Podcasts about israeli palestinian

Isaac, Ari, and Kmele talk about the implications of recent U.S. military actions in Venezuela, the controversial Gaza reconstitution plan, and the ongoing challenges in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conversation also touches on the personal side of life, with reflections on parenthood and the societal structures that support it. And, as always, the Airing of Grievances.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was hosted by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75 and Jon Lall. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This conversation delves into the historical and ideological underpinnings of Manifest Destiny, exploring its implications for American expansionism and its moral consequences. The hosts discuss key historical events, the influence of Catholic social teaching, and the ongoing relevance of Manifest Destiny in contemporary politics, particularly in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The episode emphasizes the need for solidarity with marginalized communities and critiques the ideologies that have shaped American policies over time.All while enjoying Slivovitz and Great Lakes October Fest!

This conversation delves into the historical and ideological underpinnings of Manifest Destiny, exploring its implications for American expansionism and its moral consequences. The hosts discuss key historical events, the influence of Catholic social teaching, and the ongoing relevance of Manifest Destiny in contemporary politics, particularly in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The episode emphasizes the need for solidarity with marginalized communities and critiques the ideologies that have shaped American policies over time.All while enjoying Slivovitz and Great Lakes October Fest!

As the IDF is preparing the enter Gaza City, the future is increasingly uncertain for Palestinians. But even in the middle of this war, there are those who have never given up on the possibility of two states. Yossi Belin served as Justice Minister in Israel and was a key peace negotiator, while Hiba Husseini is a longtime Palestinian peace negotiator. They have been working together to create a plan for a two-state solution. They both join Christiane to discuss this plan.  Also on today's show: Imani Perry, Professor in Studies of Women, Gender and Sexuality, Harvard University; Dr. Michael Osterholm, Dir., Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy, U. of Minnesota  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tune into the second episode of AJC's newest limited podcast series, Architects of Peace. Go behind the scenes of the decades-long diplomacy and quiet negotiations that made the Abraham Accords possible, bringing Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and later Morocco, together in historic peace agreements.  Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, U.S. Army General Miguel Correa, and AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson unpack the first Trump administration's Middle East strategy, share behind-the-scenes efforts to engage key regional players, and reveal what unfolded inside the White House in the crucial weeks before the Abraham Accords signing. Full transcript: https://www.ajc.org/news/podcast/behind-the-breakthrough-architects-of-peace-episode-2 Resources: AJC.org/ArchitectsofPeace - Tune in weekly for new episodes. AJC.org/AbrahamAccords - The Abraham Accords, Explained AJC.org/CNME - Find more on AJC's Center for a New Middle East Listen – AJC Podcasts: AJC.org/ForgottenExodus AJC.org/PeopleofthePod Follow Architects of Peace on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/ArchitectsofPeace You can reach us at: podcasts@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: Donald Trump: I think we're going to make a deal. It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand. Manya Brachear Pashman: In September 2020, the world saw what had been years – decades – in the making: landmark peace agreements dubbed the Abraham Accords -- normalizing relations between Israel and two Arabian Gulf states, the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Bahrain. Later, in December, they were joined by the Kingdom of Morocco. Five years later, AJC is pulling back the curtain to meet key individuals who built the trust that led to these breakthroughs. Introducing: the Architects of Peace. Shortly after he was elected in 2016 and before he took office, President Donald Trump nominated his company's former bankruptcy attorney David Friedman to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Israel. He gave Friedman two simple tasks.  Task No. 1? Build peace across the Middle East by normalizing relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Task No. 2? Solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict that a half dozen previous White House residents had failed to fix.  After all, according to conventional wisdom, the first task could not happen before the second. The future of cooperation between Israel and 20-plus other Arab countries hinged on peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.  Here's former Secretary of State John Kerry. John Kerry: There will be no advance and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process and Palestinian peace. Everybody needs to understand that. Manya Brachear Pashman: Ambassador Friedman disagreed with this conventional wisdom. David Friedman: We were told initially by most countries that the road to peace began with the Palestinians. This was a hypothesis that I rejected internally, but I thought: ‘OK, well, let's just play this out and see where this can go. And so, we spent a couple of years really working on what could be a plan that would work for Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians, you know, rejected discussions early on, but we had a lot of discussions with the Israelis. Manya Brachear Pashman: The son of a rabbi who grew up in Long Island, Ambassador Friedman had been active in pro-Israel organizations for decades, He had advised Trump on the importance of the U.S.-Israel bond during the 2016 presidential election and recommended nothing less than a radical overhaul of White House policy in the region. Not long after his Senate confirmation as ambassador, that overhaul commenced. In February 2017, President Trump invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House – his first invitation to a foreign leader —  and a symbolic one. After their meeting, they held a joint press conference. Donald Trump: With this visit, the United States again reaffirms our unbreakable bond with our cherished ally Israel. The partnership between our two countries, built on our shared values. I think we're going to make a deal. It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand. That's a possibility. So, let's see what we do.  He doesn't sound too optimistic. But he's a good negotiator. Benjamin Netanyahu: That's the art of the deal. Manya Brachear Pashman: Nine months later, President Trump made another symbolic gesture -- recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital city and moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Though such a move had been approved by Congress in 1995, no president had ever acted upon it. When Trump's son-in-law, businessman, and senior White House advisor Jared Kushner opened conversations about that ‘bigger and better deal,' Palestinians refused to participate, using the pretext of the Jerusalem decision to boycott the Trump administration. But that didn't stop Ambassador Friedman and others from engaging, not only with Israel, but with Arab countries about a new path forward. AJC's Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson, who has been building bridges in the region since the early ‘90s, recalls this strategy at the time. Jason Isaacson: It was very clear for many months, 2019 on into early 2020, that there was a team working under Jared Kushner in the White House that was going from country to country in the Gulf and North Africa, looking to make a deal, looking to make deals that would lead to normalization with Israel, would involve various benefits that the United States would be able to provide. But of course, the big benefit would be regional integration and a closer relationship with the United States. Manya Brachear Pashman: The pitch for a new path forward resonated in the United Arab Emirates, a Gulf country of 10 million residents, some 11% of whom are Emiratis — the rest expats and migrants from around the world. The UAE had designated 2019 the Year of Tolerance, an initiative aimed at promoting the country as a global capital for tolerance and respect between diverse cultures and nationalities. That year, the Emirates hosted a historic visit from Pope Francis, and 27 Israeli athletes competed in the 2019 Special Olympics World Games held in the capital city of Abu Dhabi.  The pitch also resonated in Bahrain. In June of that year, during a two-day workshop in Bahrain's capital city of Manama, the Trump administration began rolling out the results of its Middle East tour – the economic portion of its peace plan, titled "Peace to Prosperity." Jason Isaacson: The White House plan for Peace to Prosperity was a kind of an early set of ideas for Israeli Palestinian resolution that would result in a small, but functional Palestinian state, created in a way that would not require the displacement of Israelis in the West Bank, and that would involve large scale investment, mostly provided by other countries, mostly in the Gulf, but not only, also Europe, to advance the Palestinian economy, to integrate the Palestinian and Israelis' economies in a way that had never happened. And there was discussion that was taking place that all led up to the idea of a very fresh approach, a very new approach to the regional conflict. Manya Brachear Pashman: The 38-page prospectus set ambitious goals — turning the West Bank and Gaza into tourism destinations, doubling the amount of drinkable water there, tripling exports, earmarking $900 million to build hospitals and clinics. The Palestinians, angered by Trump's recognition of Jerusalem and viewing the Manama workshop as an attempt to normalize Arab-Israel ties while sidelining their national rights, boycotted the meeting and rejected the plan before ever seeing its details.  But the workshop's host Bahrain, as well as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates participated, to varying degrees. Trump's team rolled out the rest of the plan in January 2020, including a map of land carved out for Palestinians and for Israel. The plan enabled Palestinians and Arab countries to expand economic opportunities. It enabled Israel to demonstrate that it was open to cooperation. It enabled the Trump administration to illustrate the opportunities missed if countries in the region continued to let Palestinian leadership call the shots. David Friedman: The expectation was not that the Palestinians would jump all over it. We were realistic about the possibility, but we did think it was important to show that Israel itself, under some circumstances, was willing to engage with the Palestinians with regard to a formula for peace that, you know, had an economic component, a geographic component, a governance component.  Manya Brachear Pashman: The Palestine Liberation Organization accused the United States of trying to sell a "mirage of economic prosperity.” Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh criticized the Arab leaders attending the al-Manama conference, saying "The (Palestinian) people, who have been fighting for 100 years, did not commission anyone to concede or to bargain.” But that's the thing. Arab leaders weren't there solely on behalf of the Palestinians. They wanted to learn how their own countries' citizens could enjoy peace and prosperity too. David Friedman: The real point of all this that got the Abraham Accords jump started was not the fact that the Palestinians embraced this, but more so that they rejected it in such a way that enabled these other countries to say: ‘Look, guys, you know what? We can't be more pro-Palestinian than you.' Here you have, you know, the U.S. government putting on a table a proposal that gets you more than halfway there in terms of your stated goals and aspirations. Maybe you don't like all of it, that's fine, but you're never going to get everything you wanted anyway. And here's the first government in history that's willing to give you something tangible to talk about, and if you're not going to engage in something that they spent years working on, talking to everybody, trying to thread the needle as best they could. If you're not willing to talk to them about it, then don't ask us to fight your fight. There's only so far we can go. But we thought that putting this plan out on a table publicly would kind of smoke out a lot of positions that had historically been below the surface. And so, beginning right after the 28th of January of 2020 when we had that ceremony with the President's vision for peace, we began to really get serious engagement. Not from the Palestinians, who rejected it immediately, but from the countries in the region. And so that's how the Abraham Accords discussions really began in earnest. Manya Brachear Pashman: AJC had been saying for years that if Arab leaders truly wanted to foster stability in the region and help the Palestinians, engaging with Israel and opening channels of communication would give them the leverage to do so. Isolating Israel was not the answer. Nothing underscored that more than the COVID-19 pandemic, the worst global health crisis in a century. As everyone around the world donned N95 masks and went into self-imposed isolation, some governments in the Middle East concluded that isolating innovative countries like Israel was perhaps not the wisest or safest choice.  In May 2020, UAE Ambassador to the United Nations Lana Nusseibeh said as much during a virtual webinar hosted by AJC. Lana Nusseibeh: Of course, we've had Israeli medics participate in previous events in the UAE, that wouldn't be unusual. And I'm sure there's a lot of scope for collaboration. I don't think we would be opposed to it. Because I really think this public health space should be an unpoliticized space where we all try and pool our collective knowledge of this virus. Manya Brachear Pashman: A month later, UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dr. Anwar Gargash echoed that sentiment, during AJC Global Forum. Anwar Gargash: I think we can come to a point where we come to a given Israeli government and we say we disagree with you on this, we don't think it's a good idea. But at the same time there are areas, such as COVID, technology, and other things that we can actually work on together. Manya Brachear Pashman: Not surprisingly, the UAE was the first Arab country to begin negotiating with the White House to normalize relations with Israel. However, talks that summer hit a stalemate. Israel was moving forward with a plan to annex a significant portion of the West Bank, including Israeli settlements and the Jordan Valley. Even though President Trump himself had cautioned Prime Minister Netanyahu to hold off, Ambassador Friedman was not about to stop them.  David Friedman: I thought that the idea of Israel walking away from its biblical heartland. Anything that required Israel to make that commitment was something I couldn't support. I was so dead set against it. Israel cannot, as a price for normalization, as great as it is, as important as it is, Israel cannot agree to cede its biblical heartland. Manya Brachear Pashman: Not only was this personal for Ambassador Friedman, it was also a major incentive for Israel, included in the Peace to Prosperity plan. The ambassador didn't want to go back on his word and lose Israel's trust.  But annexation was a dealbreaker for the Emirates. In June, UAE's Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba wrote a column speaking directly to the Israeli public. He explained that the UAE wanted diplomatic relations with Israel – it really did – but unilateral annexation of land that it considered still in dispute would be viewed as a breach of trust and undermine any and all progress toward normalization.  David Friedman: It was a kind of a tumultuous period, both internally within our own team and with others, about what exactly was going to happen as a result of that Peace to Prosperity Plan. And even if there was an agreement by the United States to support Israeli annexation, was this something that was better, at least in the short term? Manya Brachear Pashman: Otaiba's message got through, and the team ultimately agreed to suspend the annexation plan — not halt, but suspend — an intentionally temporary verb.  In addition to writing the column, Otaiba also recommended that a friend join the negotiations to help repair the trust deficit: General Miguel Correa, a U.S. Army General who had spent part of his childhood in the Middle East, served in the Persian Gulf War and as a peacekeeper maintaining the treaty between Israel and Egypt. General Correa had joined the National Security Council in March 2020 after serving as a defense attaché in Abu Dhabi. He had earned the respect of Emiratis, not as a dealmaker so much as a lifesaver, once orchestrating a secret rescue mission of wounded Emirati troops from inside Yemen. Among those troops, the nephew and son-in-law of Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed, the then-de facto ruler and now the current president of the UAE. Kushner and Friedman had never met Correa.  Miguel Correa: I didn't know them, and they didn't know me. No one else had any military experience on the team. I had a unique perspective of the Arab side of the equation.  And had relationships. So, it was a match made in heaven.  Jared, David Friedman, these guys obviously understood Israeli politics and understood the Israeli side, and somewhat Jewish American side. I could provide a different dynamic or a different view from the Arab side, as someone who's kind of grown up with this. It really got serious when the team came together and, and we could start working on real, concrete things. Manya Brachear Pashman: Months of negotiations had already unfolded. It was already late July, first of August, when General Correa became the last person to join the tiny circle of a half dozen negotiators – kept intentionally small to keep a lid on the conversations. It's hard to keep a secret in Washington. David Friedman: The secrecy here was very, very important, because to be honest with you, I think anything bigger than that group of six or seven, we would have put it in jeopardy. Manya Brachear Pashman: In this situation, leaks not only threatened the deal, they could threaten lives. Though word trickled out that a deal was in the works, no one guessed just how transformational the result might be. In General Correa's opinion, the UAE had the most to lose. Miguel Correa: That was the concern that, frankly, guys like me had, that, I hurt a nation of good people that is incredibly tolerant, that builds synagogues and churches and Sikh temples, or Hindu temples, and tolerance 101, that everybody can pray to who they would like to pray to.  And I was worried that all these extremists were going to come out of the woodwork and hurt that trajectory in the UAE, that was going to be a great nation with or without the normalization. But this ruler said: ‘No, no, it's the right thing to do. Peace is the right thing to do.' Manya Brachear Pashman: General Correa actually had quite a few concerns. He didn't want the negotiations to be hijacked for political gain. He wanted leaders to have a security and public relations response in place before anything was announced. And the agreement? It lacked a name. Miguel Correa: A lot of it has to do with my military side. We love to name cool task forces, and things like that. And then I felt like: ‘Hey, it has to be something that rolls off the tongue, that makes sense and that will help it, you know, with staying power. Let's do something that ties the people together. There was going to be a shock, a tectonic shock that was going to occur. From 1948, we're going to do a complete 180, and wow. So what do we do to take the wind away from the extremists? As a guy who's fought extremism, militant extremism, for most of his military career, I figured, hey, we've got to do what we can to frame this in a super positive manner. Manya Brachear Pashman: To the general's dismay, no one else shared his concern about what to call their project. A lot was happening in those last few weeks. Landing on a name – not a priority. On the morning of August 13, once all the details were hammered out, the team sat in the Oval Office waiting to brief the President before it was announced to the world. David Friedman: It came about 10 minutes before the end, we were all sitting around the Oval Office, waiting for this announcement about the UAE. And somebody, not me, said: ‘Well, we need a name for this,' and I said, why? And they said, ‘Well, you know, you have the Oslo Accords, you have the Camp David Accords. You need a name.' And I said, you know, Who's got an idea? And General Miguel Correa, he said: ‘How about the Abraham Accords?' And I said: ‘That's a great name.' And then we had a rush to call the Israelis and the Emiratis to make sure they were OK with it.  Five minutes later we're broadcasting to a few hundred million people this groundbreaking announcement. And the President looks at me and says, ‘David, explain why you chose the Abraham Accords?' So that was when we explained what the name was, which I hadn't really thought of until that point. We just thought it was a good name.  So at that point I said, ‘Well, you know, Abraham was the father of three great religions. He's referred to as Abraham in English, and Ibrahim in Arabic, and Avraham in Hebrew. And no single individual better exemplifies the opportunity and the benefits of unity among all peoples than Abraham.' And that was sort of on the fly how we got to the Abraham Accords. Manya Brachear Pashman: General Correa said he chose a name that would remind people of all faiths that what they have in common far outweighs what separates them. It was also important that the name be plural. Not the Abraham Accord. The Abraham Accords.  Even if only one country – the UAE – was signing on at that moment, there would be more to come. Indeed, Bahrain came on board within a month. Morocco joined in December.  Miguel Correa: I felt in my heart that this has to be more than one. As a guy that's been affected by this extremism and it allowed this, this craziness and that people decide who can get to know who and and I felt like, No, we can't allow this to be a one-shot deal. We have to prove that this is an avalanche. This could be sustained, and this is the way it should be. Everyone has to come into this one way or another. And it's not, by the way, saying that, hey, we're all going to walk lockstep with Israel. That's not the point. The point is that you have a conversation, the leaders can pick up the phone and have that conversation. So it has to be, has to be plural. By the way, this is the way that it was. This isn't new. This isn't like a crazy new concept. This is the way it was. It's not an introduction of Jews in this region, in society. This is a reintroduction. This is the way it's supposed to be. This is what's happened for thousands of years. So why are we allowing people to take us back, you know, thousands of years? Let's go back to the way things should be, and develop these relationships. It makes us all better. Manya Brachear Pashman: Next episode, we step out from behind the scenes and on to the South Lawn of the White House where leaders from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Israel and the U.S. signed the Abraham Accords, while the world watched in awe. Atara Lakritz is our producer. T.K. Broderick is our sound engineer. Special thanks to Jason Isaacson, Sean Savage, and the entire AJC team for making this series possible.  You can subscribe to Architects of Peace on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and you can learn more at AJC.org/ArchitectsofPeace.  The views and opinions of our guests don't necessarily reflect the positions of AJC.  You can reach us at podcasts@ajc.org. If you've enjoyed this episode, please be sure to spread the word, and hop onto Apple Podcasts or Spotify to rate us and write a review to help more listeners find us. Music Credits: Middle East : ID: 279780040; Composer: Eric Sutherland Frontiers: ID: 183925100; Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI); Composer: Pete Checkley (BMI) Meditative: ID: 115666358; Composer: DANIELYAN ASHOT MAKICHEVICH (IPI NAME #00855552512), UNITED STATES BMI Arabian: Item ID: 214336423; Composer: MusicForVideos Arabian Strings: ID: 72249988; Publisher: EITAN EPSTEIN; Composer: EITAN EPSTEIN Desert: Item ID: 220137401; Publisher: BFCMUSIC PROD.; Composer: Andrei Marchanka Middle East Violin: ID: 277189507; Composer: Andy Warner Arabic Ambient: ID: 186923328; Publisher: Victor Romanov; Composer: Victor Romanov Oriental: Item ID: 190860465; Publisher: Victor Romanov; Composer: Victor Romanov Mystical Middle East: ID: 212471911; Composer: Vicher    

