Podcasts about arab israeli

After 12 days of war between Israel and Iran, a ceasefire has brought a sense of cautious relief to the region. Even after almost 21 months of war in Gaza and its spillover into neighbouring countries, the latest escalation set a dangerous precedent that could provoke more cycles of warfare and destabilise the Middle East. The question is how did we reach this boiling point? The answer goes back decades, to a time even before the 1979 revolution in Iran when the country enjoyed a more co-operative relationship with Israel under the shah. At the same time the region was going through a transformative period against the backdrop of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and rising anti-imperialist sentiments. As events unfolded and political leaderships changed over time, so did the strategic interests that Israel shared with Iran. In this episode of Beyond the Headlines, host Nada AlTaher dives into the context that soured the relationship between the two countries, and the more recent events that brought about the air war. She is joined by The National's assistant foreign editor Aveen Karim, senior fellow at UCLA Burkle Centre for International Relations Dalia Dassa Kaye, and independent Israeli analyst Ori Goldberg. We want to hear from you! Help us improve our podcasts by taking our two-minute listener survey. Click here.

Edward Said was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. A literary scholar with an aesthete's temperament, he did not experience his political awakening until the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, which transformed his thinking and led him to forge ties with political groups and like-minded scholars. Said's subsequent writings, which cast light on the interplay between cultural representation and the exercise of Western political power, caused a seismic shift in scholarly circles and beyond. In this intimate intellectual biography, by a close friend and confidant, Nubar Hovsepian offers fascinating insight into the evolution of Said's political thought. Through analysis of Said's seminal works and the debates surrounding them, Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual (American University in Cairo Press, 2025) traces the influence of Foucault on Said, and how Said eventually diverged from this influence to arrive at a more pronounced understanding of agency, resistance, and liberation. He consequently affiliated more closely with Raymond Williams, Antonio Gramsci, and more contemporaneously, with his friends the late Eqbal Ahmad and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Said held that it is the intellectual's responsibility to expose lies and deceptions of the holders of power. A passionate advocate for the Palestinian cause, his solidarity did not prevent him from launching a sustained critique of the Palestinian leadership. Hovsepian charts both Said's engagement with the Palestinian national movement and his exchanges with a host of intellectuals over Palestine, arguing that Said's interventions have succeeded in changing the parameters of the discourse in the humanities, and among younger Jews searching for political affiliation. Drawing on his diaries, in which he recorded his meetings with Said, as well as access to some of Said's private letters, Hovsepian illuminates, in rich detail, the trajectory of Said's political thinking and the depth and breadth of his engagement with peers and critics over issues that continue to resonate to this day. Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He is the author of Palestinian State Formation: Education and the Construction of National Identity, and he edited and contributed to The War on Lebanon. Hovsepian has devoted enormous time to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and served, from 1982 to 1984, as political affairs officer for the United Nations Conference on the Question of Palestine. Tugrul Mende holds an M.A in Arabic Studies. He is based in Berlin as a project coordinator and independent researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Edward Said was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. A literary scholar with an aesthete's temperament, he did not experience his political awakening until the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, which transformed his thinking and led him to forge ties with political groups and like-minded scholars. Said's subsequent writings, which cast light on the interplay between cultural representation and the exercise of Western political power, caused a seismic shift in scholarly circles and beyond. In this intimate intellectual biography, by a close friend and confidant, Nubar Hovsepian offers fascinating insight into the evolution of Said's political thought. Through analysis of Said's seminal works and the debates surrounding them, Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual (American University in Cairo Press, 2025) traces the influence of Foucault on Said, and how Said eventually diverged from this influence to arrive at a more pronounced understanding of agency, resistance, and liberation. He consequently affiliated more closely with Raymond Williams, Antonio Gramsci, and more contemporaneously, with his friends the late Eqbal Ahmad and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Said held that it is the intellectual's responsibility to expose lies and deceptions of the holders of power. A passionate advocate for the Palestinian cause, his solidarity did not prevent him from launching a sustained critique of the Palestinian leadership. Hovsepian charts both Said's engagement with the Palestinian national movement and his exchanges with a host of intellectuals over Palestine, arguing that Said's interventions have succeeded in changing the parameters of the discourse in the humanities, and among younger Jews searching for political affiliation. Drawing on his diaries, in which he recorded his meetings with Said, as well as access to some of Said's private letters, Hovsepian illuminates, in rich detail, the trajectory of Said's political thinking and the depth and breadth of his engagement with peers and critics over issues that continue to resonate to this day. Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He is the author of Palestinian State Formation: Education and the Construction of National Identity, and he edited and contributed to The War on Lebanon. Hovsepian has devoted enormous time to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and served, from 1982 to 1984, as political affairs officer for the United Nations Conference on the Question of Palestine. Tugrul Mende holds an M.A in Arabic Studies. He is based in Berlin as a project coordinator and independent researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

Edward Said was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. A literary scholar with an aesthete's temperament, he did not experience his political awakening until the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, which transformed his thinking and led him to forge ties with political groups and like-minded scholars. Said's subsequent writings, which cast light on the interplay between cultural representation and the exercise of Western political power, caused a seismic shift in scholarly circles and beyond. In this intimate intellectual biography, by a close friend and confidant, Nubar Hovsepian offers fascinating insight into the evolution of Said's political thought. Through analysis of Said's seminal works and the debates surrounding them, Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual (American University in Cairo Press, 2025) traces the influence of Foucault on Said, and how Said eventually diverged from this influence to arrive at a more pronounced understanding of agency, resistance, and liberation. He consequently affiliated more closely with Raymond Williams, Antonio Gramsci, and more contemporaneously, with his friends the late Eqbal Ahmad and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Said held that it is the intellectual's responsibility to expose lies and deceptions of the holders of power. A passionate advocate for the Palestinian cause, his solidarity did not prevent him from launching a sustained critique of the Palestinian leadership. Hovsepian charts both Said's engagement with the Palestinian national movement and his exchanges with a host of intellectuals over Palestine, arguing that Said's interventions have succeeded in changing the parameters of the discourse in the humanities, and among younger Jews searching for political affiliation. Drawing on his diaries, in which he recorded his meetings with Said, as well as access to some of Said's private letters, Hovsepian illuminates, in rich detail, the trajectory of Said's political thinking and the depth and breadth of his engagement with peers and critics over issues that continue to resonate to this day. Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He is the author of Palestinian State Formation: Education and the Construction of National Identity, and he edited and contributed to The War on Lebanon. Hovsepian has devoted enormous time to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and served, from 1982 to 1984, as political affairs officer for the United Nations Conference on the Question of Palestine. Tugrul Mende holds an M.A in Arabic Studies. He is based in Berlin as a project coordinator and independent researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Edward Said was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. A literary scholar with an aesthete's temperament, he did not experience his political awakening until the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, which transformed his thinking and led him to forge ties with political groups and like-minded scholars. Said's subsequent writings, which cast light on the interplay between cultural representation and the exercise of Western political power, caused a seismic shift in scholarly circles and beyond. In this intimate intellectual biography, by a close friend and confidant, Nubar Hovsepian offers fascinating insight into the evolution of Said's political thought. Through analysis of Said's seminal works and the debates surrounding them, Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual (American University in Cairo Press, 2025) traces the influence of Foucault on Said, and how Said eventually diverged from this influence to arrive at a more pronounced understanding of agency, resistance, and liberation. He consequently affiliated more closely with Raymond Williams, Antonio Gramsci, and more contemporaneously, with his friends the late Eqbal Ahmad and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Said held that it is the intellectual's responsibility to expose lies and deceptions of the holders of power. A passionate advocate for the Palestinian cause, his solidarity did not prevent him from launching a sustained critique of the Palestinian leadership. Hovsepian charts both Said's engagement with the Palestinian national movement and his exchanges with a host of intellectuals over Palestine, arguing that Said's interventions have succeeded in changing the parameters of the discourse in the humanities, and among younger Jews searching for political affiliation. Drawing on his diaries, in which he recorded his meetings with Said, as well as access to some of Said's private letters, Hovsepian illuminates, in rich detail, the trajectory of Said's political thinking and the depth and breadth of his engagement with peers and critics over issues that continue to resonate to this day. Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He is the author of Palestinian State Formation: Education and the Construction of National Identity, and he edited and contributed to The War on Lebanon. Hovsepian has devoted enormous time to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and served, from 1982 to 1984, as political affairs officer for the United Nations Conference on the Question of Palestine. Tugrul Mende holds an M.A in Arabic Studies. He is based in Berlin as a project coordinator and independent researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Edward Said was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. A literary scholar with an aesthete's temperament, he did not experience his political awakening until the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, which transformed his thinking and led him to forge ties with political groups and like-minded scholars. Said's subsequent writings, which cast light on the interplay between cultural representation and the exercise of Western political power, caused a seismic shift in scholarly circles and beyond. In this intimate intellectual biography, by a close friend and confidant, Nubar Hovsepian offers fascinating insight into the evolution of Said's political thought. Through analysis of Said's seminal works and the debates surrounding them, Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual (American University in Cairo Press, 2025) traces the influence of Foucault on Said, and how Said eventually diverged from this influence to arrive at a more pronounced understanding of agency, resistance, and liberation. He consequently affiliated more closely with Raymond Williams, Antonio Gramsci, and more contemporaneously, with his friends the late Eqbal Ahmad and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Said held that it is the intellectual's responsibility to expose lies and deceptions of the holders of power. A passionate advocate for the Palestinian cause, his solidarity did not prevent him from launching a sustained critique of the Palestinian leadership. Hovsepian charts both Said's engagement with the Palestinian national movement and his exchanges with a host of intellectuals over Palestine, arguing that Said's interventions have succeeded in changing the parameters of the discourse in the humanities, and among younger Jews searching for political affiliation. Drawing on his diaries, in which he recorded his meetings with Said, as well as access to some of Said's private letters, Hovsepian illuminates, in rich detail, the trajectory of Said's political thinking and the depth and breadth of his engagement with peers and critics over issues that continue to resonate to this day. Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He is the author of Palestinian State Formation: Education and the Construction of National Identity, and he edited and contributed to The War on Lebanon. Hovsepian has devoted enormous time to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and served, from 1982 to 1984, as political affairs officer for the United Nations Conference on the Question of Palestine. Tugrul Mende holds an M.A in Arabic Studies. He is based in Berlin as a project coordinator and independent researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Edward Said was one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. A literary scholar with an aesthete's temperament, he did not experience his political awakening until the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, which transformed his thinking and led him to forge ties with political groups and like-minded scholars. Said's subsequent writings, which cast light on the interplay between cultural representation and the exercise of Western political power, caused a seismic shift in scholarly circles and beyond. In this intimate intellectual biography, by a close friend and confidant, Nubar Hovsepian offers fascinating insight into the evolution of Said's political thought. Through analysis of Said's seminal works and the debates surrounding them, Edward Said: The Politics of an Oppositional Intellectual (American University in Cairo Press, 2025) traces the influence of Foucault on Said, and how Said eventually diverged from this influence to arrive at a more pronounced understanding of agency, resistance, and liberation. He consequently affiliated more closely with Raymond Williams, Antonio Gramsci, and more contemporaneously, with his friends the late Eqbal Ahmad and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Said held that it is the intellectual's responsibility to expose lies and deceptions of the holders of power. A passionate advocate for the Palestinian cause, his solidarity did not prevent him from launching a sustained critique of the Palestinian leadership. Hovsepian charts both Said's engagement with the Palestinian national movement and his exchanges with a host of intellectuals over Palestine, arguing that Said's interventions have succeeded in changing the parameters of the discourse in the humanities, and among younger Jews searching for political affiliation. Drawing on his diaries, in which he recorded his meetings with Said, as well as access to some of Said's private letters, Hovsepian illuminates, in rich detail, the trajectory of Said's political thinking and the depth and breadth of his engagement with peers and critics over issues that continue to resonate to this day. Nubar Hovsepian is associate professor emeritus of political science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He is the author of Palestinian State Formation: Education and the Construction of National Identity, and he edited and contributed to The War on Lebanon. Hovsepian has devoted enormous time to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and served, from 1982 to 1984, as political affairs officer for the United Nations Conference on the Question of Palestine. Tugrul Mende holds an M.A in Arabic Studies. He is based in Berlin as a project coordinator and independent researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

For those who haven't heard the announcement I posted, songs from this point on will sometimes be split among multiple episodes, so this is the second part of a two-episode look at the song “Who Knows Where The Time Goes?” by Fairport Convention, and the intertwining careers of Joe Boyd, Sandy Denny, and Richard Thompson. Click the full post to read liner notes, links to more information, and a transcript of the episode. Patreon backers also have a forty-one-minute bonus episode available, on Judy Collins’ version of this song. Tilt Araiza has assisted invaluably by editing, and will hopefully be doing so from now on. Check out Tilt's irregular podcasts at http://www.podnose.com/jaffa-cakes-for-proust and http://sitcomclub.com/ Erratum For about an hour this was uploaded with the wrong Elton John clip in place of “Saturday Sun”. This has now been fixed. Resources Because of the increasing problems with Mixcloud’s restrictions, I have decided to start sharing streaming playlists of the songs used in episodes instead of Mixcloud ones. This Tunemymusic link will let you listen to the playlist I created on your streaming platform of choice — however please note that not all the songs excerpted are currently available on streaming. The songs missing from the Tidal version are “Shanten Bells” by the Ian Campbell Folk Group, “Tom’s Gone to Hilo” by A.L. Lloyd, two by Paul McNeill and Linda Peters, three by Elton John & Linda Peters, “What Will I Do With Tomorrow” by Sandy Denny and “You Never Know” by Charlie Drake, but the other fifty-nine are there. Other songs may be missing from other services. The main books I used on Fairport Convention as a whole were Patrick Humphries' Meet On The Ledge, Clinton Heylin's What We Did Instead of Holidays, and Kevan Furbank's Fairport Convention on Track. Rob Young's Electric Eden is the most important book on the British folk-rock movement. Information on Richard Thompson comes from Patrick Humphries' Richard Thompson: Strange Affair and Thompson's own autobiography Beeswing.  Information on Sandy Denny comes from Clinton Heylin's No More Sad Refrains and Mick Houghton's I've Always Kept a Unicorn. I also used Joe Boyd's autobiography White Bicycles and Chris Blackwell's The Islander.  And this three-CD set is the best introduction to Fairport's music currently in print. Transcript Before we begin, this episode contains reference to alcohol and cocaine abuse and medical neglect leading to death. It also starts with some discussion of the fatal car accident that ended last episode. There’s also some mention of child neglect and spousal violence. If that’s likely to upset you, you might want to skip this episode or read the transcript. One of the inspirations for this podcast when I started it back in 2018 was a project by Richard Thompson, which appears (like many things in Thompson’s life) to have started out of sheer bloody-mindedness. In 1999 Playboy magazine asked various people to list their “songs of the Millennium”, and most of them, understanding the brief, chose a handful of songs from the latter half of the twentieth century. But Thompson determined that he was going to list his favourite songs *of the millennium*. He didn’t quite manage that, but he did cover seven hundred and forty years, and when Playboy chose not to publish it, he decided to turn it into a touring show, in which he covered all his favourite songs from “Sumer Is Icumen In” from 1260: [Excerpt: Richard Thompson, “Sumer is Icumen In”] Through numerous traditional folk songs, union songs like “Blackleg Miner”, pieces by early-modern composers, Victorian and Edwardian music hall songs, and songs by the Beatles, the Ink Spots, the Kinks, and the Who, all the way to “Oops! I Did It Again”: [Excerpt: Richard Thompson, “Oops! I Did it Again”] And to finish the show, and to show how all this music actually ties together, he would play what he described as a “medieval tune from Brittany”, “Marry, Ageyn Hic Hev Donne Yt”: [Excerpt: Richard Thompson, “Marry, Ageyn Hic Hev Donne Yt”] We have said many times in this podcast that there is no first anything, but there’s a reason that Liege and Lief, Fairport Convention’s third album of 1969, and the album other than Unhalfbricking on which their reputation largely rests, was advertised with the slogan “The first (literally) British folk rock album ever”. Folk-rock, as the term had come to be known, and as it is still usually used today, had very little to do with traditional folk music. Rather, the records of bands like The Byrds or Simon and Garfunkel were essentially taking the sounds of British beat groups of the early sixties, particularly the Searchers, and applying those sounds to material by contemporary singer-songwriters. People like Paul Simon and Bob Dylan had come up through folk clubs, and their songs were called folk music because of that, but they weren’t what folk music had meant up to that point — songs that had been collected after being handed down through the folk process, changed by each individual singer, with no single identifiable author. They were authored songs by very idiosyncratic writers. But over their last few albums, Fairport Convention had done one or two tracks per album that weren’t like that, that were instead recordings of traditional folk songs, but arranged with rock instrumentation. They were not necessarily the first band to try traditional folk music with electric instruments — around the same time that Fairport started experimenting with the idea, so did an Irish band named Sweeney’s Men, who brought in a young electric guitarist named Henry McCullough briefly. But they do seem to have been the first to have fully embraced the idea. They had done so to an extent with “A Sailor’s Life” on Unhalfbricking, but now they were going to go much further: [Excerpt: Fairport Convention, “Matty Groves” (from about 4:30)] There had been some doubt as to whether Fairport Convention would even continue to exist — by the time Unhalfbricking, their second album of the year, was released, they had been through the terrible car accident that had killed Martin Lamble, the band’s drummer, and Jeannie Franklyn, Richard Thompson’s girlfriend. Most of the rest of the band had been seriously injured, and they had made a conscious decision not to discuss the future of the band until they were all out of hospital. Ashley Hutchings was hospitalised the longest, and Simon Nicol, Richard Thompson, and Sandy Denny, the other three surviving members of the band, flew over to LA with their producer and manager, Joe Boyd, to recuperate there and get to know the American music scene. When they came back, the group all met up in the flat belonging to Denny’s boyfriend Trevor Lucas, and decided that they were going to continue the band. They made a few decisions then — they needed a new drummer, and as well as a drummer they wanted to get in Dave Swarbrick. Swarbrick had played violin on several tracks on Unhalfbricking as a session player, and they had all been thrilled to work with him. Swarbrick was one of the most experienced musicians on the British folk circuit. He had started out in the fifties playing guitar with Beryl Marriott’s Ceilidh Band before switching to fiddle, and in 1963, long before Fairport had formed, he had already appeared on TV with the Ian Campbell Folk Group, led by Ian Campbell, the father of Ali and Robin Campbell, later of UB40: [Excerpt: The Ian Campbell Folk Group, “Shanten Bells (medley on Hullaballoo!)”] He’d sung with Ewan MacColl and A.L. Lloyd: [Excerpt: A.L. Lloyd, “Tom’s Gone to Hilo” ] And he’d formed his hugely successful duo with Martin Carthy, releasing records like “Byker Hill” which are often considered among the best British folk music of all time: [Excerpt: Martin Carthy and Dave Swarbrick, “Byker Hill”] By the time Fairport had invited him to play on Unhalfbricking, Swarbrick had already performed on twenty albums as a core band member, plus dozens more EPs, singles, and odd tracks on compilations. They had no reason to think they could actually get him to join their band. But they had three advantages. The first was that Swarbrick was sick of the traditional folk scene at the time, saying later “I didn’t like seven-eighths of the people involved in it, and it was extremely opportune to leave. I was suddenly presented with the possibilities of exploring the dramatic content of the songs to the full.” The second was that he was hugely excited to be playing with Richard Thompson, who was one of the most innovative guitarists of his generation, and Martin Carthy remembers him raving about Thompson after their initial sessions. (Carthy himself was and is no slouch on the guitar of course, and there was even talk of getting him to join the band at this point, though they decided against it — much to the relief of rhythm guitarist Simon Nicol, who is a perfectly fine player himself but didn’t want to be outclassed by *two* of the best guitarists in Britain at the same time). And the third was that Joe Boyd told him that Fairport were doing so well — they had a single just about to hit the charts with “Si Tu Dois Partir” — that he would only have to play a dozen gigs with Fairport in order to retire. As it turned out, Swarbrick would play with the group for a decade, and would never retire — I saw him on his last tour in 2015, only eight months before he died. The drummer the group picked was also a far more experienced musician than any of the rest, though in a very different genre. Dave Mattacks had no knowledge at all of the kind of music they played, having previously been a player in dance bands. When asked by Hutchings if he wanted to join the band, Mattacks’ response was “I don’t know anything about the music. I don’t understand it… I can’t tell one tune from another, they all sound the same… but if you want me to join the group, fine, because I really like it. I’m enjoying myself musically.” Mattacks brought a new level of professionalism to the band, thanks to his different background. Nicol said of him later “He was dilligent, clean, used to taking three white shirts to a gig… The application he could bring to his playing was amazing. With us, you only played well when you were feeling well.” This distinction applied to his playing as well. Nicol would later describe the difference between Mattacks’ drumming and Lamble’s by saying “Martin’s strength was as an imaginative drummer. DM came in with a strongly developed sense of rhythm, through keeping a big band of drunken saxophone players in order. A great time-keeper.” With this new line-up and a new sense of purpose, the group did as many of their contemporaries were doing and “got their heads together in the country”. Joe Boyd rented the group a mansion, Farley House, in Farley Chamberlayne, Hampshire, and they stayed there together for three months. At the start, the group seem to have thought that they were going to make another record like Unhalfbricking, with some originals, some songs by American songwriters, and a few traditional songs. Even after their stay in Farley Chamberlayne, in fact, they recorded a few of the American songs they’d rehearsed at the start of the process, Richard Farina’s “Quiet Joys of Brotherhood” and Bob Dylan and Roger McGuinn’s “Ballad of Easy Rider”: [Excerpt: Fairport Convention, “Ballad of Easy Rider”] Indeed, the whole idea of “getting our heads together in the country” (as the cliche quickly became in the late sixties as half of the bands in Britain went through much the same kind of process as Fairport were doing — but usually for reasons more to do with drug burnout or trend following than recovering from serious life-changing trauma) seems to have been inspired by Bob Dylan and the Band getting together in Big Pink. But very quickly they decided to follow the lead of Ashley Hutchings, who had had something of a Damascene conversion to the cause of traditional English folk music. They were listening mostly to Music From Big Pink by the Band, and to the first album by Sweeney’s Men: [Excerpt: Sweeney’s Men, “The Handsome Cabin Boy”] And they decided that they were going to make something that was as English as those records were North American and Irish (though in the event there were also a few Scottish songs included on the record). Hutchings in particular was becoming something of a scholar of traditional music, regularly visiting Cecil Sharp House and having long conversations with A.L. Lloyd, discovering versions of different traditional songs he’d never encountered before. This was both amusing and bemusing Sandy Denny, who had joined a rock group in part to get away from traditional music; but she was comfortable singing the material, and knew a lot of it and could make a lot of suggestions herself. Swarbrick obviously knew the repertoire intimately, and Nicol was amenable, while Mattacks was utterly clueless about the folk tradition at this point but knew this was the music he wanted to make. Thompson knew very little about traditional music, and of all the band members except Denny he was the one who has shown the least interest in the genre in his subsequent career — but as we heard at the beginning, showing the least interest in the genre is a relative thing, and while Thompson was not hugely familiar with the genre, he *was* able to work with it, and was also more than capable of writing songs that fit in with the genre. Of the eleven songs on the album, which was titled Liege and Lief (which means, roughly, Lord and Loyalty), there were no cover versions of singer-songwriters. Eight were traditional songs, and three were originals, all written in the style of traditional songs. The album opened with “Come All Ye”, an introduction written by Denny and Hutchings (the only time the two would ever write together): [Excerpt: Fairport Convention, “Come All Ye”] The other two originals were songs where Thompson had written new lyrics to traditional melodies. On “Crazy Man Michael”, Swarbrick had said to Thompson that the tune to which he had set his new words was weaker than the lyrics, to which Thompson had replied that if Swarbrick felt that way he should feel free to write a new melody. He did, and it became the first of the small number of Thompson/Swarbrick collaborations: [Excerpt: Fairport Convention, “Crazy Man Michael”] Thompson and Swarbrick would become a brief songwriting team, but as much as anything else it was down to proximity — the two respected each other as musicians, but never got on very well. In 1981 Swarbrick would say “Richard and I never got on in the early days of FC… we thought we did, but we never did. We composed some bloody good songs together, but it was purely on a basis of “you write that and I’ll write this, and we’ll put it together.” But we never sat down and had real good chats.” The third original on the album, and by far the most affecting, is another song where Thompson put lyrics to a traditional tune. In this case he thought he was putting the lyrics to the tune of “Willie O'Winsbury”, but he was basing it on a recording by Sweeney’s Men. The problem was that Sweeney’s Men had accidentally sung the lyrics of “Willie O'Winsbury'” to the tune of a totally different song, “Fause Foodrage”: [Excerpt: Sweeney’s Men, “Willie O’Winsbury”] Thompson took that melody, and set to it lyrics about loss and separation. Thompson has never been one to discuss the meanings of his lyrics in any great detail, and in the case of this one has said “I really don't know what it means. This song came out of a dream, and I pretty much wrote it as I dreamt it (it was the sixties), and didn't spend very long analyzing it. So interpret as you wish – or replace with your own lines.” But in the context of the traffic accident that had killed his tailor girlfriend and a bandmate, and injured most of his other bandmates, the lyrics about lonely travellers, the winding road, bruised and beaten sons, saying goodbye, and never cutting cloth, seem fairly self-explanatory: [Excerpt: Fairport Convention, “Farewell, Farewell”] The rest of the album, though, was taken up by traditional tunes. There was a long medley of four different fiddle reels; a version of “Reynardine” (a song about a seductive man — or is he a fox? Or perhaps both — which had been recorded by Swarbrick and Carthy on their most recent album); a 19th century song about a deserter saved from the firing squad by Prince Albert; and a long take on “Tam Lin”, one of the most famous pieces in the Scottish folk music canon, a song that has been adapted in different ways by everyone from the experimental noise band Current 93 to the dub poet Benjamin Zephaniah to the comics writer Grant Morrison: [Excerpt: Fairport Convention, “Tam Lin”] And “Matty Groves”, a song about a man killing his cheating wife and her lover, which actually has a surprisingly similar story to that of “1921” from another great concept album from that year, the Who’s Tommy. “Matty Groves” became an excuse for long solos and shows of instrumental virtuosity: [Excerpt: Fairport Convention, “Matty Groves”] The album was recorded in September 1969, after their return from their break in the country and a triumphal performance at the Royal Festival Hall, headlining over fellow Witchseason artists John and Beverly Martyn and Nick Drake. It became a classic of the traditional folk genre — arguably *the* classic of the traditional folk genre. In 2007 BBC Radio 2’s Folk Music Awards gave it an award for most influential folk album of all time, and while such things are hard to measure, I doubt there’s anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of British folk and folk-rock music who would not at least consider that a reasonable claim. But once again, by the time the album came out in November, the band had changed lineups yet again. There was a fundamental split in the band – on one side were Sandy Denny and Richard Thompson, whose stance was, roughly, that Liege and Lief was a great experiment and a fun thing to do once, but really the band had two first-rate songwriters in themselves, and that they should be concentrating on their own new material, not doing these old songs, good as they were. They wanted to take the form of the traditional songs and use that form for new material — they wanted to make British folk-rock, but with the emphasis on the rock side of things. Hutchings, on the other hand, was equally sure that he wanted to make traditional music and go further down the rabbit hole of antiquity. With the zeal of the convert he had gone in a couple of years from being the leader of a band who were labelled “the British Jefferson Airplane” to becoming a serious scholar of traditional folk music. Denny was tired of touring, as well — she wanted to spend more time at home with Trevor Lucas, who was sleeping with other women when she was away and making her insecure. When the time came for the group to go on a tour of Denmark, Denny decided she couldn’t make it, and Hutchings was jubilant — he decided he was going to get A.L. Lloyd into the band in her place and become a *real* folk group. Then Denny reconsidered, and Hutchings was crushed. He realised that while he had always been the leader, he wasn’t going to be able to lead the band any further in the traditionalist direction, and quit the group — but not before he was delegated by the other band members to fire Denny. Until the publication of Richard Thompson’s autobiography in 2022, every book on the group or its members said that Denny quit the band again, which was presumably a polite fiction that the band agreed, but according to Thompson “Before we flew home, we decided to fire Sandy. I don't remember who asked her to leave – it was probably Ashley, who usually did the dirty work. She was reportedly shocked that we would take that step. She may have been fragile beneath the confident facade, but she still knew her worth.” Thompson goes on to explain that the reasons for kicking her out were that “I suppose we felt that in her mind she had already left” and that “We were probably suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, though there wasn't a name for it back then.” They had considered inviting Trevor Lucas to join the band to make Denny more comfortable, but came to the (probably correct) conclusion that while he was someone they got on well with personally, he would be another big ego in a band that already had several, and that being around Denny and Lucas’ volatile relationship would, in Thompson’s phrasing, “have not always given one a feeling of peace and stability.” Hutchings originally decided he was going to join Sweeney’s Men, but that group were falling apart, and their first rehearsal with Hutchings would also be their last as a group, with only Hutchings and guitarist and mandolin player Terry Woods left in the band. They added Woods’ wife Gay, and another couple, Tim Hart and Maddy Prior, and formed a group called Steeleye Span, a name given them by Martin Carthy. That group, like Fairport, went to “get their heads together in the country” for three months and recorded an album of electric versions of traditional songs, Hark the Village Wait, on which Mattacks and another drummer, Gerry Conway, guested as Steeleye Span didn’t at the time have their own drummer: [Excerpt: Steeleye Span, “Blackleg Miner”] Steeleye Span would go on to have a moderately successful chart career in the seventies, but by that time most of the original lineup, including Hutchings, had left — Hutchings stayed with them for a few albums, then went on to form the first of a series of bands, all called the Albion Band or variations on that name, which continue to this day. And this is something that needs to be pointed out at this point — it is impossible to follow every single individual in this narrative as they move between bands. There is enough material in the history of the British folk-rock scene that someone could do a 500 Songs-style podcast just on that, and every time someone left Fairport, or Steeleye Span, or the Albion Band, or Matthews’ Southern Comfort, or any of the other bands we have mentioned or will mention, they would go off and form another band which would then fission, and some of its members would often join one of those other bands. There was a point in the mid-1970s where the Albion Band had two original members of Fairport Convention while Fairport Convention had none. So just in order to keep the narrative anything like wieldy, I’m going to keep the narrative concentrated on the two figures from Fairport — Sandy Denny and Richard Thompson — whose work outside the group has had the most influence on the wider world of rock music more broadly, and only deal with the other members when, as they often did, their careers intersected with those two. That doesn’t mean the other members are not themselves hugely important musicians, just that their importance has been primarily to the folk side of the folk-rock genre, and so somewhat outside the scope of this podcast. While Hutchings decided to form a band that would allow him to go deeper and deeper into traditional folk music, Sandy Denny’s next venture was rather different. For a long time she had been writing far more songs than she had ever played for her bandmates, like “Nothing More”, a song that many have suggested is about Thompson: [Excerpt: Fotheringay, “Nothing More”] When Joe Boyd heard that Denny was leaving Fairport Convention, he was at first elated. Fairport’s records were being distributed by A&M in the US at that point, but Island Records was in the process of opening up a new US subsidiary which would then release all future Fairport product — *but*, as far as A&M were concerned, Sandy Denny *was* Fairport Convention. They were only interested in her. Boyd, on the other hand, loved Denny’s work intensely, but from his point of view *Richard Thompson* was Fairport Convention. If he could get Denny signed directly to A&M as a solo artist before Island started its US operations, Witchseason could get a huge advance on her first solo record, while Fairport could continue making records for Island — he’d have two lucrative acts, on different labels. Boyd went over and spoke to A&M and got an agreement in principle that they would give Denny a forty-thousand-dollar advance on her first solo album — twice what they were paying for Fairport albums. The problem was that Denny didn’t want to be a solo act. She wanted to be the lead singer of a band. She gave many reasons for this — the one she gave to many journalists was that she had seen a Judy Collins show and been impressed, but noticed that Collins’ band were definitely a “backing group”, and as she put it “But that's all they were – a backing group. I suddenly thought, If you're playing together on a stage you might as well be TOGETHER.” Most other people in her life, though, say that the main reason for her wanting to be in a band was her desire to be with her boyfriend, Trevor Lucas. Partly this was due to a genuine desire to spend more time with someone with whom she was very much in love, partly it was a fear that he would cheat on her if she was away from him for long periods of time, and part of it seems to have been Lucas’ dislike of being *too* overshadowed by his talented girlfriend — he didn’t mind acknowledging that she was a major talent, but he wanted to be thought of as at least a minor one. So instead of going solo, Denny formed Fotheringay, named after the song she had written for Fairport. This new band consisted at first of Denny on vocals and occasional piano, Lucas on vocals and rhythm guitar, and Lucas’ old Eclection bandmate Gerry Conway on drums. For a lead guitarist, they asked Richard Thompson who the best guitarist in Britain was, and he told them Albert Lee. Lee in turn brought in bass player Pat Donaldson, but this lineup of the band barely survived a fortnight. Lee *was* arguably the best guitarist in Britain, certainly a reasonable candidate if you could ever have a singular best (as indeed was Thompson himself), but he was the best *country* guitarist in Britain, and his style simply didn’t fit with Fotheringay’s folk-influenced songs. He was replaced by American guitarist Jerry Donahue, who was not anything like as proficient as Lee, but who was still very good, and fit the band’s style much better. The new group rehearsed together for a few weeks, did a quick tour, and then went into the recording studio to record their debut, self-titled, album. Joe Boyd produced the album, but admitted himself that he only paid attention to those songs he considered worthwhile — the album contained one song by Lucas, “The Ballad of Ned Kelly”, and two cover versions of American singer-songwriter material with Lucas singing lead. But everyone knew that the songs that actually *mattered* were Sandy Denny’s, and Boyd was far more interested in them, particularly the songs “The Sea” and “The Pond and the Stream”: [Excerpt: Fotheringay, “The Pond and the Stream”] Fotheringay almost immediately hit financial problems, though. While other Witchseason acts were used to touring on the cheap, all packed together in the back of a Transit van with inexpensive equipment, Trevor Lucas had ambitions of being a rock star and wanted to put together a touring production to match, with expensive transport and equipment, including a speaker system that got nicknamed “Stonehenge” — but at the same time, Denny was unhappy being on the road, and didn’t play many gigs. As well as the band itself, the Fotheringay album also featured backing vocals from a couple of other people, including Denny’s friend Linda Peters. Peters was another singer from the folk clubs, and a good one, though less well-known than Denny — at this point she had only released a couple of singles, and those singles seemed to have been as much as anything else released as a novelty. The first of those, a version of Dylan’s “You Ain’t Goin’ Nowhere” had been released as by “Paul McNeill and Linda Peters”: [Excerpt: Paul McNeill and Linda Peters, “You Ain’t Goin’ Nowhere”] But their second single, a version of John D. Loudermilk’s “You’re Taking My Bag”, was released on the tiny Page One label, owned by Larry Page, and was released under the name “Paul and Linda”, clearly with the intent of confusing particularly gullible members of the record-buying public into thinking this was the McCartneys: [Excerpt: Paul and Linda, “You’re Taking My Bag”] Peters was though more financially successful than almost anyone else in this story, as she was making a great deal of money as a session singer. She actually did another session involving most of Fotheringay around this time. Witchseason had a number of excellent songwriters on its roster, and had had some success getting covers by people like Judy Collins, but Joe Boyd thought that they might possibly do better at getting cover versions if they were performed in less idiosyncratic arrangements. Donahue, Donaldson, and Conway went into the studio to record backing tracks, and vocals were added by Peters and another session singer, who according to some sources also provided piano. They cut songs by Mike Heron of the Incredible String Band: [Excerpt: Linda Peters, “You Get Brighter”] Ed Carter, formerly of The New Nadir but by this time firmly ensconced in the Beach Boys’ touring band where he would remain for the next quarter-century: [Excerpt: Linda Peters, “I Don’t Mind”] John and Beverly Martyn, and Nick Drake: [Excerpt: Elton John, “Saturday Sun”] There are different lineups of musicians credited for those sessions in different sources, but I tend to believe that it’s mostly Fotheringay for the simple reason that Donahue says it was him, Donaldson and Conway who talked Lucas and Denny into the mistake that destroyed Fotheringay because of these sessions. Fotheringay were in financial trouble already, spending far more money than they were bringing in, but their album made the top twenty and they were getting respect both from critics and from the public — in September, Sandy Denny was voted best British female singer by the readers of Melody Maker in their annual poll, which led to shocked headlines in the tabloids about how this “unknown” could have beaten such big names as Dusty Springfield and Cilla Black. Only a couple of weeks after that, they were due to headline at the Albert Hall. It should have been a triumph. But Donahue, Donaldson, and Conway had asked that singing pianist to be their support act. As Donahue said later “That was a terrible miscast. It was our fault. He asked if [he] could do it. Actually Pat, Gerry and I had to talk Sandy and Trevor into [it]… We'd done these demos and the way he was playing – he was a wonderful piano player – he was sensitive enough. We knew very little about his stage-show. We thought he'd be a really good opener for us.” Unfortunately, Elton John was rather *too* good. As Donahue continued “we had no idea what he had in mind, that he was going to do the most incredible rock & roll show ever. He pretty much blew us off the stage before we even got on the stage.” To make matters worse, Fotheringay’s set, which was mostly comprised of new material, was underrehearsed and sloppy, and from that point on no matter what they did people were counting the hours until the band split up. They struggled along for a while though, and started working on a second record, with Boyd again producing, though as Boyd later said “I probably shouldn't have been producing the record. My lack of respect for the group was clear, and couldn't have helped the atmosphere. We'd put out a record that had sold disappointingly, A&M was unhappy. Sandy's tracks on the first record are among the best things she ever did – the rest of it, who cares? And the artwork, Trevor's sister, was terrible. It would have been one thing if I'd been unhappy with it and it sold, and the group was working all the time, making money, but that wasn't the case … I knew what Sandy was capable of, and it was very upsetting to me.” The record would not be released for thirty-eight years: [Excerpt: Fotheringay, “Wild Mountain Thyme”] Witchseason was going badly into debt. Given all the fissioning of bands that we’ve already been talking about, Boyd had been stretched thin — he produced sixteen albums in 1970, and almost all of them lost money for the company. And he was getting more and more disillusioned with the people he was producing. He loved Beverly Martyn’s work, but had little time for her abusive husband John, who was dominating her recording and life more and more and would soon become a solo artist while making her stay at home (and stealing her ideas without giving her songwriting credit). The Incredible String Band were great, but they had recently converted to Scientology, which Boyd found annoying, and while he was working with all sorts of exciting artists like Vashti Bunyan and Nico, he was finding himself less and less important to the artists he mentored. Fairport Convention were a good example of this. After Denny and Hutchings had left the group, they’d decided to carry on as an electric folk group, performing an equal mix of originals by the Swarbrick and Thompson songwriting team and arrangements of traditional songs. The group were now far enough away from the “British Jefferson Airplane” label that they decided they didn’t need a female vocalist — and more realistically, while they’d been able to replace Judy Dyble, nobody was going to replace Sandy Denny. Though it’s rather surprising when one considers Thompson’s subsequent career that nobody seems to have thought of bringing in Denny’s friend Linda Peters, who was dating Joe Boyd at the time (as Denny had been before she met Lucas) as Denny’s replacement. Instead, they decided that Swarbrick and Thompson were going to share the vocals between them. They did, though, need a bass player to replace Hutchings. Swarbrick wanted to bring in Dave Pegg, with whom he had played in the Ian Campbell Folk Group, but the other band members initially thought the idea was a bad one. At the time, while they respected Swarbrick as a musician, they didn’t think he fully understood rock and roll yet, and they thought the idea of getting in a folkie who had played double bass rather than an electric rock bassist ridiculous. But they auditioned him to mollify Swarbrick, and found that he was exactly what they needed. As Joe Boyd later said “All those bass lines were great, Ashley invented them all, but he never could play them that well. He thought of them, but he was technically not a terrific bass player. He was a very inventive, melodic, bass player, but not a very powerful one technically. But having had the part explained to him once, Pegg was playing it better than Ashley had ever played it… In some rock bands, I think, ultimately, the bands that sound great, you can generally trace it to the bass player… it was at that point they became a great band, when they had Pegg.” The new lineup of Fairport decided to move in together, and found a former pub called the Angel, into which all the band members moved, along with their partners and children (Thompson was the only one who was single at this point) and their roadies. The group lived together quite happily, and one gets the impression that this was the period when they were most comfortable with each other, even though by this point they were a disparate group with disparate tastes, in music as in everything else. Several people have said that the only music all the band members could agree they liked at this point was the first two albums by The Band. With the departure of Hutchings from the band, Swarbrick and Thompson, as the strongest personalities and soloists, became in effect the joint leaders of the group, and they became collaborators as songwriters, trying to write new songs that were inspired by traditional music. Thompson described the process as “let’s take one line of this reel and slow it down and move it up a minor third and see what that does to it; let’s take one line of this ballad and make a whole song out of it. Chopping up the tradition to find new things to do… like a collage.” Generally speaking, Swarbrick and Thompson would sit by the fire and Swarbrick would play a melody he’d been working on, the two would work on it for a while, and Thompson would then go away and write the lyrics. This is how the two came up with songs like the nine-minute “Sloth”, a highlight of the next album, Full House, and one that would remain in Fairport’s live set for much of their career: [Excerpt: Fairport Convention, “Sloth”] “Sloth” was titled that way because Thompson and Swarbrick were working on two tunes, a slow one and a fast one, and they jokingly named them “Sloth” and “Fasth”, but the latter got renamed to “Walk Awhile”, while “Sloth” kept its working title. But by this point, Boyd and Thompson were having a lot of conflict in the studio. Boyd was never the most technical of producers — he was one of those producers whose job is to gently guide the artists in the studio and create a space for the music to flourish, rather than the Joe Meek type with an intimate technical knowledge of the studio — and as the artists he was working with gained confidence in their own work they felt they had less and less need of him. During the making of the Full House album, Thompson and Boyd, according to Boyd, clashed on everything — every time Boyd thought Thompson had done a good solo, Thompson would say to erase it and let him have another go, while every time Boyd thought Thompson could do better, Thompson would say that was the take to keep. One of their biggest clashes was over Thompson’s song “Poor Will and the Jolly Hangman”, which was originally intended for release on the album, and is included in current reissues of it: [Excerpt: Fairport Convention, “Poor Will and the Jolly Hangman”] Thompson had written that song inspired by what he thought was the unjust treatment of Alex Bramham, the driver in Fairport’s fatal car crash, by the courts — Bramham had been given a prison sentence of a few months for dangerous driving, while the group members thought he had not been at fault. Boyd thought it was one of the best things recorded for the album, but Thompson wasn’t happy with his vocal — there was one note at the top of the melody that he couldn’t quite hit — and insisted it be kept off the record, even though that meant it would be a shorter album than normal. He did this at such a late stage that early copies of the album actually had the title printed on the sleeve, but then blacked out. He now says in his autobiography “I could have persevered, double-tracked the voice, warmed up for longer – anything. It was a good track, and the record was lacking without it. When the album was re-released, the track was restored with a more confident vocal, and it has stayed there ever since.” During the sessions for Full House the group also recorded one non-album single, Thompson and Swarbrick’s “Now Be Thankful”: [Excerpt, Fairport Convention, “Now Be Thankful”] The B-side to that was a medley of two traditional tunes plus a Swarbrick original, but was given the deliberately ridiculous title “Sir B. McKenzie’s Daughter’s Lament For The 77th Mounted Lancers Retreat From The Straits Of Loch Knombe, In The Year Of Our Lord 1727, On The Occasion Of The Announcement Of Her Marriage To The Laird Of Kinleakie”: [Excerpt: Fairport Convention, “Sir B. McKenzie’s Daughter’s Lament For The 77th Mounted Lancers Retreat From The Straits Of Loch Knombe, In The Year Of Our Lord 1727, On The Occasion Of The Announcement Of Her Marriage To The Laird Of Kinleakie”] The B. McKenzie in the title was a reference to the comic-strip character Barry McKenzie, a stereotype drunk Australian created for Private Eye magazine by the comedian Barry Humphries (later to become better known for his Dame Edna Everage character) but the title was chosen for one reason only — to get into the Guinness Book of Records for the song with the longest title. Which they did, though they were later displaced by the industrial band Test Dept, and their song “Long Live British Democracy Which Flourishes and Is Constantly Perfected Under the Immaculate Guidance of the Great, Honourable, Generous and Correct Margaret Hilda Thatcher. She Is the Blue Sky in the Hearts of All Nations. Our People Pay Homage and Bow in Deep Respect and Gratitude to Her. The Milk of Human Kindness”. Full House got excellent reviews in the music press, with Rolling Stone saying “The music shows that England has finally gotten her own equivalent to The Band… By calling Fairport an English equivalent of the Band, I meant that they have soaked up enough of the tradition of their countryfolk that it begins to show all over, while they maintain their roots in rock.” Off the back of this, the group went on their first US tour, culminating in a series of shows at the Troubadour in LA, on the same bill as Rick Nelson, which were recorded and later released as a live album: [Excerpt: Fairport Convention, “Sloth (live)”] The Troubadour was one of the hippest venues at the time, and over their residency there the group got seen by many celebrities, some of whom joined them on stage. The first was Linda Ronstadt, who initially demurred, saying she didn’t know any of their songs. On being told they knew all of hers, she joined in with a rendition of “Silver Threads and Golden Needles”. Thompson was later asked to join Ronstadt’s backing band, who would go on to become the Eagles, but he said later of this offer “I would have hated it. I’d have hated being on the road with four or five miserable Americans — they always seem miserable. And if you see them now, they still look miserable on stage — like they don’t want to be there and they don’t like each other.” The group were also joined on stage at the Troubadour on one memorable night by some former bandmates of Pegg’s. Before joining the Ian Campbell Folk Group, Pegg had played around the Birmingham beat scene, and had been in bands with John Bonham and Robert Plant, who turned up to the Troubadour with their Led Zeppelin bandmate Jimmy Page (reports differ on whether the fourth member of Zeppelin, John Paul Jones, also came along). They all got up on stage together and jammed on songs like “Hey Joe”, “Louie Louie”, and various old Elvis tunes. The show was recorded, and the tapes are apparently still in the possession of Joe Boyd, who has said he refuses to release them in case he is murdered by the ghost of Peter Grant. According to Thompson, that night ended in a three-way drinking contest between Pegg, Bonham, and Janis Joplin, and it’s testament to how strong the drinking culture is around Fairport and the British folk scene in general that Pegg outdrank both of them. According to Thompson, Bonham was found naked by a swimming pool two days later, having missed two gigs. For all their hard rock image, Led Zeppelin were admirers of a lot of the British folk and folk-rock scene, and a few months later Sandy Denny would become the only outside vocalist ever to appear on a Led Zeppelin record when she duetted with Plant on “The Battle of Evermore” on the group’s fourth album: [Excerpt: Led Zeppelin, “The Battle of Evermore”] Denny would never actually get paid for her appearance on one of the best-selling albums of all time. That was, incidentally, not the only session that Denny was involved in around this time — she also sang on the soundtrack to a soft porn film titled Swedish Fly Girls, whose soundtrack was produced by Manfred Mann: [Excerpt: Sandy Denny, “What Will I Do With Tomorrow?”] Shortly after Fairport’s trip to America, Joe Boyd decided he was giving up on Witchseason. The company was now losing money, and he was finding himself having to produce work for more and more acts as the various bands fissioned. The only ones he really cared about were Richard Thompson, who he was finding it more and more difficult to work with, Nick Drake, who wanted to do his next album with just an acoustic guitar anyway, Sandy Denny, who he felt was wasting her talents in Fotheringay, and Mike Heron of the Incredible String Band, who was more distant since his conversion to Scientology. Boyd did make some attempts to keep the company going. On a trip to Sweden, he negotiated an agreement with the manager and publisher of a Swedish band whose songs he’d found intriguing, the Hep Stars. Boyd was going to publish their songs in the UK, and in return that publisher, Stig Anderson, would get the rights to Witchseason’s catalogue in Scandinavia — a straight swap, with no money changing hands. But before Boyd could get round to signing the paperwork, he got a better offer from Mo Ostin of Warners — Ostin wanted Boyd to come over to LA and head up Warners’ new film music department. Boyd sold Witchseason to Island Records and moved to LA with his fiancee Linda Peters, spending the next few years working on music for films like Deliverance and A Clockwork Orange, as well as making his own documentary about Jimi Hendrix, and thus missed out on getting the UK publishing rights for ABBA, and all the income that would have brought him, for no money. And it was that decision that led to the breakup of Fotheringay. Just before Christmas 1970, Fotheringay were having a difficult session, recording the track “John the Gun”: [Excerpt: Fotheringay, “John the Gun”] Boyd got frustrated and kicked everyone out of the session, and went for a meal and several drinks with Denny. He kept insisting that she should dump the band and just go solo, and then something happened that the two of them would always describe differently. She asked him if he would continue to produce her records if she went solo, and he said he would. According to Boyd’s recollection of the events, he meant that he would fly back from California at some point to produce her records. According to Denny, he told her that if she went solo he would stay in Britain and not take the job in LA. This miscommunication was only discovered after Denny told the rest of Fotheringay after the Christmas break that she was splitting the band. Jerry Donahue has described that as the worst moment of his life, and Denny felt very guilty about breaking up a band with some of her closest friends in — and then when Boyd went over to the US anyway she felt a profound betrayal. Two days before Fotheringay’s final concert, in January 1971, Sandy Denny signed a solo deal with Island records, but her first solo album would not end up produced by Joe Boyd. Instead, The North Star Grassman and the Ravens was co-produced by Denny, John Wood — the engineer who had worked with Boyd on pretty much everything he’d produced, and Richard Thompson, who had just quit Fairport Convention, though he continued living with them at the Angel, at least until a truck crashed into the building in February 1971, destroying its entire front wall and forcing them to relocate. The songs chosen for The North Star Grassman and the Ravens reflected the kind of choices Denny would make on her future albums, and her eclectic taste in music. There was, of course, the obligatory Dylan cover, and the traditional folk ballad “Blackwaterside”, but there was also a cover version of Brenda Lee’s “Let’s Jump the Broomstick”: [Excerpt: Sandy Denny, “Let’s Jump the Broomstick”] Most of the album, though, was made up of originals about various people in Denny’s life, like “Next Time Around”, about her ex-boyfriend Jackson C Frank: [Excerpt: Sandy Denny, “Next Time Around”] The album made the top forty in the UK — Denny’s only solo album to do so — and led to her once again winning the “best female singer” award in Melody Maker’s readers’ poll that year — the male singer award was won by Rod Stewart. Both Stewart and Denny appeared the next year on the London Symphony Orchestra’s all-star version of The Who’s Tommy, which had originally been intended as a vehicle for Stewart before Roger Daltrey got involved. Stewart’s role was reduced to a single song, “Pinball Wizard”, while Denny sang on “It’s a Boy”: [Excerpt: Sandy Denny, “It’s a Boy”] While Fotheringay had split up, all the band members play on The North Star Grassman and the Ravens. Guitarists Donahue and Lucas only play on a couple of the tracks, with Richard Thompson playing most of the guitar on the record. But Fotheringay’s rhythm section of Pat Donaldson and Gerry Conway play on almost every track. Another musician on the album, Ian Whiteman, would possibly have a profound effect on the future direction of Richard Thompson’s career and life. Whiteman was the former keyboard player for the mod band The Action, having joined them just before they became the blues-rock band Mighty Baby. But Mighty Baby had split up when all of the band except the lead singer had converted to Islam. Richard Thompson was on his own spiritual journey at this point, and became a Sufi – the same branch of Islam as Whiteman – soon after the session, though Thompson has said that his conversion was independent of Whiteman’s. The two did become very close and work together a lot in the mid-seventies though. Thompson had supposedly left Fairport because he was writing material that wasn’t suited to the band, but he spent more than a year after quitting the group working on sessions rather than doing anything with his own material, and these sessions tended to involve the same core group of musicians. One of the more unusual was a folk-rock supergroup called The Bunch, put together by Trevor Lucas. Richard Branson had recently bought a recording studio, and wanted a band to test it out before opening it up for commercial customers, so with this free studio time Lucas decided to record a set of fifties rock and roll covers. He gathered together Thompson, Denny, Whiteman, Ashley Hutchings, Dave Mattacks, Pat Donaldson, Gerry Conway, pianist Tony Cox, the horn section that would later form the core of the Average White Band, and Linda Peters, who had now split up with Joe Boyd and returned to the UK, and who had started dating Thompson. They recorded an album of covers of songs by Jerry Lee Lewis, the Everly Brothers, Johnny Otis and others: [Excerpt: The Bunch, “Willie and the Hand Jive”] The early seventies was a hugely productive time for this group of musicians, as they all continued playing on each other’s projects. One notable album was No Roses by Shirley Collins, which featured Thompson, Mattacks, Whiteman, Simon Nicol, Lal and Mike Waterson, and Ashley Hutchings, who was at that point married to Collins, as well as some more unusual musicians like the free jazz saxophonist Lol Coxhill: [Excerpt: Shirley Collins and the Albion Country Band, “Claudy Banks”] Collins was at the time the most respected female singer in British traditional music, and already had a substantial career including a series of important records made with her sister Dolly, work with guitarists like Davey Graham, and time spent in the 1950s collecting folk songs in the Southern US with her then partner Alan Lomax – according to Collins she did much of the actual work, but Lomax only mentioned her in a single sentence in his book on this work. Some of the same group of musicians went on to work on an album of traditional Morris dancing tunes, titled Morris On, credited to “Ashley Hutchings, Richard Thompson, Dave Mattacks, John Kirkpatrick and Barry Dransfield”, with Collins singing lead on two tracks: [Excerpt: Ashley Hutchings, Richard Thompson, Dave Mattacks, John Kirkpatrick and Barry Dransfield with Shirley Collins, “The Willow Tree”] Thompson thought that that album was the best of the various side projects he was involved in at the time, comparing it favourably to Rock On, which he thought was rather slight, saying later “Conceptually, Fairport, Ashley and myself and Sandy were developing a more fragile style of music that nobody else was particularly interested in, a British Folk Rock idea that had a logical development to it, although we all presented it our own way. Morris On was rather more true to what we were doing. Rock On was rather a retro step. I'm not sure it was lasting enough as a record but Sandy did sing really well on the Buddy Holly songs.” Hutchings used the musicians on No Roses and Morris On as the basis for his band the Albion Band, which continues to this day. Simon Nicol and Dave Mattacks both quit Fairport to join the Albion Band, though Mattacks soon returned. Nicol would not return to Fairport for several years, though, and for a long period in the mid-seventies Fairport Convention had no original members. Unfortunately, while Collins was involved in the Albion Band early on, she and Hutchings ended up divorcing, and the stress from the divorce led to Collins developing spasmodic dysphonia, a stress-related illness which makes it impossible for the sufferer to sing. She did eventually regain her vocal ability, but between 1978 and 2016 she was unable to perform at all, and lost decades of her career. Richard Thompson occasionally performed with the Albion Band early on, but he was getting stretched a little thin with all these sessions. Linda Peters said later of him “When I came back from America, he was working in Sandy’s band, and doing sessions by the score. Always with Pat Donaldson and Dave Mattacks. Richard would turn up with his guitar, one day he went along to do a session with one of those folkie lady singers — and there were Pat and DM. They all cracked. Richard smashed his amp and said “Right! No more sessions!” In 1972 he got round to releasing his first solo album, Henry the Human Fly, which featured guest appearances by Linda Peters and Sandy Denny among others: [Excerpt: Richard Thompson, “The Angels Took My Racehorse Away”] Unfortunately, while that album has later become regarded as one of the classics of its genre, at the time it was absolutely slated by the music press. The review in Melody Maker, for example, read in part “Some of Richard Thompson’s ideas sound great – which is really the saving grace of this album, because most of the music doesn’t. The tragedy is that Thompson’s “British rock music” is such an unconvincing concoction… Even the songs that do integrate rock and traditional styles of electric guitar rhythms and accordion and fiddle decoration – and also include explicit, meaningful lyrics are marred by bottle-up vocals, uninspiring guitar phrases and a general lack of conviction in performance.” Henry the Human Fly was released in the US by Warners, who had a reciprocal licensing deal with Island (and for whom Joe Boyd was working at the time, which may have had something to do with that) but according to Thompson it became the lowest-selling record that Warners ever put out (though I’ve also seen that claim made about Van Dyke Parks’ Song Cycle, another album that has later been rediscovered). Thompson was hugely depressed by this reaction, and blamed his own singing. Happily, though, by this point he and Linda had become a couple — they would marry in 1972 — and they started playing folk clubs as a duo, or sometimes in a trio with Simon Nicol. Thompson was also playing with Sandy Denny’s backing band at this point, and played on every track on her second solo album, Sandy. This album was meant to be her big commercial breakthrough, with a glamorous cover photo by David Bailey, and with a more American sound, including steel guitar by Sneaky Pete Kleinow of the Flying Burrito Brothers (whose overdubs were supervised in LA by Joe Boyd): [Excerpt: Sandy Denny, “Tomorrow is a Long Time”] The album was given a big marketing push by Island, and “Listen, Listen” was made single of the week on the Radio 1 Breakfast show: [Excerpt: Sandy Denny, “Listen, Listen”] But it did even worse than the previous album, sending her into something of a depression. Linda Thompson (as the former Linda Peters now was) said of this period “After the Sandy album, it got her down that her popularity didn't suddenly increase in leaps and bounds, and that was the start of her really fretting about the way her career was going. Things only escalated after that. People like me or Martin Carthy or Norma Waterson would think, ‘What are you on about? This is folk music.'” After Sandy’s release, Denny realised she could no longer afford to tour with a band, and so went back to performing just acoustically or on piano. The only new music to be released by either of these ex-members of Fairport Convention in 1973 was, oddly, on an album by the band they were no longer members of. After Thompson had left Fairport, the group had managed to release two whole albums with the same lineup — Swarbrick, Nicol, Pegg, and Mattacks. But then Nicol and Mattacks had both quit the band to join the Albion Band with their former bandmate Ashley Hutchings, leading to a situation where the Albion Band had two original members of Fairport plus their longtime drummer while Fairport Convention itself had no original members and was down to just Swarbrick and Pegg. Needing to fulfil their contracts, they then recruited three former members of Fotheringay — Lucas on vocals and rhythm guitar, Donahue on lead guitar, and Conway on drums. Conway was only a session player at the time, and Mattacks soon returned to the band, but Lucas and Donahue became full-time members. This new lineup of Fairport Convention released two albums in 1973, widely regarded as the group’s most inconsistent records, and on the title track of the first, “Rosie”, Richard Thompson guested on guitar, with Sandy Denny and Linda Thompson on backing vocals: [Excerpt: Fairport Convention, “Rosie”] Neither Sandy Denny nor Richard Thompson released a record themselves in 1973, but in neither case was this through the artists’ choice. The record industry was changing in the early 1970s, as we’ll see in later episodes, and was less inclined to throw good money after bad in the pursuit of art. Island Records prided itself on being a home for great artists, but it was still a business, and needed to make money. We’ll talk about the OPEC oil crisis and its effect on the music industry much more when the podcast gets to 1973, but in brief, the production of oil by the US peaked in 1970 and started to decrease, leading to them importing more and more oil from the Middle East. As a result of this, oil prices rose slowly between 1971 and 1973, then very quickly towards the end of 1973 as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict that year. As vinyl is made of oil, suddenly producing records became much more expensive, and in this period a lot of labels decided not to release already-completed albums, until what they hoped would be a brief period of shortages passed. Both Denny and Thompson recorded albums at this point that got put to one side by Island. In the case of Thompson, it was the first album by Richard and Linda as a duo, I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight: [Excerpt: Richard and Linda Thompson, “I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight”] Today, I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight is widely regarded as one of the greatest albums of all time, and as one of the two masterpieces that bookended Richard and Linda’s career as a duo and their marriage. But when they recorded the album, full of Richard’s dark songs, it was the opposite of commercial. Even a song that’s more or less a boy-girl song, like “Has He Got a Friend for Me?” has lyrics like “He wouldn’t notice me passing by/I could be in the gutter, or dangling down from a tree” [Excerpt: Richard and Linda Thompson, “Has He got a Friend For Me?”] While something like “The Calvary Cross” is oblique and haunted, and seems to cast a pall over the entire album: [Excerpt: Richard and Linda Thompson, “The Calvary Cross”] The album itself had been cheap to make — it had been recorded in only a week, with Thompson bringing in musicians he knew well and had worked with a lot previously to cut the tracks as-live in only a handful of takes — but Island didn’t think it was worth releasing. The record stayed on the shelf for nearly a year after recording, until Island got a new head of A&R, Richard Williams. Williams said of the album’s release “Muff Winwood had been doing A&R, but he was more interested in production… I had a conversation with Muff as soon as I got there, and he said there are a few hangovers, some outstanding problems. And one of them was Richard Thompson. He said there’s this album we gave him the money to make — which was I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight — and nobody’s very interested in it. Henry the Human Fly had been a bit of a commercial disappointment, and although Island was altruistic and independent and known for only recording good stuff, success was important… Either a record had to do well or somebody had to believe in it a lot. And it seemed as if neither of those things were true at that point of Richard.” Williams, though, was hugely impressed when he listened to the album. He compared Richard Thompson’s guitar playing to John Coltrane’s sax, and called Thompson “the folk poet of the rainy streets”, but also said “Linda brightened it, made it more commercial. and I thought that “Bright Lights” itself seemed a really commercial song.” The rest of the management at Island got caught up in Williams’ enthusiasm, and even decided to release the title track as a single: [Excerpt: Richard and Linda Thompson, “I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight”] Neither single nor album charted — indeed it would not be until 1991 that Richard Thompson would make a record that made the top forty in the UK — but the album got enough critical respect that Richard and Linda released two albums the year after. The first of these, Hokey Pokey, is a much more upbeat record than their previous one — Richard Thompson has called it “quite a music-hall influenced record” and cited the influence of George Formby and Harry Lauder. For once, the claim of music hall influence is audible in the music. Usually when a British musician is claimed to have a music ha

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Aaron David Miller is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on U.S. foreign policy. He has written five books, including his most recent, The End of Greatness: Why America Can't Have (and Doesn't Want) Another Great President (Palgrave, 2014) and The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace (Bantam, 2008). He received his PhD in Middle East and U.S. diplomatic history from the University of Michigan in 1977. Between 1978 and 2003, Miller served at the State Department as an historian, analyst, negotiator, and advisor to Republican and Democratic secretaries of state, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israel peace process, most recently as the senior advisor for Arab-Israeli negotiations. He also served as the deputy special Middle East coordinator for Arab-Israeli negotiations, senior member of the State Department's policy planning staff, in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and in the office of the historian. He has received the department's Distinguished, Superior, and Meritorious Honor Awards. Miller is a member of the  Council on Foreign Relations, and formerly served as resident scholar at the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has been a featured presenter at the World Economic Forum and leading U.S. universities. Between 2003 and 2006 he served as president of Seeds of Peace, a nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering young leaders from regions of conflict with the leadership skills required to advance reconciliation and coexistence. From 2006 to 2019, Miller was a public policy scholar; vice president for new initiatives, and director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Miller is a global affairs analyst for CNN. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Foreign Policy, USAToday, and CNN.com. He is a frequent commentator on NPR, BBC, and Sirius XM radio.   Join us Monday and Thursday's at 8EST for our  Bi Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

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.   

The 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict is a pivotal moment in the timeline of an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. While the conflict then lasted less than a year, it led to the mass displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. At the same time, it marked the declaration of the state of Israel. - 1948 کی عرب-اسرائیل جنگ اسرائیل اور فلسطین کے درمیان طویل اور پیچیدہ تاریخ میں ایک اہم موڑ ہے۔لیکن اس پرتشدد تصادم کی شدت میں اضافے کی وجہ کیا بنی، اور فلسطینی اور اسرائیلی اس جنگ کو کس طرح یاد کرتے ہیں؟

Nasser provides commentary on the history of the 1948 Nakba and current news headlines, including reports of Trump's plan to relocate one million Palestinians from Gaza to Libya, and the recent release of a U.S-Israeli captive.Nasser then unpacks and debunks some of the most common myths surrounding the Nakba, looking at the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. He also discusses the significance of the BDS movement in challenging international support for Israel's oppression of Palestinians and in pressuring Israel to comply with international law. Nakba Day rally, May 18, State Library Victoria, from 12 PM. More info.Join the Free Palestine rally every Sunday at the State Library Victoria, from 12 PM.For info on upcoming events and actions, follow APAN and Free Palestine Melbourne.Catch daily broadcast updates via Let's Talk Palestine. Image: @freepalestinemelb 

Palestinian analyst Mouin Rabbani and Iranian analyst Trita Parsi talks about the latest developments in the Middle East and whether Trump is finally sidelining Israel when it comes to Gaza, Yemen and Iran. Then Vijay Prashad discusses tensions between India and Pakistan and the 80th anniversary of the defeat of fascism. For the full discussion, please join us on Patreon at - https://www.patreon.com/posts/patreon-full-128900208 Mouin Rabbani is a researcher, analyst, and commentator specialising in Palestinian affairs, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the contemporary Middle East. He has among other positions previously served as Principal Political Affairs Officer with the Office of the UN Special Envoy for Syria, Head of Middle East with the Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation, and Senior Middle East Analyst and Special Advisor on Israel-Palestine with the International Crisis Group. Rabbani is Co-Editor of Jadaliyya, and a Contributing Editor of Middle East Report. Trita Parsi is the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute. He is the award-winning author of "Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy" and "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States" and the 2010 recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order. Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. He is the author of forty books, including Washington Bullets, Red Star Over the Third World, The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South, and The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power, written with Noam Chomsky. Vijay is the executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, the chief correspondent for Globetrotter, and the chief editor of LeftWord Books (New Delhi). He also appeared in the films Shadow World (2016) and Two Meetings (2017). Link to the book 'On The Pleasures of Living in Gaza' - https://orbooks.com/catalog/on-the-pleasures-of-living-in-gaza/ ***Please support The Katie Halper Show *** For bonus content, exclusive interviews, to support independent media & to help make this program possible, please join us on Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/thekatiehalpershow Get your Katie Halper Show Merch here! https://katiehalper.myspreadshop.com/all Follow Katie on Twitter: https://x.com/kthalps Follow Katie on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/kthalps/

Following the Oct. 7, 2023 invasion of Israel and the pogrom carried out by terrorists from Hamas and affiliated Islamist organizations, and some Gazan civilians as well, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres opined that the attack “did not happen in a vacuum.”Well, he's correct just not in the way he intended.Hebron is an ancient city 20 miles south of Jerusalem in Judea, now more usually referred to as the West Bank. Hebron is the burial place of Abraham, and Jews and Muslims lived there mostly peacefully for centuries until the morning of Aug. 24, 1929 when 67 Jewish men, women, and children were slaughtered by their Arab neighbors. It was one of the worst pogroms ever perpetrated outside of Europe, where many pogroms were perpetrated over many years.“Ghosts of a Holy War: The 1929 Massacre in Palestine That Ignited the Arab-Israeli Conflict” is a meticulously researched and beautifully written account of this pivotal event by the eminent journalist Yardena Schwartz, combining historical analysis with contemporary insights.She joins host Cliff May to discuss the Hebron massacre and the long history of Arab-Israeli conflict.

Following the Oct. 7, 2023 invasion of Israel and the pogrom carried out by terrorists from Hamas and affiliated Islamist organizations, and some Gazan civilians as well, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres opined that the attack “did not happen in a vacuum.”Well, he's correct just not in the way he intended.Hebron is an ancient city 20 miles south of Jerusalem in Judea, now more usually referred to as the West Bank. Hebron is the burial place of Abraham, and Jews and Muslims lived there mostly peacefully for centuries until the morning of Aug. 24, 1929 when 67 Jewish men, women, and children were slaughtered by their Arab neighbors. It was one of the worst pogroms ever perpetrated outside of Europe, where many pogroms were perpetrated over many years.“Ghosts of a Holy War: The 1929 Massacre in Palestine That Ignited the Arab-Israeli Conflict” is a meticulously researched and beautifully written account of this pivotal event by the eminent journalist Yardena Schwartz, combining historical analysis with contemporary insights.She joins host Cliff May to discuss the Hebron massacre and the long history of Arab-Israeli conflict.

The 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict is a pivotal moment in the timeline of an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. - Konflik Arab-Israel tahun 1948 merupakan momen penting dalam garis waktu konflik yang sedang berlangsung antara Israel dan Palestina.

The 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict is a pivotal moment in the timeline of an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. While the conflict then lasted less than a year, it led to the mass displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. At the same time, it marked the declaration of the state of Israel.

Consider DONATING to help us continue and expand our media efforts. If you cannot at this time, please share this video with someone who might benefit from it. We thank you for your support! https://tinyurl.com/HereIAmWithShaiDavidai --------- Guest: Yardena Schwartz IG: @yardenas In this episode, Shai Davidai sits down with award-winning journalist and author Yardena Schwartz to discuss her new book, "The Ghosts of a Holy War," which explores the 1929 Hebron massacre and its lasting impact on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yardena shares her personal journey from Jewish day school in the U.S. to making Aliyah and living in Israel for a decade, and how a pivotal class at Columbia Journalism School led her to investigate the complex history of Hebron. Together, Shai and Yardena delve into the city's past as a beacon of coexistence between Jews and Muslims, the realities of segregation and conflict today, and the often-overlooked nuances of Hebron's history. Yardena recounts her eye-opening experiences reporting in Hebron, the significance of the 1929 massacre, and the ongoing effects of disinformation and incitement in the region. The conversation offers a thoughtful look at history, identity, and the challenges of understanding the roots of conflict. Book available here: https://beacons.ai/yardenas?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaf-936pKmDSwiUWFaYLE-W-rK3RKy_pVjnjg7DnJRwZ9cCmG9KE60goVW6i_Q_aem_lPtfRA5utSkA4xcNyzHYTg

In today’s episode, Joel and Lynn celebrate Israel’s 77th anniversary, diving into history, prophecy, and personal reflection. They discuss the challenges Israel faces today—including ongoing war and devastating forest fires—while highlighting the countless reasons to love and support Israel. Joel shares his top reasons for loving Israel, from its prophetic rebirth to its international contributions. Learn why Israel’s existence is evidence of God’s faithfulness, and how you can support, pray for, and better understand what God is doing in the region. (00:02) Israel at 77: God’s Faithfulness Through History(01:21) The Joshua Fund’s Mission & U.S. Tour(06:20) War, Forest Fires & Disrupted Celebrations(09:10) Joy and Sorrow: The Passover Lesson(11:36) Why We Love Israel: Joel’s Top 10 List(21:22) Marking Independence: Modern Miracles(26:21) Mandatory Service and Family Sacrifice(33:26) Innovation: Trees, Drip Irrigation, Tech, & More(36:57) Social Progress: Women & Arab Israelis in Leadership(40:23) Israeli Inventions: Waze, Rummikub, PlayStation(42:28) Prophetic Promises for Israel’s Future(46:14) Prayer & Support for Israel in Crisis(47:08) What’s Next: Future Tours & Support Opportunities Learn more about The Joshua Fund: JoshuaFund.comMake a tax-deductible donation: Donate | The Joshua FundStock Media provided by DimmySad / Pond5 Verse of the Day:Isaiah 35:1-2"The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad; the desert shall rejoice and blossom like the crocus. It shall blossom abundantly and rejoice with joy and singing..." Prayer:Pray for the nation of Israel as they celebrate 77 years of independence in the midst of war and trauma. Ask God to strengthen the weak, comfort those grieving, heal those in pain, and bring peace to every part of the epicenter. Pray for the safe return of hostages and true reconciliation among all peoples in the region. Links For Reference I have loved you with an everlasting love’: 77 reasons I love Israel as she turns 77 https://allisrael.com/i-have-loved-you-with-an-everlasting-love-77-reasons-i-love-israel-as-she-turns-77 https://www.inspirationtravel.com/tja https://www.joshuafund.com/learn/latest-news/join-us-on-our-alaska-cruise Donate a generous monthly gift to The Joshua Fund to bless Israel and Her Neighbors now and for the long haul. Become an Epicenter Ally today! Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Few analysts are more familiar with the politics of both contemporary Turkey and the United States than my old friend , the distinguished Turkish political scientist Soli Ozel. Drawing on his decades of experience in both countries, Ozel, currently a senior fellow at the Institut Montaigne, explains how democratic institutions are similarly being challenged in Trump's America and Erdogan's Turkey. He discusses the imprisonment of Istanbul's popular mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, restrictive speech in American universities, and how economic decline eventually undermines authoritarian regimes. Ozel emphasizes that effective opposition requires both public discontent and compelling leadership alternatives, which Turkey has developed but America currently sorely lacks. Most intriguingly, he suggests that Harvard's legal battle against Trump could be as significant as the 1925 Scopes trial which marked the end of another bout of anti-scientific hysteria in America. 5 Key Takeaways* Populist authoritarianism follows a similar pattern regardless of left/right ideology - controlling judiciary, media, and institutions while claiming to represent "the people" against elites.* Academic freedom in America has declined significantly, with Ozel noting he experienced more classroom freedom in Turkey than at Yale in 2019.* Economic pain combined with a crisis of legitimacy is crucial for challenging authoritarian regimes, but requires credible opposition leadership to succeed.* Istanbul mayor Imamoglu has emerged as a powerful opposition figure in Turkey by appealing across political divides and demonstrating practical governance skills.* Turkey's strategic importance has increased due to its position between war zones (Syria and Ukraine) and Europe's growing need for security partners as American support becomes less certain. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. It's not great news these days that the U.S. Brand has been, so to speak, tarnished as a headline today on CNN. I'm quoting them. CNN, of course, is not Donald Trump's biggest fan. Trump tarnishes the U S brand as a rock of stability in the global economy. I'm not sure if the US was ever really a rock of stability for anything except itself. But we on the show as. As loyal viewers and listeners know, we've been going around the world, taking stock of the US brand, how it's viewed around the word. We did a show last week with Simon Cooper, the Dutch-based Paris writer of the Financial Times, who believes it's time for all Americans to come and live in Europe. And then with Jemima Kelly, another London-based correspondent. And I thought we would broaden. I asked european perspective by visiting my old friend very old friend Soli Ozel. iVve known him for almost forty years he's a. Senior fellow of international relations and turkey at the montane institute he's talking to us from vienna but he is a man who is born and spends a lot of his time thinking about. Turkey, he has an interesting new piece out in the Institute Montaigne. Turkey, a crisis of legitimacy and massive social mobilization in a regional power. I want to talk to Soli later in this conversation about his take on what's happening in Turkey. But first of all, Soli, before we went live, you noted that you first came to America in September 1977. You were educated here, undergraduate, graduate, both at uh, sized in Washington DC and then at UC Berkeley, where you and I studied together at the graduate program. Um, how do you feel almost 50 years, sorry, we're dating ourselves, but how did you feel taking off your political science cap, your analyst cap, how did you feel about what's happening in America as, as a man who invested your life in some ways in the promise of America, and particularly American education universities.Soli Ozel: Yeah, I mean, I, yes, I came to the States or I went to the States in September of 1977. It was a very different America, post Vietnam. And I went through an avant garde college liberal arts college.Andrew Keen: Bennington wasn'tSoli Ozel: Bennington College, and I've spent about 11 years there. And you and I met in 1983 in Berkeley. And then I also taught at American universities. I taught at UC Santa Cruz, Northwestern, SAIS itself, University of Washington, Yale, and had fellowships in different parts. Now, of course, in those years, a lot has changed in the US. The US has changed. In fact, I'm writing a piece now on Christopher Lash. And reading Christopher Lasch work from the 60s and the 1970s, in a way, you wonder why Trumpism has not really emerged a bit earlier than when it did. So, a lot of the... Dynamics that have brought Donald Trump to power, not once, but twice, and in spite of the fact that, you know, he was tried and found guilty and all that. Many of those elements have been there definitely since the 1980s, but Lascch identified especially this divergence between educated people and less educated people between brainies and or the managerial class and the working class in the United States. So, in a way, it looks like the Trumpism's triumph came even a bit late, although there were a couple of attempts perhaps in the early 1990s. One was Pat Buchanan and the other one, Ross Perot, which we forget that Ross Perot got 19% of the vote against in the contest when Bill Clinton. Won the election against George H.W. Bush. So underground, if you will, a lot was happening in the United States.Andrew Keen: All right. And it's interesting you bring up Lash, there's that sort of whole school Lasch Daniel Bell, of course, we had Daniel Bell's son, David Bell, on the show recently. And there's a lot of discussion, as I'm sure you know, about the nativism of Trump, whether it's uniquely American, whether it was somehow inevitable. We've done last week, we did a show about comparing what's happening now in America to what happened after the First World War. Being less analytical, Solé, my question was more an emotional one to you as someone who has built their life around freedom of expression in American universities. You were at Bennington, you were at SICE, you're at UC Berkeley, as you know, you taught at UC Santa Cruz and Yale and many other places. You come in and out of this country giving lectures. How do you personally feel about what's happening?Soli Ozel: Yeah, okay. I mean, in that sense, again, the United States, by the way, I mean the United States has been changing independently of Mr. Trump's presidency. It was much more difficult to be, I mean when I went to college in Bennington College, you really did not bite your tongue when you were going to speak either as a student or a professor. And increasingly, and especially in my last bout at Yale in 2019, I felt that, you know, there were a lot of constraints on what you could say or how you could say it, whether you would call it walkism, political correctness, whatever it was. It was a much, the atmosphere at the university was much more constrained in terms of what transpired in the classroom and that I mean, in Turkey, I had more freedom in terms of how we debated things in class that I felt that...Andrew Keen: That is astonishing. So you had more freedom in...Soli Ozel: As well, you did in Yale in 1990. I'm talking about not the political aspect of things, but how you debate something, okay, whether or not, I mean, there would be lots of views and you could you could present them without insulting anyone, however you presented them was fine, and this is how what the dynamics of the classroom had been when I was a student. So, in that sense, I guess it wasn't just the right that constrained speech, but also the left that constrained the speech, because new values were added or new norms were invented to define what can and cannot be said. And of course, that goes against the grain of what a university education ought to be. I mean, I had colleagues. In major universities who told me that they really were biting their tongue when they were giving their lectures. And that is not my understanding of education or college education and that certainly has not been my experience when I came to the States and for my long education here for 11 years.Andrew Keen: Solit, you and I have a long history of thinking about the Middle East, where back in the early 80s, we TA'd a class on the Arab-Israeli conflict with Yaya Sadowski, who at that time was a very independent thinker. I know he was a close friend of yours. I was always very influenced by his thinking. You're from Izmir, from a Jewish family in Turkey. So you're all too familiar with the complexity of anti-Semitism, Israel, the Middle East, Turkey. What do you personally make of this hysteria now on campus about anti-semitism and throwing out anyone, it seems, at least from the Trump point of view, who are pro-Palestinian? Is this again, I mean, you went back to Christopher Lasch and his thinking on populism and the dangers of populism in America. Or is this something that... Comes out of the peculiarities of American history. We have predicted this 40 years ago when you and I were TAing Sadowski's class on Arab-Israeli conflict at Berkeley.Soli Ozel: The Arab-Israeli conflict always raises passions, if you will. And it's no different. To put it mildly, Salvador, I think. Yeah, it is a bit different now. I mean, of course, my hunch is that anti-Semitism is always present. There is no doubt. And although I followed the developments very closely after October 7. I was not in there physically present. I had some friends, daughters and sons who were students who have reported to me because I'm supposed to know something about those matters. So yeah, antisemitism is there. On the other hand, there is also some exaggeration. We know that a lot of the protesters, for instance, were Jews themselves. But my hunch is that the Trump administration, especially in their attack against elite universities, are using this for political purposes. I'm sure there were other ways of handling this. I don't find it very sincere. And a real problem is being dealt with in a very manipulative political way, I think. Other and moreover So long as there was no violence and I know there were instances of violence that should be punished that I don't have any complaints about, but partially if this is only related to what you say, I'm not sure that this is how a university or relations between students at the university ought to be conducted. If you're not going to be able to say what you think at the university, then what else are you going to say? Are you going be able say it? So this is a much more complicated matter than it is being presented. And as I said, my view or based on what I follow that is happening at colleges, this is being used as an excuse. As somebody I think Peter Beinhart wrote today in the New York Times. He says, No, no, no. It is not really about protecting Jewish students, but it is protecting a certain... Type of Jewish students, and that means it's a political decision, the complaints, legitimate complaints, perhaps, of some students to use those against university administrations or universities themselves that the Trump administration seems to be targeting.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's interesting you bring up Beinart. He was on the show a year or two ago. I think he notes that, I mean, I don't want to put words into his mouth, but he seems to be suggesting that Jews now have a responsibility almost to speak out, not just obviously about what's happening in the U.S., but certainly about what is happening in Gaza. I'm not sure what you think on.Soli Ozel: He just published a book, he just published the book being Jewish in the US after Gaza or something along those lines. He represents a certain way of thinking about what had happened in Gaza, I mean what had happened to Israel with the attack of Hamas and what had happened afterwards, whether or not he represents the majority. Do you agree with him? I happen to be. I happen to be sympathetic to his views. And especially when you read the book at the beginning, it says, look, he's a believer. Believer meaning he is a practicing Jew. So this is not really a question about his own Jewishness, but how he understands what being a Jew actually means. And from that perspective, putting a lot of accent to the moral aspects of Jewish history and Jewish theological and secular thinking, He is rebelling, if you will, against this way of manipulative use. On the part of some Jewish organizations as well of what had gone on and this is this he sees as a along with others actually he also sees this as a threat to Jewish presence in the United States. You know there is a simultaneous increase in in anti-semitism. And some people argue that this has begun even before October 7. Let us not forget Charlottesville when the crowds that were deemed to be nice people were chanting, Jews will not replace us, and those people are still around. Yeah, a lot of them went to jail.Andrew Keen: Yeah, I mean Trump seemed to have pardoned some of them. And Solly, what do you make of quote-unquote the resistance to Trump in the U.S.? You're a longtime observer of authoritarianism, both personally and in political science terms. One of the headlines the last few days is about the elite universities forming a private collective to resist the Trump administration. Is this for real and is it new? Should we admire the universities or have they been forced into this position?Soli Ozel: Well, I mean, look, you started your talk with the CNN title. Yeah, about the brand, the tarnishing of the U.S. Whatever the CNN stands for. The thing is, there is no question that what is happening today and what has been happening in my judgment over the last two years, particularly on the issue of Gaza, I would not... Exonerate the Biden administration and the way it actually managed its policy vis-a-vis that conflict. There is, of course, a reflection on American policy vis a vis that particular problem and with the Trump administration and 100 days of storm, if you will, around the world, there is a shift in the way people look at the United States. I think it is not a very favorable shift in terms of how people view and understand the United States. Now, that particular thing, the colleges coming together, institutions in the United States where the Americans are very proud of their Madisonian institutions, they believe that that was there. Uh, if you will, insurance policy against an authoritarian drift in their system. Those institutions, both public institutions and private institutions actually proved to be paper tigers. I mean, look at corporations that caved in, look at law firms that arcade that have caved in, Look at Columbia university being, if you will the most egregious example of caving in and plus still not getting the money or not actually stopping the demands that are made on it. So Harvard after equivocating on this finally came up with a response and decided to take the risk of losing massive sums of grants from the federal government. And in fact, it's even suing. The Trump administration for withholding the money that was supposed to go to them. And I guess there is an awakening and the other colleges in order to protect freedom of expression, in order, to protect the independence of higher education in this country, which has been sacrosanct, which is why a lot of people from all around the world, students... Including you and I, right? I mean, that's why we... Yeah, exactly. By the way, it's anywhere between $44 and $50 billion worth of business as well. Then it is there finally coming together, because if you don't hang together, you'll hang separately, is a good American expression that I like. And then trying to defend themselves. And I think this Harvard slope suit, the case of Harvard, is going to be like the Stokes trial of the 1920s on evolution. It's going to be a very similar case, I believe, and it may determine how American democracy goes from now.Andrew Keen: Interesting. You introduced me to Ece Temelkuren, another of your friends from someone who no longer lives in Turkey. She's a very influential Turkish columnist, polemicist. She wrote a famous book, How to Lose a Country. She and you have often compared Turkey. With the rest of the world suggesting that what you're going through in Turkey is the kind of canary in the coal mine for the rest the world. You just came out with a piece, Turkey, a crisis of legitimacy, a massive social mobilization and regional power. I want to get to the details of what's happening in Turkey first. But like Ece, do you see Turkey as the kind of canary and the coalmine that you got into this first? You're kind of leading the narrative of how to address authoritarianism in the 25th century.Soli Ozel: I don't think Turkey was the first one. I think the first one was Hugo Chavez. And then others followed. Turkey certainly is a prominent one. But you know, you and I did other programs and in an earlier era, about 15 years ago. Turkey was actually doing fine. I mean, it was a candidate for membership, still presumably, formally, a candidate for membership in the European Union, but at the time when that thing was alive. Turkey did, I mean, the AKP government or Erdogan as prime minister did a lot of things that were going in the right direction. They certainly demilitarized Turkish politics, but increasingly as they consolidated themselves in power, they moved in a more authoritarian path. And of course, after the coup attempt in 2016 on the 15th of July, that trend towards authoritarianism had been exacerbated and but with the help of a very sui generis if you will unaccountable presidential system we are we find ourselves where we are but The thing is what has been missed out by many abroad was that there was also a very strong resistance that had remained actually unbowing for a long time. And Istanbul, which is, of course, almost a fifth of Turkey's population, 32 percent of its economy, and that's where the pulse of the country actually beats, since 2017 did not vote for Mr Erdogan. I mean, referendum, general election, municipal election. It hasn't, it hasn't. And that is that really, it really represents the future. And today, the disenchantment or discontent has now become much broader, much more broadly based because conservative Anatolia is also now feeling the biting of the economy. And this sense of justice in the country has been severely damaged. And That's what I think explains. The kinds of reaction we had throughout the country to the first arrest and then incarceration of the very popular mayor of Istanbul who is a national figure and who was seen as the main contender for the presidency in the elections that are scheduled to take place in.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I want to talk more about Turkey's opposition and an interesting New York Times editorial. But before we get there, Soli, you mentioned that the original model was Chavez in Venezuela, of course, who's always considered a leftist populist, whereas Erdogan, Trump, etc., and maybe Netanyahu are considered populists of the right. Is that a useful? Bifurcation in ideological terms or a populist populism that the idea of Chavez being different from Trump because one's on the left and right is really a 20th century mistake or a way of thinking about the 21st century using 20th-century terms.Soli Ozel: Okay, I mean the ideological proclivities do make a difference perhaps, but at the end of the day, what all these populist movements represent is the coming of age or is the coming to power of country elites. Suggests claiming to represent the popular classes whom they say and who are deprived of. Uh, benefits of holding power economically or politically, but once they get established in power and with the authoritarian tilt doesn't really make a distinction in terms of right or wrong. I mean, is Maduro the successor to Chavez a rightist or a leftist? I mean does it really make a difference whether he calls himself a leftists or a rightists? I is unaccountable, is authoritarian. He loses elections and then he claims that he wins these elections and so the ideology that purportedly brought them to power becomes a fig leaf, if you will, justification and maybe the language that they use in order to justify the existing authoritarianism. In that sense, I don't think it makes a difference. Maybe initially it could have made a difference, We have seen populist leaders. Different type of populism perhaps in Latin America. For instance, the Peruvian military was supposed to be very leftist, whereas the Chilean or the Brazilian or the Argentinian or the Uruguayan militaries were very right-wing supported by the church itself. Nicaragua was supposed to be very Leftist, right? They had a revolution, the Sandinista revolution. And look at Daniel Ortega today, does it really matter that he claims himself to be a man of the left? I mean, He runs a family business in Nicaragua. And so all those people who were so very excited about the Nicaraguan Revolution some 45 years ago must be extraordinarily disappointed. I mean, of course, I was also there as a student and wondering what was going to happen in Nicaragua, feeling good about it and all that. And that turned out to be an awful dictatorship itself.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and on this sense, I think you're on the same page as our mutual friend, Moises Naim, who wrote a very influential book a couple of years ago. He's been on the show many times about learning all this from the Latin American playbook because of his experience in Venezuela. He has a front row on this. Solly, is there one? On this, I mean, as I said, you just come out with a piece on the current situation in Turkey and talk a little bit more detail, but is America a few stops behind Turkey? I mean you mentioned that in Turkey now everyone, not just the urban elites in Istanbul, but everyone in the country is beginning to experience the economic decline and consequences of failed policies. A lot of people are predicting the same of Trump's America in the next year or two. Is there just one route in this journey? Is there's just one rail line?Soli Ozel: Like by what the root of established wow a root in the sense of youAndrew Keen: Erdogan or Trump, they come in, they tell lots of lies, they promise a lot of stuff, and then ultimately they can't deliver. Whatever they're promising, the reverse often happens. The people they're supposed to be representing are actually victims of their policies. We're seeing it in America with the consequences of the tariff stuff, of inflation and rise of unemployment and the consequences higher prices. It has something similar. I think of it as the Liz Truss effect, in the sense that the markets ultimately are the truth. And Erdogan, I know, fought the markets and lost a few years ago in Turkey too.Soli Ozel: There was an article last week in Financial Times Weekend Edition, Mr. Trump versus Mr. Market. Trump versus, Mr. Market. Look, first of all, I mean, in establishing a system, the Orban's or Modi's, they all follow, and it's all in Ece's book, of course. You have to control the judiciary, you have to control the media, and then all the institutions. Gradually become under your thumb. And then the way out of it is for first of all, of course, economic problems, economic pain, obviously makes people uncomfortable, but it will have to be combined with the lack of legitimacy, if you will. And that is, I don't think it's right, it's there for in the United States as of yet, but the shock has been so. Robust, if you will, that the reaction to Trump is also rising in a very short period, in a lot shorter period of time than it did in other parts of the world. But economic conditions, the fact that they worsen, is an important matter. But there are other conditions that need to be fulfilled. One of those I would think is absolutely the presence of a political leader that defies the ones in power. And I think when I look at the American scene today, one of the problems that may, one of problems that the political system seems to have, which of course, no matter how economically damaging the Trump administration may be, may not lead to an objection to it. To a loss of power in the midterms to begin with, is lack of leadership in the Democratic Party and lack of a clear perspective that they can share or program that they present to the public at large. Without that, the ones that are in power hold a lot of cards. I mean, it took Turkey about... 18 years after the AKP came to power to finally have potential leaders, and only in 2024 did it become very apparent that now Turkey had more than one leader that could actually challenge Erdogan, and that they also had, if not to support the belief in the public, that they could also run the country. Because if the public does not believe that you are competent enough to manage the affairs of the state or to run the country, they will not vote for you. And leadership truly is an extraordinarily important factor in having democratic change in such systems, what we call electoral authoritarian.Andrew Keen: So what's happened in Turkey in terms of the opposition? The mayor of Istanbul has emerged as a leader. There's an attempt to put him in jail. You talk about the need for an opposition. Is he an ideological figure or just simply younger, more charismatic? More attractive on the media. What do you need and what is missing in the US and what do you have in Turkey? Why are you a couple of chapters ahead on this?Soli Ozel: Well, it was a couple of chapters ahead because we have had the same government or the same ruler for 22 years now.Andrew Keen: And Imamo, I wanted you to pronounce it, Sali, because my Turkish is dreadful. It's worse than most of the other.Soli Ozel: He is the mayor of Istanbul who is now in jail and whose diploma was annulled by the university which actually gave him the diploma and the reason why that is important is if you want to run for president in Turkey, you've got to have a college degree. So that's how it all started. And then he was charged with corruption and terrorism. And he's put in zero. Oh, it's terrorism. There was.Andrew Keen: It's terrorism, they always throw the terrorist bit in, don't they, Simon?Soli Ozel: Yeah, but that dossier is, for the moment, pending. It has not been closed, but it is pending. Anyway, he is young, but his major power is that he can touch all segments of society, conservative, nationalist, leftist. And that's what makes people compare him also with Erdogan who also had a touch of appealing to different segments of the population. But of course, he's secular. He's not ideological, he's a practical man. And Istanbul's population is about anywhere between 16 and 18 million people. It's larger than many countries in Europe. And to manage a city like Istanbul requires really good managerial skills. And Imamoglu managed this in spite of the fact that central government cut its resources, made sure that there was obstruction in every step that he wanted to take, and did not help him a bit. And that still was continuing. Still, he won once. Then there was a repeat election. He won again. And this time around, he one with a landslide, 54% against 44% of his opponent, which had all theAndrew Keen: So the way you're presenting him, is he running as a technocrat or is he running as a celebrity?Soli Ozel: No, he's running as a politician. He's running a politician, he is a popular politician. Maybe you can see tinges of populism in him as well, but... He is what, again, what I think his incarceration having prompted such a wide ranging segments of population really kind of rebelling against this incarceration has to do with the fact that he has resonance in Anatolia. Because he does not scare conservative people. He aspires the youth because he speaks to them directly and he actually made promises to them in Istanbul that he kept, he made their lives easier. And he's been very creative in helping the poorer segments of Istanbul with a variety of programs. And he has done this without really being terribly pushing. So, I mean, I think I sense that the country sees him as its next ruler. And so to attack him was basically tampering with the verdict of the ballot box. That's, I, think how the Turkish public interpreted it. And for good historical reasons, the ballot box is really pretty sacred in Turkey. We usually have upwards of 80% of participation in the election.Andrew Keen: And they're relatively, I mean, not just free, but the results are relatively honest. Yeah, there was an interesting New York Times editorial a couple of days ago. I sent it over. I'm sure you'd read it anyway. Turkey's people are resisting autocracy. They deserve more than silence. I mean from Trump, who has very peculiar relations, he has peculiar relations with everyone, but particularly it seems with Turkey does, in your view, does Turkey needs or the resistance or the mayor of Istanbul this issue, need more support from the US? Would it make any difference?Soli Ozel: Well, first of all, the current American administration didn't seem to particularly care that the arrest and incarceration of the mayor of Istanbul was a bit, to say the least, was awkward and certainly not very legal. I mean, Mario Rubio said, Marco Rubio said that he had concerns. But Mr. Witkoff, in the middle of demonstrations that were shaking the country, Mr. Witkof said it to Tucker Carlson's show that there were very wonderful news coming out of Turkey. And of course, President Trump praised Erdogan several times. They've been on the phone, I think, five times. And he praised Erdogan in front of Bibi Netanyahu, which obviously Bibi Netanyah did not particularly appreciate either. So obviously the American administration likes Mr. Erdogans and will support him. And whatever the Turkish public may or may not want, I don't think is of great interest toAndrew Keen: What about the international dimension, sorry, Putin, the Ukrainian war? How does that play out in terms of the narrative unfolding in Turkey?Soli Ozel: Well, first of all, of course, when the Assad regime fell,Andrew Keen: Right, and as that of course. And Syria of course as well posts that.Soli Ozel: Yeah, I mean, look, Turkey is in the middle of two. War zones, no? Syria was one and the Ukraine is the other. And so when the regime fell and it was brought down by groups that were protected by Turkey in Idlib province of Syria. Everybody argued, and I think not wrongly, that Turkey would have a lot of say over the future of Syria. And I think it will. First of all, Turkey has about 600 miles or 911 kilometer border with Syria and the historical relations.Andrew Keen: And lots of Syrian refugees, of course.Soli Ozel: At the peak, there were about 4 million, I think it's now going down. President Erdogan said that about 200,000 already went back since the overthrow of the regime. And then of course, to the north, there is Ukraine, Russia. And of course this elevates Turkey's strategic importance or geopolitical importance. Another issue that raises Turkish geopolitical importance is, of course, the gradual withdrawal of the United States from providing security to Europe under the umbrella of NATO, North Atlantic Alliance. And as the Europeans are being forced to fetch for themselves for their security, non-EU members of NATO such as Britain, Norway, Turkey, their importance becomes more accentuated as well. And so Turkey and the European Union were in the process of at least somewhat normalizing their relations and their dialog. So what happened domestically, therefore, did not get much of a reaction from the EU, which is supposed to be this paragon of rights and liberties and all that. But But it also left Turkey in a game in an awkward situation, I would think, because things could have gone much, much better. The rapprochement with the European Union could have moved a lot more rapidly, I will think. But geopolitical advantages are there. Obviously, the Americans care a lot for it. And whatever it is that they're negotiating with the Turkish government, we will soon find out. It is a... It is a country that would help stabilize Syria. And that's what President Trump also said, that he would adjudicate between Israel and Turkey over Syria, because these two countries which have been politically at odds, but strategically usually in very good terms. Whether or not the, so to avoid a clash between the two in Syria was important for him. So Turkey's international situation will continue to be important, but I think without the developments domestically, Turkey's position and profile would have been much more solid.Andrew Keen: Comparing US and Turkey, the US military has never participated, at least overtly, in politics, whereas the Turkish military, of course, has historically. Where's the Turkish Military on this? What are they thinking about these imprisonments and the increasing unpopularity of the current regime?Soli Ozel: I think the demilitarization of the Turkish political system was accomplished by the end of the 2000s, so I don't think anybody knows what the military thinks and I'm not sure that anybody really wonders what the army thinks. I think Erdogan has certainly on the top echelons of the military, it has full control. Whether or not the cadets in the Turkish military are lower echelons. Do have political views at odds with that of the government that is not visible. And I don't think the Turkish military should be designing or defining our political system. We have an electorate. We do have a fairly, how shall I say, a public that is fairly attuned to its own rights. And believes certainly in the sanctity of the ballot box, it's been resisting for quite some time and it is defying the authorities and we should let that take its course. I don't think we need the military to do it.Andrew Keen: Finally, Soli, you've been very generous with your time from Vienna. It's late afternoon there. Let's end where we began with this supposed tarnishing of the U.S. Brand. As we noted earlier, you and I have invested our lives, if for better or worse, in the U S brand. We've always been critical, but we've also been believers in this. It's also important in this brand.Soli Ozel: It is an important grant.Andrew Keen: So how do we, and I don't like this term, maybe there is a better term, brands suggest marketing, something not real, but there is something real about the US. How do we re-establish, or I don't know what the word is, a polish rather than tarnish the US brand? What needs to happen in the U.S.Soli Ozel: Well, I think we will first have to see the reinvigoration of institutions in the United States that have been assaulted. That's why I think the Harvard case... Yeah, and I love you.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I love your idea of comparing it to the Scopes trial of 1926. We probably should do a whole show on that, it's fascinating idea.Soli Ozel: Okay, and then the Democratic Party will have to get its act together. I don't know how long it will take for them to get their act together, they have not been very...Andrew Keen: Clever. But some Democrats will say, well, there's more than one party. The Sanders AOC wing has done its job. People like Gavin Newsom are trying to do their job. I mean, you can't have an official party. There's gonna be a debate. There already is a debate within the party between the left and the right.Soli Ozel: The thing is, debates can be endless, and I don't think there is time for that. First of all, I think the decentralized nature of American governance is also an advantage. And I think that the assault has been so forceful that everybody has woken up to it. It could have been the frog method, you know, that is... Yeah, the boiling in the hot water. So, already people have begun to jump and that is good, that's a sign of vitality. And therefore, I think in due time, things will be evolving in a different direction. But, for populist or authoritarian inclined populist regimes, control of the institutions is very important, so you've got to be alert. And what I discovered, studying these things and looking at the practice. Executive power is a lot of power. So separation of powers is fine and good, but the thing is executive power is really very... Prominent and the legislature, especially in this particular case with the Republican party that has become the instrument of President Trump, and the judiciary which resists but its power is limited. I mean, what do you do when a court decision is not abided by the administration? You cannot send the police to the White House.Andrew Keen: Well, you might have to, that's why I asked the military question.Soli Ozel: Well, it's not up to the military to do this, somehow it will have to be resolved within the civilian democratic system, no matter where. Yes, the decks are stacked against the opposition in most of these cases, but then you'll have to fight. And I think a lot hinges on how corporations are going to react from now on. They have bet on Trump, and I suppose that many of them are regretting because of the tariffs. I just was at a conference, and there was a German business person who said that he has a factory in Germany and a factory in Ohio. And he told me that within three months there would not be any of the goods that he produces on the shelves because of tariffs. Once this begins to hit, then you may see a different dynamic in the country as well, unless the administration takes a U-turn. But if it does take a U turn, it will also have weakened itself, both domestically and internationally.Andrew Keen: Yeah, certainly, to put it mildly. Well, as we noted, Soli, what's real is economics. The rest is perhaps froth or lies or propaganda. Soli Ozel: It's a necessary condition. Without that deteriorating, you really cannot get things on values done.Andrew Keen: In other words, Marx was right, but perhaps in a slightly different context. We're not going to get into Marx today, Soli, we're going to get you back on the show. Cause I love that comparison with the current, the Harvard Trump legal thing, comparing it to Scopes. I think I hadn't thought of that. It's a very interesting idea. Keep well, keep safe, keep telling the truth from Central Europe and Turkey. As always, Solia, it's an honor to have you on the show. Thank you so much.Soli Ozel: Thank you, Andrew, for having me.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

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.

Youtube link: https://youtu.be/nqSKd_JsrEo?si=CFAZyu69trUVxwRJ Former State Department employee and Secretary General of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition, Dr. Mudar Zahran, accuses Jordan's King Abdullah of "apartheid" against its (Arab) Palestinians who comprise 78% of British Mandated Palestine. Dr. Zahran cited Jordanian law which confirms that all refugees from Gaza are indeed Jordanian citizens, yet they are deprived of many jobs and government positions. In Jordan, according to Dr. Zahran, Palestinians are given a special stamp in their passports to distinguish them as NOT being Jordanian, further evidence, according to Zahran, that Jordan is an apartheid state. Zahran said that antisemitism in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria is at record levels, and that if given the opportunity, they would commit greater atrocities against the Jews than Hamas did on October 7. He went on to say that following October 7, "sadly, I've never seen my people happier... in the West Bank." He believes it would take 20-30 years to undo all the damage and indoctrination infecting these people. While trying to draw a distinction between the Arabs in Gaza versus the Arabs under the PA, he said that many Gazans voted for Hamas, not only because they believed Hamas would "get rid of the Jews," but that they would end the corruption of the PA. What they got in the end was Israel standing stronger than ever, and living under a Hamas that was more corrupt than the PA. During the interview, Zahran was emphatic, that barring another "pandemic," President Trump would be the President to end that Arab/Israeli conflict. Alan Skorski Reports 02APR2025 - PODCAST

ISGAP leaders Dr. Charles Asher Small and David Harris are joined by NYT bestselling author Samuel M. Katz, renowned for his extensive work on the Arab-Israeli conflict, counterterrorism and special operations in military. 

George Wardini returns to The Beirut Banyan. We look back to 1983 and discuss similarities in the relative calm Lebanon experienced following Israel's siege of Beirut and expulsion of Arafat from Lebanon. We also examine post-2024 war developments and security risks related to attempts at disarmament, what the potential of a wider Arab-Israeli peace deal under the Trump administration could mean for Lebanon, the need for the government to make Lebanon's case against Iran's inclinations to hold onto Hezbollah as a proxy militia, and why caution over confrontation remains the preferred mode of governance. George Wardini is the founder and director of PolyBlog. The podcast is only made possible through listener and viewer donations. Please help support The Beirut Banyan by contributing via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/walkbeirut Or donating through our Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/thebeirutbanyan Subscribe to our YouTube channel and your preferred audio platform. Follow us on Facebook, Instagram & Twitter: @thebeirutbanyan And check out our website: www.beirutbanyan.com Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 1:59 What changed 6:17 Caution vs Confrontation 11:37 Question of disarmament 14:50 Trump & Iran 22:15 “Peace” 28:59 Conflicting message 35:11 Measuring success 38:47 Lebanon's case 42:27 Current govt support 47:21 Abnormal state 51:09 Network of interests 53:04 Personal evolution

Yahya Mahamid, born and raised in Umm Al Fahm, is an inspiring Arab Israeli speaker, educator and activist who volunteered as a combat infantry soldier in the IDF.For more, you can follow the show on Instagram @GraceforimpactpodcastProduced by Peoples Media Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Occupied Thoughts, FMEP Fellow Peter Beinart speaks with analyst Mouin Rabbani about the current state of affairs, including: the potential for Gaza ceasefire negotiations, Palestinian political dynamics and possibilities, Israeli aspirations and actions in Syria and the Syrian regime's response, and the Trump administration's "unpredictable and erratic" policymaking. Mouin Rabbani is a nonresident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. He is a researcher, analyst, and commentator specializing in Palestinian affairs, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and contemporary Middle East issues. Among other previous positions, Rabbani served as principal political affairs officer with the Office of the UN Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria, head of the Middle East unit with the Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation, and senior Middle East analyst and special advisor on Israel-Palestine with the International Crisis Group. He was also a researcher with Al-Haq, the West Bank affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists.  Rabbani is a co-editor of Jadaliyya, where he also hosts the Connections podcast and edits its Quick Thoughts feature. He is also the managing editor and associate editor of the Journal of Peacebuilding and Development and a contributing editor of Middle East Report. In addition, Rabbani is a nonresident fellow at the Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies (CHS) and at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN).  Peter Beinart is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Foundation for Middle East Peace. He is also a Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the City University of New York, a Contributing opinion writer at the New York Times, an Editor-at-Large at Jewish Currents, and an MSNBC Political Commentator. His newest book (published 2025) is Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning. Original music by Jalal Yaquoub.

For today's episode, Lawfare General Counsel and Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Joel Braunold, the Managing Director for the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace and a Contributing Editor at Lawfare, to discuss the end of the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire and other recent developments relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict.Together, they discussed how the terms of the ceasefire were changing, recent tensions between Israel and the new Syrian regime over threats to Druze communities, and how the Trump administration is trying to navigate it all. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ukrainian-American journalist Lev Golinkin and co-host of Radio War Nerd at Patreon Mark Ames reveal the inconvenient truths about Zelensky and the Ukraine War. Rami Khouri and Helena Cobban talk about the cease-fire, what's really happening in Gaza, what Netanyahu is really doing, understanding Hamas and why it matters. For the full discussion, please join us on Patreon at - https://www.patreon.com/posts/patreon-lev-mark-123120837 Lev Golinkin is the author of A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka, Amazon's Debut of the Month, a Barnes & Noble Discover Great New Writers program selection, and winner of the Premio Salerno Libro d'Europa. A graduate of Boston College, Golinkin came to the U.S. as a child refugee from the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkov (now called Kharkiv) in 1990. His writing on the Ukraine crisis, Russia, the far right, and immigrant and refugee identity has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, NBC, The Boston Globe, Politico Europe, and Time.com, among others; he has been interviewed by MSNBC, NPR, ABC Radio, WSJ Live and HuffPost Live. Rami Khouri is a Palestinian American journalist and a senior public policy fellow at the American University of Beirut, as well as a nonresident senior fellow at the Arab Center Washington DC. Khouri served as editor of the Jordan Times newspaper in Amman, Jordan, and the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut, Lebanon, as well as general manager of Al-Kutba publishers in Amman. He was co-recipient of the Pax Christi International Peace Award for his efforts to bring peace and reconciliation to the Middle East, and has served on the advisory boards of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Harvard Divinity School, and Northwestern University in Qatar. Khouri is also a syndicated columnist with Agence Global syndicate (USA), an author, and a frequent analyst and commentator in international media, including BBC, Aljazeera, NPR, and CNN. He is the co-editor of the book: 'Understanding Hamas: And Why That Matters.' Helena Cobban is a writer and researcher on international affairs who lives in Washington DC. In 1984, Cambridge U.P. published her seminal study The Palestinian Liberation Organisation. Three of her six other sole-authored books dealt with political and strategic developments in the Arab-Israeli theater, the rest with more global matters. For 17 years she contributed a regular column on global issues to The Christian Science Monitor and Al-Hayat (London).In 2010 she founded Just World Books, which has published ground-breaking titles by Palestinian, Zionism-questioning Jewish, and other authors; and in 2016 she was a co-founder of Just World Educational, which she now serves as president. Her current main writing platform is Globalities.org. Link to the book 'Understanding Hamas And Why That Matters' - https://orbooks.com/catalog/understanding-hamas/ ***Please support The Katie Halper Show *** For bonus content, exclusive interviews, to support independent media & to help make this program possible, please join us on Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/thekatiehalpershow Get your Katie Halper Show Merch here! https://katiehalper.myspreadshop.com/all Follow Katie on Twitter: https://x.com/kthalps Follow Katie on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/kthalps/

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.

When were the first maps of the Holy Land created? And what tools did those ancient cartographers use to measure distances and land masses? How do today’s maps of the region influence the Arab-Israeli conflict? That’s our focus this week on The Land and the Book. As always, we’ll take plenty of time to answer your Bible questions—plus bring you the latest headlines from the Middle. East. That’s all head this week, on The Land and the Book.Donate to Moody Radio: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/landandthebookSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

PRESIDENT TRUMP made more heads explode this week with his announcements about Gaza and the creation of a White House Faith Office. Leftists and Muslims are incensed by Trump's proposal to rebuild Gaza, which they're calling “ethnic cleansing,” conveniently forgetting that negotiations for a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli problem have yet to yield results after about 90 years of trying. Meanwhile, liberals, atheists, and many conservative Christians object, for various reasons, to the appointment of Paula White-Cain to head up the new White House Faith Office. Let's take a breath and wait to see how this plays out. Remember, what happens in your house is more important than who's in the White House. And regardless of your view on eschatology, we can say with confidence that President Trump is not the Antichrist. 

PRESIDENT TRUMP made more heads explode this week with his announcements about Gaza and the creation of a White House Faith Office. Leftists and Muslims are incensed by Trump's proposal to rebuild Gaza, which they're calling “ethnic cleansing,” conveniently forgetting that negotiations for a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli problem have yet to yield results after about 90 years of trying. Meanwhile, liberals, atheists, and many conservative Christians object, for various reasons, to the appointment of Paula White-Cain to head up the new White House Faith Office. Let's take a breath and wait to see how this plays out. Remember, what happens in your house is more important than who's in the White House. And regardless of your view on eschatology, we can say with confidence that President Trump is not the Antichrist. Our new book The Gates of Hell is now available in paperback, Kindle, and as an audiobook at Audible! Derek's new book Destination: Earth, co-authored with Donna Howell and Allie Anderson, is now available in paperback, Kindle, and as an audiobook at Audible! Follow us! X: @viewfrombunker | @sharonkgilbert | @derekgilbertTelegram: t.me/gilberthouseSubstack: gilberthouse.substack.comYouTube: @GilbertHouse | @UnravelingRevelationFacebook.com/viewfromthebunker Sharon's novels Winds of Evil and The Armageddon Strain are available now in paperback, ebook (Kindle), and audiobook (Audible) formats! Get signed copies of the first two books of The Laodicea Chronicles now at GilbertHouse.org/store! Thank you for making our Build Barn Better project a reality! The building has HVAC, a new floor, windows, insulation, ceiling fans, and an upgraded electrical system! We truly appreciate your support. If you are so led, you can help out at www.GilbertHouse.org/donate. —— Download our free app! This brings all of our content directly to your smartphone or tablet. Best of all, we'll never get canceled from our own app! Links to the app stores for iOS, iPadOS, Android, and Amazon Kindle Fire devices are at www.GilbertHouse.org/app. Please join us each Sunday for the Gilbert House Fellowship, our weekly Bible study podcast. Log on to www.GilbertHouse.org for more details. Check out our weekly video program Unraveling Revelation (unravelingrevelation.tv), and subscribe to the YouTube channel: YouTube.com/UnravelingRevelation. —— Special offers on our books and DVDs: www.gilberthouse.org/store. —— JOIN US IN ISRAEL! Our next tour of Israel is October 19–30, 2025 with an optional three-day extension to Jordan. For the latest information, log on to GilbertHouse.org/travel. Discuss these topics at the VFTB Facebook page (facebook.com/viewfromthebunker) and check out the great podcasters at the Fringe Radio Network (Spreaker.com/show/fringe-radio-network)!

PRESIDENT TRUMP made more heads explode this week with his announcements about Gaza and the creation of a White House Faith Office. Leftists and Muslims are incensed by Trump's proposal to rebuild Gaza, which they're calling “ethnic cleansing,” conveniently forgetting that negotiations for a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli problem have yet to yield results after about 90 years of trying. Meanwhile, liberals, atheists, and many conservative Christians object, for various reasons, to the appointment of Paula White-Cain to head up the new White House Faith Office. Let's take a breath and wait to see how this plays out. Remember, what happens in your house is more important than who's in the White House. And regardless of your view on eschatology, we can say with confidence that President Trump is not the Antichrist. 

John Hinderaker of Power Line joins the show by phone to talk about the shifting power balances in the Minnesota Legislature, Governor Tim Walz's (D-MN) accusations against members of former vice president Harris's campaign for president in 2024, education reform, his new article "The Real Constitutional Crisis" at Power Line, and the current state of Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle-East.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

In a discussion of forgotten refugees of the Arab-Israeli conflict, ISGAP Vice Chair David Harris is joined by his wife Giulietta Boukhobza (scholar and author), who shares more about her family's story of their harrowing escape from Libya, as well as how the events of October 7th and the subsequent war have changed her outlook.

David is once again joined in conversation by Arab peace activist and advocate for Arab-Israeli coexistence and partnership, Loay Alshareef, from the UAE.

YouTube link: https://youtube.com/live/GO9Hu6PkFAISupport the show

Send us a textOn today's Zero Limits Podcast I chat with Yahya Mahamid Israel Defense Force.Yahya Mahamid is an Israeli-Arab Zionist and was born in Umm Al Fahm, an Arab city in northern Israel,  Yahya had an Arab upbringing.Like many vocal anti-Zionist activists, he was indoctrinated from childhood to hate Jews and deny Israel's statehood. However, Yahya began to have regular interactions with “everyday” Israelis which challenged the negative views he had been encouraged to develop. After realizing that he had been intentionally misled, he decided to do everything within his power to combat the negative stereotypes and demonization of Israel.Yahya served two years in the IDF in the infantry, then as a shooting instructor and a disciplinary officer. After his service, he was asked to participate in a special mission. He knew little about the specifics but discovered he would be part of a delegation in Dubai working toward the Abraham Accord, the treaties normalizing diplomatic relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. Yahya is currently a IDF reservist serving the role as an intelligence officer. Website - www.zerolimitspodcast.comInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/zero.limits.podcast/?hl=enHost - Matty Morris www.instagram.com/matty.m.morrisSponsorsGatorz Australia - www.gatorzaustralia.com15% Discount Code - ZERO15(former/current military & first responders 20% discount to order please email orders@gatorzaustralia.com.auGetSome Jocko Fuel - www.getsome.com.au10 % Discount Code - ZEROLIMITS

What does Gen Z think about Israel? Born between 1997 and 2012, these Americans have their own take on the Arab-Israeli conflict. To them, facts seem to matter less than feelings. And their feelings are predominately anti-Israel. Why do they think the way they do? How can we engage them in respectful dialogue? This week on The Land and the Book, an eye-opening discussion about Gen Z and the Israel Conflict. Join us!Donate to Moody Radio: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/landandthebookSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Was 1929 a harbinger of October 7th, 2023? August 23rd, 1929, nearly 100 years ago, marks the day of what is referred to in history as the 1929 Arab Riots: a wave of pogroms waged against the Jews living in British Mandatory Palestine. These pogroms began in Jerusalem and quickly spread to other cities and towns, including Hebron, Safed, Jaffa, and Haifa. The riots had largely subsided by August 29th, after 113 Jews were murdered.  Just a few months ago, we at Call me Back released a special series of episodes wherein we spoke with thought leaders about the lasting impact of October 7th on Israelis, on Jews, and on the geopolitics of the Middle East and beyond. (Watch the special series here on our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiYCxMRIBxFoxg8e8Efe0Rz5DZv7VXQeQ) Today, we examine the 1929 Arab Riots taking a broad view at how they shaped the following 100 years.  Our guest is Yardena Schwartz, author of the recently published book: “Holy War: The 1929 Massacre in Palestine That Ignited the Arab-Israeli Conflict” - a meticulously researched work that examines the 1929 Hebron massacre, where nearly 70 Jewish residents were killed by their Arab neighbors and friends, and that explores its impact on the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Yardena Schwartz is an award-winning journalist, an  Emmy-nominated producer, and author of “Ghosts of a Holy War: The 1929 Massacre in Palestine That Ignited the Arab-Israeli Conflict.” Her reporting from four continents has been published in dozens of publications, including the New York Times, New York Review of Books, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Time, National Geographic, Rolling Stone, and Foreign Policy. She has also worked at NBC News, and she reported from Israel for 10 years.  Yardena's newly released book, “Ghosts of a Holy War: The 1929 Massacre in Palestine That Ignited the Arab-Israeli conflict”: https://www.amazon.com/Ghosts-Holy-War-Palestine-Arab-Israeli/dp/145494921X Pre-order the audiobook here: https://tinyurl.com/hwphyrp4 Video on the seven American hostages held in Gaza: http://pic.x.com/pkUKmtYrQW

We look back on the region's history and discuss what it can teach us about the future.Jonny Dymond brings together a carefully assembled panel of experts, academics and journalists to talk about the conflict in the region.What has happened in history to lead us to this point? And what can history teach us about what might happen next?This week, Jonny is joined by Tom Bateman, the BBC's State Department correspondent and before that, Middle East correspondent; Jotam Confino, the Telegraph's Middle East correspondent; and Broderick McDonald, Associate Fellow at Kings College London's International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation. They explore the Six Day War - also known as the Arab-Israeli war - a brief, but bloody conflict fought in June 1967 between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Israel's victory changed the map of the Middle East and fanned the flames of the Israeli-Arab conflict for decades to come. This episode was made by Keiligh Baker and Sally Abrahams. The technical producer was Ben Andrews. The assistant editor is Ben Mundy. The senior news editor is Sam Bonham.This episode is part of a BBC Sounds series. It was recorded at 12:30 on Monday 16 December 2024.

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.

Send us a textHow does Israel explain itself to the Arab world? With so few official lines of communication in Arabic, one man has taken up the cause as a one man Arabic Citizen Spox, having participated in over 800 interviews since the start of the war. Rabbi Elhanan Miller lives in Jerusalem, graduated with a master's degree in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies from the Hebrew University. In 2019 he was ordained as an Orthodox rabbi at Beit Midrash Harel. Today, Miller divides his time between teaching, interviews and research at the Hartman Institute to run the "People of the Book" project , which aims to tell the Arab and Muslim world about Judaism and the Jews. Eylon sits down for a fascinating conversation about the future of relations across the Arab-Israeli world and how we are going to change narratives. Co-Creator and Host - Eylon LevyCo-Creator and Creative Director - Guy RossExecutive Producer - Asher Westropp-EvansDirector - Lotem SegevGraphics/Assistant Director - Thomas GirschEditor/Assistant Director - Benny GoldmanStay up to date at:https://www.stateofanationpodcast.com/X: https://twitter.com/stateofapodInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/stateofapod/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?... LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/state-of-a-nation

We all recognize the intractability and tragedy of the Arab/Israeli conflict but what are the dynamics of Iran's proxy forces, separately fighting Israel, working together?  What is each of their relationship with Iran?  And what will be the Trump impact?  Ambassadors Jeffrey Feltman and Jake Walles, who spent decades in the Middle East, share stories.

Twenty years ago, one man took it into his hands to educate Arab-Israelis about the Holocaust and its ongoing psychological effects. Khaled Kasab Mahameed, a lawyer from Nazareth, opened what is believed to be the first ever Arab-led Holocaust museum. His aim: to open the eyes of his fellow Arabs to the trauma of the Holocaust while at the same time reminding Jewish Israelis of the suffering of his own Palestinian people. Mike Wooldridge hears Khaled's story and discovers why, despite his enormous idealism, he soon found himself the target of criticism from both sides of the conflict.

On your questions, comments, criticisms. [Patreon Exclusive] It's our letter to the episode show where we have a chance to answer you, the listener. We discuss: Has Bungacast gone eco-austerian? Are Marx and Freud in conflict? Is abortion about healthcare or about freedom? Why has the left abandoned liberty? Did we underestimate Israel's existential fears? And what's so “complex” about the Arab-Israeli conflict anyway? Links: 2024/25 Reading Club on Place, Nation, Class Direct link to the syllabus PDF Our substack newsletter

The director of the hospital in Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza says it's unable to treat satisfactorily the dozens injured in Israel's strike on a multi-storey building. Almost a hundred people were reported killed or missing in the attack. Israel says its operations in northern Gaza are designed to prevent Hamas from regrouping. The UN Secretary-General and the US State Department have expressed their outrage at Israel's decision to ban the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. They've warned there could be consequences. We'll hear from the Arab Israeli politician, Aida Touma-Suleima, about the vote to ban the UN humanitarian agency for Palestinians.Also in the programme: Donald Trump's former strategist, Steve Bannon, has gone back on the attack on his release from prison, accusing Vice-President Harris of lacking substance; and does Africa's original film festival, FESPACO, face an uncertain future?(Photo credit: Reuters)

Book- 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War This audio excerpt serves as an introduction to this fine book. Purchase the book on amazon or at your favorite book seller.   1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War by Benny Morris (Author) Benny Morris demolishes misconceptions and provides a comprehensive history of the Israeli-Arab war of 1948   This history of the foundational war in the Arab-Israeli conflict is groundbreaking, objective, and deeply revisionist. A riveting account of the military engagements, it also focuses on the war's political dimensions. Benny Morris probes the motives and aims of the protagonists on the basis of newly opened Israeli and Western documentation. The Arab side—where the archives are still closed—is illuminated with the help of intelligence and diplomatic materials.   Morris stresses the jihadi character of the two-stage Arab assault on the Jewish community in Palestine. Throughout, he examines the dialectic between the war's military and political developments and highlights the military impetus in the creation of the refugee problem, which was a by-product of the disintegration of Palestinian Arab society. The book thoroughly investigates the role of the Great Powers—Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union—in shaping the conflict and its tentative termination in 1949. Morris looks both at high politics and general staff decision-making processes and at the nitty-gritty of combat in the successive battles that resulted in the emergence of the State of Israel and the humiliation of the Arab world, a humiliation that underlies the continued Arab antagonism toward Israel.