Podcasts about political affairs

According to a newly unsealed FBI affidavit, Elias Rodriguez, the man accused of killing two Israeli diplomats outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday night, could face the death penalty. When Rodriguez was apprehended he began shouting 'Free Palestine', a popular anti-Semitic slogan often being used during college campus protests across the country that sometimes turn violent. It begs the questions, are the anti-Israel protests at our nation's schools beginning to inspire radicals to commit acts of violence? FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Julie Rayman, Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs at the American Jewish Committee (AJC), who says the murders have shaken the Jewish community and the sharp rise of anti-Semitic rhetoric needs to watched. Click Here⁠⁠ To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

According to a newly unsealed FBI affidavit, Elias Rodriguez, the man accused of killing two Israeli diplomats outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday night, could face the death penalty. When Rodriguez was apprehended he began shouting 'Free Palestine', a popular anti-Semitic slogan often being used during college campus protests across the country that sometimes turn violent. It begs the questions, are the anti-Israel protests at our nation's schools beginning to inspire radicals to commit acts of violence? FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Julie Rayman, Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs at the American Jewish Committee (AJC), who says the murders have shaken the Jewish community and the sharp rise of anti-Semitic rhetoric needs to watched. Click Here⁠⁠ To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week on The International Risk Podcast, Dominic Bowen speaks with Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl, one of the world's leading experts on international space policy and the former Chair of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Legal Subcommittee.In this critical episode, they explore the growing risks in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), where satellites are increasingly exposed to hostile acts such as signal jamming, cyber intrusion, and close-proximity maneuvers. As these grey-zone operations expand, a fundamental legal question remains unanswered: does interference with a satellite amount to an act of war?Dr. Schrogl draws on decades of experience advising the European Space Agency, national governments, and international legal bodies to unpack why space law has failed to keep pace with the technological and strategic realities of orbit. The discussion covers alarming recent case studies—from Russia's jamming of Starlink signals over Ukraine, to China's Shijian-21 maneuvering near foreign satellites, and the Viasat cyberattack that disrupted infrastructure across Europe.Together, they examine how states are exploiting legal ambiguity for strategic gain, why attribution remains elusive, and how a lack of enforceable norms may lead to escalation without warning. Dr. Schrogl also outlines urgent priorities for the international community—from tightening governance and clarifying use-of-force thresholds, to building greater transparency in satellite operations.With insights into the legal, political, and security risks unfolding above Earth, this episode is essential listening for defence analysts, policymakers, legal scholars, and anyone shaping the future of strategic stability in space.Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl is Special Advisor for Political Affairs at the European Space Agency and one of the foremost authorities on space law and governance. He has authored more than 150 publications on space policy, chaired UN legal bodies, and continues to advise institutions across Europe on the future of space security.The International Risk Podcast is a must-listen for senior executives, board members, and risk advisors. This weekly podcast dives deep into international relations, emerging risks, and strategic opportunities. Hosted by Dominic Bowen, Head of Strategic Advisory at one of Europe's top risk consulting firms, the podcast brings together global experts to share insights and actionable strategies.Dominic's 20+ years of experience managing complex operations in high-risk environments, combined with his role as a public speaker and university lecturer, make him uniquely positioned to guide these conversations. From conflict zones to corporate boardrooms, he explores the risks shaping our world and how organisations can navigate them.The International Risk Podcast – Reducing risk by increasing knowledge.Follow us on LinkedIn  and Instagram for all our great updates.Subscribe to our newsletter for weekly briefs.Tell us what you liked!

Host Sarah Burke interviews Cristina Howorun about her journey from traffic reporter to award-winning journalist at City TV, despite her health challenges. Cristina discusses kidney disease and her experience getting a kidney transplant which eventually began to fail. She finds herself going through the same search to find a living donor as she faces kidney failure again. Cristina emphasizes the importance of mentorship and support from other women in the industry, and she highlights her commitment to investigative journalism and social issues. More About Cristina Howorun: After earning a Master's degree in Political Studies from Queen's University and working for the federal government, she answered her true calling and became a journalist. Cristina earned a degree in Broadcast Journalism from Ryerson University while flying around in a helicopter delivering traffic reports for a variety of radio and TV stations. After graduating, she worked as a Political Affairs reporter for CTV News Windsor and CTV News London before landing at CityTV in Toronto.  Cristina has covered every election since 2008, she's been embedded with the troops in the Mojave Desert, tracked down a suspected terrorist in Libya, exposed shocking levels of abuse and negligence in long-term care homes and shined a light on the dangerous living and working conditions in Ontario's jails. Six years ago, Cristina received a lifesaving kidney transplant from her cousin- but in 2024 was once again diagnosed with end stage kidney disease. She is currently on dialysis- but has not let that stop her from continuing her passion for journalism, story telling and has even completed several specials and a documentary while undergoing life-sustaining therapies. She has several projects on the go, and her latest documentary “My Fake Billionaire Boyfriend” is expected to premiere on CityTV by early summer. https://www.instagram.com/howorun/ “Prison Moms”- https://toronto.citynews.ca/video/2023/05/29/full-episode-prison-moms-veracity/  "The Gun Chase"  https://toronto.citynews.ca/video/2021/04/22/full-episode-veracity-the-gun-chase-a-documentary-about-torontos-gun-problem/  "Fighting Traffick"  https://toronto.citynews.ca/video/2021/10/25/full-episode-veracity-fighting-traffick/  Debt to Society https://toronto.citynews.ca/video/2024/08/26/full-episode-debt-to-society-veracity/ Breaking Brethren   https://toronto.citynews.ca/video/2022/03/28/full-episode-veracity-breaking-brethren/  The Long Road Home  https://toronto.citynews.ca/video/2023/02/27/full-episode-the-long-road-home-veracity/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Catchup on 3 Things by The Indian Express and I'm Ichha Sharma.Today is the 2nd of May and here are the headlines.Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired the second Cabinet Committee on Security meeting following the Pahalgam terror attack that killed at least 26 people. Key ministers including Amit Shah, Rajnath Singh, and S. Jaishankar attended. Modi also led meetings of the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs and the Cabinet Economic Affairs Committee. Meanwhile, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar spoke to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and emphasized that the perpetrators, backers, and planners of the Pahalgam terror attack must be brought to justice.Additionally, Pakistan violated the ceasefire for the seventh consecutive night, firing across the Line of Control in Kupwara, Uri, and Akhnoor. The Indian Army responded in a controlled and measured manner. The ongoing violations come amid heightened tensions after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack. On Tuesday, the DGMOs of both countries held a hotline discussion, during which India warned Pakistan about repeated unprovoked ceasefire breaches. The situation remains volatile as Pakistan continues to provoke along both the LoC and the International Border.The next decennial Census of India is set to break new ground by including a detailed enumeration of caste—something that hasn't been attempted since the British-era census of 1931. With the Centre indicating its willingness to capture OBC data, this marks a significant policy shift with far-reaching social and political implications. The most crucial question the government must now address — and one that will ultimately be a political call, much like the decision to enumerate caste itself — is which list to use while enumerating OBCs. In the last Census, for SCs and STs, the proforma relied on the official lists notified under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. These lists — currently comprising 1,170 castes under SC and 890 communities under ST — are periodically updated through amendments passed by Parliament.Communal tensions erupted in Nainital, Uttarakhand, after the family of a minor girl filed a rape complaint against a 65-year-old contractor, Usman. The incident allegedly occurred on April 12. The accused was arrested on Wednesday under the POCSO Act. That night, mobs vandalized shops and eateries belonging to the minority community and protested outside a mosque and police station. Videos show shop staff being slapped. Police confirmed the situation is under control, but the incident has inflamed already sensitive communal sentiments in the area.The United States and Ukraine signed a major agreement granting Washington access to Ukraine's critical mineral reserves, including titanium, lithium, and uranium. Known as the U.S.-Ukraine Reinvestment Fund, the deal aims to boost Ukraine's post-war recovery while attracting global investors. The pact also sends a strong message to Russia, showing the U.S. remains committed to Ukraine's sovereignty and economic stability. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the fund represents a long-term partnership focused on rebuilding Ukraine as a free and prosperous nation.This was the Catchup on 3 Things by The Indian Express.

The uptick in armed conflicts across Africa in recent years has challenged peacebuilding efforts and upset a trajectory towards continental stability. In this episode, HE Ambassador Bankole Adeoye, AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security the AU's goal of silencing the guns by 2030, the evolution of peacekeeping, and his vision for a more peaceful and secure Africa.  Related content: Africa Aware: The future of African peace and security Tensions in Tigray could spark war between Ethiopia and Eritrea – disaster must be avoided Navigating a path beyond regional division is essential for West Africa's security South Sudan's shaky peace is at risk of collapse. Can it be saved?

“Our goal is to... silence the guns.” One of the stated aims of the African Union is to 'promote peace, security, and stability on the continent'. With that in mind, the organisation co-hosted a conference aimed at finding an end to Sudan's war last week in London. But even as discussions continued in London, thousands of civilians in Northern Darfur were fleeing for their lives under military bombardment. And in other parts of the continent there are other equally bloody and apparently unresolvable conflicts – including in neighbouring South Sudan, the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and in the Sahel region where Islamist jihadist groups are active. So how much impact can such meetings, and the organisation, actually have? For today's Africa Daily, Peter Musembi speaks to the AU's Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security Ambassador Bankole Adeoye.

Government attention to the security and resilience of subsea telecommunications cables has intensified in recent years. While largely owned and operated by private companies, a growing number of states now qualify or designate the systems as critical, if not strategic infrastructure, the security and resilience of which are vital to economic and societal well-being, national security and much else. In her address to the IIEA, Dr Camino Kavanagh discusses government efforts to protect the infrastructure in the current geopolitical context, examining how such efforts - and the different challenges that emerge - contribute to the global telecommunications systems' core resilience capacities. About the Speaker: Dr. Camino Kavanagh is a Senior Fellow with the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) and a Visiting Senior Fellow with the Dept. of War Studies, King's College London. Her current research focuses on international security, conflict and technology as well as emerging issues relevant to critical subsea infrastructure. Camino is also Senior Digital Advisor to the UN Department of Political Affairs' Policy and Mediation Division. She served as advisor/rapporteur to the 2019-2021 and 2016-2017 UN negotiating processes on cyber/ICT and international security (UNGGE and UNOEWG). Over the past decade she has also advised and consulted with the UN Secretary-General's office, the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the European Commission, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of American States, as well as with government departments and agencies on issues pertaining to national/international security, conflict and diplomacy. Prior to this, Camino spent over a decade working in conflict and post-conflict contexts, including with UN peacekeeping operations and political missions.

Ambassador Wendy Sherman, the 21st U.S. Deputy Secretary of State and the first woman in that position, has been a diplomat, businesswoman, professor, political strategist, author, and social worker. She served under three presidents and five secretaries of state, becoming known as a diplomat for hard conversations in hard places. As Deputy Secretary, she was the point person on China. While serving as Undersecretary for Political Affairs, Sherman led the U.S. negotiating team that reached an agreement on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between the P5+1, the European Union and Iran.  And, as Counselor at the State Department, she led on North Korea and was engaged on Middle East negotiations. For her diplomatic accomplishments she was awarded the National Security Medal by President Barack Obama. At Harvard Kennedy School, she was a professor of the practice of public leadership, director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School (where she is now a Hauser Leadership Fellow), and a current and former Senior Fellow at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. In 2002, along with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sherman built a global consulting business, The Albright Group. Sherman previously served on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, chaired Oxfam America's Board of Directors, served on the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Policy Board, and was Director of Child Welfare for the State of Maryland. She is the author of the book: “Not for the Faint of Heart: Lessons in Courage, Power and Persistence.” Sherman attended Smith College and received a B.A. cum laude from Boston University and a Master's degree in Social Work from the University of Maryland. Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an BA in political science from UCLA and a master's in journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast is provided by Lilian Wainaina. Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King and the OCPA Design Team. Web design and social media promotion support is provided by Catherine Santrock and Natalie Montaner of the OCPA Digital Team. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill of the OCPA Editorial Team. 

  Topics include:  DC update: Latest news from Capitol Hill   Economic forecast: An outlook on the markets heading into the second quarter  Technical update: What you need to know to navigate busy season  Calming the chaos: Insights into the psychology of chaos and how to reduce it     Speakers:   Michael Cerami, EVP, CPA.com  Lisa Simpson, VP, Firm Services  Rachel Dresen, Senior Director of Congressional and Political Affairs, AICPA  Marci Rossell, Expert economic forecaster  Lisa Bodell, Founder and CEO, FutureThink  

Join Dr. Andrew Harris and the AUA's Vice President of Legislative and Political Affairs, Brad Stine, as they talk about urologic advocacy, the AUA Summit and how the AUA is involved in legislative affairs. 

