People of the Pod

This week, two major terrorist leaders were assassinated in the Middle East. Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh was killed in an explosion in Tehran, just a day after top Hezbollah leader Fuad Shukr was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Beirut in retaliation for the horrific rocket attack that killed 12 children on a soccer field in northern Israel. What does this mean for Israel and the wider region? Is this a major setback for Iran and its terror proxies? Tune in to hear what AJC Jerusalem Director Lt. Col. (res.) Avital Leibovich, who visited the site of the terror attack in Majdal Shams, has to say. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Avital Leibovich Learn: What to Know About Hamas Terror Leader Ismail Haniyeh What to Know About Hezbollah’s Escalation Against Israel Listen: Aviva Klompas is Fighting the Normalization of Antisemitism on Social Media On the Ground at the Republican National Convention: What's at Stake for Israel and the Middle East? Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Interview with Avital Leibovich: Manya Brachear Pashman:   This week marked 300 days of captivity for the 115 remaining hostages kidnapped by Hamas terrorists on October 7. There was also a major development: confirmation that an operation in July led to the death of Hamas’ military leader Muhammad Deif. But there were two more assassinations this week, the leaders of two terror groups targeting Israel.  On Wednesday, we learned that Hamas terror leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed in an explosion in Tehran shortly after meeting with Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Haniyeh had been in Tehran for the inauguration of its new president. This just a day after top Hezbollah leader Fuad Shukr was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Beirut in retaliation for the horrific rocket attack that killed 12 children on a soccer field in Golan Heights. AJC Jerusalem director Avital Leibovich is with us now to discuss these developments. Avital, welcome back to People of the Pod. Avital Leibovich: Thank you. Manya. Good to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So, Avital, my first question is, are we safer now than we were at the start of the week? Do two fewer terror leaders lead to less terror? Avital Leibovich: Well, I would say the world in general is a safer place with the absence of Shukr and Haniyeh. However, the neighborhood here is not changing. And unfortunately, we are still surrounded by vicious enemies, who still are seeking to see our erosion and eradication. So while I'm very happy with your outcome in the last 24 hours, I also know there's still a lot of reason for concern. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So tell us about these terror leaders. Who was Ismail Haniyeh? And what was his role with Hamas? Avital Leibovich: Sure. So Ismail Haniyeh, who's also, by the way, has another name, which is Abu al-Abed, he actually served as the number one political leader of Hamas since May 2017. He actually substituted in this role, Khaled Mashal and other terrorists, and before that, he actually served as the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority just for a very brief, short time between 2006 and 2007. And he actually became very close to a Hamas leader called Ahmed Yassin. And basically, he really grew into the very radical agenda of Hamas. Interesting enough, his background was totally different. I mean, even worked in Israel in the city closest to Gaza called Ashkelon. So he knows the country. He knows the mentality. So in addition to this, he also began to do some terror activity after the three years of working in Ashkelon in Israel. And then he initiated different kinds of activities. Among them was the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, a soldier who we’ll remember. And after being involved in the terror realm and the political realm, he decided to focus more on Hamas’ agenda, on Hamas’ charter. And basically, what we have seen in the last couple of years are a few things. Number one, Hania got very rich, because he received millions and millions of dollars from the Qataris. Number two, he left Gaza and he spent the last years of his life in Qatar, in lavish hotels and apartments, enjoying great life. And this is also an indication of how much does he care about the people of Gaza.  And I want to connect to the current war and give you a quote of who Haniyeh was because I see that some of the media outlets have the nerve to call him a moderate negotiator. Therefore, I'd like to help them and share with you the following quote, which was said on October 27 — that was the first day where the IDF entered Gaza following the October 7 massacre. So he said, "We need the blood of women, children, and the elderly of Gaza, so it awakens our revolutionary spirit." This is the moderate guy that international media is referring to in their reports. He was a radical, he was a terrorist, and we had a very good opening of our day this morning when we heard the news. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And Fuad Shukr, what was his role with Hezbollah? Avital Leibovich: He also, you know, this is a name which is not known, I think, to many people, but he does have a French connection and an American connection — of course, an Israeli connection. The guy was number two in the level of seniority in Hezbollah. He was actually the manager of the army in a way of the Hezbollah military apparatus.  But more than that, he was a strategist, and he knew what direction should Hezbollah take in the next years. He was in charge of developing the entire missile industry that Hezbollah had, including the accurate missiles. In other words, he was a strategist but also was a practical man. Now, here's the connection that he had to the US and to France. In 1983, he was one of the orchestrators of the attack in the marine base in Beirut.  On that terrible day, 241 American marines lost their lives, but 70 French soldiers were killed as well. So as you can imagine, this terrorist Fuad Shukr has 40 years of terror activities, primarily against Israel, but also against Israeli allies. So again, I think it was a very courageous and accurate Israeli operation. And more than anything, Manya, it shows the amazing level of intelligence, where that person was exactly in which room, in which building, in which floor, and to be able to very surgically act in the right time, at the right moment and target him, I think that shows a lot for the Israeli intelligence capabilities. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Was Haniyeh part of the ceasefire and hostage release negotiations? Avital Leibovich: So if you look at the title that Hanieyeh had, which is the head of the political branch of Hamas, you could think that he had some impact on the decision making process with the hostage deals. But I can tell you that he had really no impact, very little impact. Because from the analysis that we have here in Israel, the main decision maker is Sinwar.  Now the question is, will the death of Haniyeh have an impact, number one on Sinwar? And therefore, number two on the hostage deal? Now, I'm not sure it will have an effect. I have to say. Sinwar is known as the longtime rival of Haniyeh. So in other words, he will not be mourning his death. But he had the last word with regard to any of the discussions on the hostages.  And at the end of the day, Sinwar said numerous times, that he's willing to die. And his ultimate goal is to make sure that Hamas has some sort of a controlling Gaza. He understands today Sinwar, that Hamas will no longer control the government, therefore, he's willing to compromise. For example, let's say Hamas will be giving the role of being in charge of the renovations in Gaza. Or perhaps they will be in charge of the education system and so on, in other words, just to have some sort of a stronghold inside Gaza in terms of governance of some sort. Now, if that will not be a part of any possible deal, then Sinwar has no interest to give a positive answer to a deal. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I am curious why Haniyeh would have met with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei before his death? Avital Leibovich: Hamas and Iran have different kinds of cooperation. We have seen that across the region. In other words, we have seen Hamas representatives in Lebanon, working alongside Nasrallah, the health Hezbollah, but also meeting the Iranian foreign minister, when he came to Lebanon for visits. We understand that this time around there is a clear interest which Iran supports, is to target Israel as much as possible. And obviously Iran prefers a proxy like Hamas to be representative of its own goals and intentions.  And therefore you saw Haniyeh last time, was last night paying respects for the inauguration ceremony in Iran. And according to what I'm hearing, he was also hosted in a Revolutionary Guards facility. In other words, whoever targeted Haniyeh had a great level of intelligence by knowing how to get to that specific building.  But moreover, this is a very secure area, because the Revolutionary Guards are considered the body which is the most guarded of all bodies in Iran. They're the ones controlling the budget of the Iranian government. They're the ones operating Hezbollah and other militias and proxies. So in other words, the fact that it was a Revolutionary Guards headquarters, Antonia was there and despite of all this information, the security system around him cracked. I think that sends a very loud and clear message to the Iranians. Manya Brachear Pashman:   How is the relationship between Iran and Hamas and the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah different? Can you explain that to our audience? Avital Leibovich: First of all, I mean, you know, Iran is the chief orchestrator of everything that we have been seeing here since October 7, but actually before that as well. Now, I would say that with Hezbollah, it's a long love story between the two. Actually, Hezbollah was founded by Iran, quite shortly after the revolution in '79.  When the country became a fundamentalist Islamist and obviously, took the wrong path, distancing itself from the Western world. Iran actually built Hezbollah, founded Hezbollah, first the military wing, and then adding three years later the political wing. And the idea was to use them in order to attack Israel. And this is very convenient.  Think about it, Iran is 1300 kilometers away from Israel. It's not convenient to fire a rocket all the way from that country to Israel. But let's say you want to use simpler means and within half an hour to take an operation out, it's easier to use someone who's bordering with Israel. So gradually, we saw Hezbollah taking over almost the entire country. And everything had to do with Iranian funding. Now, in order to have Iranian funding in terms of sanctions, Iran and Hezbollah, found alternative options like laundering money, like a whole chain of drug trafficking in Syria and other countries. So they found solutions to do that.  By the way, Iran is doing the same thing with the Houthis in Yemen, also using them as a proxy. Because you know, this is the most poor country in the region, huge unemployment rates, you can recruit 10s of 1000s and hundreds of 1000s of people, as long as you pay them a very minimal salary. Now, as for Hamas, Hamas was built a little bit later.  It's actually an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, so not directly of Iran. However, sometimes there are joint interests between different terror groups. Actually, Iran founded the Islamic Jihad in Gaza, in 79, right after the revolution, because he thought this would be the main actor controlling Gaza with the best assets and so on. But with the course of the years, when Hamas controlled Gaza, and was able to develop its terror means rockets, drones, etc, then, of course, Iran moved to cooperate with Hamas, according to its needs for Iran, it's, of course, more worthwhile to use the blood of Palestinians than the blood of Iranians to sacrifice Palestinians and not the Iranians. This is how they see it.  At the end of the day, Iran now wishes to resume to the situation of being a major empire as it used to be, a Persian empire decades and decades ago. So this is the longtime dream, I would say. And the proxies are just another, I would say detail in the path to reach that dream.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Now, Hezbollah did not claim responsibility for the attack that killed a dozen children on a soccer field. Why not? They're usually proud of the death and destruction that they wreak. Why did Israel target the terror group anyway?  Avital Leibovich: Look, say a few words about this tragic event that took place just a few days ago in a very small, beautiful, pastoral village called Majdal Shams, which, by the way, means the tower of sun. It's on the Syrian border, and the other side is on the Lebanese border. And, you know, people asked me if this is the first time that Hizballah ever targeted Druze or targeted Muslims. Now this specific village was targeted five times already by Hezbollah. Saturday, obviously, was the deadliest of all the five. It was 6:18 in the afternoon, beautiful summer day, lots of kids outside.  I visited the soccer field where it happens. And the rockets left, really not a chance for those kids who were playing there. Although there was actually a shelter right there, maybe two feet from where the rocket hit the ground. They really didn't have a chance to make it and go into the shelter. And unfortunately, those poor 12 year old kids, ages 10-16, died in place. We still have over 30 people hospitalized, many of them are kids as well.  And I have to say, Manya, that I saw a village who has been traumatized. People are still wearing black clothes. There are black flags hanging everywhere inside the village. The pictures of the kids are, you know, pasted everywhere, on the squares just on random villages and walls of buildings.  I also went to one of the bereaved families. And you know, you sit there with a parent who lost his 12 year old boy named Johnny [Wadeea Ibrahim]. And he tells you about his dreams. And he says to me, you know, these dreams will never be fulfilled. And he says to me, we don't even know how to digest what happened to us. So, for Hezbollah, they don't really care who they're firing at, whether it's Jews or Arabs, or Muslims or Christians, whoever, they don't care if it's in the eastern Galilee, or the Western Galilee, or the Golan. All these areas are relevant for the Hezbollah fire since October 8. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, Hezbollah did not take responsibility. Why not? Avital Leibovich: So here is the mistake. Hezbollah actually made the mistake. Hezbollah has a TV station, which is its mouthpiece, just like Hamas's TV station mouthpiece is Al Jazeera. Hezbollah's is Al Mayadeen. Now, immediately after an attack, a Hezbollah attack, Al Mayadeen immediately publishes responsibility taking by Hezbollah always every time. And by the way, we're talking about an average of eight attacks a day, every day. And that's what they did here too. On Saturday, they immediately took responsibility in the name of Hezbollah.  Unfortunately, for them, after 20 minutes, they understood the extent of the mistake they did, and deleted, of course, this responsibility, and then they made up their own narrative. The narrative was that a misfiring of an Iron Dome interceptor, mistakenly killed the kids, like Israel's fault is that the kids died. Now, this narrative, if you think it was only the social media, then think again, they sent the foreign minister of Lebanon to the media to repeat it.  But they also did something more. They sent the head of the Druze community. It's the same blood and flesh of the Druze in the Golan. They sent him to the press to declare that it was not a Hezbollah rocket. So they understood that they will pay a price of some sort. I'm sure they understood that I'm not sure they understood the extent of the intelligence Israel had. And now of course, they're threatening to target Israel. I think the next 48 hours will reveal where we're heading. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And you talk about the incredible intelligence that led to the precise explosion in Beirut as well as the death of Haniyeh. Has Israel taken responsibility for his death and what it claimed credit if it was responsible, Avital Leibovich: Up to this minute, Israel did not take any responsibility for Haniyeh's death. Of course, yes, for the Hizballah number two guy Fuad Shukr, but not for Haniyeh. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister ordered the Cabinet members and the ministers not to speak publicly on the issue. And basically, there's been a lot of quiet from the political echelon here since the morning. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And you touched on what my last question is, and that is, how will this elevate the tensions? Does this raise the chance of a war between Israel and Lebanon, Israel, and Iran, these assassinations?  Avital Leibovich: So I would say we are already in a war to some extent with Hezbollah, because Hezbollah has fired more than 6000 rockets since October 8. And I've counted 43 Israeli casualties since October 8. So we are talking about an active war in a sense, I think that there is a good reason to believe that both Hezbollah and Iran will react to these two targets. I'm not sure in which way. I do think that Hezbollah still has the notion and the strategy of not completely escalating the situation to a full scale war. I'm sure that Nasrallah is sitting in his bunker in the darkened neighborhood, seeing the footage from Gaza and understanding Israel's capability and does not want to turn Beirut into a similar kind of situation.  And he also saw the building last night and he also understood the extent of the intelligence capability. So I think he will have to react in such a way that on the one hand, he could be proud that he did something but on the other hand, would not engage in a full scale war. Iran, on the other hand, is a different story.  Because three months have passed since April 14 in which Iran decided to gift us with hundreds of drones and different kinds of ballistic missiles. And from their perspective, it failed. It failed because Israel has a great defense system. It also failed because the US led the great coalition of countries who supported the interception attempts in April 14. However, and this is a big however, Iran learned its lessons.  Iran learned why it failed in April. And therefore, my concern is that they will take these lessons and implement them in whichever reaction they will have. I'm not sure it will be tomorrow morning. Tomorrow, they will celebrate Haniyeh in the big funeral in Iran, and then there will be additional mourning days in Qatar. So it may take a few days, but I have no doubt that they will both, Hezbollah and Iran react. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Avital, thank you so much for just explaining all of these developments and what they mean. Avital Leibovich: Of course, I just hope that for once they will be able to talk about positive things and not only terror and wars. Manya Brachear Pashman:   We hope so too. We hope so too. Thank you so much. Avital Leibovich: Thank you and Am Yisrael Chai.

