People of the Pod

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

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

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

This week, groups representing more than 1,600 colleges and universities pledged reforms to fight campus antisemitism—a major breakthrough in the effort to end anti-Jewish hatred and create campuses where Jewish students feel safe. In collaboration with American Jewish Committee (AJC), the groups urged the Trump administration to continue making the eradication of antisemitism a priority, but without endangering the research grants, academic freedom and institutional autonomy of America's colleges and universities. Here to discuss this collaboration are Sara Coodin, Director of Academic Affairs for AJC, and Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Resources: Watch – Creating Safe Spaces for Jewish Students: Education Leaders Speak at AJC Global Forum 2025 Listen – AJC Podcasts: Most Recent Episodes: What is Pope Francis' Legacy with the Jewish People? Why TikTok is the Place to Talk about Antisemitism: With Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman Related Episodes: Higher Education in Turmoil: Balancing Academic Freedom and the Fight Against Antisemitism Meet the MIT Scientists Fighting Academic Boycotts of Israel Spat On and Silenced: 2 Jewish Students on Fighting Campus Hate University of Michigan Regent Jordan Acker: When Antisemitism Hits Home The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of Conversation with Ted Mitchell and Sara Coodin: Manya Brachear Pashman: This week, groups representing more than 1,600 colleges and universities pledged reforms to fight campus antisemitism -- a major breakthrough in the effort to end anti-Jewish hatred and create campuses where Jewish students feel safe. In collaboration with American Jewish Committee, the groups urged the Trump administration to continue making the eradication of antisemitism a priority, but without endangering the research grants, academic freedom and institutional autonomy of America's colleges and universities. Here to discuss this collaboration is Sara Coodin, Director of Academic Affairs for AJC and Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. Ted, Sara, welcome to People of the Pod. Ted Mitchell: Thanks, Manya, good to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Ted, if you could please give our listeners an overview of who signed on to this. Who are the six organizations, and do they encompass all of the higher ed institutions in the country? Ted Mitchell: We represent everybody. And so it's everybody, from the Community College Association to the land grant universities, to AAU, the big research universities, the state colleges and universities, and then ACE is an umbrella organization for everybody. So we've got built in suspenders, and we've got every institution in America on the side of eliminating antisemitism. Manya Brachear Pashman: And then, I guess, the next question is, why? I mean, why was it necessary for American Council on Education and these other associations to join this effort? Ted Mitchell: Well, a couple, a couple of things. I mean, first of all, we have partnered. AJC and Ace have partnered for a number of years to identify and try to address issues of antisemitism. So feel like we've been in partnership for some time on these issues. And unfortunately, the need has continued to grow. I think that last spring was a real wake up call to a lot of our institutions, that they might have been comfortable believing that there was no antisemitism on their campus, but boy, they got up. They got a notice in the mail. So I think that we have, as a group, all six of us, we have worked with our institutions since last spring to create opportunities for institutions to do better. And so we had long conversations over the spring and summer about changes in disciplinary policy, everything from masks to how to make sure that every group that was seeking to have a voice make a protest was operating under the same rules, make sure that everybody understood those rules. And frankly, I think we've made great progress over the course of the summer. There are still things that we can do better. There are always things we can do better. But I think the call for this letter was the conflation by the Trump administration of antisemitism and efforts to eradicate antisemitism with all of the other activities that go on on a university campus that are not really related to antisemitism. And case in point is the administration's willingness to hold research funds hostage to institutional changes and behaviors that have never been stipulated. So we're in this interesting spot where we want to do better. We're working on doing better, and the administration is saying, well, just do more. We can't tell you when you'll get there. Not only is that sort of fruitless, we also think it's illegal. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Sara, I know AJC published an action plan for university administrators last year, and that not only includes concrete steps to address antisemitic incidents when they happen immediately, but also ways to cultivate a healthier culture. Does AJC expect the member schools of these six associations to draw from that action plan? Sara Coodin: So, we hope so. You know, we don't have the power to mandate that any university in particular, much less a range of universities representing all of higher ed the entire spectrum adopt our specific action plan, but our action plan is really, I think, quite thoughtful, and covers a lot of territory. So we're thinking about all of the citizens of campus. We're thinking about administrators. We're thinking too about how administrators can create frameworks so that students can get the education that they're meant to receive on site, and for which they, you know, attend university in the first place, we're thinking too about the role of faculty, and specifically at this crucial moment, because so much attention has been paid to the experience of students and to what happens when you create clear expectations and convey them to students through codes of conduct and other kinds of regulatory initiatives. We're thinking very seriously about what it would mean for administrators to convey those expectations to their faculty as well, and we think that there are lanes through which they can do this that have been under scrutinized and underutilized, and usually that falls into the bucket of professionalization. What do you do with faculty who are showing up fresh out of grad school on your campus? How do you as an institutional leader or a provost, convey the expectations that you have about the rights and responsibilities of being a teacher, a research supervisor, someone who might be supervising student activities and clubs like the student newspaper. How do you convey your institutional expectations and your expectations of these folks who are in positions of leadership for a generation or more? So it's it's an area that we think is really ripe for conversation and for folks to be convening in meaningful discussions about what the next steps consist of. Ted Mitchell: Manya, if I can, if I can interject, I really applaud the framework. I think is a great place for us to start. And I know that one of the things that was important and beginning to get support from my members and other people's members was the convening that we that we held a while ago in Washington that drew 85 college presidents together, and that was a solutions focused meeting. And I think it really suggests to me that there is quite an opening for us to work together on creating a framework that could be adopted either formally or informally by many institutions. As you say, none of us can mandate what's going to happen. That's also true for the government, frankly. But I think the more and the sooner we can build a common common consensus around this, the better. And to your point about faculty responsibilities. We hear a lot about academic freedom. We hear a lot about faculty rights. We often forget that there is a responsibility for faculty to be the adults in the room and to expand the dialog and raise the level of discussion, and we need, we need to promote that. Manya Brachear Pashman: You know, I'm curious, are there any examples of institutions that have made a change have drawn from that action plan, and it created positive results. Sara? Sara Coodin: So I think we're seeing the effects of time, place and manner restrictions, and we first saw those being articulated through the task force at Columbia. And we know Columbia is not, not exactly an ideal institution right now for for a lot of different reasons, but that's not to disparage the efforts of the folks who sat on that antisemitism Task Force who came up with very specific and extremely thoughtful recommendations for their school. And I pride myself on having worked with a team that took those ideas and made sure that other schools were aware of them, so that they weren't trying to reinvent the wheel. And I think that's often the function that we've served, and particularly in the last year, because schools can and do operate in silos, whether they're geographical silos or silos within their own particular brand of school, big research institutions, Ivy League institutions, sometimes they're in conversation, but it can be very useful to serve, for us to serve as a convening function. We're not also not reinventing the wheel necessarily, but we're working in partnership to try to bring a solutions focused kind of perspective to this, because we think there are solutions in view? Obviously, leadership plays a key role in any institutional context. Are people emboldened enough to actually feel like they can convey those solutions to their communities and stand by them? And that's something that we have seen happen. I wish it were pervasive. I wish it were happening in every case. It's not, but there are certainly institutions that have taken the lead on this, whether quietly or very loudly, and I think it's important to bring our solutions to the attention of other institutions as well. Manya Brachear Pashman: Ted, I'm curious, can you shed light on the conversations that have unfolded since October 7, 2023 I mean, as students were setting up encampments and staging sit ins. Was there hand wringing, or was it considered, well, at least at first, typical college activism part of university life, Ted Mitchell: I think it started off as I certainly would never say ho hum. It started off with a sense that there has been a horrific event in the world. And of course, our campuses are going to be places where students need to respond to that and reflect on it. So I think in the early days, there was a sense that this was a right thing for campuses to be engaged in. I think the surprise came in the following weeks. 90s when the pro Palestinian, anti Israel and antisemitic counter protests began to happen and and that was something that we really didn't expect, certainly not in the volume and intensity that took place. And I think I've said this from from the beginning, I think that we were taken by surprise and on our back foot, and so I can't, I don't know a college president who would say, stand up and say we did everything right after October 7. And you could see this in, you know, presidents making a statement on a Tuesday that they had to either retract or revise on a Thursday, and then by Monday, everything was up in the air. Again, I think that there was a lack of a sense of what the framework is looking for. There's a there was a lack of a sense of, here's where we stand as an institution. Here's what's permissible, here's what's not permissible, and we're going to be even handed in the way we deal with students who are protesting and expressing expressing their beliefs. We need them to be able to express their beliefs, but under no circumstances can those expressions be violent. Under no circumstances can they discriminate against other groups or prevent other groups from access to the education that they came for. Manya Brachear Pashman: Is some of what you're saying informed by 2020, hindsight, or is it informed by education? In other words, have you? Have you yourself and have have college presidents learned as as this year has progressed, Ted Mitchell: Well, this goes to Sara's really good point. I think that there have been two kinds of learning that have taken place. One is sort of informal communication back and forth between Presidents who sort of recognize themselves in other circumstances. And I think that that's been very powerful. We for a while, in the spring, had informal Friday discussion discussions where any president who wanted to come and talk would come and talk, and they were avidly taking notes and trying to learn from each other in real time. I think the second kind of learning was after students went home, and there really was a broad agreement that institutions needed to tackle their policies. We ran into presidents in the spring who had not read their student conduct policies, and from from there to people who had very elaborate Student Conduct policies but weren't actually following them very well, or had a lot of exceptions, or, you know, just crazy stuff. So summer was an incredible time of calculated learning, where people were sharing drafts of things. Sara was deeply involved in, in making sure that institutions were learning from each other, and that Sara and her colleagues were pulling these together in the framework, in the framework that we have, you know it's still happening. I talk often with with presidents, and they're still exchanging notes and tactics about things that are going on, going on this fall, but they're doing so from a position of much more stability, Manya Brachear Pashman: Having taken that breath over the summer and prepared. Ted Mitchell: Having taken that breath, having sort of been through the fire, having taken that breath and having really regrouped. And one of the things that has been most essential in that regrouping is to make sure that all parties on campus understand what the rules and regulations are. From faculty to staff to Student Affairs personnel, to make sure that when a campus takes an action that it's understood to be the appropriate response to whatever the event might have