I sit down with two remarkable guests: Soraya M. Deen—a Muslim feminist lawyer, interfaith organizer, and outspoken critic of antisemitism within Muslim spaces—and Julie Marzouk—an immigrants' rights attorney and professor who's been building bridges across communities for two decades.We dive into:Whether the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is primarily religious or political?Antisemitism inside parts of the Islamic world and how to challenge it from withiThe Quran, Israel, and why Soraya believes Zionism aligns with Quranic prophecyPost–October 7 interfaith ruptures—and practical steps for rebuilding trustImmigration policy, vetting, and liberalism vs. fundamentalismFeminism, LGBTQ rights, and the progressive–Islamist contradictionUnion politics (UAW), ethnic studies (AB-101), and coalition-building around shared American valuesIf you value honest dialogue across real differences, this episode is for you.⏱️ Chapters0:00 Intro0:06 Meet today's guests1:16 Soraya on faith, Zionism & condemning Hamas3:22 Is this conflict religious, political—or both?5:12 “Palestinianism,” media narratives & accountability7:35 American mosques, sermons, and rising tensions post–10/79:30 How borrowed European antisemitism spread in Muslim contexts12:17 Growing up in South Asia: early signals & stereotypes13:59 From bullying to bridge-building: Soraya's interfaith path17:01 Fear, threats, and speaking up anyway19:40 Liberal discomfort vs. calling out radicalism21:58 Why outreach often stalls—and what to try next24:39 What the Jewish community can do better (concrete steps)27:10 “Islamophobia” accusations & staying principled31:00 Re-centering Jewish strength without abandoning dialogue34:18 Julie on losing progressive allies & finding new bridges37:01 Immigration ideals vs. ideological vetting41:02 What U.S. asylum law already requires42:58 Screening gaps & community responsibility45:38 Compassion, gratitude, and reform from within49:03 Building broad coalitions (Latino, Asian, Black, Hindu, Christian)51:02 Unions, mission drift & shared interests53:38 Schools, AB-101 & prioritizing core education55:03 The feminism/LGBTQ breaking point with Islamism56:45 Is Islamic reform gathering steam?1:00:01 Textual literalism vs. living tradition1:01:35 Why medieval Islamic intellectuals matter today1:03:44 Cost of dissent: reformers under threat1:06:00 What should Israel do now? A “Chief Compassion Officer”?1:08:05 Progressives, Zionism & owning the narrative1:12:30 Focus Jewish orgs on Jewish needs; keep allies honest1:12:58 Closing thoughts & a call to action

SummaryIn this episode, Clayton Cuteri delves into the themes of consciousness and the exploration of spiritual journeys, while critically analyzing Benjamin Netanyahu's recent podcast appearance. He discusses the implications of Netanyahu's statements, the historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the ongoing propaganda wars that shape public perception. Cuteri emphasizes the importance of understanding the nuances of political discourse and the need for collective action towards peace.Clayton's Social MediaLinkTree | TikTok | Instagram | Twitter (X) | YouTube | RumbleTimecodes00:00 - Intro01:15 - Analyzing Netanyahu's Podcast Appearance07:40 - Accusations and Historical Context11:24 - Propaganda Wars and Public Perception16:18 - Political Commentary and Future ImplicationsIntro/Outro Music Producer: Don KinIG: https://www.instagram.com/donkinmusic/Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/44QKqKsd81oJEBKffwdFfPSuper grateful for this guy ^Send Clayton a text message!Support the showNEWSLETTER - SIGN UP HERE

Samer Sinijlawi, a Palestinian politician from the opposition inside Fatah, said the move to revoke the US visa of Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas represented a diplomatic failure of the Palestinian leadership. Nevertheless, he told reporter Arieh O’Sullivan that the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not go through the United States or United Nations, but by creating trust right here between the peoples. (photo: Majdi Mohamed/AP)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to What Matters Now, a weekly podcast exploring key issues currently shaping Israel and the Jewish World, with host deputy editor Amanda Borschel-Dan speaking with legal expert on genocide Menachem Rosensaft. Rosensaft is an adjunct professor of law at Cornell Law School and lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School, where he teaches the law of genocide -- since 2008 at Cornell and since 2011 at Columbia. A dedicated pro-Israel US Jewish leader, Rosensaft is the general counsel emeritus of the World Jewish Congress and has been part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, most notably sitting with PLO leader Yasser Arafat alongside four other American Jewish leaders in 1988, after which Arafat said he recognized the State of Israel's right to exist. Rosensaft discusses the important legal and rhetorical distinction between genocide and crimes against humanity or war crimes, feeling that the definition's precision is being diluted in popular use. We learn about the history and evolution of Raphael Lemkin's definition of genocide and the ripple effect it has caused. He emphasizes that Israel cannot be held out as the sole villain in the ongoing war, and explains how Hamas exhibits genocidal intent and ideology. However, the statements from a handful of far-right Israeli politicians is making South Africa's December 2023 legal case accusing the Jewish state of genocide much harder to win. Finally, he rails against the Israeli government's weaponization of the word "antisemitism" for all dissent against the Jewish state, but doubles down on the need for an ongoing peace process leading to a Palestinian state. And so this week, we ask genocide legal expert Menachem Rosensaft, what matters now. What Matters Now podcasts are available for download on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by the Pod-Waves. IMAGE: Menachem Rosensaft (courtesy) / Palestinians stand on the edge of a crater after Israeli military strikes in a tent camp for displaced people near Al-Aqsa Hospital, in Deir al-Balah, August 21, 2025. (AP Photo/Jehad Alshrafi)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

James discusses on Radio Islam the dim prospects for ending the Gaza war and resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