Tune in to this quarterly episode to hear from Chirag Shah of the American Hotel & Lodging Association to get the state of the hospitality industry. As EVP, Federal and Political Affairs & Counsel, Chirag, gives immense insight into challenges, patterns, and trends impacting the hotel industry and how the AHLA is helping hoteliers overcome the economic environment. Ryan Embree: Welcome to Suite Spot, where hoteliers check in, and we check out what's trending in hotel marketing. I'm your host, Ryan Embree. Hello everyone. Welcome to another episode of the Suite Spot. This is your host, Ryan Embree. As you can see, we are here with another industry check-in with AHLA. And we have a first time guest with us Chirag Shah, Executive Vice President, Federal and Political Affairs & Council at the American Hotel and Lodging Association. Chirag, thank you so much for joining me on the Suite Spot today. Chirag Shah: Absolutely. Thanks Ryan. Appreciate you having me. Ryan Embree: Well, welcome to the Suite Spot. This is your first time. Before we get rolling, talk about some of the topics that AHLA and issues that AHLA is obviously advocating so ferociously for hotels all around the country. Maybe give us a little bit of background, your journey to AHLA and give our Suite Spot audience, just a brief glimpse of the role that you do there. Chirag Shah: I appreciate it. So I've been in the lodging industry, lobbying on behalf of hotels and hoteliers for about a decade and some change, 12-13 years. And previously my background is actually as a campaign and elections attorney. It's what my training is, and not perhaps a skill that folks are, a ton of folks are always looking for especially when you get relatives that want help getting outta a speeding ticket or something. But I spent time on Capitol Hill, worked on a number of political campaigns, and 2012, 2013 after finishing up my last campaign, got a call from a group. They were looking to open a DC office. And when I was on Capitol Hill, I used to meet with them quite frequently, and it was a group called AAHOA And, uh, they were looking to, to open their DC office. And it was great because I, uh, literally spoke the language that many hoteliers speak and, and figuratively spoke the language, of Washington DC. And so, uh, it, it was a, it was a great fit. And I came in and opened their DC shop and worked there for, for eight years. And, uh, then came over to AHLA and has been fantastic to represent a lot of the same people physically, actually the same people, but also the industry. It's such a wonderful industry where hotels, everybody loves going to hotels. Most public officials don't fully understand what the hotel industry is all about, but they love talking about their travel experiences. And so now at AHLA, I get to oversee the federal affairs shop, the political shop where we meet with members of Congress, have got one of the greatest jobs where we tell the story of the lodging industry to members of Congress, their staff, the presidential administration, every single day. And so getting time to understand what the challenges are that hotel leaders are facing, where the industry is going, what the economic footprint is, that's what we do. And so it's been a lot of fun. Ryan Embree: You know it's funny, Chirag, we have so many industry leaders on this podcast, and we talk to them about their kind of beginnings and they talk about maybe jumping from brand to brand and still having that tight-knit family. Because it all comes back to hospitality. It seems like a very similar path with you and the associations, right, starting with the AAHOA and then transitioning to AHLA. But at the very end of the day, it's all about hospitality and the hotels that you're advocating for from those small, independent hotels all the way up to the major brands. And here we are at the Q1, beginning of, 2025. Great time to reflect on,

An official of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has been explaining the purpose of a delegation to Guinea Bissau over the weekend. Abdel Fatau Musah, ECOWAS Commissioner for Political Affairs and Security, says the delegation's purpose was to seek a consensus between President Omaro Sissoco Embalo and the opposition on when to hold peaceful and credible elections. He tells VOA's James Butty, the bone of contention is the legality of what opponents say is Embalo's continuous stay in power

Henry Haggard is the founding partner of Seekonk LLC. Following a twenty-five-year career at the U.S. State Department during which he attained the rank of Counselor in the Senior Foreign Service, From 2021-2023, he served as Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs at the United States Embassy in South Korea. Prior to that, he served as Director at the National Security Council under both the Trump and Biden administrations. His talk, "US-Korea Relationship in Transition", was recorded for broadcast on February 10, 2025.

A lot is going on in Washington, DC these days. In this episode of Labor Relations Radio, Kristen Swearingen Vice President, Legislative & Political Affairs at the Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. and spokesperson for the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace joins host Peter List to discuss some of the issues, including the re-introduction of the PRO Act, Sen. Josh Hawley's “PRO Act-Lite” framework, as well as President Trump's nominee to head the Department of Labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer.__________________________LaborUnionNews.com's Labor Relations Radio is a subscriber-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber here.

Mel Raines, President and CEO of Pacers Sports & Entertainment, joins the podcast to share her remarkable journey from Capitol Hill to the front office of Indiana's top sports franchises. In this episode, she reveals how a chance internship led to a career in politics, working for Sen. Dan Coats, running major Republican conventions, and ultimately serving as Assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney for Political Affairs.. She shares behind-the-scenes stories of high-stakes moments in Washington, the intensity of presidential transitions, and what it was like inside the White House. Raines also opens up about why she left politics, the challenges of running large-scale events, and how those skills led her to the sports industry. Packed with insight, humor, and a few surprising moments—like when she accidentally hung up on Cheney—this episode is a must-listen for anyone fascinated by politics, leadership, and career pivots.

An official of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) says democracy remains a core value of the regional body. At the same time, Abdel Fatau Musah, ECOWAS Commissioner for Political Affairs and Security, says the regional body wants to understand what drove Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to military rule. The three countries formally withdrew from the organization on Wednesday. Fatau Musa tells VOA's James Butty, ECOWAS, which celebrates 50 years of its founding this year, vows to review its policies and improve its successes and challenge

  This Monday, HAR Director of Governmental Affairs and Advocacy Amber Burton Alfred and HAR Director of Political Affairs and TREPAC Karen Driscoll shares the legislative priorities for the Texas Legislative Session, how they might impact our homes and businesses, and how REALTORS® can get involved.   Sign up for Free Industry News Subscriptions for HAR Members here-   https://www.harconnect.com/free-industry-news-subscriptions-for-har-members/   Are you an HAR MLS Platinum Subscriber? Join our Facebook Group! Click to join. Sign Up for your free Real Estate News Subscription here. Sign up for your free Inman Select Subscription here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube , and LinkedIn.

Kicking off 2025 with a new episode of the Unlocking California Politics podcast featuring host Sanjay Wagle, Senior Vice President of C.A.R. and with guest Laiza Negrete, Vice President of Political Affairs of C.A.R. Laiza and Sanjay give listeners context to how C.A.R. advocates politically for REALTORS® in California as well as discussing voter turnout, national trends and the new members of the State Legislature.

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

The Gaza war has triggered widespread geopolitical repercussions, placing Lebanon at a critical juncture. Regional instability has intensified, exacerbating tensions between Hezbollah and Israel despite a recently brokered ceasefire. Israel's continued military presence in southern Lebanon raises urgent questions about sovereignty, security, and the viability of peace agreements in this volatile region. Lebanon faces mounting challenges, including economic collapse, public unrest, and increased militarization along its southern border. Hezbollah's response to the Gaza conflict, intertwined with its ties to Iran, complicates Lebanon's internal dynamics and its role within Middle Eastern geopolitics. Meanwhile, the international community grapples with balancing Lebanon's fragile stability against the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, often prioritizing strategic interests over humanitarian needs. This episode examines the historical, political, and humanitarian dimensions of these issues. What is Lebanon's path forward amidst regional and domestic pressures? How does Hezbollah influence this complex landscape, and what role can international actors play in fostering peace? Joining us to unravel these questions are this week's special guests. Jon Allen is a distinguished Canadian diplomat with over four decades of experience in international affairs. A graduate of the University of Western Ontario (LL.B.) and the London School of Economics (LL.M. in International Law), Mr. Allen has held key postings worldwide, including Mexico City, New Delhi, and Washington, D.C., where he served as Minister of Political Affairs. From 2006 to 2010, he was Canada's Ambassador to Israel, gaining deep insight into the region's geopolitics. Currently, Mr. Allen is a Senior Fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs, a Distinguished Fellow of the Canadian International Council, and Chair of Rozana Canada, promoting Israeli-Palestinian healthcare collaboration. He previously appeared on Beyond the Headlines in the 2023/24 season to discuss insurgency dynamics in the Middle East.  Eugene Rogan is a renowned historian specializing in the modern Middle East and North Africa. He serves as Professor of Modern Middle Eastern History at the University of Oxford and is a Fellow at St. Antony's College. A Columbia University economics graduate, Dr. Rogan earned his master's and doctorate in Middle Eastern Studies from Harvard University. Professor Rogan's acclaimed works include The Arabs: A History, The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East, and the forthcoming The Damascus Events: The 1860 Massacre and the Destruction of the Old Ottoman World. His expertise spans the Arab-Israeli conflict, Ottoman history, and the First World War's impact on the region, offering valuable historical context to contemporary events. We are honored to have him join us today. Production Note The segment featuring Jon Allen was recorded on November 11, 2024, before key developments in the Israel-Lebanon conflict. A ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel was reached in late November 2024; however, Israeli forces remain in southern Lebanon, raising ongoing concerns. These updates are addressed in the second segment with Professor Eugene Rogan, recorded on January 11, 2025, to reflect the latest developments. Produced by: Julia Brahy  

*) Israel bombs Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza The Israeli army launched a heavy bombardment on Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza, causing extensive damage, WAFA news agency reported. Medical sources said that the hospital faced intense shelling, including bombs, artillery, and sniper fire, targeting the facility indiscriminately. The assault severely damaged critical infrastructure, including power generators and various hospital departments, further straining Gaza's already overwhelmed healthcare system. *) Pope Francis slams Israel's 'cruelty' after Gaza air strike Pope Francis has renewed his condemnation of Israeli air strikes on Gaza, calling the violence "cruelty" and saying, "This is not war; it touches the heart." The comments follow Israeli air strikes on Friday that killed at least 25 Palestinians and come a day after an Israeli minister criticised the pontiff for suggesting a global inquiry into whether the violence constitutes genocide. Francis addressed the issue during his annual Christmas meeting with Vatican cardinals, highlighting the plight of children in Gaza as a pressing humanitarian concern. *) Trump threatens to demand control of Panama Canal US President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to demand the return of control over the Panama Canal to Washington, criticising "unfair fees" imposed on American ships using the vital waterway. Trump also warned of China's increasing influence near the canal, citing its strategic importance for US trade between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. "Our Navy and Commerce have been treated unfairly. The fees are ridiculous," Trump wrote on Truth Social, vowing to end what he called a "rip-off" of the US. *) Pakistan rejects US claims on ballistic missile programme as 'baseless' Pakistan has dismissed claims by a senior US official about its ballistic missile programme, calling them baseless and harmful to bilateral relations. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mumtaz Zahra Baloch described the allegations as "unfounded, devoid of rationality and sense of history." The remarks came in response to US Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer's statement that Pakistan was developing a long-range missile capable of striking targets beyond South Asia, posing an "emerging threat" to the United States. *) Syrian interim government appoints new foreign minister The Syrian Interim Government has appointed Asaad Hassan al Shaibani as its new foreign minister, the ruling General Command announced. Al Shaibani previously led Political Affairs for Idlib's civilian administration, where he managed diplomatic relations with foreign governments and institutions. He also oversaw coordination efforts with UN agencies and international aid organisations during his tenure.

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has given the military leaders of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger six months to reconsider their decision to leave the regional bloc. The decision came Sunday at the end of an ECOWAS summit in Abuja, Nigeria. The three countries formed their own confederation and were slated to withdraw on January 29, 2025. Abdel Fatau Musah, ECOWAS Commissioner for Political Affairs and Security. tells VOA's James Butty ECOWAS wants to give diplomacy another try.

An official of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has described the conduct of the December 7 election in Ghana as the beauty of democracy. Abdel Fatau Musah, ECOWAS Commissioner for Political Affairs and Security, tells VOA's James Butty, recent elections in Ghana, Liberia, and Senegal are proof that the people of the sub-region prefer democracy over military rule

Leigh Walton is Vice President of Global Government and Regulatory Affairs for Pitney Bowes. As Vice President of the Global Government and Regulatory Affairs team, Leigh leads the company's work in influencing public policy to increase opportunities for its shipping, mailing, and financial services businesses as well as to mitigate risks to those businesses. Before joining Pitney Bowes, Leigh was a consultant to companies in the technology, education, and health care sectors. She also served in several state government and political roles, including as Legislative and Political Affairs director for Missouri Governor Bob Holden. Leigh serves on the boards of the Public Affairs Council, a national nonprofit that provides training and education to government affairs executives, and the New England Council, the voice for the region's business community on Capitol Hill. She served for ten years, with two as Co-Chair, of the Governor's Prevention Partnership, a Connecticut nonprofit focused on mentoring the state's young people. Leigh holds a B.S. in Political Science from Truman State University in Missouri. She lives in Boston with her family.

What's next for CPAs after the election? I sit down with Lauren Pfingstag Vahey, AICPA's Director of Congressional and Political Affairs, to explore the impact of a new president and Congress on the profession. We discuss the future of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, potential new tax legislation, and the recent IRS funding boost from the Inflation Reduction Act. Lauren also shares insights on the possible restructuring of the PCAOB under SEC oversight and offers advice on how CPAs can stay actively engaged in legislative advocacy. Tune in to this essential conversation to navigate the evolving political and regulatory landscape.Resources Lauren Pfingstag Vahey LinkedIn Profile AICPA Congressional and Political Affairs Team

Frank Kelly, Founder and Managing Partner of Fulcrum Macro Advisors, an independent strategic advisory firm. Frank began his career as a writer for President Ronald Reagan and went on to serve in the White House Office of Political Affairs. He served as a writer for President George H.W. Bush and then served at the Justice Department. From there, Frank went to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, being appointed Senior Policy Advisor. He then held senior Public Affairs roles at Merrill Lynch, Charles Schwab and Deutsche Bank. In this podcast we discuss Reagan vs Trump, why Trump won the 2024 election, it is Trump 4.0 not Trump 2.0, and much more.    Follow us here for more amazing insights: https://macrohive.com/home-prime/ https://twitter.com/Macro_Hive https://www.linkedin.com/company/macro-hive

An official of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) says the regional body has confidence in the democratic tradition of Ghana. Abdel Fatau Musah, ECOWAS Commissioner for Political Affairs and Security, says all parties have assured ECOWAS that the December 7 general election will be free, fair and credible. Ambassador Musa tells VOA's James Butty, Ghana's years of democracy include nine unbroken regular elections and the peaceful transfer of political power

Originally uploaded Nov. 18th, re-edited Nov. 29th . Jeffrey Mosher welcomes back Brad Williams, Vice President, Political Affairs, Detroit Regional Chamber, Detroit, MI. Welcome back Brad, we wanted a follow-up conversation that could reflect on the elections which you were discussing with Chris. First reflect on the regional and state results? How do the results for positions in Washington DC impact Michigan? What are the biggest issues expected to be dealt with in the Lame Duck session? Are there any Lansing based Lame Duck issues that the Chamber is watching closely? » Visit MBN website: www.michiganbusinessnetwork.com/ » Watch MBN's YouTube: www.youtube.com/@MichiganbusinessnetworkMBN » Like MBN: www.facebook.com/mibiznetwork » Follow MBN: twitter.com/MIBizNetwork/ » MBN Instagram: www.instagram.com/mibiznetwork/

Jeff Feltman is a distinguished Ball State graduate who has had an impressive career in foreign affairs and international diplomacy. Currently, Jeff is the John C. Whitehead Visiting Fellow in international diplomacy in the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, and he's a senior fellow at the UN Foundation, both of which are based in Washington, D.C.Over the course of his impressive career, Jeff served as the UN's undersecretary general for political affairs and as U.S. Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa. During our conversation, I ask Jeff about his undergraduate experience at Ball State and how it prepared him for the Foreign Service. We also talk about his diplomatic posts in the Department of State, including his experience as ambassador to Lebanon from 2004 to 2008.And we discuss the Ball State professors who encouraged Jeff to pursue his challenging and rewarding career in the Foreign Service. Among his mentors was Warren Vander Hill, a long-time professor and distinguished administrator who died in July. This month, Jeff joined the University community in attending an on-campus memorial for Dr. Vander Hill. Jeff and several of his classmates also created an endowed fund in honor of Dr. Vander Hill. The fund will support internships, research, and other experiential opportunities for Ball State students. If you enjoy this episode, please leave a review to support the show. 