been. Sara Coodin: And just to add to that point, about how, many institutions were caught flat footed. And I won't attest to whether I experienced this first personally, but thinking back to the history, the days of, you know when, when protests were either about apartheid in South Africa or it, it seemed like there was a very clear position and a clear kind of moral line there when it came to protests. So that's one example where it seems like there was a right side to be on. And I think that that is much, obviously we look at the protests from last year as being far more out of line with any sense of a moral right, they were in some cases host to horrific antisemitism and directly responsible for making Jewish students feel unsafe on campus. So the other example of protest, which is before my time, were the Vietnam protests on college campuses. Were really directed against the government. And last year and two years ago, we saw protests where one group of students was effectively protesting against another student group, another student population. And that is something that university administrators haven't seen before. If they were caught flat footed, it's because this was a novel set of circumstances and a really challenging one, because if you have students being activists about a geopolitical event, the focus is somewhere out there, not a population that has to live and learn on your campus. And so we're seeing the kind of directed impact of those protests on a particular group of students that feel like they no longer have a home on campus or on particular campuses, and that is a uniquely challenging set of circumstances. Of course, we would have loved it if everyone had a playbook that worked, that could have really caught this stuff from the get go and had a very clear plan for how to deal with it, but that simply wasn't the case. And I think there are good reasons to understand why that was the case. Those codes of conduct hadn't been updated, in some cases, in 70 years. Ted Mitchell: Your insight is really powerful, that this was one group of students against another group of students, and that's very different. But taking it back, not historically, but just sociologically, one of the things that we also learned is that this generation of students comes to our campuses with almost zero muscle and no muscle memory of how to deal with difference. And so this generation of students is growing up in the most segregated neighborhoods since the Civil Rights Act. They're growing up in the most segregated schools since Brown. And they are parts of these social media ecosystems that are self consciously siloing. And so they come to our campuses and they confront an issue that is as divisive as this one was last spring, and they really don't know how to deal with it. So that's the other learning that we've taken. Is that we need to get very serious about civic education, about how to have conversations between left and right, Jewish students and non-Jewish students, Muslim students and others, and white and black. And we need to get better at that, which, again, comes into the where's the faculty in this? And if they're not a part of that kind of engagement, especially if they take sides, then we've really lost a lot of our power to create a kind of contentious but productive democratic citizenship. Sara Coodin: What we have been privy to, and in the conversations that we've had with, I think leading university presidents and chancellors who really have have done the right thing, I think in the last year, they're, they're affirming a lot of what you're saying, Ted, about this inability to engage in in civil discourse. And in some ways, it's an admissions problem. It's admitting students who are, you know, they're writing to an audience that is looking for world-changing activism. And when you do that, you're going to get a lot of really inflamed activists on your campus. I think the faculty piece is more complicated. I think that speaks to a couple of generations' worth of lack of framing, of what academic freedom even is, and a kind of entry into the conversation through all kinds of back channels, that the most powerful thing you can be as a teacher is a world changer. And that means gravitating towards the extremes. It doesn't mean cultivating civil discourse, because that's boring. Why would you want to do that? That's, that's not the way to make a splash. It's disappointing to see that kind of ethos take hold. But I think there are ways in which it can be more actively discouraged. Whether it's through admissions, through looking to hire on the basis of different criteria when you're looking for faculty. And it's also a K-12 problem, and we affirm that, and that's something our Center for Educational Advocacy looks at very seriously in the work that we do in the K-12 space. How do we work with instructors and heads of school in that space to better prepare students who arrive on a college campus, knowing how to engage in civil discourse, knowing how to disagree in a way that doesn't have to result in everyone holding hands at the end and singing Kumbaya. But it shouldn't produce the culture that we saw last year. It shouldn't. It's incredibly damaging. And I think we've seen how ineffective that model is and how turbulent it is. Ted Mitchell: It's interesting that you raise the admissions question, because I think that, Manya, to your question about what have people done? A lot of this gets really granular, like, what essay questions do you ask? And a lot of them are, what have you done to advance something you believe in? And I was talking with a president who came in right before the springtime, who changed the essay question to be a question about bridging. Tell the committee of a time when you helped, you know, bridge an issue, a group, whatever. And I think that the attention on antisemitism in particular is really that is driving us to think about those micro-elements of our processes that actually foster, in some ways, this kind of segregation and combat that we saw in such grotesque detail last spring. Sara Coodin: Yeah, it's interesting. I know you work with faith-based colleges as well, and that notion of service, which is not part of the infrastructure for most schools, seems like a productive part of, maybe, a future conversation about a different model for being in the world. Ted Mitchell: I think that that's right, and I love all of our members, but the faith based institution, because this has always been front and center for so many of them, who will you be in the world as a question to ask every single student, who are you in the world, to ask every faculty member that those are natural questions in many of our many of our faith based institutions. And I really admire them. Admire them for it. Manya Brachear Pashman: And of course, that's the purpose of going to a college or university, is to figure that out, right? Who you are going to be in this world. I want to ask both of you, what is the next step? Will there be an effort to reverse some of the measures that have been taken by the federal government to get universities to comply, or is this more about proactive measures? Sara Coodin: I mean, I can say, for our part, we have no leverage over the federal government. We're not in a position to tell them to do anything. We can appeal to them to be more measured, as we have, and we've appealed to them to be part of a larger conversation about what's going on right now and we make those efforts routinely. I think the path forward is for universities to really think carefully about who their partners are in this work. And that's, I think part of the effect of this statement is that we are, we, AJC, are there to work towards constructive solutions, and that has always been our basic mission in terms of our advocacy, but we now have it in a very public form. And we're not there to simply hold accountable. I mean, we all hold one another accountable perpetually. We are actually there to do the work and to engage in constructive solution seeking. And I think we're at a moment now where we've seen enough, we've kind of seen enough of this film, that we can come up with some better solutions going forward. It's not catching us kind of flat footed in the same way, because we've had some time to reflect. And I think that's where the future of this leads to. It leads to constructive solutions. It leads to coming up with really effective strategies to migrate knowledge and approaches, and tailor them to the specifics of campuses that you know are very unique, are very distinctive, and are broad in this country. As you know, Ted, this is a country with so many types of educational institutions, so many. Ted Mitchell: So the statement is important from a number of different perspectives. One is that it's great that we have come together to ask the federal government to separate the important issue of antisemitism from the other interventions that the federal government is attempting. But the other really important thing that we want the letter to signal is our helping institutions develop the right way to combat antisemitism and, more importantly, prevent it, and through its work on antisemitism, really develop this kind of more inclusive civic culture on our campuses. Manya Brachear Pashman: You know, AJC does a state of antisemitism in America report every year, and the most recent report found that roughly a third of current American Jewish college students or graduates had experienced antisemitism personally at least once in the past year, and about little over 20% reported being excluded from a group because they were Jewish. And I'm curious if university administrators pay attention to these kinds of statistics, or maybe, did they pay attention before October 7, and are they paying attention? Ted Mitchell: Now, I think, with some embarrassment, I'll say that before October 7, antisemitism was a back burner issue, and in many cases, was seen as yesterday's problem or even a historical problem. History has that nasty way of never quite going away. And you know, we see it again here. You know I remember. Was it three years ago that we co hosted a symposium in New York on antisemitism on campus, and it was it was striking. It was well attended, and people really heard a lot. But the the most striking thing that we all heard was testimony from Jewish students, not only about the frequency of antisemitic activity, but their exclusion from what we used to be able to call DEI initiatives, and that somehow whatever was happening to Jewish students wasn't the same thing. And I went away heart's sake about that. And I think that we, you know, we let two years pass without doing much about it. And we were called, we were called to account for that. So I think that, now that antisemitism has the attention of colleges and universities, we can't squander it. But instead, we really need to move forward and say, what is it that institutions need? Can I take one more second about data and statistics? When I read that report the first thing that I noted was that those numbers are almost precisely the same numbers that women on American colleges have experienced assault, sexual assault, 30% of women on college campuses have felt that they were assaulted in one way or another verbal and 20% feel like they were physically endangered. And so it's not a good thing, but it speaks to the scope of the problem. And in our little world, there really was a lot of attention placed on safety and security for female students, prevention sexual assault prevention, identification of the places where sexual assault was more prevalent, fraternities, alcohol as a as a fixture of that and I hope that we're going to have the same data driven conversations about antisemitism that we did about women's women's safety issues on our on our campuses. Manya Brachear Pashman: That is such an interesting observation. Sara Coodin: Just to latch on to that point, about data and about how, how. I mean, we too, were surprised by some of the returns this year. We knew it had been a tough year, but we didn't exactly know what students were going to report. We asked specific questions about specific aspects of their experience. But I think you know, one of the things that stands out about the data, for me is, is the framing that we had for students when we asked about their experiences, we asked about their subjective experience, something that's occasionally used to discount our data. Hey, you're asking about people's feelings, but actually, we want to know about the experience, the subjective experience. This is a key component of what the college experience actually amounts to for students going through it. And of course, we want a solid record of the number of incidents that students are exposed to, whether it's violence or, you know, whether it's coming through the form of words. There's a range of different options, but I think when you look at things like numbers of Jews on college campuses, you get a particular story about the presence of a fractionally tiny minority at elite institutions. Particularly, the numbers are fairly good, although they've dropped in the last number of years. But I think that that doesn't tell the full story. And I think you need that subjective aspect to find out how Jewish students are feeling in those roles in those institutions. And I kind of want to use this just as an opportunity to double down on the importance of that, the feeling that student have about their experience in college, which is an experience they've worked terribly hard to arrive at, and that they tend to take extraordinarily seriously once they've arrived it is It is unthinkable to allow that experience to continue to be shaped by antisemitism. It's flatly unacceptable. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, Sara, Ted, thank you so much to you both for elaborating and explaining what this means, and I wish you both luck in carrying out the mission. Ted Mitchell: Thank you so much. Sara Coodin: Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's special episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman and Lisa Marlowe, director of the Holocaust Awareness Museum and Education Center outside Philadelphia – a conversation that was recorded live at the Weizmann National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia. Be sure to listen.