WHAT LESSONS CAN BE LEARNED FROM PAST MIDDLE EAST PEACE EFFORTS? HEADLINE 1: Australia and Iran are engaged in a heavyweight diplomatic spat.HEADLINE 2: The IDF conducted a rare daytime raid in Ramallah yesterday.HEADLINE 3: Officials from France, Britain, and Germany met with an Iranian delegation in Geneva yesterday to discuss the looming snapback sanctions.--FDD Executive Director Jonathan Schanzer provides timely updates and in-depth analysis of the latest Middle East headlines, followed by a conversation with Ambassador Dennis Ross, The Washington Institute's William Davidson Distinguished Fellow and a former Israeli-Palestinian peace process negotiator under Presidents H. W. Bush and Clinton.Learn more at: https://www.fdd.org/fddmorningbrief/--Featured FDD Articles: "Iran faces a perfect storm of domestic failures" - Janatan Sayeh and Navid Mohebbi, JNS"Oil holds the key to Ukraine war's end — if Trump plays hardball" - Rich Goldberg and John Hardie, New York Post"Reexamining the U.S.-South Africa Relationship" - FDD Virtual Event

Listeners, Tucker Carlson has drawn significant attention this week following a widely shared interview where he hosted Mother Agapia Stephanopoulos, a Greek-American Orthodox nun, on his online platform. During the segment, Mother Agapia made the inflammatory and unsubstantiated suggestion that Israel intends to blow up the al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem to rebuild a Jewish temple, a claim that sparked strong criticism from Jewish organizations and commentators. Carlson did not challenge these remarks, instead framing the conversation with provocative questions, a style that critics allege enables the spread of falsehoods while he maintains plausible deniability. This approach has reignited debates about Carlson's influence and responsibility in shaping public opinion, especially regarding sensitive topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.In terms of media ventures, Carlson continues to produce episodes through his independent platforms, bypassing mainstream television after his high-profile dismissal from Fox News last year. Industry observers point out that his transition from cable news to digital forums has only deepened his reach within certain conservative and right-wing circles. His audience now largely operates within what critics describe as ideological silos, reflecting broader trends in American media where partisanship shapes news consumption. Recent segments have escalated culture war rhetoric, with Carlson drawing intense reactions both from supportive viewers who praise his willingness to ask controversial questions, and from media watchdogs and advocacy groups who accuse him of providing a platform for conspiracy theories and misinformation.On the legal front, there have been no fresh lawsuits or formal investigations involving Carlson in the last few days, though discussions persist about the circumstances surrounding his departure from Fox. The network reportedly retains damaging information in reserve should future conflicts arise, and analysts continue to debate the professional fallout from his ouster, which remains a case study in the intersection of media management and high-stakes political commentary.Carlson also featured in recent social media exchanges, including a viral on-air clash with Senator Ted Cruz over US policy toward Iran, which fueled ongoing debates about the Republican Party's foreign policy direction and the power dynamic between right-wing commentators and elected officials. These interactions illustrate Carlson's persistent role as a provocateur in broader policy debates, with influence that extends beyond news programming into the very fabric of conservative politics.His public persona and approach remain the subject of heated debate not just within American circles but internationally, as groups and commentators in the UK and elsewhere monitor his segments for the export of American conservative narratives. Some point to his style as emblematic of dark-money influenced political media, raising questions about regulation and the health of democratic discourse in the digital age.Listeners, thank you for tuning in to the Tucker Carlson news Tracker podcast. Make sure to subscribe so you don't miss the latest updates. This has been a quiet please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai.For more http://www.quietplease.aiGet the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

Welcome to What Matters Now, a weekly podcast exploring key issues currently shaping Israel and the Jewish World, with host deputy editor Amanda Borschel-Dan speaking with legal expert on genocide Menachem Rosensaft. Rosensaft is an adjunct professor of law at Cornell Law School and lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School, where he teaches the law of genocide -- since 2008 at Cornell and since 2011 at Columbia. A dedicated pro-Israel US Jewish leader, Rosensaft is the general counsel emeritus of the World Jewish Congress and has been part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, most notably sitting with PLO leader Yasser Arafat alongside four other American Jewish leaders in 1988, after which Arafat said he recognized the State of Israel's right to exist. Rosensaft discusses the important legal and rhetorical distinction between genocide and crimes against humanity or war crimes, feeling that the definition's precision is being diluted in popular use. We learn about the history and evolution of Raphael Lemkin's definition of genocide and the ripple effect it has caused. He emphasizes that Israel cannot be held out as the sole villain in the ongoing war, and explains how Hamas exhibits genocidal intent and ideology. However, the statements from a handful of far-right Israeli politicians is making South Africa's December 2023 legal case accusing the Jewish state of genocide much harder to win. Finally, he rails against the Israeli government's weaponization of the word "antisemitism" for all dissent against the Jewish state, but doubles down on the need for an ongoing peace process leading to a Palestinian state. And so this week, we ask genocide legal expert Menachem Rosensaft, what matters now. What Matters Now podcasts are available for download on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by the Pod-Waves. IMAGE: Menachem Rosensaft (courtesy) / Palestinians stand on the edge of a crater after Israeli military strikes in a tent camp for displaced people near Al-Aqsa Hospital, in Deir al-Balah, August 21, 2025. (AP Photo/Jehad Alshrafi)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pursuing diametrically opposed objectives, Gaza's ceasefire mediators are working at cross purposes. The divide among the mediators, the United States, Qatar, and Egypt, significantly diminishes the chances of the ceasefire talks succeeding and, if they do, reaching a deal that would lead to an end of the war. Hamas's renewed acceptance by Hamas of a months-old Israeli-endorsed US proposal for a 60-day-ceasefire was as much a product of the mediators working at cross purposes as it was a Qatar-Egyptian attempt to get the talks back on track. It was also an effort to re-engage US President Donald Trump, who, faced with mounting criticism of Israel's Gaza starvation policy from segments of his support base, has gone silent on the ceasefire talks. Finally, Qatar and Egypt hope the revived talks will keep open the door to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In this episode, I tell the story of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict according to ChatGPT, and ask ChatGPT to predict the future of the conflict.

Welcome to What Matters Now, a weekly podcast exploring key issues currently shaping Israel and the Jewish World, with host deputy editor Amanda Borschel-Dan speaking with former US negotiator, adviser and ambassador Dennis Ross. Today, Ross, an author and the counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, also teaches at Georgetown University’s Center for Jewish Civilization. But for over a decade, he was the US point man on the arduous Israeli-Palestinian peace processes in both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. We close the program by hearing thoughts on the current talks to end the Gaza War from a negotiator who was in the room "when it happened" -- or didn't. However, we begin the episode by asking Ross, who has decades of experience in Soviet and Middle East policy, for his analysis of this week's Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin and the subsequent meet-up between Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders. We then spin the globe and focus on Israel and the region -- present and past, including the two milestones of the 2005 Disengagement and the 2000 Camp David Summit. And so this week, we ask Ambassador Dennis Ross, what matters now. What Matters Now podcasts are available for download on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by the Pod-Waves. IMAGE: Dennis Ross (Courtesy)/ Demonstrators march during a protest demanding the immediate release of hostages held by Hamas and calling for the Israeli government to reverse its decision to take over Gaza City and other areas in the Gaza Strip, in Tel Aviv, Israel, August 17, 2025. (AP Photo/Ohad Zwigenberg)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After Dark with Hosts Rob & Andrew – Palestinian statehood is often seen as a path to peace, but recognition alone cannot resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Deep-rooted issues—history, religion, nationalism, security, and economics—remain unresolved. Borders, refugees, and Jerusalem complicate progress. Without addressing core grievances and distrust, statehood becomes only one piece of a larger, unfinished Middle East puzzle...

Stella Escobedo, One America News Network Anchor, calls into the show to talk about her recent interview with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, focusing on media propaganda and the challenges Israel faces. They touch upon the controversial role of the media in shaping public perception, especially concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sid and Stella also discuss various subjects including political figures like Laura Loomer and former President Trump, as well as the ongoing New York City mayoral race. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After Dark with Hosts Rob & Andrew – Palestinian statehood is often seen as a path to peace, but recognition alone cannot resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Deep-rooted issues—history, religion, nationalism, security, and economics—remain unresolved. Borders, refugees, and Jerusalem complicate progress. Without addressing core grievances and distrust, statehood becomes only one piece of a larger, unfinished Middle East puzzle...

In this episode, Bill and National Security Analyst Joe Cirincione discuss a historic meeting at the White House with multiple world leaders uninvitedly uniting to support Ukrainian President Zelensky and sway President Trump to maintain the alliance commitments to Ukraine. The episode delves into the strategic maneuvering used by European leaders to manipulate Trump through flattery and offers, highlighting how these tactics have momentarily shored up Western support for Ukraine. The discussion extends to the implications of potential US troop involvement, and the complexities surrounding the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. Plus a brutal assessment of the Putin's Alaska Summit with Trump. Additionally, the episode touches on other geopolitical hot spots, notably the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the potential shift in public and political sentiment against Netanyahu's aggressive Gaza strategy. Finally, the conversation veers into the enduring threat of nuclear weapons, recommending Annie Jacobson's book 'Nuclear War: A Scenario' as a gripping read on the subject. Today Bill highlights the work of The Ploughshares, an organization committed to eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons. More information at Ploughshares.orgSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to What Matters Now, a weekly podcast exploring key issues currently shaping Israel and the Jewish World, with host deputy editor Amanda Borschel-Dan speaking with former US negotiator, adviser and ambassador Dennis Ross. Today, Ross, an author and the counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, also teaches at Georgetown University’s Center for Jewish Civilization. But for over a decade, he was the US point man on the arduous Israeli-Palestinian peace processes in both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. We close the program by hearing thoughts on the current talks to end the Gaza War from a negotiator who was in the room "when it happened" -- or didn't. However, we begin the episode by asking Ross, who has decades of experience in Soviet and Middle East policy, for his analysis of this week's Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin and the subsequent meet-up between Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders. We then spin the globe and focus on Israel and the region -- present and past, including the two milestones of the 2005 Disengagement and the 2000 Camp David Summit. And so this week, we ask Ambassador Dennis Ross, what matters now. What Matters Now podcasts are available for download on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by the Pod-Waves. IMAGE: Dennis Ross (Courtesy)/ Demonstrators march during a protest demanding the immediate release of hostages held by Hamas and calling for the Israeli government to reverse its decision to take over Gaza City and other areas in the Gaza Strip, in Tel Aviv, Israel, August 17, 2025. (AP Photo/Ohad Zwigenberg)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode is presented by Create A Video – The 1929 Hebron massacre is the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to author Yardena Schwartz. And it started with a lie that was spread to distract Arabs from the corruption of their leader. Subscribe to the podcast at: https://ThePetePod.com/ All the links to Pete's Prep are free: https://patreon.com/petekalinershow Media Bias Check: If you choose to subscribe, get 15% off here! Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the Contested Ground podcast, Major General (Ret'd) Dr Marcus Thompson, Phil Tarrant and Liam Garman dissect the forces shaping Australia's national security in an increasingly volatile world. From the shortage of tradespeople to the sustainability of the nuclear submarine program, the team explores how domestic economic realities – including the property market – intersect with defence capability.  The conversation turns to the AUKUS arrangement, as Thompson questions whether Australia's defence budget can support the ambitions of the trilateral pact with the United States and the United Kingdom. The hosts unpack the risks of over-prioritising certain branches of the ADF and debate whether political change would have altered the trajectory of defence spending. The team then discusses the recognition of Palestinian statehood – with conditions excluding Hamas from governance. They assess the potential impact on relations with Israel – a nation that has long shared intelligence and counter-terrorism support with Australia – and on Canberra's role in Middle Eastern geopolitics. The discussion also delves into public sentiment, with Tarrant highlighting the humanitarian toll of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and the difficulty of separating moral imperatives from strategic realities. Enjoy the podcast, The Contested Ground team

As violence flares in Gaza and the Middle East teeters on the edge of a wider crisis, The Puck turns to Aaron David Miller — a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; a former State department analyst and negotiator in Republican and Democratic Administrations — for an unflinching look at the road ahead. In this urgent conversation, we explore the hard lessons of history, the role of U.S. leverage, the realities of Israeli and Palestinian leadership, and whether there's any realistic path to a lasting peace after October 7th. A candid, deeply informed discussion that cuts through political soundbites to the heart of one of the world's most intractable conflicts.