Guests: Raj Doraisamy - Defend Florida and Defend U.S. talks about the importance of embracing States Rights and our responsibilities to ensure a successful transfer from Federal oversight to States domain.  States Rights Resources: www.StatesRights.US www.PatriotDigest.US/Resources  Jeff Hoffman - National Operations Director & VA State Chapter President, VFAF. A war college veteran with over 20 years in national security, who served on the 58th Trump Presidential Inauguration Committee along with private-sector work on the National Intelligence Council during the Trump Administration. He is a two-time General Assembly level candidate and has over 20 years of political experience, including graduate of The Leadership Institute Campaign Leadership College. Alongside VA VFAF, Jeff is a father, college instructor in New York City, President and CEO of Cyber Intelligent Partners, a Virginia-based LLC, and founder/Chair of the Virginia Freedom Leader Coalition PAC. Veterans For America First: www.VFAF.US  Berney Flowers - Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (Ret), Former GOP Candidate for US Congress (MD's CD3), National Director of Political Affairs & MD State Chapter President, VFAF.  Berney's Podcast:  The Loyal Opposition Podcast Social Media & Online Platforms: Website: https://berneyflowers.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BerneyFlowers/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Berney_Flowers Buy his book “Black Values Matter” See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

On today's episode, Editor in Chief Sarah Wheeler talks with Bill Killmer, Senior Vice President of Legislative and Political Affairs at the Mortgage Bankers Association, about the election and the issues MBA is working on across the aisle. Related to this episode: Election season is in the air at MBA Annual | HousingWire Mortgage Bankers Assocation Bill Killmer | LinkedIn HousingWire | YouTube More info about HousingWire   Enjoy the episode! The HousingWire Daily podcast examines the most compelling articles reported across HW Media. Each morning, we provide our listeners with a deeper look into the stories coming across our newsrooms that are helping Move Markets Forward. Hosted and produced by the HW Media team. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Originally loaded October 31st, re-edited November 4th. Chris Holman welcomes back Brad Williams, Vice President, Political Affairs, Detroit Regional Chamber, Detroit, MI. Welcome back Brad, remind the Michigan business community about your role with the Detroit Regional Chamber? How can businesses support secure elections? Tell us about the Chamber's recent polling? Their time ran short so tune back in when they discuss: What should be expected during lame duck period through the end of the year? Brad Williams is the Vice President of Political Affairs for the Detroit Regional Chamber. A lifelong Michigander, Williams delivers over two decades of experience at the highest levels of politics and public policy. Williams provides oversight of the Chambers lobby team that delivers the voice of business in the State Capitol and to regional leaders. His tenure saw the Chamber lead successful advocacy efforts surrounding the Gordie Howe International Bridge, resolution of Detroit's municipal bankruptcy, creation of the Detroit Public Schools Community District, and development of historic economic development incentives. Williams leads the Chamber's political action efforts including successful endorsements of governors, senators, and mayor and over 90% of state legislators. A respected leader, Williams has served as the voice of business for ballot efforts on behalf of public transit, road funding, and business tax reform. Prior to his service at the Chamber, Williams began his career as a staff member in the Michigan Legislature and the Michigan Department of Transportation. In 2018, he took temporary leave and served as a senior advisor to then Governor Elect Gretchen Whitmer during her transition. » Visit MBN website: www.michiganbusinessnetwork.com/ » Watch MBN's YouTube: www.youtube.com/@MichiganbusinessnetworkMBN » Like MBN: www.facebook.com/mibiznetwork » Follow MBN: twitter.com/MIBizNetwork/ » MBN Instagram: www.instagram.com/mibiznetwork/

Your vote impacts the future of the real estate industry! This Monday, HAR Director of Governmental Affairs and Advocacy Amber Burton Alfred and HAR Director of Political Affairs and TREPAC Karen Driscoll shared how key policies impact your business and the market. Learn why staying informed and voting is essential to protecting your interests and growing your success as a REALTOR   You may find election resources, including sample ballots, polling locations and more at www.har.com/go/vote   Sign up for Free Industry News Subscriptions for HAR Members here-   https://www.harconnect.com/free-industry-news-subscriptions-for-har-members/   Are you an HAR MLS Platinum Subscriber? Join our Facebook Group! Click to join. Sign Up for your free Real Estate News Subscription here. Sign up for your free Inman Select Subscription here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube , and LinkedIn.

Thomas Woodside and Sunny Gandhi  worked on SB1047, a California bill focused on national security and public safety risks from advanced AI systems. We discussed their experiences advocating for the bill, speaking to legislators and industry experts, amending the bill in response to feedback, and reflecting on lessons learned for future AI policy efforts. Thomas Woodside is a policy analyst at the Center for AI Safety Action Fund, one of the co-sponsors of SB 1047. Before that, he was a junior fellow at the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown, where he wrote technical explainers for policy audiences and did some grantmaking. He did his undergraduate in computer science at Yale. Sunny Gandhi is the Vice President of Political Affairs at Encode Justice, an organization advocating for safe and responsible artificial intelligence where he has experience working in AI governance at both federal and state levels. Sunny has previously held technical roles at Deloitte and NASA and has worked with the US State Department and the law firm Mayer Brown. He graduated from Indiana University this past May.

The Cuban-Venezuelan Conquest of the United States of America …Or: Fidel & Hugo's Excellent Bolivarian AdventureFEATURING:1. PATRICK BYRNE, PHD: Advocate of constitutional republicanism for government, blockchain for institutions, and educational choice for human capital.https://patrickbyrne.locals.com/https://www.deepcapture.com/https://x.com/PatrickByrne2. CHRIS HARRIS: Retired Border Patrol Agent and former member of National Border Patrol Council: 21 Years as a BP Agent, 26 years Federal, 36 years total Law Enforcement. Stationed mostly Imperial Beach Station, San Diego Sector, Union Official Director of Legislative and Political Affairs spending a lot of time in DC across 5 Administrationshttps://x.com/__Pfeiffer/status/18175937952417507183. Rocky Rochford Florida Congressional Candidate District 14 https://rocky4congress.com/Follow Ann Vandersteel on Pickax: https://pickax.com/annvandersteelProtect your financial future with precious metals! Download your FREE Gold and Silver Guide from Genesis Gold when you use code VANDERSTEEL and take control of your financial destiny! https://pickaxgold.comElevate your meals with Freedom First Beef… even if you find yourself in the middle of the apocalypse! Use code FFN for 25% off and enjoy high-quality beef whenever you crave it – today or tomorrow! https://freedomfirstbeef.comBe ready for anything life throws your way with The Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit. Order today using code FFN for a 10% discount at https://twc.health/ffn.Unleash the spirit of liberty in every cup with Freedom First Coffee's Founders Blend. Order now using code RIGHTNOW and savor the unparalleled taste of freedom in every patriotic sip. https://freedomfirstcoffee.com

The Vice President for Political Affairs and the Diaspora of Chad's opposition Transformers party says the Chadian government should postpone the country's December 29 parliamentary and municipal elections. Registration of candidates for those elections takes place between October 19 and 28. Ndolembai Njesada says 20 of the Chad's 23 regions are under water due to heavy rainfall that has caused the loss of life and cattle. Njesada tells VOA's James Butty, Transformers will boycott the election if the government does not agree to postpone them