Aviva Klompas has long been a fierce advocate for Israel and is no stranger to the forces that try to delegitimize the Jewish state. Klompas, cofounder of Boundless Israel, a think tank dedicated to strengthening education about Israel while also keeping an eye on the surge of antisemitism in the U.S., joins us to discuss how she’s working to combat antisemitism and shape the conversation, both online and off.  Listen to this candid conversation, recorded on the sidelines of AJC Global Forum 2024 in Washington, D.C.  Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, Rich Goldberg Show Notes: Watch: Voices of Truth: Advocating for Israel on Social Media with Aviva Klompas and Michael Rapaport Listen – People of the Pod: On the Ground at the Republican National Convention: What's at Stake for Israel and the Middle East? Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Interview with Aviva Klompas: Manya Brachear Pashman:   Aviva Klompas has long been a fierce advocate for Israel and is no stranger to the forces that try to delegitimize the Jewish state. After leading Birthright trips, she became the speechwriter for Israel’s Mission at the United Nations where she was always looking for ways to give voice to Israel’s side of the story, amid a cacophony of anti-Israel sentiments.  After working for Combined Jewish Philanthropies, she co-founded Boundless Israel, a think tank dedicated to strengthening education about Israel while also keeping an eye on the surge of antisemitism in the U.S. Aviva might still write the occasional speech, but on Instagram and X, that’s where she’s really shaping the conversation and confronting haters.  We sat down with Aviva on the sidelines of AJC Global Forum 2024 in Washington D.C in early June. Aviva, welcome to People of the Pod’s pop-up studio here in Washington. Aviva Klompas:   Absolutely. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Together with Rachel Fish, you co-founded a nonprofit called Boundless. can you tell us the purpose of boundless and the origins of its name? Aviva Klompas:   The idea is to look at the larger issues that are plaguing the ecosystem in Israel in North America and to function both both as a think tank that does research to understand what's happening under the surface, but then to not just investigate and study for curiosity sake, but then to turn to action, and really to extract recommendations, and to pull together partners in order to take meaningful action in order to address some of the larger challenges.  So the two areas in which we primarily focus are one, education. How do we reimagine Israel education in North America, for both Jews and for non-Jews? And the area where I spend most of my time has to do with the narrative war? Understanding how did we get here? What's happening below the surface, both in traditional and on social media? Manya Brachear Pashman:   You previously served as the director of speech reading at the Israeli Mission to the United Nations. And at that time, did you find yourself not just talking to a traditional institution but actually trying to persuade or convince, maybe even combat the sentiments of that audience? Aviva Klompas:   Working as a speechwriter for Israel at the United Nations is certainly an experience and an education unto itself. And my former boss, Ambassador Ron Prosor always used to say to us, it's not so much politics and diplomacy as it is theater and a game of chess. And so to some extent, it's about who you can convince in these speeches and in these conversations in the halls, in the corridors of the United Nations, but the meaningful action, the real relationship building, tends to happen behind the scenes where there's no camera, and when there's no public audience. What people tend to see, the speeches that are broadcast, statements that make headlines around the world, that's really theater. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And you mentioned, when you were onstage with Michael Rapaport, at Global Forum yesterday, you mentioned how that job is very limiting compared to your job now and your representation on social media. Can you talk a little bit about why it's important to be on social media to use that as a platform. Aviva Klompas:   Yeah, so I worked both for the Israeli delegation. So that was working for the Israeli government. I also worked as a policy advisor for the Canadian government. And certainly when you're working for a government, there are limitations on what you can say, and what you can do. And one of the great blessings of having co-founded Boundless and working in this nonprofit is that at this moment in time, there's a lot of flexibility and latitude for Rachel and I to really hone in on what we think needs to be done and spend our time and our energy there.  The great education that I got when I was working at the United Nations, was the fact that people would always ask me, Well, why is it that Israel participates in the United Nations? This is an institution that is notorious for its bias against Israel.  So why does Israel participate? Why would it be a member of an institution that notoriously demonizes, delegitimize, vilifies, ostracizes it. No country has to be a member of the United Nations. And more than that, in order to be a member in good standing, you have to pay dues.  So Israel pays its membership dues to endure the sort of abuse that we see day in and day out at the United Nations. That's the number one question that I get asked, but it was never once a conversation that we had inside of the United Nations, because we never for a moment doubted that Israel has every right to participate in and contribute to global affairs. And that mentality is what I've taken with me throughout my career that Israel has, and the Jewish people have every right to participate in and contribute to our communities, our societies, our countries and bettering this planet. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You also, since October 7, you have emphasized that it's very important to tell Israel's story, tell the story of October 7, day to day, hour to hour, which is how I viewed the news cycle of social media. Why? Why is it that it's so important?  Aviva Klompas:   It’s a part of that mentality that I was describing, which says, I won't for a moment accept that any of this is either normal or acceptable. I'm not going to tolerate a world that speaks to us and treats us as if we had this coming. As if what happened on October 7 was due to us. As if it is normal to be holding over 100 people hostage. As if it is acceptable that Jewish people have to hide their Jewish identity.  And I'm not interested in people that will speak with great sympathy about dead Jews, but not take any meaningful or consequential action to safeguard living Jews, which is ultimately what's most important.  And at the end of the day, the reason that I'm spending so much time and energy on social media is because I refuse to allow the normalization of what we're seeing day in and day out. And the only way you stop that normalization is two things is one, you have to use your voice, you have to stand up. And we also have to use our Yiddishe kops a bit and try to think about what's happening under the surface. What are the root causes? What are the points of origin for what's taking place? And how can we outthink them? And that's the work we're doing at Boundless. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You have primarily focused your messaging on X, or Twitter. You recently though moved your posts to Instagram as well. Aviva Klompas:   After a lot of people told me that I had to, yeah, a lot.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, can you talk a little bit about your social media choices? In other words, is there a particular audience on X that you were trying to reach? Aviva Klompas:   I joined X when I was actually speechwriter for Israel at the UN. And I was very at the time we're talking, I don't know, 10 or 11 years ago, I was opposed to the notion of joining social media, I thought, I don't think everybody needs to know my thoughts. That's ridiculous.  And then one of my colleagues Israel Nitzan, a good friend, and a diplomat of Israel, he was the one that convinced me said, this is very much in line with Elon Musk, I would say is, it's the town square, this is where conversations are happening. This is where politicians and diplomats and reporters are having conversation. And it's important that you participate. And that is an idea that resonates with me very deeply, is that we need to have a voice in the public square. So that's how I got started on X.  And I left my Facebook, and I did have Instagram, but I really left it for that personal private space. And then early on in the war, had to change the privacy settings because all of a sudden, it was being flooded with with requests, my Instagram, my personal Instagram, when you open it up, it's 1000s and 1000s of people that want to follow me and I'm like, It's my vacation photos and it's family. No. So that's not going to happen.  So instead, after a lot of people said to me, there's obviously a whole other audience of much younger people and different people that are on Instagram, can you just pull your posts over? So I started a second Instagram account, which is just replicating the tweets and it's @AvivaKlompas. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I'm curious if you have developed relationships, either real or virtual with other social media influencers. In other words, did you know Michael Rapaport before October 7, before he became so vocal on social media and is that in particular and are others new and surprising friendships and partnerships? Aviva Klompas:   So I met Michael Rapaport because I got a DM on X from him. That was three words. And they were: who are you? And I wrote back: who are you? And that's where we started chatting. And then we had the opportunity to meet in Israel and he's become a very good friend and a person that I admire enormously.  And that's happened in other instances as well that there's been other influencers that I've met as a result of this that started his online conversation. chanson turned into real world relationships. And ultimately, all of us need to have a community social media is a very lonely place and it's a dystopia. When you pull people in the real world, which is what we do at Boundless, it asked her attitudes and opinions about Israel and anti semitism, you get one set of answers.  When you look on social media you get a different set of answers. The world is much bleaker and darker. And that's because the rule on social media is if it enrages, it engages. So the most vitriolic, hateful, disgusting, vile content is the content that will trend that's most likely to appear in your feed.  I always likened social media to the Coliseum in ancient Rome, where you have people battling it out in the center of the arena. And then you have the throngs of crowds surely, lustily screaming for them for someone's demise. It is not a venue that is conducive to relationships are conversations are chasing or changing minds, if you can sort of visualize that Coliseum analogy.  And at the same time, because social media is this kind of dystopia, bleak place, you need to have a community. And that's what I have found with other pro-Israel pro-Jewish voices is that it makes you feel like you're not alone in this that you're not this like single voice that standing against an enormous tide. So I'm very grateful to the other people that have lent their friendship in this moment. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I want to pivot a little bit to what you put on social media, mostly the Israel-Hamas war. Why do you think Hamas terrorists are being treated as heroes in so many outlets and venues?   Aviva Klompas:   Yeah, what we're really seeing is new tactics and an old strategy. This strategy of how Israel and the Jewish people is being demonized. It's not new, the only new part of it is is the advent of social media as a way to more quickly and more spread the these lies and disinformation much further, but it really goes back to a Soviet strategy you had after World War Two, you had the Cold War, and you had the United States pitted against the Soviet Union. And you never want to fight a war on your own territory. So to the extent that you can you want to fight it on a different front, and that's really what the Middle East became. Israel as it moved away from its socialist roots and towards a capitalist roots, begins to align itself more with the United States.  That poses a threat, the Soviet Union sees Israel in the Middle East as a forward operating base for the United States. And so it begins to align itself more closely with the Arab nations. And in order to fight this battle, it begins a disinformation campaign that has a number of strategies to it that I think will sound very familiar. The first is to claim that there's no connection between the Jewish people and land of Israel to paint us as colonizers.  The second is to paint us as aggressors. And just to frame it in such a way as it is, isn't the Nakba, not the story of how a number of surrounding Arab armies attacked Israel, not the story of how Israel accepted a two state Partition Plan from the United Nations, but rather the story of the Nakba, and the demise.  And the third is to paint the Palestinians as a people that have no agency, and that all of this is happening to them and that they are victims in this colonialist, racist world. And then what the Soviets did is they begin to use that type of language that says Zionists are Nazis, and Nazis are the epitome of evil. And so all of the worst racist colonialist, etc. Accusations that's not new, we saw that from the infamous Zionism is racism resolution at the United Nations in the 1970s.  So this is a continuation of a very, very old strategy. And as we always see, it starts with the Jews, but it never ends with the Jews. Manya Brachear Pashman:   On the morning that many of us traveled here to Washington for AJC's Global Forum, we woke up to the news of the IDS rescue for hostages. Headlines talked about the four hostages being freed, not rescued. And sadly, many more headlines focused on the hundreds of Palestinians who were killed in that rescue effort. I asked why Hamas terrorists are being treated as heroes and I ask this knowing the IDF has certainly made some tragic errors in this war. But do you get a sense that there is a concerted effort not to treat IDF as heroes? Aviva Klompas:   So first off, I mean, I saw them being the hostages being spoken about as having been released, as if, as if commerce just opened the doors and let them go. And the level of condemnation about us going into rescue or hostages? What did they want us to do? Ask nicely. It's been eight months, we've tried a series of hostage deals in negotiations, and it's gone nowhere. I don't measure the standard of the IDF behavior by what the world says. That's going to be a failing strategy for us. I think it's measured by the values of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. And that's why the army has a code of conduct. The people that are more outraged that Israel went to get its people back than the fact that terrorists took them and held them for eight months. Those people need to check their thinking and their values.  And that's one of the things that we need to call out all the time. And I think that's a question the mainstream media that's been reporting on it, it's been embarrassing to watch people just essentially regurgitate Hamas press releases. How about a little bit of journalistic integrity? How about asking some hard questions like, Do we even know the casualty figure? I saw it grow by 100, since yesterday. I don't think anybody actually knows the number of casualties.  And then, if you had the number, how would you assess how many were actually combatants? If you're counting journalists and doctors that hold hostages in their home as civilians…I don't understand how mainstream media have sort of suspended rational analysis in this war. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Do you also get the impression that the hostages' stories have been downplayed by mainstream media? I mean these are truly ordinary people, ordinary families who now suffer extraordinary uncertainty, which, you know, I would argue, is worse than loss, this uncertainty. Do you feel like that has been lost in mainstream media coverage? Aviva Klompas:   I think that for a while, we saw that the hostage family stories were prominent, and they were certainly getting a lot of attention. And now it's a lot harder. Now it's been eight months, and it's a very visual war. No war in the history of the world has had this level of scrutiny, and certainly not this level of playing out real or disinformation on social media. And people are being bombarded with very difficult and very honestly very, very tragic scenes from Gaza.  And we haven't really seen that many new images emerging about the hostages, because there's so much silence. So in that sense, I can understand why there is a level to which humans can stay interested in a topic without new information. I think that's part of what we're struggling with. And at the same time, we have seen journalists be shockingly callous to the hostage families, and that's absolutely unacceptable. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Can you give an example of what you mean? Aviva Klompas:   Well, we just saw a very prominent reporter from the hill roll her eyes while speaking to the sister of a hostage when she asked her to believe women. Manya Brachear Pashman:   The New York Times broke a big story–I'm putting big and finger quotes–earlier this week that Israel's Ministry of diaspora affairs organized and paid for an influence campaign last year that targeted US lawmakers, American public with pro Israel messaging, but the story never mentioned the barrage of propaganda that pro Palestinian organizations have put out quite effectively. How do you guard against spreading disinformation as a social media influencer? Aviva Klompas:   So I don't agree With what the Israeli government did, I think it was pretty inevitable that that was going to become public. And so I think we could have all seen that this was coming in, and it was not a wise decision to target American lawmakers. I'm not sure that I would call that a disinformation campaign. Disinformation is a deliberate attempt to spread fake information. And I don't think that was the case, but nonetheless, not wise.  The difference is, is that my beloved Jewish people believe in truth and integrity. And we believe that if we just tell the same story one more time and maybe tell it a little bit differently, people will finally listen to us. And I think after trying that for a couple 1000 years, maybe we should adopt a different approach. And we again, have to look at what's happening under the surface.  If we want to do better at social media. You're right, the other side will say anything, do anything and show whatever image, true or not. People say it immediately 6000 people were killed in the bombing, an intentional IDF bombing of a hospital, okay, based on what? It's been 15 minutes, nobody actually knows what happened. Same thing with the rescue mission. Day by day, the count of quote unquote, civilian casualty grows by 100. We don't know the facts on the ground, we're not relying on third party verification in the way that we should, and people are just soaking this up. And the other side has realized as much, and they understand that they have the freedom and latitude to say everything. Understanding that we have to rethink what this picture looks like. In understanding social media, we have to be thinking smarter about the type of information we're putting out and what some of the challenges are.  You have algorithmic manipulation, you have bots and inauthentic activity, you have foreign intervention campaigns, you have the echo chambers that exist, we have the algorithms that even when they're not manipulated, as I said, what engages and engages. We know all of these things. But I don't think we're working hard enough and smart enough to design our campaigns and our messaging, in order to address some of them.  One of the things that we're doing at Boundless is we started with the very simple question that says, Who do we need to be talking to? Any messaging, any communications, begins with understanding who’s your audience because you need to tailor your message appropriately. And I'm not sure that we're doing that as much as we should. So at Boundless, we started with that question, we did a major study with a national research firm, and we identified six priority audiences.  And we ask them their opinion, we want to learn from them, we want to understand why do you think what you think? Why do you believe what you believe? Where are you getting your news and information, we're very open about going to them and saying, We want to learn with you, we want to understand what your challenges are. One of the things that we learned is that every minority population in this country believes that they are the victim, they believe that they are one of the most highly targeted people for hate crimes.  And the challenge that we have is that when we come we present them and say no, we're the most hated group, what we're doing is we're minimizing their experience. And we're catalyzing a sort of victim Olympics, it makes them feel defensive, it makes them feel like they're not being seen and heard. And we're not tailoring our messaging with that understanding. So we need to do a little more, a lot more, front work in order to understand who do we want to speak to? What are their values, what are their positions, what's informing how they feel, and think about different issues, before we start to construct messages.  And then we really have to think about the distribution and dissemination techniques that we have. Which are right now, they're too uniform, we need to be doing a lot more and a lot differently. And we're hyper reliant on social media. And social media has a very important role to play. But we all know that if we see social media as sort of this coliseum, this arena in which people are thrashing it out, you're never going to really have a conversation. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Shortly after October 7, you wrote, quote, The State of Israel was supposed to be a living promise that there would always be a place for Jews to be saved for the pogroms in the Holocaust that plague Jewish history. After the October 7, mass terror attacks, that promise is broken. Do you still feel that way? Aviva Klompas:   I've been to Israel seven times in seven months. And I think a lot about when I first went the first time I went was two weeks after October 7 And I was in Jerusalem. And that was deserted. And I wanted to go walk to the Western Wall to the Kotel and I walked through the Old City and it was unbelievable. It was the middle of the week in the middle of the day and everything there was not a person in sight. Everybody was so scared.  And I recall friends saying to me, we're having conversations as if it's the 1940s we're talking, we're whispering husbands to wives about where we would hide our children. Because exactly that sense of security, that sense of comfort had been shattered. The idea was that anybody could jump out and didn't matter where you were in Israel, the sense of safety had dissipated.  And it wasn't that different here in the United States. And I think to some extent, people probably still feel it. Whereas in Israel, it's been more alleviated with the notion that antisemitism, that you're not safe in your places of worship in Jewish day schools and community centers that you have to think twice before you go to a walk for Israel, you have to think twice, about whether you're going to wear a kippa or a magen david. I think really, our sense of security has been shattered.  And that's one of the great tragedies, beyond the enormous tragedy that is October 7, than the living tragedy of the hostages, is the fact that we are all shaken by this. And that it feels scary for a lot of people to be a Jew in the world right now. There's a lot to say about what social media does wrong and how harmful it is and how difficult it is.  But also, the one thing that means the most to me, about being active on social media in the last eight months, is the number of messages I get, and people that come up to me in the real world and say to me, I'm scared. And I feel a little bit less scared because you have a voice in the world, you and other people, that people are feeling very alone, that people are saying I'm in workplaces where I'm the only Jew or I'm in schools where I'm being targeted where I feel like I can't speak up in class where I have to hide my head when I am choosing to stay in my room rather than go out.  And it's a lonely, lonely feeling right now. And if the only thing that my social media is doing is helping people have a voice and to know that there's others who think this is not normal, this is not acceptable. And we're going to spend every single day raging against it. That will have been worth it. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Aviva, thank you so much for joining us on the sidelines of Global Forum. Aviva Klompas:   Thank you for having me.

Israel’s right to self-defense and security, governance in Gaza, the Iranian regime and its network of terror, the Jewish state’s relationship with Arab countries in the Gulf, and much more were among the topics of discussion at an AJC-convened panel discussion at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Listen to an excerpt of the panel, moderated by AJC’s Chief Policy Officer and the head of AJC’s Center for a New Middle East, Jason Isaacson, along with policy experts Dr. Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, and Rich Goldberg. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. AJC does not endorse or oppose political parties or candidates. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, Rich Goldberg Show Notes: Watch: Israel and the Path to Peace - AJC at the Republican National Convention Listen – People of the Pod: Europe at the Ballot Box: Insights and Impact on Jewish Communities and Beyond Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Panel with Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, and Rich Goldberg: Manya Brachear Pashman:  America’s political parties are kicking off the 2024 convention season, starting this week with the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. AJC was on the sidelines of the RNC, with a live program titled Israel and the Path to Peace, moderated by AJC's chief policy officer, Jason Isaacson. Jason is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for A New Middle East.  Joining Jason was Dr. Ken Weinstein, former longtime CEO of the Hudson Institute and the Walter P. Stern Distinguished Fellow at Hudson;  Kirsten Fontenrose, the President of Red Six Solutions and Senior Director of Gulf Affairs in the National Security Council under President Trump; and Rich Goldberg, Senior Adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Director of Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction for the National Security Council, under President Trump.  Just a reminder: AJC is a 501(c)3 nonpartisan organization and neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. A similar program will be offered at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago later this summer. Now onto today’s episode: an excerpt from AJC’s convention program. Jason Isaacson:   Let me begin by reading to you a couple of passages from the Republican platform, which was adopted yesterday at the Republican National Convention. This is what it said about Israel. Quote, We will stand with Israel and seek peace in the Middle East, we will rebuild our alliance network in the region to ensure a future of peace, stability and prosperity. And then there was, as you may recall, for the Republican platform, his list of 20 promises. And it's described as 20 promises that we will accomplish very quickly when we win the White House and Republican majorities in the House and Senate.  And number eight, on that list of 20 promises is the following, quote: restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East. So let's drill down with our panelists on those two statements in January 2025. That's more than six months away. It may be that the Israel Hamas war will be won over by them, and perhaps whatever conflict is so close to boiling over between Israel and Hezbollah, that that might not any longer be the case, might have boiled over, might be a thing of the past.  But let's say for the sake of argument, that hostilities are in fact, continuing, and let's assume that the Republican Party is victorious this fall. What are you expecting the Trump administration to do to, quote restore peace in the Middle East and to accomplish that, quote, very quickly. And let me begin Kirsten, with you. Kirsten Fontenrose:   Great, thanks so much for having us. All of us like to nerd out about these kinds of topics all the time when we're just grateful that there are other people who are as interested. What I expect to see in America is a revived peace plan. So you all remember the deal of the century, the vision for peace, we will see that come back. If there's a second Trump administration. Not in isolation, it will be part of a larger context.  That will also include assurances about Israel security and governance for Gaza and the like. Why have we not seen this yet? Because no one's asked the Trump team. But that will come back and you will see that. There's an expectation, whether it's naive or not, which we'll see, that there will be a greater receptiveness among the Palestinian population for an economic plan that offers improvements in livelihood after this conflict.  If there is a marginalized Hamas, there'll be more movement in this space for reviving these kinds of ideas. So we will definitely see a revived peace plan, you won't see less attention on this issue, you'll see very top level attention on the issue. You're also going to see, I think gloves off with the Houthis in the Red Sea. The US military has been very careful to make sure that all of our strikes so far had been from a defensive perspective. But you will see, I believe, because the world has not criticized any of these strikes, I think you're gonna see more latitude there. More room for movement for preemptive striking, for instance, because the perception is that for the whole world, this shipping interception problem is just out of hand. So I think we'll see more latitude there. And we'll see gloves come off a bit there.  