In late July, French President Emmanuel Macron said France would recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September. The U.K. then said it, too, would recognize a Palestinian state if Israel did not agree to a ceasefire. Canada and then Australia soon committed to recognizing Palestine.Dr. Mira Sucharov is a professor of political science at Carleton University in Ottawa. Much of her work focuses on Israeli-Palestinian relations. Today, she joins us to talk about why we're seeing this change in policy after 22 months of war in Gaza, what this shift means for people on the ground, and what solution she sees could realistically bring peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at thedecibel@globeandmail.com

Send us a textI went on line and looked up the Oslo Accords signed by President Bill Clinton, PLO Leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin. It was an important moment that has faded now in its importance as the Israeli conflict with Hamas has taken centerstage. I thought it interesting to read what Artificial Intelligence wrote about the accords, that this episode will also allow you to relive as they happened. "The Oslo Accords were a pair of agreements signed in 1993 and 1995 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that aimed to establish a framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first accord, signed in 1993, involved mutual recognition and established the Palestinian Authority (PA) to govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza. The second, signed in 1995, further defined the interim period and outlined areas of Palestinian self-rule. Ultimately, the accords aimed for a final peace agreement, including the establishment of a Palestinian state, but this goal has not yet been achieved. Key aspects of the Oslo Accords:Mutual Recognition:The Oslo I Accord marked the first time Israel and the PLO formally recognized each other. Palestinian Authority (PA):The agreements led to the establishment of the PA, which was intended to be an interim self-governing body for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Interim Period and Final Status Talks:The accords outlined an interim period, during which the PA would assume some governing responsibilities, with the expectation that final status negotiations would address issues such as borders, refugees, Jerusalem, and settlements. Israeli Withdrawal:The accords included provisions for Israeli troop redeployment from parts of the West Bank and Gaza. Two-State Solution:While not explicitly stated in the initial agreement, the accords were intended to pave the way for a two-state solution, with an independent Palestinian state existing alongside Israel. " Questions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

As violence flares in Gaza and the Middle East teeters on the edge of a wider crisis, The Puck turns to Aaron David Miller — Global Fellow at the Wilson Center and veteran U.S. negotiator — for an unflinching look at the road ahead. In this urgent conversation, we explore the hard lessons of history, the role of U.S. leverage, the realities of Israeli and Palestinian leadership, and whether there's any realistic path to a lasting peace after October 7th. A candid, deeply informed discussion that cuts through political soundbites to the heart of one of the world's most intractable conflicts.

BOOK TICKETS for Unpacking Israeli History LIVE in NYC - Sep 7 at 92nd St Y with special guest Dan Senor: ⁠⁠https://unpacked.bio/uihny25⁠⁠ Use Promo code UIH20 to get 20% off your tickets Noam Weissman sits down with journalist Haviv Rettig Gur to tackle one of the most heated topics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: settler violence. Who are the “Hilltop Youth,” the fringe group accused of a kind of terrorism targeting Palestinian civilians? And is settler violence a widespread threat or a statistically small — but politically explosive — phenomenon? Noam and Haviv break down the history, the impact, the numbers and the narratives, offering context you won't find in the headlines. Please get in touch at noam@unpacked.media. Check us out on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Youtube.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ This podcast was brought to you by Unpacked, a division of OpenDor Media. ------------------- For other podcasts from Unpacked, check out: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jewish History Nerds⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Soulful Jewish Living⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Stars of David with Elon Gold ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Wondering Jews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

No Other Land (2024) is the Oscar-winning documentary that shows the brutal destruction of a Palestinian community in the occupied West Bank. Recorded between 2019 to 2023, the film tells the story of Basel Adra, a young Palestinian activist, who has been protesting the Israeli army's destruction of homes and eviction of villagers. Adra is assisted by Yuval Abraham, a Jewish Israeli journalist. (They are also two of the film's four directors). To Adra and other Palestinians, the Israeli army is destroying their homeland. The Israeli army, however, maintains that the inhabitants are on land that the military needs for live-fire military training and that the evictions have been duly authorized by Israeli courts. The situation turns violent—Adra's cousin is shot by Israeli soldiers in the days after the Oct 7 attacks—and Adra himself is endangered by his efforts to record the evictions and protests. The film provides a penetrating look not only at a Palestinian community in the West Bank but also at the plight of those being forced off their land--with literally nowhere else to go. [Editor's Note: Since the recording of this episode, Odeh Hathalin, a Palestinian activist and contributor to the film, was shot and killed in a village in Masafer Yatta by an Israeli settler.]Timestamps:0:00     Introduction3:42      Masafar Yatta and the Occupied West Bank7:43      The legal apparatus of illegal occupation13:14    The “Gazafication” of the West Bank20:08   The meaning of “No Other Land”23:21    Israel and the international community31:24    The crackdown on free speech in the United States and in Israel34:41    A complex story of an Israeli-Palestinian friendship41:18     The power of images43:07    Growing Israeli indifference to Gaza and the West Bank after Oct. 748:30    The film's reception in Israel 49:53    Law-based criticism of Israel and antisemitism Further reading:Bartov, Omer, “I'm a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It,” New York Times (July 15, 2025)Beinart, Peter, Being Jewish after the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning (2025)Caplan, Neil, The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories (2010)Hajjar, Lisa, “International Humanitarian Law and ‘Wars on Terror': A Comparative Analysis of Israeli and American Doctrines and Policies,” 36 Journal of Palestine Studies 36 (Autumn 2006)Kaufman, Anthony, "No Other Distribution: How Film Industry Economics and Politics Are Suppressing Docs Sympathetic to Palestine and Critical of Israel," Int'l Documentary Ass'n (Jan 15, 2025)Khalidi, Rashid, The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917-2017 (2020)Lukenville, Mackenzie, “The Only Path Forward: ‘No Other Land,'” Int'l Documentary Ass'n (Dec. 5, 2024)Sfard, Michael, Occupation from Within: A Journey to the Roots of the Constitutional Coup (2025)Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

In this episode of Crossing Faiths, John Pinna speaks with Guy Elhanan, an Israeli actor and member of the Parents Circle–Families Forum, a joint Israeli-Palestinian organization of bereaved families. Elhanan shares his personal journey from a typical Israeli upbringing to a peace activist, detailing how his artistic awakening in an arts high school was abruptly curtailed by the dehumanizing experience of mandatory military service. He discusses how the military and societal narratives of conflict create a "numbness" and a narrow, aggressive definition of identity, which he later began to heal from through travel, art, and pantomime. The conversation explores the profound impact of his family's loss and his father's eventual embrace of the Parents Circle, centered on the realization that "the pain is one." Key themes include the destructive nature of militarized culture, the challenge of overcoming societal propaganda and racism, and the powerful, essential role of empathy and recognizing shared humanity as the only path toward reconciliation and a future beyond the conflict.

A recent opinion poll in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim-majority state and democracy, throws a damper on Israeli and US hopes that Middle Eastern and Muslim states may recognise the Jewish state without a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Even more concerning, the poll suggests that public opinion is turning against a compromise two-state solution that would see the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel as advocated by an overwhelming majority of the international community, including Arab and Muslim states. The poll indicates that Israeli plans for a ground occupation of Gaza, Israel's US-backed devastation of Gaza to create an environment conducive to depopulation of the Strip, and its repressive West Bank settlement policy are driving the hardening of public attitudes.

Why are young Republicans abandoning Israel at unprecedented rates, dropping from 63% support to just 48% in only three years? This shocking generational shift reveals a fundamental transformation in American foreign policy attitudes that establishment voices desperately want to ignore. What's driving this dramatic change, and why are even evangelical youth turning against America's closest Middle Eastern ally? Studio Sponsor: Cardio Miracle - "Unlock the secret to a healthier heart, increased energy levels, and transform your cardiovascular fitness like never before.": CardioMiracle.com/TBNS Middle East analyst Abdullah Hayek joins The Brian Nichols Show to expose the uncomfortable truths behind America's most controversial foreign policy debate. From the historical roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the Balfour Declaration, to the current humanitarian crisis in Gaza with over 60,000 reported civilian casualties, this conversation cuts through the propaganda and political narratives to examine the facts on the ground. Discover why influential conservative voices like Marjorie Taylor Greene are now calling the situation a "genocide" while others continue justifying the military actions. The numbers don't lie – and they're screaming. Young evangelicals have seen their support for Israel crash from 75% in 2018 to just 34% by 2021. Only 9% of Americans under 35 approve of current military actions, while Netanyahu's approval rating among young Americans sits at a devastating 6%. These aren't leftist talking points; these are hard data points that reveal a generational earthquake reshaping American politics. But this isn't just about foreign policy – it's about the future of American conservatism itself. When Republican congressmen openly state their "sole purpose" is serving Israel while ignoring their own constituents' needs, young voters are asking hard questions about priorities and representation. The very voices that built careers on "America First" rhetoric are now defending billions in foreign aid while domestic infrastructure crumbles. This explosive conversation reveals why the pro-Israel establishment may have "blown their load too early," alienating the very generation they need for long-term support. From Tucker Carlson receiving thunderous applause at Turning Point USA for criticizing Israel, to Dave Smith dominating debates on the topic, the tide is turning – and the implications for American politics are massive. Don't miss this unfiltered analysis of the most consequential foreign policy shift of our generation. ❤️ Order Cardio Miracle (CardioMiracle.com/TBNS) for 15% off and take a step towards better heart health and overall well-being!

This Day in Legal History: Gulf of Tonkin ResolutionOn August 7, 1964, the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, dramatically reshaping the legal landscape of American military engagement. Prompted by reports—later disputed—of North Vietnamese attacks on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, the resolution granted President Lyndon B. Johnson broad authority to use military force in Southeast Asia without a formal declaration of war. It passed nearly unanimously, with only two dissenting votes in the Senate, reflecting the tense Cold War atmosphere and congressional trust in the executive branch.Legally, the resolution functioned as an open-ended authorization for the president to escalate military operations in Vietnam. Within months, it led to the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Critics would later argue that it allowed the executive to bypass Congress's constitutional war-making powers, effectively green-lighting a years-long conflict based on contested facts.As the war dragged on and public opinion turned, the resolution became a focal point for debates over separation of powers, congressional oversight, and executive overreach. In 1971, amid growing backlash, Congress repealed the resolution, but its legacy endured. It served as a legal and historical precedent for future authorizations of force, including those passed after 9/11.A federal appeals court has upheld the SEC's long-standing “gag rule,” which prevents defendants who settle civil enforcement cases from publicly denying the agency's allegations. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the rule is not unconstitutional on its face but left room for future challenges depending on how it's applied. The policy, in place since 1972, requires settling parties to at least refrain from admitting or denying wrongdoing. The court emphasized that defendants remain free to reject settlements if they wish to speak out.Twelve petitioners, including former Xerox CFO Barry Romeril and the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), challenged the SEC's January 2024 decision not to revise the rule. Romeril had previously brought a similar challenge to the Supreme Court with support from Elon Musk, but the Court declined to hear it. Writing for the panel, Judge Daniel Bress noted that removing the gag could reduce the SEC's ability to settle cases efficiently and that speech restrictions are voluntary components of settlement agreements.The NCLA criticized the decision, arguing it effectively sanctions government-imposed silence and announced plans to pursue further appeals. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce also dissented from the agency's refusal to revisit the rule, arguing that it hinders public accountability by suppressing potential criticism. The SEC declined to comment on the ruling, which came in the case Powell et al v. SEC.US appeals court upholds SEC 'gag rule' over free speech objections | ReutersThe Stanford Daily, Stanford University's student newspaper, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of violating the free speech rights of foreign students. The suit, filed in federal court in California, alleges that threats of arrest, detention, or deportation have created a climate of fear among international students, discouraging them from writing about sensitive political issues—particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two unnamed students joined the paper in the lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as defendants.According to the plaintiffs, the administration has labeled pro-Palestinian viewpoints as antisemitic or extremist and attempted to deport students expressing such views, framing them as threats to U.S. foreign policy. In some instances, students have been detained without charges, though judges have later ordered their release. The lawsuit contends that these actions have led to widespread self-censorship among international students, chilling constitutionally protected speech in areas such as protests, slogans, and commentary on U.S. and Israeli policy.The Stanford Daily is seeking a court ruling affirming that the First Amendment protects non-citizens from government retaliation based on their speech. The university clarified it is not involved in the suit, as the newspaper operates independently. Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, representing the paper, called the government's actions antithetical to American values of free expression.Stanford student newspaper sues Trump administration for alleged free speech violations | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit accusing major drugmakers Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca of conspiring to limit drug discounts provided under the federal 340B program. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's dismissal, allowing two health clinics—Mosaic Health and Central Virginia Health Services—to proceed with their proposed class action. These clinics claim the companies colluded in 2020 to restrict discounts on diabetes medications, harming safety-net providers and the low-income patients they serve.The court found that because the four companies control much of the diabetes drug market, coordination to limit discounts could be feasible. Judge Myrna Pérez, writing for the panel, noted the allegations were plausible enough to move forward. The drugmakers have denied wrongdoing and argue their policies were developed independently to address alleged fraud in the 340B program. Sanofi and Novo Nordisk said they are reviewing the decision, while Lilly criticized the ruling and defended its practices as legal.The clinics say the drugmakers earned billions in extra profits through these policies, which allegedly undercut essential savings for providers. The case underscores the broader tension between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers over the administration of the 340B program, which requires drugmakers to offer discounts in exchange for access to federal healthcare funds.US appeals court reinstates drug-price conspiracy lawsuit against Sanofi, rival pharma companies | ReutersPepsiCo is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it engaged in illegal price discrimination by giving more favorable pricing and discount terms to large retailers like Walmart while denying the same deals to smaller businesses. Filed in federal court in Manhattan by an Italian restaurant operator, the lawsuit claims this practice violates the Robinson-Patman Act, a rarely enforced 1936 antitrust law meant to prevent discriminatory pricing that harms competition.The suit accuses Pepsi of providing payments and allowances to Walmart that were not extended to other retailers, placing smaller businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Although Walmart is named in the allegations, it is not a defendant in the case. The plaintiff argues that Pepsi's pricing tactics unfairly burden other merchants who must pay more for the same products.This legal action echoes a previous Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit filed against Pepsi in January under the Biden administration. However, the second Trump administration dropped the case in May, with Trump-appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson criticizing it as a politically motivated effort launched too late in the prior administration's term. The FTC has not commented on the new private lawsuit.The class action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of thousands of Pepsi purchasers nationwide. Neither Pepsi nor Walmart has publicly responded to the allegations.Pepsi accused of price discrimination in new merchant class action | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us a textSapir Handelman is an Israeli scholar and peace activist known for her work facilitating dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. She holds a PhD in conflict resolution and has led the Minds of Peace initiative, organizing public negotiations and citizen-led peace assemblies. Handelman is committed to grassroots diplomacy as a path toward a just and lasting resolution to the conflict.Want more than just watching?Connect with Israelis, Palestinians, and global voices having real conversations every day - https://discord.gg/MSTfuhnj8S Socials: https://linktr.ee/adarwSupport the Show: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/sulhaPayPal: https://paypal.me/AdarW?locale.x=en_USSupport the show