Jason Isaacson, AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, joins us to share insights on the key priorities from the sidelines of this year's UN General Assembly. Each year, AJC experts spearhead diplomatic outreach to world leaders on crucial issues, from addressing anti-Israel bias and combating antisemitism to rallying global efforts against the Iranian threat. This year's discussions unfold against the backdrop of Israel's multi-front defensive war against Iran and its terror proxies, as well as a significant rise in antisemitism following Hamas' attacks on October 7.  Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus, Season 2 – out now:  Explore the untold stories of Jews from Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, Morocco, and more. People of the Pod:  From Rocket Attacks to Exploding Pagers: Michael Oren on Escalating Tensions Between Israel and Hezbollah Paris 2024: 2 Proud Jewish Paralympians on How Sports Unites Athletes Amid Antisemitism Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Interview with Jason Isaacson: Manya Brachear Pashman:   World Leaders convened at the United Nations this week to open the 79th session of the General Assembly every year, AJC experts lead the Jewish community's diplomatic outreach on issues ranging from confronting anti Israel bias and anti semitism to uniting the world against the Iranian threat. This year's meetings come amid a backdrop of Israel's seven-front defensive war against Iran and its terror proxies and the surge of antisemitism since Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel. Here to discuss the priorities on the sidelines of this year's UN General Assembly is Jason Isaacson, AJC's Chief Policy and Political Affairs officer. Jason, welcome to People of the Pod. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Manya. It's good to be here.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I want to turn first to Israel's defense of military operations in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah. For years, AJC has been pushing the UN to designate all of Hezbollah a terrorist organization. How does Hezbollah's near daily attacks on Israel and this military operation change that plea. Jason Isaacson:   I mean, it changes it only in that it emphasizes, once again, its demonstration of the danger posed by Hezbollah, which, of course, is a threat to the security, the safety of the people of Israel, to peace across the region. But also Hezbollah has arms tentacles that reach elsewhere, reach into Europe for fundraising purposes, for narcotics trafficking, for money laundering posing a real threat to security, not just for the people of Israel, but for people elsewhere in the world.  But what's been happening since October 8, when Hezbollah started firing rockets, missiles, anti tank weapons into northern Israel, killing Israelis, civilians and soldiers, destroying property, inflaming the region, unprovoked, but they did it in response to or as an ally of Hamas, another Iranian backed terror organization has just destabilized the region, made it impossible for 10s of 1000s of Israelis to live in their homes.  They've had to evacuate the north, disrupting the personal lives of so many And now, of course, over the last week or two weeks, we've seen repeated huge barrages of rockets, missiles that have been fired into Israel, killing and destroying property. And it's intolerable. Israel cannot live with that kind of a threat on its border, and no country would tolerate this. Israel will not tolerate it.  And so we're seeing decisive action in various ways that Israel has responded to these multiple threats. In the case of Lebanon, we've seen missile attacks on rocket launchers and command centers and commanders, very precise, targeted. Of course, it is war, and there has been collateral damage, and that is terrible, but Israel has been attacked relentlessly, ruthlessly by Hezbollah. It must respond.  We've also seen very interesting, really quite clever, use of technologies that Israel has mastered in other ways to attack Hezbollah commanders and fighters. We are hopeful that this will send a very clear message to Hezbollah leadership and to their backers in Tehran that they really have to pull this back. There does not have to be a wider war in the region.  It is really Hezbollah's decision, Iran's decision, whether to return to some state of calm where we can have the people of Israel return to their homes, the people of Southern Lebanon return to their homes and get back to, kind of normal life. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Do the diplomats you are encountering on the sidelines of the UN understand that? Do they acknowledge what you just said? Jason Isaacson:   The word on the lips of most diplomats is deescalate, avoid a wider war. And of course, we can all appreciate that no one wants a wider war. But what is a country to do that is being attacked daily by hundreds of rockets and missiles fired into cities and towns?  It cannot just simply say, Oh, well, we're just going to restrain ourselves because, we're more moral than our terrorist neighbors. No country would do that. No country could make that decision. So yes, there is understanding of the situation that Israel is in. There is an appeal for lessening the tensions, for de-escalating. But I think that privately, it is widely understood that Israel has no choice but to defeat the terrorist enemies that are at its throat. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I spoke of the call to designate Hezbollah a terror organization in its entirety. Does Hamas need to be added to that plea for designation? Or do most diplomats already? Or I should say, do most countries already recognize Hamas as a terror organization?  Jason Isaacson:   Unfortunately, most countries do not already recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, at least not formally. I mean, they may do it sort of rhetorically, and in a meeting with us, they may say that they of course recognize that. But for reasons that they will cite having to do with their need to continue to interact with the government of Lebanon, which of course has a very strong Hezbollah component in that government, they don't want to box themselves out as some kind of interaction with Beirut. We could point out, as we do repeatedly, that it's not necessary to exclude contact with Lebanese authorities by designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Other countries find ways around that problem. France and others that have cited this argument to us repeatedly could do so as well. But it's important that Hezbollah be designated as a terrorist organization. It's also important that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran also be designated fully as a terrorist organization.  Of course, the United States has done that. A number of other countries have as well, but that must be universal. It is so clear who is lighting the fires across the region, who is threatening the sovereignty, the security of a neighboring state. And for countries to not take those simple steps to try to clamp down on funding, on money transfers, on freedom of movement internationally, for leaders of the IRGC, for leaders of Hezbollah, is just turning a blind eye to terrorism. That's not tolerable. Manya Brachear Pashman:   What about Hamas? Has that been designated by more countries as a terror organization than Hezbollah or the IRGC? Jason Isaacson:   Hamas is widely recognized as a terrorist organization, and I think that we need to press the countries that have not yet done so to add Hamas to the terrorist but we also have to not neglect the most important part of this equation, which is, of course, the support that Hamas and that Hezbollah get from Iran. And the fact that the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran are not always widely and carefully and universally enforced.  The fact that Iran has been freed from certain restrictions that the UN imposed after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015 in terms of its missile development, a lot of sanctions have to be restored, and the sanctions, particularly on the missile program of Iran, should be restored. And the United States in the next administration, whether it is a Harris administration or a Trump administration, I'm expecting a whole new playbook regarding the approach to Iran. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So the October 7 attacks, which happened shortly after last year's General Assembly, killed more than 1200 people. 101 hostages still remain in captivity.  Has the UN adequately condemned Hamas for the October 7 atrocities, the recent murder of six hostages, and has it called for the unconditional release of the remaining hostages? Jason Isaacson:   No. Frankly, the UN response has been disappointing to say the least. It has failed repeatedly when efforts have been made to condemn Hamas specifically, even though we know that it is understood across the board around the world, the terrorist nature of the threat that Israel faces, no one doubts, if you have a conversation with a diplomat, that Hamas was responsible for the most horrific atrocities on October 7 and since. And of course, is holding 101 hostages, some of whom are not alive, but those who are in the most brutal conditions. We saw what happened just a few weeks ago, when Israel was preparing to actually liberate six hostages, including one American, American, Israeli, and they were executed before the Israeli soldiers could get to them by Hamas. Everyone knows the culpability of Hamas, and yet there has been a moral failure on the part of the United Nations to condemn Hamas.  There have been a number of General Assembly and Security Council efforts to raise the issue of the hostages, to raise the issue of Hamas, and they've been deflected. They have not been allowed to move forward. There have been, of course, continual condemnations, as the United Nations has a long history of condemning Israel for its occupation of Palestinian territory, for its treatment of Palestinian civilians. That happens, you know, ritually in the United Nations.  And, of course, every year in the General Assembly, there are, you know, a dozen or 20 or so resolutions against Israel, but to call out the terrorist organization that tells 1200 people and captured 251 others, men, women, children, grandparents, and has been holding 100+ still in captivity in Gaza. That just isn't quite on the UN's agenda. It's very disappointing. That's more than disappointing. It's outrageous. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You did mention that targeting Iran, or just recognizing that Iran is pulling the strings on all of this with its nuclear ambitions, its advanced missile program, these proxy armies and terror organizations the regime does seem to pose a profound danger to Israel as well as the broader world. But do members of the UN seem to recognize this? And what is AJC pushing them to do about it? Jason Isaacson:   There is wide recognition, certainly in the Gulf, but also increasingly in Europe, of the danger. Posed by Iran, not only on the nuclear file, where Iran is inching closer and closer to being a nuclear threshold state, if not an actual nuclear weapon state, but also the Iranian support for Subversion, for terrorism in countries across the region, Iranian support, Iranian regime support for assassination attempts and kidnapping attempts across Europe. In the United States as well, former Secretary of State of the United States, a former National Security Advisor of the United States, under protection by the US government because of those Iranian threats, and in Europe as well, this is recognized whether countries are prepared to impose Some economic hardship on their own countries because of imposing sanctions on trade with Iran is another question. It's sometimes been difficult for countries to make that decision. We have been pushing countries to impose further sanctions on trade with Iran, on the missile program that Iran has been pursuing, on Iran's cooperation, collaboration with Russia in Russia's brutal war of aggression in Ukraine, which is really getting the attention, especially of European leaders. So we have a lot of arguments that we've been deploying in our meetings over the last week and beyond the last week with the leaders around the world, but especially with European leaders to get much tougher in their dealings with Iran, to stop Iran Air from flying into Europe, which is now an action that is moving forward, but other forms of interaction just to make it impossible for the Iranian regime to continue to carry out its aggression in the region, threatening the security of countries in the Gulf. But of course, threatening Israel in multiple ways, by supporting terrorists who are acting against the Israeli people on seven fronts, we are hoping, and we are working hard through our advocacy in the United States, at the United Nations around the world, with our 15 offices across the globe, to make that case to foreign governments that it is time to call out and to act firmly against Iranian aggression. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I'm so glad you mentioned Russia, because I did want to ask you whether Ukraine is still a priority, whether it's still a priority for AJC, but also whether it's still a priority for the UN it's been more than two years Jason Isaacson:   in AJC s meetings on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. This week, we have repeatedly made the case that the territorial integrity of Ukraine, democracy in Ukraine, and frankly, the territorial integrity and democracy and security of Europe as a whole is at stake in the war that Russia is pursuing, that Vladimir Putin has launched against Ukraine, its neighbor. The importance of the United States and our allies continuing to supply Ukraine with the means to defend itself. We're not talking about American boots on the ground in Ukraine. We're talking about America doing whatever it can, and it has done a lot to help the people of Ukraine defend themselves against Russian aggression, not only for the good of Ukraine, but frankly, for the security, the safety of Europe, and frankly, of global security.  If Russia is allowed to continue gobbling up pieces of Ukrainian territory unimpeded, unchallenged by the West, it will continue its rapacious ways, and that is just not acceptable in Europe. It's not acceptable for the security of the United States, for our interests across the world. So it is important that Russia be pushed back. It is important that we stand by Ukraine as they try to liberate themselves from Russian aggression.  And frankly, it's a signal to other countries that may have territorial ambitions, designs on neighboring states, small, weaker states. You know what we're talking about here. So it's important that the line be drawn, and we stand by that line and continue to supply Ukraine with what it needs to defend itself, and it has actually made some impressive gains. It has still a challenge ahead. Russia is much larger and has many more missiles in its stockpile than Ukraine does, but Ukraine is fighting back, and is actually taking the fight to Russia, which is so important we need to stand by our friends in Ukraine as they beat back Putin's aggression.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So that seems to be a popular sentiment, that it's okay for Ukraine to fight back, and we support that effort. So why do they not support the efforts of Israel to fight back? Is it just geography? Jason Isaacson:   Well, Israel has always had a difficult challenge in the United Nations. Of course, the situation with the Palestinians has been a popular cause across the globe, and it's been very difficult for Israel to make the case that it does not want to rule over the Palestinian people. It was put in that position as a result of a war in which it defended itself against aggression in 67 and 73 and ended up occupying land or administering land that had been launching pads for strikes against the people of Israel themselves.  It is hoping for, searching for, it has signed on to a process that would allow for a political resolution of the status of the Palestinians. Palestinian leadership has been such that it hasn't been able to move forward on any kind of a further settlement of that dispute with Israel. And in the meantime, the public around the world has grown frustrated and of course, has a continuing support for the underdog, less appreciation for the situation that Israel finds itself in. And that's just a fact of life that we've been we've been wrestling with for too long.  At the same time, there is an appreciation of the contributions that Israel has made and continues to make to technological advancement, public health, a variety of fields in which, certainly the countries in the region, but countries beyond the region, can benefit from further interaction with Israel. We've seen the growth of the relationship between Israel and India, the growth of relationship between India and other states in the developing world, and we're hoping that at a certain point, public opinion will follow the trend that is so evident in our contacts with governments around the world. In many ways, what we've seen is an action in which Israel is the target, but the real target is the West. The real target is the United States, and Israel is an ally of the United States as the one democracy in the Middle East, closely connected to the United States, has been in many ways, the focal point for antagonism toward the west, and it puts Israel in a unique position. Sort of a positive position, in some ways, in that there's an affiliation and association of Israel with the United States, which is of benefit to countries in the region that want their own strategic partnership with the United States, that want to benefit from Israel's access to the west, technologically, in education, in public health, and a whole range of sectors. But for other parts of the world, where it's easy to blame the West for their own economic situation or political situation, it's very easy to link the United States with Israel, and therefore to hold Israel somewhat to a different, harsher standard.  That's part of what's going on. Part of it is identification with the Palestinian cause, which has been very popular on the street, fueled in the Arab world by Al Jazeera and other media, but also very conveniently used over the generations by Arab governments to deflect from their own issues of governance in their own countries and elsewhere in the world, it's been a rallying cry for a range of despots and dictators and monarchs who have wanted to again, distract their countries from the real issues that they face, and target this western outpost in the eastern Mediterranean. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Speaking of strategic partnerships, is the UN General Assembly the right forum to pursue discussions of expanding the Abraham Accords, and is this the right time, even if it is the right forum?  Jason Isaacson:   Well, in the General Assembly of the United Nations, no, because there is an automatic majority. And we just saw this on display just a week or so ago when the UN General Assembly adopted a one sided anti Israel resolution overwhelmingly by something like 50% more votes against Israel than occurred the last time a couple of years ago that there was a resolution regarding Israel the General Assembly a similar resolution. So no, not in the General Assembly itself, not in the UN system itself, but among individual countries, Israel is still quite popular at elite levels of many countries, and AJC has worked, I should say, tirelessly for decades, to open doors for Israel. Countries around the world, not just in the Arab world, but in the developing world and elsewhere. We continue to do so, and we continue to find great receptivity to the argument that there is much to be gained by a relationship with Israel. Maybe starting out quietly, but benefiting the people of your country. Prime minister, Foreign Minister, Mr. President, Madam President, these are arguments that we are making constantly, and we're seeing the openings of trade relations, of new business opportunities, investments, exchanges, people coming to Israel to learn about how they can benefit their own societies by a different kind of a partnership with counterparts in Israel. AJC has been part of that action for a long time. We continue to do so through our Center for a New Middle East, which was announced by AJC CEO Ted Deutch in June. We are expanding our efforts, especially across the Gulf and North Africa, to introduce societies, civil sector leaders, business people and governments, to the benefits that would accrue to them, to their societies through the embrace of this new Middle East, which has begun frankly with the Abraham Accords in 2020 and we are hopeful that the coming years will bring us greater success as well, but not just in that part of the world. Other countries, as we have seen through the advent of I2U2 and IMEC, which were efforts to bring India into more interaction with Israel and with Europe, this corridor from India to the. Middle East to Europe and Israel in cooperation with India and the United States and the United Arab Emirates. I2U2, all of these efforts are efforts to expand the circle of Arab Israeli peace, to expand the circle of Israel's interaction with for the benefit of those countries, countries around the world. And we're seeing great success there. We continue to work hard to broaden that success. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Jason, thank you so much for shedding light on what you've been up to this week on the sidelines. Jason Isaacson:   Always a pleasure, Manya, thank you.

Topics include:  DC and profession analysis  Tech and AI trends in accounting and finance  Key technical updates  Speakers:   Erik Asgeirsson, President and CEO, CPA.com  Lisa Simpson, VP, Firm Services, AICPA  Rachel Dressen, Senior Director, Congressional and Political Affairs, AICPA  Dan Hood, Editor-in-Chief, Accounting Today  Andrew Argue, CEO and Co-founder, Corvee 

Madison Eggert-Crowe, VP Political Affairs at Comcast, shared the story behind her title with us on August 28, 2024★★★★★Of the interview, our founder and host, Sue Rocco, says: "Listen in as I sit down with Madison to talk about her upbringing in South Coventry, PA, her aspiration to grow up and work in a tall building in the city, her love of politics and math, and why her mom's deployment to Iraq and subsequent injury was a life-changing moment for Madison."Madison joined Comcast in 2013 and oversees the Company's enterprise-wide political activities compliance program. Specifically, she is responsible for the administration, compliance, and disclosure related to political action committee, corporate, and executive personal political contributions; corporate and trade association political action committee solicitations and receipts; state and local pay-to-play; federal, state, and local lobbying; gifts and entertainment of government officials; and government conflicts of interest.Madison serves as a board member of the Public Affairs Council. Prior to joining Comcast, Madison worked in Development and Alumni Relations at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Madison holds a B.S. in Political Science and Mathematics from Drexel University and a Master's in Public Administration from the University of Pennsylvania Fels Institute of Government.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/women-to-watch-r/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