And then I think you're gonna see some tough talk, frankly, with Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Trump has watched the US be yanked around a bit by the current Israeli government.  And I think you're going to see less tolerance for that recognition that Israel is a sovereign country, but more of an attempt to say the US is the superpower here, and we will be leading the ideas from hence. If we're expected to play a role, we will be leading in that role. What you will see, however, will be interesting to watch as there is division among Trump advisors about a two state solution. So you'll see that be debated out. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you for that. Ken, let me ask you, restoring peace in the Middle East and Europe and doing it very quickly, you've had a very broad focus on a whole range of foreign policy issues at the Hudson Institute and before and since. Tell me how you see that playing out under a second Trump administration? Ken Weinstein:   I'd say first of all, I think President Trump came to the conclusion early on, in his first term, he came in remember, talking about the deal of the century with you know, this peace agreement, he was booed at the Republican Jewish Committees event when he was a candidate.  And he quickly came into office and understood he could not trust Mahmoud Abbas, because of the incitement to terror by the Palestinian Authority and the tensions that were given out, and the pay for slay efforts that the Palestinian Authority has. Whereby people who kill Jews, kill Americans, were getting Palestinian Authority pensions in prisons, for their families and the like.  And so, Trump quickly came to understand that the challenge in the peace process wasn't bringing Israel and the Palestinians together, it was that the peace process itself was misconstrued. The peace process was being used by Middle Eastern governments, in particular, the Iranians, but also the Palestinians as a means to put leverage on Israel, exercise leverage on Israel, by a bunch of people who wanted to see the end of Israel's existence. And Trump quickly reversed that equation.  He understood that the best way to move forward was to remove items from the table such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem, which didn't have any of the backlash that John Kerry and others predicted would happen. And he quickly understood the best way to move things forward was to put pressure on the Palestinians.  Trump's a real estate guy. And so he understands leverage, he understands how to put pressure forth, and how to deter. I think we're going to see much more of that moving forward. We're not going to have a vice president of the United States who's going to get up and say, the Israelis can't evacuate Rafah, it's going to lead to 10s of 1000s of deaths.  And here I actually disagree slightly, I think Trump will actually give the Israelis the latitude they need to finish the mission, which is to destroy Hamas, and eventually bring about a transformation in Gaza, with the assistance of the Saudis. Who were absolutely critical in de-radicalizing Gaza, they have done it successfully themselves, as has the UAE. And so I think we're going to look much more at a regional approach on these issues. Obviously, Iran is going to be, to borrow a term from Joe Biden, President Biden, in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, as they were before. You're gonna see massive sanctions again, we're gonna get them, we're gonna enforce those sanctions. And Rich can talk to this stuff far more deeply than I ever could.  And you're gonna have the Iranians on the run so that they don't feel that they can work with Hamas or work with Hezbollah, to do more damage to Israel. And already we're seeing a deterrent effect on the Northern Front. And also with regard to Hamas.  Because with regard to Hamas, we see that the fear of a Trump administration is leading to a greater willingness to negotiate with Israel. And on the northern front, I think it's less likely that the Israelis will take dramatic action before the US election, knowing that they will not be reined in by an administration that is somehow searching for a delusion of peace with Hezbollah and with Lebanon. Jason Isaacson:   What about peace in Europe? Is is that something that you see, that you can envision under a Trump administration? Ken Weinstein:   First, let me say something with regard to Europe and the Middle East. I think that the Trump administration, the Trump team has been infuriated by this notion of enforcing this ridiculous ICC policy with regard to Israel and those who threatened to arrest Netanyahu. I think you're going to see in places particularly, I can just think of the kinds of actions they'll take in Germany.  I think you can expect individual sanctions on the people who were behind Nord Stream as a sign to not dare mess with Netanyahu, period. And you'll see other actions like that. I know the Spanish ambassadors here with regard to Spain with that we will be taking numbers, as Nikki Haley did so effectively at the UN, and as the Biden team does not.  So with regard to Europe. Look, I think the situation with regard to Ukraine, as President Trump understands it, I think, Trump, you have to understand he comes to this. He's not a policy person. He thinks that policy people like the three of us, four us up here, we lack creativity, we have a sense the policy options run from the letter L or P to the letter Q or R. And in fact, for Trump, they run from A to Z. And so that meant fire and fury in Pyongyang, but it meant eventually potentially beachfront condominiums in North Korea and an economic vitality to North Korea, if it gave up its nuclear program. With regard to Iran, it was maximum pressure, but it was the new Iran deal that got rid of the nuclear program that got rid of the missile program that got rid of regional activities, and that internally reshaped Iran, and led to a new relationship with Iran, with not only the region but the rest of the world. And with China, it was massive tariffs on China, but a new trade deal in the phase one that was gonna get rid of intellectual property stuff, which was at the core of what President Trump saw correctly as the engine of the Chinese economy, and the engine of the China 2025 program. So I'd say with regard to Ukraine, the President is looking at options that will, as he himself has said, he would tell the, you know, the Ukrainians on day one, you've got to, you know, we've got to end the fighting, you would tell Putin, if you don't end the fighting, we're gonna arm the shit out of Ukraine, pardon my French, as he said something along those lines. And I think what we'll see at the end of the day, is a massive program to guarantee Ukrainian security, that is going to take massive security guarantees. But the Europeans are going to have to step up and step up in a very serious way. And we've seen since the announcement of the JD Vance nomination are ready to reaction in Europe, the Europeans, you know, have to understand they're not gonna be able to backchannel they’re not going to be able to figure out some way out of this. They're gonna have to be big providers of security guarantees, we will do the same for the Ukrainians as well, but Europe has to take up a big portion of it. And Trump does not, he is not Joe Biden, he's not going to cut and run, as in Afghanistan, he doesn't want to be humiliated on the stage, he understands deterrence, he's going to send a very clear signal to the Russians, as he did to the Taliban. When they were talking about when they were negotiating with the Taliban, Trump was on a video call once with the Taliban leader, and said, I want to make this very clear, you're not to strike at any of our people. And if you do, and hit the button on Play, and he showed a video of I think, the Taliban leader's kid leaving their house to say we're watching you every moment, and we will take care of you. And  there'll be some kind of a version of that with regard to Putin, that's going to be very clear. He was very blunt with Putin behind closed doors, from the White House in particular. And I think there was a good reason why Putin didn't go into Ukraine during Trump's term. And so I think that there's going to be some kind of a square in the circle solution that's going to have to come together. And I've been telling European foreign and defense ministers for the last few months, think about this now, how to do it, how to implement it.  Jason Isaacson:   Ken, thank you so much. Rich, let me turn to you. We've been talking about Iran, and you are an expert on Iran. It happened for years. I didn't see a reference to Iran and the Republican platform. But of course, we know, former President Trump's record on Iran. And Ken has been talking about that. Should he return to the White House next January, what do you foresee on this front to return to maximum pressure, or something more kinetic? And what is your sense of our regional strategic partners priorities? Are our friends in the Gulf hoping for a decisive showdown with Iran? Or are they sufficiently risk averse that they prefer a less confrontational approach? What do you think? Rich Goldberg:   I think if you look at the top lines, right, and you compare the policy, the recipe, if you will, under the Trump administration: maximum pressure on Iran, maximum support for Israel gets you peace, gets you deterrence. And when you flip the narrative and you go to maximum deference to Iran and pressure on Israel, you get conflict in the Middle East. It's not disconnected from what Ken's just talking about in other regions of the world as well, whether in Europe, whether you're in the Indo-Pacific. This comes down to the ability to restore American deterrence. And then you have options. There are a lot of genies that are out of the bottle due to the last three and a half years. Iran today and its nuclear program is at the one yard line of nuclear weapons thresholds. They were not there four years ago. In fact, after the killing of Soleimani, in early 2020, the rest of the year the Iranians never escalated the nuclear program again. They waited until January of 2021. And that's when they started jumping to 20% high enriched uranium. And then they saw nothing's happening to us. So they went to 60% high enriched uranium. They started installing all the advanced centrifuges, they've advanced, so far accelerated to this incredible capacity to produce a dozen nuclear weapons in just a couple of months if they so chose. Plus Intel now coming in that the administration is trying to downplay work on weaponization. There's a lot of genies out of the bottle here that Donald Trump's going to have to try to put back into the bottle.  And that will not be easy. But the formula remains correct. Restore deterrence, have maximum pressure and isolation on the Iranian regime and provide support to your allies. Now, the Gulf Arabs, by the way, the Saudis, the Emiratis, they've made some strategic decisions due to the policies that they saw, sustained by Joe Biden. They've cut deals with the Iranians and sort of cut their own JCPOA. with Iran with the Houthis. I'm not sure they're going to be on board for what's coming next. And they need to make some preparations for the return of a Trump administration and hawkishness towards Tehran and understand that we also won't tolerate them hedging with the Chinese. Now, that comes from the fact that America is hedging on them.  And so there's going to be a lot of parts that have to come together like a puzzle, to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, actual restored turns and regain that peace through strength in the region. This is true in the Middle East. It's true in Europe, and it's true in the Indo Pacific. So what is deterrence? I think that's a major question. What is deterrence? Made up of two big things, capacity and will. Joe Biden and Donald Trump both have capacity. They were the commander in chief at some point of the most powerful military on Earth. Nobody doubts that you have capacity when you are the president of the United States. But our enemies do doubt the will. And they test the will early on.  Every single administration gets tested, whether it's China, whether it's Putin, whether it's Iran, they get tested. At some point, Donald Trump got tested by the Iranians and Soleimani is dead. And that changed a lot of things in the world. And over the course of time, the unpredictability, the some of the craziness of the media went hysterical over the red button with Kim Jong Un did get the attention of people like Vladimir Putin. The Taliban tested Joe Biden, and he failed the test. And Kabul fell. And then Ukraine was invaded. And then now in China, they're expanding and starting to harass and actually attack in some ways, the Philippines and Taiwan.  And what are we seeing? Nothing. So, the minute Donald Trump becomes president, when I hear Trump say, just my election is going to start bringing about a change on the Ukraine front, a change in the world. You might have laughed at that.  I think after Saturday, you're not laughing anymore. A picture that if you're Xi Jinping, the Ayatollah, Putin, Kim Jong Un, looking at that on your desk every day of Donald Trump with his fist in the air blood dripping, right after being shot, saying fight. You're not questioning will. And that will be, I think, the big game changer.  Now, they might still test it. And there's a Chinese proverb, which is, you have to kill the chicken to scare the monkey. And I think President Trump might have to kill a chicken. He'd have to pick the chicken wisely. I think it might be the Houthis. That makes no sense to me. There is a national interest, there's a strategic importance to it. And it will game change how you're trying to get the Gulf Arabs back on side, see that we are committed to the security in the Gulf in the broader Middle East, it will send a major signal to Tehran, and it'll be part of that pivot back to maximum pressure on Iran and maximum support for Israel.  Jason Isaacson:   Rich, thank you. But before I turn back to the Abraham Accords, let me ask you, what's your sense of the Saudi and UAE and Bahraini overtures to Iran? Are they just seeking some kind of stability, some kind of channel, but it doesn't have a whole lot of meaning, or what's your sense and how should the US respond? Rich? Rich Goldberg:   I think there is meaning to it. I think that Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia has changed his strategic calculus over the last three years. I think that there was a game changing moment for him when the Houthis were raining down missiles, next to a Formula One race he was hosting out in Jeddah. And you’re talking about major investors, world leaders, important people all driving into a race course already there. And you're seeing a ballistic missile explode within your line of sight. And the United States does nothing.  And then Abu Dhabi comes under attack by the Houthis, and the United States does nothing. And they're saying, Wow, they're just at the table trying to give the Iranians whatever they can, they've taken the Houthis off the terror list. They're not defending us anymore. They've pulled the missile defense augmentation that Trump put in, in 2019-2020. And they're still trying to get this nuclear deal done.  What are we doing here? Why are we just waiting around for Godot? Why are we exposed? We should cut a deal here. And why if the United States can hedge on us, can't we hedge on them, and they start cozying up to the Chinese and doing things that we probably don't like very much I need to put an end to. So I think it's very real. These channels are real. They're in a hedge. I think it's taken a while for others that are far more suspicious of Iran, like Bahrain to get on board this strategy. But everybody sort of signed up to this. There's a normalization process with Assad that I think is partially connected to it as well. All of that's going to have to change. You have Donald Trump is back in office. And I don't know that they appreciate that very much. Jason Isaacson:   There's also a recollection of the Trump administration in this reaction or non reaction to this Iranian attack on Saudi Aramco facilities. So it's been a mixed bag. But But first, let me let me let me turn back to you. And we were talking about the Abraham accords before. That was a great foreign policy access success of the last months of the Trump administration, first of the UAE, then Bahrain and then with different terminology, but Morocco and Sudan. As you know, the Biden administration has been vigorously pursuing an effort to normalize Saudi relations with Israel, and objective that was also very much a part of the Trump administration's vision. What are your perspectives on the likelihood of that kind of a deal being closed in the last months of the current Biden administration, if they do move forward on such a deal with the Republicans getting the Senate joined with Democrats in the Senate to support such a deal before the election? Or perhaps in a lame duck session after the election?   Kirsten Fontenrose:   Well that's the big question. So I think if you have a deal that includes normalization with Israel, Saudi us still includes normalization with Israel, it has a shot of getting through, but the closer we get to the election, the smaller that shot gets, because the more Republicans Congress will want to hold out to grant that foreign policy when to potential Republican administration.  But if you have a deal that is being discussed now, as a Plan B, that is just a US-Saudi deal, without normalization. And this is because of the Israeli government's decision, perhaps not to grant that the Saudis are fully on board, you won't get it through, there's just not enough in it. For the US. There are lots of questions about why we'd be granting Saudi assistance with civilian nuclear technology. And a security guarantee, when we're not really getting much out of it. There's nothing in this deal in terms of concrete asks on the relationship with China. And we can really go quite far in blocking Chinese influence in the Gulf by just improving our own foreign military sales process. We don't need to grant security guarantees, the Israeli Saudi relationship is so close right now. It's normalization and everything but public statement and name and that public statement name is important for the follow on effects you have around the world globally and with other Muslim populations.  But in terms of their coordination, they're in a pretty good place. So we're not in some sort of crisis rush to make sure this happens in the next few months, unless you're the Biden team. And you're desperate for a foreign policy win, because your promises on other foreign policy fronts have not borne out.  So I think you will still see this continue, though we have doubled down on the Saudi discussion, if there is a second Trump administration. But you will not see this granting of a deal to Saudi Arabia, even though they are a phenomenal partner. And we are quite close, without more concrete asks that benefit U.S. goals as well. It's not the opinion that just having Saudi on side with nothing we've actually signed them up to, would they grant overflight rights, if things came down with Iran.  We need to make those more specific before we would do something that would require commitment of troops, large resources, equipment, perhaps to the detriment of other partners, we would be able to send those same troops and equipment. So I don't think we're going to see it in the last months of this administration. Manya Brachear Pashman: To hear the rest of the panel, head to the link in our show notes. Another reminder that AJC is a nonpartisan organization and will be at the DNC next month in Chicago. We hope to see some of you there.  Next week on People of the Pod, tune in for our sit down with two Jewish Olympians before they head to Paris for the Summer Olympic Games.

Election season in Europe is in full force, including recent elections in France, the United Kingdom, and the European Parliament. American Jewish Committee's offices across Europe have closely followed the results, which have had dramatic outcomes across the continent. Listen to an excerpt of this live podcast recording with AJC Europe Managing Director Simone Rodan-Benzaquen for expert analysis on what these developments mean for the future of Europe, European Jewry, Israel and the region, and more. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.  Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Simone Rodan Benzaquen Show Notes: Resources: European Elections: June-July 2024; Results and AJC Expert Analysis Listen – People of the Pod: Rebuilding Israel’s Devastated Negev Region Post 10/7 The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election: What Does it Mean For Israel? Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Interview with Simone Rodan-Benzaquen: Manya Brachear Pashman:  Welcome to this live recording. Election season in Europe is in full force, including recent elections in France, the United Kingdom and the European Parliament. American Jewish Committee's offices across Europe have closely followed the dramatic results across the continent.  Joining us to share what these developments mean for Israel and the Jewish people is someone who has become a fairly regular guest, thanks to her expertise, AJC Europe Managing Director Simone Rodan-Benzaquen. Simone, welcome back to People of the Pod. Simone Rodan Benzaquen: Thank you very much Manya. It's very good to be with you. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So let's start with the most recent election in France, which is home to the second largest diaspora Jewish community behind the United States. So President Emmanuel Macron surprised a lot of people by calling for a snap election after his party was pummeled by the far right in European Parliament elections. Why was a snap election his solution? And what was the outcome? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: So the President has said that after the European Parliamentary elections, which indeed have been a huge failure for his party, he only gained 17% of the French vote while the far right gained 33% – that he wanted to use this occasion to give back the voice to the people and use it basically as a means to clarify the situation.  Now, there has been a little bit of clarification. The one clarification, I'd say, is the fact that after the first round, where it became very clear that the far right is gaining more and more weight within the French public opinion and therefore, possibly also in Parliament, where it was expected that the far right would become the first party and possibly be able to have a government–the clarification was nevertheless that the majority of the country doesn't want the National Rally, meaning the far right to rule the country.  It has also been a clarification because it has also showed that to some extent, the National Front is probably not yet ready to rule apart from the fact that majority of the people don't believe it should be, because nearly 100 candidates were as, one could say, problematic. Some of them had a criminal past. Some of them had made antisemitic, racist statements in the past. Some of them were truly not very competent, broke down in all of the interviews or the confrontations, not being able to respond to any of the questions.  So that was, I'd say, one part of the clarification. The other part of the clarification, which is to some extent, problematic, and brings us to the situation we're in today is the fact that France is now clearly split into I'd say, three blocks: the far right, which is strong, the center and the left.  And so just to give you a little bit of an understanding of what the results look like after the second round of the of the elections, so it gave what we call the NFP basically an alliance of all of the left parties – the far left, the Socialist Party, the Greens and the Communists – 182 seats in the 577-seat National Assembly.  A majority is needed of 289 seats, so they only have, as the largest bloc, 182 seats. Marine Le Pen's national rally party has, again, despite the fact that they were expecting to win only 143 seats, nevertheless gaining 50 seats compared to the previous election.  And for President Macron's party, the results come as something probably of a relief, because they have 168 seats, down from the 250 seats it held in the outgoing parliament, but still far more than what people were expecting. So we now have basically three scenarios. We have, in theory, a left bloc that doesn't have an absolute majority, that could be the ones, nevertheless, to try and find a coalition to rule the country.  You could have something of a sort of a grand coalition which would include the moderate left, the center, and the moderate right. But France is not really used to making coalitions. It's not how we work. It's not like in Israel, it's not like in Germany, or other European countries.  Or, we could have a third option, again, one that we've not had previously, in the Fifth Republic. It's called something like a technical government as it was the case for example, in Italy, under the Draghi government. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So what do these results mean for the French Jewish community? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: Now, first of all, I'd say that many Jews after the second round of the elections, probably felt, just as much of the country, a sigh of relief. In between the two rounds, everybody was talking about the fact that whether the National Rally would have an absolute majority, we would have Prime Minister Bardella from the far right ruling the country, what it would mean. And that's not happening.  So I think a majority of French Jews, again, just as the majority of French people probably seem somewhat relieved. But I think it was very quickly gained by a sense of worry, because of the presence of the far left Unbowed party in the left coalition that is now the largest part.  And so many, many questions arise, because we know that in that part of the coalition, there are very, very, very problematic elements, particularly with relation to Jews and antisemitism. And they have really made sort of, you know, “anti-Israelism,” or even antisemitism a core part of the ideology. And I think more largely, I'd say, Jews, I think are very, very uncomfortable. We were really the Jewish question, if I may put it that way, was really at the center of this election. It was all day long about which party is antisemitic, which party isn't, who’s trying to get the attention of the Jews.  And so many people around us, around me, really had the impression that they were being instrumentalized in a very, very horrible manner. And I think that the large feeling within the Jewish community is uncomfortable. They are afraid. And all of this also particularly in a context where we have an explosion of antisemitism. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So are you saying that that question of who is more antisemitic – the right, the left – was not actually, that question was not coming from the Jewish community? It was coming from another source. What were the origins of that question? And why is antisemitism the sin that has been instrumentalized? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: So first of all, you have to understand that the far left party from Jean-Luc Mélenchon has really used the issue of Gaza and of the Palestinians as a weapon. It's not about the Palestinians. It's about – how can I call it – “Palestinianism” – it's really become sort of a cultural marker for that party, constantly being at the border of antisemitism. So you have, for example, people within his party who considered that the October 7 terrorist attacks were not terrorist; you have those who say that it was actually resistance; you have those who deny that babies were killed. And the other side of the political spectrum, Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, really made the issue of antisemitism, position themselves as basically, the defenders, the protectors of the Jews, all while at the same time, still having elements within their own party that were clearly problematic.  The National Front also knows that this is the best way for them to become normalized to become a regular party that can actually be taken seriously by large parts of the French society. So basically, everybody was pulling at the Jews on all sides. And we all know that whenever you make the issue of antisemitism a political issue, or basically a political football game, or baseball game in the American context, it means that you're actually not serious about antisemitism.  And the same can be said on the left, in particular, the far left always pretends not to be antisemitic, says how is it even possible that anyone could believe they would be antisemitic while they only believe that antisemitism only exists on the on the right and on the far right?  So it's very problematic, because again, in the middle, are there actually Jewish citizens who the only thing they want is for everybody within the French society to take antisemitism seriously, and to fight it, collectively, knowing in particular that antisemitism is always the problem of society at large and should therefore be taken seriously by everybody. Manya Brachear Pashman:  I mean, it is well known the history of antisemitism within France’s far right party. Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s father, was repeatedly convicted for hate speech, Holocaust denial, and it does appear that his daughter Marine Le Pen has taken steps to distance her party from that history.  She has expressed support for Israel. She has expressed support for France’s Jewish community, as you said. Are you saying that it's really nothing more than a political strategy, a facade? Or do you think there is an authentic evolution of principles in her party, that has, a party that has some residual antisemitism from this long history? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: First of all, it's better to have a party to say what they say than the opposite. Let's be very clear about that. It's better to have Marine Le Pen and Bardella say the same things that they say, meaning, expressing support for the Jewish community, expressing support for Israel, than the opposite, as her father used to say, who used to consider that the gas chambers were just the detail in history. But nevertheless, I spoke about the fact that Emmanuel Macron, in his decision to call for snap elections, has wanted to clarify things. And once the focus came back to actually looking at the party and looking at the candidates of those that were actually presented by the national rally as being candidates for the parliamentary elections, you could see that the problems were still there.  So it's one thing to talk the talk, which is good, but at the same time, when you give nearly 100 seats to elements within your own party who are clearly problematic, I mean, we had a woman who wore a Nazi cap, like actually a cap from from from the Nazi era and took a picture of herself and posted it on social media. You have Holocaust deniers. You have people who actually had a library with where they sell Holocaust denying books, and the list goes on. You can't just consider that this is just residual, that this is just a small problem.  And again, I think for the party to really be taken seriously and really make sure that to know that what they're doing is genuine, they will have to have a very serious inward-looking approach. Meaning, not using the issue of antisemitism and considering that it only exists ever on the far left, or that it only exists only within Islamist elements within the society, but actually agree and actually understand that it exists within their own ranks. Once that happens, we can take them a little bit more seriously. And we know that this will not only be part of a political strategy. In the meantime, I think we need to stay vigilant and call them out whenever that's necessary. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So now let's turn to the left. I have to say I used the word “residual” in my previous question on purpose because that was a word that Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the far left leader, used to describe antisemitism in France. It's not rising, it's just residual. He's also called Israel's operation in Gaza genocide. I'm curious, should we be concerned about the far left’s first place result? And what could be the ramifications of a far left victory in 2027 in the presidential election? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: So we did a survey, our biannual survey that we do together with IFOP, one of the largest polling institutes in France. And we found that 92% of French Jews consider Jean-Luc Mélenchon's unbound party to be the main reason why antisemitism is growing in the political sphere. So 92% of French Jews consider it to be antisemitic. A large majority or 54% of French Jews when they're being asked if Jean-Luc Mélenchon was to be president of France, would they leave the country or not, 55% say they would. So this is very, very clear. French Jews are very concerned about the far left.  The different comments by himself, whether it's because he called, for example, when Jeremy Corbyn lost the election in the United Kingdom at the time, he said that the reason why he lost the elections was because of the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, or because of the networks of the Likud.  He, as you said, he's spoken about a Gaza genocide, but that's happening basically every single day. He considers antisemitism to be residual, all while knowing that 1,000% increase in antisemitism has happened since October 7. He has used the issue of Gaza, of the Palestinians really as a political game to create chaos within its parliament. He has had, they have had Palestinian flags. They have called Israel an apartheid state.  I mean, this is basically happening every single day. So this is why Jews in France are extremely concerned and consider the far left to be the main cause of antisemitism today in the French political sphere. Now, what is very, very concerning, and this is we’re paying the consequences today, is that when after the first round of the parliamentary elections, the traditional left wing parties, meaning the Socialists, the Green, the small Communist Party, decided to make an alliance with Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s party, this was another not only a feeling of concern for French Jews, but probably a feeling of betrayal. Because it means that the moderate left does not consider antisemitism to be a red line.  It doesn't consider antisemitism to be so important. For it not to create an alliance with a party that has very clearly made antisemitism one of its major causes. And let's be clear, in the Socialist Party, you have, for example, Francois Hollande, the former President of France, who was just elected in Parliament again, and who has, you know, indirectly considered that antisemitism is not a red line for him, and therefore, has decided to create an alliance with the far left. So for French Jews, it's both a sense of fear, but also clearly a sense of betrayal.  Because how, what is the message not only to the French left, but what is the message to the rest of society? If you consider antisemitism not to be a red line? How do you want to continue to explain to the rest of society, to French children that antisemitism needs to be fought, that this is a priority for the country as such, if you don't consider it to be a red line? So we are now living with these consequences and therefore, the question arises, who will be in the government?  Will it be, you know, will it be the far left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, or will after the second round of the elections, the traditional moderate left decide to split off and, you know, take its distance with third party or again, continue in the same way, as they have until today, but it's a major issue, and one that we will possibly pay the price for in the future, again, beyond the very political issue, but in the country as such. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So what role did the Israel-Hamas war play in this election and its outcome? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: The far left had a candidate, Palestinian woman by the name of Rima Hassan, who has a very, very radical approach to the Palestinian issue, considers that there needs to be a Palestinian state from the river to the sea. And this was really sort of the poster child of the unbowed party from Jean-Luc Mélenchon. And more largely, the issue of antisemitism played a role on the other side by all the other parties.  We know, for example, of this horrible case of a 12-year-old Jewish girl who was raped by three boys of 12 and 13 years old, who hurled antisemitic insults and raped her. So all of this has really taken a center stage in the election, which makes many French people uneasy. I mean, so many friends of mine who said, you know, I wish we would be talking about something else. Manya Brachear Pashman:  I want to also look at the United Kingdom, another major country that also had elections last week, the UK Labour Party had a major victory ending 14 years of conservative rule. What can you tell us about that election and its results? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: This is major. The Labour Party led by Sir Keir Starmer really scored resounding victory in the general elections. Its majority is the largest one by any government since 1997. The party flipped seats in all corners, really, of the United Kingdom, defeating conservative candidates in constituencies that had been conservative since, really, the 19th century. The conservative vote collapsed by nearly 20 percentage points. It's the largest decline by any governing party in British political history. And voters abandoned the party not only in favor of the Labour Party, but also for other parties – for the Liberal Democrats, for reform UK, and also for the Green Party. And also plenty stayed at home.  Fewer than three-fifths of the voters turned out to vote, and it's the second lowest turnout in the past century. Now, the Liberal Democrats took 60 seats held by the conservatives. The party increased its representation in the House of Commons from 11 seats in 2019 to 72, and seats in which the Liberal Democrats were competing against the conservative really saw substantial tactical voting to ask the governing party in the seats. The Tories vote share fell by an average of 24 percentage points, while that of the Liberal Democrats increased by 12.  Also the Reform Party, Euro-skeptic, rather pro Russian anti-immigration party that was led by Nigel Farage was the biggest beneficiary of the conservative collapse in terms of vote share. Reform achieved 14% of the vote nationwide, which is basically 12 points compared with the Brexit party that Nigel Farage used in 2019.  Nevertheless, the interesting thing, though, I think, for the Labour Party in particular, is that we see to some extent that when Labour becomes a normal social democratic center left party, it can win elections, which wasn't the case under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn where the Labour Party very, very clearly lost the elections. Manya Brachear Pashman:  But now, Jeremy Corbyn, as you mentioned earlier, very troubling history of antisemitism that spread throughout that party. So what should we know about the new prime minister Keir Starmer? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: Keir Starmer has made the issue of antisemitism a top priority. The party under Jeremy Corbyn had really become one could say institutionally antisemitic. And one of the first actions as Keir Starmer took over the party was the public apology to the Jewish community calling antisemitism a stain on the party that needed to be eradicated. And so I think as such, that needs to be clearly noted. Before Starmer also took over, before he now became Prime Minister, it's also important to note that the Jewish Labour MPs, like Luciana Berger, like Louise Ellman, who had left the party under Jeremy Corbyn, because basically they were being harassed, have decided to come back.  So I think it's really sort of an endorsement of Labour as sort of a renewed confidence in the party's election. So, I think overall, the Jewish community is in the United Kingdom somewhat reassured by the stance that Keir Starmer has taken, since he has taken over the party, and there is no reason to believe that he will take a different stance.  One should also probably note, even though this is, of course, his personal life, that Sir Keir Starmer knows the Jewish community very well. His wife is Jewish. She is the daughter of a Polish-British Jew, a Polish Jew who had emigrated to the United Kingdom in the 20s. Then was married to a non-Jewish woman who then converted to Judaism. So she was brought up Jewish. She is involved in Jewish community affairs.  Keir Starmer has had in the past said that he would stop working at 6 pm on Friday night in order to be able to be with his family for Shabbat dinner. And so this is, of course, an important sign. That being said, there will also be pressure without a doubt from other elements within the political spectrum.  There are other parties who did particularly well – the Green Party, the Reform Party, the Liberal Democrats, and there will be pressure, nevertheless, on many of the issues that in particular on foreign policy with relations to Israel and Gaza, that will be made. But overall, I think many in the Jewish community are reassured about the fact that the Labour Party was somehow cleansed of the most problematic antisemitic elements within the party.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  So put this all in context for us now. And how do these elections fit in with what we're seeing across the continent, from the recent EU Parliament elections to the Dutch elections? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: There is clearly, across the continent, a huge polarization. We see radicalization of the political spectrum. We see a certain inability of people to even talk with each other, to even share a common sense of reality, a common sense of shared values. And I think this is really what we're seeing across the European continent, and probably more widely across Western democracies. And this I think, needs to be seen, particularly also in a wider geopolitical point of view.  We are clearly witnessing these days, an assault by autocratic nations or groups across the world, who have decided to team up despite their differences and to have to attack the Western worlds for their hegemony, to attack the Western world because they want to change the world order. So of course, militarily, by the war that is being waged by Russia against Ukraine, the war that is also being waged by Iranian proxies against Israel – Hamas, of course, since October 7, but also Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc, etc.  And they're really, I think, trying to test the grounds. We see those autocrats teaming up – Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, to some extent – waging this war against the West, and we in the West, really falling apart to some extent from within both because there is a hybrid war that is being waged by those autocratic elements and countries from the outside, but also because we ourselves have our own huge problems, of course, as we know, and there I think, this is what we're seeing. This is the polarization of the political spectrum.  And the fact that the far right is gaining more and more ground is part of that. It's part of the fact that many, many European citizens feel that what they used to believe Europe was about is falling apart. There is a lot of cultural insecurity. There's a lot of fear, and to some extent, the job that by the sort of traditional conservative and liberal parties on the left and right, that should have been there to address the concerns of European citizens, whether it's on immigration, whether it's on globalization, whether it's about the middle class have not been addressed by those parties.  And so in this vacuum, and in this wider geopolitical context, the populist parties are exploiting that part. So my appeal to European and Western democracies and Western parties who care about Western values and European values is to start addressing the issues from within, stand up for themselves stand up for the minorities and in particular Jews. Knowing that antisemitism is always the first sign of societies falling apart, and deal with the very serious threats that are coming from the outside, and stand firm. Because we are at a crossroads of the world as we know it.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  Once again, thank you, Simone for joining us and informing all of our conversations on these matters.  

The October 7 Hamas attack severely affected Israel’s Ben-Gurion University (BGU) and its surrounding community. The university lost over 110 people, several students were taken hostage, including Noa Argamani, and thousands of students were called up for reserve duty. Doug Seserman, CEO of Americans for Ben-Gurion University, joins us to discuss the impact of the October 7 Hamas massacre on BGU and Israel’s Negev region. Hear about the university's emergency response and volunteer efforts, highlighting the region’s resilience and the university’s innovation in sustainability, water conservation, and energy solutions.  *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.  Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Doug Seserman Show Notes: Listen – People of the Pod: The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election: What Does it Mean For Israel? Seven Months In: What Israelis Think About the War Against Hamas, Campus Antisemitism in America, and More What Does it Mean to be a Jewish American Hero? A Jewish American Heritage Month Conversation with AJC CEO Ted Deutch Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Interview with Doug Seserman: Manya Brachear Pashman:   The Negev, the vast desert region that covers 60% of Israel's territory is home to only 10% of its population. It's also home to Ben-Gurion University and many of the communities attacked by Hamas terrorists on October 7.  Doug Seserman is the CEO of Americans for Ben-Gurion University. In that role, he has worked to highlight the innovations and technology know-how that Israel can offer America and the world when it comes to sustainability, water conservation, energy solutions and ecology. But since October 7 BGU’s efforts have shifted from sustaining lives across Israel’s south to rebuilding them. Doug Seserman is with us now to discuss those efforts. Doug, welcome to People of the Pod. Doug Seserman:  Thank you so much for inviting me. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So compared to other Israeli universities, the BGU community was disproportionately impacted by the October 7 massacre, correct? Can you give our listeners some perspective on the scope of loss? Doug Seserman:   Sure. So as the crow flies our main campus in Beer-Sheva is only about 22 miles from Gaza. We had a number of students at the Nova music festival site, and a number of our employees and their families live in the western Negev or Gaza Envelope area. So as a university today, we have 111 dead. That includes those murdered on October 7, as well as fallen soldiers. We've had close to 6,600 of our students, faculty, employees, administration, called up to milu'im, reserve duty, and not all of them have come back. Some 2000 are still fighting. So that was a direct and disproportional impact. Now everybody in Israel has experienced this war. Every family knows somebody, but for us, it's definitely disproportional. Literally every colleague's kids are fighting. Every younger woman who's a colleague in her 30s, their husbands are fighting. People are on their WhatsApp just trying to hear what's going to happen next. It's a very surreal situation. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Four hostages were rescued by the IDF earlier this month.  Were there any faculty, staff, or students from Ben-Gurion taken hostage?  Doug Seserman:   Noa Argamani, you may recall her name. She was at the music festival and forcibly separated from her boyfriend Avinatan Or, who's a BGU alum. But Noa is a 26-year-old information systems student of ours. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Yes, thank you. Of course, Noa was one of those hostages recently rescued. We are so thankful that Noa is now home. 124 hostages are still being held in Gaza. We are praying and advocating for the safe return home of all hostages, and will highlight those that are part of the BGU family: Sasha (Alexander) Trufanov, Avinatan Or, Alex Dancyg, and Segev Kalfon And Doug, how many at BGU were called up for reserve duty? Doug Seserman:   That’s about a third of the student body. Classes, obviously, they were supposed to start on October 15, and they didn't resume until December 31. The president of the University, Professor Daniel Chamovitz, did his best to have no student be left behind. But at some point, we had to resume classes. And so today, when you go to the campus, it's, I don't want to say it's thriving, but it's functioning. There's a normalcy about life in Israel and also on campus. But there's nothing normal about this new normal.  Many of our reservists are back and they're in the classroom, but even going from being in Gaza, in conflict, to then studying for a test, you know, writing papers and things. People are traumatized, and the university has done an amazing job providing psychological support and counseling for the students and the faculty and the families who've been directly impacted. But still, it's a very difficult situation. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In addition to those called up for reserve duty immediately after October 7, was there a sizable volunteer effort? Or was the community just too shell-shocked? Doug Seserman:   Thank you for asking. Today when you go to campus, it's happening and it's alive and doing as well as it can. On October 7, that immediately pivoted from a university that was closing – had to close because of the war – to almost a hub for activity to support not only the faculty and students, but also the community – a logistics center, if you will. We were housing, in our dorms, evacuated families and also medical professionals from the center of the country that needed help. Soroka, which is the main hospital of the Negev and also the teaching hospital for our two medical schools. Very close relationship with Soroka Medical Center. Our medical students immediately became ER triage doctors. They learn by doing.  If you talk with some of them today, they'll tell you in this strange way that October 7 may have really accelerated their knowledge in terms of their career, etc. And then we just started doing what we could. Students mobilized, as Israelis do, to create care packages and provide clothing and anything that was necessary for these evacuated families. We had, I want to say close to 1500 members of our community that were evacuated. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You know, I imagine it's even more than medical students getting this, you know, on the ground experience. I happened to be in journalism school in New York when 9/11 happened. I remember places in New York City all of a sudden transforming into emergency centers, like what you're describing, and I think a lot of my classmates got a crash course, right, in journalism from covering that. Doug Seserman:   Absolutely. Even our social work and psychology students became kind of caseworkers. I mean, everybody was doing what they could and, in a way, we should feel really good about it. It's hard to say there are silver linings from October 7. But the resilience that the country has demonstrated in the university, in particular, is incredible and quite inspiring.  One thing about Ben-Gurion University that’s unique is, yes, we are an educational and research institution and one of the leading universities in Israel, and we're quite proud of those accomplishments. But we have a particular and very unique mandate to develop the Negev region. And it's almost in what we call the Ben Gurion DNA, to activate the social justice aspect of being a Jew, honestly. But it's particularly manifest at the University and we're proud of it. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, you know, let's talk a little bit more about that innovative spirit that I hear a lot about, that characterizes Israel and, obviously, BGU. And I mentioned earlier how BGU has introduced, you know, all of these technologies, innovative solutions for environmental concerns.  I think David Ben Gurion said “making the desert bloom” – that was his goal and what the university aims for – but has the aftermath of October 7 highlighted other faculty, other fields? You talked about psychology and social work. Can you talk a little bit about how this kind of innovative spirit has been applied and has really shown itself since October 7? Doug Seserman:   Yeah, absolutely. I'm happy to do that.  And it's important to note also that Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, it was important on October 6. When you visit the Beer-Sheva campus, it's, in a way, it's startup nation on steroids. You have Ben-Gurion University and Soroka hospital, the advanced technology park that has 3000 employees and 70 multinational companies, right across the high speed train station to get you to Tel Aviv in just over an hour.  And you have the IDF moving south and their IT and computing base literally adjacent to the university. It's an amazing place. I actually feel like a lot of people visit Israel, and they don't really go south. And the truth is, you haven't seen the future of Israel until you spend time in the Negev. And you don't really understand the Negev until you've spent time at the University.  But in terms of areas that the University excels at, that are important in the aftermath. I mean, it's everything. But some of the things I would highlight is our strength in engineering, computer sciences, IT, cybersecurity. The cyber capital of Israel is actually Beer-Sheva. This IDF base that's adjacent to us, I call them 22nd century defense systems, remote sensing satellite defense technology. Hatzerim Air Force base is in the Negev, that's where all members of the Israeli Air Force get their wings, but they actually get their degree, their educational degree, from Ben-Gurion University. So when we think about the future, listen, it takes a village. And you can never do wrong by doing right. So I'd encourage your listeners to just get involved in something in Israel that's consistent with their values.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   I know the South has supplied much of Israel's kind of homegrown food, vegetable crops, barley, wheat, dairy, but obviously, I mean, many of the Palestinian and Thai workers who tended those fields, they're not returning anytime soon, neither are the residents of those kibbutzim. Has BGU played a role in filling that gap? Doug Seserman:   The answer is yes, and doing our best and not enough. And very proud of all the volunteers and that you're seeing, especially also from the diaspora coming to Israel to help pick fruit and etc. We had faculty that basically stop because they weren't teaching and they had time, they just started going into the fields and helping the farmers, both with their hands and their heart.  At the end of the day, there's a very close relationship and literally hundreds of our students and faculty and administration has been involved in volunteer efforts. At the end of our board of governors meeting last week, we had a whole afternoon dedicated for volunteers who came from around the world to volunteer as well. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I want to go back to campus real quick and talk a little bit more about the students. I know that BGSU has a really robust diversity and inclusion effort that covers Druze, other Arabs, women, disabilities, Ethiopian immigrants, ultra-Orthodox Jews – it's a very diverse campus. And I'm curious how this diverse student population views the scenes from some American university campuses. I mean, has there been vigorous debate on BGU’s campus about how Israel is fighting this war? And does it look any different? Doug Seserman:   Now that's a big question. I can say this: we're extremely proud of the diversity on campus and sometimes what we call a shared society. We have Sarab Abu-Rabia-Queder, who's the Vice President of Diversity and Equity and Inclusion in Israel. That DEI term has become controversial, in the United States, but in Israel, you know, in our campus, it's a thriving concept.  We have approximately 20,000 students. Most of them are Israeli. We have about 1000 international students that study in English, mostly from China and India, but also from North America. And then we have about 2000 Arab-Israelis. So of the Arab-Israeli, a number of them are Bedouin. We're by far the largest university for Bedouin students in Israel. So we have robust discussions underneath that framework of the diversity, VP of diversity, to try to bring students together. Sometimes there have been, before October 7, protests, peaceful protests, with Arab students protesting and Jewish students also there. And we've never had issues.  You know, there's a way to have civil discourse, and free speech and academic freedom is critical. I mean, it's a hallmark to a just society. So you know, you have to be able to have peaceful protests. Now going back to what's happening on American campuses. You know, I'm personally embarrassed. I wrote an op-ed recently in The Times of Israel about what do you do when your alma mater no longer reflects your values?  I'm a proud Wildcat from Northwestern University. And we had a terrible situation on campus. And then our president Michael Schill, who's a smart guy, and also a Jew, negotiated with the encampment leaders and created a precedent almost like, it's not negotiating with terrorists, but it's compromising and rewarding, enabling bad behavior and creating a precedent that the way to make change is to be lawless and create hate speech.  So something's happened in the US that on college campuses, that's absolutely out of control. But at the same time, freedom of speech, and especially in academic institutions, must be protected, but it has to be safe. We teach chemistry on university campuses all across the country, perhaps we should be teaching morality. And maybe that should be a required course.  Now, I don't even know what that looks like. But I think people have lost a sense for the difference between proper behavior and improper behavior. And they sometimes use free speech to do hateful and wrongful things. And that's, that's not appropriate. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In other words, you're suggesting social chemistry lessons? How do we get along? How do relationships work? Doug Seserman:   I love that. I think what's happened is we all are talking in echo chambers. We've no longer figured out how to understand the narrative of the other, and how to find some sort of central place to move forward where people can agree to disagree, but you can move forward in some kind of democratic and civil way. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I don't want to lose sight of the fact that you head Americans for BGU, right, the arm of the university that works to garner American support? Has October 7 presented some unexpected challenges in that realm? Doug Seserman:   You know the answer, to that is yes. And also, unfortunately, opportunities at the same time. There's been an October, I call it October 8 awakening, some people are calling it October 8 Jews – people in this country and in the diaspora are waking up, that something is happening out there with antisemitism, and the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. And as an American diaspora Jew, you have sort of like three options.  You can do nothing, and no miracles are going to come from that. Or you can kind of wait and see and no miracles are gonna come from that. Or you can kind of double down your efforts and get involved with institutions that matter, can make a difference. And that's what we're encouraging. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, Doug, thank you so much for joining us and for giving us a snapshot of what people are trying to do to rebuild Israel’s south and help it recover after October 7. Thank you so much. Doug Seserman:   Thank you so much for having me.

In AJC’s signature AJC Global Forum session, the Great Debate, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Morgan Ortagus, former Spokeswoman for the Department of State under the Trump administration, engaged in a debate on the 2024 presidential election and its impact on the global Jewish community, Israel, and the future of democracy. Listen to this session, moderated by AJC’s Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson, recorded live on the AJC Global Forum 2024 stage in Washington, D.C. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a 501(c)3 not for profit organization and does not endorse political candidates for elective office. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Morgan Ortagus, Halie Soifer Show Notes: Listen – People of the Pod: Seven Months In: What Israelis Think About the War Against Hamas, Campus Antisemitism in America, and More What Does it Mean to be a Jewish American Hero? A Jewish American Heritage Month Conversation with AJC CEO Ted Deutch Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Debate with Morgan Ortagus and Halie Soifer: Manya Brachear Pashman: In AJC’s signature AJC Global Forum session, the Great Debate, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Morgan Ortagus, former Spokeswoman for the Department of State under the Trump administration, engaged in a debate on the 2024 presidential election and its impact on the global Jewish community, Israel, and the future of democracy.  Moderating the debate was AJC’s Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson. Here’s Jason now to explain the format. Jason Isaacson:   We had a coin toss, and Morgan won the coin toss, and will go first. Each of them will have two minutes to provide opening statements. There will be the opportunity for a minute of rebuttal afterwards, then we'll plunge into a series of questions that I'll be posing to each of them. Morgan, you’re up. Morgan Ortagus:   Thank you so much for having me. I want to start this discussion today really telling a few stories from my time in the Trump administration, but also talking about this from a policy perspective.  For those of you who don't know me, I've actually served in multiple administrations, including in the Obama administration, as well. And I say that to provide the context that I think the State of Israel cannot have a relationship with just one political party in the United States, just as we pray for the success of Israel. I pray for the success of our leaders, whomever wins in November. And I think no matter what happens today, in this debate in November, we must stand with our ally, we must stand with the State of Israel.  You know, what's amazing is, I think about four years ago, I was standing in the Oval Office after many, many months of having worked with Secretary Pompeo, Jared Kushner, and the entire team on something that you all came to learn about called the Abraham Accords. And in that moment, I was pregnant with my daughter Adina Ann, this beautiful Jewish baby. And I thought to myself, the Middle East has entirely changed for her. This is going to be so radically different.  Fast forward three and a half years later, to see October 7th and what happened that day, the worst killing of the Jewish people in any single day since the Holocaust. It felt like everything I had worked on in Abraham Accords had been shattered. But I am here to say that there is hope, with the right president, with the right policies.  And that's what I really want to talk about today. With the right policies, we can get back to an era, not only have a strong America, a strong Israel, and a much stronger Middle East, happy to debate the policies. I'm not a campaign person.  But I do believe that under the Trump administration, under Mike Pompeo, we had the right policies that were best for Israel, and best for the Middle East. So I guess as the famous song goes, all I'm here to say is give Trump a chance. Jason Isaacson:   Morgan, thank you. Halie Soifer. Halie Soifer:   Jason, Morgan, AJC, thank you for having me. And thank you for your efforts advocating for the Jewish people for Israel and defending democratic values. I'm grateful for your work, which has made a difference, and particularly grateful for the leadership of your CEO, my friend, Ted Deutch.  This is the third time I've joined AJC's Great Debate in advance of an election with Joe Biden and Donald Trump on the ballot. The first was in 2019. The second was 2020. But 2024 is different for three reasons. First, the stakes of this election are higher. Second, the positions of the two candidates have never been more clear or divergent. And third, both candidates have been president before and can and should be judged on their records.  Unlike the last debate, this is no longer a hypothetical in terms of what kind of President Joe Biden or Donald Trump would be. We know the answer. Joe Biden has sought to restore the soul of America by taking unprecedented steps to combat antisemitism and bigotry, while Donald Trump has emboldened, echoed and aligned with dangerous extremists and antisemites.  Joe Biden is a self declared Zionist who has stood with Israel for more than five decades, including after October 7, when he pledged his staunch support of Israel and the Jewish people. While Donald Trump is a self declared dictator on day one, who marched Israel's leaders and praised Hezbollah after October 7.  Best summarized by his former national security adviser John Bolton, who told the New York Times, Trump's support of Israel is not guaranteed in a second term. Joe Biden is an ardent defender of democracy, while Donald Trump incited a deadly insurrection in order to stop the peaceful transfer of power in the last election, and is preparing to weaponize the US government as an act of political retribution. If he wins the next one. And let's not forget, he's also a twice impeached 34 Time convicted felon. So three times is clearly a charm. There's plenty to debate and I'm happy to be here. Thanks. Jason Isaacson:   Very good. Thank you, Halie. You can each rebut the others statements. Morgan, would you like to say a word?  Morgan Ortagus:   I think the only response I would have to that is do you feel safer as a Jew in America today than you did four years ago? That's it. Jason Isaacson:   Halie, would you like to say anything in response? Halie Soifer:   Sure. Four years ago, I mentioned I joined this debate. We did so via zoom, where we were in our home stuck for more than a year. It was an unprecedented pandemic that really epitomized Donald Trump's leadership. He was ignorant, chaotic or erratic, and demonstrated a reckless disregard for a fundamental Jewish value pickoff nephesh. The sanctity of life. Since Joe Biden has become president, we emerged from this dark period, the economy has grown. Unemployment is at a 50 year low. And yes, anti semitism has risen, including after the horrific attacks perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, and our unequivocal condemnation of this violence and of rising anti semitism is something on which I'm sure we agree, Morgan, and you know, who else agrees with us, Joe Biden. On May 2, he said in response to the campus protests, there should be no place on any campus or any place in America for antisemitism. It's simply wrong. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you. Okay. Let's get into the questions if I could begin with you, Morgan. As you know, in election after election over the last century, a substantial majority of Jews have voted for Democratic presidential candidates over Republican candidates, the sharpest differences were under FDR in the 1940s and the Johnson Goldwater election of 1964, when Democrats were reported to have scored 90% of the Jewish vote, but Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Barack Obama weren't far behind, and Joe Biden was reported to have led Donald Trump four years ago, according to Pew by 70%, to 27%. AJC's latest polling shows a somewhat narrower gap, but still has President Biden beating former President Trump by more than two to one among American Jews. If these numbers are predictive and accurate, how does the Republican Party break through that traditional Democratic predisposition among Jewish voters and why does it matter? Morgan Ortagus:   I think there's a couple ways to unpack that first, I think there's a big difference between saying the right thing and doing the right thing. There's no doubt that the Biden administration, the Biden-Harris administration is great on the rhetoric. But I would say that the policy is lacking. First of all, I think most Jewish voters care about Israel care about antisemitism in this country. But let me just also say that I think Jewish voters, Jewish moms and grandmas in this audience, Jewish parents, you care about things that I care about in Nashville, Tennessee, which is the price of groceries, which is filling up your car with gasoline, which is all of the things that matter to all of us as consumers.  And it is not a good time in America for the American family. People are making real decisions, whether to fill up their gas tank or whether to fill up their cart full of groceries. That happens in real America in Nashville, Tennessee, where I live. I would also say that, you know, Lindsey Graham said this to me once and it really made me laugh. He said about Trump, I've never seen somebody so willing to cut off their own arm just to spite him. And he certainly incites a lot of heated emotion and passion.  But again, I would get back to the question that I asked you, do you feel more safe as a Jew in America today than you did four years ago? Do you think our policies are stronger at protecting Israel, with standing with our ally than they were four years ago, I would argue that we have turned the Middle East on its head in the past four years by beginning at the beginning of this administration to spend the past three and a half years, chasing the Islamic Republic around the world, begging and cajoling and pleading with them to get back into a nuclear deal, giving them billions of dollars in sanctions relief by not enforcing those sanctions. That was three and a half years of policies that led to events like October 7. We also saw multiple times at the UN, including yesterday, ways in which that I think the Biden administration has sold Israel down the river. has not stood up for them at the United Nations or on the world stage. And so I'm quite simply argue that the Middle East is chaotic today, specifically from the policies of the past three years that were put in place by the Biden Administration.  Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Morgan. Halie, you can respond if you wish. You have a minute.  Halie Soifer:   Well, as a Jewish mom, I can say I absolutely feel safer knowing that Joe Biden is in the White House because he shares our values, our fundamental values, our Jewish values, defending democracy, and of course, support of Israel.  A lot of Republicans mentioned Donald Trump's move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2017. Something we agree with–Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. What we don't mention enough is that in August of 2020, Donald Trump said he did that for the evangelicals, which demonstrates two things.  One, Donald Trump's Israel policy has always been based on his self interests. His own former national security adviser has revealed that in an article in The New York Times in early April, and also it’s clear that Donald Trump has great animus toward the vast majority of Jewish Americans, those who vote for Democrats because of it.. He has called us disloyal. He has called us uninformed. He has said we hate Israel, we hate our religion, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We're loyal to our values, which is why the overwhelming majority of us support Democrats. Jason Isaacson:   Halie, I want to ask you a different version, or the pretty much the same version of the question that I asked Morgan at the beginning, why it matters where the Jewish vote is. Remembering that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz had a piece after the 2020 election, that maintained it was Jewish voters in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona who actually made the crucial difference in that tight race moving those swing states and their deciding Electoral College votes into the Biden column. Although polling and voting history is obviously on your side, there are signs of slippage for President Biden in our own polling and in other samples. Some of that may have to do with the President's being seen as inappropriately pushing the Israeli government in ways that didn't want to go in the conduct of the war against Hamas. And in a post conflict path to Palestinian statehood. Some of it may be factors that have nothing to do with Israel or with the Jewish community, but reflect attitudes in the general population. Why the slippage and how are you addressing it? Halie Soifer:   Well, Jason, you're right. The Jewish vote absolutely matters. The states you mentioned, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona determined the outcome of the 2020 election and may do so again in 2024. Joe Biden won those three states in total by just over 100,000 voters. And in those states the Jewish vote, and even more said the Jewish vote that supported Joe Biden was exponentially higher than the margin by which he won. So where are Jewish voters in 2024? Well, 74% of Jewish voters supported Democrats in our last election in the 2022 midterms. It's the same amount approximately three quarters who have supported Democrats historically, and it's the amount I predict will support Joe Biden in this election for two reasons. One, Joe Biden represents the vast majority of Jewish voters on every key issue, domestic policy, democracy, abortion, access, guns, climate change the economy, antisemitism, and foreign policy, Israel, Ukraine and defending democracy abroad. And too, Jewish voters overwhelmingly disapprove of and oppose Donald Trump in 2016, in 2020, and they're going to do it again in 2024. Because there's even more reasons to oppose him now, going into a potential second term.  AJC's new poll only confirms this. The poll indicates that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have essentially the same amount of support–61%/23%--among Jewish voters as they did among that same group of voters in 2020, when it was 64%/21%. Donald Trump has not broken 25%. It also shows that Jewish voters trust Biden more than Trump on Israel by a two to one margin and on antisemitism by three to one margin.  So AJC is consistent in its polling, and it's consistent with what we've seen in other polling as well that Jewish voters will continue to overwhelmingly support Democrats and Joe Biden, especially with Donald Trump on the ballot. Jason Isaacson:   Morgan, you may respond. Morgan Ortagus:   Again, you know, I'd say there's a big difference between rhetoric and policy action. The truth is, the reality is, there has never been a more unsafe time in America, for Jews, especially young Jews on college campuses. Today, the antisemitism unveiled and unchecked during the Biden administration should scare all of us. The fact that Jewish students have to make decisions if they want to wear a yarmulke, if they want to wear a Star of David, if they want to openly embrace Judaism in the United States of America is a stain on the Biden administration.  And something that I think that there has been no real action. In 2019, again, I'm going to keep going back to policy because when you have bad policy, you have to run on rhetoric. When you have good policy, you can talk about things that we did like the executive order to combat antisemitism in 2019. That executive order focused on criminalizing antisemitism, basically bringing it up to the level of any other persecution against, you know, sex, gender. We could go through everything in Title Six. That's incredibly important because we have real world ramifications for antisemitism that this administration has ignored.  Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Morgan. Let me ask you another question. And I'm going to turn to a foreign policy issue again. Since President Trump in May 2018 pulled the United States out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, calling it a horrible one-sided deal that should never ever have been made. Iran has marched closer and closer to becoming a nuclear threshold state with a stockpile of enriched uranium calculated to be more than 6000 kilograms as of last month, more than 20 times the limit that was set in the nuclear deal. But enough of that uranium enriched to a near weapons grade level to fuel at least three atomic weapons.  It's been said that the maximum pressure campaign waged in the last year and a half of the Trump administration had little effect on Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. How would you answer the charge that pulling the US out of an unsatisfactory nuclear deal actually made the problem worse? How would a second Trump administration approach this threat from Iran? Morgan Ortagus:   Thanks, now we're getting to my favorite subject. So you don't even have to listen to President Trump on this. You can look at Senator Schumer, Majority Leader at the time in his speech and his debate why he did not support the JCPOA. We know of course, that the JCPOA was never brought before the Senate because it was a bad deal that would never get passed, including by Democrats. Let's also remember that under the JCPOA, we left the deal in 2018 in the Trump administration, at the time and during the entire Trump administration. Iran never exceeded the 5% enrichment. In fact, it didn't happen until the Biden administration and under Biden, they've gone up to an 84% enrichment strategy with zero ramifications. That's enough material to get a bomb within eight months if we wanted to.  More importantly, Americans and Israelis are dying at the hands of Iran. And why is that? Because once again, you have a Democratic administration who have not enforced sanctions, they got billions of dollars in sanctions relief. About three weeks before October 7, this administration negotiated a deal that I didn't think that could be worse than the JCPOA. But they actually managed to top themselves by promising to give Iran $6 billion for returning five American hostages home. Now, I love getting American hostages home. In fact, in the Trump administration, we got two American hostages home from Iran, guess how much we paid for those hostages, zero. And so there is a way to negotiate to be tough with Iran and to protect Americans.  But Americans are dying in places like Jordan, from Iranian made drones. We know that American ships are being taxed on a daily basis, again, from material that is supplied to the Hussein's by Iran. And so whenever you reward enemies, like the Islamic Republic of Iran and punish friends like Israel, the Arab states, then you end up with a chaotic Middle East. So the Middle East is on fire today principally because of the appeasement of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran will likely get a nuclear weapon in the next administration, if it isn't stopped. President Trump will stop it. President Biden will just beg and plead them to stop. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Morgan. Halie, you may respond. Halie Soifer:   We talked a lot about, of course, the horrific acts of what happened on October 7. What I don't think we talked enough about is what happened on April 13, when Iran launched over 300 projectiles at Israel and an unprecedented direct attack. In the end, Israel survived that attack relatively unscathed. Miraculously, because Joe Biden had deployed two aircraft carriers to the eastern Mediterranean preparing for such attacks, and had encouraged a coalition, Arab partners, to stand with Israel and directly intercepted over 100 ballistic missiles. It was the first time the US military had been deployed to prevent a direct attack on Israel.  Following the attack, Biden took steps to hold Iran accountable, including imposing new sanctions and exports control on Iran. The sanctions targeted leaders and entities connected to the IRGC, the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps. During the Biden administration, the US has sanctioned over 600 individuals and entities including Iran and its proxies. And the President has directed the administration to continue to impose sanctions that further degrade Iran’s military. This is on top of the Trump era sanctions against Iran that Biden kept in place. So Joe Biden has demonstrated great strength in defending against the threat of Iran, especially as it relates to the threat posed by Israel. Jason Isaacson:   There are increasingly loud and influential voices in the Democratic Party, expressing harsh criticism of Israel's conduct of the war against Hamas in Gaza and among constituencies on which democratic election victories have often depended. There's opposition to Israel more generally, not just to the current war, but to the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Over the last two years, according to Gallup sympathy for Israelis over Palestinians has slipped among Democrats from a majority to a minority position, although there is still a plurality with more favorable views of Israel versus Palestinian Authority. For comparison among Republicans sympathy for Israelis earlier this year was recorded by Gallup is more than 10 times that for Palestinians. How can President Biden and the party counter the critics and assure that US support for the Middle East's sole democracy remains bipartisan. And how do you respond to the charge that Trump criticism of Israel in progressive circles contributes to attacks on supporters of Israel and incidents of antisemitism?  Halie Soifer:   Antisemitic and anti-Israel views have been expressed by elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Neither party is homogenous in their view on either issue. When antisemitism and or anti-Israel views have emerged among Democrats in Congress, JDCA, our organization has condemned it, and in some cases endorsed a primary opponent to anti Israel, Democratic incumbents.  There are two such primaries that we're engaged in right now as we speak in New York and in Missouri, to elect Democrats who share our values. There are some Democrats who have opposed or proposed conditioning aid to Israel, something which JDCA opposes. But House Republicans, including their entire leadership, recklessly delayed essential military aid for Israel that Joe Biden pledged in October for six months, at a time when it could not have been needed more.  When it comes to antisemitism, there is a sharp difference between how it is handled by the two parties. The Democratic Party marginalizes those who have used antisemitic rhetoric, while the Republican Party has elevated extremists and antisemites, one of whom is at the top of the ticket in the past three election cycles, including this one. Leadership matters, and the words and actions of our leaders matter.  When the American people were faced with the same choice for president in 2020, on the debate stage, President Biden implored Donald Trump to condemn white supremacy, we all remember it. Trump blatantly refused, he could not, would not condemn this insidious ideology that motivated the perpetrator of the worst massacre of Jewish Americans in our history two years earlier at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. What did he do instead, he incited dangerous right wing extremists, the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by from the debate stage. And less than four months later, they heated his call on January 6. This election is a binary choice. There are two names on this ballot, two men vying to be leader of the free world. One has been a staunch friend and ally of the Jewish people in Israel, since he was first elected to the Senate in 1972. And the other who has always done and will continue to only do what is good for himself.  Jason Isaacson:   Morgan, I think you may want to respond. Morgan Ortagus:   You know, I will concede, I don't watch MSNBC. And maybe they're just not covering what I see going on in America on a daily basis, which is a Charlottesville every single day in this country, which is the calling for not only supporting Hamas and other terrorist organizations, but calling for the genocide and the extermination of the Jewish people blatantly and openly every single day in this country. You also see yesterday in New York City, while there was a memorial to what happened on October 7, people there openly demonstrating support for more October 7, support for more terrorism.  And while that was happening, the United States was shamefully at the United Nations calling for a ceasefire resolution that made us look like we were Hamas’ personal lawyer. If you're a party that doesn't have the moral clarity, to stand by the Jewish faith to just stay defending itself against terrorism, how can you claim to have the moral clarity on anything. I was in Israel three weeks ago Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu told me that in fact, the Biden administration is slow walking military aid that he needs. Just last week in the Congress, the Biden administration was whipping votes against bipartisan ICC sanctions, which are undermining again the leadership of a democratic elected Jewish state.  We’ll remember famously that after the attack that he talked about a few minutes ago from Iran, Biden famously told Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu for Israel just to take the win essentially. At every turn, then not only tie one hand behind Israel's back, they tie both hands behind the back as they tried to defeat the terrorists that invaded them and by the way, killed Americans on October 7, and the last time I checked, we still have five Americans that are held captive eight months later by a terrorist organization behind enemy lines. Bring them home. Jason Isaacson:   Morgan, you're up. Your last question and President Trump and other leaders of your party had been harshly critical of a range of diversity and equity programs, affirmative action and college admissions and educational curricula that cast a negative light on aspects of American history. And these stances have earned the support and loyalty of among others, individuals and groups with extremist views on race and ethnicity. How do you answer critics, including President Biden, who charge that this so-called anti-woke agenda lends legitimacy and support to forces of intolerance? As you know, there are also accusations that divisive rhetoric can fuel antisemitism. And the example of Charlottesville, which we've been talking about is often cited. How do you counter that, in a minute, if you may. Morgan Ortagus:   I’ll be very quick and say that I agree with Halie that there is antisemitic problems that happen on both the left and the right, and we must be countering them. And every time it happens, again, I'm a foreign policy professional. I look at the policies. I don't necessarily get involved in domestic politics. But I will say that what we have seen, especially on college campuses, is that DEI and intersectionality are the parents of antisemitism and fostering intolerance. Can anybody look at our college campuses and say this isn't true. I don't think President Biden and vice president Harris are doing enough to rein in anti-Jewish Jewish violence in this country.  Let's look at Biden's so-called efforts, is there more or less antisemitism in our universities? Are there fewer encampments? How about what's happening to the American flag? The last I've seen, the Iranian people have more respect for the American flag and the Israeli flag than liberals on university campuses today. Many students who had to start college online and COVID have gone back to going online because it's unsafe to be Jewish in America in an American university today. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Morgan. And Halie, we're not going to have rebuttals to these questions.  Halie, your last question: the Iranian threats, foreign policy question. The Iranian threat isn't confined to its accelerated nuclear program. Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq firing missiles and drones at Israel sometimes with deadly effect. The Iranian supported Hutus in Yemen regularly attack ships in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. In recent years, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have come under attack from Iran or its proxies and vessels of many nations, including the US Navy, have been targeted or damaged or seized. Iranian agents abroad from the IRGC, Hezbollah, Hamas and other groups have been implicated in assassination plots, including in our own country.  Critics charge the Biden administration, which yearned from day one to return to the 2015 nuclear deal has failed to confront Iran forcefully over these multiple threats. What's your response? In a minute, if you could?  Halie Soifer:   Ok, in order to answer this, you have to go back to May of 2018 when President Trump against the advice of many in the US intelligence community and Israeli security establishment, withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement. While the JCPOA was not a perfect agreement, Iran was in compliance with it. According to international observers and American intelligence officials. It was effectively verifying restrictions on Iran's nuclear development, as AJC itself said at the time in its own press release, despite our many reservations, we had hoped to see the deal fixed, not next. It was with the same objective. And given the fact that Iran was at that time weeks away from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.  The Biden administration explored whether it was possible to reenter the JCPOA and reach a better deal if Iran came back into compliance. In the end, it wasn't possible because Joe Biden refuse to capitulate to Iranian demands, including lifting the terrorists designation on the IRGC, Joe Biden should be praised, not criticized, for working with our allies to explore whether the resumption of a multilateral deal that would contain Israel's nuclear aspirations was possible, and for standing up to Iran, not just by refusing to give in to their demands, but by continuing to implement sanctions against Iran. And as I mentioned, in an unprecedented act, defending Israel against an unprecedented direct attack by the Iranians on April 13. Jason Isaacson:   Halie, thank you. We're gonna go directly to closing statements and Morgan, having won the coin toss, you go first. Morgan Ortagus:   Okay. You know, Halie just talked about working with allies. How about last week at the IAEA, whenever the E three, the UK, France, Germany, had to actually go and beg and plead us to stand up against Iran at the IAEA which we didn't do. We just talked about the ICC in which bipartisan sanctions are before the Congress that the Biden administration is not only not supporting, they're whipping against and the multiple votes at the UN either abstaining or actually working on ceasefire, right. solutions that undermine the State of Israel.  Listen, I would say there's a far big difference between bad rhetoric and bad policy. If you want pretty tweets, vote for Biden, if you don't want dead Israelis and dead Americans vote for Trump. When you look at the people that Biden has empowered in his administration look no further than his Iran envoy, Rob Malley, who was fired, who was under FBI investigation, and also the State Department inspector general investigation because of his leaking of classified information and potential ties to Hamas.  These are not the people that we will promote and support in the Trump administration. President Trump will defend Israel, he will stand by Israel and things like October 7 won't happen under President Trump. You will have peace like under the Abraham Accords and you will have an Iran that is curtailed because we will actually stand up to them and we will stop them from getting a nuclear weapon. Jason Isaacson:   Morgan, thank you. Halie Soifer, your closing comment? Halie Soifer:   Well, you will soon hear from Joe Biden's National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, there is no stronger champion of the US Israel relationship. You will see that Maya Angelou famously said when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. Whether it's acquainting Neo Nazis with peaceful protesters declaring very fine people on both sides as Donald Trump did after Charlottesville, dining with white supremacists, Nick Fuentes and Kanye West in Mar-a-Lago, quoting Hitler, and reportedly saying he did some good things. Donald Trump has shown us exactly who he is, time and time again. Don't believe me listen to his own words. As has President Biden. And the contrast could not be more stark. This past weekend, President Biden welcomed the heroic rescue of four Israeli hostages and pledged to not stop working until all the hostages are home.  Donald Trump also mentioned those who he refers to as hostages. Are they the more than 100 Israelis and Americans and others being held by Hamas? No. He's referring to incarcerated January 6 insurrectionists. That's who he is. And the American people, the Jewish people, and Israel, deserve far better from a US president and we have far better. He's currently in the White House. President Biden recently said that democracy begins with each of us. He's right. It could also end with each of us. And we each have a responsibility to defend it at the ballot box in November. Jason Isaacson:   Halie, Morgan, thank you. That closes our great debate. Our community, our country have a big decision to make this November. AJC will continue to provide information on the issues that are at stake. And we thank you guys very much and we thank all of you for your attention to this important debate.

Explore the unique experiences of Jewish U.S. military veterans with Dave Warnock, U.S. Army Veteran, and Andrea Goldstein, U.S. Navy Veteran and Reservist. If you missed this conversation when it first aired for Veterans Day, here’s your chance to honor Jewish American Heritage Month and pay tribute to those who serve our country.  Our guests share what inspired them to join the military, how their Jewish heritage played a significant role in shaping their service, and what advice they have for IDF soldiers fighting now against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Warnock and Goldstein are members of AJC’s ACCESS Jewish Military Veterans Affinity Group, a space to convene young Jewish professionals who have served in the American military.  *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.  Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Dave Warnock, Andrea Goldstein Show Notes: Learn more: What You Need to Know About the ICC and the Israel-Hamas War Listen to AJC’s People of the Pod: Seven Months In: What Israelis Think About the War Against Hamas, Campus Antisemitism in America, and More What Does it Mean to be a Jewish American Hero? A Jewish American Heritage Month Conversation with AJC CEO Ted Deutch 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. Episode Transcript: Manya Brachear Pashman: Earlier this month, during my conversation with AJC CEO Ted Deutch about Jewish American heroes and Jewish American Heritage Month, we paid tribute to those who serve our country in a multitude of ways – teachers, doctors, nurses. As we approach Memorial Day and the end of Jewish American Heritage Month, we thought it would be appropriate to re-broadcast an episode that aired last fall. Guest hosting is my colleague Dr. Dana Levinson Steiner, Director of ACCESS Global at AJC, where she oversees an international program to engage young professionals, including a number of Jewish military veterans. Dana, the mic is yours. Dana Levinson Steiner: Thanks, Manya. I'm so happy that we're here today. It was just over two years ago that we formed the ACCESS Jewish Military Veterans Affinity Group, which is a space for us to convene young Jewish professionals who had served in the American military. And here we are now recording our first People of the Pod podcast episode in honor of and commemorating Veterans Day.  With us today are: Dave Warnock, U.S. Army Veteran, joining us from his home in Seattle, Washington, and Andrea Goldstein, U.S. Navy Veteran and Reservist, who is based in Washington, D.C. Dave, Andrea, thanks for joining us today. Dave Warnock:   Happy to be here, Dana. Andrea Goldstein:   Yeah, I’m glad to be here.  Dana Levinson Steiner: To kick off the conversation, please tell us a little bit about your journey as an American Jewish military veteran. What inspired you to join the United States Armed Forces? Dave, let’s start with you. Dave Warnock:   For me, there are two kind of main things when I look back on what propelled me to join the US Army. The first one was my great grandfather, Saul Fink. The family legend is like he emigrated over from the shtetl. His family settled in Harlem. And when he heard about what was going on in Texas at the time, and 1916 and 1914 with the Pancho Villa incursions, he felt so propelled by patriotism and love of America that he had to run away from home and enlist at 16 years old. Which he did. Joined the Horse Calvary, a proper Jewish cowboy chasing after Pancho Villa in New Mexico, in a forgotten war. And he made sort of a career out of the army. So that's the legend that he was propelled by patriotism, maybe hated the tenement, maybe just wanted to get out of Harlem, get some fresh air, see the American West, I don't know.  But his service propelled him forward in American society, through the US Army in a way that I think would have been unavailable to a lot of Jews at the time. It's not to say that it was an easy journey. He was certainly discriminated against; he shortened his name from Finkelstein to Fink for reasons that are not kind of lost to history. One joke is that it couldn't fit on the nametag. But through this service, he was elevated in society, he became an officer in World War I. He served through World War II and in the army of occupation in Germany. And his stature, sort of the patriarch of my family, loomed large. My middle name is Solomon, I'm named after him. So that kind of tradition was part of it. Another part was, I enlisted in 2004. So three years after 91/1 when I was a freshman in high school, and that terrorist attack really did propelled, cemented my decision to serve you know, if that didn't happen, I don't know what I would have done differently. But those are the two main reasons that propelled me to join. And I joined the Army and I volunteered for the infantry because I wanted to be a soldier.  Dana Levinson Steiner: In a lot of ways, it is our family that inspires us to make these kinds of decisions and we learn so much from our family history and our family lineage. Andrea, I'd love to hear a little bit more about your journey too and I'm curious if family played a role in your decision to join the Navy. Andrea Goldstein:   My family decision to do the military was much more related to growing up in the United States, growing up in New York at a time actually, probably when we didn't have the NYPD outside of synagogues. I didn't really think about being Jewish, at least in New York in the 90s. But my family came here in mostly two waves, most in the early 20th century, and then another wave right before the Holocaust, and found everything they were looking for. And depending on which wave, either second generation or third generation where a sense of precarity and being American was gone. We just were American Jews. And I am currently sitting in a home that has embroidery on the wall that was sent to my great-grandmother, by family members who ended up–who perished in the shoah. This country really gave us everything and I wanted to give back to that.  The value of tikkun olam is very central to everything that I do. And so serving my country and wearing the cloth of the nation to me felt like really the only way to do that.  9/11 was not a motivating factor for me, despite growing up in New York City and being in New York City on 9/11. My desire to serve in uniform predated that, in fact, 9/11 led me to really not so much reconsider, but really give even more thought to my military service, because I knew I would be serving in conflict zones, which, with the peacetime military of the 90s, that wasn't clear. But I ended up joining through an officer program. I didn't initially have any family support, because it was such a shocking choice. I had great-grandparents who'd served during World War Two great-uncles, but not from a military family at all. And what became very understood by my family, because it was, what was motivating me was, this desire to serve my country and wear the cloth of the nation, no matter what. Dana Levinson Steiner: I want to pivot a little bit, I want to get back to questions of Jewish identity in a moment. But when we're thinking about American Jews serving in the US armed forces, while there isn't a ton of data, the most recent-ish data suggests that just about 1% of the US armed forces, or the US military, is made up of American Jews. It's tiny, only 1%. And that 1% is of an already really small number of American Jews who already live in this country.  So, you know, thinking about this statistic and also acknowledging American history in serving in the military. What do we make of this small number? And what would you like to tell young American Jews who may be considering joining the military but may have doubts or concerns? Andrea Goldstein:   So there are a couple of things I would say to that. I would comment on that data–first of all, that's only commenting that that only includes self reported numbers because we don't collect demographic data on, it’s seen as completely religious affiliation. The military does not collect demographics on Jews as being an ethnic group. So it's actually quite difficult to self-report your religion. So there's going to be an undercount, there are people who are Jewish, who may even practice privately, who are not reporting. And it also doesn't capture Jewish families.  So it doesn't capture the number of people who may be not Jewish themselves, but their partner and spouse is Jewish, and they're raising Jewish children, and they're observing Jewish holidays with their families. So there's a lot that we really don't know. What I would also say is, if you were to overlay where the military struggles to recruit from, with the parts of the country where most Jews live in the United States, you would see probably some very interesting geographic trends.  The military has become a family business. There has also been, there have been some comforts that the military has had in where they recruit from. And that typically is not New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, Washington, DC. So in addition to being one of the very few Jews that I know, in the military, I think I know probably even fewer people from New York City, especially officers. Dana Levinson Steiner: Dave, I'm curious, your thoughts on some of these numbers? And also maybe what you would tell–you and I have talked about this before about wanting to really engage in conversation with young American Jews about this experience and what it can mean for them, you know, acknowledging this number a while not perfect, I would imagine it's not so massive. So tell us a little bit about what you think and also maybe what you would tell a young American Jew who might be considering enlisting. Dave Warnock:   Sure. First off, my mom was also very surprised when I joined, perplexed, flummoxed, aggrieved, perhaps she would have much rather me not join the army. But I just have to get that out there because she's certainly going to listen to this. Yeah, so, you know, I don't know where that number comes from, you know, the infantry's a different representation, I would say Jews were less than 1% of the infantry. But when I was at basic training, like for one station unit training, as they called it back then, after your red phase, like your hell phase, or whatever you want to call it, you are allowed to go to religious services on Sunday.  So I went to Jewish services on Sunday, because, you know, it is the army. And I want to do it, like in my basic training company, there were no other Jews. So the company’s like 200 guys, and then when you go to religious services, they're all of a sudden, like, 200 guys, they're like, Oh, my God, why so many Jews all of a sudden in every company in Fort Benning, except for mine? And then I realized is because they serve Kiddush lunch and you could get snacky cakes after services. And it turns out there were like three actual Jews at the services. Andrea Goldstein:   I had a completely different experience in officer candidate school where we were allowed to leave on Friday nights. Dana Levinson Steiner: Oh, interesting. Dave, what was your experience?  Dave Warnock:   So again,, this is like 2005, things might have changed. But when you joined a Combat Arms significant you just went to one station unit training and it was a fairly intense experience. Think about Full Metal Jacket, whatever, people screaming at you, doing lots of push ups. And all your time is blocked out and accounted for. So you've trained on Saturdays and religious service time was Sunday morning. That's the time you got, so if you want to go to services, you  had to do that. Something to consider if you join certain aspects of the military is, religious accommodations will be difficult. You know, I served with guys who were vegetarian. And there's one vegetarian MRE. You ate that a lot, like our rations for the field. So you eat that vegetarian ration a lot. Get real used to it.  Certainly that is a consideration and it would be difficult to be religiously observant. In the infantry. I actually there was one guy in my company on the latter half of my service who was a religious Jew. And he basically got a lot of exceptions by his rabbi to serve. Because it was hard. The army would accommodate him to an extent, like, for example, we had to shave every day. And so he was allowed to use an electric razor. But it's something to consider if you are religious, that serving in the US military will be challenging.  But you know, I encourage people to consider it. I don't regret my service, it's difficult to imagine my adult life without it. I'd say, I'm proud of it, too. But it carries costs. You know, when I was 19, on my first tour in Iraq, I was wounded, it took me six months to recover and get back to the line. The, almost five years I was in, I rarely saw my family because I was stationed in Germany and deployed to Iraq twice. So I was overseas, essentially, for the entire time of my service. And that's something to consider, but this is all my perspective.  But the experiences you get, that will propel you forward in life in a way that I don't think you get through other things, certainly, when you're 18, or when I was. That being said, you know, a lot of soldiers in my unit did die in combat. A lot of guys, when they got out, they did struggle with PTSD and suicide. So it's not all sunshine and roses. But for me, it was the right decision. Andrea Goldstein: Military service is really incredible. My field does have more Jewish folks, especially in the reserves where I'm still serving. What's been very interesting is as an intelligence officer, the active duty component doesn't have a lot of Jewish people, but the reserve component, my last unit, we had enough people to have a minyan in a unit of 50 people. And I have found, similarly to just living in society. I mean, your exercises are not–you’re going to have exercises that take place during Rosh Hashanah, you're going to be deployed around Christian holidays so that people can be home for Christmas. Maybe you'll be lucky if that's around Hanukkah.  But I've also found people to who I've worked with to be incredibly accommodating up until, up  to the extent that they can. So maybe I was going to be away for Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur. But people would change their shifts with me on watch so that I could run the service because I was the lay leader, or so that I could break my fast at the end of Yom Kippur war.  And I experienced people being really curious and asking a lot of really good, in good faith questions. And I've had incredible experiences that range from serving with a lot of incredible, not just our military, but partner militaries. The most rewarding was my time with NATO where I got to teach in Norway and Greece and in  Sweden and get to have these incredible experiences with people as the people who– actually the Germans all notice my last name, which was really interesting. And that's a whole other story. But you also see things you can't experience anywhere else. And it's not just the–I saw a meteor shower in the middle of the ocean, on my 26th birthday from the middle of a ship. Like there are certain experiences that you don't think about when you're going into the profession of arms. But you will get to experience these incredibly vibrant experiences just because you've, you've made this choice to go where no one else does. And so it's incredibly rewarding.  I've also found that as a millennial, I mean, there are some very realistic things about the economic environment that we graduated into. And because of my military service, I have no debt, and I own a home. I have a master's degree that the GI bill paid for. So there's some other things. Dana Levinson Steiner: You talked about sort of the things that you learned and the experience that you got as a young person. Dave tell us maybe a little about some of the more rewarding experiences or things were really profoundly important to you in your service. Dave Warnock:   I got out when I was 23. So 13 years ago now and memories once so vivid that I thought I would never forget him kind of faded away a little bit. One thing that I'll never forget, that was quite challenging, because after I was wounded, I was kind of serving in the rear just like in a limited duty capacity, like back in my garrison. And it was a tough tour, you know, lots of us got wounded, we had lots of members of our battalion killed. And I was asked by chain of command, as much as one can be asked in the military to escort a soldier's body back to his parents and to his burial in Arlington Cemetery. And I did that, and that was, I can't even describe just what that moment felt like to do that to be present there. It's kind of like a unit liaison. I didn't know the soldier, we were in different companies. But that was something I'll never forget. Actually escorting a soldier back to his parents.  Another memory I'll never forget is like, because I have a photo of it. And it's on the wall in our living room is, the photo of me and my fire team. I was a sergeant on my second tour. And so I led like a small unit of four guys. And I have a picture when we were leaving Iraq for the last time. And just that sense of accomplishment of, everyone came home safe from my team on that tour. And that's why it's hung up on my wall. It's you know, we're smiling. We're happy. We're leaving. Yeah, so those are two things that tend to stand out in my service.  Dana Levinson Steiner: So Andrea, you started off by saying that the value of tikkun olam, repairing the world is one of the things that really guides you. And what I want to ask both you and Dave is how has your identity as a Jew, also shaped your experience as a veteran, we talked a little bit about, you know, in the beginning about your experiences as Jews or maybe your family, being involved in the military not being involved, being surprised. But tell us a little bit about how your identity as a Jew has shaped your experience as a military veteran and as someone who served in our armed forces. Andrea Goldstein:   So I left active duty in 2016 and stayed in the reserves but left full time service because I felt like I had reached a ceiling on what I could really do for others and that be my full time job. I wanted to keep serving, I wanted to keep serving my country. But a lot of that actually had to do with the way that I saw a lot of my teammates being mistreated by systemic issues, whether they be cultural or policy. And I wanted to spend a lot more of my time actively putting putting more good into the world versus preventing bad things from happening. Because that's what you do in the military, especially if you’re in intel, you try to stop the bad you don't do anything that actively promotes the good. And so I've spent the last seven years in my civilian career, either in nonprofit or public service, doing just that.  And about half of that time has been active either actively helping veterans, particularly women veterans, and people who have experienced sexual violence or other kinds of institutionalized harm, and currently serving members of the military. And I also firmly believe that our institutions need to live up to the ideals that we profess. And  I want our nation to represent the ideals that my family came here believing it had.  And so that's what I've been doing with my time. I spent two and a half years on the House Veterans Affairs Committee and helped write over 100 laws that particularly supported women veterans, members of the LGBTQ community, sexual trauma survivors, people living with PTSD, to help them get improved access to healthcare and benefits. And I'm also very proud that I've also had the opportunity to work with the IDF and provided some insight into the way that we've made some policy changes here in the US. Dana Levinson Steiner: Dave, tell us a little bit about your Jewish identity and how it plays into this experience. Dave Warnock:   Well, my unit was very diverse in many ways, not gender, because the unit was closed to, or  at the time that the MLS was close to females, so the unit was,  the job was all male. And, you know, part of the pipeline and being new and being a private is your identity is kind of like stripped away and melted down, you're built up as part of this team, your individualism is kind of knocked away. So when that process happens, you know, whatever is the more like forefront of your identity kind of consumes it. In a sense that, like, if you have a very pronounced southern accent, everyone's going to call you a country guy, or whatever. And if you're from New York, there's a guy from Queens, so like, everything about him became like, you're the New York guy.  And for me, it was like I was the Jew. Because that was the most forefront and center thing of my identity. Also, when you shave my head, I have a really big head. So it was all like, all my nicknames were either about having a big head or being a Jew. And then eventually, when I started to grow my hair back and settled more on the latter.  So it was always very central to my service, because that was me, I was like the company's guy who was Jewish. And that was not  meant in a derogatory term was more of like a statement of fact. And I think the only thing I really had to overcome was like, in 2005, when you're serving with people, like when I said it was diverse, you could be serving with people from all over the country, the US territories and guys from parts of the South I’ve never heard of, guys from the center of the country place have never been soldiers from Puerto Rico and Guam, like all over the world are serving in the US Army and then we have immigrant soldiers from, you know, Colombia, Nicaragua, Vietnam, like it was a very wide swath of representation and not very many of them had even met a Jew before.  So in a way I was like the first Jew a lot of them had ever met. And I think, you know, rewind back 2005. If you know anything about Jews you probably know like Woody Allen and  Jerry Seinfeld, which are exactly like pictures of guys you want in a foxhole with you. So I had to sort of maybe work a little harder to prove myself in the basic soldiering tasks, but like that didn't take very long. A lot of guys asked me questions about Judaism, because they genuinely didn't know. And I think one of the benefits of my service is, these guys take back their experiences with me, which I hope are positive, and then like, go back to wherever they're from. And they're like, if Judaism or Jews comes up, they're like, Hey, I served with a Jewish guy, he was pretty cool.  But I think that was very important to me, and why it's so important for Jews to continue military service, because you just meet people from all over the country that you never would have met before. And it broadened my experiences too, serving with those guys.  Dana Levinson Steiner: I think, hearing the story about how in many cases you might have been the first few that these folks have met is really important. I think in a lot of ways it helps to demystify, or in most important cases, maybe even act against antisemitic ideas or stereotypes. So I think that that's really important. And Dave, you and I have talked over the years, about how sort of the term of calling you a Jew was like a term of endearment. It wasn't in terms of a term of antisemitism. And in spending a lot of my time with this ACCESS Military Veterans Group, I've gotten to learn some of the interesting elements of how you communicate and what that can look like.  So I have just one more question for us. And I think it's really important to acknowledge this moment that we're in. On October 7, Israel experienced one of the most horrific tragedies in its 75 year history. It was and continues to be a horrific day for Israelis and the Jewish community around the world. As of today's recording, over 300 soldiers have been killed and tens of thousands have been called up for active and reserve duty.  So a question I have for both of you is, what is a message that you have, or that you can share, Jewish veteran to Jewish veteran. And I should even say just veteran to veteran because one of the amazing things about Israel is that there are many who serve in the IDF and who've been called up for reserve duty or who are in active duty who are not Jewish. They're a part of the Druze community. They're Arab Israelis. I think that's really what makes Israel such a remarkable country.  So tell us a little bit about perhaps your reactions to that day. And also a message that you have for your fellow soldiers in Israel. Andrea Goldstein:   I'm struggling to react because – the horror, rage, I'm just going to start crying on this podcast and not be able to actually give words. I was actually in touch on WhatsApp with several women who I've had the opportunity to work with who are veterans and reservists in the IDF. And there's definitely this kind of secret community of women around the world who have served in combat roles. Even if they weren't in combat, occupational specialties in their countries, where we know what we did, and our service has often gone unacknowledged and erased. And that service is also particularly called upon during the most desperate times, which we are in now. And the message that I have is we see you, we’re with you and we want to run towards chaos with you.  Dana Levinson Steiner: Thank you so much, Andrea. Dave? Dave Warnock:   I mean, I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. You know, shock, anger. My wife and I are expecting our first child soon. And I didn't think we'd be having a daughter, be worried about like, I just thought, ignorantly, that these sorts of things were perhaps in the past. All I can say to those who are going to go serve is, keep your head on a swivel. Watch out for your battle buddy. All the things we used to say to each other then are still true now. Dana Levinson Steiner: Thank you. I think just knowing that you are in community with them, and that they have love and support is so powerful. And as I think both of you know, our ACCESS chapters are all over the world, including in Israel, where a huge number of our ACCESS leaders have been called up for active and reserve duty. So we're thinking of them in this moment.  And we're thinking of all soldiers as we approach Veterans Day, and we're so grateful for the two of you sharing your story with us and sharing your time with us and giving a voice to the more than 1%, we will hope, of American Jewish veterans and perhaps even encourage some folks who may have been thinking that this is something that's been on their mind. Maybe perhaps it might be the moment for them to lean into that into that journey as a Jewish member of our armed forces. So thank you both for joining us. Wishing you a restful and restorative weekend. And Shabbat Shalom. Dave Warnock:   Shabbat shalom, thank you.  Andrea Goldstein:   Thank you so much, shabbat shalom.

Jacob Magid, U.S. Bureau Chief for the Times of Israel, provides his take on Israel's efforts to destroy Hamas in Gaza, the U.S-Israel relations, the anti-Israel campus protests, the Israeli public’s reaction to rising antisemitism abroad, and the challenges he has faced as a journalist since October 7.  Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Jacob Magid Show Notes: Learn more: Everything You Need to Know About Rafah, Its Importance to Hamas, and Protecting Its Civilian Population Listen to AJC’s People of the Pod: What Does it Mean to be a Jewish American Hero? A Jewish American Heritage Month Conversation with AJC CEO Ted Deutch The Chaos at Columbia: What It’s Like to be Jewish on Campus Right Now 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. Episode Transcript: Manya Brachear Pashman:  How important is American support for Israel? What message is the protest movement on American college campuses sending to Israel? Jacob Magid: is the U.S. Bureau Chief for The Times of Israel. Our colleagues in Washington D.C. hosted him this week in front of a live audience of about 200 guests. But we had some questions of our own and he joins us now. Jacob, welcome to People of the Pod.  Jacob Magid:  Hey there, thanks for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So there have been a lot of reports in the media lately about a strain in US-Israel relations, especially after Biden's announcement of a delay in the transfer of heavy munitions and concerns over Israel’s plans in Rafah. Yet this week, Biden announced that it green-lit the transfer of over $1 billion in new arms for Israel, seemingly quelling any concerns about this rift. But what is your take on the situation? Is there a rift between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu? Jacob Magid:  It's interesting, because I think in the weeks and months immediately after October 7, support for President Joe Biden was at record highs. As at the same time, support for Donald Trump was plummeting, given the comments that he was making, shortly after October 7, kind of mocking Israel for not being able to foresee what what occurred on the seventh, as opposed to Biden who made this trip right after October 7, sent those aircrafts to the eastern Mediterranean, and warned Israel's adversaries not to get involved in the attack. I think there was real appreciation for what Joe Biden was doing. And I think it's amazing how much seven months can do because we've seen that support for President Biden completely, I'd say, plummet.  There was a recent poll taken before this threat. But you can only imagine that it's only going to go down further, showing that now. Whereas earlier in the war, a plurality of Israelis supported President Biden over Trump in another election. Now those numbers have switched back, I think Israelis still do remember the steps Donald Trump took to re-open the Embassy in Jerusalem, to the Abraham Accords, the Golan Heights, all these different steps that he took when he was president. And I think that's more on their minds. And then they compare it to President Biden, they couldn't imagine President Trump taking those kinds of steps that he has taken, a public threat to withhold weapons that's a little bit harder for them to picture. And it's just more fresh on the minds of many Israelis when they're thinking about this current president.  But I would note that it's not really clear what President Trump would do in this kind of scenario. I think there are a lot of US officials and Israeli officials I’ve spoken with who say that at least Prime Minister Netanyahu might prefer President Biden to President Trump because he's seen as someone who's more predictable, in regards with his ties with Israel, that while things have gotten bad, Netanyahu can also always frame himself as trying to stand up to the Americans.  Whereas you'd have a much harder time doing that to Trump because I think he's a lot more beholden to him, will have a lot harder time saying no to Trump, I think Donald Trump, imagining a presidency where he's returning to the White House, I can't imagine he would be prepared to allow a war to continue for seven months, given his specific foreign policy agenda items, be it with Saudi Arabia or other places.  But right now Israelis, for right or wrong, I think are very much shocked by the step that the President took. I don't think they saw a lot of the lead up that maybe the Biden administration was feeling, that there was a lot of warning given. And I think there's a degree of betrayal that I think a lot of Israelis feel right now.  But again, things change so rapidly in this war. So that could switch again. And the Biden administration lately has been making a point to say this is just one shipment that we're holding. The vast majority of aid is still going to Israel, and we still have Israel's back. We're still determined to help them get rid of the threat of Hamas. But right now, Israelis, I think, are looking at it a little bit differently. Manya Brachear Pashman:  How are Israelis viewing the possibility or the prospect of a more major Rafah operation and is there actually a difference of opinion among the Israeli population about how long this war should continue?  Jacob Magid:  Given the fact that over the past few weeks, we've seen, Israeli troops returned to areas that they were already fighting in several times, like in the Gaza City neighborhood of Zaytoun. IDF troops returned to again last week. This is the third time they were there and soldiers have been killed each time. And Hamas has managed to regroup and return to these areas the IDF previously cleared.  But we haven't seen beyond leaks from the military establishment that has been frustrated with the Israeli government, with Prime Minister Netanyahu for not really forging some sort of plan for the day after in Gaza, some sort of body to replace Hamas be it the PA or anyone. Just something is what they're looking to be able to advance in order to complement the military achievements on the battlefield, you need some sort of diplomatic alternative as wel, diplomatic achievements.  So I think we're getting to a point I would imagine where Israelis are going to start voicing some more frustration with the way the war is being handled. But I think it's going to start with a decision by Benny Gantz, the National Unity Party and also his deputy Gadi Eisenkot, two former IDF chiefs of staff who are highly respected among Israelis. A poll show that they're the strongest, most popular party right now in the Knesset. If elections were held today. That if they take that step to leave the government and demonstrate that they no longer have trust in the government's ability to get a hostage tool to wage the war, I think then you'll see a bit more frustration amongst Israelis and with the path that Netanyahu has taken, be it in Rafah or other places where they just don't trust that the war is being managed well. But until that happens, and I think Benny Gantz is very hesitant to take that step, because he knows that there are people he's able to straddle being at playing at both kind of dancing at both weddings right now, where he is very appreciated by both the more left wing people that might appreciate him being in the government to prevent the more far-right flank from taking steps that they don't agree with. And then on the right also for being a team player. And as Israelis like to say in Hebrew, to go under the stretcher and take part in the military offensive, I think he's able to beget appreciation from both. But once you take that step of crossing the Rubicon and leaving the government, and I think you'll lose some of those people that appreciate you. So I'm not sure when Gantz is going to take that step. But I don't think this war will be able to go on for months more without him leaving the government. I think that if we're two months on and there's no hostage deal, I would expect, I think, that step to be taken.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  Are Israelis growing more and more impatient, as the hostages remain in Gaza? Jacob Magid:  Yeah, I think they are. I think we're seeing an escalation of these protests that are led by the hostages' families. And they're increasingly willing to be aligned with separate protests that were much more definitive at one point about just toppling the government and demanding new elections. I think that a lot of these families of the hostages are starting to believe that the only way to get their loved ones back is to have a new government in place.  Now, that's still not the feeling amongst all families of hostages. Obviously, there's 132 families that come from different backgrounds and feel different things about this government. But I think there's definitely a feeling of desperation amongst them. And I think there's a lot of sympathy amongst the broader public with how they feel about this government. And I think at some point that that will dictate the direction that things take. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Jacob, you mentioned earlier that the Biden administration's comments or threats, you refer to them as there's a sense of betrayal. Is there also a sense of despair? In other words, how critical is America's support in this war? Jacob Magid:  I think, Israel, at least official Israel since Biden's comments, has insisted that Israel can continue fighting the war on its own, that it doesn't need, obviously would love the US support them, it's very important, but that it has no qualms with going into Rafah or just in general fighting this war on its own.  It believes it's an existential war, and that it has the means to continue fighting without necessarily US support. That's been the implication of these comments that Prime Minister Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant have been making different framing of how they've responded to it. I think Gallant  is a bit more sensitive to the US concerns than Netanyahu might appear to be. But that's basically the implication.  However, if you look just I mean, even Ron Dermer, a few days, I believe it was yesterday, he issued a speech basically saying that we have proven that we can fight on our own when we need to. But I think he neglected the point that I think it was April 14, when Iran fired 200 missiles and drones at Israel at the same time.  It wasn't Israel intercepting all these drones on its own. It required support from the US, from its European allies, from even Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which is less known, but that these countries were needed to come to Israel's aid in order to to really intercept all those rockets, all those missiles and drones.  And then I don't think it's totally accurate to say that we can do this on our own, we would have had a very different picture. I think on April 14, that night, had those rockets been able to penetrate Israeli airspace and harm civilians.  So I think, yes, Israel does have the means to continue fighting in Rafah on its own, and then Gaza on its own, but the question of Lebanon is a lot trickier, given how difficult it has been to fight against Hamas. And we've seen as I mentioned, that the Hamas fighters have been able to return to areas that were previously cleared by the IDF that this has taken seven months, and we're not on the edge of victory, as Netanyahu claims that we are. Just imagine how difficult it's going to be against Hezbollah. Which is even according to Israeli estimates, is far far far stronger than the kind of–it's a full fledged army in a way that Hamas might not necessarily be, as much as we underestimated Hamas. But I think nobody’s under estimating Hezbollah and the firepower that it has, and the Iran backing that it has. And I think that Israel will need the US support in order to fight that kind of war.  I think there was this feeling of betrayal. The Biden administration just sees it differently, that they feel that this war has been going on for seven months, and there's really no end in sight. And they are concerned about the civilian casualties. That of course, I think Hamas inflates the numbers. And we can talk about that shortly.  But it's undeniable that the level of destruction that's been caused to Gaza. And there's just this feeling that without a strategy without a diplomatic path that Israel doesn't seem willing to approach, maybe it's starting to slowly talk a little bit privately about some sort of Palestinian Authority involvement in Gaza.  But this feeling that we can't just kind of continue throwing our head into the wall without any real broader plan beyond this military approach, and that there is an understanding or a hope in the Biden administration that Israel will some at some point, at least, I think the military establishment is starting to get there, that it'll extend to the political establishment as well, except that we're not trying to do this out of spite. I think there's a real belief that this is not the best way to go about it going into Rafah the way that Israel wants to go to it. That's how the US sees it. And that we do need to look at other approaches in order to maintain the US support that we the US says that we want to continue giving that we do believe in this eliminating the threat of Hamas. That's different than eliminating Hamas entirely, which is how I think Israel framed it at the beginning of the war. So we're talking we're with you on eliminating the threat of Hamas. But let's take different steps to go about it. And we're still willing to continue providing our support in the meantime, not just for Hamas, but also the broader threats you face. The US have been very clear that they're not going to walk away from Israel on those. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So you talked about protests by Israelis and hostage families in particular. Of course, we've had our own protest movement here in America, predominantly on America's college campuses. But they’re very different. Most of the American protests are calling for a flat out ceasefire and criticizing Israel’s response to the massacre on October 7. Very few if any call for a return of the hostages and many have been dominated by loud pro-Hamas and antisemitic elements. I'm curious how the Israelis have viewed those protests and what message they are sending? Jacob Magid:  I think that Israelis are similarly disturbed, if not more disturbed by what they're seeing on these campuses. And I think it reinforces a lot of what they feel like the necessity of the evil that they're up against and Hamas is kind of similar to the evil that is being framed on college campuses. And the need to frame it as an existential war to some degree, whether or not that is accurate. I think it's debatable. But there is a growing sentiment of solidarity, I think with Jewish students in the US that of what they're feeling is comparable, maybe not into military scale by any means, but definitely into the ideological scale of what Israelis are facing in Gaza.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  Are they surprised by the growing sense of antisemitism abroad?  Jacob Magid:  I don't think entirely surprised. I think the fact that they live in Israel is testament to the belief that this is where they believe that Jews should be. I think there's less of an understanding I think amongst mainstream Israelis have the value and the necessity and even the it's totally okay for Jewish lives to take place abroad. I think there's a lot less of an understanding of the the Jewish experience abroad. I think there might be a little bit more understanding amongst diaspora Jews of the experience in Israel as much as possible, I think are two very unique experiences.  There's not a Birthright for Israelis to come to America to really understand. I mean, a lot of them do after the army. But there isn't that same experience that I think that American Jews and many others are given privy to this real access and, and window into Israeli society. So I think given that I think I think there's just oftentimes when I've spoken to Israelis about this is there's just this assumption that, yeah, of course, there's a lot of antisemitism out there. And that's why you're supposed to be in Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman:  You work here in the United States, but what are some of the challenges you’ve faced as a journalist for an Israeli outlet, since 10/7? Jacob Magid:  I have found myself frustrated trying to cover these campus protests where students aren't willing to speak to me because I work for an Israeli outlet. That was something I'm used to dealing with when I was over in the West Bank and covering Palestinian issues. And there were certain Palestinian officials who were willing to speak with me on background, as in not in name when it's published.  That's something I'm used to, but now it's having to deal with that with American college students who aren't even, like there's no reason to be going to want to be anonymous, unless you don't like recognize the legitimacy of my newspaper, which I guess is fine, but even though I don't necessarily agree with them, I want to be able to tell their story and I’m unable to fully do so because I'm not getting full cooperation.  So yeah, it would be definitely easier to work for in that regard a different news outlet where I wouldn’t have to identify myself but it's just kind of I think shows the absurdity of the times of it. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So we’re speaking to you on Israel’s Memorial Day, before the transition into Independence Day. Are Israelis observing these days differently after October 7? Jacob Magid:  Oh absolutely. I spoke with a few family members and friends about the experience right now in Israel, they're just starting to transition to Yom Ha’atzmaut. There are some who are adamant about the need to celebrate this day, that the deaths aren't going to be in vain, that's our purpose. If we felt that it was always the case that we are supposed to celebrate Yom Ha’atzmaut right after Yom Hazikaron, the silver platter to make those soldiers and those who have fallen, their lives, give them meaning. And a reason to celebrate. That technically should stand true this year as well, even though the loss on October 7 was of a magnitude that Israel hadn't seen before.  But of course, I think given the fact that we have hostages, who are still being held in Gaza, given the fact that the war is still going on, I think a plurality of Israelis, I'm sure are not going to be celebrating this year, the way they had. I think there are still interestingly parties happening; scheduled in Tel Aviv. I'm sure the clubs will be filled in a lot of these cities. I think that's still a sentiment that resonates. But I think Yom Ha’atzmaut is not going to be the same as it was in previous years.  And Yom Hazikaron I think we saw what was happening in a lot of these ceremonies on military cemeteries across the country where government members were speaking. It's happened in the past where they've been heckled, but not to the degree that I think that we saw this year.  From the Prime Minister down, a real feeling of anger, because this isn't just the average Israeli who might support the war, might support Netanyahu. These are people who lost the those closest to them, fighting a war that hasn’t gotten to the total victory that Prime Minister Netanyahu has promised, or just a feeling of resentment. There's a pretty good example, a couple of weeks ago, where two names of casualties were determined dead by the IDF. One was Elyakim Liebman, from the settlement of Hebron, and one was [Dror Or] I believe from the Gaza periphery. And we saw over a dozen Knesset members, coalition members and ministers head to the funeral of Liebman, who was a real hero, who fought off terrorists during the Nova music festival as a security guard.  Whereas this other person from the Gaza periphery, [Dror], who came from a community not necessarily aligned ideologically with the government.  Nobody made any calls to them. Nobody visited, reached out to the family. And I feel like there's a real feeling of resentment and just dissonance between a government that a lot of Israelis feel like just doesn't represent them in increasing number. I think, even if they agree maybe with the broader goals of the war, that they don't feel like Netanyahu and the broader government is handling it in the way that they appreciate. Even earlier President Biden was seen as someone who was more in touch with the hostages and than Prime Minister Netanyahu was. He reached out to them before Netanyahu did.  So there's that real dissonance there. And I think that that anger came out during Yom Hazikaron. And I think is, is going to probably carry over, beyond into Yom Ha’atzmaut, and until there's some sort of breakthrough, either a hostage deal, or some sort of end to the war that Israelis would like to see. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Well may that war end very, very soon and may the hostages come home. Jacob, thank you so much for your work here, and for joining us. Jacob Magid:  Thank you Manya. Thank you very much for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman:  If you missed last week’s episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with AJC CEO Ted Deutch about Jewish American Heritage Month and what it means to be a Jewish American hero today.

AJC CEO Ted Deutch reflects on Jewish American Heritage Month, highlighting the historical contributions of Jewish Americans and discussing the concept of heroism in the face of rising antisemitism. Ted also shares what it means to be a hero today, especially in the wake of 10/7, and who he considers to be among his own heroes.  Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Ted Deutch Show Notes: Learn more: Join AJC in Celebrating Jewish American Heritage Month Quiz: Test your knowledge of the rich culture and heritage of the Jewish people and their many contributions to our nation Listen to AJC’s People of the Pod: The Chaos at Columbia: What It’s Like to be Jewish on Campus Right Now 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. Episode Transcript: Manya Brachear Pashman:   Amid the recent rise of antisemitism and the unease that brings, we are marking the month of May as Jewish American Heritage Month. This is a time when so many of us in the Jewish community are feeling misunderstood, unwelcome, and confronting hatred. But the American Jewish experience is so much more than standing up to hatred and bigotry. Over the past 370 years, Jewish Americans have served in government, the military, they've won Nobel Prizes, headed universities and corporations, advanced medicine, the arts and justice. Here to celebrate Jewish American Heritage is AJC's CEO Ted Deutch.  Ted, welcome back to People of the Pod. Ted Deutch:   Thank you very much. Manya Brachear Pashman: Ted, you began serving in Congress in 2010 A few years after a Jewish American Heritage Month was first proclaimed in 2006 Can you tell us a little bit of the history behind Jewish American Heritage or what we like to call JAHM. Ted Deutch:   Well, Jewish American Heritage Month has been around for almost 20 years. Congress passed a resolution that was led by my former colleague Debbie Wasserman Schultz to acknowledge the important contributions that Jewish Americans have made throughout our history. And in 2006, President George W. Bush designated the month of May to be Jewish American Heritage Month, and there have been presidential proclamations every year since. This year, President Biden proclaimed May to be Jewish American Heritage Month and outlined the history of the American Jewish community and the fact that Jewish American culture is so inextricably woven into the fabric of our country. He talked about the importance of Jewish American suffragettes and activists and leaders marching for civil rights and women's rights and voting rights. He talked about the contributions of, of Jewish men and women in uniform and on the Supreme Court. And throughout multiple administrations. It's an acknowledgement that we are really forming an important part of the fabric of this country. And we have to spend time thinking about that, particularly in a moment when so many are really taking positions and saying things that challenge our contributions that are made, and that really put so many of us in the Jewish community on edge, make us feel at risk. This is an important opportunity to really stand proudly as Jewish Americans. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You know, during the month of March, Women's History Month, I always discover a new role model, a particularly amazing woman that I never knew existed. And the same is often true during Jewish American Heritage Month. But in reverse, I discovered that people whom I always thought to be amazing, and heroes in my book are Jewish. Do you have heroes growing up who you discovered were, or maybe you already knew, were Jewish? Ted Deutch:   It's interesting. Our community is, I think, always looking to elevate those from our community who make a meaningful impact in society.  I remember when I learned about Eddie Jacobson, that was one of those moments for me. Eddie Jacobson was a friend, business partner of Harry Truman. And, he played such a really interesting role during the war when, when he was focused on the plight of the Jews in Europe. His friendship led him to go advocate with then-Senator Truman to urge the us to do more for the Jews who are being discriminated against, harassed. Ultimately those who were being sent to concentration camps. That was a relationship that he had, and was able to use to help strengthen his own community.  And what he did that I think was even more important than that, was following the war when he understood that there was this opportunity for the rebirth of the modern state of Israel. He went to urge his, again, his friend, then-President Truman, to to meet with Haim Weitzman, the leader of the Zionist movement, and President Truman was reluctant, but because of that relationship, that that personal relationship, Eddie Jacobson was able to convince the President to take that meeting, which then ultimately led to the recognition of the State of Israel by the United States just minutes after it declared, Israel declared its independence, being the first country to to recognize Israel. He’s a hero in the history of the Jewish people. He played a really important role, I think, in the history of the country. And I think most people had no idea or may never have heard of him.  There are also the heroes within the Jewish community that in Jewish American Heritage Month we have the chance to think about people who impacted us, impacted the way we work to strengthen the Jewish community who maybe aren't famous at all. When I think about the people, the Jewish leaders that I was privileged to know when I was a college student. Our [University of Michigan] Hillel director, Michael Brooks, and the professors who helped guide us where, at a moment years ago when we were facing antisemitism. When the student newspaper ran this series of outrageously anti-Zionist, antisemitic editorials, unfortunately, sounding familiar, the support from these heroic adults, for those of us who were students, to go out and to hold rallies and to protest outside of the student newspaper, to make sure that people understood what the facts were–that kind of heroism really resonates because it's a reminder of what we can do for young people now at a moment when they're looking to others in the community to help support them. It really carries right through to, to the work that I get to do every day, that I'm so privileged to do and, and really the ways that all of us can work behind the scenes to help lift up the voices of Jewish young people today. Manya Brachear Pashman:   It's interesting that you kind of bring up who the heroes were for yourself when you were younger. I mean, I'm sure I'm sure you've been to baseball games, Yankees, Cubs, Mighty Mussels, whoever your team might be. Ted Deutch:   The Mighty what? Manya Brachear Pashman:   The Mighty Mussels, they're in Fort Myers, Florida. It's also the name of my son's baseball team. They're named after minor league teams. But I'm sure you've been to these games where the announcer calls the heroes to stand, be recognized by the crowd. And everyone knows that the announcer is calling on veterans, right members of the military, first responders, and they are undoubtedly heroes. But in those moments, I often wish they would list all the many types of heroes when they do that. The doctors, the nurses, the teachers, God bless them.  How do you define hero? Ted Deutch:  Well, you're exactly right, and what those moments feel like. And first of all, I think it's important that we acknowledge injury, Jewish American Heritage Month, the contributions of Jewish Americans throughout our nation's history, in defending our country, we've talked before, I mean, I talk a lot about my father, who graduated from high school and enlisted in the Army to go fight the Nazis, and earned a Purple Heart in the Battle of the Bulge. And all of the people like him who, whether it was in World War Two, or Korea or Vietnam, right on through the wars, in the Middle East wars in Afghanistan and, and in Iraq, the contributions from Jewish Americans who were proudly Jewish, as they served our country, those are really important to remember and every time at a sporting event where they ask the heroes to rise, I think it's important to think about that, you know, down here in South Florida, when they do that, at sporting events, it's not unusual, especially if they're recognizing someone from World War Two or the conflict in Korea in particular, it's just not that unusual for the veterans to be Jewish Americans. And there's always an extra amount of pride that you feel when they make those announcements. I do think it's important to think about all that we've contributed in defense of the country.  But you're right. There are so many people who are heroes, who serve our country in other ways. We had a moment during COVID, where I think everybody recognized the heroism of our first responders, our doctors and nurses and people went in when COVID was raging, and people knew so very little about it. And every day, they went to work to take care of people and help save lives. And there was that moment. And I think it's important that we have more moments like that.  It's true for police officers and firefighters and first responders. Again, too often, I think we sort of take for granted the work that so many people do, putting themselves out in service of others.  And you mentioned teachers, there's just no question that the contributions of teachers and so many Jewish teachers among them, who have committed their lives to helping prepare the next generation, to help them become citizens in our country and understand our history and learn what they need to be able to thrive in our society and in their lives. They're doing an incredible service, and should be recognized as well.  And so when we think about Jewish American Heritage Month, look, I'm all for thinking about, getting back to athletes. I'm all for thinking about Alex Bregman from the Astros. And for those of us who are hockey fans, it's the glory days for Jews in hockey, and Zach Hyman and the Hughs and others, but it's the people that we've not heard of whose names we don't know, who come from our own families that we need to hold up and think about as the real heroes for the work they do every day in their lives.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  It has been seven months now, since terrorists attacked Israel on October 7. And I'm curious if in your opinion, the last seven months have changed what it means to be a hero, especially in the Jewish world. Ted Deutch:  Well, there are all kinds of people in the Jewish world right now who are doing heroic work since 10/7 in ways that either weren't necessary, or were unappreciated before 10/7. Because the challenge There's so much greater.  We were just talking about people who served the country. IDF soldiers are heroes and what the IDF has done since 10/7 to defend Israel in the face of the horrific attacks by Hamas is heroic, and the loss of life is painful. And so even as we mourn those soldiers who have been killed, we have to take a moment to appreciate the heroism.  But there are others, the hostage families who traveled to New York and Washington and around the world and we at AJC are so privileged to work with so many of them to help give them voice and make sure that they're heard. But as they struggle now, for more than 200 days that their loved ones have been held captive deep below Gaza, they continue to go out and advocate for the release of their loved ones. And to help people understand that these are real people, and we feel like we've gotten to know them. And that's because of the heroic actions that their loved ones have taken.  There are people in social media who have become heroes for every day just going to battle against the lies and misinformation on so many of the social media outlets. In the United States, on college campuses right now, what we've seen from so many students, whether they're on our Campus Global Board, high school students from our LFT program, but wherever they are, the ability for students to stand up and to say, in the face of these protests that are often directed at the Jewish community, the language is horrific, and it is dangerous and unacceptable.  And in the face of all of that. the number of students and young people who are standing up saying, I am a proud Jew who loves Israel. And I'm going to fight back in all of the ways I can to make sure that people know who we are, to make sure that they understand the truth of what's happening now.  There are so many young people now who are doing heroic things, and will continue to do heroic things, I have no doubt, for the rest of their lives. And I think it's important to stop to acknowledge that. I know these days, it's not popular to talk about heroes in politics. But if you pause for a moment and think about what Richie Torres has done, as a member of Congress, a progressive member of Congress, standing firmly in support of Israel and Israel's right to defend itself and speaking with a moral clarity that we wish others could follow. Ritchie's a hero. John Fetterman, staring down the protesters day after day, the way that he does, is a hero.  At a time when there is so little bipartisanship, the fact that Speaker Johnson decided to move forward with the aid package for Israel and Ukraine and Taiwan with humanitarian aid and got that done, we should be celebrating his contributions.  There are a lot of people that we really need to stop and be grateful for. And obviously, they're not all Jews. But it's a moment when the Jewish community, as we're thinking about our own heroes, should pause to be grateful for those who have really been helpful to the community.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  Now you've just mentioned a lot of the people who've had a high profile since October 7. Any ordinary or overlooked heroes that we might not think to recognize? Ted Deutch:  Being a parent of a Jewish child shouldn't be heroic. And yet, seeing parents find more ways for their kids to really understand who we are, as a community find more ways for them to be involved, by more ways for them to learn, especially after 10/7, really teaching more and more about who we are as Jews, to our kids, that's heroic.  I don't think it should be heroic to be a rabbi, or a Hebrew school teacher, or someone who works at a day school or in the Jewish community. But in this post 10/7 world, that work in so many instances is heroic, because of all of the baggage that comes with, with the protesters, with the challenges to the community, with the things that we see on social media, to get up every single day, and to be there as leaders in the Jewish community in synagogues, in schools, in the organizational world. As we prepare to get ready for camp season. All of these Jewish professionals are doing heroic work, and the community is so much better and stronger for it and for them. Manya Brachear Pashman:  How did October 7th change you and your approach to either public service or service to the Jewish people? Ted Deutch:  First, there's an urgency with which I try to meet every single day, since 10/7, I think it's something that we all feel. I think a lot about the way that we felt on 10/7, that morning when we were learning about what happened and the fragility of Israel. And the notion that the Jewish community and Israel are so inextricably linked became more powerful than ever, and that both felt at risk that day and the days after. It's just required a constant and urgent focus on trying to make sure that people understand what's actually happening, putting out meaningful and factual information and pushing back against false narratives, something that we've tried so hard to do, literally since 10/7. Hlping people understand that the protests didn't start when IDF soldiers marched into Gaza to defend Israel and Jewish people. They started after Hamas slaughtered 1,200 people on October 7. These were protests in support of this vile terrorism.  And helping people understand that when Iran launched close to 350 missiles and drones, it was part of an ongoing effort through Iran, with Iran to the head, but that includes Hamas and Hezbollah, and the militia in Iraq and the militia in Syria, and the Houthis, and others throughout the region, all to target Israel, again, urgently making that clear every single day.  So there's an urgency, there is a passion to make sure that the commitment in the community, the way that people have stood up and said, You know what, there are a lot of things that are important, but man our community needs, it needs us to focus on ourselves. That ultimately, the only people that we know that we can count on are the Jewish people.  And yes, we're going to continue to work with our friends and allies and partners. That's important. But working hard to retain the sense of unity within the Jewish community is also something that was never really a priority. But now that we've seen what that unity looks like, and what it means when we all stand together, in the face of this Hamas evil in the face of these protesters celebrating terrorism, and calling for the destruction of Israel, that's a unity that we have to desperately try to hold on to, and to bring people together around, not just while this war is going on, but on into the future. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Ted, thank you so much for joining us. Ted Deutch:  I hope people will use this as an opportunity to share their own stories, their family stories, the stories of the people that they know deserve some attention for what they've done to strengthen America.  And I hope that they'll go out and they'll tell the story and they'll get others to listen. Our contributions to America have been so rich and varied and instrumental to the kind of country that we have and the kind of country that we know we need to continue to be. These are stories that everyone needs to hear. So I very much appreciate the opportunity.  

Noa Fay is a Jewish student leader at Columbia University, the epicenter of the anti-Israel protest movement that has unfolded on American college campuses in recent weeks. Pro-Hamas, antisemitic, and anti-Israel demonstrators have occupied academic buildings, set up overnight tent encampments, and staged demonstrations, while Jewish students have faced increasing threats, antisemitism, and violence. Noa shares her first-hand perspective on what it's like to be Jewish on campus right now.  *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Noa Fay Show Notes: Learn more: WATCH: Press Conference at Columbia/Barnard to Urge Action from University LeadershipAJC – along with our partners at Hillel International, Columbia/Barnard Hillel, UJA-Federation of New York, and Jewish students – called on universities and their leaders to keep Jewish students safe on their campuses during a press conference last week. Watch the press conference. AJC Campus LibraryResources to help Jewish students feel safe on campus and become well-informed and effective advocates for Israel and the Jewish people Listen to AJC’s People of the Pod: What It’s Like to Be Jewish at Harvard Among Antisemites and Hamas Supporters The Good, the Bad, and the Death Threats: What It’s Like to Be a Jewish College Student Right Now Jewish College Student Leaders Share Their Blueprint for Combating 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. Episode Transcript: Manya Brachear Pashman:  Nearly seven months since the Hamas-led massacre on Israel that ignited Israel's current war with Hamas, chaos has unfolded on the campuses of Columbia University, Barnard College and other universities across the nation. Most recently, student demonstrators have built tent encampments on university quads and occupied academic buildings.  They also have targeted Jewish students with antisemitic signs, slogans and in some cases, physical assaults to protest the war. But that's not all they're protesting. With us to discuss her perspective as a Jewish student leader on campus is Barnard College senior Noa Fay.  Noa, welcome to People of the Pod.  Noa Fay:  Hi, thanks so much for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Well, thank you for joining us. And I'm sorry that you have been experiencing this on campus in recent weeks. We've seen plenty of images from the chaos there. But can you describe it from your vantage point, kind of walking through the crowds and seeing it up close? What do you see? What do you hear? Noa Fay:  It’s important to understand not only the amount of antisemitism, and that sort of violence that we're seeing–which has been incredibly painful, really, for every Jewish student at this point, I really believe I mean, it's just been absolutely horrifying.  You know, I mean, it's pogrom style stuff that we're seeing. It has felt like now that everybody is affected, people are taking this seriously. But in reality, the Jewish students, we've been dealing with this literally since October 7, and it's taken up until now to even seem to get somebody's attention.  So I think it's important to understand that, when I talk about this chaos, what I'm really thinking of is– there is, first of all, just so much press everywhere, which is just a bunch of people that are really swarming everyone and, you know, up and down Broadway, it's very disorienting.  But more importantly, on top of that, we have a very significant police presence. I mean, it really is a police state. I can't even get to certain dining halls. I can't study in certain libraries. I can't get to my own gym. I mean, it's a really, really chaotic situation. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Are they protesting the war? Is that the message that you're that you're hearing? Or are they protesting something else?  Noa Fay:  No. No, no, no. They sprinkle in a few things, I think, dedicated to the war. But by and large, these are anti-Israel demonstrations. And at this point, anti-Jewish demonstrations. So they are using the war to, I think, gain credibility. And the war is definitely fueling their ire, I guess you could say, but this is not about the war. And it's never been about the war. There was a very strong anti-Israel community on campus. And that was way before October 7, this was during ceasefires that were already taking place between Hamas and Israel. And still, we had this exact same rhetoric. The only difference now is that it's gained a lot of traction. So, no, it's not about the war at all. Manya Brachear Pashman:  I was going to ask you, you headed to Barnard three years ago, you're a senior now. Did you get warnings? Did people prepare you for Jewish life on campus? And was it helpful advice? Noa Fay:  Yeah, so people did advise me. I did have people tell me not to go anywhere near there. But I just didn't think that it was that serious. And honestly, I did take this anti-Israel movement seriously, obviously, I had dealt with it in high school, and I had come to learn that this was somewhat of a popular ideology within my generation. And so I was aware of this.  But I basically wasn't daunted, I was honestly happy to debate these students, to basically point out why they're wrong. So I wasn't nervous about it at all.  Of course, we could never have predicted that this would be the situation. But that's just to say, I did have somewhat of an idea, but I didn't take it seriously. And I'm clearly, I'm not the only one, none of us took it seriously, and here we are.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  You mentioned before we started recording that before you started at Barnard, your parents similarly did not think that antisemitism was going to be an issue for you on campus.  What are you hearing from your family now? How has this environment affected you personally? Noa Fay:  My family, they've been very concerned. They've been talking to me about transferring, because I'm in a plus one program with our School of International and Public Affairs. So I'll be here for one more year finishing up my master's degree. And my parents have a few times now really asked me about transferring and stuff. Which I will say, I don't really have an urge to do that at all. But they are very concerned.  But more than that, I have family in Israel and my family in Israel–they are the ones who are asking me if I'm physically ok. Which is just…again, not the only one who's been having that very bizarre, sad experience. My friends have the same issues. They're their family and Israel, their family is calling them to say, Are you as a Jewish student doing okay, at Columbia University in the city of New York?  So it's just, everybody's very concerned. And rightfully so. It is just, honestly, the more we all talk about it, the fewer words I have to really describe because it is just such an experience that it leaves you speechless. It really does because it is that disturbing.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  You are black, Native American, Jewish. How does that inform your perspective on the messages that you hear such as you Jews are not indigenous to the land of Israel? Noa Fay:  Right. Oh, my gosh, please. That's one of the worst ones. I'm just absolutely mind boggled by that. I will say that. I think that combination of identities for me, it gives me a bunch of different perspectives with which to use to understand a lot of political issues and social political issues.  But I think for me, the number one I guess, benefit that all of these identities gives me in terms of analyzing antisemitism and just taking in everything that's going on right now, is that, and I've been trying to stress this to people but I think definitely the students who are demonstrating against Israel, they either ignore me or they don't take me seriously or whatever, but I am trying to stress that if only they would take me seriously because I am a person of color, from a few groups, which means: I know what it is like to be discriminated against.  So please, because of that, if you can't hear me when I say I'm Jewish, so I know what it's like to be discriminated against, please hear me when I say I am black, and I am Native American, and I am a woman. Of course, I know what it feels like to be discriminated against.  So please trust me when I say, I am Jewish, and I am now facing discrimination because I'm Jewish. Manya Brachear Pashman:  I mean, are there people in these crowds, perhaps including your friends, that are holding multiple perspectives?  In other words, they want the hostages released. They’re sad about the devastation in Gaza, and what's happening to the civilians there. In other words, they're not calling for a ceasefire or calling for death to the Jews. They're just holding all of this and spending the night in tents with their friends.  Does that exist? Noa Fay:  So I have been told that it does. And in fact, a friend of mine, who has also been struggling with the same issue where her very close friends are participating in this and she's trying to understand it. She has told me, and so have other people, that the issue is that different people identify different parts of this movement to be significant to them, which is to say–apparently, this is the argument that's going around–is that everybody believes the movement means something different to everybody. That's what I'm being told. And I can understand that.  My response, though, is that, I don't know that I need to know what it means to you. Because no matter what it means to you, you are putting aside the fact that this is a violently antisemitic movement, simply because I don't know, you want to protest police presence, which is necessary to begin with. So it's kind of a difficult argument for me to follow.  You have forsaken all of these basic human rights issues, for something else that you have identified is more important. So that's why even if these students do have different explanations, which I know they do, it's ultimately, you can't get around the problem. That is, they're saying they don't care that it's antisemetic. That's what the message is. Manya Brachear Pashman:  I'd like to take this back to the classroom, which is why you're getting at Barnard to begin with, I mean, have you gotten support from the faculty, from the staff, from the administration? Or have faculty members accused you of exaggerating the antisemitism you're experiencing?  Noa Fay:  So I have mostly not really opted to rely on faculty because I know that it's a bit of a gamble, shall we say?  I've had one unfortunate experience with a professor. This is a course about slavery, American slavery. It was an amazing course up until this anti-Israel rhetoric made its way in here. But in this class, this professor has consistently communicated his anti-Israel sentiments and he's also done so by bringing in guest lecturers who have very outwardly demonstrated their anti-Israel nature.  One guest lecturer came in and denied the rape of Israeli women on October 7. I was shaking. I was shaking in my seat. Just because like, what do you say to something like that? I mean, it was just horrific. And then another example is that another guest lecturer who came in celebrated Aaron Bushnell, the man who set himself on fire over all of this in front of the embassy, I believe it was, and she said he was a true patriot. That's a direct quote.  And then obviously throughout all of this, everything that sprinkled in is, you know, Israel's, a genocidal state, it’s colonialist, settler, imperialist, oppressive, all of these things, these are all the exact words that were used. And this is being told to a group of, as we know, very impressionable students. And I mean, obviously, all of that is just problematic in itself.  But we can also identify it being problematic because at the very least, we don't have an Israeli coming in saying the, the Jewish side of the story and the Israeli side of the story. So it's just a baseline, poorly done, in terms of in terms of attempting to, quote, educate students about this issue. And because we have that lack of representation of perspectives. We know, it's indoctrination. It's indoctrination. And I and this is to say, I mean, this is I've had, honestly, my whole experience with all of this antisemitism stuff, including what I just described with this professor, that my experience has been mild compared to people who I mean, I've heard about really, really horrific things.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  Where are these protesters going awry? What's the solution here that would allow them to have adequate free speech, but not cross the line into harassment? Noa Fay:  Yeah, I'm so glad you asked about this, because I am done with this freedom of speech debate. We know this is not an issue of freedom of speech. And we know that because we have students here who would be expelled in a second, if they're not black and say the N word, or if they celebrate the KKK, or anything like that. In fact, pulling from my high school experience, which was a private institution, just like Columbia. And because of that, they were able to rightfully dismiss a student who called his black peer the N word, and told him to go back to the cotton fields.  For some reason, we've forgotten about this, that no one is entitled to an Ivy League degree. In fact, that's the entire point. Is that it's the most exclusive, elitist selective thing ever. So if the Ivy League had previously selected you, out of literally thousands of applicants, and you come here, and then you show that you are not worthy of that selection, in whatever way, the University reserves the right to say, Oh, you are not one of us, and you don't abide by our rules. These are our rules. This is our society that we get to dictate.  And if you're not fitting into it in the way that you said you would implicitly or explicitly via your application, then the university absolutely has the right to tell them you're not allowed here and actually we're going to select from the thousands of applicants who would give anything to be in your position. That is the ultimate element of remember to check your privilege.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  I will say an Ivy League education is very expensive. I'm still paying for my graduate education at Columbia. And that brings me to this question. Are you learning anything? Are you getting anything for your tuition this year? Or is this experience infringing on that? Noa Fay:  That's a great question. My friends and I literally just asked ourselves that the other day, and I responded by saying, Well, I've definitely learned that I'm surrounded by antisemites. So that's number one, which is, you know, for better or for worse, it's definitely good to know.  But I mean, really, my answer is that I personally have learned so much at this institution. This, first of all, helps me realize why I feel so strongly about everything that I feel strongly about, which means that it is forcing me to think more deeply about my own values and why I have these values. And number two, is that it definitely has strengthened my debate skills, and just my ability to engage with people who are not only sitting across the table from me, in terms of, you know, arguments and ideology and stuff, but with people who are quite literally against my very existence. So I think that's a good way to look at it.  But I think that as of right now, most of us, us being the Jewish community at Columbia, most of us are not at that point yet, because this is all happening right now. This is a very, very raw thing. And so I think it will be quite a while until we can all identify the potential positives from all of this. And I don't think we should have to identify the positives. This is a very negative and upsetting situation. But I think that it can be helpful to acknowledge at least the different ways in which this makes us stronger. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Well, Noa, thank you. Thank you so much for joining us and sharing your experience. I hope things calm down for you there, and that you're able to walk across campus at ease again soon. Noa Fay:  Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it.