In this episode of Crossing Faiths, John Pinna speaks with Laila Alsheikh, a Palestinian from Bethlehem and a member of The Parents Circle-Families Forum, a joint Israeli-Palestinian organization of over 700 bereaved families. Laila shares the deeply personal and tragic story of losing her six-month-old son, who died after being denied timely passage through an Israeli checkpoint for urgent medical care. She recounts her journey from profound grief and anger to joining the organization, detailing a pivotal moment where she came face-to-face with the soldier responsible, only to find shared humanity and a path toward reconciliation. The conversation explores the organization's mission to use shared pain as a bridge for dialogue, advocating for an end to the cycle of violence. Laila emphasizes that the solution to the conflict lies not in political sides but in ensuring equal rights, freedom, and dignity for all, and calls for an end to the conflict so that no other families have to endure such loss. Laila Alsheikh lives in Bethlehem in the West Bank. In 2002, her 6 months old son, Qussay, became ill and Israeli soldiers prevented Layla from taking him to the hospital for more than five hours. Qussay soon died from the lack of timely treatment. Laila joined the Parents Circle in 2016. Following her son's death, she never thought of revenge, but rather has devoted her time and energy to ensuring a better, more peaceful future for her children. The Parents Circle - Families Forum is a joint Israeli-Palestinian organization made up of over 800 bereaved families. Their common bond is that they have lost a close family member to the conflict. But instead of choosing revenge, they have chosen a path of reconciliation. Through their educational activities, these bereaved members have joined together to take tens of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis on journeys of reconciliation. It is often raw and always emotional. But out of these interactions, comes change. Not the kind of change that makes headlines, but a more personal and profound shift in perspective. As a joint Israeli-Palestinian peace organization, the PCFF models constructive dialogue around shared values. Even since October 7th, 2023, its staff, members, and thousands of participants are still committed to peace and a way forward that centers around empathy and humanization. The PCFF focuses on the shared value of the sanctity of human life. This conversation brings our attention to the values that Palestinians and Israelis can agree upon even in the darkest of times. Links: Website: https://www.parentscirclefriends.org/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ParentsCircleFamiliesForum/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/parentscirclefriends/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/thepcff?lang=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-friends-of-the-parents-circle-families-forum

On July 30, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that, come September, Canada will officially recognize Palestine as a state, during the United Nations General Assembly meetings in New York. In making the announcement in Ottawa earlier this week, Carney said he had received three “commitments” from the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas: to hold elections in 2026, to reform the P.A.'s governance and to demilitarize the territories. Carney said Canada couldn't wait any longer for a two-state solution to happen on its own, and needed to act quickly. Why? Because Hamas continues to pose a “pervasive threat” to Israel and its right to exist after the “heinous terrorist attack of October 7, 2023.” But he also blamed Israel for planning to expand settlements and annex the West Bank, for letting extremist settlers continue attacking Palestinians, and for allowing a humanitarian crisis to unfold in Gaza. The news has Canadian Jews divided. Some mainstream organizations reacted to the news with alarm; B'nai Brith Canada called the decision “dangerously premature”, while the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs warned of “another failed Palestinian pseudo-state controlled by terrorists”, adding their deep concern that the recognition doesn't hinge on the release of the hostages and the removal of Hamas first. Meanwhile, some progressive Jewish groups commended Carney for the move, including Canadian Friends of Peace Now and JSpace Canada. The latter praised “this significant and courageous step” as being “shared by the majority of Canadian Jews,” and that a two-state solution “remains the only just and sustainable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” On today's episode of The CJN's North Star podcast, host Ellin Bessner speaks with two senior international affairs analysts on opposite sides of the issue. Alan Kessel is a former Canadian diplomat and legal advisor to Global Affairs Canada, and his former colleague Jon Allen was Canadian ambassador to Israel from 2006-2010. Related links Read more about Canada's pledge to recognize Palestine in September, in The CJN. Read Prime Minister Mark Carney's official announcement on why Canada will recognize Palestine. Hear the former Palestinian envoy to Ottawa say there can't be elections because Israel is occupying East Jerusalem, the Palestinian capital, on CBC News. Credits Host and writer: Ellin Bessner (@ebessner) Production team: Zachary Kauffman (senior producer), Andrea Varsany (producer), Michael Fraiman (executive producer) Music: Bret Higgins Support our show Subscribe to The CJN newsletter Donate to The CJN (+ get a charitable tax receipt) Subscribe to North Star (Not sure how? Click here)

For today's episode, Lawfare General Counsel and Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Joel Braunold, Managing Director of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, for another of their regular updates on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.This time, they discussed the brutal famine afflicting Gaza, how the broader military conflict between Israel and Hamas has contributed to it, and what the rising global pressure on Israel to address it—including from the Trump administration—may mean for the trajectory of Israeli-Palestinian relations.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.

Katie talks to Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis about Gaza, Russia, Tulsi Gabbard, Epstein. But first Katie talks to Murad Awawdeh, President and CEO at the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) and Ron Kuby, a criminal defense Civil Rights lawyer about Trump's illegal war on immigrants and to doctors Feroze Sidhwa and Mark Perlmutter about their time in Gaza and Israel's starvation campaign. To see the rest of my discussion with Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, please join us on Patreon at - https://www.patreon.com/posts/patreon-lt-col-135269024 Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis is a four time 4x combat veteran, the author of Eleventh Hour in 2020 America and the host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive on YouTube. He was one of the earliest military officers to publicly criticize the war in Afghanistan.In 2025, Davis was selected by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard for appointment as deputy director for mission integration. Gabbard withdrew the selection prior to Davis' appointment after news of its pendency leaked, possibly over his criticism of Israel. Murad Awawdeh is a strategist, organizer, and advocacy expert currently serving as the President and CEO at the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC). The son of Palestinian immigrants, Murad has dedicated over two decades of his life fighting for low-income communities of color across the State of New York. He grew up organizing to stop dangerous and hazardous developments in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, and engaging community residents to build power and bring transformational change to their neighborhoods Ron Kuby is a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer based in New York. Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, MD, is a general, trauma, and critical care surgeon from California, As a humanitarian surgeon, Dr. Sidhwa has not only worked extensively in Palestine, but also in Ukraine, Haiti, Zimbabwe, and Burkina Faso. He has written and spoken about his surgical humanitarian work, the United States' role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the political consequences of medical relief work. His op-eds have appeared in several major media outlets, including the New York Times. Dr. Mark Perlmutter, MD, is a Jewish orthopedic and hand surgeon from North Carolina. He has worked in conflict zones around the world for decades. Watch me live on youtube every Tuesday at 7PM EST https://www.youtube.com/TheKatieHalperShow Subscribe so you don't miss livestreams and daily clips https://www.youtube.com/TheKatieHalperShow Support my work and get exclusive interviews https://www.patreon.com/thekatiehalpershow Listen to, rate & review my podcast! The Katie Halper Show on Itunes follow me on Twitter! http://twitter.com/kthalps

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast (07/24/25), Hank answers the following questions:What is the biblical view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Kevin - Newcastle, OK (0:48)What do you mean when you talk about types and shadows? Toyin - Toronto, ON (7:38)Have you written any material on how to witness? Toyin - Toronto, ON (9:32)My friend's father is having an affair. Can you give me some advice in this situation? Louisa - Toronto, ON (15:11)My uncle is a skeptic. How can I witness to him? Jane - Kennett, MO (17:54)Are Josephus' references to Jesus accurate? Fernando - St. Louis, MO (21:23)

Today on Table Talk with BBYOInsider, we sat down with Yirmiyahu Danzig, digital Israel educator and activist. Recorded live at International Kallah 2025 during the Israel 360 Seminar, this episode explores Yirmiyahu's unique approach to advocacy through multilingual content creation and education. Rooted in his Israeli and Caribbean heritage, he shares insights on promoting civil discourse around the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, strengthening Jewish identity, and empowering teens to engage thoughtfully and respectfully in complex conversations.

Helen Lewis is a big deal y'all, and yes we'd be saying that even if she didn't have a British accent. She's a staff writer at The Atlantic, author of the new book The Genius Myth: A Curious History of a Dangerous Idea , as well as Difficult Women: An Imperfect History of Feminism. She has written and presented several BBC (ooh!) Radio shows including "The New Gurus"and our personal favorite, "Helen Lewis Has Left the Chat. You can also find her right here on Substack, at Helen Lewis. Good for the Jews is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.We talk overrated geniuses, AI and the class divide, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and other very serious topics that Helen manages to make really fun.Also:* London survived The Blitz, so we'll all be ok* Jewish Rumspringa* Helen Lewish isn't Jewish, but the Manosphere thinks she is* Chess.com is the new 4Chan* The Genius Myth* Was Shakespeare a black trans woman?* 1600s LinkedIn* Einstein was Mid, but he had great branding* AI and the class divide* The Ayatollah has a suprise for us* Gout and IQ* Helen Lewis has left the chat* WhatsApp drama is life* Greta Thunberg created Zionists * What people don't understand about Israelis is….* Helen admits that America is beating the UK!* Oh wait, now she's talking about inequality* Babies need to start pulling their weight and giving more to charity* 2025 feminismThanks for reading Good for the Jews! This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit askajew.substack.com/subscribe

In the wake of the 12-day war against Iran and with the campaign in Gaza still ongoing, Israel's regional outlook is characterized by both deepening challenges and emerging opportunities. Israel Policy Forum and ROPES—The Regional Organization for Peace, Economics & Security—present a webinar on the state of Israel's regional integration featuring Ksenia Svetlova (Executive director, ROPES), Farah Bdour (Jordanian policy analyst), and Aziz Alghashian (Saudi policy analyst) in conversation with Rachel Brandenburg (Washington Managing Director and Senior Fellow, Israel Policy Forum). Ksenia, Farah, Aziz, and Rachel unpack the wider regional environment and its implications for Israel, including the aftermath of the Israel-Iran war, the new government in Syria, the new status quo in Lebanon, the state of the Israeli-Palestinian arena, and more.Support the showFollow us on Instagram, Twitter/X, and Bluesky, and subscribe to our email list here.