“We live in a complicated world . . . We have to balance those tensions, and the way that we do that is not by running away from them and looking for simplistic answers, but actually by embracing that complexity.” In his new book of essays, “The Center Must Hold,” Yair Zivan, Foreign Policy Advisor to Israel's Opposition Leader Yair Lapid, who heads Israel's largest centrist political party, argues for a return to centrist politics as an antidote to the extremism and polarized politics proliferating around the globe today. The essays, by authors including Israel's former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, American political commentator Jennifer Rubin, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and philanthropist Catherine Murdoch, call populism fatally flawed and prescribe centrism as the solution to political ire around the globe.  *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Yair Zivan Show Notes: Listen – People of the Pod: What the Unprecedented Assassinations of Terror Leaders Means for Israel and the Middle East Aviva Klompas is Fighting the Normalization of Antisemitism on Social Media On the Ground at the Republican National Convention: What's at Stake for Israel and the Middle East? 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. Transcript of Interview with Yair Zivan: Manya Brachear Pashman:   Yair Zivan has served as an advisor to Israel's Foreign Minister, Prime Minister and President. Most recently, he has edited a series of essays that argue for a return to centrist politics as an antidote to the extremism and polarized politics we see proliferating around the globe today. The title of that book: “The Center Must Hold”. The essays by authors including Israel's former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, American political commentator Jennifer Rubin, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and philanthropist Catherine Murdoch, call out populism as fatally flawed and prescribe centrism as the solution to political ire around the globe. Yair, welcome to People of the Pod. Yair Zivan:     Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let's start with the title of this essay collection, which is a spin, your spin on the line from the Yates poem The Second Coming. And that poem was written more than a century ago, also during a time of worldwide angst after World War One and the flu pandemic and the poem's opening line is, things fall apart, the center cannot hold. Why do you argue the center must hold? Yair Zivan:     So I think that the play on words there is about a kind of a fatalism that says it can't and saying, Well, we don't really have that luxury if we believe, as I do, that the center is the answer to the polarization and the populism and the extremism that's tearing us apart, then it simply has to hold.  Now that's not to say that it will automatically or by default. It means we have to go out and fight for it, and that's what I've been trying to do with the book and with the events around it, is to make the case that the center can hold if we go out and make that happen. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So what is centrism anyway? Yair Zivan:     It's a good place to start. I'll start with what centrism isn't. Centrism is not the middle. It's not a search for some point on a map between where the left and the right happen to be at any given time. That just leaves you getting dragged around from place to place by whatever the political winds are. It's not useful as a political idea. It's also not successful as a political idea.  Centrism says, here are a set of core values that we believe should be at the center of politics. They should be the things that are at the heart of our democratic political tradition, our political instinct. And you can trace it back to the early '90s, to Clinton and to Blair and the third way movement. You can trace it back much further, Oliver Wendell Holmes is often cited as a good example of a centrist political philosophy.  But at its core, what centrism says is we live in a complicated world, and we have to manage that complexity. We have to balance those tensions, and the way that we do that is not by running away from them and looking for simplistic answers, but actually by embracing that complexity. And by saying when we find the best balance between these competing tensions, and that's not to say split the difference and find the middle. There are times when we go more one way and more another, it's to say that is the way that we can best hold within us the complexities of running a country today. And there are some very core values at the heart of that liberal patriotism, this idea that it's good to love your country. It's good to be a patriot without being a nationalist, without hating others, without having to degrade other people in order to affirm your sense of love for your own country.  We talk about equality of opportunity, the idea that the role of government is to give everybody the best possible chance to succeed. It's not to guarantee an equality of outcome at the end, but it's to say we're going to make sure that children have a good education system and that their health care system gives them a chance to succeed, and they have a hot meal every day, and then people that want to work hard and take those opportunities and be innovative will be able to succeed in society.  It talks about the politics of hope, as opposed to the politics of fear and division, so creating a national story that people can rally around, rather than one that divides us inevitably into camps and separates us, which is what I think populists and extremists try to do.  So there's a whole host of them, and I would say one of the core ones, and maybe why it's so important and so relevant now, is that centrism is the place where you defend liberal democracy. It's fashionable today to talk about the death of liberalism and why liberalism can't possibly survive, and liberal democracy is an aberration in human history, and really we're meant to be ruled by kings and autocrats. And I say no, liberal democracy is good. It's actually the best system of government we've ever had, and we should work really hard to defend it and to protect it.  And the only place you can do that is in the political center. You can't trust the political right and the political left to defend the institutions of liberal democracy, because they only do it up until the point when it's uncomfortable for them. The right has taken on itself the mantle of free speech, and the right is really great at protecting free speech right up until the point that it's speech they don't like and then they're banning books in libraries.  And the left loves talking about protecting the institutions of liberal democracy until it disagrees with them, and then it's happy to start bending around the edges. The Center is the place where we say the institutions, the ideas, the culture of liberal democracy, is something that's worth defending and worth defending passionately and strongly. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I'm curious, are these core values universal to centrism, or are they really up to individual communities? Is it, in other words, is it up to communities, nations to decide what centrism is in their region, in their neck of the woods, if you will?  Yair Zivan:     So there is always variety in any political idea, in any political approach, where people adapt it to their own systems, but the core principles have to be the same core principles. And one of the things I set out to do in this book is to say, actually, centrism is something that works across the globe. So Malcolm Turnbull, the former Australian Prime Minister, and Andreas Velasco, a former presidential candidate in Latin America, and we have Argentinians, and we have a Japanese contributor, and the idea is to say centrism as the principles that I laid out as the core idea is the antidote to the extremism and polarization that we're seeing works everywhere, and that's actually a really important part.  Now, sure, there are different issues that you deal with in different countries. Also say the threat is different in different countries, if part of what we're doing is an alternative to extremism and polarization. Then in Latin America, people are more worried today about the rise of a populist far left, whereas in Europe, they might be more worried about the rise of a populist far right. And so the challenge is different and the response is different, but the core principles, I think, are the same and they are consistent. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So do you believe that this philosophy is eroding? I mean, it seems to be happening at the same time around the world, in various democracies, Europe, United States, Israel. But do you agree? I mean, is this eroding, or is that too strong a word? Yair Zivan:     Look, I think one of the problems with centrist is we're often not very good at talking about our successes and pretty down on ourselves, rather than actually taking pride in really good things that we've done and in places where we win and places where we do well, the test of a political idea is not if it wins every election. No one wins every election, right? That's part of politics as a pendulum. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but the more important thing is not whether you win every election. And don't get me wrong, I work in politics. I like to win. I like to get votes. I like to be in government so that we can do the things that we care about, right? That's why we're in politics. But the test of the idea is whether it can also survive, defeat, an opposition and a time when you're not in power and come back from that stronger. And I think centrism has done that, and can continue to do that. But part of the reason for the book is we haven't always been articulate enough, confident enough and coherent enough in the way that we present our case, and that's something that I hope this book will have some kind of role in changing. That is to say we need to be proud of our successes and our achievements. What happens when you have a successful centrist government, the next people in the political party that come along disavow it and move away from it. You saw it in Tony Blair's Labor Party. I would argue that new labor was an incredibly successful political project, and the thing that came next was a labor party that did everything it could to run away from that rather than embrace that legacy.  And as the Labor Party reembrace that legacy, not coincidentally, it also came to power again in the UK, and you see that across the world. I think there are places clearly where we're struggling and places where we need to do a better job, but I also think there are enough examples to show that centrism can work, and the kind of politics that we're pushing for can work and can be successful. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So where is it struggling and where is it succeeding the most?  Yair Zivan:     So look, I'll talk about something that is maybe close to our heart on this podcast, and that's the situation in Israel today, Israel is going through the most difficult time, I think, as a country that certainly in our lifetimes, if not since 1948 we October 7 was was the darkest day that any of us lived through. I'm a little reticent to talk about the political response to that, but one of the things that's interesting from a centrist perspective, is the response of the Israeli public has not been to move to the right. It's been to move to the political center. And if you look at opinion polls in Israel today, the next government, if elections were held today, would be a center center right government. And I'm confident that that will hold all the way through to whenever we have the next election. And I think that's because there is a sense in Israel that actually people want that type of governance. They want people who understand that you need to embrace compromise and moderation and pragmatism as values, rather than looking at them as kind of a political slur, as a vice, as something that we need to talk down about. And so I look at Israel as a place where, actually we lost the election.  In November '22 we elected a government that was, to my mind, very right wing. And populist and incredibly problematic. I think we've paid a very high price for that in the last 18 months or so, and now there is a move back towards the political center. Look, I think Emmanuel Macron has been an example of the success of political centrism. The fact that he struggled in the parliament in the most recent parliamentary elections is not an indictment of the fact that he managed to build a political center in France that wasn't really there before. And the test, I guess, will be whether in two years, there is a successor from his party or not. So there are plenty of places I think that I can look out for being successful and where centrism does well. I think there's been some really good examples of political centrism in the US as well, despite the popular media narrative that everything is polarized. You look at groups like the problem solvers caucus in Congress, and you say, here is a group of members of Congress who are determined to work together, who are determined to cooperate and to find solutions to complicated problems and approach it in a really centrist way. Would I like to see centrists winning more in bigger majorities everywhere? Absolutely. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Can you give an example of an issue, pick a country, any country, but an issue that would really benefit from that pragmatic approach, that pragmatic centrist approach, sir Yair Zivan:     Arne Duncan, who was President Obama's Secretary of Education, who writes about a willingness to take on teachers unions and a willingness to demand standards and a sense of what is the focus of education, right? Where the focus of education should be providing the best possible education to children, something we should all be able to rally around, and yet, something that we seem to have lost along the way. And I think education comes back again and again as a core centrist focus. That's one. The other one that I think is really interesting is the essay by Rachel Pritzker. Rachel writes about climate change and about environment, and in it, she makes what I think is a really compelling case that says we can't fight back against the need for energy abundance, because, particularly in the developing world, people need energy in order to improve their quality of life, and they need a lot more energy than they have now. And the idea that the solution to climate change is turning off the lights every so often for a bit longer, is just not practical. Now it comes from a perspective that says climate change is real and is a problem and it's something we need to address, but it kind of pushes away from, I think, most of the orthodoxies of much of the kind of climate change movement and the environmental protection movement, and says we need something different. And that thing is a focus on technology and on innovation that will allow people to create the energy that they need in order to raise their quality of life, rather than demanding that they use less. That is, I think, a really great centrist approach. It's not a splitting of the difference. It's clearly coming down on the side that says climate change is real and it's a problem and it's something we have to address. But it's rejecting orthodoxies and offering something I think that's different. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And this seems like such a no brainer, right? I mean, it seems like these are our values, our principles that everyone should be able to agree upon, maybe not the methodology, right? Maybe that's what's up for debate. But it seems like these are just not points of contention. Yair Zivan:     I think we're going against the grain of politics. I think today, people don't subscribe to a real full throated defense of liberal democracy, and people aren't really willing to defend free speech, including speech that they don't like. And people are taking advantage of feelings of patriotism and dragging them to a pretty ugly nationalism or rejecting patriotism altogether. And so I think a lot of the ideas are not the most natural grain of where politics is. I was on a panel a few days ago, and one of the panelists turned to me, looked at me deeply, and said, I don't think I've ever met a centrist before.  And I thought, I think you probably have, right? And if not, then, nice to meet you, hi, I'm a centrist. But the idea that actually it's going against the trend in politics is one that troubles me. Part of what I'm trying to do is to say to people, if you are a centrist, then speak up. And it's difficult when you're a centrist, you are the biggest threat today. The fight in politics today is not between left and right, it's between the center and the extremes.  And so what happens when you come out and say, I'm a centrist? This is what I believe, is you find yourself attacked by the extremes, and that's sometimes a difficult place to be. When I put the first tweet out about my book within half an hour, I was called every name under the sun. I was a communist and a Nazi all at once, depending on who was attacking me, right? You have to be able to withstand that too often. Centrists have been shy and have kind of hidden back and said, I don't really mean it, and actually, I don't want to have this fight. Or actually, let's not talk about politics now, rather than saying, here's a set of values I believe in, and I'm passionate about and I'm willing to fight for them, and you know what, I am as committed to them, I am as passionate about them, and I'm as willing to fight for them as the extremes are about theirs. And because I think the majority of people are centrist and are looking for that motivation, I think that allows us to win the political argument, because if we're proud enough, then people will line up behind us who already do agree with the principles, but maybe feel like they're alone or there aren't enough people that share their views. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In other words, they're kind of anti confrontational. They avoid confrontation, or perhaps too many centrists don't want to sound too passionate about their values, because. As perhaps passion equates to extreme.  Yair Zivan:     You should be able to be a passionate centrist. You should be passionate about defending liberal democracy. You should be passionate about being a liberal patriot. You should be passionate about trying to give children equality of opportunity, right? Those things are things that it's good to be passionate about, and you should care about them.  I just don't recognize in the centrism that I see being successful, this perception of timidity, or this perception of being scared, but what you have, I think, is too many centrists who have taken that path, and you have kind of backed off and backed away from being passionate about those arguments, and that's where we lose.  So my call to centrists is to be loud and to be proud and to be passionate about the things that we really care about and where there are places where people might feel a little bit uncomfortable with it and not want to be confrontational, because maybe it goes with the more moderate and pragmatic mindset. Is to say we have to overcome it because the issues are too important for us not to. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Do I also want to clarify, being a centrist is not at the exclusion of the right or the left, right? It's more a conversation between both, or a consensus or a compromise of both, whatever works right, whatever works best for the greater good?  Yair Zivan:     There is an element of a rejection of the left and the right, to some extent, right, particularly of the fringes, and I'm incredibly critical of even some of the more moderate left and moderate right, because they're too willing to appease the extremes on their side. They're very good at calling out extremism and populism from the other camp, but not always good enough for calling out on their own side, which I think is where the challenge really lies. The idea is not to find a compromise.  The idea is not to split the difference between old ideas. It is about saying we should be focusing on what works. And I write a line in the book, slightly glibly, that, if it works, and if it makes people's lives better, does it really matter if it comes from Marx or from Hayek, right?  The political philosophy behind it certainly matters less than if it works the way that compromise can be a successful political tool. And I think we all compromise in our lives all the time, and suddenly when we get to politics, we see it as a sign of weakness or non-committal-ness or something like that, whereas in our everyday lives, we see it as a part of being able to function as an adult in society. I think the goal of that, the way that you do that successfully, the way you compromise successfully, is by being really clear about what your values are and what your ideals are and what you believe. And only then can you go to a compromise. If I try to compromise with people without being very firm about what I believe and what's important to me, I'll just get dragged to wherever they are because they're passionate and I'm not. They're committed and I'm not. So you have to be really clear about what your values are.  And I actually think the real test about compromise is whether you do it when you're in a position of power, not in a position of weakness. In politics, people compromise because they have to. I say you should compromise because you want to. And I'll give a kind of an example, I guess. If I had 51% of the votes in Parliament, and I could pass anything I wanted, and I had a belief, a reform that I passionately believed and wanted to get through, and I could pass it 100% the way that I wanted, or I could take it down to 80% of what I want, and take 20% from other people and increase my majority from 51% to 75% I would do that because I think it's right, because I think building consensus builds more sustainable policy, because I think it creates a healthier democracy and a healthier political culture.  Because I have enough humility to say that maybe I don't know everything, and I'm not right about everything, and the other side has something useful to contribute, even to something that I'm really passionate about. That's the test of compromise. Do you do it when you don't have to, but because you think it's the right thing to do? And again, it's dependent on knowing what your values are and dependent on knowing what you're not willing to compromise on, because if you don't have that, then you don't have the anchor from which you take your political beliefs. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In other words, kind of seeding a little bit to the other side, not because you have to, but because you need that little percentage bump to pass your legislation, but because you'll just build more of a consensus and more support on both sides of the aisle, or both sides of eight aisles, whatever, however it works. But yeah, I mean, it's really about building a consensus among lawmakers for the greater good, rather than just claiming that slim victory.  Yair Zivan:     Yeah, it creates better policy and more sustainable policy. But there's also limits to it. You very rarely in politics get 100% support for anything. And often, if you've got to the place where everyone supports it, then you've probably gone too far with the compromise, right, and you've probably watered it down too much.  There are very rare moments in politics when everybody agrees about something, and there are cases, and there are cases when we can do that, but on the really big issues, it's rare for us to get to that level of consensus, and I don't think that's necessarily desirable either. But being able to build a little bit beyond your political comfort zone, a little bit beyond your camp, I think, is a really useful thing in politics, and there are models where it works really well.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let me ask you more specifically. Okay, what is eroding centrism? What forces really are working against it and in the places where the center is maintaining its hold, are those forces in reverse? In other words, have they found a way to conquer those particular forces, or have they found a way to conquer what works against centrism, or has it just not reached them yet? Yair Zivan:     So I'll start by flipping the question, I don't think it's about, does centrism work when other people aren't strong enough to attack it and to take it apart? Centrism works when it's strong enough, in and of itself, and it's defining the political agenda. The goal of what I'm trying to do with the book and with the arguments that I'm making is to say, we define what is at the core of democratic politics. Now everybody else is going to have to respond to us. So that's the first thing. Is that switch in mindset away from Are we able to withstand, where the extremes are, to a place where we say, actually, we're the solid anchor, and now we are the ones that are defining the political moment and the political issues. Where is it that we do well? Is where we're confident, right?  When we're able to stand up and be proud of ourselves, and then you're more easily able to rebuff some of those forces. Where do I think centrism struggles? One of the places where it struggles, and this is my criticism of my own camp, which I think is always important to have that kind of, I think, a little bit of self awareness. We're often not good enough at really connecting with people's fears and grievances and concerns that are genuine, right? People really are worried about technological innovation and the pace of automation, and people are worried about immigration. And you can be worried about immigration without being a racist and without being a person that should be shunned or that we should criticize.  There is a genuine reason why people are worried about these things, and we have to be better at really connecting to those grievances and fears that people have to really understand them, to really empathize with them. That is the cost of entry, to be able to suggest different policies to them. If I want to convince someone that populist politics aren't going to work, I have to show that I care about them as much as the Populists do, and not seed that ground. And I don't think we're always really good enough at doing that. Where we are good at doing that, there's a huge reward.  And ultimately, I believe that on every issue, the solutions that we offer from the political center are more successful than the solutions that are offered by the populists and by the extremists, but we have to be able to convince the public of that you can't disregard people who vote for somebody you find distasteful, even if you think that the candidate they're voting for is somebody that you have real problems with, and even if the candidate they're voting for is actually a racist or is actually illiberal and undemocratic. That doesn't mean all the people voting for them are and it doesn't mean you can afford to dismiss those people. It means you need to do a better job of listening to them and connecting with them and bringing them back to our political camp. When politicians fail to get their message across because they're not doing a good enough job, it's not because of the public. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Yair, thank you so much for joining us and for giving us a little bit of a pathway to expressing these kinds of views that aren't heard of a whole lot. Yair Zivan:     Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Manya Brachear Pashman:   If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for a conversation between my colleague Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC's Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, and Ron Kampeas, the Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.  