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

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

As new negotiations begin to tackle Iran's nuclear program, missile development, and support for terror proxies, tensions are escalating. Jason Isaacson, AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, joins us to unpack the legacy of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and withdrawal in 2018, and Iran's dangerous stockpiling of uranium, getting them closer to nuclear weapons capabilities. With U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff leading talks and key UN sanctions expiring soon, the stakes are higher than ever. Don't miss Jason's insights on what the U.S. is demanding, the potential for successful diplomacy, and the global risks posed by Iran. ___ Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran Social media influencer Hen Mazzig on leaving Tunisia Chef Einat Admony on leaving Iran Playwright Oren Safdie on leaving Syria Cartoonist Carol Isaacs on leaving Iraq Novelist Andre Aciman on leaving Egypt People of the Pod: Latest Episode: This Often Forgotten 1929 Massacre is Key to Understanding the Current Israel-Palestinian Conflict Higher Education in Turmoil: Balancing Academic Freedom and the Fight Against Antisemitism Held Hostage in Gaza: A Mother's Fight for Freedom and Justice Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of Interview with Jason Isaacson: Manya Brachear Pashman: Negotiations begin on Saturday to curtail Iran's nuclear fuel enrichment, infrastructure, missile program and support of Hezbollah Hamas and other terror proxies around the world. US Special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, will shepherd the talks. At the same time he's handling discussions around Gaza and Ukraine with us to discuss the potential of these negotiations and their impact is AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, Jason Isaacson. Jason, welcome back to People of the Pod. Jason Isaacson: Thanks, Manya. It's good to be back. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Jason, the Obama administration sealed the deal in 2015 to curtail Iran's nuclear program, which President Trump then withdrew from in 2018. What did that original deal look like? Jason Isaacson: Of course, the United States pulled out of the deal in 2018 as you said, whereupon, after a period of reflection and some uncertainty, the Iranians started violating the agreement. The original agreement that was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action allowed the Iranians to enrich their uranium up to 3.67% purity of uranium. You need something like 90% in order to make a bomb. They were allowed to keep just 300 kilograms of that enriched uranium. The rest of their stockpile of uranium had to be shipped out of the country, which it was. There were other restrictions that were imposed on Iran. They had to disable a plutonium facility that also was a possible avenue toward a nuclear device. They had to allow intrusive inspections, not as intrusive as some had hoped, and they had to limit the degree of sophistication of their centrifuges. They had a very robust centrifuge production capacity, which had to be limited. They had to disable certain centrifuges that they already had, and they couldn't advance them further. There were a number of these other restrictions that were imposed in the return for which the Iranians were going to have sanctions removed, sanctions that had held back their economic growth, limited the degree to which they could ship their oil and gas to vendors, to customers around the world. It was a good trade for the Iranians, but from our perspective, it lacked certain things. It certainly lacked objectives that the administration, at that time, the Obama administration, we thought, had been pursuing, which was not only to limit the ability of the Iranians to produce a nuclear weapon, but to affect other aspects of Iranian behavior, their missile program, their advanced ballistic missile program, their support for proxies that endangered stability and security across the region and beyond. Those issues ended up getting dropped in the nuclear negotiations. They were just focused on nuclear program, which was a reason why AJC opposed the deal when it was announced in 2015 and why Donald Trump campaigning for president and then after he became president, after giving it a run to try to find a way to perhaps induce European partners to go back to the negotiating table and impose additional restrictions on the Iranians, including covering the missile program, lengthening the amount of time that would be held in check the nuclear program of Iran for maybe not just 15 years, but 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years. Those efforts were ultimately abandoned. Was impossible to reach an agreement between the United States and the European allies, and so in 2018 the president pulled out. Manya Brachear Pashman: So besides the man in charge, what has changed in the last decade since that time? Jason Isaacson: Iran has serially and outrageously violated the terms that were agreed to 2015 they were initially allowed, as I said, to have 300 kilograms of low enriched uranium. They now have 8200 kilograms plus, according to the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and some of that is enriched up to a level of 60% which is really, frankly, just below the level needed for a nuclear device. So they're way out of alignment, way out of the agreement that they had reached in 2015 now, of course, in addition to that, the Iranian economy has suffered a decade of sanctions, high inflation, high unemployment, rolling. Blackouts in major cities, the brain drain. Smart Iranians realizing there's no economic future in their country and have left and of course, over the last year and a half, after the Hamas attacked on Israel of October 7, 2023 Iran, a supporter