In Episode 426 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, about American grand strategy, the Trump Doctrine of Coercive Primacy, and the implications of Washington's new Gunboat Diplomacy in the Middle East. Stephen is a prominent member of the realist school in international relations. He's been a long-time critic of American adventurism and an advocate for a more restrained approach to U.S. foreign policy. In the first hour, Stephen provides his assessment of recent events in the Middle East, how U.S. policy in the region improves or worsens America's global position, and what we can say with certainty about the Trump administration's approach to foreign policy. In the second hour, he and Demetri discuss: (1) America's policy in the Middle East (2) Iranian intentions and the potential for regime change (3) Solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (4) American grand strategy (5) The long-awaited U.S. pivot to Asia that has failed to fully materialize Subscribe to our premium content—including our premium feed, episode transcripts, and Intelligence Reports—by visiting HiddenForces.io/subscribe. If you'd like to join the conversation and become a member of the Hidden Forces Genius community—with benefits like Q&A calls with guests, exclusive research and analysis, in-person events, and dinners—you can also sign up on our subscriber page at HiddenForces.io/subscribe. If you enjoyed today's episode of Hidden Forces, please support the show by: Subscribing on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, Stitcher, SoundCloud, CastBox, or via our RSS Feed Writing us a review on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Joining our mailing list at https://hiddenforces.io/newsletter/ Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou Subscribe and support the podcast at https://hiddenforces.io. Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod Follow Demetri on Twitter at @Kofinas Episode Recorded on 06/25/2025