Listen to an in-depth conversation on all the latest in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, from the vice presidential picks –Tim Walz and JD Vance – to Israel and antisemitism. Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC's Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, speaks with Ron Kampeas, the Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Kampeas also discussed the importance of accuracy and empathy in reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, highlighting the need for journalists to avoid biases and misrepresentations. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Ron Kampeas Learn: AJC's Call to Action Against Antisemitism U.S. Party Platforms Must Take a Stand Against Antisemitism Here are 5 Jewish Issues Republicans and Democrats Must Address at their Conventions Listen: What the Unprecedented Assassinations of Terror Leaders Means for Israel and the Middle East Aviva Klompas is Fighting the Normalization of Antisemitism on Social Media On the Ground at the Republican National Convention: What's at Stake for Israel and the Middle East? 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. Transcript of Interview with Ron Kampeas: Manya Brachear Pashman:   This week, my colleague Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, spoke to Ron Kampeas, the Washington DC Bureau Chief of JTA, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. They broke down the latest in the 2024 US presidential election. Julie, the mic is yours. Julie Fishman Rayman: Ron, thank you so much for joining us. I'm so pleased to have this conversation with you, because we get to flip the tables and someone who's really a beloved and renowned journalist in the Jewish space, and finally, I get to ask you questions. So thank you for making this opportunity available to us. Ron Kampeas:  Thank you. Julie Fishman Rayman: I want to start by talking a little bit about the conventions. You were in Milwaukee covering AJC's event, alongside a number of other things. Thank you for being there with us. What were your biggest takeaways from the Republican Convention, particularly as they related to the issues of Israel and antisemitism? Ron Kampeas:  I think Israel was front and center, and they made it front and center because it's an obvious advantage that they have over the Democrats right now. So, you know, I think the representative moment was, in a way, when Matt Brooks, the CEO of the Republican Jewish Coalition, he was invited for the first time to address the Republican Convention, and the first thing he said was, let's hear it for Israel, or something like that, or let's hear it for the hostages. And there were cheers, and then he says that couldn't happen in a month at the Democratic Convention. He might be right. And so that was a big plus for them. On antisemitism it's a little more opaque, but it's problematic, I think, because after Matt spoke, he called us Jewish media reporters together for a little gaggle, and we asked him, naturally, about the isolationism that the vice presidential or the running mate pick JD Vance represents. And it's interesting, the way that Matt put it. He said, yeah, it is a problem. He was candid. He said, it's a problem in the party, and we plan to fight it. And, you know, nobody prompted him, but he said, we plan to take on the Tucker Carlson wing of the party. The interesting thing about that is that he said, prevent Tucker Carlson wing from getting a foothold. And Tucker Carlson had very much a foothold at the convention. He spoke on the last night, setting up Donald Trump's speech. He was up in the balcony with Donald Trump. And of course, you know, Matt's point is that Tucker Carlson is very much an isolationist, particularly as far as Ukraine goes, but he's given hints as far as Israel goes. But it's more than that. He's platformed antisemites, and he's kind of ventured into that territory himself – antisemites like Candace Owens, Kanye West – and I think that that is something that Jewish Republicans are going to have to grapple with. Julie Fishman Rayman: One of the things that was discussed at AJC's event alongside the Republican National Convention was the policy positions of not just JD Vance, but others who sort of align with that faction of the Republican Party – I guess, the Tucker Carlson faction – and sort of reading the tea leaves on Ukraine and saying, you know, at what point does the hesitancy around support for Ukraine translate into hesitancy for support for Israel? And does it? What would you say to that question? Ron Kampeas:  You know, it's interesting that at least as far as I could track, that played out an explicit sense only at your event, at the AJC event. There were people who were asking hard questions of the panelists, and two of the panelists were very much not stumping for Trump, they were defending Trump and the Trump policies. Kirsten Fontenrose, not so much. She was more critical, and even though she was part of the Trump NSC. And so the defense that they were saying is that simply, you know, whatever you may think of Trump's position, this is Rich Goldberg has particularly said this, but I think Ken Weinstein also said it, whatever you may think of Trump's positions on Ukraine, the strength he will project in the world. And this was right after the assassination, and Rich Goldberg kept on bringing up that Associated Press photo of Trump looking very defiant after being shot, that strength is going to deter the kind of actions that Putin has taken in Ukraine.  But the flip side of that actually came up a couple of weeks later at a Christians United for Israel conference here in DC, where isolationism was very much on the mind, and what they were articulating and what might have been articulated in an AIPAC conference, if AIPAC still had conferences – it doesn't – but what they were articulating is that it's holistic, that you can't just say, like, JD Vance says, ‘Oh, I'm all for assisting Israel, but we don't need to assist Ukraine, because Russia's bad actions in Ukraine are being supported by Iran. Iran is supplying arms to Russia in Ukraine that it then can, you know, see how those arms work in Ukraine, and they can use them theoretically against Israel.'  We're seeing now, as tensions build up in the Middle East, that Russia has Iran's back. And then, you know, there's also China, which is also problematic and is buying Iranian oil and helping to prop up the Iranian economy that way. So it's not simply a matter of whether one side projects strength better than the other side, and this is the argument coming out of the Christians United for Israel thing. It's a matter of constant engagement and awareness of how all these things can interlock. Julie Fishman Rayman: I think that's a really great point, and I'm glad you made that connection. I know one of the other issues that was present or discussed at the Christians United for Israel conference was the issue of the hostages, and what you said before about the sort of rallying result of Matt Brooks' comments about, you know, let's hear it for Israel, let's hear it for the hostage families. And a similar cry might solicit or elicit at the DNC. What do you think we could expect? You know, would you expect that a hostage family will take to the stage as Orna and Ronen Neutra did at the DNC, and if so, what might the result be? Ron Kampeas:  So that's a good question. I know that they've asked. I know that the hostage families have asked to appear at the DNC. I know that there are people who have told me that the DNC, especially like with Kamala Harris, who has spoken out for the hostages. I don't see how Kamala Harris could not have the hostages or some sort of representation of the hostages at the conference. On the other hand, the Democrats are going to have to worry about, I don't think they're going to be booed, but I think that they're not going to get the same sort of enthusiastic reception that maybe that they got at the Republican conference, and simultaneously the uncommitted movement. The movement was founded in Michigan and spread to some other states that when Biden was the nominee, particularly, they were upset that Biden wasn't doing enough to stop the war in Gaza, wasn't doing enough to force Israel into a ceasefire, and they wanted to show that they didn't necessarily have to vote for him in November, so they didn't vote for him in the primaries.  And they had different effects in different states, but certainly in states like Michigan and Minnesota, I think that they had a pretty good turnout as far as that goes. And they want a doctor from Gaza to speak at the DNC. So you know which might be fine. It might be a legitimate enterprise in their part, but you know that the Democrats are going to be accused of “both sides-ing” it, that the Republicans wouldn't have somebody like that. So because of the Democrats of different constituencies, as much as the Republicans are now, at least the Trump campaign is now trying to reach out to Arab Americans. It's much more a constituency for the Democrats, as are the Jews. It's going to be like a tightrope for them to walk. And so I don't know how that's going to be a play out, but it's certainly something we're going to be tracking. Julie Fishman Rayman: Talking about that, that tightrope, and also, because you mentioned Michigan and Minnesota, let's talk for a moment about the selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for the vice presidential nominee. He has both spoken at AIPAC's conferences, stood by Israel after the October 7 attacks, talked about Jewish students on campus dealing with encampments and anti-Israel protests and has really been outspoken about rising antisemitism in this country. On the flip side, he also speaks to the more progressive flank of the Democratic Party, and has urged the party to do more intentional kind of outreach to anti-Israel voters who aren't committed to voting the Harris-Walz ticket. What do you make of him in this moment, as both a campaigner and then presumably, if elected, what would you make of him as a vice president? Ron Kampeas:  It's hard to say right now. Nobody was really aware of Tim Walz a lot outside of Minnesota until last week, but it's so funny because, you know, there was this whole push back against Shapiro from the far left because he was perceived as being – I'm talking about Josh Shapiro, the Pennsylvania Governor who was a front runner – because he was perceived as being too pro-Israel.  But Yair Rosenberg did a really good job. I also did a little bit of reporting into this about how the other candidates, who other likelies that Kamala Harris were considering, are also pro-Israel, and Tim Walz has a long list of accomplishments, but you know, a measure of how fast this summer has gone, how crazy this political season has been, is this a week and a half ago, when Yair put up his story, he didn't even have Tim Walz in it. He was looking at Roy Cooper, he was looking at Mark Kelly from Arizona, and then, because nobody was even thinking about Tim Walz then, and now, he's the running mate.  But from what you can see about him, and like, we just, JTA just did a big story about his master's thesis on Holocaust education, he's somebody who really wants to listen. His recommendation to the Republican Party, you know, he's coined this whole weird thing. That's actually why the Harris campaign noticed him, because he was the first to call the Republicans weird. I mean, the Republican candidates, but he said don't direct that at the voters, direct that only at the nominees, because we have to listen to the voters. And so I think that you can look at what he says about listening to the protesters on campuses in that context. For somebody who was born in Nebraska and lived most of his life in a town of 400 people in Minnesota, he shows, like, remarkably nuanced understanding of things that are of Jewish concern regarding the Holocaust. He's talked about how, you know, one can look at the Holocaust legitimately as an anomaly in history, but also understand it as something that could be repeated, which is actually Yehuda Bauer, the famous Holocaust historian's point. The way he boiled it down was that the Holocaust happened only to the Jews, but it can happen to anybody. And so that's Waltz's outlook, and it shows somebody who's really sort of read up on this and considered it in depth. Julie Fishman Rayman: Because you mentioned that Josh Shapiro had been very much in the running there, I want to get your take on the sort of social media trends of calling him “Genocide Josh” because of his pro-Israel statements and record. Is that just blatant antisemitism that we need to be mindful of, was it specific? Do you think it's just, you know, savvy opposition researchers? What do you make of that? Ron Kampeas:  You know, we often think of antisemitism as, you know, planning to be antisemitic and putting out a statement. There are people who are consciously antisemitic, but the much greater, the much more vexing problem is that, how, it just seeps into the discourse. We have a polarized society, and it's just very easy when you're opposing somebody to grab whatever is in the toolbox to harm them. And for anybody who's Jewish, I mean, you see this and we talk about it openly, you see it when we talk about women in politics, about how attacks on them can be gendered. And nobody, at least nobody on the left, complains about that. Actually, maybe they did a little bit. You know, the Bernie Bros made gendered attacks on Hillary Clinton, and they didn't denied it.  But anyways, so you can say that attacks can be gendered, but it's hard to explain how attacks can also be antisemitic, because that's a tool in the box. And then a lot of people on the left don't want to acknowledge that. They slip into that. And I think that's what happened with Josh Shapiro. I think that there is for some reason, I mean, I can speculate as to, not even speculate – people have said why, even though he was just as pro-Israel as Tim Walz. He's like he's not less pro-Israel. But Mark Kelly did things that I'm sure Josh Shapiro wouldn't have done. Josh Shapiro doesn't like Benjamin Netanyahu.  Mark Kelly, the senator from Arizona, went to the Netanyahu speech, shook his hand afterwards and applauded, and they didn't get attacked in the same way. And if you look at some of the reasons that Shapiro was attacked, they talked about his upbringing, his going to a Jewish Day School in the Philly area, and the things that he was exposed to, they talked about his going to Israel when he was a teenager. And those are things that are part and parcel of a lot of American Jewish upbringings. And so you can say those things are indicting, but there's a point, because you're an American Jew coming up in American Jewish communities, going to be exposed to a lot of pro-Israel. But at what point does that become antisemitic? Because that's just the natural part of Jewish life. Julie Fishman Rayman: I want to ask you another question related to the media. I want to sort of get your take. Last week, AJC and the Jewish Federations of North America published an open letter to media outlets generally, really identifying how so many of them got the Hezbollah attack on the soccer field in the Golan so, so, so wrong that, after a dozen Druze kids playing soccer were murdered in the middle of the afternoon, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, others, just totally misrepresented the facts. The Washington Post headlined a story “Hezbollah denies responsibility for the fatal rocket strike.” It wasn't true. Hezbollah celebrated the attack until they learned that children were killed and then walked it back. And then doubling down, a later Washington Post story showed an image of the funeral of one of the children who was killed, but the headline read, “Israel hits target in Lebanon.”  So if you only look at the picture and you only read the headline, you think it's a Lebanese kid that has been killed by a strike in Israel, not that an Israeli Druze kid was killed by a Hezbollah attack. CNN, AP, they all sort of downplayed Hezbollah's role in these really horrific murders. Is this ignorance? Is it bias? Is it both? And regardless, if we're sort of operating under this principle of journalist integrity, is this OK? Ron Kampeas:  No, it's not OK. I don't know what went on at the Washington Post. I was witness, kind of, to one of the most foundational episodes in bad media takes, which happened right after the Second Intifada began, and the AP put out a photo of a policeman helping up a Haredi Jewish kid who had just been knocked down or even beaten by Palestinian writers in Jerusalem. And the AP captioned the photo saying that the policeman was attacking a Palestinian on the Temple Mount, which is so funny because there's a gas station in the back of the picture and there's no gas stations on the Temple Mount. I mean, if you know Jerusalem, you know the Temple Mount, you know how crazy that is. And so, like, what had happened was that I knew the guy who was handling photo editing at the AP that night when he got this picture. And at the time – this is in the early days of the Internet and computers – the picture came across at the AP's, Israeli photo agency affiliate, and Hebrew couldn't work on that machine, so, like, the Hebrew was scrambled. They captioned it in Hebrew. It was scrambled.  So the guy calls up the other guy who's also tired, and he said, was this like some cop beating up a Palestinian on the Temple Mount? He said, yeah, sure, and that's how the thing goes out. So it's just, like, journalists can screw up in ways that speak to a certain underlying bias about the conflict. They expect to see certain things, but it's also can be stupidity and laziness and just screw ups at the last minute. I mean, I imagine that's what happened with the Washington Post front page, but it's awful, and it needs to be remedied, and people need to be more educated, and they need to pay more attention. I think you're right. I think the way that the media has been treating the Hezbollah-Israel conflict in the north, in a way, differently than it treated, at least at the beginning, it treated Israel-Hamas. Hamas is clearly defined as a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is an organization that's holding Lebanon hostage. Historically, people now think it was a big mistake to invade Lebanon in 1982. Hezbollah was partly an outgrowth of resentment of the Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon. But Israel withdrew to UN. They went to the UN and they said, you decide where the lines are. We're not going to decide where the lines are.  You decide where the lines are, and we will withdraw that to that point. In 2000 Israel did that. Hezbollah continued to attack. Hezbollah launched a war in 2006 that Israel did not want, and conflict with Israel helps uphold Hezbollah within Lebanon. And so I think that because Hezbollah is a very proficient and weathered militia, they fought a war in Syria. They fought a terrible, genocidal war in Syria. They were on the wrong side of that, but they fought a war in Syria. They're good at what they're doing. So maybe there's a reflex to see this as a conflict between two militaries, but it's not.  It's a conflict between Israel and a terrorist organization that unprovoked launched missiles inside Israel on October the eighth, even before Israel was striking back in Gaza as a means of solidarity with Hamas. And so I think that needs to be front, just as I think a lot of media, obviously JTA, but even a lot of like, you know, non-Jewish media always put out there that Hamas started this war. It needs to be reminded that Hezbollah also started its version of the war, and that Hezbollah, it's not an army that's accountable to any kind of civilian infrastructure, never mind a democratic one, like the Israeli army is accountable to elected officials. It's its own militia with a stranglehold on Lebanon.  So yeah, I think that should be evident in everything that's written about that conflict, and maybe that's what helped distort at least the initial reporting from what happened in Majdal Shams, which is just horrible. Julie Fishman Rayman: One of the things that AJC is always trying to call on media outlets to do is to know who to call. Right, if there is an incident related to Israel that they don't fully understand, if there's an antisemitic attack and they need more context, to understand that there are Jewish individuals and organizations who can help to provide insight and texture and understanding so that their reporting can be more accurate. That's one of the recommendations in our Call to Action Against Antisemitism in America, recommendations for media. I wonder if, you know, journalist to journalist, if folks call you and say, “Ron, this is what we're writing, is this right?” Knowing that you are just such a font of knowledge, they should, this is what I'm saying. They should call you. Ron Kampeas:  My son asks me, I mean, very occasionally, I do get calls more having to do with my alleged knowledge of the American Jewish community and how it works and how it functions. I get calls about that. I think on Israel, less so because everybody's an expert. Everybody considers themselves an expert. Everybody flies in. I think what was an unfortunate standard. 20 years ago, it wasn't just the AP, it was all mainstream media, that you get your best takes from a foreign correspondent between three and six months into the assignment, because it takes them three months to learn it, but it takes them six months to go native, which is to sort of really understand the nuances. I think that's unfortunate, because I think going native, really understanding the nuances, sort of delving into a story, becoming familiar with it, becoming sympathetic in ways, with all sides to the story, actually enriches a story. And I think that that's something that maybe you know, I've been doing JTA for 21 years. I've been in journalism for 35 years. I think it's great to have fresh outlooks. It's good. I think it's also good to sometimes rely on institutional knowledge and to listen to people who have been here before. It was weird at AP. I was in a position at AP when I wasn't allowed to use my institute for bizarre reasons. Institutional knowledge, you know. But it was funny, because at the outset of the Iraq War, the first day, the major Iraq war in 2002, 2003, I knew things that signal that it was going to go wrong, because I'd lived in the Middle East, and I wasn't the only one. By far, by far, there were a lot of people who knew those things institutionally. It means literally saying, like what the Israelis said in 1982, the Shiites are throwing rice and you had actual examples in 1982 of Shiites throwing rice at Israelis, and in 2003 of Shiites throwing rice at Americans. They want this. And it never works out that way. It goes awry.  But nobody was listening, because people were too invested in a particular outcome to listen to the institutionalists. And I think that that's a problem. There's a reflex sometimes to say, oh, the institutionalists got it wrong in the past, because the world is still a mess, but that's not their value. The value of the institutionalists, and a great institutionalist just passed away, Martin Indyk, the value of the institutionalists is that sometimes they can actually say, this is where I went wrong, and this is what we misunderstood, and this is how we misunderstood it, and this is how we were deep in the weeds and we misunderstood it. And that's the kind of knowledge that I think shouldn't go wasted. Julie Fishman Rayman: Thanks so much for that perspective. I was going to ask you as a final question, if there was anything that you wanted to raise that we haven't discussed yet. But I would also add to that question, feel free to answer that question. Or is there something that we're getting wrong now institutionally? Ron Kampeas:  Yeah, I think that, you know, there's a lot that we're getting wrong now institutionally. I think that people are, and every side of the Israel-Hamas conflict are they retreating into sort of easy, reflexive understandings of what could go right and what could go wrong. I think that there is a value in understanding how toxic Hamas ideology is, that was, I think, grasped at the beginning after October the seventh, but has slipped away as this seems to be just a conflict, and people are retreating into Israel's bashing Gaza. We have to get it to stop bashing Gaza, which is fine, it's an outlook. It's a legitimate outlook, but it's one that's not going to register at all with any Israeli, unless you take into account how Hamas is perceived among Israelis as a genocidal organization. If it wasn't before October 7, it is now.  On the other hand, I think that sort of reflexive, we can never have a two state solution. I'm not saying, advocating, for two state solution. We never have a two state solution. We're just going to go on as we've gone with the Palestinians. I think that also reflects this kind of like a reflexive blindness that you have to account for the Palestinians, somehow. Nothing is going to be imposed on them. They have to be agents and actors and whatever happens, and it might not happen in my generation, it might not happen in my lifetime, but that has to be back of mind. And I think for a lot of people, particularly in parts of the Israeli establishment, it is not back of mind.  So those are things that I think that people can maybe, you know, if, if these competing, they're not actually enemies, I'm talking about people who are on the same side. They can be on the same side in Israel, they can be on the same side in America, but they're rivals, and they don't like to listen to each other. But if they did talk to each other and listen to each other, maybe they would find nuances that could get everybody to a better place. Julie Fishman Rayman: If we could do a word cloud of some of the themes that have come out of this conversation, listening is definitely one of the words that would be prominent. And I think it's not only a good aspiration, but I also want to highlight that our listening to you on these really important issues is revelatory, truthfully, and we're grateful for all the work that you're doing with JTA every day, but also for being here on People of the Pod with us and for all the wisdom that you've shared. Thank you. Ron Kampeas:  Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman:   If you missed last week's episode, tune in for my conversation with AJC Jerusalem Director Avital Leibovich on what the widely reported deaths of two terror leaders last week could mean for Israel and the wider region.

