What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People

13 nov · People of the Pod

00:20:40

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: [email protected]

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 Pod and speaking with Ron Kampeas, JTA’s Washington Bureau Chief, to discuss the results and the implications of the 2024 U.S. 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 JD 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 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 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 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 Harris, 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 a 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 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 more importance to the U.S.-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 vote, 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, 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 there 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 fateful.

On the other hand, everybody's a cynic. Nobody actually believes anything anybody says. But I try 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 on VP, because 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 antisemitic pushback. It was an antisemitic 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 Walz. Shapiro wasn't so eager. Shapiro was going to be a co-president. Walz 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'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 NY-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.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

And an AJC board member.

Ron Kampeas:

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 squadder, 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, 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 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 slight 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 got 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 Nessel 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 Tlaib faced, and the only person who signed both letters was Alyssa Slotkin. I thought that was interesting.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

I want to turn a little bit if we can, to the expectations 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 worldview? What do you think now and what might we expect?

Ron Kampeas:

That’s 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 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 who say, you know, Israel is the exception when it comes to what I think about pulling the 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 internationalists, 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 AIPAC 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, the 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 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 kind of circuitous to get there, but it's also a 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 Bibi 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 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 what 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 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’s departure, and what that signals?

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’s 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 Gallant, he said he accused Gallant of leaking information. Although, I mean, what he seemed to be referring to was Gallant didn't leak anything. Gallant 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 that 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 that you always make time for AJC and for People of the Pod.

Ron Kampeas:

Of course.

Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
Abonneren Afmelden
Deel

Afleveringen

The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know
22 nov· People of the Pod
The International Criminal Court (ICC) announced arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of crimes tied to Israel’s defense operations in Gaza. Why should supporters of Israel—regardless of political views—reject these accusations?

Belle Yoeli, AJC’s Chief Advocacy Officer, explains why the ICC's charges are not only baseless but also undermine justice, distort international law, and fuel harmful narratives following the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust.

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

People of the Pod:

What President-Elect Trump’s Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More

What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People

The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know

Go Deeper – AJC Analysis:

Statement: American Jewish Committee Appalled by ICC’s Issuance of Arrest Warrants Against Israelis

Explainer: What You Need to Know About the ICC and the Israel-Hamas War

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: [email protected]

If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

__

Transcript of Conversation with Belle Yoeli:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

The International Criminal Court announced on Thursday that it issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister. You have Galant as well as Hamas terrorist Mohammed, if the Court said it had found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Galant quote, each bear criminal responsibility for starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity, end quote. All tied to Israel's military operations in Gaza focused on defeating Hamas terrorists, securing the return of the 101 remaining hostages and preventing more attacks.

Here to talk about why the court is prosecuting Israel's leaders for its defense operation after the country suffered the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust, and why that's dangerous, is Belle Yoeli, AJC’s Chief advocacy officer. Belle, welcome to People of the Pod.

Belle Yoeli:

Thanks so much, Manya.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Do Belle, why have warrants been issued for Netanyahu and Gallant.

Belle Yoeli:

Right. So first and foremost, I just want to make it abundantly clear, and it really needs to be said, that this decision is absolutely outrageous. It's a gross distortion of international law and so many other things. It undermines the credibility of the court, and it fuels a lot of malicious lies about the state of Israel and its self defensive activities in Gaza since October 7.

I will share the Court's reasoning for the warrants, and you alluded to it, quote, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least the eighth of October, until at least the 20th of May 2024. The court claims they found reasonable grounds that Netanyahu and Gallant, again, quote, bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others. The war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. That's the direct quote, obviously very hard to read.

And of course, AJC fundamentally rejects these claims, as do the United States and many, many leading international law and warfare experts. This is just a total and complete failure of justice.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So why should supporters of Israel stand firmly against this accusation, no matter what their political views are? In other words, if they're not fans of Netanyahu, but they are ardent supporters of Israel, why should they stand firm against this?

Belle Yoeli:

Yeah, it's an important question, and we have to be clear. I mean, the court has politicized this by sort of taking this unprecedented action. But this is not about political issues, it’s not about Netanyahu or Gallant. This is about the truth. This is about right and wrong, and the claims that are being made here are so outrageous and malicious. I mean, Israel is not intentionally starving Palestinian civilians or committing crimes. It just doesn't make sense.

If it were, it would not be facilitating tons and tons of aid into the Gaza Strip every day, not to mention polio vaccines. I mean, the list goes on and on. Israel, like any other country, is defending itself, and not just in Gaza against Hamas, but on seven fronts, including Hezbollah and Lebanon, against Iranian proxies.

And look, we've said it from the beginning, since Israel responded in this self defensive way, and we'll say it again: civilians die in war, and that is a terrible, horrible thing. But Israel is fighting its war in Gaza in response to Hamas' actions on October 7. It's about bringing the hostages home and preventing the ability of Hamas to attack Israeli civilians.

And it's been said by many experts that Israel is conducting itself in this war in an unprecedented manner, in a positive way. And I know that's hard for people to grasp, because, again, people have died, Palestinians have died, and, yes, civilians have died, and that's terrible. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Israel is trying to prevent civilian death and why it's fighting this war, and none of that has to do with intentionally harming civilians.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So I want to back up here and talk about who is actually pressing these charges, who is actually issuing these warrants and making these accusations in this case. For people who may not be familiar or they may be confused between the International Criminal Court and another international court, the International Court of Justice, which has a separate case against Israel and is connected to the United Nations. So what is the International Criminal Court? How is it different than the ICJ?

Belle Yoeli:

So you mean, not everybody is a legal scholar? It’s quite confusing, and I'm grateful for my colleagues who have really helped us try to explain this to everyone, and I'll try to break it down for you as simply as I can. So the ICC is an independent, international judicial tribunal. It's based in the Hague, and it was created in 2002 by the Rome Statute.

And that's a treaty that essentially spells out what crimes this specific body, the ICC, should investigate and adjudicate when it can. And the ICC’s jurisdiction is essentially that it can prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression. That's four categories.

And it's allowed to prosecute not just state actors, but also non-state actors. And when you think about the ICC, as colleagues have explained to me, you really are supposed to think about it as a court of last resort. So when you think about national legal systems, and respecting the right that sovereign states have their own courts and that should be respected, the ICC would step in when an important crime or a crime did not get prosecuted.

That's what this body is meant for, and again, trying to respect sovereign states. Now, by contrast, the ICJ is the judicial arm of the UN, the United Nations, and the ICJ is supposed to settle legal disputes between states, and it also can issue opinions upon requests by UN entities. So there are two different bodies, two very different purposes.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So is Israel a member of the ICC?

Belle Yoeli:

So Israel is not a member of the ICC. And this is actually sort of interesting. Israel was involved in drafting the Rome Statute that I mentioned, that created the ICC, that treaty. But things got a little complicated, which is not so surprising when you hear why. Essentially, the ICC, as we discussed, was intended to focus on these most heinous crimes, right?

But eventually the entity was urged by several Arab countries, and the majority of the countries that are party to the ICC agreed, to add as one of the categories of things that can be investigated and prosecuted, the transfer of civilians into occupied territory. And so if you hear that, I'm sure a ping goes off, obviously based on Israel and its situation and dynamics in the region. Israel took this as a sign that countries were aiming to distort the purpose of the body and really to try to just prosecute Israelis for actions in the West Bank, for example. So it ended up refraining from joining.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So now, countries cannot be prosecuted by the ICC, right? I mean, I understand that Israel as a country can't be prosecuted, but Israelis can be, and that's why the warrants issued named Netanyahu and Gallant.

Belle Yoeli:

So technically, the body is supposed to go after individuals. But the question here, of the warrants is about jurisdiction, right? And clearly there's a disagreement. The Israelis, the United States and others have said that the ICC has no jurisdiction over, you know, for the warrants they've issued. And AJC agrees.

The Palestinians and actually, the court itself have said that it's based on certain technicalities which are actually quite complicated, and you can read about in our explainer on our website about this subject, that there is jurisdiction. But for me, the thing that is most clear here is that as we reference, Israel has a strong, independent judiciary, and even when it comes to the conflict. Most recent conflicts is October 7, Israel's own military Advocate General has in fact, opened dozens of investigations into incidents.

So when you consider the fact that Israel has a mechanism for investigating things that are happening in Gaza, that in itself, should tell everyone that the ICC has no jurisdiction here based on its own treaty. So yes, these warrants were issued, but from our perspective, there's really no jurisdiction.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Okay, so would you say the fog of war makes this almost impossible to adjudicate, or is this, in your eyes, an open and shut case? Is it abundantly clear that Israeli leaders have avoided committing these crimes they're accused of?

Belle Yoeli:

So, I mean, to me, it's open and shut for a few reasons, right? We've mentioned them. One, the ICC has no jurisdiction. Two, the claims are, of the crimes are, are false and really offensive. And, you know, there is, of course, this phrase, the fog of war, and there's always fog in war. But this is really not what it's about. The travesty in all of this is that Israel does so much in an unprecedented environment that shows that the claims that are being made are untrue.

So, yes, the technicalities, yes, there's no jurisdiction. The claims are offensive. But it's more than that. This is so clearly being politicized, because, yes, people are upset about what's happening and the conflict, and we understand that the entire world is reacting, but it's just not true. It's just about truth here, and what the court is suggesting is simply not true, and really targeting Israel in a way that is against justice and is really unheard of.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So here in America, we are amid a leadership transition. Has the response differed between the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration?

Belle Yoeli:

So from what we've seen so far, I mean, the Biden administration and incoming administration officials from the Trump administration have both spoken out and both rejected the decision outright. You'll see, and I think we'll see in the coming days, there are differences of opinion also in Congress about how to deal with this action. And this been, this has been in conversation, you know, discussion for months when this was first raised, that this could possibly happen, questions around sanctions and different actions that can be taken. But I think we'll know a lot more about concrete potential proposals and next steps in the coming days.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And what about the international community?

Belle Yoeli:

You know, it’s interesting, at this point, when we're as of this recording, the international response has actually been quite muted, and I think that's because countries are trying to balance upholding the respect for the court and the idea of the court and its jurisdiction with this really outrageous decision that I think many of them know is is false and wrong and has really bad implications for what the court is meant to do.

You know, some have been quite clear. Just to name a few, Argentina and Paraguay spoke out forcefully. Some responses have been a bit more murky. I think, trying to thread that needle that I mentioned, like the United Kingdom had a pretty murky response. And actually, the EU high representative who's thankfully on his way out, Joseph Burrell, really fully embraced the decision in a sort of grotesque way. But this isn't new for him. He's fairly problematic on these types of issues. So we'll see how other countries react. You know, more things are in play, and I'm sure Israel and the United States are having close conversations with allies. I think the US even alluded to that, and we'll have a better sense of what's to come soon.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And so what does this mean for Israel and for the ongoing Israel-Hamas war?

Belle Yoeli:

I mean, I don't have a crystal ball. I can say, look, it remains to be seen what will happen next. I think countries who are party to the ICC need to do the right thing. They need to reject the jurisdiction and really refuse to enforce the warrants. That's the most important piece here. That's what we're hoping to see.

I think we'll see that international pressure likely be applied by the United States and others. But the bigger picture here, I mean, again, it speaks to the travesty that I spoke about before. It's this larger attempt to delegitimize Israel and really discredit and slander Israel, I would even go so far to say, is just unjust, and it fuels all of the disinformation that we're seeing.

And what does that lead to? It leads to hate. It leads to hate against Israelis, and let's be honest, it puts Jews around the world at risk at a time when there's already surging antisemitism. This isn't new. Look at what happened in Amsterdam.

So more broadly, this just, this hits. This is an issue and so problematic in so many ways, and it just, it does so much harm and the ideals of democracy and the ideas of justice, it's really unprecedented and unforgivable.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Do you think it gets in the way of bringing the hostages home?

Belle Yoeli:

Unfortunately, the reality is that it's been difficult enough as it is to bring the hostages home, and we just haven't seen movement in negotiations. And obviously we're praying for that every day. I couldn't tell you how this will impact that. I don't, I don't see an immediate connection. I think, look, we need to be clear that every action like this contributes to a feeling in Israel of already, sort of, as they say in conflict negotiation or resolution speak. like a siege mentality, right? Israelis feel under attack. The government likely feels under attack, and so it certainly doesn't help when Israel is trying to defend itself, to carry out war and to bring the hostages home, it certainly doesn't help, but how it will affect actual negotiations, I couldn’t say.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Belle, thank you so much for sharing your insights and trying to explain this to our listeners.

Belle Yoeli:

Thank you so much for having me.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
What President-Elect Trump’s Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More
18 nov· People of the Pod
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: [email protected]

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.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?

Klik hier om de feed te vernieuwen.
Honoring Felice Gaer: A Lifelong Champion for Human Rights
13 nov· People of the Pod
Felice Gaer, esteemed Director of AJC’s Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, was an internationally respected human rights advocate who dedicated more than four decades to championing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enforcing international commitments to prevent severe human rights violations globally. On November 9, Felice passed away after a prolonged battle with metastatic breast cancer.

In honor of her legacy, we revisit her insightful conversation on People of the Pod, recorded last year during Women’s History Month and on International Women’s Day. As we remember and celebrate Felice's profound contributions, we share this interview once more. May her memory continue to be a blessing.

__

Music credits:

Drops of Melting Snow (after Holst, Abroad as I was walking) by Axletree is licensed under a Attribution 4.0 International License.

Learn more about Felice Gaer:

Felice Gaer, Legendary Human Rights Champion Who Inspired Generations of Global Advocates, Dies at 78

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

People of the Pod:

What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People

The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know

Sinwar Eliminated: What Does This Mean for the 101 Hostages Still Held by Hamas?

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: [email protected]

If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

__

Transcript of Conversation with Felice Gaer:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

This past weekend, AJC lost a phenomenal colleague. Felice Gaer, the director of American Jewish Committee's Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, was an internationally renowned human rights expert who, for more than four decades, brought life and practical significance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international commitments, to prevent grave human rights abuses around the world.

She died on November 9, following a lengthy battle with metastatic breast cancer. I had the honor of interviewing Felice last year during Women's History Month and on International Women's Day.

We bring you that interview now, as we remember Felice. May her memory be for a blessing.

_

Felice is with us now to discuss today's human rights challenges and the challenges she has faced as a woman in the Human Rights world.

Felice, welcome to People of the Pod.

Felice Gaer:

Thank you, Manya.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So let’s start with the beginning. Can you share with our listeners a little about your upbringing, and how Jewish values shaped what you do today?

Felice Gaer:

Well, I had a fairly ordinary upbringing in a suburb of New York City that had a fairly high percentage of Jews living in it–Teaneck, New Jersey. I was shaped by all the usual things in a Jewish home. First of all, the holidays. Secondly, the values, Jewish values, and awareness, a profound awareness of Jewish history, the history of annihilation, expulsion, discrimination, violence. But also the Jewish values of universality, respect for all human life, equality before the law, sense of realism, sense that you can change your life by what you do, and the choices that you make. These are all core Jewish values. And I guess I always have found the three part expression by Rabbi Hillel to sum up the approach I've always taken to human rights and most other things in life. He said, If I'm not for myself, who will be, and if I'm only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? So that's a sense of Jewish particularism, Jewish universalism, and realism, as well.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You went to Wellesley, class of 1968, it's an all-women's college. Was there a strong Jewish presence on campus there at a time? And did that part of your identity even play a role in your college experience?

Felice Gaer :

Well, I left, as I said, a town that had a fairly sizable Jewish population. And I went to Wellesley and I felt like I was in another world. And so even as long ago as 1964-65, that era, I actually reached out to Hillel and participated in very minor activities that took place, usually a Friday night dinner, or something like that. But it really didn't play a role except by making me recognize that I was a member of a very small minority.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Here on this podcast, we've talked a lot about the movement to free Soviet Jewry. As you pursued graduate work at Columbia, and also during your undergrad days at Wellesley, were you involved in that movement at all?

Felice Gaer:

Well, I had great interest in Russian studies, and in my years at Wellesley, the Soviet Union movement was at a very nascent stage. And I remember arguments with the Soviet Ambassador coming to the campus and our specialist on Russian history, arguing about whether this concern about the treatment of Soviet Jews was a valid concern.

The professor, who happened to have been Jewish, by the way, argued that Jews in the Soviet Union were treated badly, but so was everybody else in the Soviet Union. And it really wasn't something that one needed to focus on especially. As I left Wellesley and went to Columbia, where I studied political science and was at the Russian Institute, now the Harriman Institute, I found that the treatment of Soviet Jews was different in many ways, and the capacity to do something about it was serious.

We knew people who had relatives, we knew people who wanted to leave. The whole Soviet Union movement was focused around the desire to leave the country–not to change it–that was an explicit decision of Jewish leaders around the world, and in the Soviet Union itself. And so the desire to leave was something you could realize, document the cases, bring the names forward, and engage American officials in a way that the Jewish community had never done before with cases and examples demanding that every place you went, every negotiation that took place, was accompanied by lists of names and cases, whose plight will be brought to the attention of the authorities. And that really mobilized people, including people like me.

I also worked to focus on the agenda of internal change in the Soviet Union. And that meant also looking at other human rights issues. Why and how freedom of religion or belief was suppressed in this militantly atheist state, why and how freedom of expression, freedom of association, and just about every other right, was really severely limited. And what the international standards were at that time. After I left Columbia, that was around the time that the famous manifesto from Andrei Sakharov, the world famous physicist, Nobel Prize winner, was made public. It was around the time that other kinds of dissident materials were becoming better known about life inside the Soviet Union post-Khrushchev.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So you left Colombia with a master's degree, the Cold War ends, and you take a job at the Ford Foundation that has you traveling all around Eastern Europe, looking to end human rights abuses, assessing the challenges that face that region. I want to ask you about the treatment of women, and what you witnessed about the mistreatment of women in these regions. And does that tend to be a common denominator around the world when you assess human rights abuses?

Felice Gaer:

Well, there's no question that the treatment of women is different than the treatment of men. And it's true all over the world. But when I traveled in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the height of those years, height of the Cold War, and so forth, the issues of women's rights actually weren't one of the top issues on the agenda because the Soviet Union and East European countries appeared to be doing more for women than the Western countries.

They had them in governance. They had them in the parliament. They purported to support equality for women. It took some years for Soviet feminists, dissidents, to find a voice and to begin to point out all the ways in which they were treated in the same condescending, patriarchal style as elsewhere. But in those years, that was not a big issue in the air.

It was unusual for me, a 20-something year old woman from the United States to be traveling around Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, meeting with high officials and others, and on behalf of the Ford Foundation, trying to develop programming that would involve people to people contacts, that would involve developing programs where there was common expertise, like management training, and things of that sort. And I was really an odd, odd duck in that situation, and I felt it.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I mentioned in my introduction, the Beijing World Conference on Women, can you reflect a little on what had a lasting impact there?

Felice Gaer:

Well, the Beijing World Conference on Women was the largest, and remains the largest conference that the United Nations has ever organized. There were over 35,000 women there, about 17,000 at the intergovernmental conference. I was on the US delegation there.

The simple statement that women's rights are human rights may seem hackneyed today. But when that was affirmed in the 1995 Beijing Outcome Document, it was a major political and conceptual breakthrough. It was largely focused on getting the UN to accept that the rights of women were actually international human rights and that they weren't something different. They weren't private, or outside the reach of investigators and human rights bodies. It was an inclusive statement, and it was a mind altering statement in the women's rights movement.

It not only reaffirmed that women's rights are human rights, but it went further in addressing the problems facing women in the language of human rights.

The earlier world conferences on women talked about equality, but they didn't identify violations of those rights. They didn't demand accountability of those rights. And they said absolutely nothing about creating mechanisms by which you could monitor, review, and hold people accountable, which is the rights paradigm. Beijing changed all that. It was a violations approach that was quite different from anything that existed before that.

Manya Brachear Pashman :

Did anything get forgotten? We talked about what had a lasting impact, but what seems to have been forgotten or have fallen to the wayside?

Felice Gaer:

Oh, I think it's just the opposite. I think the things that were in the Beijing conference have become Fuller and addressed in greater detail and are more commonly part of what goes on in the international discourse on women's rights and the status of women in public life. And certainly at the international level that's the case.

I'll give you just one example, the Convention Against Torture. I mean, when I became a member of the committee, the 10 person committee, I was the only woman. The committee really had, in 11 years, it had maybe said, four or five things about the treatment of women. And the way that torture, ill treatment, inhuman, degrading treatment may affect women.

It looked at the world through the eyes of male prisoners in detention. And it didn't look at the world through the eyes of women who suffer private violence, gender based violence, that is that the state looks away from and ignores and therefore sanctions, and to a certain extent endorses.

And it didn't identify the kinds of things that affect women, including women who are imprisoned, and why and where in many parts of the world. What one does in terms of education or dress or behavior may lead you into a situation where you're being abused, either in a prison or outside of prison. These are issues that are now part of the regular review, for example, at the Committee Against Torture, issues of of trafficking, issues of gender based violence, the Sharia law, the hudud punishments of whipping and stoning, are part of the concern of the committee, which they weren't before.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

In other words, having that woman's perspective, having your perspective on that committee was really important and really changed and broadened the discussion.

Felice Gaer:

Absolutely. When I first joined the committee, the first session I was at, we had a review of China. And so I very politely asked a question about the violence and coercion associated with the population policy in China, as you know, forced abortions and things of that sort. This was a question that had come up before the women's convention, the CEDAW, and I thought it was only appropriate that it also come up in the Committee Against Torture.

In our discussion afterwards, the very stern chairman of the committee, a former constable, said to me, ‘You know, this might be of interest to you, Ms. Gaer, but this has nothing to do with the mandate of this committee.’

I explained to him why it did, in some detail. And when I finished pointing out all of those elements–including the fact that the people carried out these practices on the basis of state policy–when I finished, there was a silence.

And the most senior person in the room, who had been involved in these issues for decades, said, ‘I'm quite certain we can accommodate Ms. Gaer’s concerns in the conclusions,’ and they did.

That's the kind of thing that happens when you look at issues from a different perspective and raise them.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You talked about being an odd duck in your 20s, as a woman traveling around Eastern Europe, trying to address these challenges. I'm curious if that woman in her 20s would have been able to stand up to this committee like that, and give that thorough an explanation? Or did it take some years of experience, of witnessing these issues, perhaps being ignored?

Felice Gaer:

Well, I think as we go through life, you learn new things. And I learned new things along the way. I learned about the universal norms, I learned about how to apply them, how they had been applied, and how they hadn't been applied. And in that process, developed what I would say is a sharper way of looking at these issues.

But the Bosnian conflict in particular, made the issue of gender based violence against women, especially in war, but not only in war, into a mainstream issue, and helped propel these issues, both inside the United Nations and outside, the awareness changed.

I remember asking the International Red Cross representatives in Croatia, just across the border from Bosnia, if they had encountered any victims of gender based violence or rape, and they said, ‘No.’ And I said, ‘Did you ask them about these concerns?’ And they sort of looked down and looked embarrassed, looked at each other and looked back at me and said, ‘Oh.’ There were no words. There were no understandings of looking at the world this way.

And that has changed. That has changed dramatically today. I mean, if you look at the situation in Ukraine, the amount of gender based violence that has been documented is horrifying, just horrifying, but it's been documented.

Manya Brachear Pashman

So is the world of human rights advocacy male-dominated, female-dominated, is it fairly balanced these days? And has that balance made the difference in what you're talking about?

Felice Gaer:

You know, I wrote an article in 1988, the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, about why women's rights weren't being addressed. And one of the points I drew attention to was the fact that the heads of almost all the major organizations at the time were all male. And that it wasn't seen as a concern. A lot of that has changed. There's really a real variety of perspectives now that are brought to bear.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So we've talked a lot about the importance of [a] woman's perspective. Does a Jewish perspective matter as well?

Felice Gaer:

Oh, on every issue on every issue and, you know, I worked a great deal on freedom of religion and belief, as an issue. That's a core issue of AJC, and it's a fundamental rights issue. And it struck me as surprising that with all the attention to freedom of religion, the concern about antisemitic acts was not being documented by mainstream human rights organizations. And it wasn't being documented by the UN experts on freedom of religion or belief either.

I drew this to the attention of Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, who was recently ending his term as Special Rapporteur on Freedom of religion or belief. And he was really very struck by this. And he went, and he did a little bit of research. And he found out that since computerized records had been prepared at the United Nations, that there had been no attention, no attention at all, to cases of alleged antisemitic incidents. And he began a project to record the kinds of problems that existed and to identify what could be done about it. We helped him in the sense that we organized a couple of colloquia, we brought people from all over the world together to talk about the dimensions of the problem and the documentation that they did, and the proposals that they had for addressing it. And he, as you may recall, wrote a brilliant report in 2019, setting out the problems of global antisemitism. And he followed that up in 2022, before leaving his position with what he called an action plan for combating anti semitism, which has concrete specific suggestions for all countries around the world as to what they can do to help combat antisemitism and antisemitic acts, including and to some extent, starting with adopting the working definition on antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, but also activities in in the area of education, training, training of law enforcement officials, documentation and public action. It’s a real contribution to the international discourse and to understanding that freedom of religion or belief belongs to everyone.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And do you believe that Dr. Shaheed’s report is being absorbed, comprehended by those that need to hear it that need to understand it?

Felice Gaer

I've been delighted to see the way that the European Union has engaged with Dr. Shaheed and his report has developed standards and expectations for all 27 member states, and that other countries and other parts of the world have done the same. So yeah, I do think they're engaging with it. I hope there'll be a lot more because the problem has only grown.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

On the one year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, JBI issued a report that sounded the alarm on the widespread violations committed against Ukrainians, you mentioned the amount of gender based violence Since that has taken place, and the other just catastrophic consequences of this war. Felice, you've been on the front row of Eastern European affairs and human rights advocacy in that region. From your perspective, and I know this is a big question: How did this war happen?

Felice Gaer:

I'll just start by saying: it didn't start in 2022. And if you have to look at what happened, the events of 2014, to understand the events of 2022. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, or even during the breakup, there was a period where the 15th constituent Union republics of the Soviet Union developed a greater national awareness, really, and some of them had been independent as some of them hadn't been, but they developed a much greater awareness. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the 15 countries, including Russia, as one of the 15, became independent entities. And aside from having more members in the United Nations and the Council of Europe and places like that, it led to much more robust activity, in terms of respecting human rights and other areas of endeavor in each of those countries.

The situation in Russia, with a head of state who has been there, with one exception, a couple of years, for 20 years, has seen an angry desire to reestablish an empire. That's the only thing you can say really about it.

If they can't dominate by having a pro-Russian group in charge in the country, then there have been invasions, there have been Russian forces, Russia-aligned forces sent to the different countries. So whether it's Georgia, or Moldova, or Ukraine, we've seen this pattern.

And unfortunately, what happened in 2022, is the most egregious and I would say, blatant such example. In 2014, the Russians argued that it was local Russian speaking, little green men who were conducting hostilities in these places, or it was local people who wanted to realign with Russia, who were demanding changes, and so forth. But in the 2022 events, Russia's forces invaded, wearing Russian insignia and making it quite clear that this was a matter of state policy that they were pursuing, and that they weren't going to give up.

And it's led to the tragic developments that we've all seen inside the country, and the horrific violence, the terrible, widespread human rights violations. And in war, we know that human rights violations are usually the worst.

And so the one good spot on the horizon: the degree to which these abuses have been documented, it's unprecedented to have so much documentation so early in a conflict like this, which someday may lead to redress and accountability for those who perpetrated it. But right now, in the middle of these events, it's just a horror.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

What other human rights situations do we need to be taking more seriously now? And where has there been significant progress?

Felice Gaer:

Well, I'll talk about the problem spots if I may for a minute. Everyone points to North Korea as the situation without parallel, that's what a UN Commission of Inquiry said, without parallel in the world. The situation in Iran? Well, you just need to watch what's happened to the protesters, the women and others who have protested over 500 people in the streets have died because of this. 15,000 people imprisoned, and Iran's prisons are known for ill treatment and torture.

The situation in Afghanistan is atrocious. The activities of the Taliban, which they were known for in the 1990s are being brought back. They are normalizing discrimination, they are engaged in probably the most hardline gender discrimination we've seen anywhere where women can't work outside the home, girls can't be educated, political participation is denied. The constitution has been thrown out. All kinds of things. The latest is women can't go to parks, they can't go to university, and they can't work for NGOs. This continues. It's a major crisis.

Well, there are other countries, from Belarus, to Sudan to Uzbekistan, and China, that we could also talk about at great length, lots of problems in the world, and not enough effort to expose them, address them and try to ameliorate them.

Manya Brachear Pashman

So what do we do about that? What can our listeners do about that, when we hear this kind of grim report?

Felice Gaer:

Work harder. Pay attention when you hear about rights issues. Support rights organizations. Take up cases. Seek redress. Be concerned about the victims. All these things need to be done.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I don't know how you maintain your composure and your cool, Felice, because you have faced so much in terms of challenges and push back. So thank you so much for all you have done for women, for the Jewish people, and for the world at large. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Felice Gaer:

Thank you, Manya.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People
13 nov· People of the Pod
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: [email protected]

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 Pod and speaking with Ron Kampeas, JTA’s Washington Bureau Chief, to discuss the results and the implications of the 2024 U.S. 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 JD 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 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 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 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 Harris, 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 a 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 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 more importance to the U.S.-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 vote, 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, 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 there 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 fateful.

On the other hand, everybody's a cynic. Nobody actually believes anything anybody says. But I try 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 on VP, because 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 antisemitic pushback. It was an antisemitic 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 Walz. Shapiro wasn't so eager. Shapiro was going to be a co-president. Walz 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'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 NY-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.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

And an AJC board member.

Ron Kampeas:

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 squadder, 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, 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 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 slight 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 got 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 Nessel 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 Tlaib faced, and the only person who signed both letters was Alyssa Slotkin. I thought that was interesting.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

I want to turn a little bit if we can, to the expectations 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 worldview? What do you think now and what might we expect?

Ron Kampeas:

That’s 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 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 who say, you know, Israel is the exception when it comes to what I think about pulling the 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 internationalists, 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 AIPAC 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, the 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 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 kind of circuitous to get there, but it's also a 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 Bibi 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 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 what 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 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’s departure, and what that signals?

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’s 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 Gallant, he said he accused Gallant of leaking information. Although, I mean, what he seemed to be referring to was Gallant didn't leak anything. Gallant 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 that 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 that you always make time for AJC and for People of the Pod.

Ron Kampeas:

Of course.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know
31 okt· People of the Pod
As election day nears, Republican nominee and former President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, are zeroing in on Pennsylvania, which has the largest Jewish community among the battleground states. Aaron Troodler, editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, breaks down what’s influencing Jewish voter sentiment in Pennsylvania, from economic and social issues to the U.S.-Israel relationship amid rising antisemitism and Israel’s defensive war against Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah.

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.

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

People of the Pod:

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

The Nova Music Festival Survivor Saved by an 88-Year-Old Holocaust Survivor

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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 Aaron Troodler:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

It's the home stretch leading up to election day for the presidential campaigns of Republican nominee and former President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris. And both campaigns see Jewish voters in seven swing states as key to a potential victory. These seven swing states are swarming with canvassers, knocking on doors, handing out literature and engaging undecided voters in critical conversations.

Joining us for a critical conversation about the Jewish vote in one of those swing states is Aaron Troodler, editor of The Philadelphia Exponent and The Washington Jewish Week.

Aaron, welcome to People of the Pod.

Aaron Troodler:

Thank you, Manya, it's a pleasure to be here.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Aaron, you live in the Philadelphia area and have your finger on the political pulse there. Everyone's talking about the impact of Pennsylvania's voters. What makes Pennsylvania so key?

Aaron Troodler:

So I think they're going to have a very significant influence. There are a lot of people saying these days that the path to the presidency runs through Pennsylvania, and I do think that there's a degree of truth to that.