of Hamas, a funder and supplier of Hamas, after a few months, it posed its own attacks, fired missiles and drones at Israel in support of Hamas' activities and also in support of Hezbollah, the other Iranian proxy on Israel's northern border. So twice in the last year and a half, we've had attacks by Iran against Israel, which Israel responded to, and significantly weakened terrorists in Lebanon, Hezbollah. And of course, the Hamas, they decapitated Hezbollah, and they also struck back at Iran, after Iran fired missiles and drones that had mostly been intercepted by Israel's air defenses in cooperation with the United States, and frankly, some Arab partners and also France and the UK. Manya Brachear Pashman: So does Iran have as much leverage as it had in 2015? Jason Isaacson: It must be said that Iran is weakened. It's weakened economically, it's weakened militarily, its air defenses have been exposed and significantly damaged, and it has seen that its attempts to strike at Israel are deflected. By a combination of us and and especially Israeli forces, and also with the support of some regional allies and European allies as well. So Iran goes into this negotiation with the Trump administration in a poorer position to make its demands heard and enforced, except for the fact that Iran is proud and it has shown under enormous economic duress, they have continued to advance their nuclear program. They clearly believe that this is part of their right and necessity if they are going to provide some kind of a defense for themselves against what they see as a US led us in cooperation, in partnership with Israel, led effort to weaken them and drive them away from their power in the Gulf, to limit their ability to exert influence across the region. So they may be in a poorer position. Whether that will be evident in the negotiating table is another question. Manya Brachear Pashman: President Trump criticized the Obama administration for not walking away when Iran didn't meet America's demands. Do you see this negotiation unfolding quite differently than that one did? Jason Isaacson: Well, there are a couple of factors here. One the Iranians are famous negotiators, famous for being exacting and excruciating and insistent on certain points in the texts that they discuss. They have their own interpretations for texts. This was an issue in the past. And the pain that is exerted on their counterparts in negotiations, I have heard people talk about, both from the Gulf and from US officials, how difficult it is to actually have the negotiation with the Iranians. They will insist on going again and again and again through every codicil, every agreement, every annex, to a point that will sort of drive people up a wall until they, according to, I think the Iranians calculation, give up and say, Okay, fine, we'll concede you on that point. I'm concerned that they are so practiced at this negotiating style, which I suppose you have to say they've been practicing for thousands of years. I am not sure that in this kind of rushed effort to move into negotiations with, frankly, a very capable negotiator in Steve Witkoff, who certainly has the trust of the President. And he was successful in helping move forward hostage negotiations very early on. In fact, frankly, the day before the inauguration of President Trump, Steve Witkoff was instrumental in advancing that cease fire and hostage release deal. But there's a lot on Steve Witkoff's shoulders. He's also involved in the Ukraine, Russia negotiations. He is not and I'm sure he would say this himself, an expert on the Iranian nuclear file and all the details of the nuclear enrichment and the capabilities of the Iranians to deceive their negotiators. So I am hopeful that we will have something to celebrate after these negotiations get off the ground. But I think it's also fair to say that it's with some trepidation that we look ahead to the possibility of sitting down with practiced negotiators who have been doing this for decades. Manya Brachear Pashman: Is there a sense of urgency here? How long do you anticipate these negotiations taking? Jason Isaacson: Frankly, the negotiation over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action took something like two years. We had a preliminary agreement in 2014 the final agreement in 2015 then the Biden administration, after the Trump administration, pulled out of the deal. When the Biden administration came in, in 2021 there was an effort for about two years to go back to the negotiating table with the Iranians. Very complicated, very difficult. Ultimately unsuccessful. It is not easy to negotiate with these guys. I'm hopeful that this administration have taken lessons from the experience of the past. Have experts around them who know the Iranian file, who have actually sat across the table from Iranians and can work with them to a successful conclusion. The other issue that must be put on the table here is that come October, one key point of leverage in this entire process, the ability to snap back the United Nations sanctions that were put in place years ago and that were then suspended when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action took effect, with the support of the United Nations. The ability to snap back those very heavy UN sanctions, which don't only apply to oil, energy sector applies to transportation and banking and other aspects of Iranian behavior, would really be crippling sanctions. The ability to snap those back, put those back in place, will expire on October 18 of this year, which means that we have just a few months to come up with some kind of agreement with Iran that is better than what we had in 2015. If we don't, all bets off. Then we're back to a place where we have lost the ability to have the entire international community, all UN member states, comply with a renewed set of sanctions. And then it'll be a whole process of trying to get other countries on board. If we're going to try to exert maximum pressure, really maximum pressure. That means not just us pressure, but maximum pressure applied by the international community at large. We're going to lose that if we don't reach some kind of an agreement or snap back before October 18. So the clock is ticking. The pressure is on. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, certainly the scope of what the Trump administration is pursuing with Iran is much broader. The Obama era agreement, for example, limited Iran's stockpiles of nuclear material. The Trump administration wants to take it all apart, completely dismantle the country's nuclear infrastructure, dismantle its missile program, its longtime support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Certainly, that's what everyone wants. But is it realistic? Jason Isaacson: What we've heard from President Trump and from Mike Waltz, the national security adviser and Secretary Rubio others who have commented on this in recent days, they are insisting that the Iranians dismantle, fully dismantle, in the words of the National Security Advisor, their ability to enrich uranium to have the stockpile necessary for an eventual nuclear bomb. You know, countries can have a nuclear program, but they don't have to enrich their own uranium. They can buy uranium for their nuclear reactors, for energy purposes and research and medical purposes. The Iranians want the full nuclear cycle. They basically got that in the negotiations a decade ago. This administration clearly wants to remove that ability for the Iranians. That's going to be a very hard thing to sell to the Iranians. And in addition to that, the administration has made it clear that preventing the Iranians from advancing a military nuclear program is just one of their objectives. It's a main objective, but the other objectives are eliminating their ability to advance their ballistic missile program, which was really designed for the sole purpose of being able to carry a nuclear warhead to Europe, to the United States, to Israel, other neighbors, other enemies of the Iranians. And then also, very clearly that this administration wants to negotiate an end to Iranian support for its proxy network, for the militias in Iraq and Syria. Used to be in Syria for Hezbollah, for Hamas, for other terrorist groups. That's a very tall order. You're basically saying, Iran, get down on your knees and give up all of the weapons that you have assiduously assembled over the last decades to protect yourself against the depredations of the horrible West and of your longtime neighbors who have maybe some designs on your territory, you might think. And they're not going to do that. So it's going to be very difficult. We have sanctions, we have influence, we have pressure that we can put on the Iranians, and there are two aircraft carrier battle groups that are stationed not very far away that will exert military pressure on the Iranians. So very complicated negotiations, a lot of assets, a lot of equities at play here, I wish the administration well. It will be a very difficult road to get the Iranians to see ground on all of these points. Manya Brachear Pashman: It is hard to believe that a hostile country, especially, that supports terrorism around the world, would agree to become essentially defenseless. But there is a history of it, right? I mean, in the early aughts, Libya, they agreed to dismantle their nuclear program under the Bush administration in 2003. Could something similar happen here? Or does the United States just not have that same leverage? Jason Isaacson: Look, we've heard the reference to Libya. In fact, it was made by the administration just in recent days as well. And yes, it's true that in 2003 the Libyans did relinquish their nuclear weapons program. There were, I think, 10 sites across Libya that international inspectors were allowed to visit. And dismantle the program that had been going on for a number of years. But then, of course, we all know, eight years later, Muammar Gaddafi was toppled, was overthrown and hunted down and later killed. Another example in 1994 is the Budapest Memorandum in which Ukraine and Belarus and Kazakhstan gave up their nuclear weapons that were part of the arsenals that have been kept there by the former Soviet Union. Relinquished those weapons, those warheads were sent back to Russia. It was a very complicated negotiation. The United States and the United Kingdom and Russia all agreed at that time, 1994, that they would never attack Ukraine and Belarus and Kazakhstan. They would not use military force, they would not use economic coercion unless an act of self defense. But the agreement very controversial in Ukraine at the time, to give up what had been the world's third largest nuclear stockpile was relying on these assurances from the West that they would not be attacked if they gave up their nuclear deterrent and turned it back to now, what was Russia, which is the seat of power of the Soviet Union. Two decades later, Russia comes along and annexes Crimea and attacks in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. And now, of course, you know, here we are a decade after that, where Russia is seizing a significant portion of Ukrainian territory and killing 1000s of Ukrainians. So the lesson, yes, is that you can negotiate away a nuclear program. But the other lesson that follows from that is, yes, you can negotiate it away, and you can find yourself facing terrible dangers, having lost that deterrent capacity. Manya Brachear Pashman: Okay, so the US did previously hammer out a deal in 2015. Are there any details of that deal that are worth bringing back to the table, or is the Trump administration starting from scratch? Jason Isaacson: Well, look, if they're able to, in these negotiations, come to an agreement on the dismantling, really the destruction, of the capacity of the Iranians to with any centrifuges advanced or otherwise, to enrich uranium, to create a stockpile from which they could later secretly advance a military nuclear program. If that's what we agree to, there have to be very comprehensive and intrusive and unannounced inspections by the IAEA, perhaps by other national agencies as well. If the Iranians could agree to that the United States overseeing the destruction of these facilities, that would pick up on sort of the inspection aspect of the 2015 agreement. And go, of course, significantly farther. If they're able to provide other assurances on other research facilities that the Iranians have, making sure that any research is unearthed, is exposed, is destroyed, ceases to present the possibility that the Iranians could actually advance the military nuclear program if all those steps could be put in place, which again, would be taking what happened in 2015 and JCPOA, and just magnifying it, intensifying it way beyond what was possible to negotiate at that time, according to those who tried very hard to negotiate a stronger agreement, but we're left with what they actually were able to accomplish in 2015. Let's hope that's possible. I don't know if it will be possible. But there would be, of course, in any agreement going forward, there would be certain elements that are related to and are outgrowths of and are really expansions on what happened in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, except that this administration has set a very high bar, and there will be many critics in the United States and Congress, around the world, in Israel but elsewhere in the region, if the administration rushes to a deal that falls short of its very ambitious expectations. Manya Brachear Pashman: You mentioned Israel, if President Trump follows through on his threats of military strikes on Iran, if negotiations don't go as he has planned, could that put Israel at more risk than it already is. Jason Isaacson: It could. I think there is really no one in the region who wants a war, as everyone knows, as everyone has seen in successive military conflicts, the outcome of war is unpredictable, usually worse than what is expected. I think Israel does not want a war, but Israel cannot live with an Iranian nuclear threat, and if there is not the possibility of negotiating away this nuclear threat, I think that everyone would understand that a small country that has already been attacked twice in the last year by Iran, which had demonstrated its intention to strangle and destroy Israel again and again, and says it at every opportunity that it gets, everyone would understand if Israel had to take certain action, and if Israel and the United States were to act together. Are providing a greater chance of success, I think that would be understandable and, frankly, laudable. The best possible option is a negotiation in which the Iranian nuclear program is forever put out of business. Let's hope we can get to that. Let's hope that the Trump administration is successful in these efforts. Manya Brachear Pashman: And also, speaking of Israel, how much did or should Israel be contributing to these negotiations? Jason Isaacson: Well, let's hope that, unlike in 2014 2015 when the United States negotiated with Iran, alongwith France and Germany and Great Britain and the European Union and Russia and China. Let's hope that the neighbors of Iran, those who were most affected by Iranian threats, are involved in this process in a much more serious way. There was a great deal of complaining in the Gulf, in Israel, justifiably, in 2015 that the JCPOA, which really was designed to make the region safer. And of course, American security interests of being advanced took place in the absence of real input on the part of those who would be most affected. And let's hope that this goes in a very different direction. Manya Brachear Pashman: In other words, not just Israel, but all of their neighbors in the Gulf. Jason Isaacson: Not just Israel, but the neighbors in the GCC who themselves have been attacked from time to time by Iran and by Iran's proxies, the Houthis, which I did not mention before, of course, in Yemen, have attacked their neighbors on the Arabian Peninsula. Saudi Aramco was attacked by Iranian missiles a number of years ago. Ships on their way to and from the UAE have been attacked. So they all have an interest in limiting the ability of Iran to project force and to threaten the region, particularly with the nuclear capability. Manya Brachear Pashman: Jason, thank you so much for your time and expertise on this matter. I suspect we will be talking again soon as this develops. Jason Isaacson: I look forward to it, Manya, thank you very much. Manya Brachear Pashman: Be sure to tune in for my conversation with journalist Yardena Schwartz about her first book, Ghosts of a Holy War, the 1929 Massacre in Palestine that ignited the Arab Israeli conflict. Yardena shared how history repeated itself on October 7, 2023 and why understanding the past is essential to making sense of the present. From April 27 to 29th we will be at AJC Global Forum in New York City, join American Jewish Committee and over 2000 committed activists at the premier global Jewish advocacy conference of the year after the horrific attack on October 7, 2023 and in this fraught moment for the global Jewish community, escalating threats worldwide underscore the importance of our mission. All who care about the fate of the Jewish people Israel and the values of the civilized world must respond now with action, urgency and resolve. If ever there was a time to stand up and be counted, that time is now. Your voice is needed now more than ever. If you won't be with us in person, you can tune in to the webcast at AJC.org/GlobalForum2025.

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

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

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