How has the media distorted Israel's response to the October 7 Hamas attacks? In this powerful conversation from AJC Global Forum 2025, award-winning journalist and former AP correspondent Matti Friedman breaks down the media bias, misinformation, and double standards shaping global coverage of Israel. Moderated by AJC Chief Communications and Strategy Officer Belle Etra Yoeli, this episode explores how skewed narratives have taken hold in the media, in a climate of activist journalism. A must-listen for anyone concerned with truth in journalism, Israel advocacy, and combating disinformation in today's media landscape. Take Action: Take 15 seconds and urge your elected leaders to send a clear, united message: We stand with Israel. Take action now. Resources: Global Forum 2025 session with Matti Friedman:: Watch the full video. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  John Spencer's Key Takeaways After the 12-Day War: Air Supremacy, Intelligence, and Deterrence Iran's Secret Nuclear Program and What Comes Next in the Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran's Nuclear Program Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: I've had the privilege of interviewing journalism colleague Matti Friedman: twice on this podcast. In 2022, Matti took listeners behind the scenes of Jerusalem's AP bureau where he had worked between 2006 and 2011 and shared some insight on what happens when news outlets try to oversimplify the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then in 2023, I got to sit down with Matti in Jerusalem to talk about his latest book on Leonard Cohen and how the 1973 Yom Kippur War was a turning point both for the singer and for Israel.  Earlier this year, Matti came to New York for AJC Global Forum 2025, and sat down with Belle Yoeli, AJC Chief Strategy and Communications Officer. They rehashed some of what we discussed before, but against an entirely different backdrop: post-October 7. For this week's episode, we bring you a portion of that conversation.  Belle Yoeli:   Hi, everyone. Great to see all of you. Thank you so much for being here. Matti, thank you for being here.  Matti Friedman:   Thanks for having me.  Belle Yoeli:   As you can tell by zero empty seats in this room, you have a lot of fans, and unless you want to open with anything, I'm going to jump right in. Okay, great.  So for those of you who don't know, in September 2024 Matti wrote a piece in The Free Press that is a really great foundation for today's discussion. In When We Started to Lie, Matti, you reflect on two pieces that you had written in 2015 about issues of media coverage of Israel during Operation Protective Edge in 2014. And this piece basically talked about the conclusions you drew and how they've evolved since October 7. We're gonna get to those conclusions, but first, I'm hoping you can describe for everyone what were the issues of media coverage of Israel that you first identified based on the experience in 2014? Matti Friedman:   First of all, thanks so much for having me here, and thanks for all of the amazing work that you guys are doing. So it's a real honor for me. I was a reporter for the AP, between 2006 and the very end of 2011, in Jerusalem. I was a reporter and editor. The AP, of course, as you know, is the American news agency. It's the world's largest news organization, according to the AP, according to Reuters, it's Reuters. One of them is probably right, but it's a big deal in the news world.  And I had an inside view inside one of the biggest AP bureaus. In fact, the AP's biggest International Bureau, which was in Jerusalem. So I can try to sketch the problems that I saw as a reporter there. It would take me seven or eight hours, and apparently we only have four or five hours for this lunch, so I have to keep it short. But I would say there are two main problems. We often get very involved. When we talk about problems with coverage of Israel. We get involved with very micro issues like, you call it a settlement. I call it a neighborhood. Rockets, you know, the Nakba, issues of terminology. But in fact, there are two major problems that are much bigger, and because they're bigger, they're often harder to see. One of the things that I noticed at the Bureau was the scale of coverage of Israel. So at the time that I was at the AP, again, between 2006 and the very end of 2011 we had about 40 full time staffers covering Israel. That's print reporters like me, stills photographers, TV crews. Israel, as most of you probably know, is a very small country. As a percentage of the world's surface, Israel is 1/100 of 1% of the surface of the world, and as a percentage of the land mass of the Arab world, Israel is 1/5 of 1%. 0.2%.  And we had 40 people covering it.  And just as a point of comparison, that was dramatically more people than we had at the time covering China. There are about 10 million people today in Israel proper, in China, there are 1.3 billion. We had more people in Israel than we had in China. We had more people in Israel than we had in India, which is another country of about 1.3 billion people. We had more people in Israel than we had in all of the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. That's 50 something countries. So we had more people in Israel than we had in all of those countries combined. And sometimes I say that to Jews, I say we covered Israel more than we covered China, and people just stare at me blankly, because it's Israel. So of course, that makes perfect sense.  I happen to think Israel is the most important country in the world because I live there. But if the news is meant to be a rational analysis of events on planet Earth, you cannot cover Israel more than you cover the continent of Africa. It just doesn't make any sense. So one of the things that first jumped out at me– actually, that's making me sound smarter than I am. It didn't jump out at me at first. It took a couple of years. And I just started realizing that it was very strange that the world's largest organization had its largest international bureau in the State of Israel, which is a very small country, very small conflict in numeric terms. And yet there was this intense global focus on it that made people think that it was the most important story in the world. And it definitely occupies a place in the American political imagination that is not comparable to any other international conflict.  So that's one part of the problem. That was the scope, the other part was the context. And it took me a while to figure this out, but the coverage of Israel is framed as an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conflict is defined in those terms, the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and everyone in this room has heard it discussed in those terms. Sometimes we discuss it in those terms, and that is because the news folks have framed the conflict in those terms. So at the AP bureau in Jerusalem, every single day, we had to write a story that was called, in the jargon of the Bureau, Is-Pals, Israelis, Palestinians. And it was the daily wrap of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. So what Netanyahu said, what Abbas said, rockets, settlers, Hamas, you know, whatever, the problem is that there isn't an Israeli=Palestinian conflict. And I know that sounds crazy, because everyone thinks there is.  And of course, we're seeing conflicts play out in the most tragic way right now in Gaza. But most of Israel's wars have not been fought against Palestinians. Israel has unfortunately fought wars against Egyptians and Jordanians and Lebanese and Iraqis. And Israel's most important enemy at the moment, is Iran, right? The Iranians are not Palestinian. The Iranians are not Arab. They're Muslim, but they're not Arab. So clearly, there is a broader regional conflict that's going on that is not an Israeli Palestinian conflict, and we've seen it in the past year. If we had a satellite in space looking down and just following the paths of ballistic missiles and rockets fired at Israel. Like a photograph of these red trails of rockets fired at Israel. You'd see rockets being fired from Iraq and from Yemen and from Lebanon and from Gaza and from Iran. You'd see the contours of a regional conflict.  And if you understand it's a regional conflict, then you understand the way Israelis see it. There are in the Arab world, 300 million people, almost all of them Muslim. And in one corner of that world, there are 7 million Jews, who are Israelis. And if we zoom out even farther to the level of the Islamic world, we'll see that there are 2 billion people in the Islamic world. There's some argument about the numbers, but it's roughly a quarter of the world's population. And in one corner of that world there, there are 7 million Israeli Jews. The entire Jewish population on planet Earth is a lot smaller than the population of Cairo.  So the idea that this is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where Israelis are the stronger side, where Israelis are the dominant actor, and where Israelis are, let's face it, the bad guy in the story, that's a fictional presentation of a story that actually works in a completely different way. So if you take a small story and make it seem big. If you take a complicated regional story and you make it seem like a very small local story involving only Israelis and Palestinians, then you get the highly simplified but very emotive narrative that everyone is being subjected to now. And you get this portrayal of a villainous country called Israel that really looms in the liberal imagination of the West as an embodiment of the worst possible qualities of the age. Belle Yoeli:   Wow. So already you were seeing these issues when you were reporter, earlier on. But like this, some of this was before and since, since productive edge. This is over 10 years ago, and here we are. So October 7 happens. You already know these issues exist. You've identified them. How would you describe because obviously we have a lot of feelings about this, but like, strictly as a journalist, how would you describe the coverage that you've seen since during October 7, in its aftermath? Is it just these issues? Have they? Have they expanded? Are there new issues in play? What's your analysis? Matti Friedman:   The coverage has been great. I really have very I have no criticism of it. I think it's very accurate. I think that I, in a way, I was lucky to have been through what I went through 10 or 15 years ago, and I wasn't blindsided on October 7, as many people were, many people, quite naturally, don't pay close attention to this. And even people who are sympathetic to Israel, I think, were not necessarily convinced that my argument about the press was right. And I think many people thought it was overstated.  And you can read those articles from 2014 one was in tablet and one was in the Atlantic, but it's basically the two chapters of the same argument. And unfortunately, I think that those the essays, they stand up. In fact, if you don't really look at the date of the essays, they kind of seem that they could have been written in the past year and a half. And I'm not happy about that. I think that's and I certainly wrote them in hopes that they would somehow make things better. But the issues that I saw in the press 15 years ago have only been exacerbated since then. And October seven didn't invent the wheel. The issues were pre existing, but it took everything that I saw and kind of supercharged it.  So if I talked about ideological conformity in the bureaus that has been that has become much more extreme. A guy like me, I was hired in 2006 at the AP. I'm an Israeli of center left political leanings. Hiring me was not a problem in 22,006 by the time I left the AP, at the end of 2011 I'm pretty sure someone like me would not have been hired because my views, which are again, very centrist Israeli views, were really beyond the pale by the time that I left the AP, and certainly, and certainly today, the thing has really moved what I saw happening at the AP. And I hate picking on the AP because they were just unfortunate enough to hire me. That was their only error, but what I'm saying about them is true of a whole new. Was heard. It's true of the Times and CNN and the BBC, the news industry really works kind of as a it has a herd mentality. What happened was that news decisions were increasingly being made by people who are not interested in explanatory journalism. They were activists. Activists had moved into the key positions in the Bureau, and they had a very different idea of what press coverage was supposed to do. I would say, and I tried to explain it in that article for the free press, when I approach a news story, when I approach the profession of journalism, the question that I'm asking is, what's going on? That's the question I think you're supposed to ask, what's going on? How can I explain it in a way that's as accurate as as possible? The question that was increasingly being asked was not what's going on. The question was, who does this serve? That's an activist question. So when you look at a story, you don't ask, is it true, or is it not true? You ask, who's it going to help? Is it going to help the good guys, or is it going to help the bad guys?  So if Israel in the story is the villain, then a story that makes Israel seem reasonable, reasonable or rational or sympathetic needs to be played down to the extent possible or made to disappear. And I can give you an example from my own experience.  At the very end of 2008 two reporters in my bureau, people who I know, learned of a very dramatic peace offer that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had made to the Palestinians. So Olmert, who was the prime minister at the time, had made a very far reaching offer that was supposed to see a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, most of the West Bank, with land swaps for territory that Israel was going to retain, and a very far reaching international consortium agreement to run the Old City of Jerusalem. Was a very dramatic. It was so far reaching, I think that Israelis probably wouldn't have supported it. But it was offered to the Palestinian side, and the Palestinians rejected it as insufficient. And two of our reporters knew about this, and they'd seen a map of the offer. And this was obviously a pretty big story for a bureau that had as the thrust of its coverage the peace process.  The two reporters who had the story were ordered to drop it, they were not allowed to cover the story. And there were different explanations. And they didn't, by the way, AP did not publish the story at the time, even though we were the first to have it. Eventually, it kind of came out and in other ways, through other news organizations. But we knew at first. Why were we not allowed to cover it? Because it would have made the Israelis who we were trying to villainize and demonize, it would have made Israel seem like it was trying to solve the conflict on kind of reasonable lines, which, of course, was true at that time. So that story would have upended the thrust of our news coverage. So it had to be made to go away, even though it was true, it would have helped the wrong people. And that question of who does this serve has destroyed, I want to say all, but much, of what used to be mainstream news coverage, and it's not just where Israel is concerned.  You can look at a story like the mental health of President Biden, right. Something's going on with Biden at the end of his term. It's a huge global news story, and the press, by and large, won't touch it, because why? I mean, it's true, right? We're all seeing that it's true, but why can't you touch it? Because it would help the wrong people. It would help the Republicans who in the press are the people who you are not supposed to help.  The origins of COVID, right? We heard one story about that. The true story seems to be a different story. And there are many other examples of stories that are reported because they help the right people, or not reported because they would help the wrong people. And I saw this thinking really come into action in Israel 10 or 15 years ago, and unfortunately, it's really spread to include the whole mainstream press scene and really kill it.  I mean, essentially, anyone interested in trying to get a solid sense of what's going on, we have very few options. There's not a lot, there's not a lot out there. So that's the broader conclusion that I drew from what I thought at the time was just a very small malfunction involving Israel coverage. But Israel coverage ends up being a symptom of something much bigger, as Jews often are the symptom of something much bigger that's going on.  So my problems in the AP bureau 15 years ago were really a kind of maybe a canary in the coal mine, or a whiff of something much bigger that we were all going to see happen, which is the transformation of the important liberal institutions of the west into kind of activist arms of a very radical ideology that has as its goal the transformation of the west into something else. And that's true of the press, and it's true of NGO world, places like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which were one thing 30 years ago and are something very different today. And it's also true of big parts of the academy. It's true of places like Columbia and places like Harvard, they still have the logo, they still have the name, but they serve a different purpose, and I just happen to be on the ground floor of it as a reporter. Belle Yoeli:   So obviously, this concept of who does this serve, and this activist journalism is deeply concerning, and you actually mentioned a couple other areas, academia, obviously we're in that a lot right now in terms of what's going on campus. So I guess a couple of questions on that. First of all, think about this very practically, tachlis, in the day to day.  I'm a journalist, and I go to write about what's happening in Gaza. What would you say is, if you had to throw out a percentage, are all of them aware of this activist journalist tendency? Or you think it's like, like intentional for many of them, or it's sort of they've been educated that way, and it's their worldview in such a way that they don't even know that they're not reporting the news in a very biased way. Does that make sense? Matti Friedman:   Totally. I think that many people in the journalism world today view their job as not as explaining a complicated situation, but as swaying people toward the correct political conclusion. Journalism is power, and the power has to be wielded in support of justice. Now, justice is very slippery, and, you know, choosing who's in the right is very, very slippery, and that's how journalism gets into a lot of trouble. Instead of just trying to explain what's going on and then leave, you're supposed to leave the politics and the activism to other people. Politics and activism are very important.  But unless everyone can agree on what is going on, it's impossible to choose the kind of act, the kind of activism that would be useful. So when the journalists become activists, then no one can understand what's what's going on, because the story itself is fake, and there are many, many examples of it. But you know, returning to what you asked about, about October 7, and reporting post October 7, you can really see it happen. The massacres of October 7 were very problematic for the ideological strain that now controls a lot of the press, because it's counterintuitive. You're not supposed to sympathize with Israelis.  And yet, there were a few weeks after October 7 when they were forced to because the nature of the atrocities were so heinous that they could not be ignored. So you had the press covering what happened on October 7, but you could feel it. As someone who knows that scene, you could feel there was a lot of discomfort. There was a lot of discomfort. It wasn't their comfort zone, and you knew that within a few weeks, maybe a month, it was gonna snap back at the first opportunity.  When did it snap back? In the story of the Al Ahli hospital strike. If you remember that a few weeks in, there's a massive global story that Israel has rocketed Hospital in Gaza and killed about 500 people and and then you can see the kind of the comfort the comfort zone return, because the story that the press is primed to cover is a story about villainous Israelis victimizing innocent Palestinians, and now, now we're back. Okay. Now Israel's rocketing hospital. The problem was that it hadn't happened, and it was that a lot of stories don't happen, and they're allowed to stand.  But this story was so far from the truth that even the people involved couldn't make it work, and it had to be retracted, but it was basically too late. And then as soon as the Israeli ground offensive got into swing in Gaza, then the story really becomes the same old story, which is a story of Israel victimizing Palestinians for no reason. And you'll never see Hamas militants in uniform in Gaza. You just see dead civilians, and you'll see the aftermath of a rocket strike when the, you know, when an Israeli F16 takes out the launcher, but you will never see the strike. Which is the way it's worked in Gaza since the very end of 2008 which is when the first really bad round of violence in Gaza happens, which is when I'm at the AP.  As far as I know, I was the first staffer to erase information from the story, because we were threatened by Hamas, which happened at the very end of 2008. We had a great reporter in Gaza, a Palestinian who had always been really an excellent reporter. We had a detail in a story. The detail was a crucial one. It was that Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and were being counted as civilians in the death toll, an important thing to know, that went out in an AP story. The reporter called me a few hours later. It was clear that someone had spoken to him, and he told me, I was on the desk in Jerusalem, so I was kind of writing the story from the main bureau in Jerusalem. And he said, Matti, you have to take that detail out of the story. And it was clear that someone had threatened him. I took the detail out of the story. I suggested to our editors that we note in an Editor's Note that we were now complying with Hamas censorship. I was overruled, and from that point in time, the AP, like all of its sister organizations, collaborates with Hamas censorship in Gaza.  What does that mean? You'll see a lot of dead civilians, and you won't see dead militants. You won't have a clear idea of what the Hamas military strategy is. And this is the kicker, the center of the coverage will be a number, a casualty number, that is provided to the press by something called the Gaza health ministry, which is Hamas. And we've been doing that since 2008, and it's a way of basically settling the story before you get into any other information. Because when you put, you know, when you say 50 Palestinians were killed, and one Israeli on a given day, it doesn't matter what else you say. The numbers kind of tell their own story, and it's a way of settling the story with something that sounds like a concrete statistic. And the statistic is being, you know, given to us by one of the combatant sides. But because the reporters sympathize with that side, they're happy to play along. So since 2008, certainly since 2014 when we had another serious war in Gaza, the press has not been covering Gaza, the press has been essentially an amplifier for one of the most poisonous ideologies on Earth. Hamas has figured out how to make the press amplify its messaging rather than covering Hamas. There are no Western reporters in Gaza. All of the reporters in Gaza are Palestinians, and those people fall into three categories. Some of them identify with Hamas. Some of them are intimidated by Hamas and won't cross Hamas, which makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't want to cross Hamas either. So either. And the third category is people who actually belong to Hamas. That's where the information from Gaza is coming from. And if you're credulous, then of course, you're going to get a story that makes Israel look pretty bad. Belle Yoeli:   So this is very depressing. That's okay. It's very helpful, very depressing. But on that note, I would ask you so whether, because you spoke about this problem in terms, of, of course, the coverage of Israel, but that it's it's also more widespread you talk, you spoke about President Biden in your article, you name other examples of how this sort of activist journalism is affecting everything we read. So what should everyone in this room be reading, truly, from your opinion. This is Matti's opinion. But if you want to you want to get information from our news and not activist journalism, obviously The Free Press, perhaps. But are there other sites or outlets that you think are getting this more down the line, or at least better than some, some better than others?  Matti Friedman:   No, it's just The Free Press. No. I mean, it's a question that I also wrestle with. I haven't given up on everyone, and even in publications that have, I think, largely lost the plot, you'll still find good stuff on occasion. So I try to keep my eye on certain reporters whose name I know. I often ask not just on Israel, but on anything, does this reporter speak the language of the country that they're covering? You'd be shocked at how rare that is for Americans. A lot of the people covering Ukraine have no idea what language they speak in Ukraine, and just as someone who covers Israel, I'm aware of the low level of knowledge that many of the Western reporters have. You'll find really good stuff still in the Atlantic. The Atlantic has managed, against steep odds, to maintain its equilibrium amid all this. The New Yorker, unfortunately, less so, but you'll still see, on occasion, things that are good. And there are certain reporters who are, you know, you can trust. Isabel Kirchner, who writes for The New York Times, is an old colleague of mine from the Jerusalem report. She's excellent, and they're just people who are doing their job. But by and large, you have to be very, very suspicious of absolutely everything that you read and see. And I'm not saying that as someone who I'm not happy to say that, and I certainly don't identify with, you know, the term fake news, as it has been pushed by President Trump.  I think that fake news is, you know, for those guys, is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. They're trying to, you know, neuter the watchdog so that they can get away with whatever they want. I don't think that crowd is interested in good press coverage. Unfortunately, the term fake news sticks because it's true. That's why it has worked. And the press, instead of helping people navigate the blizzard of disinformation that we're all in, they've joined it. People who are confused about what's going on, should be able to open up the New York Times or go to the AP and figure out what's going on, but because, and I saw it happen, instead of covering the circus, the reporters became dancing bears in the circus. So no one can make heads or tails of anything. So we need to be very careful.  Most headlines that are out there are out there to generate outrage, because that's the most predictable generator of clicks, which is the, we're in a click economy. So I actually think that the less time you spend following headlines and daily news, the better off you'll be. Because you can follow the daily news for a year, and by the end of the year, you'll just be deranged. You'll just be crazy and very angry.  If you take that time and use it to read books about, you know, bitten by people who are knowledgeable, or read longer form essays that are, you know, that are obviously less likely to be very simplistic, although not, you know, it's not completely impossible that they will be. I think that's time, that's time better spent. Unfortunately, much of the industry is kind of gone. And we're in an interesting kind of interim moment where it's clear that the old news industry is basically dead and that something new has to happen. And those new things are happening. I mean, The Free Press is part of a new thing that's happening. It's not big enough to really move the needle in a dramatic way yet, but it might be, and I think we all have to hope that new institutions emerge to fill the vacuum.  The old institutions, and I say this with sorrow, and I think that this also might be true of a lot of the academic institutions. They can't be saved. They can't be saved. So if people think that writing an editor, a letter to the editor of the New York Times is going to help. It's not going to help. Sometimes people say, Why don't we just get the top people in the news industry and bring them to Israel and show them the truth? Doesn't help. It's not about knowing or not knowing. They define the profession differently.  So it's not about a lack of information. The institutions have changed, and it's kind of irrevocable at this point, and we need new institutions, and one of them is The Free Press, and it's a great model of what to do when faced with fading institutions. By the way, the greatest model of all time in that regard is Zionism. That's what Zionism is. There's a guy in Vienna in 1890 something, and his moment is incredibly contemporary. There's an amazing biography of Herzl called Herzl by Amos Elon. It's an amazing book. If you haven't read it, you should read it, because his moment in cosmopolitan Vienna sounds exactly like now. It's shockingly current. He's in this friendly city. He's a reporter for the New York Times, basically of the Austro Hungarian empire, and he's assimilated, and he's got a Christmas tree in his house, and his son isn't circumcised, and he thinks everything is basically great. And then the light changes.  He notices that something has changed in Vienna, and the discourse about Jews changes, and like in a Hollywood movie, the light changes. And he doesn't try to he doesn't start a campaign against antisemitism. He doesn't get on social media and kind of rail against unfair coverage. He sits down in a hotel room in Paris and he writes this pamphlet called the Jewish state, and I literally flew from that state yesterday. So there's a Zionist model where you look at a failing world and you think about radical solutions that involve creation. And I think we're there. And I think Herzl's model is a good one at a dark time you need real creativity. Belle Yoeli:   Thank God you found the inspiration there, because I was really, I was really starting to worry. No, in all seriousness, Matti, the saying that these institutions can't be saved. I mean the consequences of this, not just for us as pro-Israel, pro-Jewish advocates, but for our country, for the world, the countries that we come from are tremendous.  And the way we've been dealing with this issue and thinking about how, how can you change hearts and minds of individuals about Israel, about the Jewish people, if everything that they're reading is so damaging and most of what they're reading is so damaging and basically saying there's very little that we can do about that. So I am going to push you to dream big with us. We're an advocacy organization. AJC is an advocacy organization. So if you had unlimited resources, right, if you really wanted to make change in this area, to me, it sounds like you're saying we basically need 15 Free Presses or the new institutions to really take on this way. What would you do? What would you do to try to make it so that news media were more like the old days? Matti Friedman:   Anyone who wants unlimited resources should not go into journalism. I have found that my resources remain limited. I'll give you an answer that is probably not what you're expecting or not what you want here. I think that the fight can't be won. I think that antisemitism can't be defeated. And I think that resources that are poured into it are resources wasted. And of course, I think that people need legal protection, and they need, you know, lawyers who can protect people from discrimination and from defamation. That's very important. But I know that when people are presented with a problem like antisemitism, which is so disturbing and it's really rocking the world of everyone in this room, and certainly, you know, children and grandchildren, you have a problem and you want to address it, right? You have a really bad rash on your arm. You want the rash to go away, and you're willing to do almost anything to make it go away. This has always been with us. It's always been with us.  And you know, we recently celebrated the Seder, and we read in the Seder, in the Haggadah, l'chol dor vador, omdim aleinu l'chaloteinu. Which is, in every generation, they come at us to destroy us. And it's an incredibly depressing worldview. Okay, it's not the way I wanted to see the world when I grew up in Toronto in the 1990s. But in our tradition, we have this idea that this is always gonna be around. And the question is, what do you do? Do you let other people define you? Do you make your identity the fight against the people who hate you? And I think that's a dead end.  This crisis is hitting the Jewish people at a moment when many of us don't know who we are, and I think that's why it's hitting so hard. For my grandfather, who was a standard New York Jew, garment industry, Lower East Side, poor union guy. This would not have shaken him, because he just assumed that this was the world like this. The term Jewish identity was not one he ever heard, because it wasn't an issue or something that had to be taught. So if I had unlimited resources, what I would do is I would make sure that young Jewish people have access to the riches of Jewish civilization, I would, you know, institute a program that would allow any young Jewish person to be fluent in Hebrew by the time they finish college. Why is that so important? Why is that such an amazing key?  Because if you're fluent in Hebrew, you can open a Tanakh, or you can open a prayer book if you want. Or you can watch Fauda or you can get on a plane to Israel and hit on Israeli guys. Hebrew is the key to Jewish life, and if you have it, a whole world will open up. And it's not one that antisemites can interfere with. It does not depend on the goodwill of our neighbors. It's all about us and what we're doing with ourselves. And I think that if you're rooted in Jewish tradition, and I'm not saying becoming religious, I'm just saying, diving into the riches of Jewish tradition, whether it's history or gemara or Israel, or whatever, if you're if you're deep in there enough, then the other stuff doesn't go away, but it becomes less important.  It won't be solved because it can't be solved, but it will fade into the background. And if we make the center of identity the fight against antisemitism, they've won. Why should they be the center of our identity? For a young person who's looking for some way of living or some deep kind of guide to life, the fight against antisemitism is not going to do it, and philanthropy is not going to do it. We come from the wisest and one of the oldest civilizations in the world, and many of us don't know how to open the door to that civilization, and that's in our hands. And if we're not doing it, it's not the fault of the antisemites. It's our own fault. So if I had unlimited resources, which, again, it's not, it's not going to happen unless I make a career change, that's where I would be putting my effort. Internally and not externally.  Belle Yoeli:   You did find the inspiration, though, again, by pushing Jewish identity, and we appreciate that. It's come up a lot in this conversation, this question about how we fight antisemitism, investing in Jewish identity and who we are, and at the same time, what do we do about it? And I think all of you heard Ted in a different context last night, say, we can hold two things, two thoughts at the same time, right? Two things can be true at the same time. And I think for me, what I took out of this, in addition to your excellent insights, is that that's exactly what we have to be doing.  At AJC, we have to be engaging in this advocacy to stand up for the Jewish people and the State of Israel. But that's not the only piece of the puzzle. Of course, we have to be investing in Jewish identity. That's why we bring so many young people to this conference. Of course, we need to be investing in Jewish education. That's not necessarily what AJC is doing, the bulk of our work, but it's a lot of what the Jewish community is doing, and these pieces have to go together. And I want to thank you for raising that up for us, and again, for everything that you said. Thank you all so much for being here. Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in as John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, breaks down Israel's high-stakes strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and the U.S. decision to enter the fight. 

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 NEW ORDER MERCH!! https://here-i-am.printify.me/?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAadyxrG4LjvtjdxST9OlPhLrlkc98L0bnOwVevbq-B4YRP33yIQgwimjqE5bYw_aem_HDn3ScZcGWRnbD_8A36Zlg NEW SUPPORT ME ON PATREON! https://www.patreon.com/ShaiDavidai --------- Guest: Sheikh Musa Drammeh Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sheikhmusadrammeh/ IG: https://www.instagram.com/halalfinder_com/ In this episode of "Here I Am," host Shai Davidai sits down with Sheikh Musa Drammeh, President of Muslims Israel Dialogue and Imam of the Co-op City Mosque. Sheikh Musa shares his inspiring journey from his childhood in West Africa to becoming a leading voice for peaceful coexistence and activism. He discusses his lifelong fight against misogyny, his efforts to promote equality and justice within the Muslim world, and his unique perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sheikh Musa boldly advocates for the rights of both Jews and Palestinians to live in peace and security, challenging cultural and religious norms along the way. This thought-provoking conversation explores faith, activism, and the pursuit of harmony among all people.

Subscribe now to skip the ads and get more content! Get our "Welcome to the Crusades" miniseries! Derek welcomes back to the show Dalia Hatuqa, a journalist specializing in Israeli/Palestinian affairs and regional Middle East issues, to talk about the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. They recap what has been happening to Palestinians in Gaza while the world was distracted by Israel's war with Iran, discuss the lost generations of Gazan children, the massacres at “aid distribution centers,” increased home demolitions and settler violence in the West Bank, the current relationships of the Palestinian Authority and Jordanian government with Israel, the regional dynamics after the recent war with Iran, and what Netanyahu's next move might be. Read Dalia's piece from March in The Guardian, “For Palestinians, this was never a ceasefire.”       Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Derek welcomes back to the show Dalia Hatuqa, a journalist specializing in Israeli/Palestinian affairs and regional Middle East issues, to talk about the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. They recap what has been happening to Palestinians in Gaza while the world was distracted by Israel's war with Iran, discuss the lost generations of Gazan children, the massacres at “aid distribution centers,” increased home demolitions and settler violence in the West Bank, the current relationships of the Palestinian Authority and Jordanian government with Israel, the regional dynamics after the recent war with Iran, and what Netanyahu's next move might be.Read Dalia's piece from March in The Guardian, “For Palestinians, this was never a ceasefire.” Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Prager University 5 Min Videos- Is Israel a Liability? The Cult of Death, What Is Birthright Citizenship? and Dinesh D'Souza- Fostering Iran Regime Change   PragerU 5 Minute Videos- Is Israel a Liability?  The Cult of Death What Is Birthright Citizenship? REGIME CHANGE? Dinesh D'Souza Podcast How Foreign Aid Keeps Africa Poor   Is Israel a Liability? | 5-Minute Videos | PragerU Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/-YR0ix_rMcY?si=3GFN3T6SzNQfE6rw PragerU 3.37M subscribers 144,687 views Premiered Jun 23, 2025 5-Minute Videos A growing chorus of voices—from the American left and right—now calls Israel “a liability.” They say it's time to walk away. Are they right? Or is Israel an indispensable ally? Michael Doran, Director of the Middle East Center at the Hudson Institute, confronts this controversy.

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four Tuesday takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Biden Policies Aided a Terrorist Buck Sexton leads the hour with sharp commentary and analysis, emphasizing the growing strength of President Donald Trump in national polling across key issues like the economy, immigration, and border security. The segment highlights how recent CNN data reflects a significant shift in public sentiment favoring Trump, much to the dismay of Democrats and liberal media outlets. A major focus of the hour is the escalating crisis of antisemitism in America, particularly in the wake of a targeted firebombing attack in Boulder, Colorado. Buck discusses the ideological roots of this violence, linking it to radical anti-Israel sentiment and the broader rise of pro-Hamas activism on college campuses. He critiques the left’s framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguing that it is often reduced to a simplistic racial narrative that vilifies Israel and excuses terrorism. Overwhelm the System A deep dive into a recent terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, allegedly committed by an illegal immigrant who overstayed a visa. Buck uses this incident to underscore the broader crisis of illegal immigration and the exploitation of the U.S. asylum system. The conversation highlights how the Trump administration has dramatically reduced illegal border crossings—by as much as 99%—compared to the Biden era, which saw millions of illegal entries and “got aways.” Buck emphasizes the critical role of U.S. Border Patrol, debunking left-wing narratives that portray the agency as racist, and instead spotlighting its diverse and veteran-heavy workforce. A significant portion of the hour is dedicated to the ideological battle over antisemitism, particularly on college campuses, where anti-Israel sentiment is rising. Buck draws parallels between the situation in Gaza and Iran, arguing that while innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire, leadership and ideological extremism are to blame for ongoing violence. The show also critiques the Biden administration’s handling of immigration enforcement, asserting that lax policies have created a national security risk and opened the door to terrorist infiltration. Former ICE Director Tom Homan is quoted warning of the long-term consequences of these policies, calling for urgent reforms and a temporary halt to asylum claims. Our Favorite Data Nerd, Ryan Girdusky Polling data reveals that the Republican Party, under President Trump, has closed the gap with Democrats on middle-class support and economic trust. The discussion includes insights from data guru Ryan Girdusky, host of the “Numbers Game” podcast, who argues that Democrats lack a compelling economic message and are losing ground due to internal disarray and weak leadership. Ryan discusses interviewing Alex Thompson about his book with Jake Tapper, which reveals Jill Biden’s influence and the financial motivations behind Joe Biden’s continued political career. Buck discusses the party’s lack of a clear successor and the growing influence of figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Elon Knows Gov't is a Mess Elon Musk's criticism of the congressional spending bill, the state of the economy and inflation, the national debt and entitlement programs. Elon Musk pointed out that Big Government was going to happen no matter what party is in office. DOGE limitations. WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt with some positive economic news. The arrest of the family of the Boulder, CO terrorist. Buck's personal health and fitness journey. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Jewish Couple Shot in Hate Crime The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show delivers a powerful and emotionally charged discussion centered on the tragic antisemitic double murder of a young couple in Washington, D.C., and the broader implications of rising antisemitism in America. Clay and Buck open the hour with breaking news about the passage of a major bill in the House of Representatives, highlighting its narrow approval and the expected path forward in the Senate. However, the focus quickly shifts to the horrific killing of two Israeli diplomats, a crime the hosts attribute to the dangerous rhetoric and ideology spreading across college campuses and left-wing political circles under slogans like “Globalize the Intifada.” The hosts condemn the mainstream media and political figures for their silence or tepid responses, calling out Representative Ilhan Omar for refusing to comment. They draw parallels between this attack and the October 7 Hamas terrorist massacre in Israel, emphasizing the moral inversion and ignorance among younger generations regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Buck Sexton, drawing on his background in Middle East studies and the CIA, provides historical and geopolitical context, arguing that Hamas’s actions are rooted in a desire to prevent peace in the region, particularly between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The conversation also explores the broader issue of selective outrage and hypocrisy in global human rights advocacy, pointing to the lack of attention to genocides in places like South Sudan. The hosts stress the importance of educating younger Americans about the realities of terrorism, antisemitism, and the existential threats faced by Israel. Sen. Rand Paul on the Big Beautiful Bill Later in the hour, KY Senator Rand Paul joins the show to discuss the implications of the newly passed House bill, particularly its impact on the national debt and fiscal conservatism. Paul criticizes the bill’s projected $4–5 trillion increase to the debt ceiling and warns that Republicans are abandoning their principles by supporting unsustainable spending. He advocates for entitlement reform and a return to fiscal responsibility, warning of the long-term consequences of unchecked deficits. Yael Eckstein reacts on hate crime from Israel Yael Eckstein, President and CEO of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, who offers a powerful response from Israel. She connects the attack to rising global antisemitism and the dangerous rhetoric emerging from pro-Palestinian protests on U.S. college campuses. Eckstein emphasizes the need for unity among Jews and Christians and praises former President Trump for his swift condemnation of the attack. Daniel Cameron on his Senate Run Former KY AG, Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Kentucky, on running to replace Mitch McConnell. Cameron discusses the recent tornado devastation in Kentucky, his campaign to replace Mitch McConnell, and his alignment with Donald Trump’s America First agenda. He emphasizes issues like border security, energy independence, and fighting DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies. Cameron also addresses the shifting political landscape, particularly how younger men across racial lines are moving away from the Democratic Party due to its stance on masculinity and traditional values. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.