But in fact, I believe that the path to the presidency may very well run through the Jewish community, not just in Pennsylvania, but more specifically, in the greater Philadelphia area.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

How much of an influence are they going to have in this election?

Aaron Troodler:

Ballpark, the Jewish population in Pennsylvania is estimated somewhere between 400,000, a little bit north of that figure. Of that 400,000 and change, it's estimated that approximately 300,000 or so are of voting age. And when you take into account that in 2020, Joe Biden beat then-President Donald Trump only by about 80,000 votes cast in Pennsylvania.

And then, if you look back to 2016, Donald Trump won by only about 44,000 votes. We're talking about very slim margins here, and the outsized influence of the greater Jewish community is really going to shine through in this election.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Now, are you talking about Philadelphia city proper, or suburban Philadelphia? Is there a difference in how the two vote?

Aaron Troodler:

Great question, Manya, focusing primarily on suburban Pennsylvania. You have, for example, in 2019, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia–and I know this goes back five years, but it's the most recent data we have–did a population study, a community profile. And they looked at basically five counties, give or take, including Philadelphia County, which includes the city, but also 4 suburban counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery.

And approximately at that point– again, dating back five years–but there are approximately 195,000 Jewish households at the time. And that number has grown over the past several years. I won't be able to really quantify it, because we don't have the actual data, but it's a significant number.

And you know, when you take into account that Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District, which is represented by Madeleine Dean, it's mostly Montgomery County, which is suburban Philadelphia County. It's got the largest Jewish population in the state, in terms of congressional districts. It's very significant.

And then the second largest is Pennsylvania's first congressional district, which is represented by Brian Fitzpatrick. And again, there are about 40,000 Jewish adults in that district. 54,000 or so, give or take, in the Montgomery County area. We're talking about big numbers.

And I think what's happening now is just by virtue of where we are as a Jewish community, whether it be antisemitism, and being very cognizant of the frightening rise of antisemitism, whether it be on college campuses, city streets, social media platforms. People are very mindful of that, and rightfully so.

And then when you throw into the equation the current situation involving Israel and the reverberations felt around the world just resulting from the Israel-Hamas war post-October 7, the Jewish community, I think, is mobilized now, perhaps even more than ever, to make their voices heard. And to do that, they would be going and voting and making their voices heard through their choices in the election.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You just mentioned the rise of antisemitism. What issues are guiding the Jewish vote? Because I know in years past, concerns about the economy have really steered the Jewish vote. Is that still true in the 2024 election?

Aaron Troodler:

It's an interesting point you raise Manya, because I think historically, the Jewish community, and I'm over-generalizing by saying the Jewish community. Obviously, it’s comprised of several denominations who historically have had potentially different political leanings. But I think a lot of the domestic issues, whether it be the economy, reproductive rights, taxes, immigration, I mean, I think all these things are on people's radar screens.

However, I think there is a particular emphasis now on Israel. I think that is front and center. I know historically in the Orthodox community, that has been the case. I think that has carried over to the conservative community, the reform community, other communities. And I think the survival of the Jewish state and the health and strength of the US-Israel relationship is paramount to Jewish voters. Not to the exclusion of the other issues that we're talking about on the domestic front.

But I think people are viewing this election through a different lens, just by virtue of the circumstances that we're discussing, that our brethren in Israel are facing. And I think that is really informing people's votes, whether it be for Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. And that's a whole other conversation we could have, but I think that that really is front and center, maybe not the sole factor, but most certainly a primary factor.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So how does that translate? I mean, many believe that the Biden administration has been quite supportive of Israel. Others believe it has not been supportive enough.

Aaron Troodler:

Right. Well, I think the answer depends on who you ask. I think there is a very strong case to be made that the Biden administration and Kamala Harris was obviously a pivotal part of that administration, has been supportive of Israel, and I think there's a lot of conversation that centers around President Biden's response and reaction to October 7, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attacks, and how he handled it at that time. I think on the other side of the equation you have people pointing to Donald Trump's presidency and saying, Hey, he perhaps might be the best president that the Jewish community, slash Israel, has ever had, just by virtue of some of the things he did while he was in office.

I think this is all leading to a very spirited debate, a very robust conversation about people who feel very passionate, you know, A or B. And I don't know that there's all that much consensus. I think people that are supportive of Kamala Harris are adamant and positive that she will be best for Israel. And conversely, people who are on the other side of the coin and feel that Donald Trump is their chosen candidate are making the same choice for Donald Trump.

So I don't know that there's a particular answer to that question, but I do firmly believe that that has become a defining issue for the Jewish community. And it's just remarkable to me that people, perhaps I'm over generalizing, you know, 50% of the population is saying, you know, she is absolutely, unquestionably, the best friend that we've had and will have, and then you have the same people saying similar things about Donald Trump.

So it's hard to quantify, but I do think that it has really, really become pervasive, meaning the notion of Israel and the central role that is playing this election, it's absolutely pivotal. And people are, I think, are really making their choices on who to support based on their assessment of those issues.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Just to clarify, you said the same people are saying that about Trump. You meant the same percentage of people, right?

Aaron Troddler:

Correct, give or take. The Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) has done a poll, and they found, you know, over 70% of the Jewish community is supporting Kamala Harris, as opposed to 20-25% for Donald Trump. You have polls, you have data from the Republican Jewish Coalition that shows that half the voters are supporting Donald Trump. These figures are bouncing around. I mean, obviously we've seen in the past polls definitely have value to them, but I think the real test, the real result, won't be really known until election day.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You mentioned denominational differences, but what about generational differences? Are younger Jewish voters leaning toward a particular candidate, or toward particular issues that are different than the ones that concern older voters?

Aaron Troodler:

Great question. I'm personally not seeing it. I have young adult children, let's call them, who are invested in terms of who they're voting for. You have people that I encounter that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, perhaps in their golden years, who are very opinionated in terms of who they want to vote for.

I think what's, you know, an interesting thing here, and again, it’s not really, I don't know if it's quantifiable by denomination. But I think another thing that is important to mention, Manya, is, you still have, I know we're only several days prior to election day. There's still a healthy amount of people that are, I think, truly undecided. I think a lot of people, particularly in the Jewish community, that I've spoken with and encountered, are really torn.

In Pennsylvania we are getting an absolute barrage of campaign mail, TV ads, canvassers knocking on doors. There's a lot of that, particularly in the Philadelphia suburbs, and a good amount of those, again, I know they're targeting the Jewish community, focus on Israel and antisemitism. And you look at a piece of mail for one particular candidate, and it makes it sound like the other one is the devil.

And then flip the coin and it's the opposite for the other candidate. I think people are really trying to cut through the noise and get to the heart of the matter and make their own assessment. You can't really focus on the demographics in terms of age and whatnot.

I think it's an across the board issue that people are focusing on. The people who are pro-Trump are pro-Trump, the people who are pro-Harris are pro-Harris, and then you have this whole sliver in the middle that I think are truly undecided. Even with the election looming large.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Is that just because they're getting conflicting messages, and they're just easily swayed one way or the other, and therefore they're torn, or are they waiting for something? Are they waiting for some deciding factor to reveal itself?

Aaron Troodler:

I'm actually not sure if it's either. I don't know that they're waiting for something per se, because if they are, that quote, unquote thing may never come and they have to make a determination. I do feel that there are some in the Jewish community, and I think the Harris campaign has acknowledged this in events that they've had featuring the Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, who obviously is Jewish, who would become the first Jewish first spouse.

But there's been an acknowledgement by renowned and well known surrogates of the Harris campaign that there are some reservations in the Jewish community. They're not giving credence to those hesitations that people might have, in terms of Kamala Harris and her position on Israel, or what that might look like. They're just acknowledging that it's there, and they recognize that they have to speak to that issue.

I think on the flip side of the coin, you have people who are looking at Donald Trump, and say, oh he moved the embassy to Jerusalem, and he recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and he said that the settlements in the West Bank are not illegal, you know, per se under international law. And people are looking at those and they say, Wow, he did some great stuff.

And then those same people may look at Donald Trump as a candidate and say, Is he the best person for our country? And that's a determination that they're trying to make, and I think are having a lot of trouble doing so just because of the different packed factors that are kind of pulling and tugging at them in different directions.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I want to go back to the Israel-Hamas war. What about that war are people thinking about when it comes to supporting a candidate? In other words, are they looking at the 101 hostages that are still in captivity, and what the candidates are saying, or how they're treating that situation? Or are they looking at humanitarian aid issues when it comes to Gaza? What are they looking at?

Aaron Troodler:

Manya, I think they're looking at all of that, and I think that's all factoring into the equation and the decision making process. And this is where I believe the vice president might be at a little bit of a disadvantage, because she's a prominent member of the current administration, whereas Donald Trump is no longer the president at the moment.

And so they're looking at actions of the administration and parsing each move and each statement. And whether or not that moves the needle, I don't know. But I do think that she has a harder hurdle to overcome vis a vis those issues, because people are really looking at statements that she's made, whether it be about the humanitarian aid that you referred to reaching Gaza and the need for that to happen. People are looking to statements that the President, perhaps, has made relative to Israel and their response.

And on and off over the past year, there have been a number of times when, reportedly, the US has cautioned Israel or advised Israel not to proceed down a certain path. There's been talk about weapon shipments and delays and stuff of that nature. And I think all of those are issues that Kamala Harris has to contend with, just by virtue of association.

And I think there's a lot of folks in the community saying, you know, what would a Harris presidency look like? You know, we know what a Trump presidency looks like vis a vis Israel. What would the Harris presidency look like?

I will say, you know, the President, the Vice President, has seemingly been very supportive of Israel on the issue of antisemitism. Obviously, the National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism that was unveiled by this current administration was heralded by people as a very necessary move. And I know, obviously the Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, was intimately involved in that as well.

All those things, I think, are factoring into people's decision making process. It's a very complicated decision for many people. And I think that's really something that the Vice President is, I think trying to work through. How does she carve out her own path, and what does that path look like?

Manya Brachear Pashman:

How influential is Pennsylvania's Jewish Governor Josh Shapiro in this race?

Aaron Troodler:

So the saga of Josh Shapiro is obviously well known at this point. He's a governor who wears his Judaism on his sleeve, very proud of it. Will often quote passages relating to Jewish thought. He talks openly about his Shabbat observances and celebrations with his family. And obviously he was seemingly, reportedly, on the cusp of the vice presidency.

I think what's interesting about Josh Shapiro, aside from his religion, is that he's universally well liked, let's call it. I think his appeal throughout Pennsylvania, it does transcend party lines in many places, just by virtue of his approach to government, his commitment to bipartisanship, and how he's been as a governor. I think there's a lot of appeal.

I think the fact that he's become a primary surrogate for the Harris campaign across the country, quite frankly, but more particularly in Pennsylvania. I think people look at that, I think there's certainly a segment of the population that was definitely holding out hope that he might end up as the Vice President of the United States. But I think that you know his willingness to go out on the trail and to and to stump for Kamala Harris and to try and speak about her bona fides as a candidate, and her strengths and what she could do for the country and her vision.

I think people are taking note of that, particularly the Jewish community. Whether that will sway everybody to a particular candidate, I don't know. But I definitely do know that people are taking notice of it because people are speaking about it in a favorable way.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

What is he saying when he stumps for her? What is he saying to get out all those voters?

Aaron Troodler:

Well, he's trying to paint her as basically, not just the best choice, but the only choice. Obviously, he, I guess it's no secret. I don't think he's really a fan of Donald Trump, and I don't think he pulls any punches when it comes to that regard. But I think in Josh Shapiro's mind, the governor really firmly believes that the Vice President is the best person to lead this country forward.

And I think when you when you factor in all the issues, for example, we talked about domestic issues at the outset of the conversation, when you look at all those issues, and you don't only make it about Israel, there's a thought that perhaps Kamala Harris is that person, and that's the message that Josh Shapiro’s trying to convey.

You know, obviously Trump supporters look at that and shake their heads, because they don't buy into that. But I think in terms of the case that he's trying to make to the voters, particularly to Jewish voters, it is a compelling case, because he's a compelling messenger.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You talked about canvassers being all over Pennsylvania, especially the greater Philadelphia area. Can you paint a scene for our listeners? I mean, do you see teams of people walking the streets? Have people knocked on your doors, rung your doorbell? Tell me what kind of things you're seeing. What you see day to day in Greater Philadelphia.

Aaron Troodler:

I think I can probably measure the amount of canvassers by the number of door hangers that have been left on my front door over the past several months. There's a huge effort. You have people coming from different states. All descending on Pennsylvania. And there is a particular emphasis on the Jewish community, particularly in suburban Philadelphia.

I was covering an event for the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent a number of weeks ago, where Doug Emhoff came and was the featured speaker at a Get Out The Jewish [Vote] event in a Philadelphia suburb. Ben Stiller was there, the well known actor. Senator Ben Cardin, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, came up from Maryland. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the congresswoman from Florida, was there.

It's a full blown effort on the part of both campaigns to try and cultivate the Jewish vote, try to generate more Jewish support. Both sides of the coin. I think you know, the Republican Jewish Coalition has put a very significant emphasis on this election, whether it be through ads, whether it be through surrogates, whether it be through the canvassers, they're everywhere.

And I think I think it's good. I think it's not only does it underscore the importance of Philadelphia's Jewish community in in an election that literally has national implications, but it enables people. When somebody knocks on your door, if you answer the door, you can engage in a dialogue. Obviously they are slanted to a particular candidate, whether it be Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, and that's fine, but it gives voters who perhaps are still undecided at this point the opportunity to have a conversation with the folks who are knocking on their doors about the issues that are important to them.

But I think just by virtue of the sheer number of canvassers who have been kind of traversing our neighborhoods over the past several weeks, I think it's indicative of the outsized role that Philadelphia's Jewish community’s playing in the presidential election.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You mentioned Governor Shapiro is kind of a surrogate for the Harris-Walz campaign. Does the Trump campaign have a surrogate in Pennsylvania or in the Philadelphia area?

Aaron Troodler:

So they have people who are coming around. There's Peter Deutsch, who's a former congressman from Florida, who's a democratic congressman from Florida, came up to not just Pennsylvania, but the greater Philadelphia area, in particular, to spend several weeks. I know he was here over the Sukkot holiday. You know, they are bringing folks in because they're trying to make the case to people that look, you know, when it comes to the issues that you, the Jewish community, cares about, Donald Trump's your man.

And they are doing that, and they're trying to do it in a way that will resonate with people. And we mentioned some high profile people on the Democratic side. You know there are people on the Republican side, whether it's Congressman Deutsch, other people are coming in. The RJC has been very active in the community recently.

And in addition to official campaign surrogates, you know you have conversations happening in synagogues, you know, community institutions, where regular folks are conversing with one another. So each campaign, in addition to the, let's call them the official surrogates, you have these armies of unofficial surrogates who are talking with one another and trying to convince their peers to vote for a particular candidate.

And with all the holidays that we just had on the Jewish calendar, spent a lot of time in shul, in the synagogue, and there’s a lot of folks talking about the presidential election. And I'll tell you, quite frankly, there's no consensus. There are people that are absolutely pro-Trump, and they're people that are absolutely pro-Harris. And I think those folks are trying to impart to what's called the undecided people, their feelings about the campaign and their particular candidates.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I do want to clarify for listeners, Peter Deutsch should not be confused with Ted Deutch, AJC CEO, who has not been in Pennsylvania canvassing as a surrogate for either candidate. It's a different Deutsch.

But what about rabbis? How involved are rabbis getting into this campaign? How involved have they been in these conversations?

Aaron Troodler:

So it's interesting. Whenever you broach the topic of politics from the pulpit, it becomes very tricky. Obviously, there’s 501(c)(3) status considerations and stuff of that nature that I think rabbis are always mindful of. So what they talk about from the pulpit and how they talk about it is usually done very carefully and deliberately. That all being said, there's no question that maybe, behind the scenes, let's call it, rabbis, have very distinct opinions about this.

How that will sway congregants in their respective congregations, it's hard to know. But I do think, I think because rabbis have spent so much time over the past year, post-October 7, talking about these issues of Israel's security and survival and the things that we need to do to help Israel, this is just another step in that process. Obviously, the next President of the United States is going to play a pivotal role in Israel's future and Israel's security.

The relationship between the US and Israel is paramount, and Israel depends heavily on the United States, whether it be for the military aid, strategic aid and cooperation. And on the other side of the coin, the United States relies on Israel for many national and security considerations.

But I think because rabbis have spent so much time talking about that stuff, it's top of mind for everybody. It's at the forefront of all of our minds. And whether or not they get up from the pulpit and endorse a particular candidate, I’m not sure that's going to happen in most situations, but there's no question that rabbis are trying to convey to their congregants the importance of ensuring that Israel has a strong friend and ally in the White House.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Aaron, thank you so much for joining us and shedding a little light on what's going on in your neck of the woods.

Aaron Troodler:

Of course Manya, thank you so much for having me. It was a pleasure chatting with you.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for a conversation with AJC Jerusalem Director Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, and AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, Jason Isaacson, about the Israeli Defense Force’s elimination of Yahya Sinwar, the architect of the October 7 terror attacks.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
Sinwar Eliminated: What Does This Mean for the 101 Hostages Still Held by Hamas?
23 okt· People of the Pod
How will the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar affect Israel's security and regional stability? What are the implications for the 101 hostages still held by Hamas?

Join us as AJC Jerusalem Director Lt. Col. (res.) Avital Leibovich and AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson discuss the Israeli Defense Forces' recent elimination of the terror leader responsible for orchestrating the October 7 attacks and thousands of deaths. They’ll break down the impact of the unfolding situation and what comes next.

Watch – Israel Update: Analyzing the Impact of Yahya Sinwar’s Death - AJC Advocacy Anywhere

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

People of the Pod:

From Doña Gracia to Deborah Lipstadt: What Iconic Jewish Women Can Teach Us Today

The Nova Music Festival Survivor Saved by an 88-Year-Old Holocaust Survivor

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: [email protected]

If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

__

Transcript of Conversation with Jason Isaacson and Avital Leibovich:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Last week, Israeli Defense Forces killed Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the architect of the October 7 terror attacks. His death comes two months after the murder of six hostages who he had been using as his human shields. What comes next? How will Sinwar's death impact the dynamics within Hamas and the broader conflict between Israel and other Iran-backed proxies? What are the potential implications for Israel's security and regional stability? And what does this mean for the 101 hostages still being held by Hamas?

For answers to those pressing questions, AJC welcomed its Jerusalem director, Lt. Colonel Avital Leibovich and Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson, for an in-depth analysis of the unfolding situation. Here's a portion of that conversation.

Jason Isaacson:

Thanks very much. Before we begin our discussion, Avital, please allow me to again express to you, my and all our AJC colleagues and supporters' gratitude for your consistent availability throughout this difficult, dangerous period, to brief the AJC family on the challenges that Israel faces, the trauma that Israel suffered on October 7, on and onward, and the remarkable resilience of the people of Israel in the face of terrorism. Allow me also to wish you and your family and our AJC colleagues in Jerusalem a healthy and, let's hope, a more peaceful New Year.

We are meeting now one week after a major development, perhaps even a turning point in Israel's necessary war against Hamas, the killing of the terrorist organization's leader, the murderous mastermind of October 7, Yahya Sinwar by the IDF in Rafah in southern Gaza. I want to hear your thoughts on the ramifications of that successful operation, which has been praised by the US and other world leaders. But first, let me ask you two questions.

First, how was the IDF able to finally track down this most-wanted war criminal. And second, how did Sinwar's elimination figure in Israel's set of priority objectives for the self defensive campaign that it has been conducting in Gaza?

Avital Leibovich:

Thank you, Jason, for your kind opening words, and it's always good to be with you here on another what I think will be an interesting session for our listeners. So it was the day of October 16, few days ago, IDF troops, actually reserve units, were working in a neighborhood in Rafah called El Sultan neighborhood. This is approximately one kilometer from Israel, so it's a relatively short distance, they have identified.

These soldiers have identified three suspicious figures, between moving from one area to another, between buildings. And they fired towards the suspects, and then the group split into two. Two of them stayed in one area and another one stayed in another building. And in order to make sure that buildings are not booby trapped, so the forces are not endangered, what the IDF often does, it sends a drone with a camera inside the building, searching and checking out to see who is exactly there, and then they saw on a couch in the corner of a living room.

This was, by the way, a very fancy villa in this neighborhood. They saw a figure sitting there, with his head covered, with his face covered, and armed with a weapon, with grenades, and they fired. They understood that this is a terrorist, and they fired towards that person.

Because, again, there was danger of the amount of explosives that were placed in this specific house, it took only 24 hours until the forces return and then search the house. When they got to this terrorist sitting on the arm chair, they suddenly realized that it looked very similar to Sinwar. But in order to check, you know whether it was Sinwar or not, they had to take a DNA sample from one of his fingers. And Sinwar has been in Israeli prisons for many years, and therefore his DNA samples is already there. So it took a few more hours, and then it was identified, finally, as Yahya Sinwar.

And of course, it was a big press briefing announcement by the Prime Minister, by the army and so on. What else was found on his body was the following: a small gun, a big rifle, flak jacket filled with different kinds of grenades, 40,000 shekels, which is equivalent of something like $12,000 in cash, a passport--of someone else--an UNWRA certificate of another person. Another identity. And that's more or less what was found.

The two others that split from him and went to another house were actually his bodyguards. Later on, when the army searched deeper, it reached a conclusion that the tunnel that six hostages were held in and were murdered viciously by Hamas just six weeks before, were just a few 100 meters from where Sinwar was, and they also found out that actually they served as human shields for Sinwar until he escaped. So basically he was running from one place to another until he was found that day, 16 of October in that building.

Jason Isaacson:

How high on the list of Israel's military objectives in Gaza was the elimination of Sinwar?

Avital Leibovich:

So, yeah, you can imagine that, since he's the number one terrorist of Hamas, and he is the mind behind October 7, obviously he was ranked very high on the list of Most Wanted. I can say that his brother, Muhammad, is still on that list. And Israel has announced already that it will hunt Muhammad as well. And I think that there was a ray of light on October 17. It was exactly when it was announced officially that Sinwar was eliminated. I think every Israeli home was as much as we could under the circumstances express joy that Sinwarwas gone.

Jason Isaacson:

You could imagine supporters of Israel around the world and our country, but all over, I think, shared that sentiment as well. But let's talk about the ramifications now of Sinwar's death for Hamas and also for the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has provided money, weapons training guidance to Hamas. I have a few related questions. First, Hamas has already put forward the claim that its fight continues, that it isn't relinquishing its hold on Gaza. Can Hamas still legitimately make that claim, that it is in control in Gaza?

Avital Leibovich:

So I think that if we're looking at, you know, the comments from all over the world regarding primarily the terror groups in Iran, we see a lot of support for the way of Hamas.. Sinwar was actually painted as a shahid, a martyr, as someone who fought until the very last minute, who act in a very brave way. In other words, it's some kind of glorification for Sinwar, but also for Hamas, in another way. I have to say that even the PLO, the Executive Committee of the PLO actually offered condolences for the death of Sinwar, which was also quite disturbing, I have to say.

And Abu Mazen's party Fatah, one of the members of the Fatah, the guy by the name of Abbas Zaki, said that Sinwar has chosen, and I'm quoting, "An exit worthy of his heroism and the heroism of his people." So that's the mood in the Palestinian Street, and that's the mood among the other Arab terror groups, Muslim terror groups, extremists in Iran, in Hezbollah and other places. So the question is, what are now Israel's immediate goals in Gaza following Sinwar's death. So Israel has been concentrating in one main area, and this is an area very close to the envelope of Gaza. It's what we call northern part of Gaza, primarily an area called Jabalia.

Jabalia is a place that, according to the Israeli intelligence, unfortunately, there has been a big crowding of Hamas terrorists who are taking shelters in schools or in local civilian facilities where civilians are. So Israel has been trying to encourage the population to go out of this part of Gaza, northern Gaza. It has been doing so by leaflets, by phone calls, by messages on their phones and so on. The problem was, the challenge was with this situation, that Hamas prohibited the population of leaving. But when Sinwar died, this has changed, and we saw two interesting things in the Palestinian Street in Gaza. Number one, people have started to move from the northern part of Gaza. Actually, 20,000 people already relocated from that area. We saw 150 Hamas terrorists turn themselves in.

But we also saw, Jason, another thing which we have not seen in a long time. And these are multitudes of Gazans which are not being afraid to speak to the camera with their faces totally uncovered, exposed and cursing Hamas and cursing Sinwar and wanting a better future for themselves. So this is actually, this phenomenon is actually growing more and more. So while Israel is working in Jabalia, there's a still part of the army which is working in Rafah, in the Rafah area, Tel Sultan is one of the neighborhoods, as we mentioned before. So it's still very tactical. There are still a lot of rockets that are flowing in from from Gaza. We're not at the end, at this point of time. And if you'd like, we can dig into the numbers of you know, the achievements that Israel has in Gaza.

Jason Isaacson:

Yeah, stay on this for a second. This is fascinating. I mean, it sounds like what you're sayingis that the kind of the culture of fear that Hamas has used to basically make it impossible for Palestinians to think of an alternative form of governance or an alternative relationship with Israel, that culture is at least been been damaged by the death of Sinwar, not eliminated, probably, but certainly weakened, which does give you some hope that there can be a day after in which there's a very different governing structure, a very different mentality in that exists in Gaza.

Avital Leibovich:

About the whole part, I'm not so sure. I have to say I want to be very hopeful, but we're not there yet. And I'll tell you why.

Jason Isaacson:

Long term, long term.

Avital Leibovich:

Long term, for sure, I'll tell you, but I want to be more concise in my answer, because you know, one of the things I'm sure people are asking themselves, is: is Sinwar replaceable? So I want to share with you six figures that are the potential list for replacing Sinwar. Number one is Khaled Mashal, is a well known personality. He's currently the head of what we call the external Hamas leadership. As you know, Hamas has two other countries, which they are based in. Qatar in Turkey. He served also as the predecessor of Sinwar, and he lives in Qatar. That's number one.

Number two, Musa Abu Mazug. It's another known figure. He was in Sinwar's position a long time ago. He lives in Qatar as well. Then we have Muhammad Al-wish. He is the head of the Hamas Shura Council. He's considered, actually a shadow figure, and does not appear in public too much, but he deals with Hamas policy, and he lives in Qatar. He's known for his connections with the Iranians. The next person is Khalil al Haya. He is the deputy head of the political bureau of Hamas. Actually, he is the deputy of Sinwar. I would say he's more kind of a gray kind of figure. He lives in Qatar. He also has some involvement on ceasefire and negotiation talks, release of the hostages.

And then we have Muhammad Nazal, another member of the Hamas political bureau, one of the most prominent spokespeople for the Hamas terror group. And the last one is Zaher Jabarin, member of the Hamas political bureau since 2021 and he's also in charge of the Judea Samaria area, or the West Bank, and he lives in Turkey. So these are the potential replacements for Sinwar. And the question here really remains, who will take the lead, whether it will be another figure from Gaza, or will it be an external figure?

And of course, each of the options has its own consequences. So if we're looking at Qatari based Hamas leaders, which have which are more prone to pressure from the US or from other countries. That's one reason to be optimistic vis a vis maybe a future deal with the hostages. But if we're looking at someone from Gaza, or someone from the West Bank will come to Gaza, then I think we're looking at more of the same kind of scenario. So this is where we are in terms of the current situation in Hamas and Hamas leadership. Let's see what conclusion they will reach.

Jason Isaacson:

Sinwar's brother is not considered in line for promotion?

Avital Leibovich:

So you know, the opinions here vary. There are those who say that since he's hunted by Israel, then he will not have the capability to deal with it. There are others that say that he is a natural replacement. But I gave you the list on purpose so you can understand that the options are not just one or two people, but more than that.

Jason Isaacson:

So let's talk about what the implications of Sinwar's death are for the fate of the hostages. It's been over a year. There are 101 still held, many of them no longer alive. We understand a desperate situation in brutal captivity held by Hamas. What AJC was hearing before the death of Sinwar, when we were having meetings on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly with people who had intimate knowledge of the negotiating process with Hamas,was that there had been no response for a month from Sinwar on the possibility of a hostage release-ceasefire deal. Does the death of Sinwar make it harder, make it easier to be able to resume negotiations? What is your sense?

Avital Leibovich:

So yeah, that's the big question. The big question is, now, who is in control? Because with Sinwar gone, obviously Hamas in Qatar will have the capability to influence more. He was the main barrier to any deal that was proposed. That's the reason that a few days ago, earlier this week, the head of Shabaq Secret Services was rushed to Egypt with some kind of an offer. And actually, when Secretary Blinken just ended his visit a few hours ago in Israel, what he said next to his plane before he left was about his, I would say, strategy for the potential hostage deal.

And the strategy says that, instead of going for the big deal of 101 hostages with stages, you know, being released in different stages, let's try to feel the water. And let's say we are talking about a smaller deal with a minimal amount of time for ceasefire, with just a few hostages that will be released. So in other words, not a very threatening deal, but something to work with. And here again, the question is, if the Hama leadership in Qatar will be able to go along with this kind of deal, I think we're in a very, very narrow window of opportunities.

And I think this is the reason why Secretary Blinken isnot leaving the area yet, and he's continuing from one Arab capital to another. I know that he is in Riyadh now, and he's still continuing to other areas tomorrow as well. So that really remains the question. Whether the leadership of Hamas in Qatar will have the capability to lead a deal, even a smaller deal. If that will come across, then we can open the window wider and we can shoot for a bigger deal. You're right.

There are 101 hostages held in horrible conditions, terrible conditions. Some of the bodies, you know, Jason, that were retrieved to Israel, were weighed. And a girl who is 24 years old, was weighing 36 kilograms.That equals to a weight of a third grader, something like that. So we do understand that it'severy day that passes is critical. The estimation is that there are 44 hostages which are no longer living. But the number may be higher because the intelligence information isas you know, not 100%.

Jason Isaacson:

Thank you, Avital.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

To listen to the rest of their conversation, head to the link in our show notes, and if you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in to the conversation between my colleague Alexandra Herzog and author Aliza Lavie about her latest book, "Iconic Jewish Women."
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
From Doña Gracia to Deborah Lipstadt: What Iconic Jewish Women Can Teach Us Today
16 okt· People of the Pod
What do Doña Gracia, Glückel of Hameln, and Deborah Lipstadt have in common? They are all celebrated as iconic Jewish women in Dr. Aliza Lavie's incisive book, "Iconic Jewish Women". Dr. Lavie’s book features 59 remarkable role models, highlighting the significance of women's voices and leadership in the Jewish community.

In a compelling conversation guest-hosted by Dr. Alexandra Herzog, the national deputy director of AJC’s Contemporary Jewish Life department, Lavie reflects on her grandmother's strength and her own experiences serving in the Israeli army and parliament. By showcasing the resilience and leadership of Jewish women throughout history—some stories well-known, others less recognized—Dr. Lavie emphasizes the need to confront the pervasive silence surrounding antisemitism. She urges us to learn from those who have paved the way, advocating for greater awareness and action against this global issue.

*The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

People of the Pod:

The Nova Music Festival Survivor Saved by an 88-Year-Old Holocaust Survivor

Is Nasrallah’s Death a Game-Changer? Matthew Levitt Breaks What’s at Stake for Israel, Iran, and Hezbollah

At the UN General Assembly: Jason Isaacson Highlights Israel's Challenges and the Fight Against Antisemitism

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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 Aliza Lavie:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Former Israeli Knesset member, Aliza Lavie is the author of six books, including the award winning "A Jewish Women's Prayer Book". Her latest, "Iconic Jewish Women"–59 inspiring, courageous, revolutionary role models for young girls, introduces readers to amazing women from Queen Esther to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others in between, many of whom have been overlooked, but offer inspiring tales.

My colleague, Alexandra Herzog, is the national deputy director of AJC’s Contemporary Jewish life department, and another amazing woman. She is our guest host this week, and she had the honor of speaking with Dr. Lavie. Alexandra, the mic is yours.