President Reagan hated war. He wanted to prevent war. And in the event he ever had to use force, it would be to advance freedom – and not to conquer. President Reagan sought peace, and he understood that peace requires strength. It is strength that tyrants respect. It is strength that enemies understand. It is strength that keeps the peace. As a guiding philosophy, “Peace Through Strength” is as relevant today as it was 40 years ago. In this Reagan Forum podcast we look back at our 80th anniversary of D-Day commemoration event held on June 6, 2024. The specific panel in this podcast focuses on where we need our leaders to rediscover and recommit to President Reagan's philosophy. The Wall Street Journal's Kate Bachelder Odell moderated a conversation with Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Burt, who was with Ronald Reagan in Normandy, Frank Lavin, who served as Ronald Reagan's White House Director of Political Affairs—and later served as ambassador to Singapore under President George W. Bush, and Matt Kroenig, who is Vice President and Senior Director of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and a Georgetown professor.

ACEC's VP of Political Affairs, Dave Bender sat down with Lee Lennard, President and CEO of BGE Engineering to discuss the importance of political involvement as part of ACEC's larger advocacy program.

The Hoover Institution held Strengthening Trust With India: Implications of the 2008 US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement on  May 6, 2024 from 6:30 pm - 8:00 pm in Hauck Auditorium, David & Joan Traitel Building. The conversation was between key figures who shaped modern US-India relations through the 2008 US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, an emblem of strategic US-India partnership and a major innovation in sustainable energy to power India's future. The engaging dialogue celebrates this important achievement and explores the future of US-India cooperation. ​ FEATURING Condoleezza Rice – Tad and Dianne Taube Director and Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy   66th US Secretary of State (2005-2009)     M.K. Narayanan – National Security Advisor of India (2005-2010)     Shivshankar Menon – Visiting Professor  Ashoka University   David C. Mulford – Distinguished Visiting Fellow  US Ambassador to India (2004-2009)   Nick Burns – US Ambassador to China  Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (2005-2009)     Eric Garcetti – US Ambassador to India   MODERATOR Anja Manuel – Executive Director, Aspen Strategy Group Special Assistant to the Undersecretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns (2005-2007) ​

Senior International Counsel Ambassador Robert Kimmitt joins In the Public Interest host Felicia Ellsworth to talk about his storied career in public service. Through his service as the first General Counsel of the National Security Council, the first American Ambassador to a united Germany in over 50 years, General Counsel and Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and more, Ambassador Kimmitt has played a leading role in some of the most high-profile international events in recent history, and he shares that perspective with listeners.Ellsworth and Kimmitt also discuss his private practice at WilmerHale, including how he and the firm have become go-to resources for journalists and others who have been taken hostage in difficult countries around the world. He shares the role he played in bringing home The Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, among others.

