your peers back home, your younger peers, questions about whether or not your campuses are the right choice, the right fit for them?  Evan Cohen:   I think it's really important to mention that the Jewish students on campus do absolutely have a home here. We're working extremely hard to ensure that there is Jewish joy on campus, and there are organizations here to support Jewish students. It's imperative that Jews come to campus, that we continue to build a supportive community and that, you know, we're not just hiding, we're not just shying away from this. We're actively working towards improving campus and campuses drastically improved in the 2024-2025 school year compared to the 23-24 school year. So, you know, we're standing strong. We're standing proud, and we're not going to back down.  There is a thriving Jewish community, and we're here to support you. We want you to come here. The University of Michigan has such a large Jewish population in part because a long time ago, the Ivy League schools had quotas on the number of Jews who could attend, and so the University of Michigan did not as such. We have a very strong Jewish community here, and I highly recommend coming here as long as you can bear, as long as you can bear and withstand the cold. Manya Brachear Pashman: Thank you both for joining us, and reflecting on the difficulties of 2024. May 2025 be more peaceful on your campuses.  Evan Cohen:   Thank you very much for having me.  Daniel Solomon:   Thank you for having me. 

What would you do if jars of urine were thrown through the windows of your house in the middle of the night? How would you feel if antisemitic messages were spray painted on your cars? How would you respond if you were targeted simply because you're Jewish? In the first installment of a 2-part series, meet a face behind the alarming findings of AJC's State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report, the first analysis of the impact of antisemitism on American Jews and the U.S. general public for the full-year following Hamas' October 7, 2023 massacre of Israelis. In this week's episode, Jordan Acker, a lawyer and member of the University of Michigan's Board of Regents, shares what happened to him and his family in late 2024 when they were personally targeted by anti-Israel and antisemitic protesters. He criticizes the broader campus climate and faculty's response, while emphasizing the need for productive dialogue and understanding as a way forward, all the while stressing the importance of standing up to antisemitism. Resources: -AJC's Center for Education Advocacy -5 Takeaways from AJC's State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report -Go Behind the Numbers: Hear directly from American Jews about what it's like to be Jewish in America  Test Your Knowledge: -How much do you really know about how antisemitism affects Americans? Take this one-minute quiz and put your knowledge to the test. Start now. Listen – AJC Podcasts: -The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. -People of the Pod:  Unpacking Trump's Gaza Plan The Oldest Holocaust Survivor Siblings: A Tale of Family, Survival, and Hope Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What's Next Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Jordan Acker: Manya Brachear Pashman:   For six years now, AJC has published the State of Antisemitism in America Report, and each year the findings become more alarming and sad. This year's report found that 77% of American Jews say they feel less safe as a Jewish person in the United States because of the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023. A majority of American Jews, 56%, said they changed their behavior out of fear of antisemitism, opting not to wear a Star of David, or put up a mezuzah.  And a third of American Jews say they have been the personal target of antisemitism, in person or virtually, at least once over the last year. While the numbers alone are telling, the encounters with antisemitism behind those numbers are even more powerful.  Here to discuss these findings, and sadly, his own family's experience with antisemitism in 2024 is Jordan Acker, a member of the University of Michigan's Board of Regents. Mr. Acker, welcome to People of the Pod. Jordan Acker:   Thank you so much for having me. On such an unpleasant topic, but . . . Manya Brachear Pashman:   Despite the circumstances, it's a pleasure to speak with you as well.  So I want to tell our audience a little bit about what you experienced in the last year. Last May, the doorbell camera at your home showed a stranger, with their face covered, walking up to the front door, laying a list of demands, signed by the University of Michigan Gaza Solidarity Encampment. Laid those demands on your front porch.  And then a month later, your law office in suburban Detroit was vandalized with anti-Israel phrases, profanity, directed at you personally. And then in December, you and your family awoke one morning to a pretty horrifying sight.  So could you kind of walk through what you encountered last year?  Jordan Acker:   Yeah, absolutely. So you know, what's interesting about this is that as much as I oppose BDS, I was not the person on the board who was speaking about it, the people that were speaking about it were actually my non-Jewish colleagues. We're an elected body, six Democrats, two Republicans, and universally, we oppose the idea of boycotts, divestment and sanctions, and we said so. We've affirmed this in 2018, we affirmed this in 2023.  And at some point, while we had an encampment on our campus, it remained relatively peaceful to what other campuses have dealt with, until they started showing up at our homes. We had this happen, a list of demands. Ironically, including, defunding the police was one of the demands. And then, you know, it went to a different level, when it went from all of my colleagues to just me getting the treatment.  My office is an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood. They went to my office in the middle of the night and spray painted messages all over it, including profanities. But they caused over $100,000 worth of damage. And I don't think that location was unintentional. I think that as people were waking up in the neighborhood, going to synagogue the next day, they wanted to make sure that people in that neighborhood saw what had been done. It was certainly on purpose.  And what was so disturbing about it was that three student groups actually posted photos of it in the middle of the night on Instagram, before the police knew about it, before we knew about it, and then quickly took them down, obviously, because, you know, they realize this is a crime. And then things had remained relatively quiet through the fall.  Experiences had been much different than prior semesters, until I was awoken about two in the morning to jars of urine being thrown through my window. And this had followed up several instances of similar incidents. On October 7, the president of our university, who's not Jewish, his personal home was vandalized. The Jewish Federation in Metro Detroit was also vandalized. The head of our endowment, a member of law enforcement, all of their homes were vandalized with pretty much the same messages. Ethnic related, calling them cowards, demanding divestment. Of course, the worst part for me was obviously the jars flying through my home. I have three small children, and having my oldest woken up to that was terrible. But they spray painted my wife's car with messages to divest, but also upside down triangles, which I think most Jews now take to see as a direct threat. That is a Hamas symbol for a target. And as I've said before, I'm not in the Israeli military. I'm not a military target. I'm not a target at all. I'm a trustee of a public university in the Midwest.  And this kind of behavior, frankly, is unacceptable. It's unacceptable from any members of our community, regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum. And frankly, it's deeply antisemitic. And the fact that there's some people that are questioning that, or wonder why, is part of the problem, part of why we've gotten here. It's a deeply troubling time, I think, for American Jews, for a lot of these reasons. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You said that you are the only Regent who has been targeted in this way any any sense of why. Jordan Acker:   It's a good question. You know, I think there's a few different layers to this. I think being Jewish is a big part of the layer, obviously. But also a part of it is that I have a public social media presence. It's something I've maintained since, frankly, when I was running for this office. This is an elected office, obviously, in Michigan. And I think that has something to do with it, for sure. But the degree in the manner is very, very different. And it's really hard to understand why it would happen in this particular way. Again, except for, you know, an excuse to engage in violent behavior. You know what's so disturbing about this, and what is so heartbreaking to me is that, I understand, you know, for those who are on the other side of this issue, who care deeply about Palestinian rights and Palestinians having their own state? I care about that. I'm the only regent that actually met with SJP prior to October 7. Not because we agree on everything. We do not. But because there's some things that we do agree on. And by the way, the vast majority of American Jews agree on. I think that's what's been so disturbing about everything that's happened since October the 7th in America, is that you probably have no group of Americans that's more empathetic or sympathetic to Palestinians than American Jews. And yet, there's obviously a large group of this protest movement, or the remains of it at this point, that are deeply antisemitic and are using Palestinians essentially as a weapon to go after and to isolate American Jews. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Are you the only Jewish regent? Jordan Acker:   I'm not. At the time, we had three actually, of our eight-member board, were Jewish. But our board is almost universally pro-Israel and almost universally opposed to BDS, and has been for a very long time. And there are lots of reasons for that, but this is, you know, perhaps the person who's been most outspoken about this, interestingly enough, is Denise Ilitch, who, you know, if they were looking to attack a pro Israel business. Well, there are two Little Caesars locations on campus. Right, again, this has nothing to do with being pro-Israel. Coming to my office has a very distinct, very specific message that they're trying to send. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You said there are a number of reasons why the Board of Regents is universally opposed to BDS. Can you explain those reasons?  Jordan Acker:   I think the first one, and I can only obviously speak for myself on this. The board speaks through its pronouncements and its decisions, but the biggest one actually is that, generally speaking, academic boycotts do not add anything to the conversation. They don't get people closer to resolving conflict. They don't even get people talking about conflict. And to me, that's antithetical to the purpose of the American University.  One of the incidents that has most disturbed me over the last few months, other than obviously, the physical violence, but what's disturbed me is a group of mass protesters went to a lecture by a professor named Marc Dollinger, a guest professor on campus, and Marc Dollinger was teaching, as he does, about the relationship between the black community and the Jewish community during the Civil Rights Movement. And a group of mass protesters came in and said, We don't engage with Zionists here. And what I've told people is actually the second part of that phrase is deeply offensive, but the first part of that phrase, “we don't engage with” is actually antithetical to the existence of the University of Michigan, and should be tossed aside.  We do engage. We engage with everyone, and we especially engage with the people that we disagree with. And so, that kind of speech and behavior is, to me, the most problematic. Because, again, American universities are places where deeply unpopular ideas should be thrown around. That doesn't give it as an excuse for violence, but it certainly is a place for deeply unpopular ideas, or for popular ideas, or for anyone who's different than you. That's the purpose of this.  And yet, this movement has again decided that Jews, or people who are affiliated with Israel are uniquely deserving of being tossed out. And it's unacceptable and it's un-American. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Is it just this movement, or has the campus climate been changing more and more in recent years, when it comes to a refusal to engage or the treatment of Jews on campus? Jordan Acker:   I think that. It's a great question. So what I think is that what has changed actually is not the values of the students. Because, look, college students protest lots of things. When I was a student, BDS was an issue 20 years ago. What's actually changed is the faculty. And that's actually what's most concerning to me, is the way that our faculty has behaved, not all of them, and certainly not even a majority or a minority, but a small group, has behaved since this happened. Throughout this process, throughout these protests, any criticism of the methods has been responded to by the faculty as criticizing everything about the movement. And so I think the faculty has actually, frankly, made the situation a lot worse.  You know, one of the things that I that I learn in conversations with other regents and other trustees across the country, and I'll never forget the story, because it's so telling about where we are here, a person was who's a professor at Columbia now, was telling a story about how he protested the Vietnam War. His mentor at Columbia, who was also opposed to the war, after they invaded Hamilton Hall, came up to him and said, I agree with you on what you're thinking. I don't agree with what you're doing.  And we've gotten to this place now for some reason that we can't do that anymore, that our faculty can't say this is bad behavior, period and deserves punishment, while we also may agree with the underlying politics. What has been most disturbing is, is that, for example, our faculty senate still hasn't condemned the attack on the academic freedom of Professor Dollinger, and only condemned the attack on what happened to my family after I called out the Faculty Senate Chair publicly because she feels the need to publicly defend open antisemitism. And yet, when it comes to the safety of Jews, she's too busy. And it's really disturbing, quite frankly, and it's a disturbing reflection on our faculty. But I will say that since I pointed this out, I've had dozens of faculty members reach out to me and say, Thank you, thank you for speaking out about this. I don't feel comfortable either, but I can be fired. You know, these promotion decisions come from this group of faculty.  So what I would say is, that there's real problems with the way faculty have been responding, and unlike students, they're grown ups, they're adults. And certainly, I don't want to infringe on academic freedom, but academic freedom does not include the freedom from criticism, and they deserve a lot of how we've gotten here. Manya Brachear Pashman:   That's interesting that you heard from faculty who were grateful that you spoke up. And I'm curious, you said in an interview last year that since the October 7 attacks in 2023 many of us have been asked to distance ourselves from our Jewish identity. And I'm curious if you are hearing that from some faculty, if you're hearing that from students, can you explain what you meant by that? Jordan Acker:   I will admit that I stole this phrase from Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo, is ‘protest koshering,' right? And that's a really interesting way, I think, of what has been asked of a lot of Jews, that Jews have to apologize for their heritage or for their love of the people of Israel, even if, like me, they don't like the government of the people of Israel, right? And that's, I think, been a big challenge.  But what I've seen mostly is, on our campuses, it's not so overt. It shows up in students avoiding certain classes, students avoiding certain professors, or students simply not speaking up at all. And again, those are really disturbing breaches of student academic freedom to have to choose. Oh, well, I can't take this class or that professor, even if that professor might be good, because I might be judged differently, or I might have to listen to a completely unrelated lecture about the Middle East.  Or even worse, we've had professors, and frankly, they're mostly graduate student instructors, canceling class and encouraging people to go to protests. It's an unacceptable place to be. And again, part of the issue here with the faculty is, knowing where the border of your own political activism is and your taxpayer funded job is, right? They're different, and we have to get back to a place where we respect both of those. We can't stop someone from going out, engaging politically, nor should we. But the person also has a responsibility to not bring that into the classroom, especially when it's not directly related to their class. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And so, what specific examples have you heard from students and faculty in terms of wanting to hide their Jewish identity? Are you hearing any examples of people who perhaps aren't wearing a Star of David necklace or aren't participating in Jewish events because they don't want to be identified as such? Jordan Acker:   I'm not seeing much of that, to be honest with you, and I think that's a great thing. You know, I was really worried about this myself. I attended the last Shabbat dinner at Hillel prior to the end of the previous school year, and there were hundreds of students there, and it felt like any other Friday night. What I've gotten most from students is that they've been annoyed by it, but they haven't necessarily been, they haven't been overwhelmed. It hasn't been like UCLA or Columbia. It's like I said, it's been less overt.  But I do think that there's been some level of, people keep their heads down right. And that's, I think, a big challenge and a big problem here. But I think, again, I think it's worse among the faculty, far worse among the faculty than it is among our students.  I mean, imagine being a Jewish or Israeli professor on campus right now and thinking that someone like this is going to be responsible for your promotion, for your tenure decisions. Those things are highly disturbing, and we see this all the time. Just last night, you know, we see an epidemiologist who people want to protest because he's Israeli.  Well, at some point it says, Well, how is this person able to get a fair shake on their own academic research at our university, if this is what happens every time you know, they're singled out in a way that, frankly, no Chinese student, or Chinese professor would ever be singled out. Because you would know that that would be clearly anti-Chinese racism. Somehow, this seems to be acceptable when it comes to Israelis and to Jews generally. And it's not. And you know, it's a big problem in the academy, quite frankly. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You had also said in a previous interview that there has been an intense policing of Jews' ability to determine for themselves what is antisemitic and what is not. Is that one example, are people actually willing to say, Oh, that's not antisemitic, that just because we protest him, because he's Israeli or Jewish, I would do people, is that what people argue or are there other examples that you can share? Jordan Acker:   Well, you know, I had professors come to me and say, How could you say what happened to your office is antisemitic? How could you say what happened to your house is antisemitic? And I think that, honestly, in a lot of places, it doesn't come from a bad place. I think it comes from a place of not knowing, right? And I think it comes from a blind spot.  And I think that's really the big issue here, is that there's a real lack of education and interest on the far left with, engaging with us. And I think it's frankly, you know, to say, Oh, it's a failure, the far left is not actually doing the Jewish community generally, a service. I think the Jewish community has also, quite frankly, failed when it comes to helping people on the left who are not antisemitic, but have very real, legitimate criticisms of Israel, helping them do so and engage in a way so the conversations are productive, while pushing out actual antisemitism. And that's, I think, a big difference.  I think that we know, and we're very clear, and I know this, having just come back from from Israel about a month ago, that the criticisms of the Israeli government are quite harsh among other Israelis. And I don't think that stopping the Israeli government from being criticized in America is helpful at all either. I think it, frankly, deserves a lot of criticism, just like any other democratically elected government does. But it's the how, it's the what, who's the messenger? How does the message come across, that I think things are really lacking, and people are are really not understanding why it veers so frequently into antisemitism and how to tell people, you know, that language is not acceptable. The person who was the head of the coalition that did our encampment put out a bunch of posts on Instagram saying that anyone who believes in the Zionist entity should die and worse. The problem, obviously, is her own personal antisemitism, which is obvious. But more importantly, the problem here is that nobody says: that's not acceptable, you're gone.  That, to me, is the biggest failure. Because it says we are not policing ourselves in our own behavior, and it discredits movements. But more importantly, it shows what a utter failure this movement has been in order to get anything for Palestinians without hurting American Jews, which has ultimately been the target of so much of this.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   I want to share more findings from the antisemitism report. The survey found that 81% of American Jews are able to divorce their displeasure with the government from their spiritual connection to Israel. In other words, they say caring about Israel is important to what being Jewish means to them. I think this is perhaps, is what you mean, or maybe it isn't, by a blind spot. I mean, is part of the problem on college campuses, that lack of understanding about the American Jewish spiritual connection to Israel? Jordan Acker:   I think that's a big part of it. And I think that's I think that's a big thing that we're lacking when it comes to understanding the story of the Jewish people, but frankly, it's a story that could be told on the other side as well, about Palestinian connection to the land and to the region as well. You know when we talk about where Jews pray, what direction we pray, the importance of Jerusalem, the importance of so many places in Israel, and of that spiritual connection. I think that there is a lack of understanding of that.  You know, one of the things that I got out of my own trip to Israel and meeting with Jewish and Palestinian students, was, they understand, and they believe, correctly, in my view, that the protest movement America has simply Americanized a non-American conflict. This is not settler colonialism or, or some, you know, academic theory. These are two peoples with very deep connections to this land who have a very, very difficult challenge in front of them, and it's different.  And I think that, yeah, I think we have failed at that. I think the whole concept, you know, and I've had this conversation with my friends in the Arab American community, the whole concept of not knowing that, you know, they talk about the Nakba and this, you know, ejection of Palestinians in 1948 and, there is some truth to it, but what they don't know or speak about at all is the ejection of the Jewish communities that were also thousands of years old from the Arab world – at that exact same time. And so I bring this up not to say that one group has more of a claim than the other, or one group has more of a claim for having suffered than the other, but to say that we need to talk about both sides of this narrative, and we're not.  And you know, too much of this movement has brought forward Jews who say things like, you know, as a Jew, I blah, blah, blah, and I have no connection to the Jewish community, or in Israel. But it misses out what the vast majority of American Jews say, and the vast majority of world Jewry says, which is, they do have a spiritual connection to Israel. And it's fine not to, by the way, that's your personal belief, but there's been this mistaken belief that that viewpoint is representative of all of the Jewish community, and while it's a small group certainly, it is not the majority at all. Most American Jews do have an understandable connection to the land of Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Has the conversation on campus been a debate or discussion about the two people who have a connection to the land, or has it focused more on whether Jews have a right to self determination? Jordan Acker:   So I met with students at Tel Aviv University, Ben Gurion University, and Hebrew University, all three of which have very large Palestinian and Arab and Muslim populations. And they recognize the complexity of the conflict. And when I left there, my first, my big feeling about this was deep embarrassment for the way that our students had or so it's not all of our students, but a group of students had acted, you know, this whole concept of genocide and settler colonialism and and it is completely removed from the everyday experiences and understandings of both peoples.  I think the conversation on campus has been wildly counterproductive. I think it has done no good for anyone over there and has only served to hurt people here. You know, I think there's a lot of folks on the other side who genuinely believe that protesting is helpful for the Palestinian people, and do not understand why these specific attacks are so harmful to American Jews. And I don't think, you know, again, I don't think the American Jewish community has done a great job in helping to educate and to push people into places that are not anti semitic, but I think generally, the conversations have been particularly unproductive that they just put people into camps, and people are not able to listen and talk to each other because they use extremely loaded language, and have are looking for social media points. They're not looking for discussions and understanding. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, I will say that the State of Antisemitism in America report found that a majority of Americans, 85% the same number of American Jews, agree that the statement Israel has no right to exist, that foundational core of anti Zionism, that that statement is antisemitic. So I'm curious, does that give you hope that meaningful dialog is still possible? It still could be on the horizon, or has that ship sailed?  Jordan Acker:   No. I think that. I think no ship has ever sailed permanently. I think we're in a far worse place off than we were before October 7. I think everyone is actually in a far worse place off. It gives me hope and understanding that Jews are an accepted mainstream part of American life, and I think that's for a lot of Jews myself included. There was a feeling that we were being intentionally isolated, that our allies weren't standing up and talking for us at the times when we needed them the most. But I think that it's pretty clear at this point that positions like that are a minority that harassing my family. And engaging in violent behavior. Those are a minority.  You know, the group that has been most that called me first, the leadership of the community called me first when this happened to me, was the Arab American community in Metro Detroit, community that I have long relationships with, good relationships with.  You know, I've had the mayor of Dearborn over for Shabbat dinner, and I appreciate and love those and cherish those relationships, but I think that it is totally separate from the question of Israel in whether Jews have a right to exist in America as full citizens, right that we don't have to take we're only citizens if we take certain positions, right? I think that's what, to me, that is most hopeful about, is it shows that that particular position is rejected by the vast majority of Americans. And I think that's a really good thing for American Jews at a time when world Jewry is in a pretty precarious state. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You mentioned that you have three young daughters who awoke to that vandalism in your home that morning. How are they processing all of this? Jordan Acker:   It's been really hard. You know, I think trying to explain to a nine and a seven year old why someone would do this to your family is really difficult. My seven year old said to one of her friends that there are people who are trying to bully daddy. And I guess that's true, and in the technical sense of the word, I think that that's right, but I think that it's really a challenging thing.  You know, my girls are fortunate to go to great public schools with Jews and non-Jews. They're fortunate they do gymnastics in a very diverse community on the east side, which we love. So they get to see and know people of all races, colors, religions, you name it. I mean, Detroit is a remarkable and diverse place, and to think that they were being singled out, I think, is something that they can't quite put their heads around, because it doesn't exist to them. You know, for them, you know, the black girls that they do gymnastics with are the same as the Lebanese girls who they do gymnastics with, same as the Jewish girls they do gymnastics with. It's just, can you complete your round off, right? And that's where I'd like them back to being again. But it's really, really challenging when you've had something like this happen to you. So because the sound is so visceral and it's just so violative of your family, and frankly, of the way America should work, it's, it's, that's why I said at the beginning of this pod, it's un-American to engage in this kind of violence. It's the kind of violence that the Klan would engage in. And you know, that's why we have laws like here we do in Michigan to prevent people from masking in public like this. It's for this exact reason, because that's what the Klan did. And we have to toss it out because it has no place in our society, period. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Jordan, thank you so much for joining us and for kind of explaining the situation on University of Michigan's campus, but also your own family's encounter. Jordan Acker:   Thank you so much for having me, and for your wonderful CEO, I have to end this with a Go Blue, and thanks again.

During a White House press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Donald Trump made a stunning proposal: that the United States take control of Gaza. His remark sparked intense global debate. This week, we break down the implications with Jason Isaacson, AJC's Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer. Jason examines the proposal and shares AJC's perspective on what it means for the future of the region. Resources: AJC Welcomes Trump Affirmation of U.S.-Israel Alliance; Expresses Concern over Proposal for Gaza Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  The Oldest Holocaust Survivor Siblings: A Tale of Family, Survival, and Hope Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What's Next Bring Them Home: Understanding the Israel-Hamas Hostage Deal and Its Impact Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Jason Isaacson: Manya Brachear Pashman:   During a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House this week, US President Donald Trump proposed that the United States “take over and own the Gaza Strip”, suggesting long term control and suggesting the Israel Hamas war would soon come to an end.  Whether one considers the proposal innovative or absurd, the surprising declaration underscored the need for a new approach to Gaza's future. With us now to discuss the impact of the President's words is Jason Isaacson, AJC's Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer. Jason, thank you for joining us. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Manya. It's good to be back. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Jason, I'll just ask you straight up, is this proposal innovative or absurd? Jason Isaacson:   Well, of course, there are people who will say it's both. From my sense of the conversations I've been having in the Middle East over the last several days, last couple of days. First of all, it caught everybody by surprise. It does seem to be a little bit half baked, because there are many questions that arise when one starts digging into some of the details, which have been lacking.  And it's also very important to point out that the day after the President presented this very surprising, innovative, out of the box proposal, there were comments from various White House officials that suggested, you know, don't take it quite so literally as the way it was laid out by the President. Even Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor, suggested that it really, in many ways, is an attempt to kind of change everyone's thinking in the region, and force, urge, somehow move the Arab states to put forward their own innovative proposals. Because clearly, we're stuck, and we've been in a rut for decades, certainly since the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip almost two decades ago.  And over the last year and a half of terrible conflict, the last 16 months of war, it's clear that no reasonable plan has been put forward that will really nail down not only the release of the hostages right away–which is insane that you've had hostages held for 16 months–but not even achieving the objectives that had been laid out at the very beginning of this conflict by the Israeli government, which was the necessity of Hamas no longer ruling Gaza. Because with Hamas ruling Gaza, you will never have a two state solution. You'll never have Palestinian rights. You'll never have peace in that region. You won't have 10s of 1000s of Israelis moving back to their homes in southern Israel, you will not be able to make the kind of progress toward regional peace that is necessary. Hamas is an extremist terrorist organization that wants to kill Jews. Wants to destroy the State of Israel. They don't want a 2-state solution. They want the end of Israel.  So they can no longer be in charge. They can no longer threaten the Palestinian people with their aspirations for political change, and they can no longer threaten the people of Israel. They can no longer govern Gaza. And no one has come up yet with the definitive path forward to eliminate that continued Hamas threat.  So there is a ceasefire agreement, ceasefire hostage release deal, that is in progress right now. Ultimately, the third stage of all of that, after we get through the second stage, which is yet to dawn, would be a new governing structure, but that is still in the future, and it's still not clear that we're going to get there anytime soon.  So the idea of putting forward something bold and new and totally different has a certain logic to it, even if elements of what the President was saying the other night seem to be wanting certain degrees of logic. But we're still trying to figure out whether it was a genuine proposal, or just a slap in the face of the region saying, Okay, let's do something different and bold. Let's move forward. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Even if we aren't supposed to take this proposal quite that literally, can you explain the proposal and what led to it? Jason Isaacson:   Well, the proposal, basically says, if I understand it correctly, that the United States would kind of take charge and would conduct demining and clearing of the rubble and coordinating the reconstruction of Gaza. Which would require, according to the President's formulation, the removal of the Palestinian population. Some 1.7, 1.8 billion Palestinians who live there and are living in terrible conditions right now because so much of the infrastructure and the homes have been either badly damaged or destroyed.  And so there's a certain logic, certainly, if you're a real estate man and you know how to redevelop property, if you're knocking down lots of buildings and you're trying to put up something new, you've got to get the people out of the way. So I can understand that reason, that reasoning. But this is a population that doesn't necessarily want to leave.  Obviously, maybe some do, but it's very clear that there is a long embedded national movement among the Palestinians, which clings to that land, as miserable as the conditions may be there. And so therefore, if you are going to follow the President's plan, which would require the removal of people, they will be removed against their will, many of them, at least, and where would they be moved to? Unclear. The President originally said several days ago that he thought that they should go to Egypt and Jordan.  Both countries have said clearly, as clear as day, no thank you, we do not want them. Palestinians belong in Palestine, which doesn't yet exist. They don't belong in our countries. This was a long standing position of both the Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt.  And then where else would they go? There is no market internationally for accepting hundreds of thousands, let alone more than a million Palestinian temporary dislocated persons. Not clear that they would be away for very long, although I think the way the President was describing this project, we could be talking about a 10 or 15-year redevelopment plan in which he envisions a Riviera on the Mediterranean, another Riviera on the eastern Mediterranean, which is, you know, a wonderful vision, but how we actually get from here to there with so many complications in the way is totally unclear.  There will be so much resistance. There already is. Within hours, there were immediate statements of pushback from the region. So what I hope this will mean is people across the region, and AJC is staying in the region. We've been in Israel for the last several days, we had an AJC Board of Governors solidarity mission to Israel earlier this week, and then a number of us are staying on and talking to people across the region.  We'll get a sense for how the region is responding and whether this plan to prod the region to come up with something decisive that will actually help resolve this problem in Gaza, end the terrorist scourge that makes it impossible to move forward on peace, makes it impossible for Israelis to live in peace alongside their Palestinian neighbors. We'll get a sense of that. Right at this point, really, the ball is in both courts. The American court, because clearly the president wants ownership of some kind of a solution to this problem. Israel obviously has a huge stake in this, a security stake, especially. And the region also wants to move forward, and wants to see a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and frankly, relief for the Palestinians who have suffered through this terrible war over the last 16 months, brought about by Hamas' attacks on Israel of October 7, 2023. So it's a period in which the people in the region cannot tolerate the continued misery in Gaza, the continued threat that Hamas poses to Israel, the continued holding of hostages, dozens of hostages who have not yet been released. We need to see an end to all of this.  The President has put forward a dramatic proposal. It may or may not make sense. It's up for the region to actually step forward and see what else, what else could be put down that will allow us to move forward. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So you are on the ground there. What has been the reaction to it so far on the ground? Jason Isaacson:   Well, I mean, so far, there have been statements issued by regional governments. Some quite detailed. Others, just commentary. Making it very clear that they have no interest in the dislocation of the Palestinian population. And some have really been quite harsh in how they have phrased that. But I think there is also a realization, and I expect to dig into this further in the coming days, that something bold, something that we haven't tried before, is necessary. Because what we have tried before simply hasn't worked. And you even have, 16 months into this terrible war Hamas, still, as the basically the governing authority in Gaza. Even with the Palestinian population there, I think clearly understanding that this misery that they have faced for the last 16 months has been brought about by Hamas, by their cynical policy of placing their entire military infrastructure embedded in a civilian population, so that when they made this brutal series of attacks on October 7 and killed 1,200 people and captured 251 and kidnapped them and been holding them for months, knowing that there would be a massive Israeli retaliation, a massive Israeli effort to bring back these hostages and to punish those who came across the border and killed and raped and pillaged southern Israel.  They knew that that was going to bring about enormous destruction. Palestinians in Gaza recognize that it was Hamas that did this. But still, they're stuck in this terrible cycle of being governed by the very people who have brought about this terrible misery to the people of the Gaza Strip. So we all know that we have to move forward into something different. The ceasefire and hostage release deal allows us in stages, to get to a better place to release all of the hostages. Some 18 were released as of yesterday. I think we're on track to release several more in the coming days and we hope all of them and the conclusion of the second phase.  But we have to get through the second phase, and then we have to get to someplace else. So Hamas can no longer govern. We have to see a way forward to a resolution that allows us to envision peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the well being of the Palestinian population, the return of Israelis to the southern cities and towns and clearly, the release immediately, as quickly as possible, of the hostages who have been suffering for 16 months. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Why do you think the White House has tried to walk back his comments? Jason Isaacson:   Well, President Trump is famous for big ideas and bold statements and also sometimes saying things that kind of upset the norms of discourse. He's known for doing this in lots of different contexts, domestic policy, foreign policy. And it was very clear, the reaction from the region was so sharp, so immediate, that they had to find some way of explaining what the President intended. And the way they have framed it is that basically, this wasn't about the United States owning Gaza. It wasn't necessarily about the United States building luxury resorts and condominiums on the shores of the Mediterranean and Gaza, because there was also a statement that made it clear that there weren't going to be US troops involved, and maybe not even US investment involved.  So it was just clear that there were holes in this plan. It was a kind of a big, dreamy vision, intended as we are hearing from the White House in the days after the President spoke to kind of shake up the establishment, the establishment in the region, the establishment in the sort of the foreign policy community and and force people to come up with a better idea, a clear path forward that would rebuild Gaza without Hamas, and allow the Palestinian people some relief from all of this, and obviously assuring the security, the release of the hostages, and the security of the people of Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You've mentioned the hostages coming home in the days to come. But do you think this declaration could derail the hostage agreement the first stage of it, especially given second stage negotiations have not even begun yet? Jason Isaacson:   Well, there is that danger, and that is one of the points that that AJC made in the statement that we issued immediately after, the day after the President spoke. While also recognizing that what he did say about the alliance between the United States and Israel was hugely important. The fact that he received Prime Minister Netanyahu as the first foreign visitor to the White House in this second Trump administration sends a powerful signal to the region. Certainly to our community, but to the region, that Israel's security is vital to the United States' national interest. He was very clear about that, and also very clear about the threat posed by Iran and the necessity of pushing back against the Iranian nuclear threat, but also its support for proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, of course, in Lebanon and others in Yemen and Iraq. And other changes that will have to be made to this ring of resistance, of fire that the Iranians tried to strangle Israel with.  The President's been very clear about all of that, and it's really welcome, and we welcome that. But we had to express concerns about the policy, the proposal that was put forward on Gaza, because it clearly rattled the region, and it could–if the signal to Hamas which is in negotiations with Israel through Qatar and Egypt and the United States, if Hamas, which continues to hold hostages, sees that there is some alternate universe that the administration is proposing in which they would just clear out the whole area–how does that affect their thinking about their hopes that they can still have some kind of a presence in Gaza, which we don't want. Israel can't stand. Frankly, the region doesn't want either. But it could be that if Hamas is negotiating with a sense that they have some future in which they will still have some role to play in the conduct of affairs in Gaza. This remaking of the entire map could force them to retreat and to say, You know what? Maybe we're not going to go ahead with these negotiations right now. We're going to rethink our position, and that would be terrible.  It is imperative that the process that was set in place on January 19, the last full day of the Biden administration, with very strong support from the incoming Trump administration, move forward. It is essential that we move forward on the hostage release deal. And Israel will continue to protect itself, will continue to have a security presence in the region.  But will end the war at least while this is going forward, assuming that Hamas abides by the agreement, and Hamas, then, in the next stage, no longer governs Gaza. Manya Brachear Pashman:   We've talked about the impact of this proposal on the hostage negotiations. What about expansion of the Abraham Accords, which was certainly one of the major milestone achievements of the first Trump administration.  You are in the region now, that is something that you have worked very hard for for decades. How could this derail the expansion of the Abraham Accords? Jason Isaacson:   Well, the Abraham Accords, the whole idea of expanding Arab-Israeli peace, of Israel's integration into the region, is so abundantly clearly in the interest of the region. We have seen again and again instances in which it's been proven, demonstrated of the advantage that accrues to the region by having Israel as part of the region, instead of pretending that it's somehow separate from the region. What happened last April, what happened last October, when Iran fired missiles and drones to Israel and the region joined Israel a couple of countries, not the entire region, couple of countries in the Arabian Gulf, joined with Israel and with Israel, but also with the United States and with the UK and other navies and air forces to combat this incursion. You have the creation, the emergence, of a regional security architecture in which Israel plays a significant role. The benefit of that is so clear to wise leaders across the region that I am completely confident that that progress will continue. Even if this weird statement was made by the White House the other day.  I want to read that, and I'm hoping that I will hear from contacts across the region that they want to hear that as just simply a clarion call for something new and bold and different that can break us out of the. Paralysis that we are suffering in Gaza without having any effect on the natural course of progress in Arab Israeli peace and cooperation, security infrastructure, exchange programs of various kinds, medical technology, the public health, education, water resources, environmental issues. There are so many things that are happening at a lower level right now that when the cover is removed and it's allowed to kind of move forward, is extremely exciting to people across the region. Which is why, by the way, last June, at the AJC Global Forum in Washington, AJC CEO Ted Deutsch announced the creation, launch of the AJC Center for a New Middle East, which builds on the work that we've been doing for decades to introduce people to each other across the Arab world, with Israel, with our community to talk about the benefits that will accrue to the people of the region from Israel's integration in the region, the contributions that Israel continues to make and will make in a much amplified way if it is accepted and normally interacting with its neighbors, as It does with now, in the last four years, with the UAE and Bahrain and Morocco. And of course, has had long standing peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, with which, even though there are many disagreements and dissatisfaction with these agreements, they have been enormous contributors to regional peace and stability, and frankly, the welfare of both of those countries as well.  So the advantages are clear. We've been part of this process for a long time. We will continue to be part of this process. Whatever is said in the way of unusual statements from the White House about new ways forward that don't fit into the normal pattern of diplomacy. The leaders of the region understand that this is the direction that they should be pursuing, and we will continue to encourage that process. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Jason, thank you so much for joining us.  Jason Isaacson:   Happy to be here, Manya.

“To be a Jew is to know that because of who we are, because of our historical experience, we care for the other. This is really one of the great tensions of our moment. Of how to be eyes wide open to Israel's need for self-defense, and at the same time recognize the real suffering that's going on in Gaza and to know that we need to find a way to hold both of those together.” Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, spiritual leader of Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, explores the complexities of Jewish identity in a post-October 7th world in his new book, For Such a Time As This: On Being Jewish Today. In this conversation, he unpacks the tension between Israel's need for self-defense and the suffering experienced by Gazans and Israelis and the challenge of balancing empathy with vigilance. He also shares his personal journey to the rabbinate and what it means to live as a Jew in this pivotal moment. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.  Sign up for AJC Global Forum: Register at AJC.org/GlobalForum2025 for the premier global Jewish advocacy conference of the year, in New York City, April 27-29 2025 Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  The Oldest Holocaust Survivor Siblings: A Tale of Family, Survival, and Hope Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What's Next Bring Them Home: Understanding the Israel-Hamas Hostage Deal and Its Impact Pack One Bag: Stanley Tucci and David Modigliani Uncover His Jewish Family's Escape from Fascism and Antisemitism in 1930s Italy Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove:  Josh Kramer: AJC Global Forum is returning to New York City, April 27 to 29th 2025. I'm Josh Kramer. AJC New York Regional Director, and I hope to see you there. You won't want to miss this opportunity to join with more than 2000 other activists and engage in thought provoking discussions on the future of the Jewish people, Israel, America, and the world.  Our program will feature large plenary sessions with headline speakers, smaller breakout sessions designed to explore the key political, strategic and social concerns affecting the global Jewish community, and exclusive opportunities to engage with diplomats, decision makers, interfaith partners, community leaders and more.  Will you be in the room? Register today at AJC.org/GlobalForum2025 to take part in the premier global Jewish advocacy conference of the year. Now is the time to join AJC in shaping a new future. Head to AJC.org/GlobalForum2025. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I've done quite a bit of soul searching in the 15 months since October 7. How do I grapple with the tragedy in Israel and Gaza and the hatred Jews face on American soil without scaring my children away from Judaism?  Then came our Temple's Purim spiel last spring. That story of Queen Esther's bravery, in some ways, helped. It was about that same time that Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, the spiritual leader at Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, picked up his pen and began to write his latest book, named for a line in Queen Esther's tale – For Such a Time As This: On Being Jewish Today. Rabbi Cosgrove is with us now. Rabbi, welcome to People of the Pod. Elliot Cosgrove:   Thank you. It's great to be here.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I have to tell you, rehearsals began for this year's Purim spiel as I was reading this book, which made it all the more powerful. What inspired you to write this? Elliot Cosgrove:   Well, for me, I draw wisdom from text, and I was trying to think of what would be an analogous moment for what we were going through as American Jews from the ancient text.  And for me, as you say, this is now on the cusp of Purim 2025, it was the story of Esther that we read. And in many of our synagogues, we have Purim spiels, where we act out the story, which is basically the story of a Jewish community of ancient Shushan who believed themselves to have it good, that they were comfortable in the diaspora. And the wicked decree of Haman came down and Esther, whose name actually means to hide, she hid herself, her Jewish identity in the king's palace, and believed that she was comfortable there.  When the decree came down, Mordechai, her uncle, by way of an emissary, sent a message to her. “Don't think yourself to be safe from Haman's decree. Who knows, if it was not for such a time as this that you've arrived at your station.” And I saw this as really the calling card of our moment that we all felt ourselves in the wake of October 7, Esther-like called to action. The trauma of October 7, but also the call to action, to step up to the moment, the needs of our people. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Tell us about your writing process. Elliot Cosgrove:   I buried myself in my writing from before dawn until mid-morning, and then I would hit a wall. And I didn't take a sabbatical. I actually went into my day job as a congregational rabbi. It was a very intense writing process and then in the course of about three to four months sent the manuscript off to the publisher. Manya, the thing about the book is it was very disorienting to write as the events were playing out, both in Israel and in the States. And one of the worries that I had that I spoke to the publisher about was, well, what if this becomes dated? You know, it was not journalism, but I was writing as the news was happening, and the good news and the bad news is that the themes that I pick up on: the trauma of Israel, the blurred line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, how we balance empathy and vigilance, the question of the hostages, of thinking about a day after for Israel and the Palestinians, these questions are not only still relevant, but they're actually more pressing than ever. So unfortunately, the themes that I hit on in the book, very much present right now. Manya Brachear Pashman:   How did that writing process help you personally process what you were witnessing and experiencing as a Jew in America? Elliot Cosgrove:   I'll say this, that as a rabbi, I often see my job–someone calls, they've just gotten bad news in the hospital, a loved one has passed away. Or a happy thing, that their child has just gotten engaged, or they themselves have just become new parents. And people turn to clergy to get the first line of constructing the narrative of what it is they are experiencing.  And for me, there is something deeply personal and deeply pastoral about this book, because I feel like it's seeking, hopefully, to give the language to American Jews as to how to construct this new reality of a post October 7 existence, the jumble of emotions, of trauma, but also the emergence of Jewish identity, the likes of which we've never seen before, the argument for continued defense of Israel's right to self determination, as well as an assurance that the traumas of October 7 never happen again. And in the same breath to think actively about what does the day after look like. I think we're all searching for language for these and other tensions of our moment, and I'm hoping that the book is sort of a vocabulary builder for our time. Manya Brachear Pashman:   One word that you used many times in the book, and it stuck with me, just because maybe it's one of my favorite words, and that is empathy. And you used it in different chapters, different contexts. And I'm curious if you could share with the audience the role of empathy and how it is a guiding force, how it has been a guiding force since October 7. Elliot Cosgrove:   Empathy, both its presence and its absence, has been a subplot of this moment, because I think empathy is ingrained into the Jewish DNA. You open up the Passover Haggadah, and on the one hand, we know that we are vigilant against every generation a pharaoh arises to destroy us. We are guards up. We are a people who knows the importance of ancient hatreds, of being vigilant against them, and also the ring of fire that Israel sits in by way of Iran and its proxies.  I mean, Israel's in a very tight spot, and American Jewry is in a very tight spot. And at the same time, empathy is who we are. You were once a stranger in a strange land. Therefore you should know the heart of a stranger. To be a Jew is to know that because of who we are, because of our historical experience, we care for the other. And I think that this is really one of the great tensions of our moment of how to, you know, be eyes wide open to Israel's need to self defense, and at the same time recognize the real suffering that's going on in Gaza and and to know that we need to find a way to hold both of those together. That Israel needs to fight this war as if there's no tomorrow, and Israel has to fight this war with an eye to tomorrow, with the same ferocity that it prosecutes this war, it has to pursue a day after plan. And I think that somewhere along the way, it's the voices on the extremes who are speaking with the loudest megaphones. And the goal of this moment is to realize that we need to find a way to embrace both.  I think it was Fitzgerald who said the test of a great mind is the ability to hold two opposing ideas and retain the ability to function. I think the test of the Jewish community right now is the ability to hold both vigilance and empathy at the same time and retain the ability to move forward with hope. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And how can empathy help here on American soil, where we're facing protesters, we're facing all kinds of opposition and questions and hatred because of what's happening overseas. How do we use empathy here on American soil? Elliot Cosgrove:   First of all, it's hard. It's hard. When you are under attack, the last thing anyone wants to do is feel someone else's pain. When someone is calling me a colonialist oppressor, when someone is calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, something which is part and parcel to my identity, core to my very being – my initial instinct is not to inquire into how they feel and have empathy. My initial instinct is to have shields of self-defense, prioritize the needs of my people over anyone else's. I think that's a human thing to do.  And as long as the hostages are hostages, as long as Israel stands in a vulnerable position, I think we need to be eyes wide open to that, and then we need to breathe, and we need to remember what it means to be a Jew.  And we need to remember that it takes two to tango, and that if we are going to create a future whereby Jews and Palestinians can live side by side in safety and self determination, then we need to realize that there are two peoples worthy of realizing that dream, and that requires empathy, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You were not always that religious or observant of your religious tradition. Can you tell our audience how you became a rabbi? Elliot Cosgrove:   How long do we have? This is a big question, but, look as with any way we construct our realities and tell our origin stories, there are a million ways to tell it. The truth of the matter is, I am the grandson of a congregational rabbi, an orthodox rabbi. So to say that I had somehow strayed from the path is a little bit of an overstatement. But I will say that I grew up in a traditional Jewish background. I'm very proud of the home I grew up in, but when I went off to college, it was very much something I did, Judaism was something I did at home. And I can't say that my first few years at my alma mater at University of Michigan were known by way of my religious affiliations and commitments. And then I got a phone call my junior year of college, that a figure from my youth, a grandfather figure I never really knew. My grandparents had passed away, and he was a guy who used to sit next to us in synagogue and slip me up peppermint candy as the rabbi was about to start the sermon or come over for Passover Seders or Shabbat dinner, Mr. Gendun, and he had passed away. And I got the phone call. I said, What would Mr. Gendun want me to do? And I thought, maybe I'll say Kaddish.  So I called one of my Jewishy friends. I had never been inside the Hillel building up until that moment. And I called up one of my Jewishy friends and I said, What's, where's the Hillel? And they said, you're an idiot, Elliot. It's this huge building right on campus at Michigan. And I went in and I said my Kaddish, and I was getting up like it was the end of an airplane ride just to run back out to whatever my evening plans were.  And a man stood between me and the door, boxing me out, and I was trying to shimmy one way and the other. And he said, I notice you've never been here before. And he said, Well, I'm wondering if you'd like to come to Shabbat dinner. And I lied, truth be told, because I figure he didn't want to know about dollar pitcher night. And I said, I already have Shabbat plans. And he said, Well, do you have Shabbat plans next week? And I was caught in my tracks, and I said, No, and before I could say another word, he said, Good, then you'll come over for Shabbat dinner.  And that man was Michael Brooks, who was the Hillel Director of the Michigan Hillel. I went over to Shabbat dinner. I got involved in the Israel group. I was an editor of the student journal. I sat on the Hillel governing board. One thing led to the other, and I became a rabbi. But important [as] that story is obviously in my own religious formation and choice of vocation, is how it informs my own life and my own rabbinate. It's that ability to look around the room when you're in a class, a Jewish event, a service, and who's the person who looks a little out of place like they might have been there for the very first time, and just do that small human act of reaching out to them, and whether you're going to invite them to Shabbat dinner or not, but just to acknowledge their humanity, that has been the north star of my rabbinate ever since. We're all just human beings looking for a place to hang our hats. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You talk about empathy. I think empathy caught my attention every time you mentioned it in the book, because I think it's so key to journalism. It's such an important component of it. And then I think hospitality is such an important component to Judaism and to congregational life, Elliot Cosgrove:   Absolutely. Hospitality is something that is key to our text at the beginning of the Passover Seder. But hospitality is also a spiritual demeanor that we welcome people into our souls, into our presence, into our life. Hachnasat Orchim in Hebrew, this idea that there's always space within our souls, within our hearts.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Having had such an important turning point on a university campus, how did you interact with, council, university students during this time, as they were facing such pressures and such opposition, crushing opposition during this past year and a half? Elliot Cosgrove:   So there's a chapter about that in the book. It's really the part of the book that I think has struck a nerve, and appropriately so, because I'm the father of four college age or thereabouts children.  And that story I tell about Maya, and Maya is a young woman who, I joke, shares half a brain with my own college age daughter. She's grown up in my household, and she is what you or I might identify as a non Zionist Gen zer, and she approached me and perhaps reproached me for having a Israeli flag on the pulpit, for doing the prayer for the State of Israel in the midst of the service, and said, you know, and she grew up in the Jewish Day School. She grew up going to Jewish summer camp. She did gap year programs in Israel.  Not a small amount of money has been invested in the Mayas of the world, and she herself is asking whether or not her liberal, American Jewish self can be simpatico with the policies of this or that Israeli government, because they don't speak for her sensibility. And to this question of empathy, I think the first move one makes in any such situation is to try to understand where the other person is coming from.  And I think a 21, 22, 23 year old is coming of age in a moment of time where the only Prime Minister they know of is Bibi Netanyahu, who either is or is beholden to the most right-wing elements of Israeli society. The only policies they know of the Israeli government are an expansionist policy in the West Bank, which has precluded the possibility of a two state solution. The only paradigm they have is an Israel which is a Goliath to the Palestinian David, this is their reality.  You can't blame someone for the time into which they are born. I can pick apart and engage in a dialog on what's true and what's not true. But to tell someone that their reality is not, their reality is is not, you know, a move that one can make. And by the way, if they're during the time of the judicial reform, and to this day, there are 1000s of Israelis marching on the streets on a Saturday night protesting the Israeli government as an expression of their love of country.  To tell the Mayas of the world, a college age student today, that they are treif, they are beyond the bounds of Jewish discourse, for doing the exact same thing is just an argument that doesn't hold water anymore. And so the the the goal here, Manya, is to engage with their questions, to listen intently, to prompt that young mind to come up with their own answers for the defense and the well being of the Jewish people, given the harsh realities that Israel faces, and also to make room for their very real question. So I look long on the Maya generation. It's actually a controversial moment within the organized Jewish community –do we write them off, do we not write them off? I think they're our future, and I think we do terrible damage to ourselves if we write them off. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Because it is such a time as this. We have to pay attention to the context, right, and to where we are in history, without losing sight of history. Elliot Cosgrove:   Look, it's very easy to take pot shots from the left and from the right. You know where this brave space is. The brave space is standing in the middle and dignifying the claims and counterclaims of both sides, and knowing that real leadership is trying to keep our people together. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Your book does such a beautiful job of inspiring that sense, sparking those, those right emotions in my head. So thank you so much for writing it. And I encourage all of our listeners to pick up a copy of Rabbi Cosgrove's book–For Such a Time as This: On Being Jewish Today. It is full of challenges, and I think that the challenge is worth facing and taking on. Thank you. Elliot Cosgrove:   Thank you so much, Manya.

When the USC Shoah Foundation named three sisters and their brother from Sanok, Poland the oldest surviving siblings of the Holocaust, Canadian Jewish filmmaker Allan Novak, the son of one of those shvesters (sisters in Yiddish), realized it was time to use the footage he'd been collecting for years to tell their story.  The result? Crossing the River: From Poland to Paradise – a heartwarming short documentary about how members of one family miraculously survived the Holocaust by staying together with each other and their parents. Listen to this conversation with Novak on his family's dream of moving to Israel, unwavering resilience, and positive outlook, despite losing 80 family members to the horrors of Nazism.  *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.  Watch: Crossing the River Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What's Next Bring Them Home: Understanding the Israel-Hamas Hostage Deal and Its Impact Pack One Bag: Stanley Tucci and David Modigliani Uncover His Jewish Family's Escape from Fascism and Antisemitism in 1930s Italy Gov. Josh Shapiro and AJC CEO Ted Deutch on Combating Antisemitism Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Allan Novak: Trailer: Ruth Zimmer:  That's a camera. Allan Novak:  No, this records sound. Sally Singer: [in Yiddish: It's so small.] Ruth Zimmer:  Ok, Sally. Allan Novak: Meet the shvesters: Auntie Ruthie, Auntie Sally, and my mum, Anne. Anne Novak: I'm the quiet one. Ruth Zimmer:  And I'm the pisk (loudmouth). Allan Novak: Along with my uncle Saul, they've been together since the 1920s. As they began to hit 100 the media started to take notice, and when the USC Shoah Foundation named them the oldest Holocaust survivor siblings in the world, I knew I needed to tell their story now. Ruth Zimmer: What do you want us to . . you want to ask questions? Okay, that's easier.  Allan Novak: I want to talk about the war. ____ Manya Brachear Pashman:   When the Shoah Foundation named three sisters and their brother from Sanok, Poland the oldest surviving siblings of the Holocaust, filmmaker Allan Novak, the son of one of those sisters, realized it was time to use the footage he'd been collecting for years to tell their story. The result? Crossing the River: From Poland to Paradise – a heartwarming short documentary about how members of one family miraculously survived the Holocaust by staying together with each other and their parents. Allan is with us now to talk about his extraordinary aunts, uncle and mom and this equally extraordinary Holocaust story.  Allan, welcome to People of the Pod. Allan Novak:   Thank you, Manya, great to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So you had been recording interviews and kind of a life with your family for decades, right, while kind of working on various other projects. But what finally moved you to make this a project? Allan Novak:   Sure, well, I've been filming them since I got my Bar Mitzvah Super Eight camera a while ago, in the 70s, actually. And, yeah, I've been collecting footage, you know, at different times. Was inspired to interview, to capture their story, but really, more is just kind of a personal archivist kind of project. But then when the Shoah Foundation identified them as the oldest Holocaust survivor siblings in the world, as you mentioned, I kind of posted that in my social media. And then there was a huge reaction.  People just loved this idea that these people survived all this, and we're still together and survived, and we're thriving, in fact. And actually had a producer friend of mine inquire about where the rights available to their story. So I had to laugh, because, you know, I'm a filmmaker, so I immediately realized that somehow, you know, my little family story had kind of broken in a way, and it didn't deserve to be told and shared with the world. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So without giving too much away, can you tell our listeners a little bit about these extraordinary family members and what your relationship with them was like growing up? When did you realize they had such an extraordinary backstory? Allan Novak:   Well, you know, they often talked about, you know, Siberia, which is where they survived the war. And they were, they were kind of small little stories. And I understood they were hungry and it was cold and that kind of a thing, but it was always kind of light hearted, and there was laughter. You know, my auntie Ruthie, who is prominent in the film, she was an actress in the Yiddish theater, and she's really a natural comedian, and so she would always, they would make it funny. And my uncle, Saul, I call him the most positive person in the world. He actually also would look on the bright side of things.  So although they went through, you know, really tremendous trauma, somehow the way they processed it was with a positive outlook. And that kind of rubbed off on me. So I never felt, you know, unlike the people whose parents were unfortunate enough to have been in places like Auschwitz and under the Germans, I didn't have that sort of really, really dark sense of a traumatic story, but rather kind of this sort of triumphant survivalist story. So survival is kind of the key word and positivity together. So that's how I saw them growing up, as sort of somewhat fun old country of uncles and aunts. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Now one of the reasons your mother and most of her siblings survived is because the river that ran through Sanok also divided it into German and Russian territory, and your family fled to your great grandparents home on the Russian side, but about 80 of your family members stayed on the Nazi occupied side of Sanok and were murdered. One of them was your uncle Eli? Allan Novak:   Yeah, yeah. Eli. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Eli, yeah. Who did not stay with the siblings and parents. He had a bad feeling about where the Russians might take them. Did you ever get a sense of why the rest of the family stayed on the west side of the river in Nazi occupied Sanok? Allan Novak:   You know, it's a sad thing, but part of it was economic. You know, my grandfather had a relatively prosperous butcher shop. It was unusual because he supplied meats to the Polish military regiment there, but also to Jews. So he sort of had a half kosher, half not kosher shop, which was, I didn't even realize that could exist, but it did. He was quite Orthodox, and so they were sort of comfortable, but they shared a house, for instance, with my grandfather's brother, and he had like nine kids, and he wasn't so successful.  And so when I asked them, like, Why didn't everybody go over to the other side? It's like they didn't have the money to hire a driver, horseman, get across the river. And so it was just unfortunate. And as well, it was my mother's grandmother that had the property, so on the father's side, they didn't really have that option to sort of show up on the other side of the family. So it was kind of cruel twists of family and economics and also nobody knew, like they didn't know that that would be the right side. Nobody knew what would happen. You know, the week the Germans marched into Poland in September. So, you know, they went with their instinct, stay with the grandmother. But nobody knew what would happen. And of course, Eli, the brother, thought he was making the clever choice. He thought he was going to survive because he didn't want to get on the train. Manya Brachear Pashman:   How old were these people when they made these decisions to stay together or stay in Sanok? Allan Novak:   So there were five siblings. Sally, the oldest, would have been 19. So they were like 1917--15, 13, and 11. So Eli was 11, so they stuck together. They were young, you know, it probably seemed like a bit of an adventure, you know, to a 13 year old Auntie Ruthie, they didn't know, nobody knew what was to come. But Eli was 11, and he was, by all accounts, a stubborn child and a willful kid. A tough cookie, as my uncle Saul says. And so there's a point in the story where everybody was told you have to get on this train by the Russians, and the family huddled together. And this 11 year old boy who thought he was smarter than everyone and was more willful, said, I'm not getting on that train. I'm going to stay with my grandparents, who were not being sent out. The others were deported because they were Polish citizens, and on the other side, they weren't. So that's what happened. So he was 11, strong willed, and he made a choice. And then in the end, obviously, like one of those sort of lessons of the story is families that stay together do better than not. Manya Brachear Pashman:   As you mentioned, your family ends up in Siberia. That's where this Russian train takes them. I'll let listeners kind of watch the film to find out exactly how that unfolds. There is a story that did not make it into the film, but I read about the spilled milk, and I'm hoping that you can share that story as I think it's so sweet, but it also just gives listeners an idea of the conditions that your aunts, uncle and mom survived.  Allan Novak:   I mean, they were living essentially in a small wooden room inside of a long wooden barrack, and every family didn't matter how many people you got this, this wooden room. There were no beds. There were just sort of boards that came down from the wall. And there was like a bucket where they would put wood in and that sort of all they had to kind of keep them warm. But sometimes they could do things like they could trade.  There were Siberian peasants around. And if you had an earring or something, you could get some milk, right, from a farmer nearby. And so, yeah, I think my Aunt Sally, she was able to kind of get this milk for the family. And it was this huge, huge treasure to have this small little pail of milk. And she put it under the bed for safekeeping until she could share it the next morning, and then she knocked it over in the night, and this precious, precious milk spilled on the floor, and she really like, for her whole life, she just had this deep sense of regret and shame for spilling this milk, because it was just so precious to have anything to eat other than the few grams of bread they were given. Manya Brachear Pashman:   She literally cried over spilled milk for decades.  Allan Novak:   Yes. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Did her siblings know about this? And I'm just curious, what was the dynamic? You actually asked this very question in the film. You asked them, what is the dynamic between all of you? And they interpreted that as the difference. But I'm curious, just from your perspective, what was the dynamic of these siblings through the years?  Allan Novak:   Well, you know, they came from a traditional family. The father was Orthodox, you know, Shomer Shabbos, kosher, as probably were most of the Jews in Poland at that time, in the 20s and 30s. So they had a great deal of respect for the mother and father, would be nothing like today. It was just pure respect and love. And so between them, Sally, who's in the film, they called her the smart one. She was the most educated one. So she kind of ruled the roost, in a way. But Ruth, the youngest, she was a troublemaker. She's my auntie Ruthie, the comedian. And so she would make trouble.  She would follow them. If somebody had a date, like if Sally had a date with a boy, you know, Ruthie would be sneaking up behind and, like, harassing them and not going home, or chasing after them. She was kind of wild and incorrigible. My mother was always the middle child, so she was the peacemaker, which you see in the film, always trying to bridge between Sally and the younger Ruth. And Saul was kind of, he was the boy, the only boy, and they really just cherished him. He was good with his hands. He could fix anything.  There's a story in the film of how he had to kind of steal little parts, pieces of wood and things to end up building a cart that he could sell to get milk, that kind of thing. So they really appreciated each other, and they each had their positions, you know, judging by birth order, in a way. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You also talk in the film about how Saul and your aunt Ruthie, they were determined to fulfill their dream of going to Israel and going to a kibbutz in Israel. Spoiler alert, they did not make it, because, again, they put family first. Was this family first theme, a through line of your upbringing? And also, did they ever make it to Israel as just tourists?  Allan Novak:   Yeah, family first, certainly. Yeah. I grew up with a lot of cousins, the uncles and aunts, and they all lived very close to each other for their entire adult lives. You know, every night, one of the uncles and aunts would be walking over down the street and sitting there, so yeah, and we would hang with my cousins during the summer. So yeah, family first, definitely. We were all very close with our cousins, and we still continue to be. With respect to Israel, I mean, it was really something. They really wanted to be in Israel. You know, they were part of Zionist groups called Akiba growing up. My father, this story isn't in the film, was actually the head of, like, a whole group of Kibbutzim in Poland, and he ran the organization getting people over to Israel, you know, in 1947-48 and it was actually a great embarrassment to him that he ended up going with his new wife to Canada versus Israel. And he was very embarrassed because, you know, Oscar, you know, she and Novak, the organizer, ended up going to Canada. So it was a bit awkward. But, you know, they went where they got their immigration, and there was already family there. And just a very quick sidebar, so my father had one sister. My father lost like nine siblings, but he had one sister who emigrated to Palestine at the time in the 20s, and she had one son. And so my only living relative in Israel was the greatest living soccer star of his era. It's the equivalent of like having Pele as your cousin. His name is Nahum Stelmach. They called him Rosh Zahav, the golden head, because he won a famous match against Russia in the 60s. And this small country beat Russia, and he won. Sidebar.  So they did get to Israel. It took until the mid 60s to get there to visit his, you know, Nahum, and then they went subsequently a few more times, but, you know, it was expensive, particularly, you know, in the 50s, and you know, until the 60s. So it took until the 60s, till they got there. But, yeah, it was a lifelong regret, but it was just kind of the twists of fate. Well, it's in the film. They might have ended up in Israel. They were on the Exodus. They were booked on the boat the Exodus, and then my grandfather had a stroke just before. So part of the themes of the film is kind of the random twists of fate and the choices that we make, and what happens is unknowable. Manya Brachear Pashman:   The film includes footage of your mother turning 100, the birthday party, and she would always say that the best revenge against Hitler was to live long lives. What do you think has kept your family members alive for so long, what has kept them alive? Allan Novak:   Coincidentally, Uncle Saul just had his 100th birthday party three days ago. Now, three of them hit 100 and over, and Ruthie just is gonna have her 90th birthday next week. One of the things I say is they live with intense moderation. Everything they did was moderate. They didn't eat too much, they didn't tan too much, they didn't smoke, they didn't travel, just everything was just kind of this moderate lifestyle and exercise, right? So I believe that's part of it. They really were well preserved, physically and mentally like, right to the end.  And then, of course, you know the closeness, I think, the social cohesion that the fact that they, three of them, moved in together to assisted living facilities, you know, in their late 90s together. You know, as they lived in a condo. They all had three apartments next to each other for 20 years as well, with Saul close by. So I think that family cohesion and closeness and they didn't fight. They never fought, never saw a feuding moment. So, you know, we know things like stress and all of that contribute to long lives. So I think they sort of had this mild and loving long life.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   I'm sure their experience gave them some perspective. There's nothing really worth fighting about when you've survived what you did together.  Allan Novak:   Yes, absolutely right.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   What has kept them so young, not so old? What lessons can we take away from the shvesters story today? Allan Novak:   Certainly take care of your siblings. Stay close. Keep them close, keep relations good. Choose togetherness over isolation when the chips are down. Positive spirit, Uncle Saul's positive spirit and their positive outlook. Again, never wallowing in what had happened to them and the things that were lost, even the family members that were lost, moving forward and cherishing what they have. And you know, loving your children, if you have them, and their caring family gave them a lot of meaning.  They did everything for us, everything for the kinder, even to the point of when the film initially premiered, actually at Lincoln Center last January, and my mother was in the hospital at 100 and a half, and she stayed alive and alert until we had this premiere. We flew back, and then it was kind of like three days later, she let herself go with us there and said proper goodbyes. And I firmly believe that she just held on for the kinder, as they would say, for the children. So I think that's part of what kept them vital and youthful and alive.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much. Allan, thank you for making this documentary and sharing it with the world.  Allan Novak:   My complete and utter pleasure, and I hope people take as much joy and uplifting positive and laughter, which is ironic for a film dealing with that time period, but they won. Hitler lost, and they won.  And so it's kind of a triumphant story. And there's a final image which people would see of them on their balcony, you know, all around 100. In the snow in Winnipeg, holding hands, just persistent and alive. And they're together, immortalized now in the film. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much, Allan.  Allan Novak:   My pleasure.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   To watch the short film, head to the link in our show notes.  And a special thank you to Debi Wisch, AJC Board of Governors member and the producer of Crossing the River, for her work to further Holocaust education through the arts. If you missed our last two episodes, be sure to tune in for my conversations with AJC Jerusalem Director Avital Leibovich and AJC Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs Julie Fishman Rayman about the high stakes negotiations to bring the October 7 hostages home.

After 468 harrowing days in Gaza, Israeli hostages Emily Damari, Romi Gonen, and Doron Steinbrecher are finally reunited with their families. Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC's Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, discusses the emotional impact of these reunions, the high-stakes prisoner exchange deal, and the collaboration between the outgoing Biden administration and newly inaugurated President Donald Trump. This breakthrough highlights the broader societal trauma in Israel, the complexities of negotiating with Hamas, and the ongoing efforts to bring all hostages home. Learn how this pivotal moment could reshape U.S.-Israel relations and Middle East policy moving forward. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  Bring Them Home: Understanding the Israel-Hamas Hostage Deal and Its Impact Pack One Bag: Stanley Tucci and David Modigliani Uncover His Jewish Family's Escape from Fascism and Antisemitism in 1930s Italy Gov. Josh Shapiro and AJC CEO Ted Deutch on Combating Antisemitism Mijal Bitton on What It Means to Be a Jew Today The Next Chapter in Catholic-Jewish Relations Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Julie Fishman Rayman: Manya Brachear Pashman:   The world watched Sunday as three women held hostage in Gaza for 468 days reunited with their families. The moving footage was juxtaposed against the frightening prospect of more than 1000 Palestinian prisoners, many of them convicted murderers and terrorists, would eventually return to freedom as well in exchange for the hostages.  There was also the strange irony of a hostage crisis nearing an end amid a transition in the White House, just a week after President Carter, who departed the White House as the Iran hostage crisis neared the end, was laid to rest. Here to discuss the painful and painstaking process of bringing the hostages home is Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC's Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs. Julie, welcome. Julie Fishman Rayman:  Thank you so much, Manya, for having me. I appreciate the opportunity to tell this amazing story. Manya Brachear Pashman:  It has been a long 470 days now for you and your team as you have worked so closely with hostages' families. What was it like for you to watch those reunion videos? Julie Fishman Rayman:   Pure, pure joy. One of the things that I talk about with my team a lot is that we missed an opportunity during the last agreement, during the last releases, to really celebrate. You know, we sort of thought, oh, okay, this, this is it. Now we're going to soon be able to celebrate everyone coming home. But what we missed in that moment was that that was just the end of the sprint and the start of the marathon that we've been in now for so long.  So being able to see these three released, all I could think was dayenu, this would be enough. You know, after all of this, after all the work, after all the agony, and certainly, you know, the families don't feel that way, and our work must continue. There's no question, we have to keep going until they're all home. But even, even if it were just Emily, just Romi, just Doron, this, to me, personally, feels enough. Manya Brachear Pashman:  There was also talk of the very high price that was paid for these, for these hostages to return. It was so wonderful to see Gilad Shalit return home, but at the cost of more than 1000 prisoners, including Yawah Sinwar, who was the architect of the October 7 attack. And so I know there is this huge fear among Israelis now and that there are efforts underway to prevent this kind of deal, specifically, this kind of deal, from happening again. But where do you stand on this? Where does AJC stand on this? And where do the families stand on this? Julie Fishman Rayman:   Well, I'll start by answering your question with regards to the families, because they are not a monolith. They're not unanimous in their opinions on this, and a lot of them, you know, even within families, feel very ambivalent, and don't even necessarily feel the same way in the morning that they do in the evening, because there's just so so so much emotion around this. Any deal to get hostages, to get political prisoners, to get anyone unjustly held, released, is ugly. If you peel back the onion layers or or look behind the curtain, you see all of the really yucky things that we don't want to acknowledge about, you know, negotiating with terrorists, about allowing people who have committed the most heinous crimes to be free. But that's the only way it works, right? That's the only way you get to an agreement.  So unless you are fully confident, as you know, a government or a power that has citizens held unjustly, that you are going to be able to complete many heroic rescues, as the Israeli Defense Forces has done, the only viable solution is to get to a deal. And I think that there is, there's a recognition in the United States, in Israel that a deal was the only way to get these folks released, finally. But there are really heavy costs to be paid, and I do feel as though there is, there's a nervousness, you know, what comes? What happens next?  Manya Brachear Pashman:   And then, of course, there's also the trauma that a number of survivors are feeling out there, whose family members were murdered by these prisoners who are going free. Has AJC worked with them in any way and connected with them in any way? Julie Fishman Rayman: I believe our Jerusalem office knows a number of those families. It has some of those connections on the ground. We have not engaged with them in Washington or in our work, sort of throughout the United States, in the same way that we have with hostage families. But one of the things that I think is incumbent, not just on AJC, but really on the Jewish community and all who care about Israel, is to lift up those stories and to sort of collectively hold the pain of those families who felt when the murderers of their family members, when they were imprisoned, they felt okay, we have justice, you know, like we have a sense of closure, and that this pain that we've endured has has not, has not been for, for no reason. And now they have to go back into that trauma and go back into that pain and without that sort of sense of closure. So there's a lot of trauma that those families are going to be going through. And if we've learned one major lesson from this big hostage ordeal that we're going through now, is that the pain of one family in Israel is not exclusive to that family, that it reverberates throughout society, that it ripples throughout the entire population. And so as one family is grieving or suffering, all of the families are. That's one thing that we've seen throughout the course of the last you know, 478 days in Israel. That the families are not alone, that the tragedy and the horror that they have experienced has created this terrific rift in a lot of ways, in Israeli society, this feeling of a lack of trust that the that the government, that the Israeli Defense Forces, that the population as a whole, could protect them to this point. And we can only hope that this deal will be concluded, that as we're in phase one, that phase two will continue to be negotiated. That we will get to the end, so that the families can all be reunited, and this feeling of cohesion in Israeli society and throughout the diaspora can continue. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Julie, can you share with our audience--I said you worked closely, you and your team worked closely with the hostages' families, and have been ever since this ordeal on October 7. Can you explain to our audience what that means? What have you been doing? What have you been working toward, and how have you been working toward it? Julie Fishman Rayman:  Absolutely. So since the very early days after October 7, we've been deeply engaged with families, and it started just, I think five or six days after the seventh, my phone rang, and it was a number from Israel. I didn't know the number, but of course, you know, it's a number from Israel. I'm going to answer, so my answer and the caller explained that he was Jon Polin, the father of Hersh Goldberg-Polin. That his son had part of his arm blown off by a grenade. They knew that, and that he was being held hostage, and that he was one of many, many parents who are going through this experience, and he didn't really know what to do, and could we help?  And choking back tears right, choking them back, I said, Yes, of course, we can help, like, what's Let's talk this out. Let's make you know, let's make a plan. But AJC is here. We're here for your family. We can be here for the families . And it started what I think none of us could have imagined, in terms of this ongoing, continuous support, not just for Jon and Rachel, although we continue to stay very closely engaged with them, but for more than 50 families who started seeing elected officials when they traveled to Israel, who started to come to Washington, DC.  Because they felt like in Washington, the elected officials that they could meet wit had power, had influence, would hear their stories and try to move heaven and earth for their children. So virtually, you know, every month, at least sometimes every week, every other week, we opened our doors in Washington, DC, we opened our rolodexes and said, we'll help you with meetings.  Whether that was with members of Congress, with the administration, with members of the media, with the diplomatic corps, with other partners. Sometimes the delegations were random. It was whoever, whichever family members wanted to come. Sometimes they were specific, right? Sometimes we would bring family members of female hostages to talk specifically about their concerns related to gender based violence, and just simply try to give them the biggest and broadest platform that we could to tell their stories. And that's what they've been doing for 470 days, and that's what needs to continue, really and truly, until every single hostage comes home. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Clearly, Monday was also a big day here in the United States, President Joe Biden left the White House, handed the keys back to Donald Trump, who was inaugurated as the 47th president. And really, I could not help but think about the Carter-Reagan transition and the Iran hostage crisis that came to an end soon after. Clearly, Trump has made the issue of releasing the hostage as a core foreign policy priority for his administration. What is the reaction you're hearing from the families about the Trump administration's efforts and as well as the efforts by the former Biden administration? Julie Fishman Rayman:  The families had really great access within the Biden administration, really at the very top. Know, a lot of the families, especially the families of the American hostages, met with some frequency with the President himself, with Jake Sullivan, with Roger Carstens, the special envoy for hostages, and really felt as though this administration was was with them on this horrific journey, and they always spoke with and continue to speak with a lot of gratitude towards the Biden administration.  But it also became very clear that when Trump was elected, that they were eager to seize on any opportunity. And so you talk about this, this Carter-Reagan sort of moment. The families, for some time, had been talking to the president elect, now President, and his team, and saying, we need a Reagan moment. This can be President Trump's Reagan moment. They've been planting that seed and really playing to the hope that this would be something that would be meaningful as well for him.  And I think we're deeply successful in doing this. We would not be where we are today without this amazing display of collaboration between the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration. The ability for the two of them to work together, build on what the Biden administration had been doing for so long, and then also come in with the sort of bravado of President Trump, and a commitment, really, he said he's going to rain hell down if the hostages aren't released. So sort of the combination of these efforts, I think, was so remarkable and really got us to where we are today, but we're not, we're not there yet.  And so, as we celebrate Emily and Doron and Romi's return, their triumphant return. We also know that there's a lot that could continue to go wrong at any stage of this, of this agreement, and even President Trump himself said, I'm not confident. And this is from a man who is sort of eternally confident. So the fact that he's expressing that caution, that nervousness about the ability to get to the finish line, means that we still, and the families still have a lot of work to do. Manya Brachear Pashman:  I find it interesting that you are referring to it as a collaboration, because, because my next question was going to be, I mean, how much credit does the incoming administration deserve for the hostage deal versus the outgoing administration? Would you say it really was a genuine collaboration? Julie Fishman Rayman:   All signs point to a genuine collaboration. I think there's a lot that we don't know, and we will know for some time, just as when we look at, you know, the last 470 days, there's so much of this amazing story that needs to be told. I feel very proud about the role that AJC played. But success has many people to credit, always. And there were tons of players, not just in Washington, DC, across the country, across the globe, who made it possible to get to where we are today. So it will be very interesting at this point, we sort of see a jockeying for credit amongst the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration. I am willing to give that credit out like candy on Halloween. Everyone who had the smallest part should be taking that victory lap, patting themselves on the back and then preparing themselves for the next round of advocacy and pressure. Manya Brachear Pashman:  President Trump did have former hostages at his rally at the arena on Monday night. What message do you think he was trying to send, and I'll follow that with, what message do you think they are taking back home to Israel? Julie Fishman Rayman: I am ecstatic that he brought the families up on stage with him. I think that was such a meaningful moment, and certainly deeply meaningful to them. Because amidst all of this, there must be some there must be some fear that, okay, we've started to bring people home. What if we don't get across the finish line, right?  So the commitment, even after Emily, Doron, and Romi were returned, to bring them up and to show the importance of their families and their cause, I think, was deeply, deeply important. Cynically, I think part of that was to show, look, I've just come into office and look at the win that I've already had. But if it takes that sort of seizing of credit to keep the push going, I welcome that 100%, without question.  The families will no doubt take tremendous comfort in the fact that they were called up to stage. That representatives of this really large and robust community, sad community, of the hostage families that they had representatives called up on that stage. I think they'll see that as a really important signal that their cause is not forgotten, that even as there are celebrations welcoming Romi and Emily and Doron back, that this is not a box that has been checked, but rather a recognition that this is a job not yet finished. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So with that in mind, Julie, what are your priorities? What are AJC's priorities with this new administration? Julie Fishman Rayman:   We are looking for every opportunity to engage with this administration, as closely as we did with the last around the issues that are really important to AJC. First and foremost, of course, that is support for Israel, that is making sure that the US-Israel relationship remains strong, that the United States is continuing to play a vital role in supporting Israel on the world stage, whether that's at the UN, with European partners and so on. And lifting up our vital ally in this moment.  And not secondarily, just secondarily in terms of how I'm talking about it, but of equal importance is working with this administration to counter antisemitism. In all its forms, from all its sources. We worked really hand in glove with the Biden administration on not just creating but implementing the first ever US National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.  And I think it's, it's fair to say that there were a lot of phenomenal successes that came out of that strategy. And now it's a matter of working with the incoming administration officials, and the President himself, to make sure that we are moving forward. That this idea that it requires the whole of government and all of society to be working together, to be working in tandem and coordination, in lock step to counter antisemitism. That strategy in and of itself, is critical. So whether it's something written on paper or implemented in that way, or whether it's, you know, appointing a coordinator, or what have you, we are here, and we're ready to be a part of that process. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Julie, thank you so much for joining us the day after the inauguration and all of the many changes that began to unfold. Thank you. Julie Fishman Rayman: Thanks for having me, Manya.

After 467 days of anguish, Israel and Hamas have reached a pivotal agreement to begin releasing hostages. AJC Jerusalem Director Lt. Col. (res.) Avital Leibovich breaks down the deal's details, the phased approach to releases, and the emotional toll on families and the nation. Hear about the complexities of the negotiations, the potential political fallout, and the profound resilience of those waiting for their loved ones to come home. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  Pack One Bag: Stanley Tucci and David Modigliani Uncover His Jewish Family's Escape from Fascism and Antisemitism in 1930s Italy Gov. Josh Shapiro and AJC CEO Ted Deutch on Combating Antisemitism Mijal Bitton on What It Means to Be a Jew Today The Next Chapter in Catholic-Jewish Relations Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Avital Leibovich: Manya Brachear Pashman:  On Wednesday, the Israeli government and Hamas terror group, at long last, 467 days, to be exact, announced a deal to bring the hostages home. The deal, which will unfold in phases, calls for Hamas to ultimately release the 98 remaining hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners convicted of terrorism and serving life sentences.  The first exchange could happen as early as Sunday. Here, on day 468, to explain the deal and the mood on the ground in Israel, where families wait to see whether the Israeli cabinet will sign the agreement, is AJC Jerusalem director Avital Leibovich. Avital, thank you so much for joining us.  Wow. 468 days, and this seems like such a breakthrough, at least on this end. Can you walk us through the details of what has been agreed upon? Avital Leibovich:  So currently, the Israeli delegation is still in Doha in Qatar, and have not returned to Israel. When they will turn to Israel, after the agreement will be finalized, then the Cabinet will meet, the government will gather, and they will approve the agreement. So according to the draft that has been leaked to the Palestinian media, the agreement has a few stages.  The first one has to do with releasing 33 hostages. That's the first stage. The 33 hostages, as we know, most of them, are alive, but unfortunately, there will be around 10 hostages that either have been murdered on October 7 by Hamas, and their bodies hijacked to Gaza, or those that have been murdered in captivity by Hamas.  Now we know that the first ones to be released, hopefully on Sunday, we are praying for that, are women, children, female soldiers, and also men over the age of 50 with some illnesses or some health issues or humanitarian condition. Which, I think everybody is in a humanitarian condition after such a long time. So that is the first stage.  The first stage will last 42 days. 42 days is a long time, and as we've seen and based on our past experience, Hamas can actually turn away, decide to change things last minute, halt the agreement and so on. In the course of those 42 days, Israel will release Palestinian prisoners. I have to say that the price is extremely high, because I'm talking about around 1000 Palestinian prisoners. When I look at the scale of how many prisoners will be released, versus a hostage, it's unbelievable. The price, quote, unquote, of an Israeli soldier, a female soldier, is very high compared to just an ordinary civilian.  So around 1000 prisoners will be released in this duration. In addition to this, the IDF will gradually leave some areas, and then on day 16, there will be discussions regarding the second phase. Israel would like to see, on the second phase, the remaining hostages released. That's 65 additional hostages.  And then we're talking about the third phase, which will be the reconstructing of Gaza. So these are the three phases. This is what we know for now. There are other components, like humanitarian aid, increasing significantly the number of trucks filled with aid going into Gaza, and we can talk about the implications of these prices, which Israel will be paying. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Now a lot of American media are reporting this as a cease fire. Is that accurate? Avital Leibovich:  No, the Israeli policy is very clear. Only after the last hostage we leave Gaza, this means 98 hostages will be out of Gaza. Only then Israel will be willing to cease fire. That's the reason why it's called a hostage agreement, and not a ceasefire agreement. Now we know Hamas. Hamas is a vicious enemy. It's a cruel enemy.  You know, I just watched Palestinian media, and you'll be amazed to see how many civilians in Gaza, not Hamas related or Hamas oriented Palestinians, are saying that they wish that October 7 will return every year. They're supporting the repetition of October 7 year after year. And so, you know, this is the atmosphere that we are seeing.  And Hamas can be affected by this atmosphere, and this would maybe lead even to the possibility that there will never be a second phase to this agreement. So this is definitely something that Israel wants to be very, very cautious, and this is the reason why it's not called a ceasefire deal at this point of time. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So you said 33 hostages, but 10, possibly who have died either in captivity or on October 7, those are the hostages that will be released in the first phase. Do we know who those hostages might be?  Avital Leibovich:  We don't know who. I mean, there are some kind of lists, so there are some indications, but it's based on rumors, and until the agreement is signed, the families themselves do not know. So you can imagine what's going on in the homes of 98 families of hostages, and of course, the second circles of these families, not sleeping, not eating, not breathing, just waiting for any kind of an announcement, the potential light in their lives. The tension is really unbearable. Manya Brachear Pashman:  I cannot imagine. Can you also speak to the tension in the nation? What about those who don't have relatives in a hostage situation, but who are still part of this nation? Can you kind of talk about the emotion there.   Avital Leibovich:  Yeah, it's a great question. We know the hostages by name. We know what music they like. We know who the parents are. We know what their hobbies are. At this point of time, we all know the hostages, almost like it's another child of ours, or another aunt or another uncle or a grandfather or a son in law. This is how we feel. And if you were to visit now Israel, and you would take any road, you will most likely see yellow flags symbolizing the hostages alongside the road.  And if you'll enter a school, you'll probably hear in the yard the songs which the hostages love to play. And if you go to a supermarket and check yourself out at the self checkout counter, you want to swipe your credit card, you'll see a picture of a hostage. So the issue is surrounding us, 24/7. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Does the prospect of an agreement that would finally bring them home – has that generated a unified sense of hope or optimism there on the ground? Avital Leibovich:  Even among the families, there are different opinions. So today, for example, families of hostages blocked the main road to Jerusalem and protested later near the prime minister's office because they think that the agreement is a bad one. And they have kids held in Gaza.  They think it's a bad one because they think that we may never reach the second phase, and their loved ones will stay forever in Gaza. And then there are other parts of the families who protest in Tel Aviv to make sure that the government signs this agreement. And there is no right and wrong answer here. Families are torn. The country is torn. In order to patch the situation, we need the hostages back. There is no question about it.  Manya Brachear Pashman: You raise a very good point. There is a divide, and it is a political divide, and so I am curious what your thoughts are on the prospect of the cabinet actually signing this agreement and going forward with this–and then also what the political implications are if the cabinet does or does not sign the agreement? Avital Leibovich: It is a political divide, but both sides are blaming the same person, the Prime Minister, doesn't matter from which side of the political map they are, they still see one person responsible to get them out of the situation.  Look, I do think that there will be a majority in the government. I do think that the Cabinet will vote for the agreement. I think that most of the ministers understand there is really no chance. And this is the turning point. This should be a turning point. I can say that one of the ministers in the cabinet, Minister Zohar, which is the Minister of Culture, actually wrote a letter to all the other cabinet members and ask them to vote to support the agreement and release the hostages. So I do have reason to believe that it will be approved, by the way, according to the law in Israel, after it will be approved, both in the cabinet and in the government. Then the very long list of Palestinian terror prisoners will be published publicly. Because, according to the law in Israel, anybody who wants to object –t can be my next door neighbor, it could be a family of a hostage. It could be an NGO. They could go and sue. They have 48 hours to go and file a lawsuit against the release of a specific or a few people on the prisoners list. So the High Court of Justice will discuss these appeals, and it will take 48 hours maximum. This brings us to Sunday as the closest possible point of the return of the hostages. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Could those names change on that list, and would that void the agreement? Avital Leibovich:  So one of the arguments I understood that rose today in Doha in Qatar is exactly on that point Israel wants to veto the list, although it has agreed to release prisoners which are sentenced not to one life sentence, but even to two and three life sentences, so it is willing to pay the price, but it is not willing, for instance, to release those symbols of leadership of Palestinian prisoners, because there will be implications for that. And by the way, even to those who are only one sentence for only one life sentence, there's also implications. Because Hamas, from a military perspective, is in a very dire situation, and they need all the professional manpower they could get.  So this is a situation that we may see these prisoners return to the lines of Hamas tomorrow morning, right after they're being released. So it is, it is a heavy price. So I think that if this will come through, and I think it will come through, Israel will need to set up a whole list, a new kind of security measure, list that will be compatible with the new situation, the new challenge in Gaza, and take it from there. And of course, this cannot go back to what, where we were on October 6. Manya Brachear Pashman:  And just going back to the political implications, you said, everyone, no matter what side they're on, they all point to Prime Minister Netanyahu as being responsible, good or bad. So what are the implications for him, for his future as the leader?  Avital Leibovich:  So you're basically asking me about the chance of survival for the Netanyahu government. Currently, they have 68 seats, because, as you remember, Gideon Saar, who was in the opposition, alongside three other politicians, members of Knesset joined Netanyahu's coalition, and now it's more stable.  The coalition needs 361 seats to survive, and the planned elections will be in 2026, so the question is, what will happen with Ben Gvir and Smotrich? One is holding six seats. The other one is holding seven seats.  What I'm hearing now about Smotrich, that he will agree to the first phase of the agreement, the hostage agreement, and then he wants some guarantees regarding the second stage, mainly with security issues, which is kind of ridiculous, because this person who does not have any background in military or security or things like that.  And then Ben Gvir is a bit more on the radical side, and he is actually in a political landslide with Netanyahu for the past couple of weeks. So the situation with him is just deteriorating. Having said all of that, you know, he fulfilled his dream to be a minister, and he would never have dreamt of it a few years ago.  And now that he's there, and now that we have President Trump going in in a few days, he may understand that the potential here for him is a lot bigger, and then he should take advantage of it, rather than just walk away. So I think that, if I would have to bet, I would say that this government will stay until 2026. Manya Brachear Pashman:  I don't want to end with politics, so I want to go back to the personal side of this. You are there on the ground, as you said, you see the faces of the hostages when you check out at the supermarket.  You see these families pleading. You also are in a very key advocacy position there. Have you met with families recently? Have you spoken with anyone recently? And can you share that conversation? Avital Leibovich:  Yeah, I've been in touch with a few of the huh, maybe 20 of the hostages families. And I'll share one story, which, of course, a lot of the stories are very emotional, and you get attached to them. But once in particular is a young mother. Her partner is in hostage in Gaza, and she gave birth to a beautiful girl when he's in Gaza. And she was here, as a matter of fact, on October 7, 2023 when she was sitting hiding in the shelter with her two other kids, she was eight months pregnant, and for her, it's about an everyday kind of survival, because on the one hand, she needs to be strong mother for three toddlers, but on the other hand, she's fighting constantly to bring her husband home, and so there's a conflict there, and I keep on asking her, how does she not break down?  And she is surrounded by families and so on, but at the end of the day, when she goes to sleep, she's alone, and if the baby cries in the middle of the night, then it's only her. And of course, there is work to be done and the kids to be taken and picked up and going to the doctors and, you know, whatever kids need. And three small kids, I mean, one is in first grade.  And again, the first grade, for example, she started school, and she was only escorted by her mother and and also, the kids are asking these naive questions, but they understand they know because they've seen many times their parents being kidnapped. So this is something they will carry on for the rest of their lives, and the fact that a baby has never met her father, that's really heartbreaking.  But I do want to say that I think they're finding inner strength, inner sources of strength for themselves, which is maybe a symbol of resilience of the Israeli people. This resilience, I think, is something very common in Israeli society. So this is a little bit of positivity in all the darkness. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Absolutely well, I really do hope that her prayers are answered, that her partner returns home safely, as well as the other 97 hostages who are still in captivity. And those who do not return alive, may their memories be for a blessing. Avital, thank you so much. Avital Leibovich:  Thank you. 

As Stanley Tucci reflects, "Given the circumstances in today's world, the parallels between then and now are impossible to ignore. It's an incredible story, but it's also happening today, to millions of people . . . It's a story about people in a certain place and time, and what happened to them, and what happened to them has happened before, and has happened since, and will continue to happen. Unless we as the human race begin to understand that we are all the same.” What would you do if fascism and antisemitism seized your homeland? In his award-winning podcast, documentarian David Modigliani takes listeners on a gripping journey through his family's escape from Italy in 1938. Pack One Bag, featuring actor Stanley Tucci, delves into Modigliani's grandparents' love story—his grandfather, a prominent book publisher who once advised Mussolini but later turned against him. As Modigliani retraces their steps across Italy, he uncovers hidden Fascist spy documents, personal family diaries, and a poignant Jewish love story that echoes through time. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.  Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  Gov. Josh Shapiro and AJC CEO Ted Deutch on Combating Antisemitism Mijal Bitton on What It Means to Be a Jew Today The Next Chapter in Catholic-Jewish Relations What's Next for the Abraham Accords Under President Trump? You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with David Mogdiliani and Stanley Tucci: Manya Brachear Pashman:   As a documentary filmmaker, David Modigliani has created a variety of works on politics in America, improv comedy, and the improv comedy of politics in America. But during the pandemic, he discovered the love letters of his grandparents, written moments before they fled fascist Italy. Those letters led him to produce a more personal project – an award-winning podcast series starring Stanley Tucci, titled Pack One Bag. David is with us now to talk about that journey.  David, welcome to People of the Pod.  David Mogdiliani:   Thank you so much for having me. I'm so glad to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So, at the core of your podcast, Pack One Bag, is the story of your grandfather, a Nobel Prize winner who fled Italy in 1938 and this was a story that you heard as a young man, as a teenager, right? But if you could share with our listeners what that story was, when you originally heard it. David Mogdiliani:  Yeah, so my grandfather, I was just a five year old kid when he won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1985. But as I became a teenager and started to grow up, I became sort of fascinated by their love story, the story of escape.  Which was basically that my grandfather, Franco Modigliani, had been a 19 year old kid in Rome when Mussolini passed the racial laws against Jews like him, and he didn't know quite what to do, and he was so fortunate that he had fallen in love with this girl from Bologna named Serena Calabi, whose family had really been planning for this moment for many years, had had the foresight and the privilege to move resources outside of the country, put together an exit strategy, and when they fled Italy for Paris in the fall of 1938 they invited him to join them. They invited their daughter's boyfriend to join them. And the family was in Paris for about nine months and then made it onto the Normandie, a French ocean liner that left the coast of France in August of 1939 and turned out to be the last boat out of mainland Europe before Hitler invaded Poland and World War II began. So that kind of fairy tale escape, a whirlwind romance, that getting married, you know, in Paris on the run, and arriving in the US, kind of just in the nick of time, was the kind of origin story that I grew up with as a kid. Manya Brachear Pashman:  And how did your grandmother's family know how to read those tea leaves?  David Mogdiliani:  My grandmother's father had been known as ile de libri, the king of the books in Italian because he had founded and run along with his wife, something called La messaggerie italiane, which was the biggest book distribution business in all of Italy. It gave him resources and an understanding of where things might be going in Europe in the 1930s so I had known all of that. But when I sort of became more interested in this project and wanted to learn more, and dug into some boxes that my dad had, 19 boxes of my family's documents, we found inside them, a couple of letters from Benito Mussolini to my great grandfather, the king of the books, and that kind of was a staggering moment to see the signature of the future dictator of Italy there at the bottom of the page.  Mussolini had been a lefty socialist newspaper editor in 1914, 1915, and when he had been kicked out of the Socialist Party for supporting Italy's intervention and involvement in World War I, the Socialist Party had kicked him out, and he had decided to start his own newspaper. He needed help doing that, and it turns out that my great grandfather had not only advised him on sort of launching his startup newspaper, but had also funneled a secret subsidy from the French government to Mussolini to fund this paper. So I was relieved to learn that he later had broken with Mussolini, you know, didn't follow sort of the whole fascist experiment, but that he had a sense of Mussolini's temperament, his character. And really, after Mussolini killed a political opponent of his in 1924, a couple of years after coming into power, that is when my great grandfather said, if things continue this way, there's no future for us in this country. Manya Brachear Pashman:  And when you say your great grandfather, the king of the books, concluded that there was no future for us, did he mean your family, or did he mean the Jewish community? David Mogdiliani:  I think at that time, in 1924, he meant our family, and I suppose also those who were not interested in kind of following a blindly fascist authoritarian dictator to the extent that he might transform the country. One of the things that I was sort of fascinated to learn in this project was that Italy was, in fact, a very inclusive place for Jews.  In 1870, the country was sort of unified, and the Jews who had been in ghettos across Italy for hundreds of years, were released, became really central part of Italian society, which was a very tolerant society. Mussolini, in fact, had a couple of Jews in his cabinet. As late as 1935 had a Jewish lover. And it was not really until a later stage of Mussolini's fascism that he very swiftly turned against the Jews, eventually passing the Leggi Razziali, the racial laws, which really instituted a whole set of restrictions that only got worse. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So talk a little bit about your process. I mean, how did you piece together this saga and all of the many pieces of this story that you had not known before, this saga that eventually became 10 episodes of your podcast. David Mogdiliani:  Yeah, you know, during COVID, a lot of people baked banana bread. I pulled out my grandparents' love letters. I had always wanted to interview them to document– I had been a documentary filmmaker for many years and to capture their story–and I kind of just never got around to it. Before I did it, they died. They passed away. And so I had kind of been living with a sense of guilt about that.  But I was in a new romance with a woman named Willa. We had become quarantine mates during the pandemic, she was really curious about the seeds of this family story that I'd shared with her. And we pulled out these love letters, which, in fact, my grandmother had translated into English for her grandchildren, because she really wanted them to know how you know, love had gotten them through the horror of that period. And pulling out those love letters, I was sort of stunned by how fresh and relevant they seemed. Not these kind of black and white mementos from a time gone by, but in a world where there was increasing authoritarian leadership around the world where antisemitism was on the rise, again, their letters to one another, which were going back and forth between Rome and Bologna. They were dealing with these questions, how do we deal with rising fascism? How bad is the antisemitism getting, and what do we do about it? And inside of those boxes, we found not only letters from Mussolini, but kind of the other part of the story. You asked me about the story I grew up with the fairy tale escape that was kind of the baseline that I was operating from. What I had not fully understood was that when my grandfather fled Italy with his girlfriend, and the king of the books, and was so fortunate to escape with them, he left behind his whole family, including his mother and his older brother, Giorgio. And eventually, as World War II kicked off, as they got into the Nazi occupation of Rome, all he could do was read about, you know, the Nazis invading his hometown, what was going on abroad, and he had lost touch entirely with his brother, and yet, what We found inside of these 19 boxes was a 25 page letter from my grandfather's brother, Giorgio, from the older brother that he'd left behind.  And that 25 page letter, it had come just after the war ended. And it said, essentially, you know, we survived. And there's so much to tell you, you know, here's how. And it was just this page turning epic of how my grandfather's brother had shepherded his young family through the war, how they had hid in a small hill town outside of Rome, how he had taken on fake identity, and his little children had learned their fake names and identities and how to cross themselves and go to church and pose as though they were Catholic, and ultimately, how they had made it all the way through to the liberation of Rome. And that, to me, felt like this whole other world, the kind of parallel universe that my grandparents had escaped, the experiences that they might have had if they'd not been so fortunate to be among. Those who were able to flee, and that, along with the question of, why do we have these letters from Mussolini, you know, in the basement, and what's going on with the king of the books, all of that made me want to go back to Italy to dig into my family's past, to better understand this story, to find, you know, answers that could inform my present moment.  At the time, you know, I thought, well, I'll need someone to help me, an audio engineer, at least if we're going to do a podcast. And Willa said, Well, you know, or I could do it. She had learned some audio skills in film school, and I had this question of, like, is this a good idea? Like mixing my budding romance with, you know, digging into my family's, you know, unknown history, but her curiosity had kind of inspired me to dig into this story in the first place, and so we set off together back to Italy with kind of no idea of just how far that adventure would take us. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So I should explain that that saga, you tell that saga in the 10 episodes of the podcast, and the voice of your grandfather is actually that of actor Stanley Tucci. How did you connect with Stanley about this project, and what was it about the project that appealed to him? David Mogdiliani:  I knew that we wanted to bring not only the personal investigative nature of kind of solving some of these mysteries, putting together the pieces, but also to bring to life the experiences and the stories of the characters in this podcast. And so I knew that I could bring to life the voices of my grandparents, which I remembered so well, but I really wanted to bring to life as well the king of the books, my great grandfather, and whenever I thought about him as this kind of debonair Italian, you know, media magnate who got his family out of dodge just in time, he seemed like this kind of cultured, congenial hero that someone like Stanley Tucci might play.  And I'd been in touch with Stanley Tucci a few years prior in regards to his searching for Italy series, we almost worked together on that the scheduling didn't work out, but we'd formed a relationship, and so I shared with him, Hey, I'm digging into the story. I'm finding all this incredible stuff. I want to tell it in audio. And he said, I'd love to help. How can I be part of this? In addition to those more standard documentary techniques. We also do a little bit of kind of creative storytelling, and it's wonderful to have Stanley Tucci do that.  We travel to London, where he lives, and did two long recording sessions with him, and he, having Italian parents and grandparents of his own, speaking Italian well, was able to snap right into that character. He needed very little direction, and it was a great joy to hear him kind of bring that character to life. Manya Brachear Pashman:  And in fact, you had a conversation with him about his own family history and the importance of connecting to that. And I want our listeners to hear a clip of that conversation.   __ David Mogdiliani:  Okay, so tell me, I guess what drew you to the story. Why spend some time doing this?  Stanley Tucci: Well, a number of things. I'm interested in Italian history, Italian stories, Italian people. I'm interested in World War II, and given the circumstances in today's world, you can't help but be interested in the parallels of that time and our time. It's your family story. It's an incredible story, but it's something that's happening today. It's happening as we speak. It's happening all over the world to literally millions of people. David Mogdiliani:  I know you get asked this a lot, but what was your first connection to learning about Italy and its history and what happened to there? Stanley Tucci: My mother's father fought in World War I. He was a corpsman, and he was up in the Alps, and I mean, like the worst fighting, but he never spoke of that. But we were always told about our family history. We were able to live in Italy when I was a kid, and we were able to go visit my family. This is in the early 1970s down in Colombia, and that was fascinating, because it wasn't even 30 years after the war. But that history was really important to us, and the way that those stories were really funny that they would tell, or really frightening that they would tell. And like basically every Italian family, those stories were always told at, you know, dinner parties, at gatherings, at holidays, and you always had a connection with your family. You were always doing things with your family.  Sometimes you were like, Why are we here? No one seems to be getting along, you know. But that said, it's invaluable. Understanding that history, knowing those people. And I really love this story because it's a universal story. It is an Italian story, but it's not an Italian story. It's a Jewish story, but it's not a Jewish story.  It's a story about people in a certain place and time, and what happened to them. And what happened to them has happened before and has happened since and will continue to happen. Unless we as the human race begins to understand that we are all the same. That's why I like this story. It's about hope for equality. ___ Manya Brachear Pashman:  David, you use the word refugee. I'm just curious if your grandparents considered themselves refugees, given the timing of their departure and then the timing of what their relatives that they left behind experienced. David Mogdiliani:  Yeah, and I know actually they specifically did. There's a letter, when my grandmother fled with her parents in early September of 1938. Her father had told her, we're going to leave in the morning. We're going to make this look just like we're going on vacation so we don't draw any undue attention. And I want you to pack one bag and we'll take off in the morning. And they went ahead to Paris, and they were joined there a few weeks later by my grandfather, who had to settle some of his affairs in Rome and get his act together.  And so there are letters from my grandmother, having just arrived in Paris, writing to her boyfriend back in Rome and hoping that he's going to come soon. And she says, quite specifically, we're in this tiny hotel room, and we're really refugees now, everything feels quite different. She, of course, had come from this privileged background. She grew up in this beautiful villa on the hill above Bologna that her father had built, a villa that they had to abandon very quickly. And so she was sort of encountering the reality of being outside of her comfort zone, of not having sort of the comforts that she had grown up with and wishing and hoping that her beloved would join her soon, which would kind of allay some of her anxiety as a refugee.  I think they also felt that sense of being unsettled through their nine months in Paris, from the fall of 1938 until the summer of 1939 being unsure of whether war might break out during that period, my great grandfather, my grandmother's father, the king of the books, he found that his bank accounts inside of Italy had been blocked by the fascist regime, something that we uncovered in more detail in the archives in Rome as we dug into these fascist documents that were kept about all of this persecution, and they had this sense of being unsure of quite when they would leave and how far kind of the tentacles of the fascist regime might extend. And so I do think that they felt like refugees, even if they themselves did not encounter one tenth of the horrors that the family members who remained behind did.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  We have a narrative podcast series called The Forgotten Exodus that really speaks to that. It's about Jews fleeing the Middle East and leaving their homes behind. I mean, that's what you're doing, is you're leaving your home behind, even if you were hated in your home, even if you faced violent antisemitism, it was still home. I'm curious how much your family was fleeing fascism, or were they fleeing antisemitism? Were they fleeing more of one than the other, or did they go hand in hand? David Mogdiliani:  Yeah, well, I think that their initial plans that my great grandfather, the king of the books, was making, were related more to fascism, to his understanding of Mussolini and to political violence and how far things might go. But in the summer of 1938 as he began to get information about the coming racial laws against Jews, and in early September of 1938 when the racial laws were passed such that Jewish children could no longer go to public schools. Teachers couldn't teach at public schools or universities if they were Jewish. Jews could not own a business with more than 99 employees. They couldn't have domestic help of non Jews.  And that initial, you know, set of restrictions against them only increased that fall in the following months, you know, obviously getting to the point eventually that Jews could own nothing, that even the debts that they owed to other people should be diverted to the state. But the beginning of those racial laws is quite literally what they were fleeing when they then decided to execute their exit strategy. It was the promulgation of the racial laws that caused them to leave. Manya Brachear Pashman:  In other words, they began to develop that exit strategy because of fascism. It was initially kind of envisioned as a flight from fascism, but when the culture became antisemitic. That was the trigger. David Mogdiliani:  Exactly. Manya Brachear Pashman:  What have I not asked you, David, that you think is a really important point to mention. David Mogdiliani:  I would say, just about the love and humor that's such a big part of this story. My grandparents were, you know, constantly bickering at one another in this very loving way that we capture in the podcast, just the jump start of their romance was amazing to me. I mean, my grandmother came into Rome with her father, the businessman. She encountered this young kid who she later called il tipo ridiculo, meaning the ridiculous character, because he was just sort of a pesky all over the place, you know guy. And when she came back a second time, he had this plan to take her out, and he had concocted this outing up the Via Appia Antica, which is the ancient road outside of Rome. They got to know each other a little better, and she let him just steal a little kiss at the end of that little date. And the next morning, when she was going back to Bologna, he showed up at the train station in this suit, you know, two sizes too big for him. He's pacing the platform, and he had come to declare his undying love for her.  He was so worried that she was going to get a marriage proposal from a fancy guy in Bologna, and he felt like he had to state his case. And she was like, you know, you got to calm down. You know, it was just a kiss. You know, this is really over the top. And she told him, I want you to not write to me for three months. She really wanted this kind of cooling off period. She said, then write to me if you want. And let's see, you know, if we really have a connection. And so three months later, she's in Bologna, and she gets this package from Rome, and on the top it says: Oh aspettato tre meze, signora di tatoreza. (I waited three months, Madam Dictator.) Ma ogna notte teo scritto. (But every night I wrote to you.) And she opens it up, and there's 91 little letters inside. So every night he had written to her, and then he had saved them and sent them all at the end. So these kind of dramatic, you know, acts of romance and love, the way that they got married inside of the fascist Italian consulate in Paris, that was a huge part of their story, and I think a huge part of what got them through that very anxious, you know, experience. Manya Brachear Pashman:  You talk about how this moment in history jumpstarted your grandparents' romance. Do you mind sharing with listeners what happened to that girlfriend who tagged along and helped you with this project? David Mogdiliani:  It's probably about 3% you know, of the overall story. We're really focused on the story of my grandparents, my great grandparents. But yes, this girlfriend Willa that I had, that had sparked curiosity about my grandparents story when we pulled out the love letters four years ago, as she then came with me as we went back to Italy, digging into the archives, interviewing our cousins, bringing this story to life, and of course, brought us a lot closer together.  Our own relationship continued on, and we were married last year. And just about three and a half months ago, we welcomed our first child, Marcello Vita Modigliani, Vita meaning life in Italian which was a family name. So yes, my own romance has been part of this story as well.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  David, thank you so much. I really appreciate you doing this project and then coming and speaking with us about that. It really is quite relevant and quite instructive. And so thank you so much.  David Mogdiliani:  Thank you. It's been a pleasure to be here, and folks can find pack one bag anywhere they listen to podcasts, Apple, Spotify, but really anywhere, including at packonebagshow.com. You can stream it straight from the website there at packonebagshow.com and thanks so much for this wonderful conversation. I really enjoyed it.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  If you missed the last episode, be sure to tune in for the conversation between AJC CEO Ted Deutch and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. In that conversation on the ground in Philadelphia, Governor Shapiro and Ted talked about the antisemitism the governor has faced, the importance of nuance and how simply there is none when it comes to expressions of anti-Jewish hatred. 

Last week, AJC CEO Ted Deutch traveled to Philadelphia to meet with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro for an in-depth discussion on combating antisemitism, ensuring the future vitality of Jewish communities in Pennsylvania and beyond, and addressing the challenges posed by rising political polarization both locally and nationally. “When it comes to antisemitism . . . there is no nuance. Antisemitism, bigotry, and hatred in all forms is not okay. Everyone in a position of public trust . . . has a responsibility to speak and act with moral clarity and speak out against it,” said Governor Shapiro. AJC is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization. AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. Watch: AJC CEO Ted Deutch, Gov. Josh Shapiro Say Fight Against Antisemitism Must Be Bipartisan Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  Mijal Bitton on What It Means to Be a Jew Today The Next Chapter in Catholic-Jewish Relations What's Next for the Abraham Accords Under President Trump? Honoring Israel's Lone Soldiers This Thanksgiving: Celebrating Service and Sacrifice Away from Home The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Ted Detuch and Josh Shapiro: Manya Brachear Pashman: Last week, AJC CEO Ted Deutch traveled to Philadelphia and sat down with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro for a conversation about antisemitism, the future of Jewish communities in Pennsylvania and across the nation, and growing political polarization not only in Philadelphia but throughout the country. The conversation was so powerful, we wanted to share it with a wider audience. So, I turn it over to Ted and Governor Shapiro.  Ted Deutch:   I'm going to start just by fessing up to something that I tried to do, that I fortunately failed at. I don't often tout my failure, but there was a time some number of years ago, Governor, where I thought that your future should take you to the United States House of Representatives. I tried to convince you to run for Congress, and you had other plans. Fast forward many years, thank God I was wrong, and thank you for the remarkable job you've done as governor of Pennsylvania.  Josh Shapiro:   Thank you. It's so good to be with you.  Ted Deutch:   Obviously, it's a really great to be with you. But I had, I wanted to break the ice just a little bit, if I may, with just some quick questions, just to lose, just to loosen you up a little, if that's alright. Josh Shapiro:   Do I not seem loose? I feel pretty loose.  Ted Deutch:   Alright, very quickly. Favorite eagle of all time? Josh Shapiro:   You know what I was on Eagles pregame live just yesterday, before the Birds played the Steelers. Birds beat the Steelers, by the way. And I got to sit next to Jaws. Ron Jaworski, and like, it was just a normal day. I was a little bit starstruck. So I guess I'd go with Jaws. Yeah.  Ted Deutch:   Alright. Better play-by-play announcer– Merrill Reese, Gene Hart? Josh Shapiro:   Oh my God, come on. All right. That's like asking me to pick between my kids. Ted Deutch:   Alright, I'll move on. Moving on, moving on, moving on. Some people here who don't, the handful who don't really get this at all, and my staff, who's saying, why are you doing this. Josh Shapiro:   Merrill Reese by the way is about to get inducted into the Hall of Fame for, they do once a year, they do an announcer, and Merrill just won that award this year. Pretty amazing.  Ted Deutch:   He is amazing. Best Philly movie ever made?  Josh Shapiro:   Rocky. Ted Deutch:   Easy. Thank you. Inappropriate question, perhaps at an AJC dinner, provolone or swiss? Josh Shapiro:   I do enjoy provolone, but I'm not a cheesesteak guy, so. We have a kosher governor's residence. I can't be out eating cheesesteaks.  Ted Deutch:   It was a bit of a trick question, I'll admit. And then we'll just finish this off. Favorite Israeli food? Josh Shapiro:   Falafel, but not from some fancy restaurant, though I do love Goldies and I love Michael, but on some like stand in the middle of nowhere in Israel, it's always delicious. Ted Deutch:   This also gives me an opportunity to acknowledge Tsach Saar, who is the Consul General of Israel. Thank you very much for being here. All right, I tried. Thanks for playing along.  Josh Shapiro:   Did I not do well? You did try.  Ted Deutch:  You did great. You did great. Thank you.  Josh Shapiro:   No more lightning round? Ted Deutch:  I have more. Josh Shapiro:   Now we got to do this serious stuff? Ted Deutch:   We do. And frankly, look, your answer to the silly question about cheesesteaks is the perfect lead in to my first question for you. The first governor, I grew up in Bethlehem, the first governor I remember was governor Milton Shapp, who was born Milton Shapiro. So in that respect, you're actually the second Governor Shapiro in Pennsylvania's history. He was governor from 1971 to 79.  But you are Governor Shapiro. You're a proud Jew who dismisses a question about cheesesteaks because you have a kosher home. You quote Pirkei Avot in your life as governor and the speeches that you give. It's so clear, and we and everyone has come to know how important Shabbat dinner is for you, with your family. Your Judaism matters to you a lot, and for those of us who are so involved in the community, it's something that obviously we admire. But I would love to hear a little bit more about how it informs what you do and why it's so important. Josh Shapiro:   I want to just say on a serious note, how grateful I am to AJC for the important work that you do every day, how grateful I am to Ted, who's been a friend for more than a decade. How thankful I am to the leaders here who raise money and do this important work. For Mark, who I think asked me to do this like a year ago, and has checked in with me each month to make sure he's going to do it. I'm proud to do it, and to the Liebmans, and everyone, I appreciate what you all do.  I just celebrated, Lori noted the other night that I've been in public office for 20 years, and I'm a proud public servant. I think public service is a noble profession, and the reason I am in public service, it's fitting that my dad is here tonight, is because of my family and because of my faith. Both draw me to service. Our faith teaches us that, as you mentioned, I quote Pirkei Avot. I quote it in a synagogue. I'll quote it at a Kiwanis Club. I was proud to quote it from the pulpit at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, just a couple months ago, that no one is required to complete the task, but neither are we free to refrain from it. Meaning each of us has a responsibility to get off the sidelines, get in the game and do our part.  Now, doing our part can come in a lot of different ways. Some people do their part in a courtroom. Some people do their part in a business. Some people do their part through charitable work, like here at AJC. For me, my part is through public service. My part is through serving my community, and I'm honored to do it. I share that with you because as I was getting ready to launch my campaign for governor, you may recall I was attorney general at the time, a group of us came together and said, Well, how do we want to kind of reintroduce you to the good people of Pennsylvania as you launch your campaign? You could start by talking about a policy or for some initiative you want to get past, but actually what I wanted to do was talk about the issue I just mentioned to you, what drew me to want to serve in the first place. Why I was even contemplating running to be your governor.  And so we had a long conversation about what motivates me, Ted, and why I do this. To me, being able to bring together family and faith was really important, and the best way to show that is by doing what I do every single Friday night since I was a kid, and what we continue to do, and that is having Shabbat dinner with my family.  And so the first ad in my campaign was all of us sitting around the Shabbat dinner table. Now, fun fact for all of you, I think we filmed it like on a Tuesday, so it really wasn't Shabbat. My kids remind me of that, but we did have everything on the table. And what was so interesting about it was, after the ad started running, and I would show up in communities where there aren't a lot of Jews, if any Jews, in Pennsylvania. Folks would grab me and say, Hey, I saw your ad. That was great. I want to tell you what Sunday lunch is like after I get home from church. I want to tell you what Christmas dinner is like in our family. I want you to know what we experience when we leave our place of worship.  And in a lot of ways, it actually brought me closer together with the community. We were able to see one another in a deeper way. I think faith has allowed me to get into living rooms and conversations and communities in a much deeper way than perhaps I ever could before, as I think it is critically important if you want to be a public servant, to be true to who you are and express that to folks. So I'm proud of who I am. I'm proud of the way I've lived my life. I'm proud of the way Lori and I are raising our four children, and I appreciate the fact that the good people of Pennsylvania acknowledge that and open themselves up and share that back with me as I go out serving them as their governor.  Ted Deutch:   The importance of Shabbat dinner, part of it, obviously is your Judaism, but it also anchoring for your family. And for everyone that you interact with to know that on Friday nights, that's the time for your family. There's something there in a time of really polarizing politics and fragmentation of society, there's something there that we should learn from, right? Josh Shapiro:   I just think making sure you're committed to family, you're committed to yourself at some key moments, each day, each week, is really important. Lori and I live crazy lives right now, running all over the place. I'm not complaining. I asked for this, and I love what I do. I hope you can tell the joy that I have every day in serving you as your governor. And no matter where we are during the week, we always know, Friday night we're going to be together. We always know that it's going to be a moment where we can be with the kids and have conversations with them.  And I'll be honest with you, Ted. I mean, some of it, of course, is the prayers and the rituals and the religious aspect of it, but so much of it is just the family part of it, and being grounded in that, and knowing that that will be our moment during the week, whether we're at the governor's residence or our home in Montgomery County, we are always together Friday night, and it's something we don't compromise on. I think it's important that you've got to set those boundaries. You got to say what's important. And that's exactly what we do. Ted Deutch:   It's especially important to have time to be together in this period where, for almost 15 months, the community has really, in so many ways, struggled. We had the deadliest attack on the Jewish community since the Holocaust, the equivalent, just in terms that people in America can try to understand. The 1200 people, the equivalent of 45,000 Americans, God forbid, if you use the same ratios, the equivalent of 7000 people being taken hostage. Now still, 100 hostages still being held beneath Gaza. It's been really hard for the community.  And yes, Israel has fortunately made advances, and from a geostrategic standpoint, is doing better. But this has still been really difficult for the community, for those of us who care about Israel, and then layer on top of that, the antisemitism that we've seen, that you've been so outspoken about in the work that you do. How, again, given what's at your core, is it hard sometimes with the way that we're feeling, the way that you feel as a committed Jew, in the face of all this, to speak about it? Do you ever feel that you need to hold back because this is all so personal to you? Josh Shapiro:   I never feel like I need to hold back. I think it is always important to speak out. But I also think it is important that we have two separate conversations, one about antisemitism and the other about Israel. When it comes to antisemitism, I think it is critically important that folks understand: there is no nuance in that conversation. Antisemitism, hatred, bigotry in all forms. It is not okay.  And everyone, everyone in a position of public trust, everyone has a responsibility to speak and act with moral clarity, to speak out against it, and it doesn't matter who is sharing those sentiments. If they're members of your own party, if they're people who you otherwise might agree with on some other issue, we have a responsibility to speak out against it, and we have a responsibility as a community to be unified against antisemitism, hatred, bigotry, in all forms. There is no nuance on that.  When it comes to the issue of Israel and foreign policy and Middle East policy, that's a far more gray area. And I think it is important to continue to speak out in support of Israel, and I think it is also acceptable, if one wants to respectfully criticize a policy coming from the Israeli government, there is a difference there. And so what I try and do is not hold back in any way, but to make sure folks understand we are having two different conversations.  We got to speak out and stop antisemitism in our communities, and yes, we can express an opinion as it relates to the policies in Israel or by the Israeli government. And I think it is also critically important to acknowledge the very real fact that there is antisemitism in this country. There is antisemitism in this Commonwealth, and it is on the left and it is on the right, and there is no one party that has a clean record on it, and we've got to make sure that no matter who is putting forth those words of hate, they are condemned. Ted Deutch:   AJC is fiercely non-partisan in the way that we do our work and recognize and talk constantly, try to make the point exactly the way you have. That there's antisemitism, wherever it is, we have to call it out. But that it's harder for some to see it or to call it out when it's among their friends, in their own party, than if it's in the other party. This was something that I dealt with as a member of Congress. But when it when conversations turn to you during the election and people refer to you as Genocide Josh. Josh Shapiro:   Yeah, I saw that.  Ted Deutch: Yeah. There are those, I think we have to acknowledge it's on both sides. And clearly there are those on the far left who don't want to criticize Israel, but have now taken the position that Israel essentially has no right to exist. That then bring that into that kind of language, which is clearly antisemitic in the way it's applied. How do you deal with that?  Josh Shapiro:   I must tell you, it did not upset me and it didn't affect me. What did upset me was the way those attacks against me made other people feel. As I was traveling across this commonwealth, across the country, folks would come over to me and tell me, you know, I saw what they said about you, and it was making them feel less safe in their communities. It was making them feel less safe in their schools or on their college campuses. That upset me.  And on that I felt a responsibility to try and lift them up and strengthen them, and let them know that they should be proud of who they are. I'm proud of who I am, and sort of help them brush off the noise and recognizing and I think this is an important point, that while a lot of that noise did exist, and it is empirically true that antisemitism is on the rise, and thank God for groups like AJC doing this work. The vast, vast, vast majority of people that I come across every day, they're good people. They're not bigots, they're not spewing hate, they're actually looking to try and figure out ways in which we can bring people together. That is what I see.  And so I'm comforted by that every day. I'm not offended or upset by the attacks that people make against me, even the antisemitic attacks against me. What I get upset about, what I worry about, is how it makes other people feel, and whether that causes them to retreat or causes them to maybe not do something they were going to do or not, go somewhere where they were going to go. That is upsetting to me, and I try and spend as much time as I can with the people who are affected by that, to try and make sure they have the strength to continue to go forward and lead by example in a way that gives them the strength that they need to move forward.  Ted Deutch:   And sometimes, while the overwhelming majority of people are good, I agree with you, and I think it's important for us to realize that the data tells us that the vast majority of Americans are supportive of Israel as well, and are overwhelmingly opposed to antisemitism. Small numbers can do real damage. And that's what we saw on a number of college campuses, where the the protests, some of them going back to October 8, which were not protests about, obviously, about the Israeli government, but just protests in support of Hamas, some of these protests in support of a terror group, really put people at risk.  And you were very clear in the way that you approach that, right here in Philadelphia and around the state. How should, now that we're 15 months in, AJC has worked with universities around the country to try to ensure that they're doing what they need to to fight antisemitism. From your perspective, how are they doing, how are we doing, 15 months later?  Josh Shapiro:   I commend AJC for the important work they've done on college campuses. And I don't know if John Fry is still here, the president of Temple University, and an outstanding leader who was at Drexel University for some time and now is at Temple. He's an example of a strong leader dealing with these challenges on campus. And there are others to be sure.  Look, I think it is critically important that we protect people's first amendment rights to be able to protest on campus, protest on our streets, they of course, have to follow the rules of the road, whether on campus or in a city, Commonwealth, you name it, but they should be able to express themselves. But that expression is not okay if you're violating the rules of the campus, the rules of the city or the community. It's also not okay if it puts other people at risk. Universities have a moral and a legal responsibility to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to this country to keep all students safe on campus. And for some universities, I think they were willing to forgo that responsibility, or it got a little bit out of balance. Some universities were willing to accept a little bit of hate over here, but no hate over here, and that's not okay. Hate and bigotry in all forms, needs to be condemned. All students need to be safe on campus, and yes, there should be places where students can express themselves and have their views heard. So while I realize there's a lot of gray area when it comes to figuring out exactly where that line is, I do think it's important everybody adhere to those basic principles.  And there are many colleges and universities here in Pennsylvania that are. I think, candidly, Penn lost its way. They are working to get back. I think Susanna Lachs-Adler and others. Susanna has done really wonderful work, and there's some important work there happening under their interim president. I think they are moving in the right direction there, and many other universities are as well.  And so I hope, to get to the heart of your question, 15 months later, we're in a position where students feel safe, to be able to both go to class and to be able to protest within the bounds of the rules on campus, and that we continue to be balanced in our approach there.  Ted Deutch:   When there is messaging sent, whether from faculty or from student groups or from other places on campus that say you are not welcome in this group, or, frankly, in this classroom, simply because you are a Zionist, simply because you believe in the modern state of Israel, that that also can't be acceptable because of what it says, the message that it sends to students, and how it puts people at risk. Josh Shapiro:   Without question. I mean, if you're a student on one of these campuses, you literally have a legal right to be safe in these communities and on these campuses. And university leaders have to remember that. I gotta tell you, these students, they're scared. You know, Hanukkah last year was sort of right around the time that these protests were really kicking up and students were incredibly scared. I heard from a number of students at Penn who reached out to me, reached out to my wife, and we decided to forgo lighting our hanukkiah for the first night at the governor's residence. Got in the trucks, drove to Penn, and we lit the hanukkiot at Penn's Hillel with those students. We wanted to make sure that they knew their governor, their first lady, had their backs, and that they were going to be safe on campus.  And that we were going to make sure that university leaders ensured their safety and their well being on campus. Again, I want to be really clear. Students have a right to protest. Their voices should be heard. I think students have helped usher in change in this country for generations. We want to hear their voices, but not at the expense of the safety and well being of any other student. That's where you got to draw a line. Ted Deutch:   You have, you've talked a lot about building a coalition to combat hatred, and you've invoked Rabbi Heschel, and you've invoked his work with Dr. King during the Civil Rights era. And it's, I think it's true for so many of us, that having invested so much time in those really important relationships, there was some disappointment with response after October 7, and yet, the only option, from our perspective, is to double down. One, because it's the right thing to do, and two, because the Jewish community represents .02% of the population in the world. We need allies. And this has been really central to AJC. And I know Stephanie Sun is here, co-chair of Papaja, and I think Anthony Rosado, co-chair of the Latino Jewish Coalition is here. And I appreciate their being here and their leadership. This is a really important way to continue to combat antisemitism and simultaneously to make sure that Zionists, the people who believe in Israel, aren't excluded.  Can you just talk about, I know this is important to you. Can you talk about how to build those kinds of coalitions that will help our community and and beyond? Josh Shapiro:   You have to build coalitions if you want to make any progress here in this Commonwealth and in the country. I'm actually the only governor in the entire country with a divided legislature, right? So I've got a State Senate led by Republicans, State House led by Democrats. I literally can't get a bill to my desk unless some number of Democrats and some number of Republicans support it.  And so you're forced to have dialogue. You're forced to come together. That's naturally who I am, trying to bring people together. But I want you to know it is. It is required here in Pennsylvania if we want to make progress. We made a hell of a lot of progress, fixing an unconstitutional education system, cutting taxes six times, hiring over 1000 new state troopers and police officers in Pennsylvania, and passing some of the most sweeping criminal justice reforms ever in the history of Pennsylvania. At the same time, we've been able to invest $3 billion in private capital investment to create over 130,000 new jobs. I've only been governor two years. We're getting a lot of stuff done.  I share this with you because we understand the critical importance of building coalitions. Now I'll tell you who else understood that, the person whose portrait hangs in my office right above my desk, William Penn. I share that with you because when William Penn helped build what is now the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, he built this as a place that would be warm and welcoming for all, where people of all different faiths would be forced together to actually work together to make progress in this commonwealth. That was his vision, and I view it as my responsibility, as someone who's been handed the baton from William Penn, and actually a whole lot of people in between, of course, to pick up on the work that was done before I got here and to continue it, in the spirit that that Penn started. A spirit where we want to make sure we respect people, no matter what they look like, where they come from, who they love, who they pray to, and that those folks are represented around the table.  And when they're around the table, and they feel like they have the freedom and the safety to be able to talk and to share their ideas and their views and their policies, that's what's going to allow us to build a coalition, to be able to get meaningful things done, to be able to make progress. You mentioned Heschel and King. I've had a lot of conversations about Heschel and King with Reverend Warnock, who I think is one of the great leaders in our country.  He gave me the privilege of being able to speak at the pulpit at Ebenezer Baptist Church where Dr. King was, of course, the prayer leader there. We spoke about Heschel and King from Ebenezer, the need to be able to bring the black community and the Jewish community closer together, to be able to do this important work. My friend David's here. He's done work with Operation Understanding and other organizations like that, that bring people from different walks of life together.  And if we can do that more, we can understand one another, we can reduce the amount of hate and bigotry in our community, and we can make progress in the spirit of William Penn, to fill in the work that Heschel and King started, and to be able to create a safer community for all of us. Ted Deutch:   I want to follow up on this note of bipartisanship. You talked about the division and the legislature in Harrisburg, and I want to just focus on Israel for a moment. We have, you have, sorry, it's been a long time since I lived in Pennsylvania. Josh Shapiro:   You're still one of us. You're a Birds fan.  Ted Deutch:  Thank you. Thank you very much.  Josh Shapiro:   And he went to Camp Ramah. This guy's got a whole pedigree. Ted Deutch:   Lehigh Valley, in my blood. Look, if you think about support for Israel in Pennsylvania, there were two pro Israel Democratic senators. There will now be a pro Israel Democratic senator in Senator Fetterman, whose support has been nothing short of spectacular. You have strong Republican support, including from my good friend, Congressman Fitzpatrick from the area as well. And in many ways, it's a good reminder of the importance of bipartisan support for Israel.  As we look into the future, given the challenges that Israel faces, is that Pennsylvania model of bipartisan support from both senators and bipartisan support from House members and a Democratic governor, is that the model that we should continue to expect to see around the country and will both parties continue to be as strongly pro Israel as they could be? Josh Shapiro:   Look, I'm a proud Democrat, and I want to make sure that the Democratic Party continues to stand with Israel, and I'm going to continue to do my part to raise my voice, to ensure that it does. I lament the fact that in recent years, the issue of Israel, so to speak, has become weaponized in our political system. I think Israel is far safer and far stronger when the relationship that elected officials in America have is on a really bipartisan or nonpartisan basis. And I think there have been some organizations, quite candidly, that have tried to throw a monkey wrench in that idea, and instead have injected too much partisanship into that relationship. In the long run that makes Israel less safe. Maybe in the short run, given the way the political dynamics are in the country today, it could work to Israel's advantage. But mark my words, in the long run, politicizing America's relationship with Israel is not in the best interest of Israel long term, from a safety and a security standpoint.  And so I believe the Pennsylvania model is the right way, where we've got Republicans and Democrats alike standing up and speaking out in support of Israel, and by the way, challenging Israel, where Israel needs to be challenged, and also making sure that we are speaking with a unified bipartisan voice against antisemitism, and where antisemitism rears its ugly head, no matter what political party or affiliation or left leaning or right leaning person said it, or group said it, that we join together in standing up and speaking out against it. I think there's something to our Pennsylvania model, and I'd like to see it more across the country.  Ted Deutch:   I want to thank you really so much for this conversation, and I want to give you a chance to end with this, for all of the challenges that we're facing, it's kind of a heavy conversation. What is it that you're most hopeful about at this moment, thinking about our community and the future and your life and your world? Josh Shapiro:   You know, I get asked a lot like, how do you stay so optimistic and so upbeat, given all the challenges there are out in the world, and there are so many challenges, there's challenges like what we're talking about here tonight with antisemitism. There's other challenges that the world is confronting, and probably in another 40 days or so, we're going to confront even more challenges in this country.  But what, what I think keeps me so up and so hopeful every day is the privilege I have to serve as your governor and travel around to different communities and different neighborhoods and just meet people who are doing remarkable things every day. It is a privilege I wish every Pennsylvanian had. To go and to see these nonprofits who are doing life saving and life changing work. To see the incredible work that's happening in some of our skyscrapers here in Philly and our farmlands out in rural communities across Pennsylvania. There are so many people who are literally changing the world, doing tikkun olam in their neighborhoods.  And you know what? They're not down by the news cycle that I know really can bum a lot of people out. These people give me hope, and these people fuel my energy every day to go out and do this work as governor, and they make me optimistic and hopeful. And so while I leave you with this, while I understand the critically important role AJC plays to continue to combat hatred and bigotry and antisemitism, and you do a great job doing that work, while we're focused on those negative things that we've got to combat, I hope you'll also take a moment to appreciate the positive in our communities and understand that there is so much good out there and so many people doing so much good. And that is what fuels me. That's what keeps me up and excited.  And that is what I think you know, really, in many ways, in the spirit of Penn, we get to see every day in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. So we need to continue to do this hard work that AJC calls us to do. But let's never lose sight of the positivity that's out there that fuels my optimism every day. Ted Deutch:   We're so grateful. Governor Shapiro, thank you very, very much.  Josh Shapiro:   Thank you. Thank you, Ted.   

As many Jews deepen their sense of Jewish identity, Dr. Mijal Bitton joins the podcast to explore the significance of our Jewish heritage, texts, and peoplehood and what it means as we enter the Hanukkah season. Bitton is a sociologist, storyteller, podcast host, and Jewish advocate who also serves as the spiritual leader of the Downtown Minyan in Manhattan.  As one of the first Sacks Scholars, she helps young people reclaim and reimagine Jewish traditions. In this week's episode, Dr. Bitton discusses  Sephardic Jewry, Jewish peoplehood, academia, the needs of young Jews, and the realities of intergroup and interfaith after October 7. Resources: The Morality and Ethics of Global Jewish Advocacy: Lessons from Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks - AJC Advocacy Anywhere Jewish Unpacked - Wondering Jews podcast, with guest AJC CEO Ted Deutch Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  The Next Chapter in Catholic-Jewish Relations What's Next for the Abraham Accords Under President Trump? Honoring Israel's Lone Soldiers This Thanksgiving: Celebrating Service and Sacrifice Away from Home The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Mijal Bitton: Manya Brachear Pashman:   Dr. Mijal Bitton is a sociologist, storyteller and Jewish advocate. As the spiritual leader of the Downtown Minyan in Manhattan and one of the first Sacks Scholars, she helps young people reclaim and reimagine Jewish traditions.  Michal is no stranger to our AJC audiences. Earlier this month, she delivered a powerful Advocacy Anywhere to commemorate Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, for which the Sacks Scholars are, of course named.  And as co-host of Jewish Unpacked's podcast Wondering Jews, she and Jewish educator Noah Weisman explore questions we all ask about the Jewish experience, from the mundane to the miraculous. In fact, just recently, they interviewed AJC CEO Ted Deutch. The podcast has covered topics spanning from how summer camp shapes Jewish lives, how to constantly juggle joy and pain, the impact of the Jewish vote in the most recent election, and in turn, the impact of Trump's resulting victory on Jewish America. Mijal is with us now in our Midtown Manhattan studio to rehash a little of that, but also to discuss what led her to take on her many roles, including her newest project. Mijal, welcome to People of the Pod. Mijal Bitton:  Thank you, thank you for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman:   If you could please share with our listeners about your heritage, about your upbringing. You were born in Argentina, correct?  Mijal Bitton: I was born in Argentina. My father's family moved to Argentina from Morocco and Syria. My mother is from Spain. And part of what shaped my interest in Jews from the Middle East and North Africa, is that when we moved to America, we moved to a Persian Jewish community. So that was like my introduction to American Jews, this very tight knit Persian community in Long Island.  Eventually, I met my husband, who is a Syrian Jew, with Egyptian and Iraqi background, and I wrote my PhD on the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn, which all just shows you a little bit my fascination. It's not just an identity, it's a tradition that I draw from and that I believe can actually give us very powerful tools right now. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Now, is this a Syrian Jewish community from Aleppo or Damascus?  Mijal Bitton: Historically, there is a big difference. I would say that a lot of these communities, you can think of them as pre-immigration and then new settlement in America. Right now in America, it's one community. The differences between Aleppo and Damascus are not that pronounced, maybe like when you cook a little bit the recipe that you use, or slightly different songs that you might have, depending where your family is from. Manya Brachear Pashman:  You are, in fact, a visiting researcher at NYU, and you are the director of the National Study of the Sephardic and Mizrahi in the United States. What is that study all about? Mijal Bitton: Yeah. So when I wanted to do a PhD at NYU, which I did, on Syrian Jews, and I wanted to study Sephardic Jews, what I realized very quickly, and you might have seen this from your other podcast, is that there is very little good scholarship, good literature to explain to us who these Jews are. This is a problem, both in terms of historical research, and for me, I'm really interested in contemporary Jewish life.  There was a huge gap of not having resources to understand Sephardic Jews in the United States. So I had to do my PhD, kind of trying to reconstruct, you know, even, like the categories of study, how do we think about Jewish observance and really religiosity with Jews from the Middle East. So this study is an early attempt by early I mean, we hope it's the first of many studies to begin to tease out the main pillars of what we need to know to understand Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews roughly.  And again, we'll go into this more in the actual report, which will come out in a couple of months, roughly 10% of American Jews are Sephardic or Mizrahi, very similar to, let's say, the Orthodox Jewish population, the Russian-speaking Jewish population, but much less understood, much less studied. So it's an important first attempt to begin to lay out the foundations of knowledge. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So would you say that study is overdue?  Mijal Bitton: Yes, very much overdue. I think it's overdue for many reasons. One of them is that in the American Jewish community we've had for many years now, conversations around diversity, around inclusion and the like. And Sephardic Jews have not really been part of this conversation. Or let me say this with more precision, they have not been part of this conversation in terms that they would want to be part of this conversation. Maybe I'll be a little bit more explicit as to what I mean.  Many of the Jews that we've cited that I know tend to reflect more socially conservative, Middle Eastern forms of Jewish life, and these communities don't fit in very neatly in diversity efforts that tend to align with progressive understandings of diversity. So that means that there's been a real gap in how Sephardic Jews are included or not included in many spaces that are trying to be more inclusive. So we really believe that diversity is not easy, and that it begins with listening and understanding, who are the individuals and communities that we want to include.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  I mean, how does kind of a deeper and broader knowledge of one's Jewish identity, one's Jewish history, how does your deeper and broader knowledge of your identity and history help you be a better advocate? And how can it help others be better Jewish advocates? Mijal Bitton: That's a great question. So you know, you mentioned before that I started a weekly Jewish wisdom Substack. It's called Committed and I'll be grateful to share the link with everyone. The first piece that I wrote there on Genesis was actually about Jewish pride, and it was an idea that I had been thinking for a long time about, and it was that, especially since October 7, I have been in all of these spaces with people who are newly reawakened, energized, outraged about what's been happening. And they speak constantly about the need for Jewish pride, Jewish pride. We need more Jewish pride, more Jewish pride, more Jewish pride.  And on the one hand, I love that. I love that awakening. It resonates with me strongly. On the other hand, I had like this little voice whispering to me, because, as a sociologist, I've actually done research that talks about pride as something, I want to try to say this carefully, as something that is sometimes the last thing a group holds on to before assimilating fully.  So in very simplistic terms, if you think about Italian Americans or Irish Americans right over three or four generations in this country, they will slowly lose a lot of their communal elements. They will move away from their neighborhoods. They will stop only cooking Italian food. They will stop working in certain professions. But they will still have a little bit of that Irish pride in St Patrick's Day.  So I have been concerned when we speak about Jewish pride, that Jewish pride can be seen as unsustainable if we don't know what we are proud of. There is a world of a difference between someone who says there's something here, that seems really good, and I think I'm proud. I'm proud. And it's different that if you're standing there and you say, I am proud of a heritage spanning 1000s of years, I stand on the shoulders of giants. I am continuing a legacy of Jews who have survived persecutions, who've survived assimilation, who've survived living in different countries and in different times, and I am holding all of this when I stand up as a Jew. That, to me, is the kind of confident pride that can help us as advocates when we are facing challenges, because we are facing challenges and we're going to continue to face challenges. So we desperately need that sense of Jewish history, that sense of spiritual sustenance. We have to know what we are proud of, what we are fighting for. Manya Brachear Pashman:  You wrote a piece shortly after October 7, and it was titled, The Pain You're Feeling is Peoplehood. And it was incredibly powerful. It went viral. Because it so perfectly captured what so many Jews were feeling at that moment. And for those who haven't read it, can you share what led you to write it and kind of summarize it for our listeners. Mijal Bitton: I lead a community, I'm the spiritual leader of a community called the Downtown Minyan. And like many spiritual leaders and clergy on that Simchat Torah. I had to, you know, I'm not saying anything new. Here I was, I was heartbroken, reeling. I don't use a phone on Shabbat didn't always happening. My family in Israel, the reports that were coming in, I felt like my soul, my heart was being ripped. I think many of us felt this. And I had a Shul to run, and I had to figure out, like, what Jewish wisdom can I use right now? And it was very primal and instinctive.  There was a teaching that I had taught before because I thought it was important, but at that moment, it felt essential, and it just like, came out. I stood in front of my community who were in pain, and I wanted to give them names to explain what was happening. And I described, I use a very famous teaching by Rav Soloveichik, who speaks about who asked the question, can we still speak of ourselves as Jewish people, even with all of our diversity and differences and disagreements?  And it brings up a Talmudic question about, if you have a man of two heads, is this considered one person or two? And it's a complicated question, if you take it seriously, and he offers a gruesome test to figure this out. You pour boiling water on one head, and then you look at the other, and if it cries out in pain, it is one people. If it doesn't, it is two. The reason that this teaching was important for me to say, and I think the reason you said it went viral is because, you know. I haven't said this like this before, so I am expressing this now, thinking with you. I think for very long, for us Jews in America, we have been pushed and compelled to think of Judaism along Protestant religious terms.  What I mean by this, it's a faith, it's a set of beliefs, it's a value system. It has to fit in like some universalistic framework, and that pain that we felt on October 7 was different. It was a reminder that to be a Jew is to be part of a family. That it doesn't matter how different we are from each other, how much we disagree. When your relative is in pain, you cry with them. And it's almost like that pain, to me was like a way of saying we are reminded that we're part of a family. And there's something. I don't have the right words here. There's something almost to treasure about the pain, because it reminds us that we are connected to each other, committed to each other, responsible for each other.  And I think we all felt it, and it took away some of the layers of conditioning that many of us have had, to pretend like we aren't a family. That's what I think was one of the things that were so powerful about the tragedy that we all experienced. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Yeah, because we're so trained to be individuals, right, especially here in America, right, that individual spirit, and that's, that's not part of peoplehood. Or is it? I don't know. Maybe that's not the point.  Mijal Bitton: Yeah, listen, I think our tradition is amazing and complex, and there's strands of faith that brings up individualism and agency, but there's powerful strengths that talk about us as a family, as a collective, as a tribe, and there's powerful elements in our culture that have been pushing against that. And in many parts of our community, I think we drank the Kool Aid and we said we are not like, you know, that's backwards. That's not who we are anymore.  And then we were reminded that there's something there that we all felt was true. It existed before October 7, but I think October 7 kind of like woke it up. When I've shared this metaphor of the two headed men with people, many of them have offered an objection, and they've said, how awful is it for us to speak about who we are based on antisemitism? It shouldn't have to be like that. But, I mean, I would agree with that critique on theoretical terms. On sociological human terms, there is nothing that is more potent than having a shared enemy, a shared tragedy. Think about a family again, how tragedy brings us together.  So I think that unfortunately, the fact that there is still antisemitism vibrant in our societies and our streets has served to continue to reinforce that initial sense that we had after October 7. Of course, there are rifts. We can talk about debates that are happening. We are not as united as right after the tragedy. But, you know, I wrote a piece for CNN basically saying that the virulent anti semitism in the anti-Zionist movement is creating more Zionists. It's creating more Jewish solidarity. And it hasn't gone away. I am a religious woman. When I pray to God, I ask God that God should give us the challenge of having to remain connected in good times. I prefer that, but being that we don't have that right now, I do think that we have to double down on what our response is. Manya Brachear Pashman:  You wrote another piece for CNN that had to do with the anti-Israel protests on university campuses and the fear that it was inducing in so many Jewish young people, and the solidarity that was coming out of that. So with that in mind, one thing that the Jewish communal world is experiencing, we're certainly seeing it here at AJC, is an influx in involvement. Not just solidarity, but activism and advocacy, people who want to be more involved. Have you given any thought to this influx, and whether or not the infrastructure is in place here in America especially, to kind of sustain that, that level of involvement and activism.  Mijal Bitton: So one of the things that I've seen, and I'll be honest, that I'm still trying to understand it, but one of the things that I'm seeing is, there's, there's the thing called the organized Jewish community, okay? And it's a powerful ecosystem, you know, with lovers of power and influence. And I'm also privy, partially because of my work with young Jews, to a whole world of people who are wanting to be active, but who either don't have the access or the orientation to do so, you know, within the organized Jewish community And for me, part of what's still missing are the bridges between these different ecosystems. There's all of these people who are active on social media, right? The world of influencers, there's these groups of young Jews who are creating pop up Shabbat dinners, like all over the place, and like creating new clubs to celebrate Shabbat with each other and Jewish identity. And there is a lot of energy there. And what I'm trying to figure out is, I'm thinking of this as almost two powerful ecosystems, and I think that they would both be more powerful if they're in better conversation with each other.  So that, to me, again, it's a little bit abstract. I'm still thinking it through. I am a scholar in residence at the Maimonides Fund, and this is one of the questions that I have right now in this post-October 7 world: what would it mean to better bridge between these different ecosystems? Manya Brachear Pashman:  We just talked about the campus protests and the solidarity that they fuel, and we've also talked about the lack of research and scholarship out there about Jews in the Middle East and and North Africa and the diversity of the Jewish community. Do you think if young people had a better grasp of the thousands of years of history, of Jewish history in the Middle East, do you think that would shift the conversation at all, that education? And I don't mean obviously just within the Jewish community, I mean more broadly. Mijal Bitton: I mean, broadly speaking, yeah. So I would say two things I take to heart with my friend Haviv Retig Gur, who's a brilliant analyst. He speaks a lot about the fact that Jews, we don't know our own story. And I do think there is, like, huge lack of literacy in understanding that there were nearly 1 million Jews all across the Middle East and North Africa, and they left, fled, or were expelled in like massive Arab nationalist, anti-Zionist regimes that were propped up across the region. So I do think that for people to know these stories would be incredibly powerful.  I do want to note something, though, as someone who has been active in academia, I still have one foot there. I think that in many places, and we need to not be naive. In many places, people have vested interest in certain narratives, and they are emotionally attached to this narrative, and they have no incentive to change them, no matter how many counterfactuals you provide to them.  So there are definitely many parts in academia that want to think of the world as divided between the oppressors and the oppressed, and who want to think of Jews and Israel and Zionists as aligned with the oppressors, who they equate to Europeans and white and Westerners. And no matter how many counterfactuals you will give to them, they will find a way again, and I'm happy to explain this. They will find ways to make it fit into their narrative.  So we need a multi-pronged approach. One approach is to give the literacy to those who are seeking it as a way to have greater strength and intellectual tools at their disposal. Also, there's like a huge middle to convince, you know that can be moved. And when it comes to those ideologues, we have to battle their narratives. Manya Brachear Pashman:  In other words, offering that literacy to the Jewish community first, to those who actually want it, who are curious enough to want it, that's step one.  Mijal Bitton: Yeah, Jewish community, friends of the Jewish community, people who are intellectually honest and want to have a better discourse around Israel, the Middle East and current reality. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So Mijal, I am curious how your conversations have changed and evolved since October 7. Initially I wanted to ask you about interfaith dialog, but maybe intercultural dialog is a better way to put it. But did you have more intercultural dialog before October 7 or after October 7, or is your work really immersed in the Jewish community and Jewish dialog? Mijal Bitton: Yeah, so I would say like this: I think before October 7, I had spent many years focused on interfaith work. I think that the interfaith work was often anchored in more liberal and progressive spaces, and many of those efforts really imploded. And I think that I represent, because I've heard this from so many people who basically said, we've invested years into showing up for others and into relationships. And then if I can't get someone to say that–you don't need to like Israel, you don't need to like Netanyahu, but just that Hamas raping and murdering is wrong and evil–then what am I doing here? So I think that definitely, I have been affected by that, by seeing that.  And right now, I think we're in a place a year out when there is new energy in trying to figure out, okay, like, who are those people that we can still talk to, and they exist. And also I think that, and this is like work that is ongoing, there is a real sense that we need to re-examine the work that we were doing. Perhaps we were investing in the wrong interfaith relationships and spaces. Which doesn't mean interfaith work is bad, but maybe we need to invest in other parts of interfaith work. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Can you expand on that a little bit? Mijal Bitton: I mean, yeah, this is like, personal. I am not going to be spending time in interfaith work with people who give Hamas a pass. I'll just say this, you know, like that. And I think there's a lot for me. I am much more interested right now in pursuing relationships with socially conservative leaders of other faiths, that perhaps in the past, we wouldn't have been in the same tables around interfaith work and who have spoken up with clarity when it comes to defending Jews and speaking up against antisemitism.  This doesn't mean, again, I don't want to imply that we should walk away from spaces you said before, it's important to have people fighting in many different areas. I think the real question we have to ask ourselves is, what are the lines, that if they are crossed, we walk away? Because I think too many Jews, for too long, have stayed in spaces where our basic story, dignity and humanity, was trampled, and we accepted that price. And that is not something we can do anymore.  So we have to figure out, how do we reconfigure relationships? How do we stand up for ourselves in different ways? How do we, and I'll say this: in many places Jews showed up and agreed to, you know, like, pound their chest about, like, their white Jewish privilege as a price of entry into coalitions and relationships in ways that just were not honest. We need to fight all of this. Manya Brachear Pashman:  You recently hosted AJC CEO Ted Deutch on your podcast Wondering Jews, and I'm curious what you learned from that exchange with him, both on and off the air. Mijal Bitton: Yeah, it was wonderful. I co-host the podcast Wondering Jews with Noam  Weissman, and it was really nice. I mentioned this on that episode, but I have a very fond personal memory of my first encounter with Ted. It was the March in Washington. I was one of their earliest featured speakers at the March. You know, 300,000 people in person, many watching live. And I was very nervous. And I was like, pacing behind backstage. And I see Ted.  I've never met him before, but I had read about him. And when I read about him, I was very curious. I'm like, who leaves sitting Congress to go and work for the Jews? So I was already, fascinated by like, who would make this career switch? And then I saw him, and I don't know why, I turned to him, and I asked him if I could practice with him. And he literally had me practice my speech. I memorized it, and I practiced, and he gave me some feedback, and I changed some of the words, and his wife lent me a hostage tag necklace because I wanted to have one on stage. And it was early days, I didn't have one.  So my first encounter with him was that it felt like a very personal one, and that's what came across, I think, in the in the podcast, that Ted is this, you know, was a member of Congress, like runs AJC, but he just, he's so warm, and it is so obvious in everything that he says, that this is not like a job for him, but it is a passion and a life's mission. And the way that he spoke about just his love for the Jewish people, for spirituality, for what it means to stand up in the world, his hope and optimism. He speaks about relationships that you can insist on and make sure that you can have right now. It's very moving to find leaders who are running institutions and who themselves are able to embody a very powerful sense of conviction. We need more leaders like that. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So tell us about your newest project.  Mijal Bitton: Yeah, it's called Committed. That's the name of the Substack. I started it on Simchat Torah. I'm still tinkering with it. Like you know, how long it should be, the tone, this, that. I'm very lucky to have a lot of readers and students who eagerly give me feedback as to what works and what doesn't, which is lovely, because I love learning Torah with them. But really, as many conversations that I've had with people about anti semitism and advocacy and Zionism on campus, as many conversations that I've been having around like antisemitism and Israel and politics, I have been having the same number of conversations about Judaism and spirituality and the soul and what it means to be part of this magnificent tradition.  I have been taken aback that often in my my classes and lectures, it will end with people coming to me afterwards and wanting to speak about their Jewish journeys, what it means to raise Jewish children, what it means to learn Torah, if you didn't grow up learning Torah, and now you want to what it means to to know that we are souls with bodies, as opposed to bodies with souls, all of these things.  I have felt that it's really important to try to to have weekly touch points that we can have to ask big questions and to be able to address them using Jewish tradition. So I've in my Substack so far, I've explored, like I mentioned before, Jewish pride, what it means to have Jewish pride. I've explored what it means to have, using the stories of Abraham and Rebecca, what it means to, when the world is burning, to know that we have multiple modes of responses. One of them is to provide justice, put out the flame.  Another mode is to help those who have burn marks and to just show care to them and be with them in times of need. The one that I wrote that I think went the farthest. One was around sacrifice, the binding of Isaac, which I wrote about what it means to from America. Look at Israeli parents and know that they are raising children who are willing to sacrifice in a way that American children are just not being taught.  I use the story of Jacob and Esau, and I did a beautiful thought experiment. What would have happened if a Chabad emissary would have met the bad twin of Jacob? And there's all of this text that actually allow us to imagine that Esau could have become a leader of the Jewish people if he would have been shown the kind of love that Chabad emissaries give. So I think there's amazing ways to approach Jewish tradition and to use those as and use Jewish tradition as a way to ask the most critical questions about what it means to live as a Jew today.  Manya Brachear Pashman: I imagine you'll be lighting candles soon for Hanukkah. Any other special traditions? Mijal Bitton The one thing I would say that I love that we do in our Sephardic communities, we light a little bit differently. And this is a traditional way. There's some Sephardic Jews that have changed this a little bit, but traditionally we light one Hanukkiah (menorah) as a family. So in many Ashkenazic communities, each individual lights their own. Classically, in the Sephardic tradition, a family has one Hanukkiah, and we try to light it either by a window or, even better, outside. So my family, my parents, my siblings, they have a special Hanukkiah with glass panels, and we always light it outside the house, facing the streets in a very real way.  And I think that's an important symbol for us, what it means to insist on our lights in public spaces, what it means to fight for public spaces, and what it means, I would say . . . you know, Hanukkah has become such a commercialized holiday in America that, like lives alongside Christmas, and that feels good.  And it's become not just a watered down version of its original premise, but in many ways the opposite, because what the Maccabees did is they took on not just the Greek Empire in military terms. They took on the Greek Empire in cultural and spiritual terms, and they resisted assimilation with everything they had. So in a funny way, in America, to fit in, we've remade Hanukkah in terms that have been opposite in its original meaning.  And I think this last year asked us to reconsider what Hanukkah should look like, and what would it mean, you know, we shouldn't, I'm not saying we should be like the Maccabees exactly. You know, they're a complicated story as well. But what would it mean to make sure that we're not only lighting a light outside, but that we are expressing our Judaism in Jewish terms, even when it's a little bit uncomfortable for others.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  Mijal, thank you so much for joining us.  Mijal Bitton: Thank you for having me. Really great to be here. 

Bishop Joseph Bambera marks the launch of a groundbreaking Catholic-Jewish initiative - Translate Hate: The Catholic Edition - with a wide-ranging interview with AJC's People of the Pod. At a time when recent events have challenged Catholic-Jewish relations, Bambera, the Chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee (USCCB) on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, details why the church has made combating antisemitism a priority.  Translate Hate: The Catholic Edition, a joint project of AJC and the USCCB, features Catholic commentary on various entries of AJC's renowned Translate Hate glossary of antisemitic terms, themes, and memes. It comes as Catholic and Jewish communities prepare to mark six decades of trust-building and mutual learning beginning when the Catholic Church reached out to the Jewish people and the world with Nostra Aetate, the historic Second Vatican Council document disseminated on October 28, 1965, which dramatically and publicly decried antisemitism and transformed the Church's approach to the Jewish people for the better.Resources: New Glossary Breaks Ground in Tackling Antisemitism Through a Catholic Lens Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  Bernard-Henri Lévy and AJC CEO Ted Deutch on How to Build a Resilient Jewish Future Post-October 7 What's Next for the Abraham Accords Under President Trump? The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Bishop Bambera: Manya Brachear Pashman:   Nearly 60 years ago, the Roman Catholic Church issued a declaration called Nostra Aetate, a groundbreaking document that, among other things, aimed to heal the Church's strained relationship with the Jewish community at large. But over the past year, since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, there have been some tense moments: a call from Pope Francis to investigate whether Israel is committing genocide, a photograph of the Pope before a Nativity scene–featuring a keffiyeh. Now AJC and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have unveiled Translate Hate: the Catholic edition, the glossary of antisemitic terms, tropes and memes, originally published in 2019, also features Catholic commentaries to explain why the church has made combating antisemitism a priority. Here to talk about this partnership is Bishop Joseph Bambera, Chairman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Ecumenical and interreligious affairs. Bishop, welcome. Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:   Thank you for the honor of being with you today. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Bishop Bambera, please walk us through the Catholic edition of Translate Hate and how the Catholic Church became involved in this initiative together with the Jewish community. Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:   I think the best way to walk us through the Translate Hate Catholic edition is to first take us back to 1965 and the Second Vatican Council and the declaration on the church's relationship with non-Christian religions, and particularly with the Jewish community. There was this really milestone declaration Nostra Aetate that I think many of us would be familiar with, and that really speaks about our relationship as it stands today. A relationship that I would say. tragically prior to the Second Vatican Council was not what it should have been. And on the heels of the Council, for almost 60 years, an anniversary that we'll celebrate next year, we have grown together in mutual respect and understanding.  That particular declaration Nostra aetate speaks very, very clearly about the fact that Catholics and Jews really share a common patrimony. We Catholics, our roots are in Judaism. Jesus was Jewish. His family was. And so many members of the early church were as well. And we recognize and affirm in that document the fact that the Jewish people were the first to hear the Word of God and are a part of a covenant relationship that certainly has not been in any way broken, but has been maintained. And something that we affirm and that we teach in that document. A very important thing, from my perspective. And as well, the document reminds all those who would be familiar with it, and certainly who should be, if they are not, of the importance of us coming to a deeper sense of mutual respect and understanding. Of decrying any sense of hatred, persecution, or antisemitic efforts on the part of individuals that really have been such a burden to the Jewish people. So that particular document really laid the groundwork, for the very simple fact that I am here today and a part of this initiative.  But to fast forward a bit, the reality of antisemitism, as you know better than I, it has hardly diminished, and sadly, has intensified in recent years. And well before October 7 of 2023. So much so that the bishops of the United States, many of them, brought to the attention of the committee that I chair, the Bishops Committee for Humanism and Interreligious Affairs, have brought to our attention the fact that we need to begin to do something in a more concrete way. To walk more intimately and closely and lovingly with our Jewish brothers and sisters and to address the reality of antisemitism in a very real and concrete manner.  And so in 2022 this committee that I just referenced, they issued a document that they shared with all of the bishops. It's called the Fruits of Dialogues: Catholics Confronting Antisemitism. And in many respects, I would say that that particular document was the impetus for this initiative that we are a part of today, the Translate Hate Catholic Edition, hopefully it's been the impetus for other efforts on the part of many bishops in their own particular dioceses and archdiocese to work with their Jewish partners, to help to eradicate this, or certainly to address it in a way that is hope filled.  So this document has been in the works now for quite a while particularly with the leadership of the Bishop's Committee and the American Jewish Committee as well. What you will find is building upon the antisemitic themes and tropes that were placed in the document when the American Jewish Committee put it together; we have provided commentary on a number of them from a Catholic perspective. So you know, if you look at the notion of deicide, the commentary that we provide there offers very clear Catholic theological teaching on the fact that that whole reality is certainly not something that we would ever intend to insinuate today is the responsibility of all of the Jewish people. In the midst of these commentaries, we offer current theological teaching. We offer teaching on human dignity, which is so much a part of our tradition and our hope and prayer for humankind, and we acknowledge, as well, in some of those commentaries, the fact that, you know, some members of the Church throughout history have been insensitive and inappropriately offered, and perhaps even negligently offered, words and actions that led to antisemitic efforts, sadly on the part of so many. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So what is the expectation? This document is going out. How are you expecting or wanting parishes and pastors to implement it? Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:   Given the fact that it the document that the Bishops Committee came out with in 2022 was really at the initiative of many bishops in the United States, I would like to believe and think that the vast majority of our bishops will embrace this and use it in whatever way speaks to the situation within their own territory, their own region, relative to the Jewish community there. So for example, once this is officially promulgated today, later on in the day, we will be releasing from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on our bishops-only website.  We will be releasing a letter from me as the chair of this committee, and the document, and that will be followed up with a hard copy that will be sent to every bishop in the near future, following the online version that they'll receive today. We anticipate that this will be used by other committees that might have some relationship to the work that our committee does, and the hope that they would use them. We will be disseminating it to ecumenical officers who are appointed in every one of our dioceses to do the work of ecumenism and interreligious affairs folks.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   You mentioned Nostra Atate. In 1965 you were just a child then. And I should also mention AJC played a leading role in those conversations, as well with Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. You were ordained 20 years later. And I'm just curious if this major turning point in Catholic Jewish relations, did it come up in your theology training, or 20 years later, was it just accepted as the norm? Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:   You know, I will be frank with you, the term that you used in asking the question was, did it come up? Yes, it did. It did. But given the scope of issues that would be necessary to prepare a man for ministry in the church as a priest in the seminary, it was one of many things that everything rose to the level of being absolutely vital, all right, to our preparation. So this was but it took its place in a whole line of other things that were just as vital.  So maybe the best way to answer your question was, you know, a great deal of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council was integrated into many of the theology courses that I would have taken, all right, and the same would go for something like Nostra Atate. All right. We were, I was certainly familiar with it. All right. It was certainly something that was communicated as a very significant teaching, a milestone moment in our church, a clear refocusing of our relationship with the Jewish community. Prior to that, there were no relationships officially. So it was put before us as something that was vital to consider. But I would not be honest in wanting to suggest that in some way it was a major focus. It was one of many. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I do want to fast forward and talk about today. Of course, Catholic Jewish relations are quite complicated now, especially given the Israel Hamas war, I imagine educating inspiring your flock on the moral complexities of that war, while also rallying the faithful to combat the rise of antisemitism against Israel and the Jewish Diaspora at large is very complicated, and there have been some tense moments. Recently, a letter from Pope Francis, one year after the October 7 terror attacks, included a couple kind of eerily iconic phrases from John 8:44, a verse that's long been understood as a fundamental, eternal indictment of the entire Jewish people. He was even cited by the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter. A lot of Jews are irate that the Pope has called for an investigation into whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. And most recently, some people were upset that the nativity scene at the Vatican featured a baby Jesus resting in a manger draped with a keffiyeh, Palestinian national symbol, and I know that has since been removed from that scene. But how do you talk about all of these moments with your Jewish friends, friends like the Hollanders, when they arise? Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:   First of all, the concern that you share in that question, maybe the hurt or the confusion that some of these things have caused. It's rather palpable. I spoke about it just coming into the studio today with Rabbi Marans. I would first say that the very fact that in this exchange that we are having here today, on a day that is a real positive step. I believe in Catholic Jewish relations with the promulgation of the Translate Hate Catholic Edition, I would say it's a testimony to the relationship that we have developed. And I want to thank you for that. I want to thank you for the question, you know, they're, not easy questions to address, but they are of great concern to you and so many others. And you, on behalf of your people, have a responsibility to ask me that question, and I need to say to you that my presence here today is meant to speak a word of encouragement regarding our relationship. It is one that is deeply valued. I treasure it. I'm grateful for it. I am honored to be here today.  Now with that, let me, let me speak a little bit more directly to the question and how these types of things are addressed. I look at the work that I have done in ecumenism and interreligious affairs, and I've been privileged to be chairman of this committee for a term now, for three years. I was previously back in 2017 elected chairman of this very same committee. So I've been at the helm of it twice now, and I've learned so much, so much from Christian partners, so much from our Jewish partners. One of the things that I have learned in the midst of the work that I have done with ecumenism is that I can't create a false sense of unity and harmony. For us to journey together in a positive way, I need to hear what you have to say, and I need to receive it, and I can't say something that is contrary to where my church is.  Now, another dimension of the dialogue work that I have learned relates to listening. How do we listen to what we hear about this relationship? What are we hearing when we read something about Pope Francis? How is that speaking to our hearts? What is it saying to this relationship? I hear from you hurt. I hear from you confusion. I said that a moment ago. For me, and perhaps this is the best thing that I can say, and I would say it across all three areas or topics that you raised in your question, I would say this much. I can't speak for Pope Francis. But what I can do is reflect to you what I hear from him and what I have heard from him throughout his 11 years as Pope. I have heard from him very, very early on, and you're all familiar with this quote that he offered to a Jewish interreligious organization way back, I think, in 2013 or 14, shortly after he was elected Pope, that a true Christian cannot be an antisemite. That's something that I would affirm, and that's something that I have never heard him go back on.  I have heard him embrace better than probably I have heard prior to his election, a deep commitment to the documents of Vatican Council, Vatican Two, and particularly, a deep commitment to the tenets of Nostra Aetate. The other thing that I've heard from Pope Francis, and perhaps this speaks to some of the struggle that you raise that in the face of terrorism and war and the loss of innocent lives, of Jewish lives that were lost in 2023 and of countless other lives that are lost throughout our world in the midst of war. I hear him speak over and over again about human dignity, the value of life and the reason for why we treasure life, and that's rooted in a common scripture that we both cherish, in the first book of the Torah, Genesis, the first chapter. In the image of God man was created, in the image and likeness of God. I think that that speaks for me to this moment.  It does not take away, and I would not imagine that for a moment some of the struggle that you experience, but that's what I hear when I look at his papacy. I also look at some more personal dimensions of it. And I know that his experience as the archbishop of Buenos Aires was an experience that found him deeply connected to the Jewish community, particularly to a close friend of his, whom I've been privileged to meet, Rabbi Abraham Skorka. So I share these things with you in response to your observation. And by the same token, I would say to you that we have miles to go before we achieve the end for which we are about here today. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In this moment, Bishop, do you believe that Translate Hate, specifically this new Catholic edition has particular value in this, in this moment that we talked about, where the relationship can get complicated? Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:   I think, in any moment in time when there is suffering because of hatred, because of an antisemitic perspective that so many people so horrifically bring to life, I think this particular initiative is vital, and I think today more than ever, we have recognized it in our church, the sufferings of our Jewish brothers and sisters. We have recognized it globally. We have recognized it in our country, and we experience it in in my community, Scranton, relatively, you know, small city of about 100,000 people, you know, we it's sadly, it's sadly everywhere. I believe this moment is a bit of a clarion call for all of us to walk a little bit more authentically and closely with our Jewish brothers and sisters. It's one thing to have issued a document 60 years ago. You can forget the intensity and the significance that document was and meant 60 years ago, 50 years ago, maybe even 40 years ago. But as time goes on and generations pass, we sometimes need to refocus our attention, don't we? And we need to recognize the fact that as our society, becomes more secularized, we can't possibly circle the wagons to just preserve what we have. Every one of our congregations, many of yours and many of mine, are diminishing in terms of numbers since the pandemic, but also before that as well. And I think sadly, what you see in many congregations is this sense of trying to preserve what one has and therefore excluding others. Not just, I certainly don't necessarily mean from being in a church or a synagogue or temple, but I mean excluding from life by one's attitudes and one's actions and one's words. And I think we are, at this moment, really at risk of losing a sense of what we learn and how we grow from dialogue.  I'm here to tell you today that I am so much richer personally because of this opportunity that I have been given to be a part of this initiative, frankly, to even prepare for today. It's just been a wonderful experience for me that has really re-energized me. This wonderful mission. But it's also reminded me of how much people who are involved in in faith traditions, in a leadership position, can be somewhat academically connected to something. It's it's got to be translated to the heart, and I hope that that's what happens here. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I mentioned that you were just a child when Nostra Aetate came about. Can you tell us a little bit about your upbringing and when you heard the calling to seek ordination and become a priest? Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:   I grew up in a Catholic family. I didn't have a lot of Jewish friends. There weren't a lot of Jewish people living in our community, although I did develop friends as as I went off to college. Okay, when I when I got the call to be a become a priest. I was actually at the University of Pittsburgh with every intention of becoming a dentist. It was kind of the family business, okay? And and I got involved in an ecumenical Christian campus ministry program. But, you know, it was just an experience that really called me to develop a deeper sense of authenticity, I think, in my faith journey, and, and, and so that's what ultimately prompted me to go into the seminary and become a priest. Did you grow up in Pittsburgh? I grew up in Scranton, where I serve as bishop, which is very unusual. So I my mom, who, at 97 still lives nearby. We I've spent my entire ministry in the Diocese of Scranton, and 15 years ago was appointed Bishop. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Wow, wow. That that is indeed rare, and that is indeed rare. So you get to see the parish in which you you grew up. Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:   I do. I do, yeah. And I've journeyed with this community, there's, there's pluses and minuses to something like that. You know, sometimes people say, What's the best thing about being bishop in your home diocese? I say, you know people, and they know you and and what's the most challenging thing? You know people and they know you. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, Bishop, thank you so much for sharing what the church's teaching now and how it's collaborating with AJC to build bridges and educate your flock. Thank you so much, and thank you for joining us. Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:   It's been a real pleasure.

What lessons can be drawn from the post-October 7 era? Amid growing isolation and antisemitism, where do opportunities for hope and resilience lie for the Jewish people? In a compelling discussion, AJC CEO Ted Deutch and Bernard-Henri Lévy—renowned French philosopher, public intellectual, and author of Israel Alone—explore these critical questions. Guest-hosted by AJC Paris Director Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache, this conversation offers insight into the challenges Jewish communities face and the possibilities for a brighter future. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  What's Next for the Abraham Accords Under President Trump? Honoring Israel's Lone Soldiers This Thanksgiving: Celebrating Service and Sacrifice Away from Home The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Bernard-Henri Lévy and Ted Deutch: Manya Brachear Pashman: What lessons can be drawn from the post-October 7 era? Amid growing isolation and antisemitism, where do opportunities for hope and resilience lie for the Jewish people? I'm throwing it off to AJC Paris Director Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache to explore these critical questions. Anne-Sophie? Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  Thank you, Manya. Welcome everyone to today's special episode of People of the Pod. I'm sitting here in our office near the Eiffel Tower for a special and unique conversation between Ted Deutch AJC CEO and Bernard-Henri Lévy, one of the most, if not the most prominent French philosopher and public intellectuals. Bonjour. Bernard-Henri Lévy:  Bonjour. Hello. Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  Today, we will speak about loneliness, the loneliness of the Jewish people in Israel, the explosion of antisemitism in Europe and the United States, the attacks on Israel from multiple fronts since October 7. We will also speak about the loneliness of Western democracies, more broadly, the consequences of the US elections and the future for Ukraine and the European continent.  Bernard-Henri Lévy:, you've recently come back from a tour in the United States where you presented your latest book titled Israel Alone. Ted, you've just arrived in Europe to sound again the alarm on the situation of Jewish communities on this continent after the shocking assault on Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam. Israel alone, the diaspora alone, actually the Jewish people, or Am Yisrael alone. As if Israel and Jews all over the world have merged this year over a common sense of loneliness.  So I ask the question to both of you, are we alone? Bernard, let's start with you. Bernard-Henri Lévy:  I am back from a campus tour in the United States of America. I went in USC, in UCLA, in Columbia, in Ohio, University in Michigan. I was in many places, and in these places, in the campuses, it's not even a question. The loneliness is terrible. You have Jewish students, brave, resilient, who have to face every day humiliation, provocations, attacks, sometimes physical attacks. And who feel that, for the first time, the country in the world, America, which was supposed to be immune to antisemitism. You know, we knew about antisemitism in Europe. We knew about antisemitism in the rest of the world.  But in America, they discovered that when they are attacked, of course there is support. But not always from their teachers, not always from the boards of the universities, and not always from the public opinion. And what they are discovering today in America is that, they are protected, of course, but not as it was before unconditionally. Jews in America and in Europe are supposed to be protected unconditionally.  This is minimum. Minimum in France, since French Revolution, in America, since the Mayflower. For the first time, there are conditions. If you are a right wing guy, you say, I protect you if you vote for me. If you don't vote, you will be guilty of my loss, and you will be, and the state will disappear in a few years. So you will be no longer protected. You are protected under the condition that you endorse me. On the left. You have people on the left wing side, people who say you are protected under condition that you don't support Israel, under condition that you take your distance with Zionism, under condition that you pay tribute to the new dark side who say that Netanyahu is a genocide criminal and so on. So what I feel, and not only my feeling, is the feeling of most of the students and sometimes teachers whom I met in this new situation of conditional security and support, and this is what loneliness means in America.  Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  Thank you, Bernard. How about you, Ted? Ted Deutch:  Well, it's interesting. First of all, thank you Anne-Sophie, and Bernard, it's an honor to be in conversation with you. It's interesting to hear you talk about America. Your observations track very closely. The comments that I've heard since being in Europe from students in the UK, and from students here who, speaking about America, tell me that their conclusion is that whatever the challenges they face here and the challenges are real, that they feel fortunate to be in university in Europe rather than in the United States.  But the point that you make that's so important everywhere, is this sense that it's not only the Jewish community that expects to have unconditional security. For the Jewish community now, it feels as if expecting that security, the freedom to be able on college campuses, the freedom to be able to pursue their studies and grow intellectually and have different experiences.  That when that security is compromised, by those who wish to exclude Jews because they support Israel, for those who wish to tag every Jewish student as a genocidal baby killer, that when those positions are taken, it's the loneliness stems from the fact that they're not hearing from the broader community, how unacceptable that behavior is. That it's become too easy for others to, even if they're not joining in, to simply shrug their shoulders and look the other way, when what's happening to Jewish students is not just about Jewish students, but is fundamentally about democracy and values and the way of life in the U.S. and in Europe. Bernard-Henri Lévy:  Of course, except that the new thing in America, which is not bad, is that every minority has the right to be protected. Every community, every minority has the right to have a safe space and so on. There is one minority who does not have the same rights. The only minority who is not safe in America, whose safety is not granted, is the Jewish one. And this is a scandal. You know, we could live in a sort of general jungle. Okay, Jews would be like the others, but it is not the case. Since the political correctness and so on, every minority is safe except the Jewish one. Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  So if we are alone, if American Jewish students feel alone, as European Jewish students, we are probably not the only one to feel that way, right? I turn over to you, Mr. Levy, and go to another subject.  Since day one of the Russian invasion, and even before that, you have been a forceful advocate for a steadfast European and American support for Ukraine.  Is Ukraine alone today? And will it be even more during America's second Trump administration? Bernard-Henri Lévy:  I've been an advocate of Ukraine, absolutely and I really believe that the freedom for liberty, the battle for liberty, the battle for freedom today, is waged on two front lines. For the moment, it might be more, but Israel and Ukraine. I wish to make that very clear, it is the same battle. They are the same stakes, the same values, and the same enemy.  I'm not sure that every Ukrainian, every Jew, knows that they have the same enemy. The axis between Iran, Putin, China, more and more, Turkey, and the same axis of authorisation countries. So it is the same battle.  The Ukrainians have not been exactly alone. They have been supported in the last two years and half, but in a strange way, not enough. The chancellery, the West, spoke about an incremental support. Incremental support meant exactly what is not enough, what is necessary for them not to lose, but not to win. This is what I saw on the ground.  I made three documentaries in Ukraine on the field, and I could elaborate on that a lot, precisely, concretely in every spot, every trench they have exactly what is needed for the line not to be broken, but not to win. Now we enter in a new in a new moment, a new moment of uncertainty in America and in Europe, with the rise of populism. Which means the rise of parties who say: Who cares about Ukraine, who don't understand that the support of Ukraine, as the support of Israel, is a question of national interest, a question of national security for us, too. The Ukrainian ladies and gentlemen, who fight in Ukraine, they fight for the liberty. They fight for ours, French, yours, American. And we might enter in a new moment. It's not sure, because history has more imagination than the man, than mankind. So we can have surprises. But for the moment, I am really anxious on this front line too, yes. Ted Deutch:  There are additional connections too, between what's happening in Ukraine and what's happening in Israel, and clearly the fact that Iranian killer drones are being used by Russia to kill Europeans should be an alarming enough fact that jars all of us into action. But the point that you make, that I think is so important Bernard, is that Israel has in many ways, faced the same response, except with a much tighter window than Ukraine did.  Israel was allowed to respond to the attacks of October 7, that for those few days after the World understood the horrific nature of the slaughter, the rape, and the babies burning, the terrible, terrible mayhem, and recognize that Israel had a right to respond, but as with Ukraine, only to a point Bernard-Henri Lévy:  Even to a point, I'm not sure. Ted Deutch:  But then that point ended. It was limited. They could take that response. But now we've moved to the point where, just like those students on campus and in so many places around the world, where only the Jews are excluded, that's a natural line from the geopolitical issues, where only Israel is the country that can't respond in self defense. Only Israel is the country that doesn't have the right to exist. Only a Jewish state is the one state that should be dismantled. That's another reason, how these are, another way they are all tied together. Bernard-Henri Lévy:  Don't forget that just a few days after Israel started to retaliate. We heard from everywhere in the West, and United Nations, calls for cease fire, call for negotiation, call for de-escalation. Hezbollah shell Israel for one year. We never heard one responsible of the UN called Hezbollah for not escalating. The day Israel started to reply and retaliate after one year of being bombed, immediately take care to escalation. Please keep down. Please keep cool, etc, etc.  So situation of Israel is a unique case, and again, if you have a little memory, I remember the battle for Mosul. I made a film about that. I remember the battle against the Taliban in 2001 nobody asked the West to make compromise with ISIS and with al-Qaeda, which are the cousins of Hamas. Nobody asked the West not to enter here or there. No one outside the ground said, Okay, you can enter in Mazar-I-Sharif in Afghanistan, but you cannot enter in Kandahar.  Or you can enter in the western part of Mosul. But be careful. Nobody had even this idea this happened only for Israel. And remember Joe by then asking the Prime Minister of Israel about Rafa? Don't, don't, don't. At the end of the day, he's not always right and he's often wrong, but the Prime Minister was right to enter into Rafa for obvious reasons, which we all know now. Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  Ted, let me come back to you more specifically on the US. At AJC, we support democracy. This is in our DNA. Since the organization was founded 1906 we've been strong supporters of the Transatlantic Partnership since day one. We believe in the alliance of democracies in the defense of our common values. And you know here, there's a lot of anxiety about Donald Trump's re-election. So what is your take on the U.S. elections' consequences for Europe, for transatlantic relations? Ted Deutch: I've been coming to Europe for years, as I did as an elected official. Now in this capacity there is that our friends in Europe are always rightly focused on US policy and engaging the level of commitment the US makes to Europe. The election of Donald Trump, this isn't a new moment. There is history. And for four years in the last administration, the focus that the President had on questioning the ties to Europe and questioning NATO and questioning the commitment that has been so central to the transatlantic relationship rightfully put much of Europe on edge. Now, as the President will come back into power, there is this question of Ukraine and the different opinions that the President is hearing. In one side, in one ear, he's hearing from traditional conservative voices in the United States who are telling him that the US has a crucial role to play, that support for Ukraine is not just as we've been discussing, not just in the best interest of Ukraine, but that it relates directly back to the United States, to Europe. It actually will, they tell him, rightly so, I submit, that US involvement and continued support for Ukraine will help to prevent further war across the continent. In the other ear, however, he's hearing from the America first crowd that thinks that America should recognize that the ocean protects us, and we should withdraw from the world. And the best place to start is Ukraine, and that means turning our back on the brave Ukrainians who have fought so nobly against Russia. That's what he's hearing. It's imperative that, starting this weekend, when he is here at Notre Dame, that he hears and sees and is reminded of not just the importance of the transatlantic relationship, but why it's important, and why that relationship is impacted so directly by what's happening in Ukraine, and the need to continue to focus on Ukraine and to support NATO. And to recognize that with all of the challenges, when there is an opportunity for American leadership to bring together traditional allies, that should be the easiest form of leadership for the President to take. It's still an open question, however, as to whether that's the approach that you will take.  Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  Thank you, Ted.  Let me sum it up, our conversation for a minute. We said that the Jewish people feels alone, but we said that we are not the only ones. Didn't you feel that on that lonely road of this year, we've also never felt as strong as who we are, both our Jewishness. A French intellectual I know, Bernard Levy would say our Jewish being, être juif, and Jewish unity. Are they the best answers to overcome our loneliness? Let's start with our philosopher. Bernard-Henri Lévy:  I don't believe only in Jewish unity. I believe in Jewish strength. And in one of my previous books, the genius of religion, I spoke about about that Jewish strength, not military strength in Israel, but spiritual strength, and I think that this strength is not behaving so bad. I told you about the campuses. I told you the dark side.  But there is also the bright side, the fact that the students stand firm. They stand by themselves, by their position. They are proud Jews in the campuses. In Israel, come on. Israel is facing the most difficult war and the most terrible war of its history. We know all the previous wars, and alas, I have the age to have known personally and directly, a lot of them since 1960s about this war with terrorists embedded in the civilians, with the most powerful terrorist army in the world on the north, with seven fronts open with Houthis sending missiles and so on. Israel never saw that.  So the people of Israel, the young girls and young boys, the fathers, even the old men of Israel, who enlist, who are on the front, who fight bravely. They do a job that their grandfathers never had to do. So, resilience. Also in Israel. The most sophisticated, the most difficult, the most difficult to win war, they are winning it. And in Europe, I see, as I never saw, a movement of resistance and refusal to bow in front of the antisemite, which I never saw to this extent in my long life. You have groups today in France, for example, who really react every day, who post videos every day.  Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  Some are in this room.  Bernard-Henri Lévy:  Some are in this room. Pirrout is in this room, for example, every day about the so called unbound France. Mélenchon, who is a real antisemite as you know, they publish the truth. They don't let any infamy pass without reacting, and this again, is new, not completely new, but I never saw that to this extent.  Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  Thank you, Rene. How about you Ted, what do you think?  Ted Deutch:  more important than ever that as Jews, as Jewish community, As Zionists, that we don't allow our opponents to define what's happening, that the response is never to to feel defensive, that the response. Is to be bold, boldly Jewish, boldly Zionist, unapologetically Zionist. To to do exactly what those students are doing across the United States, that I've seen, the students here who have that I that I've met with that in Europe, a student in in London a few days ago, said to me, she said, when someone yells at me, when they when they scream at me and accuse me of genocide, she said it only makes me want to get a bigger Magen David. The person that that stood up at a meeting in New York a few months ago who told me that, before announced in front of a big crowd that that for years, she's been involved in all of these different organizations in her community to to help feed the hungry and to help kids to read, and all these worthy causes. She said, since October 7, she said, I am all Jewish all the time, and I want everyone to know it the and Israel is perhaps the best example of this. It's impossible to imagine the kind of resilience that we see from Israelis. The taxi driver that I had in Israel. He said, This is so difficult for all of us. We've all known people. We've lost people. It's affected all of us, but we're just never going to give up, because our history doesn't allow it. We have prevailed as a people for 1000s of years and have gotten stronger every single time. Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  Thank you, Ted. I can keep thinking about this overwhelming challenge that we face as the Jewish people today, which seems to confine us to solitude. Anyway, Jews and Israel are attacked with alternative truths, false narratives. We've witnessed how international justice, our common, universal values, have been turned upside down in the Jewish tradition, we say that we have a mission to repair the world, Tikkun Olam. But how can we make sure to recreate the common world in the first place? Bernard-Henri Lévy:  It's on process number one, continue to try to repair the world, I remind you, and you know that, and Simone Rodan knows it also, in many occurrences, in many situations of the last 30 years when real genocides happened. Real genocide, not imaginary. Real one. In Rwanda, in Srebrenica, in Darfur, when I met with in Chad, with Simone, and so on. The first whistleblowers, the first to tell the world that something terrible was happening, were not exactly Jews, but were ladies and men who had in their hearts the memory of the Shoah. And the flame of Yad Vashem. That's a fact, and therefore they reacted and what could be repaired. They contributed to repair it. Number one.  Second observation, about what Ted said, there is in Europe now, since many years, a tendency to step out, to give up to and to go to Israel. Not only by love of Zionism, but thinking that this is not a safe place any longer for them. I tell you, this tendency starts to be reversed now you have more and more Jews in Europe who say, no, no, no, no. We built this country. We are among the authors of the French social contract.  For example, we will not leave it to those illiterate morons who try to push us away. And this is a new thing. This reaction, this no of the Jews in Europe is something relatively new. And third little remark. 10 years ago in the States, I met a lot of young people who were embarrassed with Israel, who said we are liberal and there is Israel, and the two don't match really well. 10-15, years ago, I met a lot. Less and less today. You have more and more students in America who understand that Israel should be supported, not in spite of their liberal values. But because of their liberal values. And come on, this for a liberal, is a treasure, and it is unprecedented, and there is no example. Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  How about you, Ted? How do you think we can overcome the challenge of those parallel realities we feel we live in? Ted Deutch:  Those students, and I think broadly the Jewish community, after October 7, came to realize that as Hamas terrorists rolled into southern Israel, they made no distinctions about the politics of the Israelis. That great irony, of course, is that the peaceniks, or the brunt of these attacks, living along the southern edge of Israel by Gaza, they didn't make determinations on who to kill based on how they practiced, what their politics were, how they felt about Bibi.  And I think what the Jewish world, certainly it's true for young people that I talk to, came to realize is that connection between Israel and the Jewish people is not theoretical, that that ultimately, what's gone on for the past year is is an attack against Israel, Israel as the stand in for the Jewish people, and that defending Israel is really defending all of us. And I think they've come to understand that.  But going forward, I think what you described, Bernard, is new, this is what it means now to be an Or Lagoyim. This is what it means to be a light unto the nations. That in the face of all of these attacks, that Israeli democracy continues to thrive. That the conversation by those, ironically, the conversation that has attempted to demonize Israel by demonizing Bibi, has highlighted the fact that these protests have continued during the time of war. As you point out that this is this is unlike anything you would see, that what's permitted, the way democracy is thrives and is and is vibrant in Israel, is different than every place else, that this is a message that the world will see, that that the that in the face of these ongoing challenges, that the Jewish community stands not just against against these attacks against the Jews, but stands against what's happening In the streets of so many places in America. Where people march with Hezbollah flags, where they're openly supporting Hamas. It's going to take some time, but ultimately, because of the strong, because of the resilience, because of the strong, proud way that Jews are responding to this moment and to those protests, eventually, the world will realize that standing in support of Hamas terrorism is not just something that is dangerous to the Jews, but puts at risk the entire world. Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  Thank you. I'm a Sephardic Jew, so I cannot just end this conversation speaking about loneliness. How about hope? Can we find some? Bernard-Henri Lévy:  I compare the situation of the Jews today to the situation in the time of my dad, for example, there are some change, for example, the Christians and the Catholic Church. 50 years ago, a huge cultural revolution in the world. It is the change of position of the Catholic Church on anti semitism. It was the Vatican Two Council and the Nostra aetate. It seems tiny, but it is huge revolution, and it consisted in a single word, one word, the Catholic Council of Vatican Two said Jews are no longer the fathers of the Christians, as it was said before, in the best of the case, they are the brothers of the Christians.  This is a huge revelation. Of course, Catholics are not always faithful to this commitment. And popes, and especially the pope of today do not remember well the message of his ancestor, but on the whole, we have among the Christians, among the Catholics in Europe and in. Real friends in America among the new evangelical I don't know if they are friends, but they are strong allies. Abraham agreements was again another big revolution which has been underestimated, and the fact that the Abraham agreements, alliance with Morocco, Emirates, Bahrain stands, in spite of the war on seven fronts. Is a proof. It is solid. It is an ironclad alliance, and it holds.  And this is a new event, and we have in the not only in the top of the state, but in the public opinions of the Muslim world. We have a lot of people who who start to be who are more and more numerous, to believe that enough is enough. Too much war, too much misunderstandings, too much hatred, and who are really eager to make the real peace, which is the peace of hearts and the peace of souls with their other brothers, who are the Jews. So yes, there are some reasons to be optimistic.  Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  Thank you very much, Bernard. Ted? Ted Deutch:  I don't think that we can ever give up hope. And optimism is necessary, and I think justified. The things Bernard talks about, I mean, at AJC, our focus on on building democracy, our focus on interreligious work, the work we've done with the Catholic Church around Nostra aetate, now 60 years old and and continuing to build the relationship our Muslim Jewish Advisory Council always looking for opportunities to to find those voices that are tired of all of the war. And in our office, in Abu Dhabi, we've, we've continued to go to the Gulf, to the Abraham Accord states, and beyond, even through this entire war, because there is the hope of of getting to a place where, where Israel is in a more normalized position in the region, which will then change the perception and push back against the lies that those who wish to to see a world without Israel continue to espouse.  All of that is hopeful, and we work toward it. But for me, the most hopeful thing to come from this moment is, AJC works around the world and because the Jewish community now understands how connected we all are as a result of the threats that we face, the opportunity to strengthen diaspora Jewry, to help people realize that the connections between the Jewish community in Paris and the Jewish community in Mexico City and the Jewish community in Buenos Aires in Chicago, in Miami and New York, that they're interrelated and that we don't have the luxury of viewing our challenges as unique in our countries.  By standing together, we're in a much, much stronger position, and we have to continue to build that. That's why AJC's Global Forum is always the most important part of the year for us, bringing together the Jewish community from around the world. That's why the antisemitism summit that we'll be doing here with the CRIF is going to be so critical to building those relationships. We have an opportunity coming out of this incredibly dark time to take the strength and the resolve that we feel and to and to channel it in ways that that will lead the Jewish community to places that a year ago seemed absolutely impossible to imagine. Those 101 hostages need to return home. We stand together calling for them to return home. We stand together in our support of Israel as it wages the seven-front war, and ultimately, we stand together as Jewish people. That's what gives me hope every day. Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache:  Thank you so much. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for the conversation between my colleague Benji Rogers, AJC's director for Middle East and North Africa initiatives, and Rob Greenway, director of the Allison center for national security at the Heritage Foundation, and former senior director for Middle Eastern and North African Affairs on the National Security Council, they discuss the opportunities and challenges President-elect Trump will face in the Middle East.

The Abraham Accords marked a significant foreign policy achievement for President Donald Trump at the end of his first term in 2020. What's next for the Abraham Accords under a new Trump administration?  Joining us is Rob Greenway, Director of the Allison Center for National Security at the Heritage Foundation and former senior director for Middle Eastern and North African Affairs on the National Security Council, to discuss the opportunities and challenges President Trump will face in the Middle East. Guest hosted by Benjy Rogers, AJC's Director for Middle East and North Africa Initiatives, Greenway draws on his firsthand experience with the Abraham Accords to explore how these agreements can be expanded and how security and economic cooperation between Israel and its neighbors can be strengthened. Resources: AJC Experts Assess the Global Impact of Trump's Election What President-Elect Trump's Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More The Abraham Accords, Explained Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  Honoring Israel's Lone Soldiers This Thanksgiving: Celebrating Service and Sacrifice Away from Home The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know What President-Elect Trump's Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Rob Greenway: Manya Brachear Pashman: The landmark achievement of the first Trump Administration was President Trump's ability to successfully broker peace treaties between Israel and the Arab countries of the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco. While much has changed since the September 2020 signing of the Abraham Accords, there are high hopes that a second Trump Administration will once again focus on brokering Arab-Israeli peace. This week, my colleague Benjy Rogers, AJC's Director for Middle East and North Africa Initiatives, invited an expert from the first Trump administration to share his insights on what to expect. Benjy, the mic is yours.    Benjamin Rogers:   What can we expect from the incoming Trump administration, particularly when it comes to the committee's policy and the future of the Abraham Accords and regional integration? To help us break it all down, we're joined by someone who's been at the center of these historic developments, Rob Greenway.  Rob is the director of the Allison Center for National Security at the Heritage Foundation, where he formulates policy to defend American freedom and prosperity. Rob has first hand experience with the Abraham Accords, having served as Deputy Assistant to the President and senior director of the National Security Council's Middle Eastern and North African Affairs Directorate during the first Trump administration.  Rob has more than 30 years in public service, including as President and Executive Director of the Abraham Accords Peace Institute, advocating for the expansion of the agreements he helped craft. Rob has also served as Senior Intelligence Officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and is a decorated combat veteran within the US Army Special Forces.  Rob, welcome to People of the Pod. We are honored to have you here. Rob Greenway:   It's my great pleasure. Thanks for having me. Benjamin Rogers:   Let's jump right into it. Much has changed in the Middle East since the last Trump administration, while the hope of the Abraham Accords continued into the Biden administration, the horrors of October 7 in its aftermath have transformed the region.  How do you think the next Trump administration will address the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, and do you see renewed hope for continuing to deepen and expand the Abraham Accords? Rob Greenway:   It's a great question. I'll start in reverse order, because that's the optimistic part, right? The hope in all of the relatively dark circumstances and the escalation of the conflict that's really accelerated, but didn't begin in October the seventh, but it certainly accelerated dramatically. I certainly judge that there is hope. And there's hope because the shared interest between Israel and its neighboring countries is, in fact, very strong.  And that the US fundamentally, and certainly under a Trump administration, I think, will reprioritize efforts to normalize Israel's relations with its neighbors, to confront shared adversaries, which obviously is Iran, its surrogates and proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah. But also because the economic potential has to be unlocked through integration of Israel and its neighbors and the countries within the region.  They all know this, and they all recognize the intrinsic importance of it, so both for security purposes and for economic reasons, the normalization process will be resumed, certainly under a Trump administration as a matter of policy. It is, in many ways, the solution to the problems we're seeing in the region right now. Benjamin Rogers:   Say a little bit more about that, Rob, if you would, what particular solutions do you think can come as a result of expansion of Abraham Accords, regional integration? Rob Greenway:   Sure. On the one hand, the practical side of it is Israel's defense is better done working with and through with other partners, not just the United States, but its neighbors, so the extent to which cooperation could be expanded, they can jointly meet the threat from Iran, and will, in fact, have to do so.  Iran, unfortunately, has been fed too long by appeasement the last four years. It's flush with cash. It's at nuclear threshold. The only way for Israel to effectively defend itself is more often than not, working with like-minded partners, and certainly the United States. Together, I think it's easier to provide a defense. Remember the ballistic missile attacks against Israel, which now unfortunately, have happened twice. It took a regional neighborhood response to that in order to effectively detect and intercept the range of missiles and drones and cruise missiles coming from Iran. That's a picture of what the potential is and should be.  It's also a strong deterrent. When Israel's standing with its partners and allies in the region, it discourages the escalation that Iran is responsible for. And again, the economic potential is also critical, and it's so important that they would protect and defend the relationship, because it's so vital to all of their future potential. Benjamin Rogers:   I appreciate what you said on defense, and I think that makes a lot of sense, but I want to drill into a little bit more on the economic side of things, because it's easiest to say, hey, look, there's greater ties, there's greater business. This is a region that, little over 10 years ago, went through the Arab Spring. This is a region that is not all the Gulf. This is a region where there's lots of poverty and there's lots of struggles. A region that is impacted by the daily changes throughout the globe. How does economic cooperation address some of those concerns? Address some of those issues? How does a more integrated Middle East, will it actually make your average person on the streets, life better? How do you get there? Rob Greenway:   So first, a couple of points. If you talk to countries in the region. They all share similar concerns. They look a little different, but they have similar concerns. One is the security environment. Again, each of them have a different focus, but they're all concerned about the security environment, largely again, the threat from Iran.  Second is that they've got a domestic population that, in all too many cases, ultimately will have difficulty finding employment for its large youth population, growing population below the age of 25. They're all very cognizant of this, and they know that the solution is economic integration, regionally and perhaps globally. And so they know that they have a problem. They know that the solution is better integration. It's historically not been the case. Intra-GCC trade has always been less than 15% historically, Europe and Russia are probably still trading more than that now, even though they're at war essentially in Europe, but the GCC has not done so, but they know that they can't sustain it. Second, how it helps average individuals. The employment opportunities. And look, it's not just integrating the country's economies. The reality is, the strongest economic potential is allowing market markets to be connected between Europe and Asia, through the Middle East. So to move goods and services between Asian and European markets, the Middle East has to be transited.  If you integrate the countries from a transportation standpoint and from an economic standpoint, the potential becomes vast. That's the real economic promise. Integrating a company's bilateral trade with UAE, with Israel, is absolutely spectacular to watch, but that's the beginning. The end is to better integrate economies and markets globally through which the region is a critical transport link. It can happen. They want it to happen, and I think we can make it happen, and I hope we do.  Benjamin Rogers:   That's fascinating. I think it's just such a stark difference in the way we've been approaching the region recently, which is doom and gloom. This is cause for hope. This is a cause for a way forward.  But October 7, we saw, and you've mentioned this country repeatedly, we saw how spoilers can completely upend this hope. You mentioned a little bit, but can you say a little bit more about how the Trump administration is thinking about countries like the Iranian regime, how the Trump administration will ensure that terror organizations like Hezbollah, like Hamas, will not ever be able to threaten this, this pretty remarkable vision that you're sharing today. Rob Greenway:   It's a great question. Maybe the central question. First, we didn't see this threat manifest itself, even though it was there, latent. It didn't just come into creation on October the seventh. Obviously, it existed during the first Trump term, but it never manifested itself this way because it had boundaries. The boundaries come in two ways. First is an absolute, demonstrable commitment to Israel's security, not question, not speculative, not changing or dynamic as it is now and unfortunately, wanting in too many cases, it was ironclad. Everyone in the region knew it, and everyone saw it, and that's an incredibly important part of deterrence. The second and perhaps even more important is denying resources to your adversaries. It sounds fundamental. You shouldn't pay your enemies to attack you, but that's what appeasement is, and that's what's happened in the last four years of the Biden administration.  You can't give the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism $120 billion of excess revenue and not expect them to engage in terrorism. And so they did. The principal applied the first Trump term will absolutely come back in the second and that's denying them the resources. And so for us, you know, I watched Hezbollah for decades, and to see them ask for members to donate their organs to raise funds at the end of the maximum economic pressure campaign, by the end of 2020, as a sign of success, in a sense that they were they were deprived and unable to conduct attacks and enter into that risk. I know that that will have a similar result. It's going to take a while to get back to it, but I strongly believe it has to happen, and I believe that it will happen. Benjamin Rogers:   Thanks Rob. I want to also dive into what's been front and center on a lot of people's rights now, which is Israeli-Palestinian relations. What do you think the Trump approach will be? And this, to me, is particularly interesting, because, you know, we saw early in the Trump administration, the focus on the deal of the century, focus on peace and prosperity. We saw an initial rejection by the Palestinian Authority, by the PLO to any sort of agreement.  We know that many in the Israeli government have a range of views, quite strong views. And I would say the population as a whole, any mechanisms of peace while an ongoing war is happening, particularly in the aftermath of October 7 and something that is more challenging than ever to talk about. How do you see the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and how do you see a Trump administration approaching it? Rob Greenway:   I believe I've read somewhere. I'm sure you did too. There's nothing new under the sun. And in most cases, there are precedents and examples. Look, for over four decades, people pursued the Israel-Palestine conflict as the central issue in the region, and they made no progress on either front. The region didn't get better, and Israel's relationship with the Palestinians didn't improve, empirically and objectively.  The approach in the Trump administration was, what are the most pressing threats to our interest in the region's interest, including Israel? The answer is Iran, its surrogates and proxies. And ISIS in 2017 as you recall. And so the premise is, start with the highest order of threat. If you get the sequence wrong, you know you're going to inevitably have adverse consequences.  You can't paint the kitchen when your house is on fire. It's not a perfect analogy, but the idea is, we have to deal with the most primary threats first, and if you don't deal with Iran as the principal source of instability in the region, you can't make progress on anything else, including this issue. Second, as we heard from, John Kerry's famous remarks in 2016, deeply held belief then, and I fear still now, you cannot make progress on Israel-Arab relations without making progress on the Palestinian file. And he emphasized, you can't. And obviously you can. We proved it in the form of the Abraham Accords, and President Trump led the way. And I think that will come back again. And that, I think, is the key to success. But everyone I talked to in Israel tells me the same thing, the two state solution is dead after October the seventh. At some point it may resurrect itself. I think at the end of the day, we focus on the primary threat, build a stronger relationship between Israel and its neighbors, and then we can also improve the lives of the Palestinian people in a variety of ways, which the Abraham Accords were designed to do and its members insisted on.  And second, as you mentioned, the peace to prosperity plan, I think we'll end up leveraging the work done there, the fantastic work that Jared did, just he did with the Abraham Accords, and resurrect that for what needs to happen next in places like Gaza and South Lebanon. And I think that will improve the lives of the Palestinian people. So it's a reverse sequencing, essentially. I think that gets to a different outcome. But if you start with an impossible, intractable problem, everything else becomes difficult. Benjamin Rogers:   Fascinating. Saudi Arabia. What do you think can be done? What do you think relations are between the US and Saudi Arabia, between Israel and Saudi Arabia. I know there's been strong comments that have got a lot of attention as of late, but where do you see that relationship going? Rob Greenway:   I think the good news is that President Trump's relationship with the kingdom and with Saudi leadership like the region, was exceptional. His first visit as President of the United States on May 17, was to Riyadh and then to Jerusalem, and then to Rome, very deliberately and very intentionally. And the policies he set forth were what we carried as guidance for the four years that followed. And I think it bore fruit.  That relationship is key, and I think it's going to be restored. It was deeply damaged on a number of fronts under the Biden-Harris administration, I think that damage is going to be undone by a different relationship and approach. And second, look, we've had decades, generations of cooperation with Saudi Arabia, as we have with Israel, and that puts President Trump in a unique position to be able to broker the inevitable peace between the two.  But I think it's something that, like most negotiations, and certainly in the Middle East, we should give space for the new administration to do this privately and not have a public negotiation, because all that's going to do is complicated for all parties, and it'll make the end objective more difficult. I think it'll happen. I think it needs to happen.  Last thing I'll say is, it isn't as much about security, although that's certainly a critical part of it. It's also, again, about managing global markets between the United States and Saudi Arabia, because this is what, obviously, for our purposes and for the region's purposes, we've got to be able to do. As long as China is dependent upon Middle Eastern oil and gas, we've got to be able to exercise some control over it. And we can't let Russia, as an exporter and our partners and allies in the region, manage global exports to China.  So this isn't limited to the region itself. Our relationship with Riyadh is vital. It is strategic. It is necessary. It helped us prevail in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. It'll be absolutely vital in competition with China and with Russia. So it's critical on a number of fronts. President Trump instinctively understands this better than I think anyone, and I think he's in a unique position to close the real deal of the century. Benjamin Rogers:   Staying on this topic, for a little bit, where else, what other countries in the Middle East do you think are going to be of a particular focus to the incoming Trump administration? Rob Greenway:   So not surprisingly, Riyadh would unlikely be the only country to join the Accords, not followed by others. So I could think of most other countries in the Gulf would be good candidates. But I also think it's not limited to the region, right? There are a number of other Muslim majority countries that are not necessarily Arab, that reside outside the region that would be enormously beneficial from an economic standpoint and from a diplomatic standpoint. And we had a number of conversations with many countries that fall into this category.  So there's, I think, a new vista that opens with the successful conclusion of getting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to establish normalized diplomatic relations. And again, I think if you confront Iran, this becomes possible. If you don't confront Iran, it's virtually impossible. Benjamin Rogers:   I want to zoom out, but before I do, you have, you have explained how you've explained in detail, where the Trump administration may go. You've expressed some criticism of the Biden administration. Is there anything related to Middle East policy that the Biden administration pursued?  Things like the Negev Forum, things like the concept of I2U2, of IMEC, things where do you think those are actually helpful mechanisms that may continue into a Trump administration? Or do you think this is essentially going to be a return to priorities that were started in the first Trump administration? Rob Greenway:   I think it's going to be more of the latter than the former. Negev ultimately was taking the Abraham Accords and introducing it into a multilateral fora. But the attempt, I think, was ultimately not successful, not because of October the seventh, but because one they made it a diplomatic conference, which we deliberately didn't do with the Abraham Accords. We were more focused on getting the businessmen together and the parts of the government that dealt with trade and concrete relationships, because that's what they wanted.  So we didn't try and impose a forum on them. We tried to allow it to grow organically in the areas where they were interested, and, frankly, where you could measure the progress. I mean, as you know, having a diplomatic conference is not a difficult thing to do. Having one with an outcome might be a bit of a challenge. So we were inclined to approach it from an economic perspective. Ultimately, we'd like to see it get to the security domain. I think there is a difference. But again, it's an extension of the Accords that were built during the Trump administration. They also intended to insert the Palestinian issue into the equation, and they worked to get it introduced into the forum. I don't know the wisdom behind it, and ultimately, I think it became an impediment, but I will say that ultimately, they did come to the conclusion the Abraham Accords was a good thing. The Abraham Accords was beneficial to the region, and the region wanted to see the US invested in it.  Unfortunately, I think it came too late, and it was overshadowed by the intrinsic policy contradiction of feeding Iran and attempting to deal with the consequences of it. So you can't feed the greatest threat to instability in the region and attempt to work together towards normalization at the same time, the two objectives are in complete opposition to one another. And so they were working across purposes, and the region saw it, and I think they were unable to get progress because of it.  Sudan is probably the only accord member country that unfortunately has collapsed into virtual civil war, which was again a very tragic and unnecessary result of bad policy choice. And it can and it must be reversed. And I trust the Trump second Trump administration would make that a priority as well. Benjamin Rogers:   I'm happy to hear that, because that's an area that we have focused on, and I think absolutely heartbreaking to see what's unfolding in Sudan right now.  I'd be remiss if I didn't make a plug for AJC Center for a New Middle East, which is something our CEO Ted Deutch announced in June, and essentially our concept is, let's take the decades of trust that AJC has cultivated over the last 70+ years. Let's take the network that we have in places like Europe, in the Middle East, with our office in Abu Dhabi and in Jerusalem. We have offices across Asia. We've got offices in Africa.  How can we use that architecture to be a helpful model in bringing people together? So I wanted to ask you, as someone with so much experience on this, what role do you see for civil society organizations in being able to help cultivate, reinvigorate, bring together more hope to a region that is really reeling? Rob Greenway:   Having come from the Abraham Accords Peace Institute, where this was our purpose, and having worked with your offices and your organization and many others, I'm convinced that there is an absolute necessity for private organizations to help contribute to and to ensure that there's continuity and successes are sustained. Especially in the people to people contact, but areas like education, in sports and athletics, enormous potential. And it will require private organizations. This is one of many areas where government doesn't do it well. So I think government has opened a door. It can open others.  Private organizations ultimately are going to determine success and failure, and that includes, of course, businesses. So I think it's absolutely essential, and I think that organizations like AJC and others are uniquely positioned to be able to translate the potential into concrete success in a number of different fronts that either government can't do or it's just not well equipped to do.  So 100% agree, and in fact, again, this is too, where more people external to the region can really make a contribution, and small ways can have a massive impact. And we had the luxury of being able to work on a number. And we saw the fruits of that, and I think we'll continue to see. Some of them take decades to materialize, but it's worth it. Benjamin Rogers:   Amazing. Thanks, Rob. So I promised I would zoom out a little bit, because I know you're not only an expert in the Middle East, but look at the whole globe. Outside of the Middle East, where do you think when it comes to foreign affairs, the Trump administration will be focused?  How will it address issues like Russia, Ukraine? How will it address issues like China?  Rob Greenway:   So if you just consider the staggering array of security challenges that the new Trump administration is going to inherit and confront, it can be overwhelming. For two reasons. First, because it's happening on virtually every continent, right, in every cardinal direction you look, there's not just a crisis, but in many cases, a conflict that is unprecedented or hasn't been seen at this level in a generation. First land war in Europe since the Second World War, a Middle East that hasn't been this unstable since, I think at least 1979, perhaps earlier. These are generational challenges. And I could add to that, of course, China in both the first second island chains and the potential threat against Taiwan. Massive challenges to the international order and the US vital national security interests.  Number two, they're not just connected in a temporal space. Yes, unfortunately, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, are working together in unprecedented ways. The provision of ballistic missiles and drones from Iran, nuclear technology going in the other direction. All horrible. But the fact that they are connected in ways that are impossible to segregate, so you can't solve one problem while you're waiting to solve the other two. Because the solution to each is integrated to the problem in the other.  And energy, as I mentioned already, is just one of those ways, and perhaps one of the most important.  So if you want to restore maximum economic pressure against Iran–and we have to–you're going to be taking them gradually off the international market. Without disrupting prices in everyone's economies, including ours, you've got to compensate for it. There are ways to do it, but Russia is an exporter too, and China is a consumer. So you think about the sequencing behind how to confront these challenges, it is going to be absolutely one of the most complex I think any presidential administration has faced. And again, economic insecurity is integral. And I say that too, because the Trump administration thankfully at the top, with the President himself and many of his trusted advisors and cabinet officials come from a business background, and they understand the economics, because that's the world in which they grew up in. As well as the security domain.  And I think they're uniquely configured to be able to solve this. And they have the experience of working in these regions. A daunting series of challenges. And I think all of us watching this progress need to give them time and patience, because the scope of these challenges are massive. And I didn't mention, you know, the interior crisis at the border and the millions of illegal immigrants, tens of thousands of which are terrorists or known criminals. And that just adds to the complexity, and also can't be addressed in isolation. So massive challenges, all of them connected, security and economic standpoint, and it's going to take time, but this team and the president, I think, are uniquely postured to be able to do it. Benjamin Rogers:   Rob, I really want to thank you for everything today. Before we conclude, any final thoughts? Rob Greenway:   So I'd like to end again on a positive note, because it's easy to get distracted with the crises. The solution to these problems are what make them possible. Seeing the potential is what gives you the drive, the resolve, to fix it, and it also makes it possible. So if there wasn't a good solution to these problems, they would persist.  The reality is that integrating the Middle East and Israel and its neighbors and connecting global markets is key to solving these problems. It's also what's going to prevent it from happening again. If we can lean into it and do it successfully and follow through on what was started, we'll be able to see not only a cessation of these problems, we'll be able to see a real improvement in regional quality of life, and hopefully peace and prosperity will again dominate, rather than conflict and chaos.  Benjamin Rogers:   Alright Rob, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it. Rob Greenway:   My great pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Supporting lone soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)—those serving without immediate family in Israel—has never been more crucial. These soldiers face challenges such as language barriers, adjusting to a new culture, and coping with the emotional and physical demands of service, all while navigating feelings of loneliness, especially during holidays.  This Thanksgiving, hear from lone soldiers Kerren Seidner and Nate LeRoy about their experiences and how they support fellow soldiers through Ach Gadol (Big Brother), an organization dedicated to helping those serving without family support. Resources: Ach Gadol: Big Brother Organization for Lone Soldiers Be Kind As Omer Balva Instagram page Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know What President-Elect Trump's Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Nate LeRoy and Kerren Seidner: Manya Brachear Pashman: Lone soldiers are members of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) who don't have immediate family to support them while they're serving. They face many challenges, including learning Hebrew, adapting to a new culture, and the physical and emotional demands of IDF service. And it may come as no surprise that lone soldiers also experience loneliness, especially on holidays celebrated back home. For two decades, AJC Jerusalem has held a special Thanksgiving dinner for lone soldiers. But after the Hamas terror attacks on October 7, 2023 as many lone soldiers were dispatched across the country, AJC sent boxes of sweets and other Thanksgiving delicacies to 48 lone soldiers deployed at different bases.  Here to talk about why they served as lone soldiers, and the unique way they have volunteered their services since October 7, are two former lone soldiers, Kerren Seidner and Nate LeRoy.  Kerren, Nate, welcome to People of the Pod. Nate LeRoy:   Hi, thank you for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman: Kerren, I'll start with you, if you wouldn't mind sharing with listeners your back story. You were born in China, and then an Israeli couple living in the United States adopted you. Kerren Seidner:   Correct. So I was adopted around 11 months old, both my parents, my Israeli Jewish family, my parents, they were living in Los Angeles, California at the time. They adopted me. They went to China to come adopt me, and I have an older brother who is biological to my parents. And then I grew up, my entire family, in a Jewish Israeli home. Manya Brachear Pashman: And so had you ever been to Israel? What inspired you to go to Israel for the first time and then later to serve? Kerren Seidner:   For me, I always grew up in Israeli household. Growing up with the Israeli culture. I heard Hebrew every single day in my life. Although I did not learn Hebrew, my parents did not teach me.  I think the first time I went to Israel was for my brother's Bar Mitzvah when I was six years old, and so ever since then, we would always go to Israel for the summer vacation. So I always grew up going to Israel. I've always been in touch with all my family and cousins, aunts and uncles that I have here in Israel.  But I never thought I would ever come to Israel to serve until the age 18, where you grew up in American house, like in the American lifestyle, where at age 18, you need to decide if you want to go to college or university, or figure out what you want to do in life. So then I started thinking, You know what, maybe studying in Israel might be an option.  But then my older brother, decided that he had just decided to draft to the army. So I thought maybe that might be a possibility for myself. And then overnight, it just kind of happened that I wanted to make Aliyah and draft to the army. My mom said, you know, you should be a combat soldier. It was very new at that time for girls to be in combat. Manya Brachear Pashman: So why did she encourage you to do combat? Kerren Seidner:   Growing up, I've always done sports. I played soccer for 11 years. So I was always active. And I think my mom knew, coming from my dad, because most of the time I would spend with my dad, my mom in our household was different, where my mom was out working and my dad was a stay at home dad mostly.  So I was always with him, and I always heard the stories of him being an officer in combat, and then right at age 16, my brother had just drafted to Said Golani. So hearing all these stories, my mom just knew it was very fitting for me to go to combat as well. Manya Brachear Pashman: Nate, you grew up in Charleston, South Carolina, and did you first come to Israel on a gap year, or had you been before? Nate LeRoy:   So my first trip to Israel was actually with my Jewish day school. We have a small, strong Jewish day school in Charleston called Addelstone Hebrew Academy. Every eighth grade there does each year, does a trip. So that was my first experience in Israel. I came back with Young Judea on a summer program before senior year of high school, and then lived here on my gap year, Young Judea Year Course immediately after high school as well. Manya Brachear Pashman: And then what drew you to serve as a lone soldier? Nate LeRoy:   I think a huge part of it, like Kerren was talking about, was growing up with, for me, it wasn't an Israeli family, but a really strong, close, tight knit community in Charleston. And I have to give a lot of credit to Young Judea as well, especially to Camp Judea, where I grew up in just an extremely Zionist, welcoming, loving environment. And we had dozens of Israelis working on our staff every summer.  So having that kind of constant flood growing up of Israelis each summer, even if it wasn't in the house. Camp is really that home for a month each year, especially later on in high school, working there, and ultimately the gap year as well. Being here, living here for a year, being able to experience Israel, really feeling like you get kind of absorbed into society, was a huge part of it.  And I kind of looked around at the time, at Israelis my age, and felt okay, I'm 18 years old. They're 18 years old. We hear all the time that Israel is the Jewish nation, the Jewish state. We never hear that it's the Israeli nation, the Israeli state. So why do only the people who are born here have to serve?  And I kind of felt like, for me, the best way to do something and to serve the Jewish people and the Jewish state in Israel was through the army. And kind of like, my service for myself was also mandatory, and that was the path I chose, was to serve through that way. Manya Brachear Pashman: And what year did you serve Nate? Nate LeRoy:   I drafted in 2020. Manya Brachear Pashman: In 2020, and then served until when? Nate LeRoy:   I served until the end of 2021, through the Machal program. Which allows you to draft before you make Aliyah, so you do a shortened service of 18 months. Manya Brachear Pashman: And then, Kerren, when did you serve? Kerren Seidner:   I drafted December 2019. Manya Brachear Pashman: And served for how long?  Kerren Seidner:   Until August 2022. Manya Brachear Pashman  And so you said, Kerren, that you wanted to be, you sought to be in combat. Did you see combat as an IDF soldier? Kerren Seidner:   Yes, I was in Ariot Ha'edan. It's a coed unit in Israel. It's a regular reconnaissance unit, like Golani, Tzanchanim, but coed, and we're just mostly on the border, so the main underneath the unit Kchi Gvulot, so that translates to Border Patrol. So there's other units like Caracal, which was very much known in the recent war, and Bardelas, they're on the borders, mostly with Egypt. I was on the Jordanian border within the West Bank. Manya Brachear Pashman: And Nate, how did you serve? Or where did you serve? Nate LeRoy:   I served in Golani, in dud chamishim v'achat. So the 51st brigade. And we serve kind of all around. We did our training in the Merkaz Israel, the middle of Israel, in the north, and then served on various borders, on Gaza and up north and throughout the West Bank as well. Manya Brachear Pashman: Now, are you both in reserves now? Nate LeRoy:   I currently serve in reserves. I'm not at this moment, I finished reserves in the summer. We were in Gaza for two months with my unit most recently.  Manya Brachear Pashman: And Kerren, how about you? Are you still a reservist?  Kerren Seidner:   Yes, from October 7. I served about two months, and then I got released for about half a year, and then I just did about two months in the summer as well. Manya Brachear Pashman: All right. And can you say where? Kerren Seidner:   They put me wherever they need. In the first part, I moved eight times in the span of two months. So wherever they put me. Manya Brachear Pashman: When you're not serving, when you're not fighting or seeing combat, you volunteer in a very unique way. Can you tell our listeners how you have continued to serve those who are in the IDF? Kerren Seidner:   For me, for us, we volunteer with Ach Gadol. It's a special program where people like us, who are post lone soldiers who, we have lone soldiers who are currently serving, and we mentor them throughout their entire service. I currently have three soldiers, and two of them are actually combat soldiers. Manya Brachear Pashman: And Nate?  Nate LeRoy:   Yeah. So like Kerren said, it's a great summary. Ach Gadol, which means big brother, can translate it to big sister as well. We both volunteer with the organization. I have the privilege of being volunteering in a lone soldier house in Tel Aviv as well. So it's just a place where lone soldiers can stay on the weekends when they're off base, if they don't have a place to go, or some of them who might do kind of daily jobs where they go to and from their army service each day. If they're in intelligence, they can stay there as well if it's closer to base. So I volunteered there a little bit, and have a little brother.  It's funny to say, because he's my age. We actually both overlapped at Tulane University in the States for a year, but didn't meet each other, and so we got here and got matched through the organization, so he's my one little brother right now, and it's been great. It's a great way to have a connection with someone.  I personally received a lot of help from the generations before me. And I think most lone soldiers did because you really can't do this by yourself. As funny as that is being called a lone soldier, you really can't do it alone. And it's just great. It felt definitely like the right thing to do, to turn around and give it to the current generation and future generations. Manya Brachear Pashman: What do lone soldiers need now, that's different from when you served? Nate LeRoy:   I think a lot of the challenges stay the same. In terms of, you encounter adulthood all of a sudden, when you get here, in terms of finding an apartment, figuring out how to live your life by yourself, figuring out all that sort of adulthood stuff. And on top of it, you have the army, which is a massive thing to navigate, a massive language issue.  And I think right now I'll speak personally with my own relationship with the person I volunteer with, with Josh, when you throw war on top of that, which by itself, is more than enough to deal with, you know, how can you figure out your apartment in your contract when you've been in Gaza for the last two months? How can you figure out, you know, you have to leave combat in a war zone and go back and do your own laundry? And it's those little things that really make a difference. Where someone who is Israeli and has a family here and has the support they need, you know, they go back and they're in that support circle.  And no matter what you come back from, even if you come back from, you know, when I was serving just the most regular week in the army, when you come back and you just want to check out for the weekend and be with your friends, and you have this kind of list of errands piling up, it's difficult.  And coming back from combat, from war, from fighting, from losing friends, you know, it just 100 times more difficult. I think it's super important to make sure people have the support they need in all of those things, and also know that they have the space to talk about stuff and to share things that are difficult for them, and to reach out to someone who's going through similar things. Kerren Seidner:   For me, it's a very deep question, but I think that, like how Nate said the whole thing about being a lone soldier, no matter times of war or normal times. We like to say normal times, but it's still hard. You need the support no matter what I think, especially just during the times of this war, and in any war, just the mental because I feel like, having to have been in miluim, I also struggled with it as well, going to miluim, being in the duty of being in the Army and that mindset as a soldier, and then coming home to civilian life, it's very different.  Especially then you come to civilian life, and I'm here, like in Herzliya, and you also don't feel necessarily safe, because you have also rockets all the time, like I had one this morning as well. So it's really can be scary at times, but I think what's so special about Israel, we have the support from one another, not just from people like me, who was a lone soldier trying to help out with other lone soldiers, but just random civilians on the street, really just uplifting.  Manya Brachear Pashman: Can you kind of describe what you're talking about? What do you mean by that? Kerren Seidner:   I think for me, ever since I moved to Israel, I say, Israel is definitely home, the people here are very different. I grew up in the Los Angeles area, so I really feel like there was very materialistic. But I think there's so many people that just want to help one another. And I really seen that a lot throughout the war, even through my service, being a lone soldier, people would just hand me money left and right. People constantly are asking, Do you have a place for Shabbat to not feel alone on Shabbat, which means a lot. Manya Brachear Pashman: And what about Thanksgiving and other holidays that you traditionally celebrated in Los Angeles or in Charleston. How have you been able to mark those occasions in Israel? Nate LeRoy:   I think for me, in going off of a big thing, Kerren spoke about. I also lived in Herzliya during my service, and there's a fantastic self made group of just moms and dads and everyday people from the community there of Israelis who, whenever we'd go home, especially on holidays, Rosh Hashanah and stuff, people would either volunteer to host us, or a lot of times we just receive Friday afternoon, someone would come by. They have a list of all of our addresses, if we're in this group chat, and they just drop off home cooked meals and say, you know, this Friday night, you and your roommates, have this Shabbat dinner. Enjoy. Don't worry about cooking. And having that home cooked meal, even if it's not my mom, you know, mom's cooking. It's a great feeling and a great experience.  And another thing that I've had, and I've been super fortunate to and I know a lot of us do as well. A lot of lone soldiers. Is in the absence of your immediate family, your friends really become your family. And I'm still lucky to this day to have people who I met during my time in the army and I served with who, we're still in touch. We still hang out together, and some of us, Thanksgiving specifically, you know people who can get home, and it works out with work, they go, and I'm jealous of them. I wish I could as well, but we do our best to cook a great Thanksgiving dinner. And turkeys are a little hard to come by here, but we get a couple of rotisserie chickens, and a bird's a bird, and we try to do the best we can to have this sort of family experiences and family holidays. Manya Brachear Pashman: Kerren, how about you? Do you mark Thanksgiving in any particular way or other holidays? Kerren Seidner:   For me, Thanksgiving, honestly, I don't think I do, only because for me, every Friday night is like Thanksgiving to me. For me, yom shishi, the arcuchat shihi is super important for me. I because we are lone soldiers. I always try to make sure I spend it with friends who how, like Nate said, it's become like family. So living here in Herzliya, there is a big community of people, olim like myself. So we became like a little family of our own. So I would always do Shabbat together, or I am in touch with, when I moved here and did the army, I had a host family. So I am still in touch with my host family from the army. And I see them. They just live in the north in a moshav. So it's kind of hard for me to get there all the time, but I try to celebrate the Hebrew holidays, the Jewish holidays, mostly.  Manya Brachear Pashman: Do your families get to Israel throughout the year? Have they traveled there to see you, even if you aren't able to get to, back to Los Angeles or Charleston to see them? Kerren Seidner:   For me, my dad was really nervous when the war first broke out and Nefesh b'Nefesh opened up flights for one parent to come to Israel for lone soldiers. So he was able to get one of those flights and was able to see me during the war. And then my mom came not too long after that for a wedding, our cousin's wedding was canceled throughout the war, so it was postponed, and so she came for our cousin's wedding. But I haven't gone home in a year and a half, so I'm luckily going back in February to visit.  Nate LeRoy:   My family was able to come to visit at the end of my service, which was really important for me, for them to be able to see me. I guess we both, you drafted just a few months before me, but we both served during COVID. Kerren Seidner:   Yeah. Nate LeRoy:   Which is just also just, I mean, now, nothing compares to serving now, but it was a super weird, wild time of all sorts of closures and rules and different things. So for my family to be able to come after the kind of general lockdown and everything of COVID was really great for them, to be able to be here while I was in the army, and they haven't been able to come visit since then, but they still want to, and still will. I think sometime in this coming year, my parents may be able to come out to visit. Manya Brachear Pashman: And when was the last time you went to Charleston?  Nate LeRoy:   I was lucky enough. I was able to go back a few months ago, when I finished my reserve service, over the summer, I went back for a little bit to see my family and see some friends. Manya Brachear Pashman: What did you gain from serving in the IDF? Nate LeRoy:   I think it's kind of immeasurable to an extent. I think that the person I was when I went in, it's still very much the person I am now. But you experienced so much, and you changed so much. And I drafted at 21 years of age, but growing so much over those kind of really formative years, but I think that I learned more about myself than I ever expected to. I learned about the importance of commitment to other people and the reaffirmment of committing to the greater good.  And I think something I learned about people is just always, always to give people the benefit of the doubt and to know that people usually do try their best and they have their best intentions in mind, and to give them the space to be able to show that, improve that, you're in a lot of really just within your team and people you're shoulder to shoulder. You know, you never get a minute by yourself, and it gets very intense. A lot of situations with you or the people you serve with.  But just learning to kind of give them that space and trust people and know that they want what's best for you and you want what's best for them, no matter how much each moment might get kind of chippy at certain points. It's something that you can only really experience through those tougher, tougher ordeals. Manya Brachear Pashman: Kerren, what did you take away from your service in the IDF? Kerren Seidner:   I think for me, it was really hard. I was going through a lot. I also, when I first moved to Israel, I was 18, and I didn't necessarily want to leave LA at that moment, I was finally in a friend group where I felt like I belonged. So it was really hard for me to have just decided to move across the country or the world, not the country, and I didn't really know the language.  So it was still hard, which is always going to be a little hard, but then getting put somewhere in the middle of nowhere, not knowing anything. I think I definitely change in a way that I've opened up a lot more. I was very closed off. And I tell people all the time, like my friends today, they didn't know me when I was 18, and I was very closed off. I don't even think I would be doing something like this even today. And in the army, you're just put with a bunch of girls, and you don't know the full language, but you just got to get to know them. And I even tell my friends today that the girls who are with me in the army, who are my best friends today, hang out with them all the time.  And they will even say that the first year, I did not talk to them, and I think because we were stuck in quarantine for two weeks, we were forced to spend time.  I had to just open up and actually get to know them. And I regretted not getting to know them earlier, and I'm so much happier that I open up and reach out. And that's something with Ach Gadol, where you just kind of maybe need to make that extra step, the first step, because there's new lone soldiers today who are just maybe scared to do that first step because they're in a new country, and we've been there before.  Manya Brachear Pashman: I asked you both what you gained from your time in the IDF, but it is a sacrifice. For which we are very grateful that you made. What did you lose by serving in the IDF? What did you sacrifice? Nate LeRoy:   I think, without the risk of being overly cheesy, I feel very lucky to have had a great service and to have experienced the army in a I got lucky, and I had a great service. And there are a lot of people around me who weren't so lucky, and kind of you know, things didn't fall their way, and they had a less good service or a bad service to a certain extent. So I'm very fortunate. That I can say I didn't lose anything that I wasn't willing to and I didn't know I was going to sacrifice beforehand. I did a year at Tulane before, and chose to leave that behind and come and do the army, and knew I had finished my studies at some point, which I'm doing now.  And I guess I lost, you know, two or three more years of partying in college in the States and a lot of experiences with close friends, who I'm fortunate to still be close with. But that's a decision and choice that I made, and knew I was making when I came over here. And, you know, a couple of Mardi Gras would have been great. COVID softened the blow a little that it, you know, they were canceled or didn't happen to the full extent. But again, I'm just fortunate to have. You know, only missed the experiences that I thought I would be able to miss. Kerren Seidner:   Yeah, I honestly, I think I lucked out, that I really enjoyed my service, and I don't regret anything about it. And I always say that I'm, I'm going to stay here in Israel forever. This is home. I always say, like to my friends who are drafting now and to my soldiers now that: I'll support them no matter what. If they have any regrets, or if they went to combat and they regretted that decision, or any other decision.  I really do believe God has a path for every single person, and I think that we make mistakes, we have to learn, and we may regret some things, but I think that doing the army was the path that I was meant to do, and I don't regret any of it. Manya Brachear Pashman: One more question for you both, and that is, I asked you, what you lost from serving in the IDF, but so many people lost loved ones and friends on October 7. Did you lose anyone, or know anyone who was killed or kidnapped on October 7? Kerren Seidner:   For me, not on October 7. I have a friend of mine. His name is Omer Balva. They actually have an Instagram page called Be Kind as Omer. And we did Garin Tzabar together. He was in the Moshav next to me. And he actually started university with me at the same time, so that was really hard for me. And I was able to go to his funeral. That was the first time I was out of miluim.  And then throughout, after I got released in July, my mifached, unfortunately, was killed in a motorcycle accident, and he did miluim and everything. It was just very unfortunate to have lost him in such an unfortunate way. And then a far relative cousin on my dad's side is actually kidnapped still to this day. Manya Brachear Pashman: I want to let listeners know you are referring to your cousin Tzachi Idan. Kerren, I hope you don't mind me sharing that his 18-year-old daughter Ma'ayan was murdered in their home on October 7 before her father was taken into Gaza. In fact, she was helping her father hold the door to the safe room closed and she was shot through the door. It is a horrific story.   Thank you, Kerren, for sharing that about your friend and your cousin. Nate? Nate LeRoy:   So I was fortunate to not have anyone that I was close with who passed away on the seventh. There were several people I served with kind of an extended, extended relationship with, or distant relationship with, who passed away fighting in the Kibbutzim in the south and about a month after the seventh, someone in my extended family, one of my cousins, a lone soldier from Atlanta, Rose Lubin, was killed in a terrorist attack in Jerusalem, and actually, this coming week is her the yard site for the first time. So a lot of the family, a lot of family on her side, live here in Israel. So everyone's kind of has a fantastic week of really meaningful, important events taking place. Everyone's coming over for it from the States as well, so it'll be a really meaningful, moving week to remember her. Manya Brachear Pashman: Thank you both so very much for your service, for all you've done to and you're doing to support the soldiers, especially at this time. Thank you both for joining us. Nate LeRoy:   Thank you. And just one last thing, anyone who's interested in Ach Gadol wants to find us online. I'm sure there'll be a link somewhere with this podcast, but feel free to search us on Google or wherever Ach Gadol or in Hebrew, Ach Gadol L'Ma'an Chayalim Bodedim, and thank you so much for having me on the show.  Kerren Seidner:   What he said. Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, tune in for my conversation with Belle Yoeli, AJC's Chief Advocacy Officer, about the International Criminal Court's charges against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. She explains why regardless of political views about this Israeli administration, the charges tied to Israel's defense operations in Gaza are unjust.   

The International Criminal Court (ICC) announced arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of crimes tied to Israel's defense operations in Gaza. Why should supporters of Israel—regardless of political views—reject these accusations?  Belle Yoeli, AJC's Chief Advocacy Officer, explains why the ICC's charges are not only baseless but also undermine justice, distort international law, and fuel harmful narratives following the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  What President-Elect Trump's Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know Go Deeper – AJC Analysis: Statement: American Jewish Committee Appalled by ICC's Issuance of Arrest Warrants Against Israelis Explainer: What You Need to Know About the ICC and the Israel-Hamas War Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Belle Yoeli: Manya Brachear Pashman:   The International Criminal Court announced on Thursday that it issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister. You have Galant as well as Hamas terrorist Mohammed, if the Court said it had found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Galant quote, each bear criminal responsibility for starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity, end quote. All tied to Israel's military operations in Gaza focused on defeating Hamas terrorists, securing the return of the 101 remaining hostages and preventing more attacks.  Here to talk about why the court is prosecuting Israel's leaders for its defense operation after the country suffered the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust, and why that's dangerous, is Belle Yoeli, AJC's Chief advocacy officer. Belle, welcome to People of the Pod. Belle Yoeli:   Thanks so much, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Do Belle, why have warrants been issued for Netanyahu and Gallant. Belle Yoeli:   Right. So first and foremost, I just want to make it abundantly clear, and it really needs to be said, that this decision is absolutely outrageous. It's a gross distortion of international law and so many other things. It undermines the credibility of the court, and it fuels a lot of malicious lies about the state of Israel and its self defensive activities in Gaza since October 7. I will share the Court's reasoning for the warrants, and you alluded to it, quote, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least the eighth of October, until at least the 20th of May 2024. The court claims they found reasonable grounds that Netanyahu and Gallant, again, quote, bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others. The war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. That's the direct quote, obviously very hard to read. And of course, AJC fundamentally rejects these claims, as do the United States and many, many leading international law and warfare experts. This is just a total and complete failure of justice. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So why should supporters of Israel stand firmly against this accusation, no matter what their political views are? In other words, if they're not fans of Netanyahu, but they are ardent supporters of Israel, why should they stand firm against this?  Belle Yoeli:   Yeah, it's an important question, and we have to be clear. I mean, the court has politicized this by sort of taking this unprecedented action. But this is not about political issues, it's not about Netanyahu or Gallant. This is about the truth. This is about right and wrong, and the claims that are being made here are so outrageous and malicious. I mean, Israel is not intentionally starving Palestinian civilians or committing crimes. It just doesn't make sense.  If it were, it would not be facilitating tons and tons of aid into the Gaza Strip every day, not to mention polio vaccines. I mean, the list goes on and on. Israel, like any other country, is defending itself, and not just in Gaza against Hamas, but on seven fronts, including Hezbollah and Lebanon, against Iranian proxies.  And look, we've said it from the beginning, since Israel responded in this self defensive way, and we'll say it again: civilians die in war, and that is a terrible, horrible thing. But Israel is fighting its war in Gaza in response to Hamas' actions on October 7. It's about bringing the hostages home and preventing the ability of Hamas to attack Israeli civilians. And it's been said by many experts that Israel is conducting itself in this war in an unprecedented manner, in a positive way. And I know that's hard for people to grasp, because, again, people have died, Palestinians have died, and, yes, civilians have died, and that's terrible. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Israel is trying to prevent civilian death and why it's fighting this war, and none of that has to do with intentionally harming civilians. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I want to back up here and talk about who is actually pressing these charges, who is actually issuing these warrants and making these accusations in this case. For people who may not be familiar or they may be confused between the International Criminal Court and another international court, the International Court of Justice, which has a separate case against Israel and is connected to the United Nations. So what is the International Criminal Court? How is it different than the ICJ? Belle Yoeli:   So you mean, not everybody is a legal scholar? It's quite confusing, and I'm grateful for my colleagues who have really helped us try to explain this to everyone, and I'll try to break it down for you as simply as I can. So the ICC is an independent, international judicial tribunal. It's based in the Hague, and it was created in 2002 by the Rome Statute.  And that's a treaty that essentially spells out what crimes this specific body, the ICC, should investigate and adjudicate when it can. And the ICC's jurisdiction is essentially that it can prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression. That's four categories.  And it's allowed to prosecute not just state actors, but also non-state actors. And when you think about the ICC, as colleagues have explained to me, you really are supposed to think about it as a court of last resort. So when you think about national legal systems, and respecting the right that sovereign states have their own courts and that should be respected, the ICC would step in when an important crime or a crime did not get prosecuted. That's what this body is meant for, and again, trying to respect sovereign states. Now, by contrast, the ICJ is the judicial arm of the UN, the United Nations, and the ICJ is supposed to settle legal disputes between states, and it also can issue opinions upon requests by UN entities. So there are two different bodies, two very different purposes. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So is Israel a member of the ICC? Belle Yoeli:   So Israel is not a member of the ICC. And this is actually sort of interesting. Israel was involved in drafting the Rome Statute that I mentioned, that created the ICC, that treaty. But things got a little complicated, which is not so surprising when you hear why. Essentially, the ICC, as we discussed, was intended to focus on these most heinous crimes, right?  But eventually the entity was urged by several Arab countries, and the majority of the countries that are party to the ICC agreed, to add as one of the categories of things that can be investigated and prosecuted, the transfer of civilians into occupied territory. And so if you hear that, I'm sure a ping goes off, obviously based on Israel and its situation and dynamics in the region. Israel took this as a sign that countries were aiming to distort the purpose of the body and really to try to just prosecute Israelis for actions in the West Bank, for example. So it ended up refraining from joining. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So now, countries cannot be prosecuted by the ICC, right? I mean, I understand that Israel as a country can't be prosecuted, but Israelis can be, and that's why the warrants issued named Netanyahu and Gallant. Belle Yoeli:   So technically, the body is supposed to go after individuals. But the question here, of the warrants is about jurisdiction, right? And clearly there's a disagreement. The Israelis, the United States and others have said that the ICC has no jurisdiction over, you know, for the warrants they've issued. And AJC agrees.  The Palestinians and actually, the court itself have said that it's based on certain technicalities which are actually quite complicated, and you can read about in our explainer on our website about this subject, that there is jurisdiction. But for me, the thing that is most clear here is that as we reference, Israel has a strong, independent judiciary, and even when it comes to the conflict. Most recent conflicts is October 7, Israel's own military Advocate General has in fact, opened dozens of investigations into incidents.  So when you consider the fact that Israel has a mechanism for investigating things that are happening in Gaza, that in itself, should tell everyone that the ICC has no jurisdiction here based on its own treaty. So yes, these warrants were issued, but from our perspective, there's really no jurisdiction. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Okay, so would you say the fog of war makes this almost impossible to adjudicate, or is this, in your eyes, an open and shut case? Is it abundantly clear that Israeli leaders have avoided committing these crimes they're accused of? Belle Yoeli:   So, I mean, to me, it's open and shut for a few reasons, right? We've mentioned them. One, the ICC has no jurisdiction. Two, the claims are, of the crimes are, are false and really offensive. And, you know, there is, of course, this phrase, the fog of war, and there's always fog in war. But this is really not what it's about. The travesty in all of this is that Israel does so much in an unprecedented environment that shows that the claims that are being made are untrue.  So, yes, the technicalities, yes, there's no jurisdiction. The claims are offensive. But it's more than that. This is so clearly being politicized, because, yes, people are upset about what's happening and the conflict, and we understand that the entire world is reacting, but it's just not true. It's just about truth here, and what the court is suggesting is simply not true, and really targeting Israel in a way that is against justice and is really unheard of. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So here in America, we are amid a leadership transition. Has the response differed between the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration? Belle Yoeli:   So from what we've seen so far, I mean, the Biden administration and incoming administration officials from the Trump administration have both spoken out and both rejected the decision outright. You'll see, and I think we'll see in the coming days, there are differences of opinion also in Congress about how to deal with this action. And this been, this has been in conversation, you know, discussion for months when this was first raised, that this could possibly happen, questions around sanctions and different actions that can be taken. But I think we'll know a lot more about concrete potential proposals and next steps in the coming days. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And what about the international community? Belle Yoeli:   You know, it's interesting, at this point, when we're as of this recording, the international response has actually been quite muted, and I think that's because countries are trying to balance upholding the respect for the court and the idea of the court and its jurisdiction with this really outrageous decision that I think many of them know is is false and wrong and has really bad implications for what the court is meant to do. You know, some have been quite clear. Just to name a few, Argentina and Paraguay spoke out forcefully. Some responses have been a bit more murky. I think, trying to thread that needle that I mentioned, like the United Kingdom had a pretty murky response. And actually, the EU high representative who's thankfully on his way out, Joseph Burrell, really fully embraced the decision in a sort of grotesque way. But this isn't new for him. He's fairly problematic on these types of issues. So we'll see how other countries react. You know, more things are in play, and I'm sure Israel and the United States are having close conversations with allies. I think the US even alluded to that, and we'll have a better sense of what's to come soon. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And so what does this mean for Israel and for the ongoing Israel-Hamas war? Belle Yoeli:   I mean, I don't have a crystal ball. I can say, look, it remains to be seen what will happen next. I think countries who are party to the ICC need to do the right thing. They need to reject the jurisdiction and really refuse to enforce the warrants. That's the most important piece here. That's what we're hoping to see.  I think we'll see that international pressure likely be applied by the United States and others. But the bigger picture here, I mean, again, it speaks to the travesty that I spoke about before. It's this larger attempt to delegitimize Israel and really discredit and slander Israel, I would even go so far to say, is just unjust, and it fuels all of the disinformation that we're seeing.  And what does that lead to? It leads to hate. It leads to hate against Israelis, and let's be honest, it puts Jews around the world at risk at a time when there's already surging antisemitism. This isn't new. Look at what happened in Amsterdam.  So more broadly, this just, this hits. This is an issue and so problematic in so many ways, and it just, it does so much harm and the ideals of democracy and the ideas of justice, it's really unprecedented and unforgivable. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Do you think it gets in the way of bringing the hostages home? Belle Yoeli:   Unfortunately, the reality is that it's been difficult enough as it is to bring the hostages home, and we just haven't seen movement in negotiations. And obviously we're praying for that every day. I couldn't tell you how this will impact that. I don't, I don't see an immediate connection. I think, look, we need to be clear that every action like this contributes to a feeling in Israel of already, sort of, as they say in conflict negotiation or resolution speak. like a siege mentality, right? Israelis feel under attack. The government likely feels under attack, and so it certainly doesn't help when Israel is trying to defend itself, to carry out war and to bring the hostages home, it certainly doesn't help, but how it will affect actual negotiations, I couldn't say. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Belle, thank you so much for sharing your insights and trying to explain this to our listeners. Belle Yoeli:   Thank you so much for having me.    

From Marco Rubio to Elise Stefanik: who are the nominations that President-elect Trump has announced, and what does their selection say about how the administration may take shape? Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs reviews the names announced thus far, how, if confirmed, they could impact efforts to counter antisemitism, support Israel, and uphold democratic values, and how AJC is advocating to advance these critical issues.  Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know Sinwar Eliminated: What Does This Mean for the 101 Hostages Still Held by Hamas? Go Deeper – AJC Analysis: Explainer: What to Know About President-elect Trump on Antisemitism, Israel, and Iran Policy AJC Briefing — Post-Election Analysis: What to Expect Under the New U.S. Administration | Tuesday, November 19 | 1:30 p.m. Eastern | Register Here Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of Conversation with Julie Fishman Rayman: Manya Brachear Pashman:   President Elect Donald Trump has named and nominated eight of the 24 officials, including his chief of staff, most of whom would make up his cabinet. Returning to discuss the nominees so far and where they stand on AJC missions of fighting antisemitism, defending Israel and safeguarding democracy, is AJC Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, Julie Fishman Rayman. Julie, welcome back to People of the Pod. Julie Fishman Rayman:   Thanks for having me, Manya, glad to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So you have worked with some of these nominees, and you know their track record on these issues. First of all, from a 30,000-40,000 foot view, what is your overall take on the slate so far? Julie Fishman Rayman:   I feel like if you had asked me that yesterday, I would have had a totally different answer. And so I imagine even by the time People of the {od airs, my answer maybe would have even changed, so I will answer, but I want everyone, including our listeners, to take it with a grain of salt that I am speaking from a very specific moment in tim while the clock is rapidly changing and the situation is rapidly changing. So I think the initial slate of potential nominees that were announced gave a lot of folks, especially in sort of the foreign policy world, a good deal of comfort, right?  So people like Representative Mike Waltz, people like Senator Marco Rubio, those types of folks. Even Governor Huckabee, are sort of these, these names of traditional conservatives who we say, Oh, they have a record. They have governed. They have a voting record. We know exactly where they stand and what they believe, and that it's not vastly dissimilar from any other previous Republican administration.  Then, of course, there was the news about the potential coming in of Matt Gaetz, representative, Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida and Tulsi Gabbard. And I think those names and what they represent put everyone in a bit of a tailspin. Not simply because of who they are, although they come with a lot of really interesting backstory that we can unpack, if you want to, but not just because of who they are, but because they represent a really different part of the Republican Party. A really different part of the right wing world view that had not theretofore been represented in Trump's cabinet picks, definitely less of the traditional conservative mindset and much more in line with a, dare I say, like populist kind of perspective. And so there's tension now that people are trying to sort of understand and unravel. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let's talk about each individual. And you mentioned Marco Rubio, who is Trump's nominee for Secretary of State, the Florida Senator. He currently serves on the Foreign Relations Committee. He's the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee. And I mean, he and the President Elect seem to agree on America's approach to Iran and Ukraine, but not NATO, right? I mean, where do he and Mr. Trump agree and disagree? Julie Fishman Rayman:   You're asking a question as though we have a full sense of what incoming president, former President Trump believes, which I think is a bit of an assumption. They're certainly deeply aligned on sort of big picture principles as they relate to support for Israel, no question. A tough, tough approach to whether it's an actor like Iran or China, you know, sort of these nefarious global players that seek to disrupt our world order, they're aligned there. There is a potential disconnect on Ukraine. Right? We've heard statements from Senator Rubio recently where you almost see him trying to channel the former president, the president-elect, and say, like, what would Trump say? What would Trump do?  You can like, see the wheels spinning in his mind as he talks about how we have been funding a stalemate and how something needs to change. But I'm not sure that if you put them both in a room and ask them blindfolded, apart from each other, what to do about Ukraine, if you would get the same answer, I think there would probably be a good deal of daylight.  And I think the same could be said about the future of NATO and others. But it all remains to be seen. And then, of course, also will have to be balanced with other forces that are coming into the administration, not least of which Senator JD Vance, colleague of Marco Rubio, who definitely comes with a different sort of world view. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And next on the list, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York, she has been nominated for the role of UN ambassador. We kind of know her as an outspoken supporter of Israel, given her high profile role in the congressional hearings about anti-Israel protests on college campuses after the Hamas terror attacks on October 7. Those hearings actually led to the resignation of a couple of university presidents. How do you foresee that outspoken support playing out in the UN arena, or maybe even in the Trump administration's approach to higher education? Julie Fishman Rayman:   In terms of the UN and antisemitism, there will be a lot of very vocal, very strident affirmations that antisemitism is not something that the US will abide. That same sort of force that Congresswoman Stefanik brought to the Education Committee, she will bring to the UN and she won't take any bones about it, and she's not going to sit down to anybody.  Of that we can be sure what that looks like, though, beyond pontification, beyond promulgations of support for the Jewish community across the globe, remains to be seen. Right? How will she engage in a UN that she certainly will perceive to be at least biased towards Israel and possibly antisemitic at its core. Right? We can make that assumption on her world view.  How will she seek to engage with a system that she presumably views as fundamentally flawed? We know that a Republican House and Senate are already sort of gearing up towards cutting funding of major UN institutions, if not the UN across the board. So what does that mean for her role? What does that mean for the voice that the United States will have and the ability for her very strong voice, to even be at the table, and that's sort of where some of that tension arrives is also, do you get in the room? Do you get the seat at the table? Or are you on the menu? Right? The United States is never going to be on the menu, but are we going to, by virtue of our own sort of principles, going to push our seat back in and stand in the hallway. There's a lot of calculi that she's going to have to make there. In terms of the Department of Education and Congress and how they're dealing with these really important issues that that Congresswoman Stefanik has put at the fore for so long, there's no question that the threat of pulling federal funding that we've heard from the Biden administration repeatedly will be more believed under a future Trump administration. I think there are universities all over the country that already are saying, oh, like, what do we have to do? We don't want to get caught in these crosshairs. What do we need to do to make sure that we are not either under fire with the light shining on us or on the chopping block for federal funding?  So if you're an educational institution that really believes that there is a true threat that you're to your federal funding, you're reconsidering a lot of steps. And if in fact, federal funding is leveraged or cut, I think we have to be really mindful of three things. One, we have to make sure that it doesn't look as though the Jews are behind this crushing blow, because that's scapegoating. And we have to make sure that shuttering these major academic institutions doesn't foreclose the creation, the necessary creation, of future American doctors and engineers and others. And finally, we have to make sure that we're not creating a void in funding that could really easily be filled by foreign actors that are already known to use university funding to advance a particular ideology, to advance their own interests. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I want to go back to another name you mentioned at the top, and that is the Florida congressman, Michael Waltz. He has been named as National Security Advisor to head up the National Security Council, and he has been a huge champion of the Abraham accords. So what can we expect to see from him if he indeed does take this post. Julie Fishman Rayman:   So one of the things that I think is really interesting about, you know, looking back on the last trump administration, while we sort of forecast for the next, is that the National Security Council, this body that Mike Waltz will lead, was always the brain trust for him in the previous administration. Of course, there was the State Department. It was filled, it was supported. But generally, I think he thought of the State Department as a place of a foreign policy bureaucracy, where passports got stamped, that kind of, step by step, day by day, keeping the wheels turning, but not where real change happened.  So if we're, you know, we're talking about Marco Rubio at State, we're talking about Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, I think we really need to sort of dig into what's Waltz gonna bring. And of course, like, as you said, Manya deeply supportive of Abraham Accords, very hawkish when it comes to China, and very, very embedded in the military establishment himself, right? He's not the DoD pick, but he's a Green Beret vet. He served in Afghanistan, he served in the Middle East. He served in Africa. In addition to being on the foreign affairs committee and Congress, he was on the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, if there are, if there's a trifecta of committees that someone could serve on to be as informed and at sort of the pinnacle of information about what's going on in this world, it's those three committees. Ukraine is the big question mark here. He's criticized aid to Ukraine, and has talked about getting Putin to the negotiating table, getting a diplomatic solution, or some sort of settlement to this war. And that I think remains this major looming question for a lot of folks about, as we're looking at these various picks whose voice is going to win here. Or, you know, if we're channeling the last Trump administration again, who's going to be the last person in his ear before he goes and makes a major announcement. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You mentioned DoD. Let's talk about President Elect Trump's DoD pick. Fox News anchor Pete hegseth, he is a retired US Army Major. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a surprising pick to head the Department of Defense.  Julie Fishman Rayman:   It's interesting that you asked that question, because I think for folks who just think of him as a, you know, the guy on the Fox News couch, everyone who I've talked to who really knows Pete Hegseth and really is engaged with him for a long time, they they're not surprised, and they say, Oh, that does make sense. I don't know how much we can anticipate his fox views translating into a DoD cabinet pick. I don't really know how to manage that, right? He's talked about, like the Joint Chiefs, for example, in sort of a disparaging way.  So, he's definitely one of these picks that you know shows the future President's desire to be at the vanguard, right? He wants to shake things up. He wants to keep people on their toes.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Okay, so now let's move on to some of the names you mentioned that are curious, curious choice. Other curious choices. Former Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, she has been nominated to serve as Trump's chief intelligence advisor, the Director of National Intelligence. That would mean she would be responsible for overseeing 18 spy agencies and keeping the President informed of the nation's international intelligence as anti semitism rises around the world, incidents like what we saw in Amsterdam this past weekend continue to flare up. Do you foresee her prioritizing that kind of news for the president elect? Julie Fishman Rayman:   This is a position that has to be confirmed by the Senate, and it's not, I think, a slam dunk in a lot of ways. She's not always been a Republican. She certainly hasn't always been a Trumpist Republican. She had a major leadership role in the Democratic Party for quite some time. She was the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, and not rank and file, she resigned from that position to endorse Bernie Sanders in 2016 she supported the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran deal that many Democrats broke with the administration to oppose that. AJC opposed, I think that there's a lot of baggage that she brings, and not personal baggage, but policy baggage that might make it very, very difficult for her to make the step through that confirmation process, and someone very smart said that'll be the test. Maybe I'll give him credit. Josh Kraushauer, the editor of Jewish insider, said this will be the test for how Senate leadership is going to respond to the calls from President Trump. You know, if they're able to just sort of if Senator Thune, in this new role that he has just received is able to push through the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard, then we can expect a lot of confirmations legislation Trump desires to move through the Senate. If she gets a little bit held up. If it's not as easy, then we can anticipate just a little bit more gridlock, as much gridlock as one could expect from one party control of the House, Senate and the White House. But a little bit more of a pushback. It'll be a real test. Manya Brachear Pashman:   She is nominated to be his chief intelligence advisor, and yet she has posted blatantly false propaganda on her social media channels. And people know that, people have called her out for that. Is that concerning? Julie Fishman Rayman:   I think it's deeply concerning whenever anyone puts out blatantly false propaganda, particularly that which emanates from Russia, that is problematic at any level of elected official, appointed official, period. We need to constantly, as a society and as a nation, be on fierce guard against that, because it is real and it is pervasive. I anticipate that, you know, when the confirmation hearings are up, there's going to be a lot of questions about, you know, what has she posted, where is she getting her information, and from whom does she rely on for real, authoritative information that is truthful? Manya Brachear Pashman:   So another name that you mentioned at the top of the conversation, and that is Congressman, well now former Congressman Matt Gaetz from Florida, since he resigned immediately after his nomination for attorney general. He was one of, I think, 21 republicans who voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act in May, saying he couldn't support a definition of antisemitism that labeled claims of Jews killing Jesus as antisemitic. I think Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel might have had some choice words for him, if he is indeed, if he indeed progresses through this process toward Attorney General, what could we see from him? What can we see, period, of this whole process? Julie Fishman Rayman:   So first off, I just, I want to speak a little bit about it was sort of him in his record, because I think that it's important for our community to to be refreshed about exactly who Matt Gaetz is it there were a number of Republicans who voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act because they did not think that it was appropriate for there to be a law that says the Jews didn't kill Jesus. This is, of course, like a sort of gross mischaracterization of what the international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti semitism says and purports to do. But he wasn't alone. And it was, it was very interesting to see how this, this sort of trope that I think a lot of us thought was over about the Jews killing Jesus. You know, Nostra Aetate was in the 70s, right? So we thought that this was done and behind us. But to hear, particularly from the evangelical set, that, okay, like, maybe the Jews didn't kill Jesus, or maybe they did.  He also invited a Holocaust denier and a white supremacist to be his guest at the State of the Union later, he said, like, Oh, I didn't really know. But either he got terrible staffing or he knew, and he just didn't want to get caught. He's deeply, deeply scandal ridden, without question. And he, you know, is constantly defending Marjorie Taylor Green, who, you know, compared the COVID mask laws to, you know, the Holocaust and things like that. He called the ADL racist. He is not representative of any stream, really, within the Republican Party. He is emblematic of the most populist of the populace, the most MAGA of the MAGA. So we should remember who he is, first and foremost.  Beyond that, I cannot imagine an America that would confirm him as Attorney General. I'm a congressist by heart. I believe that Congress does the right things, if given enough time to do so, and I cannot believe that they'll let this one go through. So forgive my rant. I think it needs to be said about him. But in terms of, you know, who are we watching, and what do we think is going to happen in the long term? I don't think there's a long term there. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Let's talk about another pick, and that is his pick for Homeland Security, who I don't think is so outlandish, and that is South Dakota Governor Christie gnomes. She could play a really vital role in his immigration the proposal that he's made for the immigration system. She has been a strong ally of AJC in the past.  Julie Fishman Rayman:   Yes, she has. When she signed North South Dakota's bill, um on the international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, working definition of antisemitism, when she signed into law, AJC was there. She's been outspoken about anti semitism, and has consistently, sort of done, she's done the right things there. That being said, South Dakota has a very small Jewish population. So it's not, the same as if she were the governor of New York or Florida or even California that has major Jewish populations that are constantly calling with various, you know, security needs or something like that. So she's been there when she's needed to be there. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And I know South Dakota is not a border state, but didn't she send army reserves to the border to help Texas Governor Greg Abbott, at one point? Julie Fishman Rayman:   She has. A lot of Republican governors sort of backed Abbott in that way. I think that her crew in the governors, in the Republican Governors Association, etc, will be much aligned with the incoming administration. And of course, you know, that's why she's picked. Manya Brachear Pashman:   We also have the choice of John Ratliff, who Trump has named as a potential CIA director. And you know, technically, CIA director is the person who's nominated as head of intelligence is the CIA director's boss, and so he was the former director or chief intelligence advisor. So in a way, it's kind of a demotion. However, what I've read is President elect Trump believes that the CIA director is actually more important. So what are we looking at here? Are we looking at a smoother confirmation process for the CIA director, perhaps, and are we looking at kind of an elevation of that job?  Julie Fishman Rayman:   I think we can probably assume it's an elevation, and in the same way that we talked about the previous Trump administration prioritizing the National Security Council almost above the State Department, I think we'll see that sort of shift in alignment, the CIA being sort of the new center of gravity, if it wasn't already within the the intelligence community. So I think that we probably will see him playing a much more dominant role. That being said, I think America has always held this deep fascination with CIA directors, FBI directors. They always, because of the really interesting and critical roles they play, they always sort of punch above their weight in terms of, you know, how much are they on TV? How much are people watching what they're saying and what they're doing? So I think that we can absolutely anticipate that. And you know, he has some skeletons in his closet, but I don't think that there's anything that will prohibit or impede his nomination for that role. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And as a religion reporter, I found the naming of former Governor Mike Huckabee as the ambassador, a potential ambassador to Israel, to be very interesting, given that he is an evangelical Christian, a Baptist pastor. Aren't too many non-Jewish ambassadors to Israel. There have been some, but not too many. And I thought that this was a really interesting selection. What can we see or expect to see from that choice? Julie Fishman Rayman:   You know, part of me kind of loves this for America. I think there's, Governor Huckabee has always been a stalwart supporter of Israel, without question, deeply, deeply supportive. There are questions about, what is he going to do with regard to like, the question of settlements or annexation and things like that. And and I think we're going to have to be watching that very, very closely.  But if we're looking sort of at the macro level, the issue of Israel and America has become so polarized and in some ways so toxic, that this reminder that it's not just the Jews that care about Israel, I think, couldn't come at a better time.  I do think that it's really interesting to now have someone going to sit at the embassy that President Trump moved to Jerusalem, who is not representing the Jewish community there, but representing the massive Evangelical community in the United States and even frankly, around the world. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, Julie, thank you so much for sharing your perspectives. As these names keep trickling out each day, many things are said, some important, some not so important. So I'm glad I appreciate you kind of focusing our audience on what matters to AJC, what matters to the Jewish community and for those who support Israel. So thank you so much.  Julie Fishman Rayman:   It's been my pleasure and many and if I can just say, as we conclude that the personalities take up a lot of space, they take up a lot of oxygen. But for AJC, we're always singularly focused on the policies, and we'll continue doing what we've been doing already for months, and that's reaching everyone who will have influence in this next administration, to advance our policy perspective, to share our agenda and to talk about what we think needs to form the policy priorities of the next administration.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much, Julie. Julie Fishman Rayman:   Thank you.  

Felice Gaer, esteemed Director of AJC's Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, was an internationally respected human rights advocate who dedicated more than four decades to championing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enforcing international commitments to prevent severe human rights violations globally. On November 9, Felice passed away after a prolonged battle with metastatic breast cancer. In honor of her legacy, we revisit her insightful conversation on People of the Pod, recorded last year during Women's History Month and on International Women's Day. As we remember and celebrate Felice's profound contributions, we share this interview once more. May her memory continue to be a blessing. __ Music credits: Drops of Melting Snow (after Holst, Abroad as I was walking) by Axletree is licensed under a Attribution 4.0 International License. Learn more about Felice Gaer: Felice Gaer, Legendary Human Rights Champion Who Inspired Generations of Global Advocates, Dies at 78 Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know Sinwar Eliminated: What Does This Mean for the 101 Hostages Still Held by Hamas? Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Felice Gaer: Manya Brachear Pashman:   This past weekend, AJC lost a phenomenal colleague. Felice Gaer, the director of American Jewish Committee's Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, was an internationally renowned human rights expert who, for more than four decades, brought life and practical significance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international commitments, to prevent grave human rights abuses around the world.  She died on November 9, following a lengthy battle with metastatic breast cancer. I had the honor of interviewing Felice last year during Women's History Month and on International Women's Day.  We bring you that interview now, as we remember Felice. May her memory be for a blessing.  _ Felice is with us now to discuss today's human rights challenges and the challenges she has faced as a woman in the Human Rights world.  Felice, welcome to People of the Pod.  Felice Gaer:   Thank you, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let's start with the beginning. Can you share with our listeners a little about your upbringing, and how Jewish values shaped what you do today? Felice Gaer:   Well, I had a fairly ordinary upbringing in a suburb of New York City that had a fairly high percentage of Jews living in it–Teaneck, New Jersey. I was shaped by all the usual things in a Jewish home. First of all, the holidays. Secondly, the values, Jewish values, and awareness, a profound awareness of Jewish history, the history of annihilation, expulsion, discrimination, violence. But also the Jewish values of universality, respect for all human life, equality before the law, sense of realism, sense that you can change your life by what you do, and the choices that you make. These are all core Jewish values. And I guess I always have found the three part expression by Rabbi Hillel to sum up the approach I've always taken to human rights and most other things in life. He said, If I'm not for myself, who will be, and if I'm only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? So that's a sense of Jewish particularism, Jewish universalism, and realism, as well. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You went to Wellesley, class of 1968, it's an all-women's college. Was there a strong Jewish presence on campus there at a time? And did that part of your identity even play a role in your college experience?  Felice Gaer :  Well, I left, as I said, a town that had a fairly sizable Jewish population. And I went to Wellesley and I felt like I was in another world. And so even as long ago as 1964-65, that era, I actually reached out to Hillel and participated in very minor activities that took place, usually a Friday night dinner, or something like that. But it really didn't play a role except by making me recognize that I was a member of a very small minority. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Here on this podcast, we've talked a lot about the movement to free Soviet Jewry. As you pursued graduate work at Columbia, and also during your undergrad days at Wellesley, were you involved in that movement at all? Felice Gaer:   Well, I had great interest in Russian studies, and in my years at Wellesley, the Soviet Union movement was at a very nascent stage. And I remember arguments with the Soviet Ambassador coming to the campus and our specialist on Russian history, arguing about whether this concern about the treatment of Soviet Jews was a valid concern.  The professor, who happened to have been Jewish, by the way, argued that Jews in the Soviet Union were treated badly, but so was everybody else in the Soviet Union. And it really wasn't something that one needed to focus on especially. As I left Wellesley and went to Columbia, where I studied political science and was at the Russian Institute, now the Harriman Institute, I found that the treatment of Soviet Jews was different in many ways, and the capacity to do something about it was serious.  We knew people who had relatives, we knew people who wanted to leave. The whole Soviet Union movement was focused around the desire to leave the country–not to change it–that was an explicit decision of Jewish leaders around the world, and in the Soviet Union itself. And so the desire to leave was something you could realize, document the cases, bring the names forward, and engage American officials in a way that the Jewish community had never done before with cases and examples demanding that every place you went, every negotiation that took place, was accompanied by lists of names and cases, whose plight will be brought to the attention of the authorities. And that really mobilized people, including people like me.  I also worked to focus on the agenda of internal change in the Soviet Union. And that meant also looking at other human rights issues. Why and how freedom of religion or belief was suppressed in this militantly atheist state, why and how freedom of expression, freedom of association, and just about every other right, was really severely limited. And what the international standards were at that time. After I left Columbia, that was around the time that the famous manifesto from Andrei Sakharov, the world famous physicist, Nobel Prize winner, was made public. It was around the time that other kinds of dissident materials were becoming better known about life inside the Soviet Union post-Khrushchev. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So you left Colombia with a master's degree, the Cold War ends, and you take a job at the Ford Foundation that has you traveling all around Eastern Europe, looking to end human rights abuses, assessing the challenges that face that region. I want to ask you about the treatment of women, and what you witnessed about the mistreatment of women in these regions. And does that tend to be a common denominator around the world when you assess human rights abuses? Felice Gaer:   Well, there's no question that the treatment of women is different than the treatment of men. And it's true all over the world. But when I traveled in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the height of those years, height of the Cold War, and so forth, the issues of women's rights actually weren't one of the top issues on the agenda because the Soviet Union and East European countries appeared to be doing more for women than the Western countries.  They had them in governance. They had them in the parliament. They purported to support equality for women. It took some years for Soviet feminists, dissidents, to find a voice and to begin to point out all the ways in which they were treated in the same condescending, patriarchal style as elsewhere. But in those years, that was not a big issue in the air.  It was unusual for me, a 20-something year old woman from the United States to be traveling around Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, meeting with high officials and others, and on behalf of the Ford Foundation, trying to develop programming that would involve people to people contacts, that would involve developing programs where there was common expertise, like management training, and things of that sort. And I was really an odd, odd duck in that situation, and I felt it. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I mentioned in my introduction, the Beijing World Conference on Women, can you reflect a little on what had a lasting impact there? Felice Gaer:   Well, the Beijing World Conference on Women was the largest, and remains the largest conference that the United Nations has ever organized. There were over 35,000 women there, about 17,000 at the intergovernmental conference. I was on the US delegation there.  The simple statement that women's rights are human rights may seem hackneyed today. But when that was affirmed in the 1995 Beijing Outcome Document, it was a major political and conceptual breakthrough. It was largely focused on getting the UN to accept that the rights of women were actually international human rights and that they weren't something different. They weren't private, or outside the reach of investigators and human rights bodies. It was an inclusive statement, and it was a mind altering statement in the women's rights movement.  It not only reaffirmed that women's rights are human rights, but it went further in addressing the problems facing women in the language of human rights.  The earlier world conferences on women talked about equality, but they didn't identify violations of those rights. They didn't demand accountability of those rights. And they said absolutely nothing about creating mechanisms by which you could monitor, review, and hold people accountable, which is the rights paradigm. Beijing changed all that. It was a violations approach that was quite different from anything that existed before that. Manya Brachear Pashman :  Did anything get forgotten? We talked about what had a lasting impact, but what seems to have been forgotten or have fallen to the wayside? Felice Gaer:   Oh, I think it's just the opposite. I think the things that were in the Beijing conference have become Fuller and addressed in greater detail and are more commonly part of what goes on in the international discourse on women's rights and the status of women in public life. And certainly at the international level that's the case.  I'll give you just one example, the Convention Against Torture. I mean, when I became a member of the committee, the 10 person committee, I was the only woman. The committee really had, in 11 years, it had maybe said, four or five things about the treatment of women. And the way that torture, ill treatment, inhuman, degrading treatment may affect women.  It looked at the world through the eyes of male prisoners in detention. And it didn't look at the world through the eyes of women who suffer private violence, gender based violence, that is that the state looks away from and ignores and therefore sanctions, and to a certain extent endorses.  And it didn't identify the kinds of things that affect women, including women who are imprisoned, and why and where in many parts of the world. What one does in terms of education or dress or behavior may lead you into a situation where you're being abused, either in a prison or outside of prison. These are issues that are now part of the regular review, for example, at the Committee Against Torture, issues of of trafficking, issues of gender based violence, the Sharia law, the hudud punishments of whipping and stoning, are part of the concern of the committee, which they weren't before. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In other words, having that woman's perspective, having your perspective on that committee was really important and really changed and broadened the discussion. Felice Gaer:   Absolutely. When I first joined the committee, the first session I was at, we had a review of China. And so I very politely asked a question about the violence and coercion associated with the population policy in China, as you know, forced abortions and things of that sort. This was a question that had come up before the women's convention, the CEDAW, and I thought it was only appropriate that it also come up in the Committee Against Torture.  In our discussion afterwards, the very stern chairman of the committee, a former constable, said to me, ‘You know, this might be of interest to you, Ms. Gaer, but this has nothing to do with the mandate of this committee.' I explained to him why it did, in some detail. And when I finished pointing out all of those elements–including the fact that the people carried out these practices on the basis of state policy–when I finished, there was a silence.  And the most senior person in the room, who had been involved in these issues for decades, said, ‘I'm quite certain we can accommodate Ms. Gaer's concerns in the conclusions,' and they did.  That's the kind of thing that happens when you look at issues from a different perspective and raise them. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You talked about being an odd duck in your 20s, as a woman traveling around Eastern Europe, trying to address these challenges. I'm curious if that woman in her 20s would have been able to stand up to this committee like that, and give that thorough an explanation? Or did it take some years of experience, of witnessing these issues, perhaps being ignored?  Felice Gaer:  Well, I think as we go through life, you learn new things. And I learned new things along the way. I learned about the universal norms, I learned about how to apply them, how they had been applied, and how they hadn't been applied. And in that process, developed what I would say is a sharper way of looking at these issues.  But the Bosnian conflict in particular, made the issue of gender based violence against women, especially in war, but not only in war, into a mainstream issue, and helped propel these issues, both inside the United Nations and outside, the awareness changed.  I remember asking the International Red Cross representatives in Croatia, just across the border from Bosnia, if they had encountered any victims of gender based violence or rape, and they said, ‘No.' And I said, ‘Did you ask them about these concerns?' And they sort of looked down and looked embarrassed, looked at each other and looked back at me and said, ‘Oh.' There were no words. There were no understandings of looking at the world this way. And that has changed. That has changed dramatically today. I mean, if you look at the situation in Ukraine, the amount of gender based violence that has been documented is horrifying, just horrifying, but it's been documented. Manya Brachear Pashman   So is the world of human rights advocacy male-dominated, female-dominated, is it fairly balanced these days? And has that balance made the difference in what you're talking about? Felice Gaer:   You know, I wrote an article in 1988, the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, about why women's rights weren't being addressed. And one of the points I drew attention to was the fact that the heads of almost all the major organizations at the time were all male. And that it wasn't seen as a concern. A lot of that has changed. There's really a real variety of perspectives now that are brought to bear. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So we've talked a lot about the importance of [a] woman's perspective. Does a Jewish perspective matter as well? Felice Gaer:   Oh, on every issue on every issue and, you know, I worked a great deal on freedom of religion and belief, as an issue. That's a core issue of AJC, and it's a fundamental rights issue. And it struck me as surprising that with all the attention to freedom of religion, the concern about antisemitic acts was not being documented by mainstream human rights organizations. And it wasn't being documented by the UN experts on freedom of religion or belief either. I drew this to the attention of Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, who was recently ending his term as Special Rapporteur on Freedom of religion or belief. And he was really very struck by this. And he went, and he did a little bit of research. And he found out that since computerized records had been prepared at the United Nations, that there had been no attention, no attention at all, to cases of alleged antisemitic incidents. And he began a project to record the kinds of problems that existed and to identify what could be done about it. We helped him in the sense that we organized a couple of colloquia, we brought people from all over the world together to talk about the dimensions of the problem and the documentation that they did, and the proposals that they had for addressing it. And he, as you may recall, wrote a brilliant report in 2019, setting out the problems of global antisemitism. And he followed that up in 2022, before leaving his position with what he called an action plan for combating anti semitism, which has concrete specific suggestions for all countries around the world as to what they can do to help combat antisemitism and antisemitic acts, including and to some extent, starting with adopting the working definition on antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, but also activities in in the area of education, training, training of law enforcement officials, documentation and public action. It's a real contribution to the international discourse and to understanding that freedom of religion or belief belongs to everyone. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And do you believe that Dr. Shaheed's report is being absorbed, comprehended by those that need to hear it that need to understand it? Felice Gaer   I've been delighted to see the way that the European Union has engaged with Dr. Shaheed and his report has developed standards and expectations for all 27 member states, and that other countries and other parts of the world have done the same. So yeah, I do think they're engaging with it. I hope there'll be a lot more because the problem has only grown. Manya Brachear Pashman:   On the one year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, JBI issued a report that sounded the alarm on the widespread violations committed against Ukrainians, you mentioned the amount of gender based violence Since that has taken place, and the other just catastrophic consequences of this war. Felice, you've been on the front row of Eastern European affairs and human rights advocacy in that region. From your perspective, and I know this is a big question: How did this war happen? Felice Gaer:   I'll just start by saying: it didn't start in 2022. And if you have to look at what happened, the events of 2014, to understand the events of 2022. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, or even during the breakup, there was a period where the 15th constituent Union republics of the Soviet Union developed a greater national awareness, really, and some of them had been independent as some of them hadn't been, but they developed a much greater awareness. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the 15 countries, including Russia, as one of the 15, became independent entities. And aside from having more members in the United Nations and the Council of Europe and places like that, it led to much more robust activity, in terms of respecting human rights and other areas of endeavor in each of those countries.  The situation in Russia, with a head of state who has been there, with one exception, a couple of years, for 20 years, has seen an angry desire to reestablish an empire. That's the only thing you can say really about it.  If they can't dominate by having a pro-Russian group in charge in the country, then there have been invasions, there have been Russian forces, Russia-aligned forces sent to the different countries. So whether it's Georgia, or Moldova, or Ukraine, we've seen this pattern.  And unfortunately, what happened in 2022, is the most egregious and I would say, blatant such example. In 2014, the Russians argued that it was local Russian speaking, little green men who were conducting hostilities in these places, or it was local people who wanted to realign with Russia, who were demanding changes, and so forth. But in the 2022 events, Russia's forces invaded, wearing Russian insignia and making it quite clear that this was a matter of state policy that they were pursuing, and that they weren't going to give up.  And it's led to the tragic developments that we've all seen inside the country, and the horrific violence, the terrible, widespread human rights violations. And in war, we know that human rights violations are usually the worst.  And so the one good spot on the horizon: the degree to which these abuses have been documented, it's unprecedented to have so much documentation so early in a conflict like this, which someday may lead to redress and accountability for those who perpetrated it. But right now, in the middle of these events, it's just a horror. Manya Brachear Pashman:   What other human rights situations do we need to be taking more seriously now? And where has there been significant progress? Felice Gaer:   Well, I'll talk about the problem spots if I may for a minute. Everyone points to North Korea as the situation without parallel, that's what a UN Commission of Inquiry said, without parallel in the world. The situation in Iran? Well, you just need to watch what's happened to the protesters, the women and others who have protested over 500 people in the streets have died because of this. 15,000 people imprisoned, and Iran's prisons are known for ill treatment and torture.  The situation in Afghanistan is atrocious. The activities of the Taliban, which they were known for in the 1990s are being brought back. They are normalizing discrimination, they are engaged in probably the most hardline gender discrimination we've seen anywhere where women can't work outside the home, girls can't be educated, political participation is denied. The constitution has been thrown out. All kinds of things. The latest is women can't go to parks, they can't go to university, and they can't work for NGOs. This continues. It's a major crisis.  Well, there are other countries, from Belarus, to Sudan to Uzbekistan, and China, that we could also talk about at great length, lots of problems in the world, and not enough effort to expose them, address them and try to ameliorate them. Manya Brachear Pashman   So what do we do about that? What can our listeners do about that, when we hear this kind of grim report? Felice Gaer:   Work harder. Pay attention when you hear about rights issues. Support rights organizations. Take up cases. Seek redress. Be concerned about the victims. All these things need to be done. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I don't know how you maintain your composure and your cool, Felice, because you have faced so much in terms of challenges and push back. So thank you so much for all you have done for women, for the Jewish people, and for the world at large. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Felice Gaer:   Thank you, Manya.

What do the results of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, a sweeping victory for President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, mean for the U.S. Jewish community and Israel? How did the Jewish community vote? What are the top takeaways from the Senate and the House elections? Get caught up on all the latest election data points and analysis in this week's episode, featuring Ron Kampeas, JTA's Washington Bureau Chief and guest hosted by Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC's Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs. AJC is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization. AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC's Policy Priorities: AJC Congratulates President-Elect Donald J. Trump Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know Sinwar Eliminated: What Does This Mean for the 101 Hostages Still Held by Hamas? From Doña Gracia to Deborah Lipstadt: What Iconic Jewish Women Can Teach Us Today Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript: Julie Fishman Rayman:  Hello, I'm Julie Fishman Rayman:, AJC's managing director of policy and political affairs. Today, I have the pleasure of guest hosting people of the PA and speaking with Ron Kampeas, JTA's Washington bureau chief, to discuss the results and the implications of the 2024 US presidential election as the nonpartisan global advocacy organization for the Jewish people, AJC congratulates Donald J Trump on his election as the 47th president of the United States and Senator J.D. Vance as vice president. AJC looks forward to working with the president-elect and his administration on the domestic and foreign policy concerns that are AJC advocacy priorities to learn more about our policy priorities for the incoming administration. Head to the link in our show notes as a reminder. AJC is a 501(c)3 non partisan, not for profit organization. AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elected office. Ron, welcome to people of the pod. Thank you for being here Ron Kampeas:  Of course. Julie Fishman Rayman:  Well, I'd like to start in asking you if you have a sense about the Jewish vote, because there have been a number of different exit polls, which, I guess, not surprisingly, because exit polls are what they are, say vastly different things. There are some that say it's the biggest Jewish vote in support for a Democratic candidate ever, and then also the highest percentage ever for a Republican candidate. What do we know to be true? And what would you sort of be looking at in terms of, you know, as we're examining this moving forward? What are we looking for? Ron Kampeas:  So first of all, I know I've seen those very extreme assessments as well, and I know what they're based on, and even when what based on what they're based on, and we, I'll talk about that too. That's just not correct. So they're talking about a 79% turnout, according to a poll the consortium of a number of organizations like the CNN and the New York Times. And that poll is not reliable yet. It does show 79% and think 21% in other words, an even split. Nobody seemed to have voted for at least among the Jews for third party candidates. And I'm not sure what number of Jews who were included in that poll were. I mean, it's a vast, vast poll. They do talk to a lot of people, but even they will say, and I think they put it on their things, that it's just preliminary, the more reliable analysis is considered to be the one that came out of the Fox AP analysis that showed 66% 67% for Paris, 32% 31% for Trump. And I think that's what the Trump people are talking about in terms of the highest for Republicans. It's just not the highest for Republican. I think if you count in the margin of error, that's not even like recently the highest for a Republican. Nothing's changed in the last four years. I think what it is showing is that whereas Republicans, when I started at JTA in 2004 they were happy to get 25% they've gone up from 19% with George W Bush in 2020 to 25% with John Kerry a few years later, now they can comfortably say they're getting about 30% of the Jewish community. People love to attach everything that happens to the very current politics of the day. So however you count it, nothing seems to have changed. Julie Fishman Rayman:  So interesting, because for I think a lot of Jews around America, we feel as though so much has changed. But when you go to the voting booth, Jews consistently aren't necessarily thinking just about either Israel or antisemitism, AJC does a survey looking at American Jewish opinion, not every year, but almost every year. And we did it in June, and asked questions about political affiliation. Who are you going to vote for? And one of the things that we asked was, what drives your vote, and foreign policy is always low down on the list. On election night, CNN asked that same question, of course, to all Americans, and I think 4% said that their vote was driven by foreign policy. Has there been a moment where the American Jewish vote is more focused on issues that feel perhaps a bit more parochial. Ron Kampeas:  No, certainly within the Orthodox subset, and it's always difficult to tell, because it's the smaller the subset, the bigger the margin of error. But when there's consistency over time and survey after survey after survey, I think you can conclude that, yes, Orthodox Jews do attach. Of more importance to the US Israel relationship and how it's manifesting, how they're perceiving it. The only time that a Democrat, at least since FDR, I think, a Democrat, didn't receive a majority of the Jewish vote was Jimmy Carter, who, in 1980 got a plurality of the Jewish one, I think, about 45%. People sort of conflate things in their head. In his post presidency, Carter became very identified with being very critical of Israel, and it's true, in 1980 he'd had difficult relationships with Menachem Begin, but he brokered the most important peace treaty in Israeli history. He saved a lot of lives. So I don't think people were feeling bad about Carter in 1980 because of Israel. I like to tell people, Jews are like everybody else. You know it's true that a majority of us vote for Democrats, and there are other subsets where, like a majority vote for Republican more majority for Democrats, but we vote for the same reasons as everybody else. Our votes will get more enthusiastic for a Democrat on one circumstance, just like everybody else's will, or might get less enthusiastic just like everybody else's will. We're susceptible to the same things. Julie Fishman Rayman:  It's really interesting. So at this moment, there's so much Monday morning quarterbacking happening, and I don't want to look too far in the rear view, but I do want to ask you for your take on this question of, would the result have been different had the Vice President selected Shapiro, Governor, Shapiro from Pennsylvania, as her running mate. Ron Kampeas:  Maybe it's hard to say vice presidents have had such a little impact on nominations. But on the other hand, Pennsylvania was close enough, and Shapiro is popular enough that perhaps it might have made the difference. She might have had Pennsylvania, and then if she had Pennsylvania, I don't know, she would have gotten to 270 but you know, Nevada and Arizona are still being counted. They might still go in her column. If they do go in her column, although I don't think they will, I think it looks like they're going to go into Trump's column if Nevada and Arizona go into her column and she missed out on Pennsylvania, you could say that her decision to go with Tim Walz instead of Josh Shapiro was faithful. On the other hand, everybody's a cynic. Nobody actually believes anything anybody says. But I tried to get away from that. I try not to be too much of a cynic. And when Josh Shapiro said afterwards that he had second thoughts about taking other thing because he's he's like a hugely successful governor so far in Pennsylvania is this is two years into his first term. You know, if I'm Josh Shapiro, I'm thinking about my legacy, and I'm thinking about running for president in the future and two years, just, yeah, I'm not going to make an impact in Pennsylvania in just two years. If I'm the 60% governor who can get Republicans to vote for me in the middle of the state, I'm thinking two terms will make me like, well, you know, get me a statue in some building at one point, there's this whole narrative that there was an anti semitic pushback. It was an anti semitic pushback against Shapiro. It was anti-Israel at times. I really believe it did cross over antisemitism. I'm not sure that that had the effect on the Harris campaign in terms of its decision making. She clicked with Tim Wallz. Shapiro wasn't so eager. Shapiro was going to be a co president. Walls wanted to be a vice president. He made that very clear. He had no intentions of ever running for the presidency. So if you're a Harris, do you want to have a Dan Quayle, or do you want to have a Dick Cheney kind of thing? You know as somebody who who's prone to take over, or somebody who's prone to do what needs to be done to be vice president. And obviously she preferred the latter. Julie Fishman Rayman:  It's a great analogy. Can we talk for a minute about sort of Jewish representation in Congress where Israel was on the ballot? What are your perceptions there? Ron Kampeas:  I think that it might have made a difference in Mark 17th, where Mike Lawler defeated Mondair Jones. Mondair Jones was perceived when he first ran into 2020, and he was elected. He was perceived initially as somebody who would be very different from Nita Lowey, who he was replacing because she's a very solid, long time pro-Israel and an AJC board member and an AJC board member. He actually declared before she retired, so he was a little bit confrontational with her, which happens, obviously, I don't know if Israel came up in that equation, though young progressive people thought he'd be a squatter, but he wasn't. In his two years in Congress, he wasn't a member of the squad, and he went out of his way to align with the pro-Israel community, and this because it was so important in his district. But Lawler is just like he's been. He's a freshman, but he's been out front. He's been very good at cultivating the Jewish people in his district. And he's not just led on a number of Israel issues, but he's always made sure to do it in a bipartisan way, partnering with Jared Moskowitz in Florida, or Josh got him or in New Jersey, and you know, that might have helped him in the district. It was a close race. He won by a close margin. So I think maybe that was definitely a factor there. I think that one of the group's decision desk that declares winners just declared for Jackie Rosen in Nevada. She's been reelected, according to them, but we'll wait. We'll see if and when AP calls it. But again, a state with a substantial Jewish population, she is, like, one of the premier Democrats. She's Jewish, but she also is like, very, very upfront about Israel. She co chairs an antisemitism Task Force. She has a bill that would designate a domestic antisemitism coordinator. So in such a close race or such close margins with the Jewish community, that's actually much larger than the margin that might have helped put her over the top. On the other side, you. Know, you have Michigan, which might have also, like we looked at Pennsylvania and Josh Shapiro, Michigan also might have cost Kamala Harris the presidency because of her support for Israel, because, you know, President Trump managed to peel away Muslim American and Arab American voters in in Michigan, in a kind of a weird slate of hand, because he said that he would be more pro their issue than Kamala Harris was, even though he's more pro Netanyahu, definitely than Kamala Harris is. But also, there were third party voters, people who voted for Jill Stein. Julie Fishman Rayman:  Pretty significant numbers for Jill Stein from Michigan. Ron Kampeas:  Pretty significant numbers for Jill Stein. But Elissa Slotkin over the top, very pro Israel, centrist Democrat Jewish. Very much a foreign policy, you know, specialist. She came out of the CIA and the Defense Department. Also very partisan. She was meeting with red constituents, like veterans, and she was doing a good job of it. She had that appeal. And I think that's why she ran for Senate. I think that's where Democrats are excited to have her run for Senate. And then October 7 happened, and she had to navigate a very difficult situation in her state, which has a substantial Jewish community, has an even bigger Muslim American and Arab American community. She had meetings with both leaders. She put out sensitive statements after the meetings. I think one of the most interesting sort of developments with her is that Rashida Tlaib, the Palestinian American Congresswoman attacked Dana Nessel for prosecuting people who were violent were allegedly violent at protests. She put out a statement that, without saying it was because Dana Ness was Jewish, she was said that Dana Nessel had other sort of considerations. When she brought these prosecutions, Dana Nessel outright accused her of antisemitism, and then Rashida Tlaib was the subject of a lot of Islamophobic, anti Palestinian vitriol. And it was interesting because there were two letters that went out at the time from Congress members, one condemning anything that insinuated that Dana Nessel had dual loyalties, or anything like that, and one condemning the anti Islamic rhetoric that Rashida clade faced, and the only person who signed both letters was Alyssa Slotkin. That was interesting. Julie Fishman Rayman:  I want to to turn a little bit if we can, to the expectations for for the next administration, even for the next Congress. When we last spoke, right after the Republican National Convention, JD Vance had been selected as the running mate, and you and I, we talked about what that means for a Trump foreign policy in the next administration. Will it go in a more isolationist direction, more aligning with JD Vance's world view? What do you think now and what might we expect? Ron Kampeas:  But still a potential for sure, there are names being rooted about for Secretary of State. One of them is Rick Grinnell, who's completely a Trumpist, who will do what he wants, his former Acting CIA director. And the other is Marco Rubio, gave one of the best speeches at the convention, I thought, and who is very close to the pro Israel community, who's an internationalist, but who has tailored his rhetoric to be more to make sure he doesn't antagonize Donald Trump. He was, you know, he was a came close to being the vice presidential pick himself. I mean, if Marco Rubio becomes Secretary of State, I think that's a good sign for internationalists. I mean, you know, Israel has kind of a buffer, because the Republican Party is very pro Israel. And there are people like JD Vance says, who say, you know, Israel is the exception when it comes to what I think about pulling United States back from the world, even though he says it's not so much the exception. And then there are people like Marco Rubio who are internationalists. Does Marco Rubio get to run an independent foreign policy? That would be very good news, I think, for for internationalists, if, if Donald Trump doesn't get in his way. But I don't know if that that happens. There's a view of pro israelism that says internationalism is necessary. I always like to say when a pack used to have its policy conferences, and it's a shame it doesn't any more, they would have a little brief talk before on Tuesday morning, before going up to the Hill, they would have, like, some prominent Senator come out and give a rah rah speech, and then like, three officials would come out on the stage Howard core, late Richard Fishman, and Esther Kurz. And Esther Kurz had handled Congressional Relations, and they would talk about the three items they were bringing up the Hill, usually two laws in a letter or a resolution or something like that.  And she would always say, and this was like the one moment like they would sort of reveal this. They'd be very candid about this. You have to push not for assistance for Israel, but foreign assistance generally, because there is no such thing as sort of singling out Israel and saying, Okay, we're going to take care of Israel, but nobody else in the world that it's all it's all interconnected, and it's such a true thing now, because you can say, you know, let's just cut off Ukraine. But if you're cut off Ukraine, you're bolstering Putin. If you're bolstering Putin, you're bolstering somebody who has a substantial and military alliance with Iran, if you're bolstering Iran, that is not good for Israel. And it's like it's kind of circuitous to get there, but it's also very substantive point. I think those are the things the pro Israel community is going to be looking at with genuine concern. Julie Fishman Rayman:  Indeed, it's all about sort of the strength of the American global leadership regime. And when you start to whittle away at one, the overall package ends up being weaker. Speaking of Israel, I can't speak to you this week and not ask you about the news out of Israel, about Netanyahu firing the defense secretary, gallant and what that means. And also, if we can extrapolate, if we can prognosticate what might happen vis a vis Israel in this lame duck session, while we still have Biden as president, but moving through the transition towards a future Trump administration. Ron Kampeas:  Yeah, you know, there a lot of Israelis are actually worried about that. Like, Oh, Biden's gonna take his frustrations out on VB in the lame duck doesn't have anything stopping him. I don't think that's going to happen. I think what's interesting is, like, you had a couple of instances in American history where a lame duck president used the fact that he didn't care, you know, what anybody thought of him, to push something through in 1988 Ronald Reagan recognized the PLO because it's something George H W Bush wanted him to do. George H W Bush wanted to push like more Israel Palestinian peace he did with the Madrid Conference, but he didn't want to be the one to invite the PLO into the room, so he got Ronald Reagan to do it in his last two months in office. In 2016 Barack Obama allowed through a Security Council resolution of that condemned the settlements. The United States didn't vote for it, but it also didn't veto it. That really kind of shook Israel up. But was interesting. I've done the reporting on this. When he was taking advice, Should I, should we vote for the resolution? Should we veto it, or should we just allow it through? There were people voicing opinions on all sides. Joe Biden and Jack Lew, who was then the Treasury Secretary, is now the ambassador to Israel, both said, veto it. Don't let it through. Don't let it through because, partly because it's going to really upset our Jewish supporters. If you let it through, you're not going to be president anymore, but somebody in the room is going to probably try and be president. I think that Joe Biden still has that sense of responsibility. I could be wrong. You know, four years or a year of like, from his perspective, being very strongly supportive of Israel and not getting anything back. From Bibi, from his perspective, might have changed his mind. Something might occur now. But the question is, like, you can tell Israel if they hit anything, but if they hit, if they hit anything, if they elevate it at all, they're going to need US assistance. And Trump hasn't said he's going to give that. Biden has. Biden's proven he's going to give it. So you've got two months of a president who will, who will back up Israel with American might, and then you have a president who has isolationist tendencies and who doesn't want to get involved with wars for another four years. Julie Fishman Rayman:  Is there anything else that you're hearing, perhaps, from the Israeli perspective, about Gallant departure, and what that signal? Ron Kampeas:  I think, that Netanyahu, you know, he's just trying to keep his government intact. Gallant is very vocal in opposing or in supporting drafting the ultra orthodox the Haredi orthodox Netanyahu government relies on Haredi orthodox parties. So there's that he's also facing a kind of spy scandal from his own circle. Just a weird, weird story. Somebody who's in his circle is alleged to have tried to help Netanyahu politically by leaking highly classified documents and altering them as well to foreign news outlets. The allegation is that whatever the guy's motivation was, he's actually put Israel at risk. So Netanyahu is suddenly in a position of facing allegations that he put Israel at risk. Now he's faced a lot of scandals in his time. Israelis have a high level of tolerance for people who are alleged to have skimmed off the top, alleged to have helped themselves, and that's what the scandals are about. They have no tolerance for anybody who puts Israel's security at risk. So if this comes back to Netanyahu that could be more damage than than any other scandal that he's endured so far and so notably, I think, you know, when he was firing Galant, he said he accused Galant of leaking information, although, I mean, what he was seemed to be referring to was Galant didn't leak anything. Galant openly said that he disagreed with Netanyahu on certain tactics, and that, you know Netanyahu is casting is putting Israel at risk, which is not to say that Netanyahu is necessarily going to be implicated by the scandal, but it's certainly not of a piece with leaking, actually classified documents that reveal methods and sources can put Israel's intelligence gathering methods at risk. Julie Fishman Rayman:  As always, there's so much more to the story, right? Ron Kampeas:  Yeah, yeah. There always is. Julie Fishman Rayman:  Ron, we could probably talk for a very long time about the American elections and what's going on in Israel and the degrees of various scandals and how populations will take them, and what the future of our country in the region looks like. But I know that you're very busy, especially this week, and I just want to say how grateful we are they always make time for AJC and for people of the pod. Ron Kampeas:  Of course.