Alexandra Herzog:

It's an honor and great pleasure to welcome Dr. Aliza Lavie to People of the Pod today. She's the author of six books. I want to especially highlight the two latest ones, "A Jewish Women's Prayer Book," which won a National Jewish Book Award in 2008. And the latest one that we will be talking about today, "Iconic Jewish Women".

In many ways, Aliza gives voice to women who have been forgotten from Jewish history, and for that, I and so many women are so very grateful.

Since this book is about women, I want to make sure we don't forget all the women who are still held hostage by Hamas in Gaza. Not just our women, but also the children and the men. May we bring them all back.

Okay, let's dive into the conversation. Aliza, welcome to People of the Pod.

Aliza Lavie:

Thank you so much, Alexandra.

Alexandra Herzog:

It's very interesting that you have focused much of your writing about and for women. Let's also remind our listeners that your academic and professional background show your very long standing interest in women's issues. During your time in the Knesset, you served as the chair of the Committee on the Status of Women and Gender Equality, and the chair of the Committee to Combat Women Trafficking and Prostitution. So let me ask you this. Why this interest? Where does it stem from?

Aliza Lavie:

I believe in equality, and we need to work for it. We need men and women together to build a society. My grandmother came from Afghanistan, together with her husband. It was 1920, many, many years ago. They came to Jerusalem as a Zionist before Israel was established and became part of Jerusalem. They built and established a Bukharian neighborhood in Jerusalem, very, very old neighborhood.

But my granny, she lost her husband years after, two, three years after. Suddenly, she found herself without a voice, without a language, and she raised nine children. At that time, it was the big war just before Israel was established. And my granny, my granny, knew all the halachic code and all the Torah by heart. And always I asked myself, who told her? Who gave her the information?

And more, I became, you know, part of the Israeli society, as an officer in the army, in the Israeli army, and later as a lecturer at the University, and later became a parliament member and activist in Israel. So I found myself asking questions without finding answers. And I say to myself, come on, be part of the tikkun, be part of changing the mood.

Not because it's women's issue or problems, it's because the society needs men and women together, otherwise the society will lose. And more we have our part and position in Israeli society, in the Jewish world, in all of the world, we will build a better world for all of us.

I can declare and give lectures about it, but the question is, what are you doing? How have you become a part of this? So I find myself starting as a social activist and at that time, I had a 20 years TV show in the Israeli broadcasting. And I find myself asking questions, bringing more women to the TV show, and you have to see role models around you. And I found that we have a lot of answers, but we need to continue working.

Alexandra Herzog:

Iconic Jewish Women offers readers 59 role models. And you were just now talking about role models, the book was designed as a bat mitzvah gift for girls celebrating their Jewish coming of age. But it's really about discovering one's Jewish identity and Jewish heritage. What is particularly compelling to you about that, about also the Bat Mitzvah practice in general?

Aliza Lavie:

I asked myself, what is going on? You know, the big roads in the streets, most of them named after men. How come there is not even one public place in Israel named after Golda Meir? How come? Why is that? And it's not only questions of awareness. It's a question of knowledge and position and role models.

And the more I become familiar with the fact that I'm not that familiar with my heritage, with my history as a Jewish woman, as an Israeli woman. And even though women from the Bible, what really we know about Deborah the Prophet, or Miriam, the prophet or Esther the queen. Okay, so all of us, and the girls especially wants to be Esther the queen with a nice dress. But Esther the queen, she became from beauty queen to a leader.

She was the one that told Mordechai, okay, you want me to go to the king without permission, so do something fast three days. And then it was a huge fight between still and old high. And what Mordechai told her, No, no, no, we can't fast three days. But she gave him the order, and she was the one that told him that we should do it, to have future. So suddenly, from a woman in the megila, she became the leader, and more than that, in the end, she wrote, remember me for the next generation. She knew that women in the future will need her knowledge, her help, her position, her role modeling.

So more of you became familiar with the presence that our mothers, the women that were here before us, gave to us, so you will become much stronger. And more than that, Alexandra, you can find your only voice in a world that we are living in a very, very challenging time, increasing antisemitism and political instability, a lack of leadership and growing disconnected from a tradition, and we in Israel, in the middle of a war, where a brave soul who took responsibility.

Alexandra Herzog:

And I think that that's really a project that you did also in your previous book, Tefillat Nashim, A Jewish Women's Prayer Book, you explore Jewish identities through the rich tradition of women's prayers that is often absent from traditional historical or religious consciousness. Is Iconic Jewish Women, in some ways, also a project about restoring, reclaiming and recovering?

Aliza Lavie:

You are so right. And thanks for this question. My previous book, when I first spoke, Tefillat Nashim, A Jewish Women's Prayer Book. Actually, it's a collection of prayers that were written by women. When I start my journey, my research, nobody believed and felt that Jewish women wrote prayers. More than that, some professors wrote, Jewish women? They didn't know how to write, or they didn't allow the, you know, by the spiritual leaders to write, and they didn't know Hebrew or other languages.

And always, when I find myself as a politician or social activist, in a position that I didn't know what to do, I thought: what other women did when you can't find answer yourself? You have to go and make your own research. And believe it or not, I found ancient prayers. Actually the most ancient one is from the 13th century written by Paula [dei Mansi], the daughter of Rabbi Abraham [Anau] in Milan, north of Italy.

And actually, Paula, she copied the book we are talking about before the printing press time, and only men were allowed to copy books, because you need knowledge. So when I found this prayer in the end of the book named Yehudah de Trani, and she copied it. In the end, she wrote a prayer in Hebrew. Who was Paula, who taught her Hebrew, who gave her the thinking that you can add prayer for good days, for redemption, for coming back to Israel. 13th century.

And what about us? What about our knowledge and level of Hebrew and the permission to write your own personal prayer. And we are talking 13th century, not our days. So a lot of understanding about our position. Sometimes we think that, you know, in our generation, everything is open, and we are brave people and I suggest that we need to be a little bit modest and bring back knowledge from the past with the tools of our days and continue to tell the story.

Alexandra Herzog:

I was particularly intrigued, really, by the choice of women that you picked, as well, actually, as the organizing format of the book. The women are not in chronological order, but rather in alphabetical order.

So one of the things that I particularly love about the book is the fact that the reader is asked to actively engage with the content and to add their own stories to a vast historical network of political, scientific, activist, literary, and religious figures. What advice would you give to young women aspiring to make a difference in the world?

Aliza Lavie:

First of all, think about your dream. About your dream, and don't hesitate. You can make it. You can make it. And find role models for your lives. You know, you ask, Why I put alphabetic? By the way, in Hebrew, it's 71 women, and I hope in the next book to add much more women or in the technological project that I'm working on, and I invite girls, women men, to add their voice and to use the tools that they are professional with.

Remind yourself that one of us can make a story in the TikTok, video about Doña Gracia. The richest Jewish woman in the 16th century. She was the one that took control during the Inquisition about her brothers and sister in Spain and Portugal. Who was she? And how come that, you know, she became back to her Hebrew name Chana, and what is all about her and why we are not that familiar with her?

Take the opportunity during your Bat Mitzvah or family dinner to share a little bit or to ask people and to open a discussion and bringback, see something again new. Go out of your comfortable area and find and bring back and tell your friends and be ambassadors. Because it's not a history book. It's not a history book.

And another thing I want to mention why I chose these amazing women, they didn't plan to be famous. They were in the right time for and chose to be helpful for the Jewish people and the Israeli society. When they found, like Henrietta, Golda, other names in this book, that the people of Israel need them. Need their help, or no one did something to stop the issue or to be there. They were there.

Alexandra Herzog:

And so you're basically inviting young women to really, by engaging also with all of those amazing role models. And by the way, I do think that the you know, the chronological–using an alphabetical order rather than a chronological order, actually adds a lot of dynamism, because it really creates a conversation across time periods between Queen Esther, Glückel of Hameln, Golda Meir, and Deborah Lipstadt. And so, you know, the person, the reader is really asked to add their voice to this amazing group of women that they can be a part of. And I think that that acts, that really adds a content and a component of leadership that they can take on into their own life.

Aliza Lavie:

In the end, you can also find timeline of iconic Jewish women, because we not always remember and now which year and Hebrew years and the area, etc, etc.

Alexandra Herzog:

And I love that. And so I was wondering, because the book really delves into Jewish identity across continents, across time periods, sewing together different pieces of our history as a people. And I would be remiss if I didn't connect the difficult time that we are in as a people since October 7 with the powerful examples of leadership we find in the book. And we are asked to look for, around us in our daily lives. What do you think makes the book even more important, at this particular time?

Aliza Lavie:

We’re very upset to find a lot of our colleagues in all over the world, in United Nation and in universities, colleagues. I represent the Israeli parliament in the European Council, and I worked very hard together with other colleagues in the committee of status of women in the European Committee. And suddenly, when you saw all this blaming, and the way that nobody believe in what's happening October the seventh, and what Hamas did to our brothers and sisters and the situation, and the way the world treats us. First of all, you feel that you become betrayed.

What is, what is going on? Why is that? First of all, the aims are laid out in the document of Hamas. But what about the democratic world? Why is that? And when you saw all of this, I think that first we have to put it in a frame that it's not the first time in our history. It's not the first time.

So when you see the story of the Jewish people, and it's maybe a sign for us to understand who are we, where are we coming from, and to remember all the difficult time in Egypt. When Pharoh say to the people of Israel that you know should not have boys, the baby boys, and to kill them. And the fact that brave women, Miriam and her mother, Yocheved, they gave birth to the children, and they didn't pay attention to Pharaoh, and they took control about the future of the people of Israel the men didn't want. And by the way, thanks to them, to these women, the promise of redemption, got from God.

And later in the Inquisition, more women took responsibility, and we know it from all the testimonies and all the understanding, and women that didn't, didn't lost Judaism, didn't lost and and become Christian. And when you see the numbers, you see that more men became Christian, or left the women together with the children.

And later in the Holocaust, we see, and now we are in our days, we see that women, men, of course, brave people around us, men and women, but I see what women did. Women that didn't have a choice. They took control. They protect the people. They protect the children. And when Noa Argamani came back from Gaza, thanks to our soldiers. But Noa Argamani, she was the leader of the soldiers that kidnapped from their basic and Noa, without any help, she was the one that support.

And I can share with you a lot of examples of women that lost their children and are going every day to other families and widows to support, to hug, to give help.

Alexandra Herzog:

The book was published, as you said, before, in both English and Hebrew. Of course, Hebrew and English are the languages spoken by the two largest Jewish communities in the world, Israel and the United States. So how do you think that a book like this can contribute to strengthening Jewish peoplehood and conversations in the Jewish world?

Aliza Lavie:

So knowledge is a power, and let's start with our common history. Let's start with our common heritage. So this book invites you to start, to begin, to continue the conversation between yourself, between you and your spouse, or your family. Of course, your children. That you know what, to bring back the responsibility, parents to the family.

What's happened actually, that in ancient world, the family took responsibility to the Jewish education or belonging, and then later the communities, because when they saw what's happening in the families and later organizations, we can start, you know, discussion about your amazing organization that’s taking the responsibility and think about new directions or legacy or tools to continue.

This book is an invitation to, you know, maybe to grandmothers, to aunts, to teachers, to educators, to organizations, to take knowledge and inspiration from a book like this.

Alexandra Herzog:

Thank you, Aliza. So in a post October 7 world where Jewish women worldwide have had to make their voices heard even more than usual, to denounce the sexual violence that occurred on October 7, the deafening silence of many women's organizations, how has that impacted the conversations you're having? Could you tell us a little bit about how women have been engaging with you about the book?

Aliza Lavie:

When this book was established in Israel, it was before the war, but in Israel that time, it was not an easy time in between the people of Israel that start, you know, many, many voices, again, the government and again, the parliament and etc, etc. And we need to bring, you know, the peaceful and to understand that the enemy is out of us, and for the enemy, all the Jewish are the same. It doesn't matter if you are secular, religious, Orthodox, reconstruction, reform. For them, we had this experience. Remember? Yeah, we had it in the Holocaust. They count seven generations ahead.

Your question is a wake up call, the answer is a wake up call for all of us, for all of us, the citizens, the governments, the Jewish people all over the world. And to start getting serious thinking about the day after. And even now, even now, when you ask yourself, how come that our brothers and sisters are still in Gaza, where is the Red Cross?

So you can blame Israel all the time about that we are not, you know, delivering food to Gaza. But you know what is going on in Gaza. And you know who took all the food, etc. The Hamas. And it's not going to women and children. And what about our people? Where are they? So hypocrisy, yes, tikkun olam, of course. But in between, in between, we need to understand that we Jewish people have to work together and to bring back knowledge from the past. It's not a history lesson.

Alexandra Herzog:

Thank you so much. I love that we end on hope and a better future. So I'm going to keep these words as the last ones, and with the notion I'm going to add of: Bring Them Home. Thank you so much for joining us, Aliza, to People of the Pod.

Aliza Lavie:

Thank you so much, Alexandra, for having me, and we'll pray for good days.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Nova music festival survivor Daniel Vaknin about the horrific events that unfolded on October 7, 2023 and the brave Holocaust survivor who kept him and a handful of others safe and alive that day.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
The Nova Music Festival Survivor Saved by an 88-Year-Old Holocaust Survivor
10 okt· People of the Pod
"I want to show the word that you can choose light . . . no matter how much dark you saw, or what's going on in Israel now, or what's going on in the world, there's still a choice.”

As we mark one year since Hamas’ massacre of Israelis, Israeli DJ Daniel Vaknin, 30, shares his harrowing experience from the Nova Music Festival, where 340 attendees were brutally murdered in the deadliest event in music history.

Vaknin recounts the chaos as rockets from Gaza struck, triggering a desperate evacuation and his narrow escape while being shot at, taking refuge in nearby Kibbutz Sa’ad at the home of an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor. Vaknin highlights the incredible resilience of the Israeli people and the pressing need for global support to bring the hostages home.

*The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

People of the Pod:

Is Nasrallah’s Death a Game-Changer? Matthew Levitt Breaks What’s at Stake for Israel, Iran, and Hezbollah

At the UN General Assembly: Jason Isaacson Highlights Israel's Challenges and the Fight Against Antisemitism

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: [email protected]

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 Daniel Vaknin:

Manya Brachear Pashman

Daniel Vaknin is a 30-year old Israeli DJ and music event producer. He was not one of the DJs responsible for the soundtrack of the Nova Festival on October 7. He was there as a fan seeking a fun weekend. He arrived less than half an hour before Hamas terrorists stormed the border between Israel and Gaza, killing more than 1,200 people, including more than 300 at the music festival.

Vaknin managed to survive, but since that day, he has dedicated his time to advocating for the hostages still in captivity. As we marked one year this week since the Hamas terror attacks, Daniel is with us now to share the story of his harrowing escape.

Daniel, welcome to People of the Pod.

Daniel Vaknin:

Thank you for having me.

Manya Brachear Pashman

I can’t imagine, I don’t want to imagine being at a music festival like Lollapalooza for example and it all coming to a sudden and terrifying end. But I think it’s important for us to put ourselves in your shoes. Can you take us back to the Nova Festival that morning?

Daniel Vaknin:

So for me, the Nova festival, it's not only the Nova. It's the festival of the trance (with a c) music festivals. It symbolizes and it represents love. It's supposed to represent the connection to the nature it's supposed to represent our connection, no judgment, happiness, joyful, of course, at the end of the day, it's an amazing community of fans of specific genre of music that looking for more and more festivals and more and more events to enjoy, to celebrate, to dance, to express yourself in so many ways. So people think that the festivals or the trance (with a c) music, supposed to be about music, but it's not.

When you go to this kind of festival, to this kind of event, you can walk around and people open up their tents and camps, and they're like way before they plan everything, and they bring their most colorful clothes, and they bring so much food and drinks. And you can really go through the sta;ls and see art and paints and clothes that you can buy and bags that people sell or made by themselves and want to express themselves. People are dancing, it’s a festival. I think that's exactly the description that you're supposed to have when you ask Google, what is a festival?

So it's not only about music. There's so many things in it, and that's what it represents for us, and that's what it represents for me, because not all the time I'm going only to dance. Sometimes I just want to hang out. Sometimes I just want to see new stuff, buy some stuff, and express myself with different people, to meet new people.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Why did it take place on the Gaza envelope? Was it always in that field?

Daniel Vaknin:

So for the people that don't live in Israel, and I'm not saying it in a bad way. I'm just saying in general. I want you to know. I want you to understand. I work in the music industry, in the music production for almost 12 years. To make an event in Israel, unfortunately, Israel is a small country. Where it's a blessing and a curse, because it's a small country and everyone is together, but unfortunately, we don't have a lot of space. And we have a lot of borders, and that's okay.

So 70% of Israel's open space, open fields, are military training. You cannot enter or make any kind of events in almost 70% of the country of the open fields, because the military is training there. And it's like you cannot. It's like high called area 51 that you got here, United States, nobody can enter, right? So that's why we got there. And let's say, and again, what I'm saying right now, it can be a percentage here, a percentage there, but let's say 30% that we got left it's or near borders, Lebanon, up north. We got Syria, we got Jordan, we got Egypt, and now we got Gaza.

And not only that, it means that we got people that owns the lands and maybe doesn't want festivals around their houses, their farms. They don't want you to interrupt the quiet that they have next to their kibbutzim, or, you know, their families, and let's say, even more than that, some of the areas are not proper to have festivals. Like maybe it's too muddy, maybe it's too grassy, maybe it's forest.

Maybe the country, the government there's like, I don't know you call it here, but we have this company. Or maybe it's not the right word, that take care of all the trees and all the forests in Israel, like the government official. And they don't want you to make festivals, because they want to take care of the lands, or they're taking care of the lands right now, or the farms.

So it happened near Gaza only because of one reason. It's Israel. As long as it's Israel, as long as it's a place that’s called Israel, that's a land of our country, I can make parties wherever I want, as long as it's called Israel. It was near Gaza, because the kibbutzim is near Gaza.

It's like to ask Sarah Jackson, the Holocaust survivor that host me while I was escaping, why she is living in Kibbutz Sa’ad next to the border, 2.5 miles. If you ask her, that's her house, that's her home for 50 years, even before Gaza. So I think to explain the best way is that I cannot ask you why you're doing in your balcony a party, because that's yours. Once you're out of your balcony, and that's not your property, I can ask you why you decide, or why you chose to do this. But I think as long as my property, it's Israel.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

There was also a ceasefire in place, and therefore a reasonable sense of confidence that it would remain peaceful and safe.

Daniel Vaknin:

Yes,right. So all this time we have a ceasefire. Everybody knows about it, and I won't tell you that once every three months, every five months, we're going to have a one missile launch from Gaza, and that's okay, you know, in the circumstances, because we have the Iron Dome, and we understand that sometimes it cannot be so peaceful, because things happen. But we have our military, we have our fences, we have our Iron Dome that costs Israel so much money. Every missile, every this kind of huge operation, costs a fortune, and we do the best we can to defend the country without interrupting the peace. So yeah, it was quiet and peaceful.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So let's talk about that day and when that piece was broken for you, where were you? And you mentioned the person who gave you shelter when you escaped. Can you kind of walk us through the events of October 7 for you?

Daniel Vaknin:

October 7 for me, started again a little bit before, because this festival was supposed to start on October 6, 10pm. And was supposed to be one of the biggest festivals that happened, and a good friend of mine was supposed to go. I didn't mean to go because I was supposed to work, and my girlfriend was working there as a bartender, and she arrived with my roommate (back then) around 2am. And both of them called me, and before they left the house, they told me, like, you have to come, if you're not working, I want you to come.

And you know, when your girlfriend, your amazing friend and roommate, ask you to come, you do the best you can to make it happen. And I had a ticket from a good friend of mine, and then we plan to go around 5am to head to the party, and I pick up my friend Ilya, and we headed to the party, and we arrived to the parking lot at around six in the morning. So I know that everybody knows the details right now.

So everybody knows that 29 minutes from now, my life's going to be changed forever. But the most important thing is that when people when I'm talking about it, I think what's important for me is that people need to understand that now you know the details, but we didn't know. We always have this amazing feeling above our heads. We always had this blessing that we're coming for the best festival ever, and everything gonna be amazing.

I want people to understand it, to realize that we didn't had any attention or thinking about something else besides having the best time. So we arrived at the parking lot, we parked a car, and we had it towards the festival, and good friends of ours was coming outside of the party to go to the car, to bring some stuff, and we're so happy. And we hugged, and we had a great time talking, like, really, what's going on in the festival? We're so excited to go inside and see.

And then it was the first second that we heard a whistle, and this whistle was a missile launches from Gaza to Israel, and there's no red alert. So we freaked out, of course, but I like to say that it's not a routine in Israel. I don't want to say it's a routine, but it's not something that didn't happen, missile launches from Gaza, or missile launches from somewhere, and the party is still on, because we got the Iron Dome. You stop the music for a second, you take over, it's done, and you go back to party. And it's not the first time, but this time wasn't the same.

This time was a barrage of missiles launches from Gaza every second, hundreds of missiles just launches. So the party was over, and someone announced that we need to evacuate. And the party is not coming back. Because people were waiting. And he said, like guys, you have to evacuate. The party's not going on. Leave the perimeter, evacuate, go home.

And I saw the opportunity of going back home, fast as I can, not because we want to run from the missiles, only because we realize it's going to be a traffic jam, right? So we saw, like, so many cars, and we're like, next to our car. And we said, Okay, let's go home like the car is right here. Let's go. And I called my girlfriend and she said, like, Daniel, don't come. The party is done. I was like, That's too late. I'm right here. And I told like, Babe, I'm going to pick you up. So go out.

So I jumped back to the car, and we pick up my girlfriend, and we headed home. And at the same time, we're having a FaceTime with a good friend of mine from Israel. He was still in Tel Aviv. Was supposed to come to the party, but he woke up really late, so. We had a FaceTime, and we talked about what's going on, and we laughed about it, right? Like it was breaking news, a missile start and Nova festival is done. Are you coming back home? We're like, Yeah, we're coming to Tel Aviv. What a bummer. We want to have a great party.

So we started head back home, and that was the moment that we on this route 232, making our way back home, and a police officer stopped us and signaled us to U turn, like we cannot go that way. And he asked us to U turn. And I want you to understand it that all this time, you have unstoppable missiles. The Red Alert is above your head all the time. The missiles is just hitting the ground.

You can see so many cars stopping, people running, people sitting next to their car, smoking a cigarette, drinking something. And that's another thing that people need to know. People just finished an amazing festival in a second, they were drunk, they were high, and scared. We cannot forget it, that not anyone can handle this kind of situation smoothly, and you don't know where to go, right?

Because the police officers, and it's really important for me, I'm not blaming them, I'm just saying they didn't know as well. So they stopped us no matter where we go. They asked us to stop here, to stop there, and we cannot go towards this way or that way. So my oldest brother called me and he asked me, What's going on. He knew that I will be in this kind of festival, and I told her, we gotta stop next to one of the kibbutzim to find a bomb shelter, because we have to hide. You cannot stay in the car once you have red alerts, and we're gonna take over, and I'm calling back when it's become a little bit more quiet, and we'll head back home.

And I didn't have the chance even to hang up, because when I stopped the car and opened the door, that was the moment we were getting shot at with automatic rifles. I want to say that not everyone will recognize it, but the military, the IDF, are not supposed to shoot on automatic. We're not supposed to shoot automatically, only single bullets every time. That's like the rule. That's the law that we got in Israel.

And when you're getting shot at by automatic rifles, it feels different, it sounds different, and you can hear the gunshots just above your head, just whistling next to you everywhere. And I told my brother, I'm getting shot and I will call him back. And I hung up, and I fell to the ground, and I took cover, and I crawled next to the side of the court, and I yelled to the car that we're getting shot at, so they have to go out.

So Ilya was laying next to me, and I remember that we saw so many people stopping their car next to us and screaming and running and praying because nobody, no one understood what's going on. Nobody realized that we're in a war again. Now everybody knows it. Now we can picture that, but at the same moment you don't know. Nothing. You don't have a clue of what's coming up. So it's all blurry, right? You don't really understand what's going on.

And you try to realize where, where you at, or why you're why you're getting shot at. And we took cover, and when I left my head, I didn't see Lala, I didn't see my girlfriend. So I asked Ilya, where, where Lala at and he's and he said that maybe she's in the car.

Now, an important, an important thing that I took my mom's car and she got a child lock, so if someone's inside, you cannot open the door. So I crawl above Ilya, and I open up the door. And Lala was looking at me with his frightened look, and she was like, I can't, I can't open the door. I can't open it. I was like, I'm sorry, baby, I'm sorry. Just come next to us. So she crawled next to us, and we later cover hats for a few minutes, for a while.

And all this time we have the missiles. All this time we're getting shot at all this time you can hear the bullets hitting the trees next to you. Can hear the bullets hitting the rocks, and people are running, people are screaming, and you don't know what to do. And we've been there for a while, and after a while, I felt like I don't want to stay here, like I don't know where I'm going or where I'm supposed to do but I don't want to stay here.

So what we did is we said that we gonna crawl next back to the car. We're going to take our seats back so we won't be like in the horizon of the windows that people cannot see or do, or the gunshots won't hit us through the window, and we're going to drive somewhere. I'm going to press gas and run, I don't know where, so that's exactly what we did.

And Lala was just laying like we're not in the seat, like where you put your dogs at, like, underneath the seat, and Ilya and I were taking the seats all the way back, and I crawled to the seat, to the driver's seat, and just press gas. And in the second I pressed gas, we felt all the car was shaken. And I remember that we really felt the the car moving once I press gas, and Ilya and I looked at his at each other, was like, there was a grenade. We felt it wasn't a missile.

And I remember we were like, shocked looking at each other. So we drove, like, real fast. And again, imagine that all this time I'm lifting my head, I'm picking every time just to see where I'm heading. So we drove like this for, I don't know, a while, and then after, I don't know, 15 minutes of driving we we found ourselves getting stopped by two bicycle couple. So they went for Shabbat just to have a nice ride, and they stopped us, and they lift their hands, like, you have to stop, you have to stop.

And she said, like, you cannot go forward. There's a terror attack ahead, and they're shooting it, anyone that comes, and that's the moment you start to realize that, okay, maybe I start to understand what's what I came from. So we're talking about it like, I think that's what happened there, and they tell us what happened there, and we we try to understand the bigger picture. And I remember that we didn't know where we're supposed to go. But I like to call it: the first angel came, and there was a car that is heading towards us, and a beautiful guy jumped from the car, and he looked at all the cars that stopped, and we're like, 20 or 30 cars.

And it was like, Guys, Kibbutz Sa’ad is just ahead, and I want you all to follow me. They’ll open up the gates and they will and they will let you in. So please follow my lead, park the car outside the gate, and just go inside the gate. And we follow his lead. It's a beautiful kibbutz. It's a religious kibbutz, so it was Shabbat for them, so the gate was supposed to be closed all the time, and everybody was praying in the synagogue, because it was Simchat Torah.

And it was around eight in the morning, more or less. And I want to say between 50 to 60 people from the Nova, kids from the Nova, are running into the kibbutz.

And we don't know what to do. We're just staying at the kibbutz, and there was a soldier that getting treatment next to the gate of the kibbutz because he had a gunshot wound in his stomach. And we see that he's getting a treatment from the city patrol. And even the city patrol that took us in, they didn't know what to do with us. They looked at us with the same look that we're looking at them like we don't know what's going on. Go inside and let's see. Let's figure it out.

And I remember that we just scattered the kibbutz like we just walked and so many kids, so many girls, so many guys around my age are just crying, asking themselves, what's going on. And you start to hear this like people are looking for their friends, like, Hey, where's Rachel? She with you? Where is Avi? Did you see him? So it was a horrific moment at the same time, and you're so useless, and you don't even understand what's going on.

And we made a lot of noise in this kibbutz. And this kibbutz is like a really quiet. I want you to imagine that when you entered the most quietest place in the world, it's like Yom Kippur. It's so beautiful, so nice. It's Shabbat Simchat Torah. All the porches are have decorations for the Sukkot. It's beautiful. It's quiet, but 60 people right now, with a lot of mud and dust from the party, from the festival, and running into your kibbutz.

And the second angel appeared, and her name was Sarah Jackson. She's 88 years old. She's a Holocaust survivor, and she's an amazing, beautiful person, and she came outside of her house because of the noise we made, and she was standing at her porch. She looked at us with this beautiful look, and she's like, Who are you guys? And we said, it doesn't matter. Can we come to your house? Can we stay in your house? Can we can we hide for a second just to drink something?

She was like, of course, come in, and when we came in, she offered us, of course, she gave us water and drinks, and she asked if we want coffee, and she asked us if we're hungry.

And she always have this chill feeling. Always chill vibe, no nervousness. The Shabbat, it's Shabbat, it's quiet, the Shabbat will keep us safe, guys leave the phones. And we started talking with her, of course, and she told us a little bit about herself, and we told her a little about ourselves.

And this time, the information start to come right? We're we're calling our friends that we don't know where they at, or that we lost at the same time, and and we start to gather the information. And I remember I called my my roommate at the same time, like, where, where you at? She was like, two of my friends got shot. Were taking them to the hospital. I was like, What do you mean? What do you mean? Got shot by who she was like, I don't know. They were getting shot at. And I got shot in the car, and two of my friend got shot, one in the knee, one at his shoulder, and I will talk to you later. I was like, okay, just be safe.

And again, this talks that you have at the same time, it's not reasonable. It doesn't make any sense. You don't know that 3000 terrorists just enter your country. You don't know that right now, people are getting slaughtered in their houses, murdered. You don't know it. And you start to get this piece of information from the news, right?

You open up the news, and we call our friends, and this friend is hiding in the bushes, and this friend, he's is running for his life, and this friend is hiding in another kibbutz, and some people managed to escape to Tel Aviv, and like they are heading home, they don't know what we're talking about. And so many, so many like different stories right at the same time. And all this time, we get all this piece of information that berries got invaded and and you can hear the people calling the news like the anchor, the anchorman, and like, gasping for help and whispering at the same time.

And it's Be’eri, it’s Kfar Aza and all this time, we ask, Sarah, and she was like, yeah, it's right here, why? Like, okay, never mind. Because we felt like, Sarah, I don't know if she didn't want to know. So she wasn't into all the details, but she was chilled. She didn't really realize what's going on. And we thought that maybe it's good for her not to know what's going on outside.

And I remember that I was going out all the time, was running, and I have some videos that I was running outside to the gate to see if I can help, to see what's going on, to to ask maybe to patrol, maybe they know what's going on. And every time you're running outside, you're getting red alert. So you have to go back and you do this. And I did it like 5, 4, 6, times, and you can hear the gunshots from Kfar Aza. And now you know that they are inside Kfar Aza slaughtering people.

And there was a rumor started, I don't know how, and that's how rumors start, that people saw terrorists in Kibbutz Sa’ad, so in the Kibbutz that I was hiding, and I remember that we thought that, Okay, that's it. They're inside. What are we gonna do? We don't have a lot of choice. And what we did is that I told Ilya. I was like, Okay, I'm gonna bring some knives to the bomb shelter, because if they're going to open up the door, at least we can fight, at least we're going to take one of them with us. I don't know, something that we can try to do.

And I ran to the kitchen. And again, like I told you, Sarah was a chill, quiet person, so the only knife that she had was a butter knife. So Ilya and I was standing with butter knives for a few hours, holding the door. And it was you know, a funny moment, because I have to tell you, I think when I think when, when you filled and you don't have a lot to do, humor kicks in. So we were standing with this butter knives like this, holding the door with a knife that cannot do anything to anyone.

And I remember that after a while, Sarah looked at us. She was like, What are you doing with my knives? I was like, oh, not a lot, so I don't know. Like, no, take it back. I was like, Okay. And every time she took, we took it back. We brought two others. It was a game like, you know, Cartoon Network we're running, taking it back. She's taking it back.

And after 10 hours that we've been there, something happened. We had the opportunity to go back home, to drive back home, and I took my mom's car back to the kibbutz, and we jumped to the car, and we went to the other side of the gate, and we asked the commander the military that arrived already if we can go back home, because they told us that if you're going to stay here after six o'clock, you will stay all night because they're going to close the perimeter. No, nobody gets in or out.

I don't want to stay in the war zone, so we asked the commander, and he asked us peacefully, like, Okay, if you're going home and I will let you go out, please. Are you going only to Tel Aviv? You don't you're not stopping anywhere. I was like, No, we're not going to stop anywhere, promise. Okay, don't look to the side. Just go straight. Just go home. Now, that's a weird, that's a weird thing to ask from you. But we're like, yeah, okay, we understand. But unfortunately, first of all, you cannot, when someone asks you not to do this, that's exactly what you're going to do, let's be honest.

And second of all, we couldn't even if we wanted because once while I was driving, we saw we had to maneuver in the road that we're going home, between cars that was shattered to pieces. And inside these cars, and outside these cars, there was so many dead bodies of people from the festival. And from our left side, you can always see this black smoke coming up from all the kibbutzim and Gaza.

Because now Gaza is getting hit really hard and really strong from the military and from the Air Force, and it was apocalypse. It was moments of apocalypse. It's one of the most beautiful places in the world, so quiet, so peaceful. And I know it sounds ironic, but it's the truth.

Like, it's such a beautiful place, and to see it now a war zone, to see the smoke, to see these dead bodies all over and cars shattered. It's a polar [opposite]. It's 180 degrees from what you knew or saw.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Have you shared what you just shared? Have you shared this story with college students in America, or do you rarely retell this story?

Daniel Vaknin:

I came to United States for the first time in May. I had an amazing opportunity to play as a DJ in a joyful Jewish event that happened in MIT, but it was for 1500 people, Jewish people, just to celebrate, just to be happy, not to talk. And I was supposed to come to this event to play as a DJ, to perform as a DJ, in front of these people, and headed back home after a while, like after eight days.

But when I went down the stage, when I got off the stage, so many people ran towards me and asked me if I want to come and speak and to share my story in communities, in schools and in synagogue, in temples. I didn't know that at the same time, that's what's going to be, it's going to be something I'm going to do every day now.

But I had almost 12 events, 12 speaking engagements in two weeks here in Boston, in Miami as well. And I had this amazing opportunity to share my story, to talk, to spread awareness. So I came here only for this purpose. I'm going to be here almost two months, speaking, talking to colleges, talking to communities, anyone and any place that will give me the opportunity and want to hear a Nova survivor experience, like a first hand experience.

And to ask the questions and have this amazing dialog, to hear the truth again. I don't like to speak about politics. I like to speak about what I've been through. I like to speak about my beliefs. I want to speak about my community. I want to speak about my friends. I want to speak about the friends that I lost. I want to memorize them. I want to show the word that you can choose light, no matter how much dark you have, and no matter how much dark you saw, or what's going on in Israel now, or what's going on in the world, there's still a choice.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And you have a yellow ribbon dangling from your left ear. Do you know people who are being held hostage?

Daniel Vaknin:

So a month and a half ago, our missing puzzle, our amazing friend Eden Yerushalmi was murdered in captivity after 11 months that she survived. And she was the last person that I knew personally, and we spent some time together, and she's a good friend. Yes, Eden was more closer to my heart and other friends that murdered the same day.

But I can tell you that Eliya Cohen, that everybody's waiting for him to come back. He's a good friend of a lot of my friends, like I know so many people that he's a friend of them. So I cannot say that I'm his friend, but he's one of the family. And each person there, the Bibas, the babies that no one's talk about them anymore, the parents of the kids, nobody talk about them anymore.

I want all of them to come back home, because again, guys, it's not about right or wrong. It's beyond insane. It's beyond insane that we got a kid that almost a year more than his life is in captivity, and nobody's talking about it. It's, it's not insane. I don't, I don't think there's a word for, for expressing it. So this ribbon, I know it represents hostages, and it's nice to put in my ear, but God, that's not enough. That's not enough, and we need to do more than that, to bring them back home and to bring them safe.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I want to note for our listeners. That you are in Boston for some speaking engagements, and we're actually speaking on October 2, a day after all of Israel went into bomb shelters following a barrage of missiles from Iran and a terror attack on a train in Tel Aviv. What have you heard from your family and friends back in Israel?

Daniel Vaknin:

My parents and my brothers are in Israel, and I got younger–my youngest brother is in the army right now. He's 19. He's a combat fighter. He's a commander. And my mom, she got four boys, so she is a lioness. All of us were fighters. All of us been through war. And now the youngest one, and that's the last one. Like she said, no more, no more boys, no more fighters. She wanted peace. And that's the reality right now.

Imagine that yesterday I was waking up to the news that I know that Jaffa, I lived in Tel Aviv for nine years. So Jaffa, Tel Aviv was like so close, and I got a lot of friends that lives in Jaffa, and I'm waking up to this news that terror attacks start and they're killing people, they're murdering, they're slaughtering people in a train station. And I recognize the place immediately, because I've been there a lot, and there's so many heroes. You know what? I won't give the stage to this. I want to change it.

There's so many heroes in Israel. My parents are sitting in a bomb shelter and smiling and doing the best they can to keep the morale high. And someone that I know well, and he's a good friend, he was the guy that yesterday went to buy groceries because he did had food with his flip flops and his pistol, because from the moment the war started, he had a license for a gun, and he only went down to buy some food, and he was the one that injured and killed one of the terrorists with flip flops yesterday. So that's the reality, but that's our heroes. They don't wear capes, they wear flip flops, and they're going to buy food.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Daniel, this state of war seems to have no end, no boundaries. Attacks are coming from all directions. As you travel around the States and the world, speaking and listening, what do you find to be the biggest misconception? What do people outside of Israel seem to not understand?

Daniel Vaknin:

I think if we try to see and we try to fight every single day about religious and who is right and who is wrong, and all this excuses, why we're not supposed to be here. I don't know. Guys, if you don't, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't take a stand.

Come to Israel. Talk to the Nova survivors. Talk to the kibbutzim. Talk to them, there are human beings that will tell you exactly what they saw, what happened, what they lost, what they're losing.

You will see an amazing people and strong people that will tell you the truth. That they don't want it [war], not the kibbutzim, not the Nova survivors. No one wants it. But as long as it takes, we will do it. We'll defend ourselves, and we'll be the strongest people that we can. Because we have the right to live.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Daniel, thank you so much for helping us remember what happened a year ago on October 7. Thank you for sharing what I know was a very painful story and journey, but I think it really will impact our listeners and remind them about the horrors we witnessed a year ago. Thank you.

Daniel Vaknin:

Thank you very much. Manya, it was a pleasure, and thank you for having me.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
Is Nasrallah’s Death a Game-Changer? Matthew Levitt Breaks Down What’s at Stake for Israel, Iran, and Hezbollah
30 sep· People of the Pod
Could Israel’s elimination of Hezbollah’s leaders reshape the landscape of power in the Middle East? Matthew Levitt, Director of the Washington Institute's Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, answers that pressing question, discusses the impact of Israel's recent offensive against Hezbollah, following the death of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and analyzes the ongoing military operations on the Israel-Lebanon border. The conversation also delves into Iran's strategic calculations, the potential consequences for Lebanon’s sovereignty, and the broader regional stability in light of Hezbollah’s diminished military capabilities.

*The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.

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:

At the UN General Assembly: Jason Isaacson Highlights Israel's Challenges and the Fight Against Antisemitism

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: [email protected]

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 Matthew Levitt:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Since October 8, Iran's terror proxy Hezbollah has escalated its attacks on Israel, launching rockets, drones, mortar shells toward Israeli civilians on a near daily basis, more than 10,000 to date, pushing 1000s of residents from their homes in Israel's North more than 11 months later, on September 27 Israel Defense Forces launched a massive retaliatory airstrike targeting Hezbollah's headquarters in Lebanon, killing the group's founder and leader, Hassan Nasrallah and other senior officials.

Here to talk about how significant this development might be for Israel and its neighbors, is Dr. Matthew Levitt, director of the Reinhard Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute.

Matt, welcome to People of the Pod. I'm going to launch right into questions.

Has Hezbollah been significantly disabled by Israel's attack, or is Nasrallah’s death just a setback for the terrorist group?

Matthew Levitt:

This is extremely consequential, and it's not just this one attack. So we're talking about two weeks of activities that come straight out of Hollywood. Hollywood would have rejected the script for being too fanciful. First the pagers exploding 24 hours, then walkie talkies exploding. This, already coming on the heels of almost 500 Hezbollah operatives, some of them quite senior, being eliminated. So you already had the beginning of the kind of hierarchy of Hezbollah leadership being taken out, and now what you have is Fuad Shukr.

Ibrahim Akil, members of the jihad Council, the Ohio Military Council for Hezbollah, being taken and then, of course, on Friday, taking out the Hezbollah Operational Command Center, which itself is extremely important. And in that operation, killing both Hassan Nasrallah and another member of the jihad council, Ali Karaki and a senior Quds Force General.

It's so it's not one thing, it's the totality of all these things. And they haven't stopped. Seen over the weekend into Monday, more Israeli air strikes, where they are clearly taking out as much of the Hezbollah medium and long range rocket systems as possible, those are the systems that present the greatest threat to Israel.

And there are even reports coming out today that Israeli special forces units have been sneaking across the border to take out tunnels and other things, all of which is to say, the Hezbollah that existed just a few days ago no longer exists. Hezbollah is there, but it will take a very long time and a whole lot of support for it to reconstitute itself. And when this part of the war is done and it's not done yet, clearly the next phase is going to be preventing Iran from resupplying them. So already, an Iranian plane tried to land in Beirut.

The Israelis told the Lebanese Government, it lands. We shoot it. It didn't land. The Israelis targeted some type of smuggling operation all the way out on this Syrian Iraqi border over the weekend. Clearly the Hezbollah that exists today is nowhere near as capable of fighting a prolonged, full scale war as Hezbollah was, say, 10 days ago.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And what does that mean for Iran in the region?

Matthew Levitt:

Look, Hezbollah was first among equals within Iran's proxy network, what it likes to call its access of resistance. And so it's not just effectively having lost Hamas as a fighting force in Gaza, and it's not even just losing another proxy. It's the pearl in Iran's proxy network. You know, we just published a new version of my book on Hezbollah with a new chapter that focuses on Hezbollah's role helping other Shia militant groups in the region make themselves more capable.

On behalf of this Iranian proxy network, Hezbollah is no longer available to do that, and it really picked up the pace of that activity on behalf of other Shia militia groups in the region after the death of Qasem Soleimani. So this is something more than just another militant group, and Iran for itself, you might think, because Hezbollah is so important, then the Iranians would attack Israel.

The Iranians are being very, very careful. They kind of got the message, right. If you attack Israel, Israel's going to hit back really, really hard. They understand that, unlike in April, where they shot some 300 projectiles at Israel, basically all of which missed, and then Israel had this very, very specific, limited attack back, shooting a small number of projectiles, all of which hit and took out air defense systems near Natanz, the one of the key nuclear facilities.

The Iranians understand that this time around, the Israeli response to be very, very different. And no one can say after the April response, well, maybe they can't go the distance. Maybe they can't get past the air defense systems. And if anybody had any questions, even just over this weekend, the Israelis responded to Houthi attacks from Yemen with a very, very long range attack just about the same distance, or near the same distance they'd have to go to hit some things in eastern Iraq and in Iran.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And speaking of Iran nuclear negotiations, where do those stand now, if there are any still underway, and how does, how does this affect that?

Matthew Levitt:

It's very connected, even though the nuclear negotiations are effectively nowhere. Now there's a new Iranian president who is very focused on trying to roll back. Sanctions. He is, in fact, a moderate when it comes to some domestic policy. He is not a moderate when it comes to, does he support Hezbollah, etc. He's part of the system, and the system is very much one of what they would call resistance. And so while he came to the UN General Assembly last week, and had a much more kind of calm, moderate, sort of pragmatic message about diplomacy as he was saying those words, Iran was doing all kinds of other things in the region to support Hezbollah.

And more significantly for this issue, the nuclear issue, Iran has significantly ratcheted up its nuclear program activity over the past 11 months, authorities are concerned that we're maybe potentially weeks away from breakouts, should Iran make that decision, which it has not yet done, but that's a right on the cusp. And so this really does affect the calculations with Hezbollah, even before the Israeli actions to degrade Hezbollah's military capabilities, but certainly now, as Iran is trying to decide if it should conduct a retaliation of its own, because for Iran there's really only one red line.

It doesn't want whatever regional war it kicks off to cross into Iran, and it wants the powder dry on most of Hezbollah's rockets, because it sees those rockets as the best deterrent against an Israeli or anyone else's attack on Iran's nuclear program, or if someone should attack the nuclear program, the best second strike capability. So it's not that the Iranians have become Zionists, nor have they backed off of their really serious desire to have Hezbollah take the fight to Israel just right now, there's a competing interest in their nuclear program, which is a much bigger strategic consideration, and so they actually want most of the power to drive as much of that powder is left after the Israeli airstrikes to defend against, to deter, against an attack on their nuclear program.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So can I want to widen the lens of regional stability, not just Iran or Lebanon or Israel. I mean, some people have actually said September 27 was just as monumental for the Middle East as the Abraham accords. Is that a bit of a stretch? Or do you agree?

Matthew Levitt:

Look, it's premature to say exactly what September 27 will be, but it's something big, right? It's too early to tell the specific trajectory, but this is a watershed moment without question. I see the potential for very good things to come out of this. I see the potential for Lebanon to finally be able to declare sovereignty over its own country, Hezbollah, which is an unelected entity, the only sectarian militia to hold on to its weapons after the tight accords that ended the Civil War, has effectively been making decisions of life and death, war and peace for all Lebanese, without their say.

So many, many Lebanese, the overwhelming majority of Lebanese, don't want a war, and are going to be angry to Hezbollah for a war of choice that they jumped into on October 8, that may have dragged Lebanon into this war. I see an opportunity for a significant setback, if not broader, dismantling of Iran's proxy network. Hamas in Gaza is not what it once was, period.

It still exists. It can still do things in Gaza and the West Bank. It has leadership in Lebanon and Turkey and Qatar, but it is not what it once was, and the Israelis have demonstrated by killing Ismael Hania in Iran when he was there for the President's inauguration, in an IRGC safe house that they will take the fight where they need to to eliminate arch terrorists behind things like October 7 you saw over the weekend Hezbollah getting hit really, really hard again and again and again. This is not a one off like the assassination of Abbas Moussaoui, the original secretary general of Hezbollah in 1992.

You saw this weekend after the Houthis attacked Israel again and the Israelis went in hard and hit Houthi infrastructure in Yemen, and so the next stage of this has to be doing much more to disrupt Iran's ability to send weapons and to send money to its proxies without those weapons, without that money, the Houthis, frankly, are an annoying prick in the Saudi backside. Without that funding, Hezbollah is nowhere near what it became over the past few decades, and the same goes for the rest of the Iranian proxies.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

How does this affect the conflict in Gaza with Hamas?

Matthew Levitt:

Look, Nasrallah hitched his wagon to Hamas by announcing that he would continue targeting Israel with near daily rocket attacks so long as there was not a ceasefire. That gave Hamas leader yikes in war and Gaza even more leverage. And while it's true that Prime Minister Netanyahu was sometimes playing hardball over control of the Philadelphi corridor, etc.

US officials that I've spoken to have been involved in this process say that the reason there hasn't been a ceasefire deal of the past few weeks is entirely Hamas fault, because Hamas moved the goalposts on which specific Hamas leaders were to be in prison were to be released in the first round, wanting the worst of the worst now, probably thinking there wouldn't be a second round, and there's no way the Israelis were going to be able to do that. One thing that this does is it demonstrates to Hamas just how serious Israel is.

I mean, Hamas is far less dangerous than Hezbollah, and if Israel's willing to do all of this against Hezbollah, Hamas has to understand like this is not ending anytime soon. There's also talk about whether or not the Iranians turn to Hamas at some point and try and find a face saving way for Hamas to say, Okay, well, we'll take a ceasefire, because that would provide Hezbollah face saving way to say, Okay, now we're going to stop the rockets, which maybe would end the Israeli onslaught targeting Hezbollah. I think that that is not a likely scenario, but it is a real scenario.

Iran is not going to sacrifice Hezbollah its crown jewel in its proxy network for Hamas, and so there's lots of ways this goes, but it ultimately doesn't change the fact that Hamas is still holding hostages, that the time is running out for these hostages, as painful as it is to to articulate that And that Israel is still fighting on multiple fronts,

Manya Brachear Pashman:

How should the US respond? Or should the US even participate in this?

Matthew Levitt:

The US should not participate in this, and the Israelis will not ask Israel to the United States to participate in this. They never have. The United States, the administration has come out with very clear messages saying that Israel has a right to defend itself, and understanding that this is in response to 11 and a half months of your daily shelling. This is not an Israeli escalation. It is a long, long delayed Israeli response.

They understand that the Israeli war cabinet, before this all started, before the pages went off, they expanded the war goals not to include the destruction of Hezbollah, not even to include a goal of destroying as many of Hezbollah's missiles as possible. The war goal is very clear, to enable the 60,000 plus Israelis displaced from their homes to be able to go home after 11 and a half months. And to do that, they have to deal with the rocket threat, and they have to deal with the threat of a cross border, October 7-style invasion by Hezbollah, of the type by the way, that Hezbollah is apparently plotting when Israel took out Ibrahim Akhil and a bunch of other Radwan special forces commanders last week.

And so I think the administration understands that. The administration also just concluded a very significant arms deal with Israel that will provide Israel the weaponry it needs to defend itself. And the United States has also sent naval assets in particular to the region as a signal to Iran in particular, don't get involved. And I think that has been a message that the Iranians have also heard.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Just as in the Gaza conflict, there have been calls for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon because of the level of civilian casualties and the possibility of escalating violence. Matt, what's your take?

Matthew Levitt:

Two things can be true. There is more work to be done, and this is having devastating consequences. As we saw in Gaza we are seeing in Lebanon. The consequence of a militant terrorist group establishing military infrastructure behind and under civilian infrastructure, and hiding behind human shields. And there's only so much warning you can do, and the Israelis have sent warnings–get out of Dakia, they sent warnings on cell phones in Lebanon, you know, if there are rockets near your house, get out.

There's only so much you can do. The Israelis are now, in a matter of days, dismantling more of the Hezbollah military infrastructure and firepower that has been built. Over decades now than they have over many, many, many, many years. And so there'll be calls in Israel to continue to push to not mitigate or even degrade, but to destroy as much of the military threat that Hezbollah has been posing as possible. There will also be calls for taking the win and not going in on the ground, because a ground war could be dangerous for Israeli soldiers. It could get Israelis bogged down, and there'll be a political debate there.

But whether Israel really needs some type of new security zone in the south, plenty of people are kind of saying, we saw that movie. It didn't go so well. Don't go there again. But there is a real feeling in Israel that that they have to do whatever it is they have to do to not reassert deterrence, but to actually degrade the threat and enable people to go back to their lives after you know, it's, it's almost a year from the south and the north.

These are not, these are not easy decisions, and we should not take lightly at all, the consequence for civilians in Gaza, the consequence for civilians in Lebanon, and, of course, consequence for civilians in Israel too. War is horrible, and I blame Hamas and Hezbollah for starting one on October 7th and 8th.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Well, it sounds like you need to write a new chapter for your book.

Matthew Levitt:

Wow. A week after the last new chapter came out, but you're not wrong.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Thank you so much, Matt. Really appreciate you joining us.

Matthew Levitt:

It's really such a pleasure to be here. I really look forward to doing another AJC podcast on a much more uplifting topic sometime in the near future. But until then, let's hope that the region becomes more secure and that the ground is laid for us to have that kind of calmer conversation in the near future.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
At the UN General Assembly: Jason Isaacson Highlights Israel's Challenges and the Fight Against Antisemitism
26 sep· People of the Pod
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: [email protected]

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.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
From Rocket Attacks to Exploding Pagers: Michael Oren on Escalating Tensions Between Israel and Hezbollah
20 sep· People of the Pod
In this episode of People of the Pod, Ambassador Michael Oren dives into Israel's escalating conflict with Hezbollah, which has turned Israel’s northern border into a war zone and caused 60,000 to remain displaced from their homes. Oren emphasizes Israel’s need to defend itself on multiple fronts, including threats from Hamas, the Houthis, and Iran, warning of the risk of all-out war. He also discusses the formation of the Israel Advocacy Group (IAG) to bolster Israel's media and diplomatic efforts and shares how his vision for Israel’s future, as outlined in 2048: The Rejuvenated State, remains critical post-conflict.

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

The Forgotten Exodus:

Explore the untold stories of Jews from Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, and more.

People of the Pod:

Paris 2024: 2 Proud Jewish Paralympians on How Sports Unites Athletes Amid Antisemitism

The DNC with AJC: What You Need to Know about the Democratic Party’s Israel Platform

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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 Michael Oren:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Michael Oren served as Israel's ambassador to the United States between 2009 and 2013. As ambassador, he was instrumental in securing US support for Israel's defense and upholding Israel's right to security. His current role isn't all that much different.

After October 7, he launched the Israel Advocacy Group (IAG), which has worked to strengthen diplomatic relations for the Jewish state and support Israelis during wartime. Ambassador Oren is with us now to explain the challenge Israelis are now facing. Ambassador Oren, welcome to People of the Pod.

Michael Oren:

Good to be with you, Manya.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Ambassador, you are touring the US with residents of Northern Israel who've been displaced by near daily attacks from Hezbollah terrorists across the border with Lebanon. As we speak, Israel is conducting a military operation in Beirut. Can you tell us what is happening and why?

Michael Oren:

Okay, let me begin by saying that Israel has not taken credit from the pager and walkie talkie attacks Has not. And so we want to avoid that type of symmetry, because on one hand, Hezbollah is very proud of the fact that they're firing hundreds of rockets and hundreds of explosive drones at civilians in Israel. Literally. Israel's not taking that credit. Okay.

So let's begin with this. October 8, a day after the horrendous Hamas assault on southern Israel. Hezbollah, out of a vowed desire to show solidarity with Hamas, opened fire on Northern Israel. To date, about 10,000 rockets, explosive domes, have been fired at Galilee. It began along the immediate border, some 18 communities along the immediate border, but it creeped downward. Creeped downward now where rockets are falling along the Sea of Galilee, which is in southern Galilee, and moving its way toward Haifa, nd the suburbs of Haifa, moving westward.

100,000 Israelis have been rendered homeless. 10s of 1000s of acres of farmland, forest land have been incinerated. 1000s of houses have been destroyed, and dozens of people have been wounded and killed, as well. Civilians, as well as military. The entire North has been transformed into a war zone. Cities that you know, like Kiryat Shmona, Metula, are ghost towns today.

One of the members of our delegation, Her home was rocketed in Metula yesterday. Is the 215th home destroyed by Hezbollah in that once beautiful, beautiful town of Metula. So that's the objective situation. Is it an utterly, utterly unprovoked attack on the land and the people of Israel. And Israel, of course, has to defend itself.

The great complaint among the people of the north, it is that the state has not done enough to defend the people of the north. And so any actions now taken, including last night, where Israeli warplanes were attacking Hezbollah emplacements and targets, not just in southern Lebanon, but throughout Lebanon, is very much welcomed by the people of the north. So they have yet to see how the state intends to return them and store them to their homes.

I'll just add one more point that is widely misunderstood in this country. There's a notion that somehow, if a ceasefire is attained with Hamas in Gaza, which is highly, highly unlikely, but if it is attained, then Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, said, he too will accept a ceasefire, but a ceasefire will restore the status quo of October 6. And Israelis simply won't go back to their homes if the situation that obtained on October 6 where Hezbollah was exactly on the opposite side of the fence, no one's going back to communities that are opposite side of the fence, because now we know what terrorists can do to Israelis on the other side of that fence, our side of the fence.

So there is really no alternative but to drive Hezbollah back. It's to drive them back beyond the Litani River, which meanders opposite our northern border, between 13 and 20 kilometers. There's a diplomatic initiative by American Special Envoy Amos Hochstein to try to convince Hezbollah to retroactively implement Resolution 1701, of the Security Council. It's from 200. They called on his Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litani River. Hezbollah never accepted it. Hezbollah violates it daily, flagrantly. I wish Mr. Hochstein all the best of luck. I don't know what leverage he can bring to bear to convince Hezbollah to implement 1701 but barring that, Israel will have absolutely no choice to push Hezbollah back physically from that fence.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

In fact, returning residents home, to their homes in northern Israel has become a war goal. The cabinet has just announced this week, right?

Michael Oren:

Well, it's about time. It's about 11 months too late.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So I guess, what does that mean? Does that mean that this conflict with Hezbollah or Lebanon could escalate?

Michael Oren:

Oh, I would expect it would escalate. Yes, and that we have to prepare it for any scenario, including an all out war. Now, an all out war is no small thing. It's a war that's many times more severe than that, with Hamas in the South. First of all, Hezbollah is one of the largest military forces anywhere, not just in the Middle East. It's got upwards of 170,000 rockets hidden under villages, under hundreds of villages. It has a fighting force of terrorists that's three, four times that of Hamas. It has cyber capabilities. And it's not just Hezbollah. It's the Shiite militias that are backed by Iran and in Iraq and Syria, the Huthi rebels in Yemen. We know that they can fire Israel well. And there's Iran itself. Iran, which, on April 14, launched 315 rockets at Israel.

So the IDF estimate for rocket fire per day in any war with Hezbollah could reach as much as 10,000 rockets a day. And that will overwhelm our multi-tiered anti-missile system. We will require assistance from the United States, and even then, it will be quite a challenge.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

As you mentioned, this is all happening simultaneously with the war against Hamas in Gaza. Yes, Houthis also are firing rockets, one of which, I think at least one reached, or almost reached, central Israel just this past week. And I mean, how many fronts is Israel fighting on right now? And could this escalate? Could, though, that number of fronts grow even more?

Michael Oren:

Well, right now we're at about seven fronts, according to the defense Minister's calculation. So what is it? It the North. It is the south. It is the Huthis, very much to the south, but are capable of firing into Tel Aviv. It is the Judean Samaria, the West Bank front, which is very severe indeed.

So that's just sort of the bottom line of the fronts we're firing. We're also fighting a front against Iran, more distantly, against the Shiite and militias in Iraq and Syria. So a multi, multiple front war. And make no mistake about it, this is an existential struggle for the State of Israel.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And you said that returning to October 6 or what the status was on October 6 is now not acceptable. I mean, was there a short window of time where that was, what the wish and the hope was? And that has shifted.?

Michael Oren:

I think it was lost on October 7. So if you were to go to Metula on October 6, you could stick your hand through the fence, and I wouldn't recommend you do this. You could stick your hand through the fence, and you would touch Hezbollah. They're right there. And the people of Matula and other communities along that border simply won't go back under those circumstances. And you can understand why.

I don't know if you have young children, I don't think you put your children in a house that's looking at Hezbollah across from a fence. Now we know what terrorists can do to Israeli families, civilians, women, babies, who are on the other side of the fence. And a fence is no guarantee against any assault.

The people from the north also believe that there are still tunnels under that fence that we haven't discovered all of the Hezbollah tunnels. There are people in our delegation from the north who believe that Hezbollah still has tunnels that have not been detected under that fence, because Hamas digs tunnels in sand, Hezbollah digs tunnels in rock, and they're deeper and harder to detect.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You said that you wondered, if I have small children, I do. I have two small children. We go to well, they're not. They're getting less small by the day. But it made me think of a column that you wrote back in March for The Forward about how Jews are cursed to be a lonely people.

And I actually gave a speech to our synagogue congregation just last week, talking about how I was so grateful to be part of a congregation on October 6, celebrating Simchat Torah when I woke up on October 7, because otherwise I would have felt and my children would have felt so alone. And I am curious where you were on October 7, and how you have combated that loneliness, that lonely feeling.

Michael Oren:

Hm. Well, I had an unusual experience. On October 5, I was giving a speech in Dallas, Texas, and the speech was interesting, because at the end of my remarks, I told the audience that I believe that Israel would soon be going to war. And everyone gasped, and I'd actually been briefing foreign diplomatic personnel about this for about two weeks.

And the reason I thought Israel was going to war was because of the divisions within Israeli society, the divisions within American societies, that Iranians were following very, very closely. But the most important point was that the United States was trying to broker a peace agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and as part of that deal, Saudi Arabia was going to get nuclear power.

And my line was that if anybody thought that the Iranians would sit quietly while the Saudis got nuclear power, they were kidding themselves, and the Iranians would start a war. All right, I had other information, but that was the major thrust. So two days later, I was coming back to Israel. I was stopping off at my mother's house in New Jersey, woke up to the messages you never want to receive on your cell phone, which is, are you okay? Are you okay? Are you okay? And learned about this.

Now for many years through the generosity of the Singer Foundation. Whenever there's a national emergency, I'm immediately put on television. So starting on the morning of October 7, I was on CNN, MSNBC throughout the day, called some friends in ElAl and got myself on the first flight out of Newark that night, and landed in a war zone the next morning and went immediately to work.

So around a small kitchen table in my house, a group of volunteers together formed an emergency NGO called the Israel Advocacy Group, because what can I say, the state wasn't doing a particularly excellent job in defending itself in the media and other forums. And what began as a small sort of a ma and pa operation around the kitchen table has now become the Israel advocacy group, IAG, dealing with international media, mainstream, non mainstream, and with track two diplomacy.

So track two diplomacy is what we're doing in Washington now by bringing the delegations to the hill. We've had meetings on the hill with both parties, both houses, and today we're in the White House. So we've gone to the White House twice with these delegations. That's tracked two diplomacy and so it's a big undertaking.

So my way of dealing with the loneliness is certainly joining with other people, especially young people, who are committed to defending Israel in every possible form. I'm very blessed because I'm a member of a community in Jaffa, a kehilla, which is just wonderful and, of course, the family, the family, the family. Tammy, my, my beloved and children and grandchildren, 6.5 and counting.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You are heading up this Israel advocacy group that's post October 7. But before October 7, you had started a think tank. I don't know if you would call it an advocacy group. I've been calling it a think tank. Called Israel 2048. You also wrote a book titled 2048: The Rejuvenated State.

It was published in one single volume in English, Hebrew and Arabic, very, very symbolically. And I'm curious if this vision that you laid out for the next century of the Jewish state, is it stalled by all of this?

Michael Oren:

So first of all, 2048 it was a project that grew out of my time in Knesset, and I was the deputy in the prime minister's office, and sort of realizing that Israel is so bogged down in its daily crises, little do we know what a daily crisis was, that we never really think about our future. And the goal was to envision the Jewish state on its 100th birthday. Our 100th birthday would be 2048, and how can we assure a second successful century? What changes had to be made in the State of Israel? And they're pretty big, far reaching changes.

And it began as a discussion group online. We had a 2048 seminar at the Hartman Institute with Natan Sharansky for about a year, then covid hit and retreated to the room and wrote this book. It's an 80 page manifesto that covers 22 aspects of Israeli society. Its educational policy, social policy, health policy, foreign policy, America-Israel diaspora relations, of course, the US relations and the peace process.

Certainly the largest section on the peace process and our relationship with Israeli Arabs, the Haredi issue, the ultra orthodox issue, the Bedouin issue. It's all in 80 quick pages. And the idea of the book was to sort of to spur conversation, especially among young people within Israel and in the United States elsewhere in the diaspora. In the way Zionist thinkers used to think about the future Jewish state, starting in the 1880s up to the 1940s. Huge literature on what this Jewish state was going to look like. And we seem to have lost the ability to have that sort of broad discussion about our future. And it was going very, very well, the discussion.

It was not a think tank. It was actually an anti think tank. I didn't want to produce any papers. I just wanted to have discussions. When the war broke out. Looking back at this book now, it is actually a better seller now than it was before the war, because many of the problems that were revealed by the war were anticipated by the book. And it's actually more crucial now than ever before.

You know, Manya, I’m often asked, What wars does this war most resemble? Is it the 67 war where we were surrounded by enemies, the 73 war, when we were surprised by our enemies? But truly, the war that most resembles this one is the War of Independence, where we are fighting on multiple fronts, in our neighborhoods, in our communities, and everybody's in the army. And the tremendous, tremendous cost.

So really, we're in a second Israel war of independence. And that's the bad news. The good news is we get to rebuild afterward the way we rebuilt post 1948. I don't know any other manifesto that sets out the goals that we have to strive if we're going to have a successful Second War of Independence. Certainly, we have to address the Haredi issue. That's not sustainable.

We have to address the Bedouin issue, you know, the IDF secured the release of one of the hostages several weeks ago, a Bedouin gentleman. It was an extraordinary event, definitely praiseworthy, but that Bedouin had two wives, and had settled illegally on state land, and that sort of it was indicative of the type of problems we face with a Bedouin that no one's addressing.

But it's also our education system. How can we proceed and a road to some type of better relationship with the Palestinians? How can we maintain unity within Israel, within the Jewish world? Everything from the Kotel to teaching math on a high school level in a Haredi school.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

How dismaying that there are so many wars to choose from for comparison. But I, but I appreciate the one that you the analogy that you've made and the hope that that carries with it. So, Ambassador Oren, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you.

Michael Oren:

Thank you. Let me say Shana Tova.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Shana Tova.

Michael Oren:

I also want to give a special thank you to the American Jewish Committee. Yesterday morning, we through the office under the aegis of the the AJC, our delegation of displaced northerners met with about 20 representatives of the diplomatic community here in Washington, including the German ambassador, the Czech ambassador, the Slovakian ambassador, diplomats from Spain, Italy, and for the first time, this diplomatic community was able to hear firsthand what it is to live under daily Hezbollah rocket and drone fire, to be displaced from their homes, and it was extremely important. We're very, very grateful to AJC.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Ambassador Oren, thank you so much for joining us.

Michael Oren:

Thank you.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with two proud Jewish Paralympians on how sports can unite athletes amid antisemitism, which surfaced during the Paris 2024 Olympic Games.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
Paris 2024: 2 Proud Jewish Paralympians on How Sports Unites Athletes Amid Antisemitism
9 sep· People of the Pod
Following Hamas’ October 7 massacre of Israelis, antisemitism has infiltrated nearly every part of society – including the world of sports. At the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, Israeli athletes faced death threats and “Heil Hitler” salutes.

U.S. Paralympian Tahl Leibovitz, an Israeli-American, knows this hatred firsthand, having been targeted both on and off the court simply for being Jewish. Together with fellow Paralympian Ian Seidenfeld, the Para Table Tennis champions reflect on how they’ve seen sports serve as a powerful unifying force, despite the challenges.

___

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

The Forgotten Exodus:

Season 2 out now exploring the untold stories of Jews from Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, and more.

People of the Pod:

The DNC with AJC: What You Need to Know about the Democratic Party’s Israel Platform

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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 Ian Seidenfeld and Tahl Leibovitz:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

It is always a joy to watch the Olympic Games with my children. I must confess, not until I had children, did I watch the Paralympics. If you want to see strength, grit, and resilience on a heroic level, behold British cyclist Sarah Story claim her 18th gold. My son’s favorite sports are wheelchair tennis and table tennis.

So he was particularly excited when I told him that I had the opportunity to sit down with two proud Jewish athletes who competed in this year’s Paralympic games in Paris. Twenty-three year old Ian Seidenfeld and 49-year-old Tahl Leibovitz are members of the USA 2024 Para Table Tennis team. They are here to talk about their approach to the sport and what it means to be a Jewish athlete.

Ian, Tahl: welcome to People of the Pod.

Ian Seidenfeld:

Thank you. I'm happy to be here.

Tahl Leibovitz:

It is really good to be here. I'm very excited about this.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So what drew you to this sport, to table tennis? Ian, how about you start us off?

Ian Seidenfeld:

Yeah, I don't know if I was ever interested in table tennis, but my dad was the table tennis coach, runs the table tennis in Minnesota with the Minnesota Table Tennis Federation, so it was always kind of just a part of life in that when I was four or five years old I'd want to go with my dad to work and kind of be around him and play. And it just happened to be table tennis that he was coaching. So I didn't even know what was going on, but it was something that I enjoyed to do to kind of hang out with my dad a little bit.

Tahl Leibovitz:

I was in the South Beach Boys and Girls Club that was kind of in Queens, South Richmond Hill. And I had a lot of different things. I was doing martial arts there, which I really liked a lot. And my trainer was saying, if you do table tennis it can help you with your reflexes. You're gonna be faster. And I started doing table tennis, and I kind of got drawn into it, and I really like the challenge of it. It's very similar to chess – it's like chess and running at the same time. I do a lot of jiu-jitsu now, it's similar to that. You're trying to solve things. So it's very interesting.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Tahl, you were born with a physical disability that makes it difficult to kind of move on your feet and to straighten your arms or flex your wrists. So I'm curious how you've balanced that. How have you overcome that?

Tahl Leibovitz:

Another good question, and most people don't even ask that, and that's probably somebody that had been playing table tennis probably for like, 10 or 20 years would kind of notice I have osteochondromas, so I have limited supination and pronation. You can't really see if I'm walking, can't see any disability, but I have bone tumors all over my body. They're benign, so it restricts movement. So to answer that, I had to find a way to adapt.

So when I hold the racket, I change the grip a lot. And I would say the two things that I never thought I would become this great player. You know, you never really know. But when I was watching the best athletes in the country in the world, I started competing against them eventually. And I started trying to think, ‘Okay, what, you know, what would be difficult? How could I make their match difficult?’ Not trying to beat them, but how can I make these matches very difficult for them?

I started doing that a lot, and then I built the style. And then, of course, you know, really believing that you can compete against anyone. I say those two things, and then I don't know, I started, I don't know what happened after. It took about eight years, and I just started doing really well, both in the able-bodied and the para competition.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Ian, can you talk a little bit about the preparation and training process for the Paralympics and other competitions as well?

Ian Seidenfeld:

Table tennis training, a lot of it happens on the table, as you might imagine. So we're on the table for two to three hour practice sessions. And then what I try and do outside of table tennis is, for me, cardio on the bike. I live near a lake, Lake Bde Maka Ska in Minnesota, and so it's a very beautiful lake to ride around and get that kind of cardio in, two to three days a week, and then playing on the table three to four days a week for myself.

A lot of it is that hand-eye coordination is the biggest part, being able to react to the ball movement much quicker than others, I think is a defining factor, along with being able to understand spin. That's maybe the biggest difference in table tennis compared to other racquet sports, is the amount of spin we can get on the ball.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Do you have a signature move or kind of signature maneuver that you use to best your opponents?

Ian Seidenfeld:

I think my best thing is variation. Because of my disability of dwarfism, I have shorter limbs, so I can't reach or move as far as others. So I try and control the table with angle of play as well as spin and speed variation. So it's a very, we'll call it a thinker's game, trying to outsmart the opponent some ways and keep things very uncomfortable for them. That's kind of what I try and do to my opponents.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

That’s great, keep them guessing as to what's coming their way. I love that. Well what have been some of your challenges? In other words, are there particular strategies or moves that other players use that you have really tried to get better at confronting?

Ian Seidenfeld:

Yeah, there's a lot of different things. As I said, with my disability, with dwarfism, a short stature and shorter limbs, I have had people use a short serve against me, so that I can't reach the serve to start off the point. And we've kind of fought over the last five or six years for me to be able to use a paddle extension, which will basically allow me to reach the first serve and then take the extension off and play like a normal point afterwards. So that's, for me, kind of a big difference. The other big difference for my disability would be I can't play as long because my joints are very malformed, so I have higher levels of inflammation sooner. So I kind of practice less than most people.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So it seems like that would be something that they would regulate or accommodate. I'm kind of surprised that they would even allow a short serve in that kind of circumstance.

Ian Seidenfeld:

From how my dad described the Paralympics to me when he was playing in 1988 in Barcelona, he had won a gold medal there. At the time, it was probably more about building community and acceptance among disabilities. Just because we have a disability, we're not necessarily accepting of other disabilities.

And so in those instances, you can see, back then it was, you were kind of learning to be around other people and accept their differences. I think now we've gotten to the point where a lot of it is about this higher level of competition, and so that competitive aspect has changed things a lot more. So maybe the short serves and things, tactics that might be considered underhanded are a little bit more accepted than I'd like it to be. But who am I to argue? I'm happy to just to be able to play.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You mentioned your father, Ian. He was a champion in the 1980s. He is now the coach of the U.S.A. Paralympic team. What other mentors or support systems have both of you had along the way?

Ian Seidenfeld:

Yeah, I think family is the biggest crutch for all of us. I know for my teammate, Jensen, he's the same age as me, and so he has a very good support system with his parents and his brother. And myself, with my parents and my sister, I think we were able to confide in them very honestly and speak candidly about everything that we're feeling.

I recently had been talking to an energy coach as well, someone to kind of give better levels of positive energy, being able to stay more present in the moment and not get ahead of myself, and I tend to guide towards the negative aspects of things, getting upset or getting annoyed or frustrated. And so I'm trying my best to get out of that.

And so I have been talking to someone to kind of help with staying positive in tougher times. So it's really about being able to be honest with yourself and with other people, and not afraid to reach out. Because, as an athlete that's competing in Paris, a lot of people want to help and do their best for you, and so you just have to be able to communicate in a mature way.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And what about you Tahl – what does your support system look like?

Tahl Leibovitz:

Yeah, you know, that's probably one of the most important things, is when you connect to people that are, you know, trying to help you along the way. Of course, my coach Sean O’Neill has been a very good mentor. He's a two-time Olympian, five-time national champion. He's helped me greatly, helped me study for, you know, when I was doing my social work exams. We also have a lot of great coaches. Mitch Seidenfeld is our head coach. We have Vlad Farcas. He's amazing. He's, you know, a really good friend and somebody that runs the program as well.

But I would say, yeah, those three individuals, and there's another person, Dr. Dov Copler, who's practicing medicine. He's helped me a lot as well. Of course, my wife, I've been married for more than 20 years, she's unbelievable, and we're, you know, best friends, and she's helped me, you know, without her, I probably couldn't make these achievements not be possible.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I'm curious, has your Jewish identity played a role in your athletic success, your academics or your professional careers?

Ian Seidenfeld:

Yeah, my Jewish identity. So I'm a reform Jew, but I think it's a lot about the community and family that I have that's really important to me, and I've been able to look up to them and what they've done in their careers and their lives, and how they kind of view life in a lot of ways, to just enjoy it, enjoy family. And so I think I've taken a lot of that as being very important to me, being able to try and pursue both career and being consistent with my family.

Tahl Leibovitz:

I was born in Israel. You know, I was born in Haifa. Obviously, I'm very connected to Israel. And I went to a thing called the Maccabi Games that was in 1997, that was my first games. And the people, the experience, it was just so amazing. And that's the first time I had been back to Israel. I'm trying to think, I was 22 years old, I think at that time. So I would say, yeah, Israel, I feel so good there. There's a very good connection to being there. So that's the positive note and, you know, and also coming up, you know, on a negative thing. You know, being Jewish, of course, it's not easy in some ways, you know, I went through, in a lot of obstacles and different things because of that.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So can you talk a little bit about some of the obstacles that you have encountered along that being Jewish have presented?

Tahl Leibovitz:

When I grew up – well, I lived in the street when I was a boy, you know, for maybe 13 to about 21 but it's interesting before that, even when I was, I grew up in Howard Beach, and then eventually I was living in kind of, like, by Cypress Hills in New York City. And there's, like, a shame that being Jewish, like I was, you know, is like, in some way, from my peers, like I wasn't around a lot of Jewish people, and they were, you know, they make fun of you.

They like, you feel this, and I didn't know anything really. I was only a kid, but I think having my grandfather was, like, a really good, I mean, he made a, you know, spending time with him was a big difference. He was a Holocaust survivor. One thing I learned from him, which I think is so important, I think more people should do. When you look at the Jewish community, it's like the family. There's a very strong sense of family. And I feel, even when I'm in Israel, because I'm very good friends with a lot of people on the table tennis team, the Israeli Center, I feel such a good connection, like I feel really a part of something, and that is really important.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So in other words, being part of that sports community and a team, there's something kind of Jewish about that and that family feel. You spoke about the negative. Of course, Israeli athletes competing in Paris, some have received death threats and hate messages online, and then at the soccer match between Israel and Paraguay, spectators were yelling Heil Hitler during the Israeli national anthem. As a Jewish athlete, as an Israeli-born Jewish athlete, is this hate something that you have encountered along the way, or is this hate just reserved for the athletes representing Israel?

Tahl Leibovitz:

You know, I'll say two things to that. The first being that, you know, obviously, what happened, you know, in October of last year. You feel something. You could say whatever you want. There's no words. I feel like I've overcome a lot of adversity, but to feel that, like, that you can't do anything. You feel so badly, you know. So there's a connection, I think, you know from all of us that is the first thing. So, and you look at what's happening in the schools, Columbia University, and a lot of these things, so there is a heightened sense of antisemitism, for sure.

And I would say that does happen. I'll give you one quick example, which is very, very interesting. I had to play a league match. This wasn't even too long ago, just two months ago, so to play a league match. And there were, you know, I'm not saying these people are bad or good, but they were from Egypt. There were two players, and then they, they came in and they said, ‘Do you know where we were?’

And I was like, ‘Okay, where were you guys at?’ And they said, ‘Well, we're in the mosque, and we were praying for the destruction of Israel. We were praying that Israel would be destroyed.’ I'm about to start a match with these guys, and, you know, obviously I'm a therapist, so, you know, I have a lot, you know, patients, and I ended up winning against them. So they were not too happy. But the point is that I tend to think about, like when people bring that, they have great difficulties within themselves.

And of course, you can match that, you know, with it, with anything you know. You can be aggressive with them. But I find if people sit long enough in some of these, I don't know if you want to call it delusions that they have, because a lot of people, we're just human beings. People hate Jewish people for no reason, like, it's like, they don't even know me. It's like, you're hating somebody for something, you don't even know them. So I think when people sit with that, they tend to, you know, they spend a little more time with you. Sports can do that too. It kind of humanized people together.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

That's interesting. You have actually called your birthplace your favorite place on earth. And I'm curious, how do you honor both your American and Israeli identities while representing the United States in competition?

Tahl Leibovitz:

Yeah, that's a very good question. And I would say for me, the thing, because I've been to a lot of different tournaments, the Paralympics, a lot of different things, the most incredible experience for me has been like I mentioned the Maccabi Games. So that's one thing, and I stay connected, you know, and it's also not just what I'm doing. Look, I'm a table tennis player, I do the best I can. But, you know, there's some people that I've, you know, there's a student I work with. Her name is Estee Ackerman. She does a lot of public speaking. She was a great player.

We, you know, I trained her for many years. So you, kind of, I would say the answer is this sort of community, you know, and to and to be connected to yourself, and also to be even in therapy, you know, actually, I'll say one other thing. I could say a lot. I work for a few, I have contracted a few different places. And I said to one place, you know, after this thing happened in Israel, I said, and again, I have no special ability.

I just said, look, send me the people that were affected by Israel. I said, those are the people I want to work with now. I said, send me as many as you can, as much as you can. And then I started working with them. And it is, the truth is, it's profoundly effective. Like there were, you know, these people that can't function at work. You know, it's something, some of them were very connected, they're affected in some way, obviously. So I just give what I can. I can't change the world, but I know, like, I can give the best I can to people, and even if I do my small part, it's okay.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So after this year's Paralympics, what’s next?

Ian Seidenfeld:

I think the goal is really to just try and feel comfortable and try and have fun out there, and the results will come. But after the Paralympics, I work for a company called Allianz, a global insurance company, and so I plan to continue working for them afterwards, and they've been, they're a sponsor of the Olympics and Paralympics, so they've been very supportive of my training, and so I plan to continue working for them and continue training for the next World Championships and Maccabi Games, and we actually have our own Allianz Olympics coming up in 2026, so there's a lot more table tennis to be played, and ultimately I hope to compete in LA 2028 so I might take a month or two off, but other than that, it'll be back to training as usual.

Tahl Leibovitz:

Well I set a goal that I wanted to try to continue to 2028 since I won my first gold medal in 1996. That was my biggest achievement. And so now I'm saying, all right, we have 2028 in LA, so I will continue to 2028. I'm in pretty good, playing pretty well, doing a lot of fitness. So I feel okay. And yeah, probably do that, and then I will see. Most likely I will retire, I think, although people keep pushing me to do another two, but that would be 2036 would be my last one. So it's a little, I’m 50 years old, almost, so, but we'll see. I think 2028, then I'll reevaluate.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Well thank you both so much for joining us. Is there anything I have not asked you that you definitely want to share with our audience before we go?

Ian Seidenfeld:

I think when we're talking about acceptance and love and trying to overcome our differences and challenges, I think the Paralympics can be a very good representation of what we can all do together, as the Olympics was founded as well to find common ground among nations, and I think there is a lot of hate and rhetoric that's spoken throughout the US and throughout the world, that hopefully people will be able to watch the Olympics and Paralympics and feel a more, a greater sense of unity among people. And hopefully we won't have death threats and that kind of hate, that's really unnecessary. I hope.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Well said. Thank you so much. Ian, Tahl, Mazal Tov!

Ian Seidenfeld:

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Tahl Leibovitz:

Thank you. Thank you so much.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
The Forgotten Exodus: Tunisia – Listen to the Season 2 Premiere
30 aug· People of the Pod
Listen to the premiere episode of the second season of The Forgotten Exodus, the multi-award-winning, chart-topping, and first-ever narrative podcast series to focus exclusively on Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews. This week’s episode focuses on Jews from Tunisia. If you like what you hear, subscribe before the next episode drops on September 3.

“In the Israeli DNA and the Jewish DNA, we have to fight to be who we are. In every generation, empires and big forces tried to erase us . . . I know what it is to be rejected for several parts of my identity... I'm fighting for my ancestors, but I'm also fighting for our future generation.”

Hen Mazzig, a writer, digital creator, and founder of the Tel Aviv Institute, shares his powerful journey as a proud Israeli, LGBTQ+, and Mizrahi Jew, in the premiere episode of the second season of the award-winning podcast, The Forgotten Exodus.

Hen delves into his family's deep roots in Tunisia, their harrowing experiences during the Nazi occupation, and their eventual escape to Israel. Discover the rich history of Tunisia's ancient Amazigh Jewish community, the impact of French colonial and Arab nationalist movements on Jews in North Africa, and the cultural identity that Hen passionately preserves today. Joining the conversation is historian Lucette Valensi, an expert on Tunisian Jewish culture, who provides scholarly insights into the longstanding presence of Jews in Tunisia, from antiquity to their exodus in the mid-20th century.

___

Show notes:

Sign up to receive podcast updates here.

Learn more about the series here.

Song credits:

"Penceresi Yola Karsi" -- by Turku, Nomads of the Silk Road

Pond5:

“Desert Caravans”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Tiemur Zarobov (BMI), IPI#1098108837

“Sentimental Oud Middle Eastern”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Sotirios Bakas (BMI), IPI#797324989.

“Meditative Middle Eastern Flute”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Danielyan Ashot Makichevich (BMI), IPI Name #00855552512, United States BMI

“Tunisia Eastern”: Publisher: Edi Surya Nurrohim, Composer: Edi Surya Nurrohim, Item ID#155836469.

“At The Rabbi's Table”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Fazio Giulio (IPI/CAE# 00198377019).

“Fields Of Elysium”; Publisher: Mysterylab Music; Composer: Mott Jordan; ID#79549862

“Frontiers”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI); Composer: Pete Checkley (BMI), IPI#380407375

“Hatikvah (National Anthem Of Israel)”; Composer: Eli Sibony; ID#122561081

“Tunisian Pot Dance (Short)”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI); Composer: kesokid, ID #97451515

“Middle East Ident”; Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Alpha (ASCAP); Composer: Alon Marcus (ACUM), IPI#776550702

“Adventures in the East”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI) Composer: Petar Milinkovic (BMI), IPI#00738313833.

___

Episode Transcript:

HEN MAZZIG: They took whatever they had left and they got on a boat. And my grandmother told me this story before she passed away on how they were on this boat coming to Israel.

And they were so happy, and they were crying because they felt that finally after generations upon generations of oppression they are going to come to a place where they are going to be protected, and that she was coming home.

MANYA BRACHEAR PASHMAN: The world has overlooked an important episode in modern history: the 800,000 Jews who left or were driven from their homes in the Middle East and North Africa in the mid-20th century.

Welcome to the second season of The Forgotten Exodus, brought to you by American Jewish Committee. This series explores that pivotal moment in history and the little-known Jewish heritage of Iran and Arab nations.

As Jews around the world confront violent antisemitism and Israelis face daily attacks by terrorists on multiple fronts, our second season explores how Jews have lived throughout the region for generations–despite hardship, hostility, and hatred–then sought safety and new possibilities in their ancestral homeland.

I'm your host, Manya Brachear Pashman. Join us as we explore untold family histories and personal stories of courage, perseverance, and resilience from this transformative and tumultuous period of history for the Jewish people and the Middle East.

The world has ignored these voices. We will not. This is The Forgotten Exodus.

Today's episode: leaving Tunisia.

__

[Tel Aviv Pride video]

MANYA BRACHEAR PASHMAN: Every June, Hen Mazzig, who splits his time between London and Tel Aviv, heads to Israel to show his Pride. His Israeli pride. His LGBTQ+ pride. And his Mizrahi Jewish pride. For that one week, all of those identities coalesce.

And while other cities around the world have transformed Pride into a June version of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, Israel is home to one of the few vibrant LGBTQ communities in the Middle East. Tel Aviv keeps it real.

HEN: For me, Pride in Israel, in Tel Aviv, it still has this element of fighting for something. And that it’s important for all of us to show up and to come out to the Pride Parade because if we’re not going to be there, there’s some people with agendas to erase us and we can't let them do it.

MANYA: This year, the Tel Aviv Pride rally was a more somber affair as participants demanded freedom for the more than 100 hostages still held in Gaza since October 7th.

On that day, Hamas terrorists bent on erasing Jews from the Middle East went on a murderous rampage, killing more than 1,200, kidnapping 250 others, and unleashing what has become a 7-front war on Israel.

HEN: In the Israeli DNA and the Jewish DNA we have to fight to be who we are. In every generation, empires and big forces tried to erase us, and we had to fight. And the LGBTQ+ community also knows very well how hard it is.

I know what it is to be rejected for several parts of my identity. And I don't want anyone to go through that. I don't want my children to go through that. I'm fighting for my ancestors, but I'm also fighting for our future generation.

MANYA: Hen Mazzig is an international speaker, writer, and digital influencer. In 2022, he founded the Tel Aviv Institute, a social media laboratory that tackles antisemitism online. He’s also a second-generation Israeli, whose maternal grandparents fled Iraq, while his father’s parents fled Tunisia – roots that echo in the family name: Mazzig.

HEN: The last name Mazzig never made sense, because in Israel a lot of the last names have meaning in Hebrew.

So I remember one of my teachers in school was saying that Mazzig sounds like mozeg, which means pouring in Hebrew. Maybe your ancestors were running a bar or something? Clearly, this teacher did not have knowledge of the Amazigh people.

Which, later on I learned, several of those tribes, those Amazigh tribes, were Jewish or practiced Judaism, and that there was 5,000 Jews that came from Tunisia that were holding both identities of being Jewish and Amazigh.

And today, they have last names like Mazzig, and Amzaleg, Mizzoug. There's several of those last names in Israel today. And they are the descendants of those Jewish communities that have lived in the Atlas Mountains.

MANYA: The Atlas Mountains. A 1,500-mile chain of magnificent peaks and treacherous terrain that stretch across Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia, separating the Sahara from the Mediterranean and Atlantic coastline.

It’s where the nomadic Amazigh have called home for thousands of years. The Amazigh trace their origins to at least 2,000 BCE in western North Africa. They speak the language of Tamazight and rely on cattle and agriculture as their main sources of income.

But textiles too. In fact, you’ve probably heard of the Amazigh or own a rug woven by them. A Berber rug.

HEN: Amazigh, which are also called Berbers. But they're rejecting this term because of the association with barbarians, which was the title that European colonialists when they came to North Africa gave them.

There's beautiful folklore about Jewish leaders within the Amazigh people. One story that I really connected to was the story of Queen Dihya that was also known as El-Kahina, which in Arabic means the Kohen, the priest, and she was known as this leader of the Amazigh tribes, and she was Jewish.

Her derrogaters were calling her a Jewish witch, because they said that she had the power to foresee the future. And her roots were apparently connected to Queen Sheba and her arrival from Israel back to Africa. And she was the descendant of Queen Sheba. And that's how she led the Amazigh people.

And the stories that I read about her, I just felt so connected. How she had this long, black, curly hair that went all the way down to her knees, and she was fierce, and she was very committed to her identity, and she was fighting against the Islamic expansion to North Africa.

And when she failed, after years of holding them off, she realized that she can't do it anymore and she's going to lose. And she was not willing to give up her Jewish identity and convert to Islam and instead she jumped into a well and died.

This well is known today in Tunisia. It’s the [Bir] Al-Kahina or Dihya’s Well that is still in existence. Her descendants, her kids, were Jewish members of the Amazigh people.

Of course, I would like to believe that I am the descendant of royalty.

MANYA: Scholars debate whether the Amazigh converted to Judaism or descended from Queen Dihya and stayed.

Lucette Valensi is a French scholar of Tunisian history who served as a director of studies at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris, one of the most prestigious institutions of graduate education in France. She has written extensively about Tunisian Jewish culture.

Generations of her family lived in Tunisia. She says archaeological evidence proves Jews were living in that land since Antiquity.

LUCETTE VALENSI: I myself am a Chemla, born Chemla. And this is an Arabic name, which means a kind of belt. And my mother's name was Tartour, which is a turban [laugh].

So the names were Arabic. So my ancestors spoke Arabic. I don't know if any of them spoke Berber before, or Latin. I have no idea. But there were Jews in antiquity and of course, through Saint Augustin.

MANYA: So when did Jews arrive in Tunisia?

LUCETTE: [laugh] That’s a strange question because they were there since Antiquity. We have evidence of their presence in mosaics of synagogues, from the times of Byzantium.

I think we think in terms of a short chronology, and they would tend to associate the Jews to colonization, which does not make sense, they were there much before French colonization. They were there for millennia.

MANYA: Valensi says Jews lived in Tunisia dating to the time of Carthage, an ancient city-state in what is now Tunisia, that reached its peak in the fourth century BCE. Later, under Roman and then Byzantine rule, Carthage continued to play a vital role as a center of commerce and trade during antiquity.

Besides the role of tax collectors, Jews were forbidden to serve in almost all public offices. Between the 5th and 8th centuries CE, conditions fluctuated between relief and forced conversions while under Christian rule.

After the Islamic conquest of Tunisia in the seventh and early eighth centuries CE, the treatment of Jews largely depended on which Muslim ruler was in charge at the time.

Some Jews converted to Islam while others lived as dhimmis, or second-class citizens, protected by the state in exchange for a special tax known as the jizya.

In 1146, the first caliph of the Almohad dynasty, declared that the Prophet Muhammad had granted Jews religious freedom for only 500 years, by which time if the messiah had not come, they had to convert.

Those who did not convert and even those who did were forced to wear yellow turbans or other special garb called shikra, to distinguish them from Muslims.

An influx of Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal arrived in the 14th Century. In the 16th Century, Tunisia became part of the Ottoman Empire, and the situation of Jews improved significantly. Another group who had settled in the coastal Tuscan city of Livorno crossed the Mediterranean in the 17th and 18th centuries to make Tunisia their home.

LUCETTE: There were other groups that came, Jews from Italy, Jews from Spain, of course, Spain and Portugal, different periods. 14th century already from Spain and then from Spain and Portugal. From Italy, from Livorno, that's later, but the Jews from Livorno themselves came from Spain.

So I myself am named Valensi. From Valencia. It was the family name of my first husband. So from Valencia in Spain they went to Livorno, and from Livorno–Leghorn in English–to Tunisia.

MANYA: At its peak, Tunisia’s Jewish population exceeded 100,000 – a combination of Sephardi and Mizrahi.

HEN: When we speak about Jews from the Middle East and North Africa, specifically in the West, or mainly in the West, we're referring to them as Sephardi.

But in Tunisia, it's very interesting to see that there was the Grana community which are Livorno Jews that moved to Tunisia in the 1800s, and they brought the Sephardi way of praying.

And that’s why I always use the term Mizrahi to describe myself, because I feel like it encapsulates more of my identity. And for me, the Sephardi title that we often use on those communities doesn't feel accurate to me, and it also has the connection to Ladino, which my grandparents never spoke.

They spoke Tamazight, Judeo-Tamazight, which was the language of those tribes in North Africa. And my family from my mother's side, from Iraq, they were speaking Judeo-Iraqi-Arabic.

So for me, the term Sephardi just doesn't cut it. I go with Mizrahi to describe myself.

MANYA: The terms Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi all refer to the places Jews once called home.

Ashkenazi Jews hail from Central and Eastern Europe, particularly Germany, Poland, and Russia. They traditionally speak Yiddish, and their customs and practices reflect the influences of Central and Eastern European cultures.

Pogroms in Eastern Europe and the Holocaust led many Ashkenazi Jews to flee their longtime homes to countries like the United States and their ancestral homeland, Israel.

Mizrahi, which means “Eastern” in Hebrew, refers to the diaspora of descendants of Jewish communities from Middle Eastern countries such as: Iraq, Iran, and Yemen, and North African countries such as: Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco. Ancient Jewish communities that have lived in the region for millennia long before the advent of Islam and Christianity. They often speak dialects of Arabic.

Sephardi Jews originate from Spain and Portugal, speaking Ladino and incorporating Spanish and Portuguese cultural influences. Following their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula in 1492, they settled in regions like North Africa and the Balkans. In Tunisia, the Mizrahi and Sephardi communities lived side by side, but separately.

HEN: As time passed, those communities became closer together, still quite separated, but they became closer and closer. And perhaps the reason they were becoming closer was because of the hardship that they faced as Jews.

For the leaders of Muslim armies that came to Tunisia, it didn't matter if you were a Sephardi Jew, or if you were an Amazigh Jew. You were a Jew for them.

MANYA: Algeria’s invasion of Tunisia in the 18th century had a disproportionate effect on Tunisia’s Jewish community. The Algerian army killed thousands of the citizens of Tunis, many of whom were Jewish. Algerians raped Jewish women, looted Jewish homes.

LUCETTE: There were moments of trouble when you had an invasion of the Algerian army to impose a prince. The Jews were molested in Tunis.

MANYA: After a military invasion, a French protectorate was established in 1881 and lasted until Tunisia gained independence in 1956. The Jews of Tunisia felt much safer under the French protectorate.

They put a lot of stock in the French revolutionary promise of Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Soon, the French language replaced Judeo-Arabic.

LUCETTE: Well, under colonization, the Jews were in a better position. First, the school system. They went to modern schools, especially the Alliance [Israélite Universelle] schools, and with that started a form of Westernization.

You had also schools in Italian, created by Italian Jews, and some Tunisian Jews went to these schools and already in the 19th century, there was a form of acculturation and Westernization.

Access to newspapers, creation of newspapers. In the 1880s Jews had already their own newspapers in Hebrew characters, but Arabic language.

And my grandfather was one of the early journalists and they started having their own press and published books, folklore, sort of short stories.

MANYA: In May 1940, Nazi Germany invaded France and quickly overran the French Third Republic, forcing the French to sign an armistice agreement in June. The armistice significantly reduced the territory governed by France and created a new government known as the Vichy regime, after the central French city where it was based.

The Vichy regime collaborated with the Nazis, establishing a special administration to introduce anti-Jewish legislation and enforce a compulsory Jewish census in all of its territories including Tunisia.

Hen grew up learning about the Holocaust, the Nazis’ attempt to erase the Jewish people. As part of his schooling, he learned the names of concentration and death camps and he heard the stories from his friends’ grandparents.

But because he was not Ashkenazi, because his grandparents didn’t suffer through the same catastrophe that befell Europe, Hen never felt fully accepted.

It was a trauma that belonged to his Ashkenazi friends of German and Polish descent, not to him. Or so they thought and so he thought, until he was a teenager and asked his grandmother Kamisa to finally share their family’s journey from Tunisia. That’s when he learned that the Mazzig family had not been exempt from Hitler’s hatred.

In November 1942, Tunisia became the only North African country to come under Nazi Germany’s occupation and the Nazis wasted no time.

Jewish property was confiscated, and heavy fines were levied on large Jewish communities. With the presence of the Einsatzkommando, a subgroup of the Einsatzgruppen, or mobile killing units, the Nazis were prepared to implement the systematic murder of the Jews of Tunisia. The tide of the war turned just in time to prevent that.

LUCETTE: At the time the Germans came, they did not control the Mediterranean, and so they could not export us to the camps. We were saved by that. Lanor camps for men in dangerous places where there were bombs by the Allies. But not for us, it was, I mean, they took our radios. They took the silverware or they took money, this kind of oppression, but they did not murder us.

They took the men away, a few families were directly impacted and died in the camps. A few men. So we were afraid. We were occupied. But compared to what Jews in Europe were subjected to, we didn't suffer.

MANYA: Almost 5,000 Jews, most of them from Tunis and from certain northern communities, were taken captive and incarcerated in 32 labor camps scattered throughout Tunisia. Jews were not only required to wear yellow stars, but those in the camps were also required to wear them on their backs so they could be identified from a distance and shot in the event they tried to escape.

HEN: My grandmother never told me until before she died, when she was more open about the stories of oppression, on how she was serving food for the French Nazi officers that were occupying Tunisia, or how my grandfather was in a labor camp, and he was supposed to be sent to a death camp in Europe as well. They never felt like they should share these stories.

MANYA: The capture of Tunisia by the Allied forces in May 1943 led the Axis forces in North Africa to surrender. But the country remained under French colonial rule and the antisemitic legislation of the Vichy regime continued until 1944. Many of the Vichy camps, including forced labor camps in the Sahara, continued to operate.

Even after the decline and fall of the Vichy regime and the pursuit of independence from French rule began, conditions for the Mazzig family and many others in the Tunisian Jewish community did not improve.

But the source of much of the hostility and strife was actually a beacon of hope for Tunisia’s Jews. On May 14, 1948, the world had witnessed the creation of the state of Israel, sparking outrage throughout the Arab world. Seven Arab nations declared war on Israel the day after it declared independence.

Amid the rise of Tunisian nationalism and its push for independence from France, Jewish communities who had lived in Tunisia for centuries became targets. Guilty by association. No longer welcome. Rabbinical councils were dismantled. Jewish sports associations banned. Jews practiced their religion in hiding. Hen’s grandfather recounted violence in the Jewish quarter of Tunis.

HEN: When World War Two was over, the Jewish community in Tunisia was hoping that now that Tunisia would have emancipation, and it would become a country, that their neighbors and the country itself would protect them.

Because when it was Nazis, they knew that it was a foreign power that came from France and oppressed them. They knew that there was some hatred in the past, from their Muslim neighbors towards them.

But they also were hoping that, if anything, they would go back to the same status of a dhimmi, of being a protected minority. Even if they were not going to be fully accepted and celebrated in this society, at least they would be protected, for paying tax. And this really did not happen.

MANYA: By the early 1950s, life for the Mazzig family became untenable. By then, American Jewish organizations based in Tunis started working to take Jews to Israel right away.

HEN: [My family decided to leave.] They took whatever they had left. And they got on a boat. And my grandmother told me this story before she passed away on how they were on this boat coming to Israel.

And they were so happy, and they were crying because they felt that finally after generations upon generations of oppression of living as a minority that knows that anytime the ruler might turn on them and take everything they have and pull the ground underneath their feet, they are going to come to a place where they are going to be protected. And maybe they will face hate, but no one will hate them because they're Jewish.

And I often dream about my grandmother being a young girl on this boat and how she must have felt to know that the nightmare and the hell that she went through is behind her and that she was coming home.

MANYA: The boat they sailed to Israel took days. When Hen’s uncle, just a young child at the time, got sick, the captain threatened to throw him overboard. Hen’s grandmother hid the child inside her clothes until they docked in Israel. When they arrived, they were sprayed with DDT to kill any lice or disease, then placed in ma’abarot, which in Hebrew means transit camps. In this case, it was a tent with one bed.

HEN: They were really mistreated back then. And it's not criticism. I mean, yes, it is also criticism, but it's not without understanding the context. That it was a young country that just started, and those Jewish communities, Jewish refugees came from Tunisia, they didn't speak Hebrew. They didn't look like the other Jewish communities there. And while they all had this in common, that they were all Jews, they had a very different experience.

MANYA: No, the family’s arrival in the Holy Land was nothing like what they had imagined. But even still, it was a dream fulfilled and there was hope, which they had lost in Tunisia.

HEN: I think that it was somewhere in between having both this deep connection to Israel and going there because they wanted to, and also knowing that there’s no future in Tunisia. And the truth is that even–and I'm sure people that are listening to us, that are strong Zionists and love Israel, if you tell them ‘OK, so move tomorrow,’ no matter how much you love Israel, it's a very difficult decision to make.

Unless it's not really a decision. And I think for them, it wasn't really a decision. And they went through so much, they knew, OK, we have to leave and I think for the first time having a country, having Israel was the hope that they had for centuries to go back home, finally realized.

MANYA: Valensi’s family did stay a while longer. When Tunisia declared independence in 1956, her father, a ceramicist, designed tiles for the residence of President Habib Bourguiba. Those good relations did not last.

Valensi studied history in France, married an engineer, and returned to Tunisia. But after being there for five years, it became clear that Jews were not treated equally and they returned to France in 1965.

LUCETTE: I did not plan to emigrate. And then it became more and more obvious that some people were more equal than others [laugh]. And so there was this nationalist mood where responsibilities were given to Muslims rather than Jews and I felt more and more segregated.

And so, my husband was an engineer from a good engineering school. Again, I mean, he worked for another engineer, who was a Muslim. We knew he would never reach the same position. His father was a lawyer. And in the tribunal, he had to use Arabic. And so all these things accumulated, and we were displaced.

MANYA: Valensi said Jewish emigration from Tunisia accelerated at two more mileposts. Even after Tunisia declared independence, France maintained a presence and a naval base in the port city of Bizerte, a strategic port on the Mediterranean for the French who were fighting with Algeria.

In 1961, Tunisian forces blockaded the naval base and warned France to stay out of its airspace. What became known as the Bizerte Crisis lasted for three days.

LUCETTE: There were critical times, like what we call “La Crise de Bizerte.” Bizerte is a port to the west of Tunis that used to be a military port and when independence was negotiated with France, the French kept this port, where they could keep an army, and Bourguiba decided that he wanted this port back. And there was a war, a conflict, between Tunisia and France in ‘61.

And that crisis was one moment when Jews thought: if there is no French presence to protect us, then anything could happen. You had the movement of emigration.

Of course, much later, ‘67, the unrest in the Middle East, and what happened there provoked a kind of panic, and there were movements against the Jews in Tunis – violence and destruction of shops, etc. So they emigrated again. Now you have only a few hundred Jews left.

MANYA: Valensi’s first husband died at an early age. Her second husband, Abraham Udovitch, is the former chair of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. Together, they researched and published a book about the Jewish communities in the Tunisian island of Djerba. The couple now splits their time between Paris and Princeton. But Valensi returns to Tunisia every year. It’s still home.

LUCETTE: When I go, strange thing, I feel at home. I mean, I feel I belong. My Arabic comes back. The words that I thought I had forgotten come back.

They welcome you. I mean, if you go, you say you come from America, they're going to ask you questions. Are you Jewish? Did you go to Israel? I mean, these kind of very brutal questions, right away. They’re going there. The taxi driver won't hesitate to ask you: Are you Jewish? But at the same time, they’re very welcoming. So, I have no trouble.

MANYA: Hen, on the other hand, has never been to the land of his ancestors. He holds on to his grandparents’ trauma. And fear.

HEN: Tunisia just still feels a bit unsafe to me. Just as recent as a couple of months ago, there was a terror attack. So it's something that’s still occurring.

MANYA: Just last year, a member of the Tunisian National Guard opened fire on worshippers outside El Ghriba Synagogue where a large gathering of Jewish pilgrims were celebrating the festival of Lag BaOmer. The synagogue is located on the Tunisian island of Djerba where Valensi and her husband did research for their book.

Earlier this year, a mob attacked an abandoned synagogue in the southern city of Sfax, setting fire to the building’s courtyard. Numbering over 100,000 Jews on the eve of Israel’s Independence in 1948, the Tunisian Jewish community is now estimated to be less than 1,000.

There has been limited contact over the years between Tunisia and Israel. Some Israeli tourists, mostly of Tunisian origin, annually visit the El Ghriba synagogue in Djerba. But the government has largely been hostile to the Jewish state.

In the wake of the October 7 attack, the Tunisian parliament began debate on a law that would criminalize any normalization of ties with Israel. Still, Hen would like to go just once to see where his grandparents lived. Walked. Cooked. Prayed.

But to him it’s just geography, an arbitrary place on a map. The memories, the music, the recipes, the traditions. It’s no longer in Tunisia. It’s elsewhere now – in the only country that preserved it.

HEN: The Jewish Tunisian culture, the only place that it's been maintained is in Israel. That's why it's still alive. Like in Tunisia, it's not really celebrated. It's not something that they keep as much as they keep here.

Like if you want to go to a proper Mimouna, you would probably need to go to Israel, not to North Africa, although that's where it started. And the same with the Middle Eastern Jewish cuisine. The only place in the world, where be it Tunisian Jews and Iraqi Jews, or Yemenite Jews, still develop their recipes, is in Israel.

Israel is home, and this is where we still celebrate our culture and our cuisine and our identity is still something that I can engage with here.

I always feel like I am living the dreams of my grandparents, and I know that my grandmother is looking from above and I know how proud she is that we have a country, that we have a place to be safe at.

And that everything I do today is to protect my people, to protect the Jewish people, and making sure that next time when a country, when an empire, when a power would turn on Jews we’ll have a place to go to and be safe.

MANYA: Tunisian Jews are just one of the many Jewish communities who, in the last century, left Arab countries to forge new lives for themselves and future generations.

Join us next week as we share another untold story of The Forgotten Exodus.

Many thanks to Hen for sharing his story. You can read more in his memoir The Wrong Kind of Jew: A Mizrahi Manifesto.

Too many times during my reporting, I encountered children and grandchildren who didn’t have the answers to my questions because they’d never asked. That’s why one of the goals of this project is to encourage you to ask those questions. Find your stories.

Atara Lakritz is our producer. T.K. Broderick is our sound engineer.

Special thanks to Jon Schweitzer, Nicole Mazur, Sean Savage, and Madeleine Stern, and so many of our colleagues, too many to name really, for making this series possible.

You can subscribe to The Forgotten Exodus on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and you can learn more at AJC.org/theforgottenexodus.

The views and opinions of our guests don’t necessarily reflect the positions of AJC.

You can reach us at [email protected]. If you've enjoyed this episode, please be sure to spread the word, and hop onto Apple Podcasts or Spotify to rate us and write a review to help more listeners find us.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
The DNC with AJC: What You Need to Know about the Democratic Party’s Israel Platform
22 aug· People of the Pod
This week, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, AJC hosted a program on Israel and the path to peace. Ambassador Thomas R. Nides, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Illinois Congressman Brad Schneider (D-IL) joined us for the conversation. AJC’s chief policy officer, Jason Isaacson, who is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for a New Middle East, was moderating the program. AJC hosted a similar program on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention last month in Milwaukee.

*The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. AJC does not endorse or oppose political parties or candidates.

Episode Lineup:

(0:40) Jason Isaacson, Halie Soifer, Brad Schneider, Tom Nides

Show Notes:

Watch:

Israel and the Path to Peace - AJC at the Democratic National Convention

Listen – People of the Pod:

Is Centrism the Antidote to Political Polarization and Extremism? A Conversation with Yair Zivan

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: [email protected]

If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts.

Transcript of Panel with Jason Isaacson, Halie Soifer, Brad Schneider, Tom Nides:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

This week, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, AJC hosted a program on Israel and the path to peace. Joining us for the conversation was Ambassador Tom Nides, former US ambassador to Israel, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Illinois Congressman Brad Schneider.

Moderating the program was AJC’s chief policy officer Jason Isaacson, who is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for a New Middle East.

Just a reminder, AJC is a 501(c)3 nonpartisan organization, and AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office.

Jason Isaacson:

I really wanted to begin by citing some passages from the Democratic platform and some passages from the Republican platform relating to the Middle East. I'll just mention very briefly that the Republican platform's Middle East language is short and to the point. It says, We will stand with Israel and seek peace in the Middle East. We will rebuild our alliance network in the region to ensure a future of stability, peace, stability and prosperity.

And it also promises, very quickly, to restore peace in Europe and the Middle East. The Democratic platform is much more extensive. It's an 80 page document, a long section on the Middle East.

But it says that the administration opposes settlement expansion and West Bank West Bank annexation. Also opposes the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement against Israel. But it's very clear that the administration believes a strong, secure and democratic Israel is vital to the interests of the United States.

It's also quite specific about the necessity of defeating Hamas. I want to start my questioning with Halie Soifer. The question that's been on the minds of political reporters and many of us in the community, Haley, as you very well know, over the last 10 months of the war in Gaza, and has taken on new meaning in light of the change at the top of the Democratic ticket.

How can a Democratic candidate for president in the current highly charged environment maintain the support of the party's pro Israel mainstream while also keeping or winning back the loyalty of the increasingly active pro Palestinian segment of its constituency. What have we heard from Vice President Harris, for whom you worked in the Senate, that suggests that she can balance these competing policy claims?

Halie Soifer:

Well, thank you, Jason, thanks to everyone. I was told to project. And for those of you who are at the Global Forum, you know I know how to project, so I will try my best. But thanks for having me.

I did have the honor of working for then-Senator Harris, starting her first month in the Senate for two years as her national security advisor. And what I can tell you is, not only does she share the views of President Biden, we know that based on the past three and a half years, and their records standing with Israel in the lead up to and of course, in the aftermath of the horrific attacks of October 7.

Giving an unprecedented amount of military assistance to Israel, standing with Israel, not only in the aftermath of these attacks, but demanding the release of all of the hostages, and continuing to stand with Israel as it faces this threat from Iran, pre positioning military assets in the region, not once, but twice in the lead up to The attacks of April 13. But also, I can tell you from personal experience, her views on Israel didn't start from day one in the White House. I saw it from day one when she was in the Senate. She came to this role with over a decade of experience working on these issues. I traveled to Israel with her in November of 2017.

This is an issue that she feels deeply in terms of the importance of the US Israel relationship, Israel security, its right to self defense, and she is a staunch supporter of Israel. Have no doubt. I'm glad you started with the Democratic platform as well, because this also elaborates on what is the strongly pro Israel views of our party.

And make no mistake, it's not a coincidence that we have three pages detailing our support of Israel in our platform. It's pages 82-85 for those who would like to look it up. And it is no mistake that the Republican platform is empty platitudes. Two, two bullet points that barely say anything. Because this is an issue of which our party is deeply committed.

And it extends beyond Israel. It includes Israel's security in the Middle East and our platform, which has never been stronger. I testified before the platform committee. I was very happy to say this very strong pro Israel platform of 2020 not only should it not be diluted, it should be strengthened.

Because, of course, we have seen the horror of October 7, we should reflect the fact that we stand with Israel in this moment. We call for the release of the hostages, and of course, we unequivocally condemn Hamas.

All of that is reflected in this platform and more, including recognition of the horrific sexual violence that was perpetrated on that day, which the vice president herself has given voice to. So in terms of questioning how she can navigate this issue, she already has and she continues to stand with Israel.

I have no doubt that when she's elected in 78 days, with the strong support of the Jewish community, that she will continue to do so as President.

Jason Isaacson:

Thank you, Haile. Brad, I'm going to turn to you. The Republican Party platform had no specific references to Iran, but the Democratic platform went on at length about the need both to halt the regime's progress toward nuclear weapons capability and to confront Iran's and its proxies, destabilizing activities across the region. The Democrats document also pointed to instances of the Trump administration's failure to respond to certain Iranian provocations. Unfortunately, the Democratic platform didn't mention the fact that Trump administration was responsible for taking out IRGC Quds Force Chief, General Soleimani.

Now talk about how you imagine a Harris administration confronting the Iranian threats differently from the Biden administration. We have seen over the last three years, Iran has continued to develop its nuclear weapons capability, although it's not yet passed that threshold apparently. Its proxies are on the march across the region. We haven't really been successful in confronting Iran. Do you see a Harris administration taking a different approach?

Brad Schneider

Great question. And before I start, let me just welcome everybody to Chicago, to our great city, and those from Chicago, can you raise your hand? And I'm also going to take the personal indulgence to say it's good to be home with Chicago AJC.

Jason Isaacson:

Thank you, Brad. I should have said that.

Brad Schneider

Look, Iran is the greatest threat to Israel, to the region, but also to the United States. Our interests here in the region, but also here at home, and so we need to stand up to Iran and understand Iran is a threat on many different aspects. It's not just their nuclear program. It is their support of the proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and more. It is their efforts to expand their reach, their influence across the region, and they do so not by building up states, but by tearing them down, creating instability across the region.

Their chant is not just Death to Israel, but Death to America. I have no doubt that the Harris-Walz administration will stay focused and understands the importance of first, ensuring that Iran never, ever gets a nuclear weapon. That has to be our number one priority. Because imagine where we would have been on April 13 if Iran had a nuclear weapon. Or this past couple of weeks, if Iran had a nuclear weapon.

The second thing I think you will see is the continuation of the policy. Reflecting on April 13, Iran launched 350 drones, rockets and missiles at Israel. It was Israel, the United States, and a arrangement or alliance of other nations that defeated that attack. That sent a very clear message that we will stand up to Iran, not leaving Israel to stand alone, or the United States and Israel standing without the support of allies, but allies throughout the region.

And just as important, if you look at who those allies are and what they believe in, they are countries, Arab countries, that are looking to the future. They're looking for a different dynamic in the Middle East. You mentioned that the Trump administration took out Soleimani. The Trump administration also laid the groundwork and helped establish the Abraham Accords. That is, I believe, the framework for the future that provides security and peace, not just to Israel, but to the other nations in the region.

And so what I believe the administration, that the Harris-Walz administration will focus on is isolating Iran, ensuring Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. Thwarting Iran's effort to expand its reach through proxies and failed states, but at the same time building up and working towards a path towards peace, security and prosperity for Israel and the region. I think that reflection of forward thinking, it's not just about Israel. It's about everything.

If you were watching last night, if you were there last night [Monday night], if you've been watching this campaign as it's unfolded. Now it'll be one month tomorrow. As it unfolds, what you're seeing is a view towards a different path that gives promise and hope to a better future that is absolutely dependent on the United States. United States leadership and US leadership on a global stage will empower and help us to ensure that Iran doesn't get that foothold on the global stage and doesn't have the ability to continue with threats to Israel in the region.

Jason Isaacson:

Well, let me stay on Iran for a second with you. Do you see a Harris administration try to return to the JCPOA?

Brad Schneider

No.

Jason Isaacson:

Or has that been totally discredited?

Brad Schneider

One thing you'll see is the Harris administration. I had a long conversation with Ilan Goldberg yesterday, the recognition that we are where we are now, we all would wish we were in a different place. 10 years ago, we were focused on getting to a place to move Iran back from the threshold of a nuclear weapon, and without relitigating the JCPOA, we moved Iran further away, a year away.

Now a year away is not eliminating Iran's capacity or capability to develop a nuclear weapon, but it is buying time. And what we should have done, I will relitigate this. We should have used that time to strengthen our position, our allies’ position to improve our prospects of moving Iran further back.

Instead, what happened was the Trump administration pulled out of the JCPOA and Iran marched forward, and where they are today is far closer to a nuclear weapon than they were 10 years ago. Where they are today are talking about days away from having enough nuclear enriched uranium, highly enriched uranium, to build not one, but multiple nuclear weapons.

And they just announced that they're working on developing the triggering mechanism, the ability to convert that enriched uranium into a nuclear weapon. So the stakes are higher. The risks are higher. Iran is closer. We've got to start where we are today, and I think the new administration coming in will start at that point and look for ways to push back, to create space, and to use that space to buy time, to use that time to get us to a place where we have more security.

But we can only go there if the administration is clear. Congress is clear. It's not a partisan issue. This has to be Democrats and Republicans saying we will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and all options are available to us to ensure that Iran does not achieve their goal.

Jason Isaacson:

Brad, thank you. Ambassador Nides. We were talking earlier this morning about the Abraham Accords, and of course, Congressman Schneider just talked about that as well.

How do you see a Harris administration, building on the Abraham Accords, success, building on what the Biden administration has tried to do in normalizing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Will that be a priority for the Harris administration? What would be the obstacles that it will face as it tries to move forward in that direction.

Thomas Nides:

Well, first of all, thank you for having me. And let me give a little bit of shout out to Ted Deutch. Who is– Ted, you can't leave. I see you walking back there. Because when they decided to recruit Ted Deutsch to leave the Congress to come do this, that was your biggest, happiest day. So thank you very much for your leadership.

Let me just say there were not many things I agreed about with the Trump administration, to be clear. And when my when I was being confirmed as ambassador, one of the very nice members on the Republican side asked me, Sir, it seems to be that the Biden administration won't even talk about the Abraham Accords, and they don't even call them the Abraham Accords, I remember seeing the Senate because I'm a bit of a smart aleck, and I said, Can I explain to you something? I love the Abraham Accords, okay? I love the Abraham Accords.

The Abraham Accords was, in my view, then and is today, a foundational event. And as much as I believe that the Trump administration has done all sorts of other things, the Abraham Accords, in my view, has strengthened the State of Israel. So I congratulate them for doing it and supporting it as we have. So we should all applaud that.

And as we think about the future. Because listen, what has happened here. Even after October 7, the Bahrainians, the Moroccans and the Emiratis, they didn't abandon Israel. Quite the opposite. They've stuck with, most all of them kept their ambassadors in Israel. Most of them continue to have long involved conversations with the Prime Minister about the strength of Israel.

And in fact, several months ago, when the Iranians were attacking Israel, those same countries were indirectly helping with the United States and with Israel to protect the State of Israel, not directly, but indirectly. A lot of information sharing.

So the foundation for the Abraham Accords should be the foundation for what comes next. And what comes next. Number one, we got to get a hostage deal. For any of you – I'm leaving here to go with the hostage families. I was in Israel a couple weeks and spoke at hostage square. For all of us, for any of us, we should sit and pray to get these hostages out. And for those of you who know some of the families, it breaks my heart. We've got to get a hostage deal. The time is now, okay?

And this President and this Vice President are committed to get these hostages free, so once we can get that deal done, and that means putting pressure on Netanyahu and putting pressure on Hamas. Make no mistake, this idea that this is all about Bibi. Listen, I've got my issues with Bibi on occasions, but it's not only convincing Bibi to do what needs to be done, it also is pressuring Hamas, through the proxies, to get them to do a deal.

Once there is a hostage deal, everything starts coming into place. And what does that mean? Ultimately, would have to have a plan to rebuild Gaza. Because this fight wasn't with the Palestinian people. This fight was with Hamas, and we've got to help rebuild Gaza with a new PA, with a new group of international parties, including the Saudis and Emiratis. That's a $15 or $20 billion operation to build, rebuild Gaza. Yes, we need a new PA leadership, a new what PA leadership looks like in the future. Needs to be talked about and then, and then we need to have a conversation about normalization with Saudi Arabia.

Make no mistake, it is the single most important thing that we can do, including keeping in control of Iran, is getting a normalization with Saudi Arabia. Because it's not just Saudi Arabia, it's the rest of the Muslim world, and it's in our grasp. We can get this done. Now obviously it's a little dreamy. And how do you get the 67 votes? We'll let the geniuses on the Hill, including the congressman, figure that out.

But I do believe there is an opportunity, because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are completely committed to this. I will say one little note. Two years ago, when Joe Biden came for his 10th visit to Israel, I remember meeting him at the airport, and if you recall, it was the same it was middle of covid. It was the same time and where he decided to go to Saudi Arabia. And you remember Joe Biden during the campaign, said some fairly aggressive things about the Saudis during the Khashoggi thing and MBS.

But he was convinced by a lot of people, mostly his national security adviser and his vice president to go to Saudi Arabia. Why? Because it was good for the security of the State of Israel. He fundamentally believed that the Saudi normalization could be and should be the keys for the security of the State of Israel. So we've got to get these hostages out. We get a plan, and we need moving on a side, normalization as quickly as humanly possible.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Yair Zivan, foreign policy advisor to Israel's opposition leader, Yair Lapid, about his new book of essays “The Center Must Hold.” In that book, authors argue for a return to centrist politics as an antidote to the extremism around the globe today.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
Is Centrism the Antidote to Political Polarization and Extremism? A Conversation with Yair Zivan
15 aug· People of the Pod
“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: [email protected]

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.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
VP Picks, Media Bias, and Antisemitism: The 2024 U.S. Election and Its Impact on Israel and the Jewish People
8 aug· People of the Pod
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: [email protected]

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.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
What the Unprecedented Assassinations of Terror Leaders Means for Israel and the Middle East
1 aug· People of the Pod
This week, two major terrorist leaders were assassinated in the Middle East. Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh was killed in an explosion in Tehran, just a day after top Hezbollah leader Fuad Shukr was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Beirut in retaliation for the horrific rocket attack that killed 12 children on a soccer field in northern Israel.

What does this mean for Israel and the wider region? Is this a major setback for Iran and its terror proxies? Tune in to hear what AJC Jerusalem Director Lt. Col. (res.) Avital Leibovich, who visited the site of the terror attack in Majdal Shams, has to say.

Episode Lineup:

(0:40) Avital Leibovich

Learn:

What to Know About Hamas Terror Leader Ismail Haniyeh

What to Know About Hezbollah’s Escalation Against Israel

Listen:

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: [email protected]

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 Avital Leibovich:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

This week marked 300 days of captivity for the 115 remaining hostages kidnapped by Hamas terrorists on October 7. There was also a major development: confirmation that an operation in July led to the death of Hamas’ military leader Muhammad Deif. But there were two more assassinations this week, the leaders of two terror groups targeting Israel.

On Wednesday, we learned that Hamas terror leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed in an explosion in Tehran shortly after meeting with Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Haniyeh had been in Tehran for the inauguration of its new president. This just a day after top Hezbollah leader Fuad Shukr was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Beirut in retaliation for the horrific rocket attack that killed 12 children on a soccer field in Golan Heights. AJC Jerusalem director Avital Leibovich is with us now to discuss these developments. Avital, welcome back to People of the Pod.

Avital Leibovich:

Thank you. Manya. Good to be here.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So, Avital, my first question is, are we safer now than we were at the start of the week? Do two fewer terror leaders lead to less terror?

Avital Leibovich:

Well, I would say the world in general is a safer place with the absence of Shukr and Haniyeh. However, the neighborhood here is not changing. And unfortunately, we are still surrounded by vicious enemies, who still are seeking to see our erosion and eradication. So while I'm very happy with your outcome in the last 24 hours, I also know there's still a lot of reason for concern.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So tell us about these terror leaders. Who was Ismail Haniyeh? And what was his role with Hamas?

Avital Leibovich:

Sure. So Ismail Haniyeh, who's also, by the way, has another name, which is Abu al-Abed, he actually served as the number one political leader of Hamas since May 2017. He actually substituted in this role, Khaled Mashal and other terrorists, and before that, he actually served as the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority just for a very brief, short time between 2006 and 2007. And he actually became very close to a Hamas leader called Ahmed Yassin. And basically, he really grew into the very radical agenda of Hamas. Interesting enough, his background was totally different. I mean, even worked in Israel in the city closest to Gaza called Ashkelon. So he knows the country. He knows the mentality. So in addition to this, he also began to do some terror activity after the three years of working in Ashkelon in Israel. And then he initiated different kinds of activities. Among them was the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, a soldier who we’ll remember. And after being involved in the terror realm and the political realm, he decided to focus more on Hamas’ agenda, on Hamas’ charter. And basically, what we have seen in the last couple of years are a few things. Number one, Hania got very rich, because he received millions and millions of dollars from the Qataris.

Number two, he left Gaza and he spent the last years of his life in Qatar, in lavish hotels and apartments, enjoying great life. And this is also an indication of how much does he care about the people of Gaza.

And I want to connect to the current war and give you a quote of who Haniyeh was because I see that some of the media outlets have the nerve to call him a moderate negotiator. Therefore, I'd like to help them and share with you the following quote, which was said on October 27 — that was the first day where the IDF entered Gaza following the October 7 massacre. So he said, "We need the blood of women, children, and the elderly of Gaza, so it awakens our revolutionary spirit." This is the moderate guy that international media is referring to in their reports. He was a radical, he was a terrorist, and we had a very good opening of our day this morning when we heard the news.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And Fuad Shukr, what was his role with Hezbollah?

Avital Leibovich:

He also, you know, this is a name which is not known, I think, to many people, but he does have a French connection and an American connection — of course, an Israeli connection. The guy was number two in the level of seniority in Hezbollah. He was actually the manager of the army in a way of the Hezbollah military apparatus.

But more than that, he was a strategist, and he knew what direction should Hezbollah take in the next years. He was in charge of developing the entire missile industry that Hezbollah had, including the accurate missiles. In other words, he was a strategist but also was a practical man. Now, here's the connection that he had to the US and to France. In 1983, he was one of the orchestrators of the attack in the marine base in Beirut.

On that terrible day, 241 American marines lost their lives, but 70 French soldiers were killed as well. So as you can imagine, this terrorist Fuad Shukr has 40 years of terror activities, primarily against Israel, but also against Israeli allies. So again, I think it was a very courageous and accurate Israeli operation. And more than anything, Manya, it shows the amazing level of intelligence, where that person was exactly in which room, in which building, in which floor, and to be able to very surgically act in the right time, at the right moment and target him, I think that shows a lot for the Israeli intelligence capabilities.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Was Haniyeh part of the ceasefire and hostage release negotiations?

Avital Leibovich:

So if you look at the title that Hanieyeh had, which is the head of the political branch of Hamas, you could think that he had some impact on the decision making process with the hostage deals. But I can tell you that he had really no impact, very little impact. Because from the analysis that we have here in Israel, the main decision maker is Sinwar.

Now the question is, will the death of Haniyeh have an impact, number one on Sinwar? And therefore, number two on the hostage deal? Now, I'm not sure it will have an effect. I have to say. Sinwar is known as the longtime rival of Haniyeh. So in other words, he will not be mourning his death. But he had the last word with regard to any of the discussions on the hostages.

And at the end of the day, Sinwar said numerous times, that he's willing to die. And his ultimate goal is to make sure that Hamas has some sort of a controlling Gaza. He understands today Sinwar, that Hamas will no longer control the government, therefore, he's willing to compromise. For example, let's say Hamas will be giving the role of being in charge of the renovations in Gaza. Or perhaps they will be in charge of the education system and so on, in other words, just to have some sort of a stronghold inside Gaza in terms of governance of some sort. Now, if that will not be a part of any possible deal, then Sinwar has no interest to give a positive answer to a deal.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I am curious why Haniyeh would have met with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei before his death?

Avital Leibovich:

Hamas and Iran have different kinds of cooperation. We have seen that across the region. In other words, we have seen Hamas representatives in Lebanon, working alongside Nasrallah, the health Hezbollah, but also meeting the Iranian foreign minister, when he came to Lebanon for visits. We understand that this time around there is a clear interest which Iran supports, is to target Israel as much as possible. And obviously Iran prefers a proxy like Hamas to be representative of its own goals and intentions.

And therefore you saw Haniyeh last time, was last night paying respects for the inauguration ceremony in Iran. And according to what I'm hearing, he was also hosted in a Revolutionary Guards facility. In other words, whoever targeted Haniyeh had a great level of intelligence by knowing how to get to that specific building.

But moreover, this is a very secure area, because the Revolutionary Guards are considered the body which is the most guarded of all bodies in Iran. They're the ones controlling the budget of the Iranian government. They're the ones operating Hezbollah and other militias and proxies. So in other words, the fact that it was a Revolutionary Guards headquarters, Antonia was there and despite of all this information, the security system around him cracked. I think that sends a very loud and clear message to the Iranians.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

How is the relationship between Iran and Hamas and the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah different? Can you explain that to our audience?

Avital Leibovich:

First of all, I mean, you know, Iran is the chief orchestrator of everything that we have been seeing here since October 7, but actually before that as well. Now, I would say that with Hezbollah, it's a long love story between the two. Actually, Hezbollah was founded by Iran, quite shortly after the revolution in '79.

When the country became a fundamentalist Islamist and obviously, took the wrong path, distancing itself from the Western world. Iran actually built Hezbollah, founded Hezbollah, first the military wing, and then adding three years later the political wing. And the idea was to use them in order to attack Israel. And this is very convenient.

Think about it, Iran is 1300 kilometers away from Israel. It's not convenient to fire a rocket all the way from that country to Israel. But let's say you want to use simpler means and within half an hour to take an operation out, it's easier to use someone who's bordering with Israel. So gradually, we saw Hezbollah taking over almost the entire country. And everything had to do with Iranian funding. Now, in order to have Iranian funding in terms of sanctions, Iran and Hezbollah, found alternative options like laundering money, like a whole chain of drug trafficking in Syria and other countries. So they found solutions to do that.

By the way, Iran is doing the same thing with the Houthis in Yemen, also using them as a proxy. Because you know, this is the most poor country in the region, huge unemployment rates, you can recruit 10s of 1000s and hundreds of 1000s of people, as long as you pay them a very minimal salary. Now, as for Hamas, Hamas was built a little bit later.

It's actually an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, so not directly of Iran. However, sometimes there are joint interests between different terror groups. Actually, Iran founded the Islamic Jihad in Gaza, in 79, right after the revolution, because he thought this would be the main actor controlling Gaza with the best assets and so on. But with the course of the years, when Hamas controlled Gaza, and was able to develop its terror means rockets, drones, etc, then, of course, Iran moved to cooperate with Hamas, according to its needs for Iran, it's, of course, more worthwhile to use the blood of Palestinians than the blood of Iranians to sacrifice Palestinians and not the Iranians. This is how they see it.

At the end of the day, Iran now wishes to resume to the situation of being a major empire as it used to be, a Persian empire decades and decades ago. So this is the longtime dream, I would say. And the proxies are just another, I would say detail in the path to reach that dream.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Now, Hezbollah did not claim responsibility for the attack that killed a dozen children on a soccer field. Why not? They're usually proud of the death and destruction that they wreak. Why did Israel target the terror group anyway?

Avital Leibovich:

Look, say a few words about this tragic event that took place just a few days ago in a very small, beautiful, pastoral village called Majdal Shams, which, by the way, means the tower of sun. It's on the Syrian border, and the other side is on the Lebanese border. And, you know, people asked me if this is the first time that Hizballah ever targeted Druze or targeted Muslims. Now this specific village was targeted five times already by Hezbollah. Saturday, obviously, was the deadliest of all the five. It was 6:18 in the afternoon, beautiful summer day, lots of kids outside.

I visited the soccer field where it happens. And the rockets left, really not a chance for those kids who were playing there. Although there was actually a shelter right there, maybe two feet from where the rocket hit the ground. They really didn't have a chance to make it and go into the shelter. And unfortunately, those poor 12 year old kids, ages 10-16, died in place. We still have over 30 people hospitalized, many of them are kids as well.

And I have to say, Manya, that I saw a village who has been traumatized. People are still wearing black clothes. There are black flags hanging everywhere inside the village. The pictures of the kids are, you know, pasted everywhere, on the squares just on random villages and walls of buildings.

I also went to one of the bereaved families. And you know, you sit there with a parent who lost his 12 year old boy named Johnny [Wadeea Ibrahim]. And he tells you about his dreams. And he says to me, you know, these dreams will never be fulfilled. And he says to me, we don't even know how to digest what happened to us. So, for Hezbollah, they don't really care who they're firing at, whether it's Jews or Arabs, or Muslims or Christians, whoever, they don't care if it's in the eastern Galilee, or the Western Galilee, or the Golan. All these areas are relevant for the Hezbollah fire since October 8.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Well, Hezbollah did not take responsibility. Why not?

Avital Leibovich:

So here is the mistake. Hezbollah actually made the mistake. Hezbollah has a TV station, which is its mouthpiece, just like Hamas's TV station mouthpiece is Al Jazeera. Hezbollah's is Al Mayadeen. Now, immediately after an attack, a Hezbollah attack, Al Mayadeen immediately publishes responsibility taking by Hezbollah always every time. And by the way, we're talking about an average of eight attacks a day, every day. And that's what they did here too. On Saturday, they immediately took responsibility in the name of Hezbollah.

Unfortunately, for them, after 20 minutes, they understood the extent of the mistake they did, and deleted, of course, this responsibility, and then they made up their own narrative. The narrative was that a misfiring of an Iron Dome interceptor, mistakenly killed the kids, like Israel's fault is that the kids died. Now, this narrative, if you think it was only the social media, then think again, they sent the foreign minister of Lebanon to the media to repeat it.

But they also did something more. They sent the head of the Druze community. It's the same blood and flesh of the Druze in the Golan. They sent him to the press to declare that it was not a Hezbollah rocket. So they understood that they will pay a price of some sort. I'm sure they understood that I'm not sure they understood the extent of the intelligence Israel had. And now of course, they're threatening to target Israel. I think the next 48 hours will reveal where we're heading.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And you talk about the incredible intelligence that led to the precise explosion in Beirut as well as the death of Haniyeh. Has Israel taken responsibility for his death and what it claimed credit if it was responsible,

Avital Leibovich:

Up to this minute, Israel did not take any responsibility for Haniyeh's death. Of course, yes, for the Hizballah number two guy Fuad Shukr, but not for Haniyeh. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister ordered the Cabinet members and the ministers not to speak publicly on the issue. And basically, there's been a lot of quiet from the political echelon here since the morning.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And you touched on what my last question is, and that is, how will this elevate the tensions? Does this raise the chance of a war between Israel and Lebanon, Israel, and Iran, these assassinations?

Avital Leibovich:

So I would say we are already in a war to some extent with Hezbollah, because Hezbollah has fired more than 6000 rockets since October 8. And I've counted 43 Israeli casualties since October 8. So we are talking about an active war in a sense, I think that there is a good reason to believe that both Hezbollah and Iran will react to these two targets. I'm not sure in which way.

I do think that Hezbollah still has the notion and the strategy of not completely escalating the situation to a full scale war. I'm sure that Nasrallah is sitting in his bunker in the darkened neighborhood, seeing the footage from Gaza and understanding Israel's capability and does not want to turn Beirut into a similar kind of situation.

And he also saw the building last night and he also understood the extent of the intelligence capability. So I think he will have to react in such a way that on the one hand, he could be proud that he did something but on the other hand, would not engage in a full scale war. Iran, on the other hand, is a different story.

Because three months have passed since April 14 in which Iran decided to gift us with hundreds of drones and different kinds of ballistic missiles. And from their perspective, it failed. It failed because Israel has a great defense system. It also failed because the US led the great coalition of countries who supported the interception attempts in April 14. However, and this is a big however, Iran learned its lessons.

Iran learned why it failed in April. And therefore, my concern is that they will take these lessons and implement them in whichever reaction they will have. I'm not sure it will be tomorrow morning. Tomorrow, they will celebrate Haniyeh in the big funeral in Iran, and then there will be additional mourning days in Qatar. So it may take a few days, but I have no doubt that they will both, Hezbollah and Iran react.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Avital, thank you so much for just explaining all of these developments and what they mean.

Avital Leibovich:

Of course, I just hope that for once they will be able to talk about positive things and not only terror and wars.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

We hope so too. We hope so too. Thank you so much.

Avital Leibovich:

Thank you and Am Yisrael Chai.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
Aviva Klompas is Fighting the Normalization of Antisemitism on Social Media
26 jul· People of the Pod
Aviva Klompas has long been a fierce advocate for Israel and is no stranger to the forces that try to delegitimize the Jewish state. Klompas, cofounder of Boundless Israel, a think tank dedicated to strengthening education about Israel while also keeping an eye on the surge of antisemitism in the U.S., joins us to discuss how she’s working to combat antisemitism and shape the conversation, both online and off.

Listen to this candid conversation, recorded on the sidelines of AJC Global Forum 2024 in Washington, D.C.

Episode Lineup:

(0:40) Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, Rich Goldberg

Show Notes:

Watch:

Voices of Truth: Advocating for Israel on Social Media with Aviva Klompas and Michael Rapaport

Listen – People of the Pod:

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: [email protected]

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 Aviva Klompas:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Aviva Klompas has long been a fierce advocate for Israel and is no stranger to the forces that try to delegitimize the Jewish state. After leading Birthright trips, she became the speechwriter for Israel’s Mission at the United Nations where she was always looking for ways to give voice to Israel’s side of the story, amid a cacophony of anti-Israel sentiments.

After working for Combined Jewish Philanthropies, she co-founded Boundless Israel, a think tank dedicated to strengthening education about Israel while also keeping an eye on the surge of antisemitism in the U.S. Aviva might still write the occasional speech, but on Instagram and X, that’s where she’s really shaping the conversation and confronting haters.

We sat down with Aviva on the sidelines of AJC Global Forum 2024 in Washington D.C in early June.

Aviva, welcome to People of the Pod’s pop-up studio here in Washington.

Aviva Klompas:

Absolutely.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Together with Rachel Fish, you co-founded a nonprofit called Boundless. can you tell us the purpose of boundless and the origins of its name?

Aviva Klompas:

The idea is to look at the larger issues that are plaguing the ecosystem in Israel in North America and to function both both as a think tank that does research to understand what's happening under the surface, but then to not just investigate and study for curiosity sake, but then to turn to action, and really to extract recommendations, and to pull together partners in order to take meaningful action in order to address some of the larger challenges.

So the two areas in which we primarily focus are one, education. How do we reimagine Israel education in North America, for both Jews and for non-Jews? And the area where I spend most of my time has to do with the narrative war? Understanding how did we get here? What's happening below the surface, both in traditional and on social media?

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You previously served as the director of speech reading at the Israeli Mission to the United Nations. And at that time, did you find yourself not just talking to a traditional institution but actually trying to persuade or convince, maybe even combat the sentiments of that audience?

Aviva Klompas:

Working as a speechwriter for Israel at the United Nations is certainly an experience and an education unto itself. And my former boss, Ambassador Ron Prosor always used to say to us, it's not so much politics and diplomacy as it is theater and a game of chess. And so to some extent, it's about who you can convince in these speeches and in these conversations in the halls, in the corridors of the United Nations, but the meaningful action, the real relationship building, tends to happen behind the scenes where there's no camera, and when there's no public audience. What people tend to see, the speeches that are broadcast, statements that make headlines around the world, that's really theater.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And you mentioned, when you were onstage with Michael Rapaport, at Global Forum yesterday, you mentioned how that job is very limiting compared to your job now and your representation on social media. Can you talk a little bit about why it's important to be on social media to use that as a platform.

Aviva Klompas:

Yeah, so I worked both for the Israeli delegation. So that was working for the Israeli government. I also worked as a policy advisor for the Canadian government. And certainly when you're working for a government, there are limitations on what you can say, and what you can do. And one of the great blessings of having co-founded Boundless and working in this nonprofit is that at this moment in time, there's a lot of flexibility and latitude for Rachel and I to really hone in on what we think needs to be done and spend our time and our energy there.

The great education that I got when I was working at the United Nations, was the fact that people would always ask me, Well, why is it that Israel participates in the United Nations? This is an institution that is notorious for its bias against Israel.

So why does Israel participate? Why would it be a member of an institution that notoriously demonizes, delegitimize, vilifies, ostracizes it. No country has to be a member of the United Nations. And more than that, in order to be a member in good standing, you have to pay dues.

So Israel pays its membership dues to endure the sort of abuse that we see day in and day out at the United Nations. That's the number one question that I get asked, but it was never once a conversation that we had inside of the United Nations, because we never for a moment doubted that Israel has every right to participate in and contribute to global affairs. And that mentality is what I've taken with me throughout my career that Israel has, and the Jewish people have every right to participate in and contribute to our communities, our societies, our countries and bettering this planet.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You also, since October 7, you have emphasized that it's very important to tell Israel's story, tell the story of October 7, day to day, hour to hour, which is how I viewed the news cycle of social media. Why? Why is it that it's so important?

Aviva Klompas:

It’s a part of that mentality that I was describing, which says, I won't for a moment accept that any of this is either normal or acceptable. I'm not going to tolerate a world that speaks to us and treats us as if we had this coming. As if what happened on October 7 was due to us. As if it is normal to be holding over 100 people hostage. As if it is acceptable that Jewish people have to hide their Jewish identity.

And I'm not interested in people that will speak with great sympathy about dead Jews, but not take any meaningful or consequential action to safeguard living Jews, which is ultimately what's most important.

And at the end of the day, the reason that I'm spending so much time and energy on social media is because I refuse to allow the normalization of what we're seeing day in and day out. And the only way you stop that normalization is two things is one, you have to use your voice, you have to stand up. And we also have to use our Yiddishe kops a bit and try to think about what's happening under the surface. What are the root causes? What are the points of origin for what's taking place? And how can we outthink them? And that's the work we're doing at Boundless.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You have primarily focused your messaging on X, or Twitter. You recently though moved your posts to Instagram as well.

Aviva Klompas:

After a lot of people told me that I had to, yeah, a lot.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Well, can you talk a little bit about your social media choices? In other words, is there a particular audience on X that you were trying to reach?

Aviva Klompas:

I joined X when I was actually speechwriter for Israel at the UN. And I was very at the time we're talking, I don't know, 10 or 11 years ago, I was opposed to the notion of joining social media, I thought, I don't think everybody needs to know my thoughts. That's ridiculous.

And then one of my colleagues Israel Nitzan, a good friend, and a diplomat of Israel, he was the one that convinced me said, this is very much in line with Elon Musk, I would say is, it's the town square, this is where conversations are happening. This is where politicians and diplomats and reporters are having conversation. And it's important that you participate. And that is an idea that resonates with me very deeply, is that we need to have a voice in the public square. So that's how I got started on X.

And I left my Facebook, and I did have Instagram, but I really left it for that personal private space. And then early on in the war, had to change the privacy settings because all of a sudden, it was being flooded with with requests, my Instagram, my personal Instagram, when you open it up, it's 1000s and 1000s of people that want to follow me and I'm like, It's my vacation photos and it's family. No. So that's not going to happen.

So instead, after a lot of people said to me, there's obviously a whole other audience of much younger people and different people that are on Instagram, can you just pull your posts over? So I started a second Instagram account, which is just replicating the tweets and it's @AvivaKlompas.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I'm curious if you have developed relationships, either real or virtual with other social media influencers. In other words, did you know Michael Rapaport before October 7, before he became so vocal on social media and is that in particular and are others new and surprising friendships and partnerships?

Aviva Klompas:

So I met Michael Rapaport because I got a DM on X from him. That was three words. And they were: who are you? And I wrote back: who are you? And that's where we started chatting. And then we had the opportunity to meet in Israel and he's become a very good friend and a person that I admire enormously.

And that's happened in other instances as well that there's been other influencers that I've met as a result of this that started his online conversation. chanson turned into real world relationships. And ultimately, all of us need to have a community social media is a very lonely place and it's a dystopia. When you pull people in the real world, which is what we do at Boundless, it asked her attitudes and opinions about Israel and anti semitism, you get one set of answers.

When you look on social media you get a different set of answers. The world is much bleaker and darker. And that's because the rule on social media is if it enrages, it engages. So the most vitriolic, hateful, disgusting, vile content is the content that will trend that's most likely to appear in your feed.

I always likened social media to the Coliseum in ancient Rome, where you have people battling it out in the center of the arena. And then you have the throngs of crowds surely, lustily screaming for them for someone's demise. It is not a venue that is conducive to relationships are conversations are chasing or changing minds, if you can sort of visualize that Coliseum analogy.

And at the same time, because social media is this kind of dystopia, bleak place, you need to have a community. And that's what I have found with other pro-Israel pro-Jewish voices is that it makes you feel like you're not alone in this that you're not this like single voice that standing against an enormous tide. So I'm very grateful to the other people that have lent their friendship in this moment.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So I want to pivot a little bit to what you put on social media, mostly the Israel-Hamas war. Why do you think Hamas terrorists are being treated as heroes in so many outlets and venues?

Aviva Klompas:

Yeah, what we're really seeing is new tactics and an old strategy. This strategy of how Israel and the Jewish people is being demonized. It's not new, the only new part of it is is the advent of social media as a way to more quickly and more spread the these lies and disinformation much further, but it really goes back to a Soviet strategy you had after World War Two, you had the Cold War, and you had the United States pitted against the Soviet Union. And you never want to fight a war on your own territory. So to the extent that you can you want to fight it on a different front, and that's really what the Middle East became. Israel as it moved away from its socialist roots and towards a capitalist roots, begins to align itself more with the United States.

That poses a threat, the Soviet Union sees Israel in the Middle East as a forward operating base for the United States. And so it begins to align itself more closely with the Arab nations. And in order to fight this battle, it begins a disinformation campaign that has a number of strategies to it that I think will sound very familiar. The first is to claim that there's no connection between the Jewish people and land of Israel to paint us as colonizers.

The second is to paint us as aggressors. And just to frame it in such a way as it is, isn't the Nakba, not the story of how a number of surrounding Arab armies attacked Israel, not the story of how Israel accepted a two state Partition Plan from the United Nations, but rather the story of the Nakba, and the demise.

And the third is to paint the Palestinians as a people that have no agency, and that all of this is happening to them and that they are victims in this colonialist, racist world. And then what the Soviets did is they begin to use that type of language that says Zionists are Nazis, and Nazis are the epitome of evil. And so all of the worst racist colonialist, etc. Accusations that's not new, we saw that from the infamous Zionism is racism resolution at the United Nations in the 1970s.

So this is a continuation of a very, very old strategy. And as we always see, it starts with the Jews, but it never ends with the Jews.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

On the morning that many of us traveled here to Washington for AJC's Global Forum, we woke up to the news of the IDS rescue for hostages. Headlines talked about the four hostages being freed, not rescued. And sadly, many more headlines focused on the hundreds of Palestinians who were killed in that rescue effort. I asked why Hamas terrorists are being treated as heroes and I ask this knowing the IDF has certainly made some tragic errors in this war. But do you get a sense that there is a concerted effort not to treat IDF as heroes?

Aviva Klompas:

So first off, I mean, I saw them being the hostages being spoken about as having been released, as if, as if commerce just opened the doors and let them go. And the level of condemnation about us going into rescue or hostages? What did they want us to do? Ask nicely. It's been eight months, we've tried a series of hostage deals in negotiations, and it's gone nowhere. I don't measure the standard of the IDF behavior by what the world says. That's going to be a failing strategy for us.

I think it's measured by the values of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. And that's why the army has a code of conduct. The people that are more outraged that Israel went to get its people back than the fact that terrorists took them and held them for eight months. Those people need to check their thinking and their values.

And that's one of the things that we need to call out all the time. And I think that's a question the mainstream media that's been reporting on it, it's been embarrassing to watch people just essentially regurgitate Hamas press releases. How about a little bit of journalistic integrity? How about asking some hard questions like, Do we even know the casualty figure? I saw it grow by 100, since yesterday. I don't think anybody actually knows the number of casualties.

And then, if you had the number, how would you assess how many were actually combatants? If you're counting journalists and doctors that hold hostages in their home as civilians…I don't understand how mainstream media have sort of suspended rational analysis in this war.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Do you also get the impression that the hostages' stories have been downplayed by mainstream media? I mean these are truly ordinary people, ordinary families who now suffer extraordinary uncertainty, which, you know, I would argue, is worse than loss, this uncertainty. Do you feel like that has been lost in mainstream media coverage?

Aviva Klompas:

I think that for a while, we saw that the hostage family stories were prominent, and they were certainly getting a lot of attention. And now it's a lot harder. Now it's been eight months, and it's a very visual war. No war in the history of the world has had this level of scrutiny, and certainly not this level of playing out real or disinformation on social media. And people are being bombarded with very difficult and very honestly very, very tragic scenes from Gaza.

And we haven't really seen that many new images emerging about the hostages, because there's so much silence. So in that sense, I can understand why there is a level to which humans can stay interested in a topic without new information. I think that's part of what we're struggling with. And at the same time, we have seen journalists be shockingly callous to the hostage families, and that's absolutely unacceptable.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Can you give an example of what you mean?

Aviva Klompas:

Well, we just saw a very prominent reporter from the hill roll her eyes while speaking to the sister of a hostage when she asked her to believe women.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

The New York Times broke a big story–I'm putting big and finger quotes–earlier this week that Israel's Ministry of diaspora affairs organized and paid for an influence campaign last year that targeted US lawmakers, American public with pro Israel messaging, but the story never mentioned the barrage of propaganda that pro Palestinian organizations have put out quite effectively. How do you guard against spreading disinformation as a social media influencer?

Aviva Klompas:

So I don't agree With what the Israeli government did, I think it was pretty inevitable that that was going to become public. And so I think we could have all seen that this was coming in, and it was not a wise decision to target American lawmakers. I'm not sure that I would call that a disinformation campaign. Disinformation is a deliberate attempt to spread fake information. And I don't think that was the case, but nonetheless, not wise.

The difference is, is that my beloved Jewish people believe in truth and integrity. And we believe that if we just tell the same story one more time and maybe tell it a little bit differently, people will finally listen to us. And I think after trying that for a couple 1000 years, maybe we should adopt a different approach. And we again, have to look at what's happening under the surface.

If we want to do better at social media. You're right, the other side will say anything, do anything and show whatever image, true or not. People say it immediately 6000 people were killed in the bombing, an intentional IDF bombing of a hospital, okay, based on what? It's been 15 minutes, nobody actually knows what happened. Same thing with the rescue mission. Day by day, the count of quote unquote, civilian casualty grows by 100. We don't know the facts on the ground, we're not relying on third party verification in the way that we should, and people are just soaking this up.

And the other side has realized as much, and they understand that they have the freedom and latitude to say everything. Understanding that we have to rethink what this picture looks like. In understanding social media, we have to be thinking smarter about the type of information we're putting out and what some of the challenges are.

You have algorithmic manipulation, you have bots and inauthentic activity, you have foreign intervention campaigns, you have the echo chambers that exist, we have the algorithms that even when they're not manipulated, as I said, what engages and engages. We know all of these things. But I don't think we're working hard enough and smart enough to design our campaigns and our messaging, in order to address some of them.

One of the things that we're doing at Boundless is we started with the very simple question that says, Who do we need to be talking to? Any messaging, any communications, begins with understanding who’s your audience because you need to tailor your message appropriately. And I'm not sure that we're doing that as much as we should. So at Boundless, we started with that question, we did a major study with a national research firm, and we identified six priority audiences.

And we ask them their opinion, we want to learn from them, we want to understand why do you think what you think? Why do you believe what you believe? Where are you getting your news and information, we're very open about going to them and saying, We want to learn with you, we want to understand what your challenges are. One of the things that we learned is that every minority population in this country believes that they are the victim, they believe that they are one of the most highly targeted people for hate crimes.

And the challenge that we have is that when we come we present them and say no, we're the most hated group, what we're doing is we're minimizing their experience. And we're catalyzing a sort of victim Olympics, it makes them feel defensive, it makes them feel like they're not being seen and heard. And we're not tailoring our messaging with that understanding. So we need to do a little more, a lot more, front work in order to understand who do we want to speak to? What are their values, what are their positions, what's informing how they feel, and think about different issues, before we start to construct messages.

And then we really have to think about the distribution and dissemination techniques that we have. Which are right now, they're too uniform, we need to be doing a lot more and a lot differently. And we're hyper reliant on social media. And social media has a very important role to play. But we all know that if we see social media as sort of this coliseum, this arena in which people are thrashing it out, you're never going to really have a conversation.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Shortly after October 7, you wrote, quote, The State of Israel was supposed to be a living promise that there would always be a place for Jews to be saved for the pogroms in the Holocaust that plague Jewish history. After the October 7, mass terror attacks, that promise is broken. Do you still feel that way?

Aviva Klompas:

I've been to Israel seven times in seven months. And I think a lot about when I first went the first time I went was two weeks after October 7 And I was in Jerusalem. And that was deserted. And I wanted to go walk to the Western Wall to the Kotel and I walked through the Old City and it was unbelievable. It was the middle of the week in the middle of the day and everything there was not a person in sight. Everybody was so scared.

And I recall friends saying to me, we're having conversations as if it's the 1940s we're talking, we're whispering husbands to wives about where we would hide our children. Because exactly that sense of security, that sense of comfort had been shattered. The idea was that anybody could jump out and didn't matter where you were in Israel, the sense of safety had dissipated.

And it wasn't that different here in the United States. And I think to some extent, people probably still feel it. Whereas in Israel, it's been more alleviated with the notion that antisemitism, that you're not safe in your places of worship in Jewish day schools and community centers that you have to think twice before you go to a walk for Israel, you have to think twice, about whether you're going to wear a kippa or a magen david. I think really, our sense of security has been shattered.

And that's one of the great tragedies, beyond the enormous tragedy that is October 7, than the living tragedy of the hostages, is the fact that we are all shaken by this. And that it feels scary for a lot of people to be a Jew in the world right now. There's a lot to say about what social media does wrong and how harmful it is and how difficult it is.

But also, the one thing that means the most to me, about being active on social media in the last eight months, is the number of messages I get, and people that come up to me in the real world and say to me, I'm scared. And I feel a little bit less scared because you have a voice in the world, you and other people, that people are feeling very alone, that people are saying I'm in workplaces where I'm the only Jew or I'm in schools where I'm being targeted where I feel like I can't speak up in class where I have to hide my head when I am choosing to stay in my room rather than go out.

And it's a lonely, lonely feeling right now. And if the only thing that my social media is doing is helping people have a voice and to know that there's others who think this is not normal, this is not acceptable. And we're going to spend every single day raging against it. That will have been worth it.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Aviva, thank you so much for joining us on the sidelines of Global Forum.

Aviva Klompas:

Thank you for having me.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
On the Ground at the Republican National Convention: What's at Stake for Israel and the Middle East?
18 jul· People of the Pod
Israel’s right to self-defense and security, governance in Gaza, the Iranian regime and its network of terror, the Jewish state’s relationship with Arab countries in the Gulf, and much more were among the topics of discussion at an AJC-convened panel discussion at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Listen to an excerpt of the panel, moderated by AJC’s Chief Policy Officer and the head of AJC’s Center for a New Middle East, Jason Isaacson, along with policy experts Dr. Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, and Rich Goldberg.

*The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. AJC does not endorse or oppose political parties or candidates.

Episode Lineup:

(0:40) Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, Rich Goldberg

Show Notes:

Watch:

Israel and the Path to Peace - AJC at the Republican National Convention

Listen – People of the Pod:

Europe at the Ballot Box: Insights and Impact on Jewish Communities and Beyond

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: [email protected]

If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts.

Transcript of Panel with Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, and Rich Goldberg:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

America’s political parties are kicking off the 2024 convention season, starting this week with the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. AJC was on the sidelines of the RNC, with a live program titled Israel and the Path to Peace, moderated by AJC's chief policy officer, Jason Isaacson. Jason is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for A New Middle East.

Joining Jason was Dr. Ken Weinstein, former longtime CEO of the Hudson Institute and the Walter P. Stern Distinguished Fellow at Hudson; Kirsten Fontenrose, the President of Red Six Solutions and Senior Director of Gulf Affairs in the National Security Council under President Trump; and Rich Goldberg, Senior Adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Director of Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction for the National Security Council, under President Trump.

Just a reminder: AJC is a 501(c)3 nonpartisan organization and neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. A similar program will be offered at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago later this summer. Now onto today’s episode: an excerpt from AJC’s convention program.

Jason Isaacson:

Let me begin by reading to you a couple of passages from the Republican platform, which was adopted yesterday at the Republican National Convention. This is what it said about Israel. Quote, We will stand with Israel and seek peace in the Middle East, we will rebuild our alliance network in the region to ensure a future of peace, stability and prosperity. And then there was, as you may recall, for the Republican platform, his list of 20 promises. And it's described as 20 promises that we will accomplish very quickly when we win the White House and Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

And number eight, on that list of 20 promises is the following, quote: restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East. So let's drill down with our panelists on those two statements in January 2025. That's more than six months away. It may be that the Israel Hamas war will be won over by them, and perhaps whatever conflict is so close to boiling over between Israel and Hezbollah, that that might not any longer be the case, might have boiled over, might be a thing of the past.

But let's say for the sake of argument, that hostilities are in fact, continuing, and let's assume that the Republican Party is victorious this fall. What are you expecting the Trump administration to do to, quote restore peace in the Middle East and to accomplish that, quote, very quickly. And let me begin Kirsten, with you.

Kirsten Fontenrose:

Great, thanks so much for having us. All of us like to nerd out about these kinds of topics all the time when we're just grateful that there are other people who are as interested. What I expect to see in America is a revived peace plan. So you all remember the deal of the century, the vision for peace, we will see that come back. If there's a second Trump administration. Not in isolation, it will be part of a larger context.

That will also include assurances about Israel security and governance for Gaza and the like. Why have we not seen this yet? Because no one's asked the Trump team. But that will come back and you will see that. There's an expectation, whether it's naive or not, which we'll see, that there will be a greater receptiveness among the Palestinian population for an economic plan that offers improvements in livelihood after this conflict.

If there is a marginalized Hamas, there'll be more movement in this space for reviving these kinds of ideas. So we will definitely see a revived peace plan, you won't see less attention on this issue, you'll see very top level attention on the issue. You're also going to see, I think gloves off with the Houthis in the Red Sea.

The US military has been very careful to make sure that all of our strikes so far had been from a defensive perspective. But you will see, I believe, because the world has not criticized any of these strikes, I think you're gonna see more latitude there. More room for movement for preemptive striking, for instance, because the perception is that for the whole world, this shipping interception problem is just out of hand. So I think we'll see more latitude there. And we'll see gloves come off a bit there.

And then I think you're gonna see some tough talk, frankly, with Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Trump has watched the US be yanked around a bit by the current Israeli government.

And I think you're going to see less tolerance for that recognition that Israel is a sovereign country, but more of an attempt to say the US is the superpower here, and we will be leading the ideas from hence. If we're expected to play a role, we will be leading in that role. What you will see, however, will be interesting to watch as there is division among Trump advisors about a two state solution. So you'll see that be debated out.

Jason Isaacson:

Thank you for that. Ken, let me ask you, restoring peace in the Middle East and Europe and doing it very quickly, you've had a very broad focus on a whole range of foreign policy issues at the Hudson Institute and before and since. Tell me how you see that playing out under a second Trump administration?

Ken Weinstein:

I'd say first of all, I think President Trump came to the conclusion early on, in his first term, he came in remember, talking about the deal of the century with you know, this peace agreement, he was booed at the Republican Jewish Committees event when he was a candidate.

And he quickly came into office and understood he could not trust Mahmoud Abbas, because of the incitement to terror by the Palestinian Authority and the tensions that were given out, and the pay for slay efforts that the Palestinian Authority has. Whereby people who kill Jews, kill Americans, were getting Palestinian Authority pensions in prisons, for their families and the like.

And so, Trump quickly came to understand that the challenge in the peace process wasn't bringing Israel and the Palestinians together, it was that the peace process itself was misconstrued. The peace process was being used by Middle Eastern governments, in particular, the Iranians, but also the Palestinians as a means to put leverage on Israel, exercise leverage on Israel, by a bunch of people who wanted to see the end of Israel's existence. And Trump quickly reversed that equation.

He understood that the best way to move forward was to remove items from the table such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem, which didn't have any of the backlash that John Kerry and others predicted would happen. And he quickly understood the best way to move things forward was to put pressure on the Palestinians.

Trump's a real estate guy. And so he understands leverage, he understands how to put pressure forth, and how to deter. I think we're going to see much more of that moving forward. We're not going to have a vice president of the United States who's going to get up and say, the Israelis can't evacuate Rafah, it's going to lead to 10s of 1000s of deaths.

And here I actually disagree slightly, I think Trump will actually give the Israelis the latitude they need to finish the mission, which is to destroy Hamas, and eventually bring about a transformation in Gaza, with the assistance of the Saudis. Who were absolutely critical in de-radicalizing Gaza, they have done it successfully themselves, as has the UAE.

And so I think we're going to look much more at a regional approach on these issues. Obviously, Iran is going to be, to borrow a term from Joe Biden, President Biden, in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, as they were before. You're gonna see massive sanctions again, we're gonna get them, we're gonna enforce those sanctions. And Rich can talk to this stuff far more deeply than I ever could.

And you're gonna have the Iranians on the run so that they don't feel that they can work with Hamas or work with Hezbollah, to do more damage to Israel. And already we're seeing a deterrent effect on the Northern Front. And also with regard to Hamas.

Because with regard to Hamas, we see that the fear of a Trump administration is leading to a greater willingness to negotiate with Israel. And on the northern front, I think it's less likely that the Israelis will take dramatic action before the US election, knowing that they will not be reined in by an administration that is somehow searching for a delusion of peace with Hezbollah and with Lebanon.

Jason Isaacson:

What about peace in Europe? Is is that something that you see, that you can envision under a Trump administration?

Ken Weinstein:

First, let me say something with regard to Europe and the Middle East. I think that the Trump administration, the Trump team has been infuriated by this notion of enforcing this ridiculous ICC policy with regard to Israel and those who threatened to arrest Netanyahu. I think you're going to see in places particularly, I can just think of the kinds of actions they'll take in Germany.

I think you can expect individual sanctions on the people who were behind Nord Stream as a sign to not dare mess with Netanyahu, period. And you'll see other actions like that. I know the Spanish ambassadors here with regard to Spain with that we will be taking numbers, as Nikki Haley did so effectively at the UN, and as the Biden team does not.

So with regard to Europe. Look, I think the situation with regard to Ukraine, as President Trump understands it, I think, Trump, you have to understand he comes to this. He's not a policy person. He thinks that policy people like the three of us, four us up here, we lack creativity, we have a sense the policy options run from the letter L or P to the letter Q or R. And in fact, for Trump, they run from A to Z. And so that meant fire and fury in Pyongyang, but it meant eventually potentially beachfront condominiums in North Korea and an economic vitality to North Korea, if it gave up its nuclear program.

With regard to Iran, it was maximum pressure, but it was the new Iran deal that got rid of the nuclear program that got rid of the missile program that got rid of regional activities, and that internally reshaped Iran, and led to a new relationship with Iran, with not only the region but the rest of the world. And with China, it was massive tariffs on China, but a new trade deal in the phase one that was gonna get rid of intellectual property stuff, which was at the core of what President Trump saw correctly as the engine of the Chinese economy, and the engine of the China 2025 program. So I'd say with regard to Ukraine, the President is looking at options that will, as he himself has said, he would tell the, you know, the Ukrainians on day one, you've got to, you know, we've got to end the fighting, you would tell Putin, if you don't end the fighting, we're gonna arm the shit out of Ukraine, pardon my French, as he said something along those lines. And I think what we'll see at the end of the day, is a massive program to guarantee Ukrainian security, that is going to take massive security guarantees.

But the Europeans are going to have to step up and step up in a very serious way. And we've seen since the announcement of the JD Vance nomination are ready to reaction in Europe, the Europeans, you know, have to understand they're not gonna be able to backchannel they’re not going to be able to figure out some way out of this.

They're gonna have to be big providers of security guarantees, we will do the same for the Ukrainians as well, but Europe has to take up a big portion of it. And Trump does not, he is not Joe Biden, he's not going to cut and run, as in Afghanistan, he doesn't want to be humiliated on the stage, he understands deterrence, he's going to send a very clear signal to the Russians, as he did to the Taliban.

When they were talking about when they were negotiating with the Taliban, Trump was on a video call once with the Taliban leader, and said, I want to make this very clear, you're not to strike at any of our people. And if you do, and hit the button on Play, and he showed a video of I think, the Taliban leader's kid leaving their house to say we're watching you every moment, and we will take care of you. And there'll be some kind of a version of that with regard to Putin, that's going to be very clear.

He was very blunt with Putin behind closed doors, from the White House in particular. And I think there was a good reason why Putin didn't go into Ukraine during Trump's term. And so I think that there's going to be some kind of a square in the circle solution that's going to have to come together. And I've been telling European foreign and defense ministers for the last few months, think about this now, how to do it, how to implement it.

Jason Isaacson:

Ken, thank you so much. Rich, let me turn to you. We've been talking about Iran, and you are an expert on Iran. It happened for years. I didn't see a reference to Iran and the Republican platform. But of course, we know, former President Trump's record on Iran. And Ken has been talking about that. Should he return to the White House next January, what do you foresee on this front to return to maximum pressure, or something more kinetic? And what is your sense of our regional strategic partners priorities? Are our friends in the Gulf hoping for a decisive showdown with Iran? Or are they sufficiently risk averse that they prefer a less confrontational approach? What do you think?

Rich Goldberg:

I think if you look at the top lines, right, and you compare the policy, the recipe, if you will, under the Trump administration: maximum pressure on Iran, maximum support for Israel gets you peace, gets you deterrence. And when you flip the narrative and you go to maximum deference to Iran and pressure on Israel, you get conflict in the Middle East. It's not disconnected from what Ken's just talking about in other regions of the world as well, whether in Europe, whether you're in the Indo-Pacific.

This comes down to the ability to restore American deterrence. And then you have options. There are a lot of genies that are out of the bottle due to the last three and a half years. Iran today and its nuclear program is at the one yard line of nuclear weapons thresholds. They were not there four years ago. In fact, after the killing of Soleimani, in early 2020, the rest of the year the Iranians never escalated the nuclear program again.

They waited until January of 2021. And that's when they started jumping to 20% high enriched uranium. And then they saw nothing's happening to us. So they went to 60% high enriched uranium. They started installing all the advanced centrifuges, they've advanced, so far accelerated to this incredible capacity to produce a dozen nuclear weapons in just a couple of months if they so chose. Plus Intel now coming in that the administration is trying to downplay work on weaponization. There's a lot of genies out of the bottle here that Donald Trump's going to have to try to put back into the bottle.

And that will not be easy. But the formula remains correct. Restore deterrence, have maximum pressure and isolation on the Iranian regime and provide support to your allies. Now, the Gulf Arabs, by the way, the Saudis, the Emiratis, they've made some strategic decisions due to the policies that they saw, sustained by Joe Biden. They've cut deals with the Iranians and sort of cut their own JCPOA. with Iran with the Houthis. I'm not sure they're going to be on board for what's coming next. And they need to make some preparations for the return of a Trump administration and hawkishness towards Tehran and understand that we also won't tolerate them hedging with the Chinese. Now, that comes from the fact that America is hedging on them.

And so there's going to be a lot of parts that have to come together like a puzzle, to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, actual restored turns and regain that peace through strength in the region. This is true in the Middle East. It's true in Europe, and it's true in the Indo Pacific. So what is deterrence? I think that's a major question. What is deterrence?

Made up of two big things, capacity and will. Joe Biden and Donald Trump both have capacity. They were the commander in chief at some point of the most powerful military on Earth. Nobody doubts that you have capacity when you are the president of the United States. But our enemies do doubt the will. And they test the will early on.

Every single administration gets tested, whether it's China, whether it's Putin, whether it's Iran, they get tested. At some point, Donald Trump got tested by the Iranians and Soleimani is dead. And that changed a lot of things in the world. And over the course of time, the unpredictability, the some of the craziness of the media went hysterical over the red button with Kim Jong Un did get the attention of people like Vladimir Putin. The Taliban tested Joe Biden, and he failed the test. And Kabul fell. And then Ukraine was invaded. And then now in China, they're expanding and starting to harass and actually attack in some ways, the Philippines and Taiwan.

And what are we seeing? Nothing. So, the minute Donald Trump becomes president, when I hear Trump say, just my election is going to start bringing about a change on the Ukraine front, a change in the world. You might have laughed at that.

I think after Saturday, you're not laughing anymore. A picture that if you're Xi Jinping, the Ayatollah, Putin, Kim Jong Un, looking at that on your desk every day of Donald Trump with his fist in the air blood dripping, right after being shot, saying fight. You're not questioning will. And that will be, I think, the big game changer.

Now, they might still test it. And there's a Chinese proverb, which is, you have to kill the chicken to scare the monkey. And I think President Trump might have to kill a chicken. He'd have to pick the chicken wisely. I think it might be the Houthis. That makes no sense to me. There is a national interest, there's a strategic importance to it. And it will game change how you're trying to get the Gulf Arabs back on side, see that we are committed to the security in the Gulf in the broader Middle East, it will send a major signal to Tehran, and it'll be part of that pivot back to maximum pressure on Iran and maximum support for Israel.

Jason Isaacson:

Rich, thank you. But before I turn back to the Abraham Accords, let me ask you, what's your sense of the Saudi and UAE and Bahraini overtures to Iran? Are they just seeking some kind of stability, some kind of channel, but it doesn't have a whole lot of meaning, or what's your sense and how should the US respond? Rich?

Rich Goldberg:

I think there is meaning to it. I think that Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia has changed his strategic calculus over the last three years. I think that there was a game changing moment for him when the Houthis were raining down missiles, next to a Formula One race he was hosting out in Jeddah. And you’re talking about major investors, world leaders, important people all driving into a race course already there. And you're seeing a ballistic missile explode within your line of sight. And the United States does nothing.

And then Abu Dhabi comes under attack by the Houthis, and the United States does nothing. And they're saying, Wow, they're just at the table trying to give the Iranians whatever they can, they've taken the Houthis off the terror list. They're not defending us anymore. They've pulled the missile defense augmentation that Trump put in, in 2019-2020. And they're still trying to get this nuclear deal done.

What are we doing here? Why are we just waiting around for Godot? Why are we exposed? We should cut a deal here. And why if the United States can hedge on us, can't we hedge on them, and they start cozying up to the Chinese and doing things that we probably don't like very much I need to put an end to. So I think it's very real. These channels are real. They're in a hedge.

I think it's taken a while for others that are far more suspicious of Iran, like Bahrain to get on board this strategy. But everybody sort of signed up to this. There's a normalization process with Assad that I think is partially connected to it as well. All of that's going to have to change. You have Donald Trump is back in office. And I don't know that they appreciate that very much.

Jason Isaacson:

There's also a recollection of the Trump administration in this reaction or non reaction to this Iranian attack on Saudi Aramco facilities. So it's been a mixed bag. But But first, let me let me let me turn back to you. And we were talking about the Abraham accords before. That was a great foreign policy access success of the last months of the Trump administration, first of the UAE, then Bahrain and then with different terminology, but Morocco and Sudan.

As you know, the Biden administration has been vigorously pursuing an effort to normalize Saudi relations with Israel, and objective that was also very much a part of the Trump administration's vision. What are your perspectives on the likelihood of that kind of a deal being closed in the last months of the current Biden administration, if they do move forward on such a deal with the Republicans getting the Senate joined with Democrats in the Senate to support such a deal before the election? Or perhaps in a lame duck session after the election?

Kirsten Fontenrose:

Well that's the big question. So I think if you have a deal that includes normalization with Israel, Saudi us still includes normalization with Israel, it has a shot of getting through, but the closer we get to the election, the smaller that shot gets, because the more Republicans Congress will want to hold out to grant that foreign policy when to potential Republican administration.

But if you have a deal that is being discussed now, as a Plan B, that is just a US-Saudi deal, without normalization. And this is because of the Israeli government's decision, perhaps not to grant that the Saudis are fully on board, you won't get it through, there's just not enough in it. For the US. There are lots of questions about why we'd be granting Saudi assistance with civilian nuclear technology. And a security guarantee, when we're not really getting much out of it. There's nothing in this deal in terms of concrete asks on the relationship with China.

And we can really go quite far in blocking Chinese influence in the Gulf by just improving our own foreign military sales process. We don't need to grant security guarantees, the Israeli Saudi relationship is so close right now. It's normalization and everything but public statement and name and that public statement name is important for the follow on effects you have around the world globally and with other Muslim populations.

But in terms of their coordination, they're in a pretty good place. So we're not in some sort of crisis rush to make sure this happens in the next few months, unless you're the Biden team. And you're desperate for a foreign policy win, because your promises on other foreign policy fronts have not borne out.

So I think you will still see this continue, though we have doubled down on the Saudi discussion, if there is a second Trump administration. But you will not see this granting of a deal to Saudi Arabia, even though they are a phenomenal partner. And we are quite close, without more concrete asks that benefit U.S. goals as well. It's not the opinion that just having Saudi on side with nothing we've actually signed them up to, would they grant overflight rights, if things came down with Iran.

We need to make those more specific before we would do something that would require commitment of troops, large resources, equipment, perhaps to the detriment of other partners, we would be able to send those same troops and equipment. So I don't think we're going to see it in the last months of this administration.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

To hear the rest of the panel, head to the link in our show notes. Another reminder that AJC is a nonpartisan organization and will be at the DNC next month in Chicago. We hope to see some of you there.

Next week on People of the Pod, tune in for our sit down with two Jewish Olympians before they head to Paris for the Summer Olympic Games.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
Europe at the Ballot Box: Insights and Impact on Jewish Communities and Beyond
12 jul· People of the Pod
Election season in Europe is in full force, including recent elections in France, the United Kingdom, and the European Parliament. American Jewish Committee's offices across Europe have closely followed the results, which have had dramatic outcomes across the continent. Listen to an excerpt of this live podcast recording with AJC Europe Managing Director Simone Rodan-Benzaquen for expert analysis on what these developments mean for the future of Europe, European Jewry, Israel and the region, and more.

*The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.

Episode Lineup:

(0:40) Simone Rodan Benzaquen

Show Notes:

Resources:

European Elections: June-July 2024; Results and AJC Expert Analysis

Listen – People of the Pod:

Rebuilding Israel’s Devastated Negev Region Post 10/7

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election: What Does it Mean For Israel?

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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 Simone Rodan-Benzaquen:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Welcome to this live recording. Election season in Europe is in full force, including recent elections in France, the United Kingdom and the European Parliament. American Jewish Committee's offices across Europe have closely followed the dramatic results across the continent.

Joining us to share what these developments mean for Israel and the Jewish people is someone who has become a fairly regular guest, thanks to her expertise, AJC Europe Managing Director Simone Rodan-Benzaquen. Simone, welcome back to People of the Pod.

Simone Rodan Benzaquen:

Thank you very much Manya. It's very good to be with you.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So let's start with the most recent election in France, which is home to the second largest diaspora Jewish community behind the United States. So President Emmanuel Macron surprised a lot of people by calling for a snap election after his party was pummeled by the far right in European Parliament elections. Why was a snap election his solution? And what was the outcome?

Simone Rodan Benzaquen:

So the President has said that after the European Parliamentary elections, which indeed have been a huge failure for his party, he only gained 17% of the French vote while the far right gained 33% – that he wanted to use this occasion to give back the voice to the people and use it basically as a means to clarify the situation.

Now, there has been a little bit of clarification. The one clarification, I'd say, is the fact that after the first round, where it became very clear that the far right is gaining more and more weight within the French public opinion and therefore, possibly also in Parliament, where it was expected that the far right would become the first party and possibly be able to have a government–the clarification was nevertheless that the majority of the country doesn't want the National Rally, meaning the far right to rule the country.

It has also been a clarification because it has also showed that to some extent, the National Front is probably not yet ready to rule apart from the fact that majority of the people don't believe it should be, because nearly 100 candidates were as, one could say, problematic. Some of them had a criminal past. Some of them had made antisemitic, racist statements in the past. Some of them were truly not very competent, broke down in all of the interviews or the confrontations, not being able to respond to any of the questions.

So that was, I'd say, one part of the clarification. The other part of the clarification, which is to some extent, problematic, and brings us to the situation we're in today is the fact that France is now clearly split into I'd say, three blocks: the far right, which is strong, the center and the left.

And so just to give you a little bit of an understanding of what the results look like after the second round of the of the elections, so it gave what we call the NFP basically an alliance of all of the left parties – the far left, the Socialist Party, the Greens and the Communists – 182 seats in the 577-seat National Assembly.

A majority is needed of 289 seats, so they only have, as the largest bloc, 182 seats. Marine Le Pen's national rally party has, again, despite the fact that they were expecting to win only 143 seats, nevertheless gaining 50 seats compared to the previous election.

And for President Macron's party, the results come as something probably of a relief, because they have 168 seats, down from the 250 seats it held in the outgoing parliament, but still far more than what people were expecting. So we now have basically three scenarios. We have, in theory, a left bloc that doesn't have an absolute majority, that could be the ones, nevertheless, to try and find a coalition to rule the country.

You could have something of a sort of a grand coalition which would include the moderate left, the center, and the moderate right. But France is not really used to making coalitions. It's not how we work. It's not like in Israel, it's not like in Germany, or other European countries.

Or, we could have a third option, again, one that we've not had previously, in the Fifth Republic. It's called something like a technical government as it was the case for example, in Italy, under the Draghi government.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So what do these results mean for the French Jewish community?

Simone Rodan Benzaquen:

Now, first of all, I'd say that many Jews after the second round of the elections, probably felt, just as much of the country, a sigh of relief. In between the two rounds, everybody was talking about the fact that whether the National Rally would have an absolute majority, we would have Prime Minister Bardella from the far right ruling the country, what it would mean. And that's not happening.

So I think a majority of French Jews, again, just as the majority of French people probably seem somewhat relieved. But I think it was very quickly gained by a sense of worry, because of the presence of the far left Unbowed party in the left coalition that is now the largest part.

And so many, many questions arise, because we know that in that part of the coalition, there are very, very, very problematic elements, particularly with relation to Jews and antisemitism. And they have really made sort of, you know, “anti-Israelism,” or even antisemitism a core part of the ideology. And I think more largely, I'd say, Jews, I think are very, very uncomfortable. We were really the Jewish question, if I may put it that way, was really at the center of this election. It was all day long about which party is antisemitic, which party isn't, who’s trying to get the attention of the Jews.

And so many people around us, around me, really had the impression that they were being instrumentalized in a very, very horrible manner. And I think that the large feeling within the Jewish community is uncomfortable. They are afraid. And all of this also particularly in a context where we have an explosion of antisemitism.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So are you saying that that question of who is more antisemitic – the right, the left – was not actually, that question was not coming from the Jewish community? It was coming from another source. What were the origins of that question? And why is antisemitism the sin that has been instrumentalized?

Simone Rodan Benzaquen:

So first of all, you have to understand that the far left party from Jean-Luc Mélenchon has really used the issue of Gaza and of the Palestinians as a weapon. It's not about the Palestinians. It's about – how can I call it – “Palestinianism” – it's really become sort of a cultural marker for that party, constantly being at the border of antisemitism. So you have, for example, people within his party who considered that the October 7 terrorist attacks were not terrorist; you have those who say that it was actually resistance; you have those who deny that babies were killed. And the other side of the political spectrum, Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, really made the issue of antisemitism, position themselves as basically, the defenders, the protectors of the Jews, all while at the same time, still having elements within their own party that were clearly problematic.

The National Front also knows that this is the best way for them to become normalized to become a regular party that can actually be taken seriously by large parts of the French society. So basically, everybody was pulling at the Jews on all sides. And we all know that whenever you make the issue of antisemitism a political issue, or basically a political football game, or baseball game in the American context, it means that you're actually not serious about antisemitism.

And the same can be said on the left, in particular, the far left always pretends not to be antisemitic, says how is it even possible that anyone could believe they would be antisemitic while they only believe that antisemitism only exists on the on the right and on the far right?

So it's very problematic, because again, in the middle, are there actually Jewish citizens who the only thing they want is for everybody within the French society to take antisemitism seriously, and to fight it, collectively, knowing in particular that antisemitism is always the problem of society at large and should therefore be taken seriously by everybody.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I mean, it is well known the history of antisemitism within France’s far right party. Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s father, was repeatedly convicted for hate speech, Holocaust denial, and it does appear that his daughter Marine Le Pen has taken steps to distance her party from that history.

She has expressed support for Israel. She has expressed support for France’s Jewish community, as you said. Are you saying that it's really nothing more than a political strategy, a facade? Or do you think there is an authentic evolution of principles in her party, that has, a party that has some residual antisemitism from this long history?

Simone Rodan Benzaquen:

First of all, it's better to have a party to say what they say than the opposite. Let's be very clear about that. It's better to have Marine Le Pen and Bardella say the same things that they say, meaning, expressing support for the Jewish community, expressing support for Israel, than the opposite, as her father used to say, who used to consider that the gas chambers were just the detail in history. But nevertheless, I spoke about the fact that Emmanuel Macron, in his decision to call for snap elections, has wanted to clarify things. And once the focus came back to actually looking at the party and looking at the candidates of those that were actually presented by the national rally as being candidates for the parliamentary elections, you could see that the problems were still there.

So it's one thing to talk the talk, which is good, but at the same time, when you give nearly 100 seats to elements within your own party who are clearly problematic, I mean, we had a woman who wore a Nazi cap, like actually a cap from from from the Nazi era and took a picture of herself and posted it on social media. You have Holocaust deniers. You have people who actually had a library with where they sell Holocaust denying books, and the list goes on. You can't just consider that this is just residual, that this is just a small problem.

And again, I think for the party to really be taken seriously and really make sure that to know that what they're doing is genuine, they will have to have a very serious inward-looking approach.

Meaning, not using the issue of antisemitism and considering that it only exists ever on the far left, or that it only exists only within Islamist elements within the society, but actually agree and actually understand that it exists within their own ranks. Once that happens, we can take them a little bit more seriously. And we know that this will not only be part of a political strategy. In the meantime, I think we need to stay vigilant and call them out whenever that's necessary.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So now let's turn to the left. I have to say I used the word “residual” in my previous question on purpose because that was a word that Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the far left leader, used to describe antisemitism in France. It's not rising, it's just residual. He's also called Israel's operation in Gaza genocide. I'm curious, should we be concerned about the far left’s first place result? And what could be the ramifications of a far left victory in 2027 in the presidential election?

Simone Rodan Benzaquen:

So we did a survey, our biannual survey that we do together with IFOP, one of the largest polling institutes in France. And we found that 92% of French Jews consider Jean-Luc Mélenchon's unbound party to be the main reason why antisemitism is growing in the political sphere. So 92% of French Jews consider it to be antisemitic. A large majority or 54% of French Jews when they're being asked if Jean-Luc Mélenchon was to be president of France, would they leave the country or not, 55% say they would. So this is very, very clear. French Jews are very concerned about the far left.

The different comments by himself, whether it's because he called, for example, when Jeremy Corbyn lost the election in the United Kingdom at the time, he said that the reason why he lost the elections was because of the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, or because of the networks of the Likud.

He, as you said, he's spoken about a Gaza genocide, but that's happening basically every single day. He considers antisemitism to be residual, all while knowing that 1,000% increase in antisemitism has happened since October 7. He has used the issue of Gaza, of the Palestinians really as a political game to create chaos within its parliament. He has had, they have had Palestinian flags. They have called Israel an apartheid state.

I mean, this is basically happening every single day. So this is why Jews in France are extremely concerned and consider the far left to be the main cause of antisemitism today in the French political sphere. Now, what is very, very concerning, and this is we’re paying the consequences today, is that when after the first round of the parliamentary elections, the traditional left wing parties, meaning the Socialists, the Green, the small Communist Party, decided to make an alliance with Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s party, this was another not only a feeling of concern for French Jews, but probably a feeling of betrayal. Because it means that the moderate left does not consider antisemitism to be a red line.

It doesn't consider antisemitism to be so important. For it not to create an alliance with a party that has very clearly made antisemitism one of its major causes. And let's be clear, in the Socialist Party, you have, for example, Francois Hollande, the former President of France, who was just elected in Parliament again, and who has, you know, indirectly considered that antisemitism is not a red line for him, and therefore, has decided to create an alliance with the far left. So for French Jews, it's both a sense of fear, but also clearly a sense of betrayal.

Because how, what is the message not only to the French left, but what is the message to the rest of society? If you consider antisemitism not to be a red line? How do you want to continue to explain to the rest of society, to French children that antisemitism needs to be fought, that this is a priority for the country as such, if you don't consider it to be a red line? So we are now living with these consequences and therefore, the question arises, who will be in the government?

Will it be, you know, will it be the far left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, or will after the second round of the elections, the traditional moderate left decide to split off and, you know, take its distance with third party or again, continue in the same way, as they have until today, but it's a major issue, and one that we will possibly pay the price for in the future, again, beyond the very political issue, but in the country as such.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So what role did the Israel-Hamas war play in this election and its outcome?

Simone Rodan Benzaquen:

The far left had a candidate, Palestinian woman by the name of Rima Hassan, who has a very, very radical approach to the Palestinian issue, considers that there needs to be a Palestinian state from the river to the sea. And this was really sort of the poster child of the unbowed party from Jean-Luc Mélenchon. And more largely, the issue of antisemitism played a role on the other side by all the other parties.

We know, for example, of this horrible case of a 12-year-old Jewish girl who was raped by three boys of 12 and 13 years old, who hurled antisemitic insults and raped her. So all of this has really taken a center stage in the election, which makes many French people uneasy. I mean, so many friends of mine who said, you know, I wish we would be talking about something else.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I want to also look at the United Kingdom, another major country that also had elections last week, the UK Labour Party had a major victory ending 14 years of conservative rule. What can you tell us about that election and its results?

Simone Rodan Benzaquen:

This is major. The Labour Party led by Sir Keir Starmer really scored resounding victory in the general elections. Its majority is the largest one by any government since 1997. The party flipped seats in all corners, really, of the United Kingdom, defeating conservative candidates in constituencies that had been conservative since, really, the 19th century. The conservative vote collapsed by nearly 20 percentage points. It's the largest decline by any governing party in British political history. And voters abandoned the party not only in favor of the Labour Party, but also for other parties – for the Liberal Democrats, for reform UK, and also for the Green Party. And also plenty stayed at home.

Fewer than three-fifths of the voters turned out to vote, and it's the second lowest turnout in the past century. Now, the Liberal Democrats took 60 seats held by the conservatives. The party increased its representation in the House of Commons from 11 seats in 2019 to 72, and seats in which the Liberal Democrats were competing against the conservative really saw substantial tactical voting to ask the governing party in the seats. The Tories vote share fell by an average of 24 percentage points, while that of the Liberal Democrats increased by 12.

Also the Reform Party, Euro-skeptic, rather pro Russian anti-immigration party that was led by Nigel Farage was the biggest beneficiary of the conservative collapse in terms of vote share. Reform achieved 14% of the vote nationwide, which is basically 12 points compared with the Brexit party that Nigel Farage used in 2019.

Nevertheless, the interesting thing, though, I think, for the Labour Party in particular, is that we see to some extent that when Labour becomes a normal social democratic center left party, it can win elections, which wasn't the case under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn where the Labour Party very, very clearly lost the elections.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

But now, Jeremy Corbyn, as you mentioned earlier, very troubling history of antisemitism that spread throughout that party. So what should we know about the new prime minister Keir Starmer?

Simone Rodan Benzaquen:

Keir Starmer has made the issue of antisemitism a top priority. The party under Jeremy Corbyn had really become one could say institutionally antisemitic. And one of the first actions as Keir Starmer took over the party was the public apology to the Jewish community calling antisemitism a stain on the party that needed to be eradicated. And so I think as such, that needs to be clearly noted. Before Starmer also took over, before he now became Prime Minister, it's also important to note that the Jewish Labour MPs, like Luciana Berger, like Louise Ellman, who had left the party under Jeremy Corbyn, because basically they were being harassed, have decided to come back.

So I think it's really sort of an endorsement of Labour as sort of a renewed confidence in the party's election. So, I think overall, the Jewish community is in the United Kingdom somewhat reassured by the stance that Keir Starmer has taken, since he has taken over the party, and there is no reason to believe that he will take a different stance.

One should also probably note, even though this is, of course, his personal life, that Sir Keir Starmer knows the Jewish community very well. His wife is Jewish. She is the daughter of a Polish-British Jew, a Polish Jew who had emigrated to the United Kingdom in the 20s. Then was married to a non-Jewish woman who then converted to Judaism. So she was brought up Jewish. She is involved in Jewish community affairs.

Keir Starmer has had in the past said that he would stop working at 6 pm on Friday night in order to be able to be with his family for Shabbat dinner. And so this is, of course, an important sign. That being said, there will also be pressure without a doubt from other elements within the political spectrum.

There are other parties who did particularly well – the Green Party, the Reform Party, the Liberal Democrats, and there will be pressure, nevertheless, on many of the issues that in particular on foreign policy with relations to Israel and Gaza, that will be made. But overall, I think many in the Jewish community are reassured about the fact that the Labour Party was somehow cleansed of the most problematic antisemitic elements within the party.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So put this all in context for us now. And how do these elections fit in with what we're seeing across the continent, from the recent EU Parliament elections to the Dutch elections?

Simone Rodan Benzaquen:

There is clearly, across the continent, a huge polarization. We see radicalization of the political spectrum. We see a certain inability of people to even talk with each other, to even share a common sense of reality, a common sense of shared values. And I think this is really what we're seeing across the European continent, and probably more widely across Western democracies. And this I think, needs to be seen, particularly also in a wider geopolitical point of view.

We are clearly witnessing these days, an assault by autocratic nations or groups across the world, who have decided to team up despite their differences and to have to attack the Western worlds for their hegemony, to attack the Western world because they want to change the world order. So of course, militarily, by the war that is being waged by Russia against Ukraine, the war that is also being waged by Iranian proxies against Israel – Hamas, of course, since October 7, but also Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc, etc.

And they're really, I think, trying to test the grounds. We see those autocrats teaming up – Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, to some extent – waging this war against the West, and we in the West, really falling apart to some extent from within both because there is a hybrid war that is being waged by those autocratic elements and countries from the outside, but also because we ourselves have our own huge problems, of course, as we know, and there I think, this is what we're seeing. This is the polarization of the political spectrum.

And the fact that the far right is gaining more and more ground is part of that. It's part of the fact that many, many European citizens feel that what they used to believe Europe was about is falling apart. There is a lot of cultural insecurity. There's a lot of fear, and to some extent, the job that by the sort of traditional conservative and liberal parties on the left and right, that should have been there to address the concerns of European citizens, whether it's on immigration, whether it's on globalization, whether it's about the middle class have not been addressed by those parties.

And so in this vacuum, and in this wider geopolitical context, the populist parties are exploiting that part. So my appeal to European and Western democracies and Western parties who care about Western values and European values is to start addressing the issues from within, stand up for themselves stand up for the minorities and in particular Jews. Knowing that antisemitism is always the first sign of societies falling apart, and deal with the very serious threats that are coming from the outside, and stand firm. Because we are at a crossroads of the world as we know it.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Once again, thank you, Simone for joining us and informing all of our conversations on these matters.
- Luisteren Nogmaals beluisteren Doorgaan Wordt afgespeeld...
- Later beluisteren Later beluisteren
Laat meer zien

Afleveringen

The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know

What President-Elect Trump’s Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More

Honoring Felice Gaer: A Lifelong Champion for Human Rights