During their murderous rampage across Southern Israel on October 7th, Hamas weaponized sexual violence. Over 138 days later, denial of these crimes runs rampant despite verified evidence and testimony from survivors of the NOVA festival, the attacked kibbutzim, and freed hostages.  Hear from Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC's Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, on the efforts in Congress to stand in solidarity with Israeli victims of Hamas' sexual violence, and what you can do to make sure the plight of Israeli women is heard.  *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.  Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Julie Fishman Rayman Show Notes: Act: Urge Congress: Condemn Rape and Sexual Violence by Hamas Terrorists Listen – People of the Pod on the Israel-Hamas War: When Antisemites Target Local Businesses: How Communities Are Uniting in Response How A 10/7 Survivor is Confronting Anti-Israel Activists on College Campuses Tal Shimony Survived the Hamas Attack on the Nova Music Festival: Hear Her Story of Courage, Resilience, and Remembrance How to Mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day in a Post-October 7th World 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. Transcript of Interview with Julie Fishman Rayman: Manya Brachear Pashman:   This week, the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel delivered a report to the United Nations detailing the systemic sexual violence committed by the Hamas terror group during and after the October 7 attack on Israel. The horrific report follows a bipartisan resolution adopted by the US House of Representatives last week, condemning the use of rape and sexual violence. Here to discuss that resolution is AJC's Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs Julie Fishman Rayman. Julie, welcome. Julie Fishman Rayman:   Thank you so much, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So anything bipartisan on Capitol Hill is rare and worth discussing. Can you walk our listeners through the details of the resolution and explain why there was such unity around it? Julie Fishman Rayman:   Absolutely. So the resolution was introduced in January. And it really came out of a concerted effort on the part of mostly female members of Congress, who were hearing about what had gone on on October 7, and what was continuing to go on in Israel as it related to gender based violence and sexual assault.  And they read the tea leaves of the deafening silence on behalf of the global community and said, if people aren't believing Israeli women, we are going to show that Congress, the American Congress, is united in believing Israeli women. So there are two resolutions, in the House and in the Senate, the resolution in the House passed.  And they're pretty straightforward, expressing this sense, both of outrage and outlining some next steps. So in addition to condemning rape, and all forms of sexual violence as a weapon of war by Hamas, calling on nations to criminalize rape and sexual assault and hold perpetrators accountable, including by armed groups, which is somewhat of a different take on this.  Calling on international bodies to really condemn these atrocities in a way that we have seen too many of them pause or hesitate or simply remain silent. Reaffirming the US government support for an independent, impartial investigation —this is very important— into what happened on October 7th and afterwards, and reaffirming this commitment to supporting survivors, which is, I think, so critical in this moment. It's one of those things you could say, Oh, of course, we support the survivors. But recognizing the reality of what's going on in Israel today, and how this trauma continues to play for those victims, is really critical, right. In this moment, Israel is not focused on supporting the survivors of rape and sexual assault, not because it's not important, but because they're still fighting a war and focusing on you know, rebuilding and what to do with the hundreds of thousands of people who have been displaced from their homes, to elsewhere.  So in the hierarchy of need, addressing all sorts of trauma, is it has to be sort of lower on the totem pole and hopefully will be addressed. But that's a piece of what the international community can do and what Congress is trying to do. Just express that support and solidarity. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Calling on international bodies to condemn sexual violence, international bodies such as the UN, correct? Julie Fishman Rayman:   Yes.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   All right. Can you tell us a little bit about the report that the Association of Rape Crisis Centers released this week? Julie Fishman Rayman:   It's a really important report. Not least of which because in some ways it's the first sort of fully fleshed out credible report about the atrocities of the seven. And in a lot of ways it's important also because it pushes us to be uncomfortable, right?  I think a lot of why this issue has been sidelined or pushed aside is not just because Israel continues to be fighting a war. And their myriad other issues, the release of the hostages, etc, that are really, there's all these competing needs, both in our minds, as people who are sympathetic to these causes, but also in the world, and in terms of advocacy.  But it really pushes a lot of these deeply uncomfortable themes to the forefront. So for example, there's a whole section in this report about the sadistic practices of Hamas, binding and tying, mutilation or destruction of genitalia, insertion of weapons into intimate areas, destruction and mutilation of the body. It's grotesque. It is hard to read about, it's hard to say. But in some ways, I think that's sort of our responsibility, right? We who have not thank God lived through this trauma can be the voices for those who have and may not feel comfortable coming forward to tell their stories, may not have the emotional capacity or stamina, to tell their story and relive the horrific trauma that they suffered. So every time I sort of talk about this issue, I try to make whoever I'm speaking to, especially women, say the really uncomfortable things that we're taught as young children not to say in polite society, talk about vaginas, talk about rape, talk about fondling of breasts and mutilation and all of these things.  Because if we're not comfortable saying it out loud, we're not going to be comfortable doing that advocacy that's so important. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Has sexual violence been used or highlighted as a weapon of war elsewhere, Julie, that we know of? Julie Fishman Rayman:   It's enough of an instrument of war, that it's been deemed a war crime. I think that this, like so many things that took place on October 7, it was used to such a degree that the global community at some point will have to reckon with how we treat or how we consider sexual assault as an instrument of war.  But certainly in lots of other places this is the sad reality. And I would say the sad reality of sort of the treatment of women. But of course, we know from October 7, that it wasn't just women. It was women, children, accounts of men being sexually abused. Even men who are still hostage in the tunnels in Gaza, there are reports of sexual abuse against them.  So we sort of think about it in terms of gender based and focused specifically and solely on females. But the sad reality is, that's also not the case. And for men, especially, I think the stigma can be that much more heightened. So knowing that it could take years or even decades for us to fully understand the full gravity of the situation of what happened on October 7th against women. When it comes to men and other victims, we may never understand the full scope of what happened and what continues to happen. Manya Brachear Pashman:   What is the progress of the resolution in the Senate? Julie Fishman Rayman:   It's moving. It's been introduced, it has about a quarter of the Senate as co-sponsors, which is significant. There's a need for swift movement, I would say and greater advocacy so for listeners, they can go to AJC.org and find our action alert, calling on senators to co-sponsor and support this really important resolution when it's up for a vote.  This is one where again, our advocacy is critical and sometimes we shy away. But it's much easier to send an email to your Senators than it is to actually have to talk about these really awful issues.  So for anyone who is looking for a 30 second way to sort of comfortably take action on this important issue, the action alert is a really good and meaningful way to do so. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Can you kind of walk us through the advocacy efforts that push this through the House of Representatives, but also are pushing it through the Senate? In other words, are there victims participating in this, families of victims? What kinds of stories, and again, this could be a very uncomfortable portion of our conversation, what kinds of stories are being shared with people to convince them to put their name on this resolution? Julie Fishman Rayman:   A lot of the stories are coming from the family members and loved ones of current hostages. So there's there's an amazing piece of advocacy going on, in the halls of Congress nearly every week that that touches on this, but isn't entirely about the sexual assault. But it's about those families coming whether they're Americans, Israelis, or some other nationality. And they have family members who are still hostage. They are coming week after week, day after day, to speak to members of Congress to keep that issue at the forefront. And of course, for a lot of them the hostage issue is part and parcel integrally connected to the issue of gender based violence.  So for example, there's a woman who has been to DC several times already. And who is coming back next week to talk specifically about gender based violence. Her name is Yarden Gonen. And she is an amazing advocate for her sister, her sister Romi, who is young, she's in her 20s. She was at the Nova festival.  And she had this horrific experience of being shot, calling her mother saying I've been shot, I've been bleeding. And while she was on the phone, her mother relays that they heard screaming, screaming in Arabic, screaming in Hebrew. And then the sounds got louder and louder, the voices got louder. And then Romi shut the phone and was taken into Gaza and is still held hostage. She is one of the few women still held hostage.  And so her sister tirelessly comes to tell her story. With this sort of recognition, this sad recognition that probably all of our worst fears. You know, hopefully not God forbid, but our worst fears about sexual assault are possibly happening to her sister with frequency or regularity. And she's one example you know. There's another woman who comes also to advocate in Washington, but elsewhere as well, who actually works on this issue. She works in rape centers and working on sexual assault in Israel for many years. So she comes to talk about her cousins and her family members who experienced a raid on a kibbutz but specifically through this lens and says, I know, the type of trauma that women experience. I know why they don't speak out, why it can take years, even not in war time. And this impossible situation that Israeli women are now being faced with right where they have to before they're ready before they have the emotional capacity, tell their stories because the world is not believing them. Because there needs to be this public cry, believe Israeli women. Me too unless you're a Jew, all of this you know, horrific silencing, that now they're they're forced into telling these stories and the long standing trauma that will certainly continue. not just because of what they experienced. not because of the sexual assault and rape but then also because of the the repeated trauma of sharing that with others. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Of course, this advocacy is also happening in other countries as well. AJC's Berlin director Remko Leemhuis told us about Shani Louk, another Supernova festival goer, who was actually filmed by terrorists and that film was released. She was experiencing horrible treatment. Unfortunately, she did not survive her captivity. But certainly her story lives on in Germany, and her family has spoken out about some of the crimes committed against her. And there's certainly evidence of that, as well.  Julie, who were the champions of this resolution on Capitol Hill, who really supported it, lobbied for it. And I'm talking about the US House of Representatives, but also which senators are indeed putting their name on it? Julie Fishman Rayman:   So in the house, it was really the brainchild of Kathy Manning, Lois Frankel, Mario Díaz-Balart, and Jen Kiggans. And some of those names will probably be familiar to listeners. Kathy Manning is one of the co chairs of the bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism. Lois Frankel, another very outspoken Jewish female representative, who leads a lot of the sort of women's groups and women's caucuses on Capitol Hill.  In the Senate, it's an all female cast, which I think is beautiful. In both the House and the Senate, you have two Democrats and two Republicans. But in the Senate, it's all women, Jeanne Shaheen, Kirsten Gillibrand, Doug Fisher and [Katie] Britt from Alabama. They've really emerged as champions on this issue.  Especially, you know, Kirsten Gillibrand is the senator from New York. She's going to the floor nearly every week to tell the stories of hostage families, about what happened in Israel on the seventh, the sexual assault, etc. And she's not alone. There are true champions that have been kind of tapped into because of this unspeakable trauma. And their voices, I'm sure will outlive this war, certainly, the hostage crisis, I say, hopefully, and with a lot of prayers. That kind of advocacy continues.  Of course, there are others. Everyone, I'm sure by this point has seen the images of Senator John Fetterman's office, where he has every single hostage poster, sort of wallpapered in his office. And his staff are tracking who's released, who's still being held, who do we know is already deceased? They're tracking it as closely as the Hostages and Missing Family Forum is in Tel Aviv. They're so on top of it. They're great friends.  In Congress and the administration around the world. What you said about the work of our Berlin office is absolutely true. These issues are being raised by AJC at the EU in Brussels, in Paris, at the Vatican, really throughout the country and throughout the world. Manya Brachear Pashman:   The only abstention in Congress was Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, a woman. Has she explained why she saw problems supporting such a resolution, but also why she didn't outright object to it? Julie Fishman Rayman:   Her response was really a case of classic Whataboutism. You know, how can you speak about the Israeli victims while not speaking about Palestinian victims? And that's something that we've heard increasingly on social media. Oh, there are there Palestinian victims as well of sexual abuse. It's a really twisted distortion of reality. While horrible things happen in wartime, there's there's no comparison to Hamas' systematic, targeted, brutal, sadistic, planned assault on Israeli women and anything that could be happening elsewhere.  Hamas has really sort of set the benchmark and I say that with some irony for what sexual assault as a weapon of war can look like. So I'm not surprised by Congresswoman Tlaib's vote. It tracks with other votes that she's taken and other statements that she's making. And I think for her, it's very personal. You know, she has Palestinian roots, she has Palestinian family members. So I imagine for her, all of this is very, very personal, very sensitive. And she probably comes to this issue with a great degree of defensiveness as well. That said, the sheer fact that she was standing alone as the only voice not affirming this condemnation, says a great deal. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Did she explain why she didn't outright object to it? Julie Fishman Rayman:   I don't believe that she did. Manya Brachear Pashman:   What else is AJC trying to accomplish in Washington right now? What more is needed? Julie Fishman Rayman:   Certainly, we need the Senate to pass this resolution. There's this continued fight over foreign aid for Israel. How do we get Israel the support that it needs in terms of material and munitions, etc? And a lot of that is tied up in a political battle over, do we fund Israel alone? Do we find Israel and Ukraine and Taiwan and other allies who are sort of collectively fighting against forces of authoritarianism or anti democratic forces? And then, of course, then there's additional layers, do we also then fund efforts to secure our border in different ways? And the more you sort of add into this pot of money, the more additional avenues or or recipients the more opportunities there are for poisoned pills.  So AJC is working really hard to try to continue the fight for Israel to get the support they need, for Ukraine to get the support that they need, as they continue to fight Russian aggression. It's an uphill battle. And so, so, so political. But those are the really the key advocacy items.  And of course, we continue, as I said before, to support a number of family members and loved ones of hostages as they come week after week to tell their stories on Capitol Hill. Next week, actually, we have a delegation specifically to talk about gender based violence. And it's going to include the sister of one of the hostages who I mentioned before, a part of the Zaka search and rescue team who went and saw bodies as they were being prepared for burial and witnessed the clear and really atrocious evidence of sexual assault.  A reservist for the IDF, who he was off duty, but the minute that he heard the news about the Nova festival and what had happened there, he went to help and try to try to rescue people and saw bodies that had clearly undergone sexual assault. Naked bodies, a male body with cut genitalia, talking about how it's not just women, who are victims here. A woman's body with her breast cut off a young woman with massive bleeding in and around her genitalia.  And then also a survivor of the Nova festival, who saved himself by hiding in bushes, but heard repeatedly over and over again, the sounds of rapes happening. So we're bringing these people to Washington to tell their stories to members of Congress, to diplomats, to State Department officials and other members of the administration. To continue the momentum.  We're really lucky that most of the audiences that we'll be reaching, do believe. They've already reached that first hurdle of believing Israeli women, but now need to be urged continuously to take those stories on as as their own to continue that advocacy and to make sure that those stories don't stand on their own, but they have echoes throughout throughout the halls of Congress, throughout Washington throughout you know, the EU, the UN, other multilaterals until this attention really gets this issue really gets the attention that it deserves. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Why aren't women being believed? Julie Fishman Rayman:   For all, for all conflicts like this, for any other case, massive or individual, where a woman has experienced sexual assault, our first response is supposed to be belief. We're supposed to believe, we're supposed to hear. It is the opposite of innocent until proven guilty, you are a victim until or unless it can be proven otherwise. We start with belief. So the fact that that hasn't been the case here, it defies explanation. It defies our understanding, and unfortunately, really heightens the need for the victims to tell their stories, the witnesses to tell their stories. It is horrific that these people are being put in this place where they have to continue to tell this story because people aren't believing them. I wish I had a better explanation for why they're why they're not being believed. That being said, there are reasons voiced as to why Israeli women aren't being believed. There are reasons given that to some may hold sway. And they're worth acknowledging, because that's part of the narrative that is incumbent on all of us to address and rebut. Part of it we hear is because there's not always that clear cut evidence. This was war time. The worst attack against Jews since the Holocaust. A truly traumatic moment for Israel. They were not doing the job that maybe in retrospect, they should have done in terms of rape kits, and documenting all of that evidence. For Zaka, the search and rescue team, they traditionally don't take photos, that's not a part of their mandate. And in some ways they feel it's a violation. You know, it's not a part of the holy work that they're doing in terms of collecting body parts and trying to keep victims, victims of terror of the seventh and preceding, trying to keep those victims as whole as possible. So there's this sort of dearth of evidence. But there's plenty of credible accounts. So I say that, but it doesn't explain why people aren't being believed. There's no explanation for that. ya Brachear Pashman:   Well thank you so much Julie for joining us. And for those listeners out there who would like to do more and push the senate to adopt that resolution, you can go to AJC.org/BelieveIsraelis. Julie, thank you. Julie Fishman Rayman:   Thank you for having me and Manya, I can't thank you enough and People of the Pod enough for shining some light on this really horrific story that needs to be at the forefront of all of our attention. 

In Kyiv, the war against Russia's invasion plays out not only through airstrikes and drones, but also through culture. Well before his full-scale invasion, President Putin was clear in his ahistorical belief that Ukraine is a made-up country, rightfully part of greater Russia. Our first guest, Victoria Nuland, was in Kyiv during the Maidan protests in 2013-14, meeting with pro-democracy protesters as well as then-President Yanukovych. This was the first of many such visits since then. It was just last month that the current Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs was in Kyiv for talks and she joins Christiane from Washington to discuss U.S. support for Ukraine.  Also on today's show: Sergey Markov, Director, Institute of Political Studies in Moscow / Former MP, United Russia; Oleksiy Goncharenko, Member of the Ukrainian Parliament; Gita Gopinath, First Deputy Managing Director, IMF  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices