People of the Pod

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

In this episode of People of the Pod, Ambassador Michael Oren dives into Israel's escalating conflict with Hezbollah, which has turned Israel’s northern border into a war zone and caused 60,000 to remain displaced from their homes. Oren emphasizes Israel’s need to defend itself on multiple fronts, including threats from Hamas, the Houthis, and Iran, warning of the risk of all-out war. He also discusses the formation of the Israel Advocacy Group (IAG) to bolster Israel's media and diplomatic efforts and shares how his vision for Israel’s future, as outlined in 2048: The Rejuvenated State, remains critical post-conflict. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus:  Explore the untold stories of Jews from Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, and more. People of the Pod:  Paris 2024: 2 Proud Jewish Paralympians on How Sports Unites Athletes Amid Antisemitism The DNC with AJC: What You Need to Know about the Democratic Party’s Israel Platform Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Interview with Michael Oren: Manya Brachear Pashman:  Michael Oren served as Israel's ambassador to the United States between 2009 and 2013. As ambassador, he was instrumental in securing US support for Israel's defense and upholding Israel's right to security. His current role isn't all that much different.  After October 7, he launched the Israel Advocacy Group (IAG), which has worked to strengthen diplomatic relations for the Jewish state and support Israelis during wartime. Ambassador Oren is with us now to explain the challenge Israelis are now facing. Ambassador Oren, welcome to People of the Pod. Michael Oren:  Good to be with you, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Ambassador, you are touring the US with residents of Northern Israel who've been displaced by near daily attacks from Hezbollah terrorists across the border with Lebanon. As we speak, Israel is conducting a military operation in Beirut. Can you tell us what is happening and why? Michael Oren:  Okay, let me begin by saying that Israel has not taken credit from the pager and walkie talkie attacks Has not. And so we want to avoid that type of symmetry, because on one hand, Hezbollah is very proud of the fact that they're firing hundreds of rockets and hundreds of explosive drones at civilians in Israel. Literally. Israel's not taking that credit. Okay.  So let's begin with this. October 8, a day after the horrendous Hamas assault on southern Israel. Hezbollah, out of a vowed desire to show solidarity with Hamas, opened fire on Northern Israel. To date, about 10,000 rockets, explosive domes, have been fired at Galilee. It began along the immediate border, some 18 communities along the immediate border, but it creeped downward. Creeped downward now where rockets are falling along the Sea of Galilee, which is in southern Galilee, and moving its way toward Haifa, nd the suburbs of Haifa, moving westward.  100,000 Israelis have been rendered homeless. 10s of 1000s of acres of farmland, forest land have been incinerated. 1000s of houses have been destroyed, and dozens of people have been wounded and killed, as well. Civilians, as well as military. The entire North has been transformed into a war zone. Cities that you know, like Kiryat Shmona, Metula, are ghost towns today.  One of the members of our delegation, Her home was rocketed in Metula yesterday. Is the 215th home destroyed by Hezbollah in that once beautiful, beautiful town of Metula. So that's the objective situation. Is it an utterly, utterly unprovoked attack on the land and the people of Israel. And Israel, of course, has to defend itself.  The great complaint among the people of the north, it is that the state has not done enough to defend the people of the north. And so any actions now taken, including last night, where Israeli warplanes were attacking Hezbollah emplacements and targets, not just in southern Lebanon, but throughout Lebanon, is very much welcomed by the people of the north. So they have yet to see how the state intends to return them and store them to their homes.  I'll just add one more point that is widely misunderstood in this country. There's a notion that somehow, if a ceasefire is attained with Hamas in Gaza, which is highly, highly unlikely, but if it is attained, then Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, said, he too will accept a ceasefire, but a ceasefire will restore the status quo of October 6. And Israelis simply won't go back to their homes if the situation that obtained on October 6 where Hezbollah was exactly on the opposite side of the fence, no one's going back to communities that are opposite side of the fence, because now we know what terrorists can do to Israelis on the other side of that fence, our side of the fence. So there is really no alternative but to drive Hezbollah back. It's to drive them back beyond the Litani River, which meanders opposite our northern border, between 13 and 20 kilometers. There's a diplomatic initiative by American Special Envoy Amos Hochstein to try to convince Hezbollah to retroactively implement Resolution 1701, of the Security Council. It's from 200. They called on his Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litani River. Hezbollah never accepted it. Hezbollah violates it daily, flagrantly. I wish Mr. Hochstein all the best of luck. I don't know what leverage he can bring to bear to convince Hezbollah to implement 1701 but barring that, Israel will have absolutely no choice to push Hezbollah back physically from that fence.   Manya Brachear Pashman:  In fact, returning residents home, to their homes in northern Israel has become a war goal. The cabinet has just announced this week, right?  Michael Oren:  Well, it's about time. It's about 11 months too late. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So I guess, what does that mean? Does that mean that this conflict with Hezbollah or Lebanon could escalate? Michael Oren:  Oh, I would expect it would escalate. Yes, and that we have to prepare it for any scenario, including an all out war. Now, an all out war is no small thing. It's a war that's many times more severe than that, with Hamas in the South. First of all, Hezbollah is one of the largest military forces anywhere, not just in the Middle East. It's got upwards of 170,000 rockets hidden under villages, under hundreds of villages. It has a fighting force of terrorists that's three, four times that of Hamas. It has cyber capabilities. And it's not just Hezbollah. It's the Shiite militias that are backed by Iran and in Iraq and Syria, the Huthi rebels in Yemen. We know that they can fire Israel well. And there's Iran itself. Iran, which, on April 14, launched 315 rockets at Israel.  So the IDF estimate for rocket fire per day in any war with Hezbollah could reach as much as 10,000 rockets a day. And that will overwhelm our multi-tiered anti-missile system. We will require assistance from the United States, and even then, it will be quite a challenge. Manya Brachear Pashman:  As you mentioned, this is all happening simultaneously with the war against Hamas in Gaza. Yes, Houthis also are firing rockets, one of which, I think at least one reached, or almost reached, central Israel just this past week. And I mean, how many fronts is Israel fighting on right now? And could this escalate? Could, though, that number of fronts grow even more?  Michael Oren:  Well, right now we're at about seven fronts, according to the defense Minister's calculation. So what is it? It the North. It is the south. It is the Huthis, very much to the south, but are capable of firing into Tel Aviv. It is the Judean Samaria, the West Bank front, which is very severe indeed.  So that's just sort of the bottom line of the fronts we're firing. We're also fighting a front against Iran, more distantly, against the Shiite and militias in Iraq and Syria. So a multi, multiple front war. And make no mistake about it, this is an existential struggle for the State of Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman:  And you said that returning to October 6 or what the status was on October 6 is now not acceptable. I mean, was there a short window of time where that was, what the wish and the hope was? And that has shifted.? Michael Oren:  I think it was lost on October 7. So if you were to go to Metula on October 6, you could stick your hand through the fence, and I wouldn't recommend you do this. You could stick your hand through the fence, and you would touch Hezbollah. They're right there. And the people of Matula and other communities along that border simply won't go back under those circumstances. And you can understand why.  I don't know if you have young children, I don't think you put your children in a house that's looking at Hezbollah across from a fence. Now we know what terrorists can do to Israeli families, civilians, women, babies, who are on the other side of the fence. And a fence is no guarantee against any assault.  The people from the north also believe that there are still tunnels under that fence that we haven't discovered all of the Hezbollah tunnels. There are people in our delegation from the north who believe that Hezbollah still has tunnels that have not been detected under that fence, because Hamas digs tunnels in sand, Hezbollah digs tunnels in rock, and they're deeper and harder to detect. Manya Brachear Pashman:  You said that you wondered, if I have small children, I do. I have two small children. We go to well, they're not. They're getting less small by the day. But it made me think of a column that you wrote back in March for The Forward about how Jews are cursed to be a lonely people. And I actually gave a speech to our synagogue congregation just last week, talking about how I was so grateful to be part of a congregation on October 6, celebrating Simchat Torah when I woke up on October 7, because otherwise I would have felt and my children would have felt so alone. And I am curious where you were on October 7, and how you have combated that loneliness, that lonely feeling. Michael Oren:  Hm. Well, I had an unusual experience. On October 5, I was giving a speech in Dallas, Texas, and the speech was interesting, because at the end of my remarks, I told the audience that I believe that Israel would soon be going to war. And everyone gasped, and I'd actually been briefing foreign diplomatic personnel about this for about two weeks.  And the reason I thought Israel was going to war was because of the divisions within Israeli society, the divisions within American societies, that Iranians were following very, very closely. But the most important point was that the United States was trying to broker a peace agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and as part of that deal, Saudi Arabia was going to get nuclear power. And my line was that if anybody thought that the Iranians would sit quietly while the Saudis got nuclear power, they were kidding themselves, and the Iranians would start a war. All right, I had other information, but that was the major thrust. So two days later, I was coming back to Israel. I was stopping off at my mother's house in New Jersey, woke up to the messages you never want to receive on your cell phone, which is, are you okay? Are you okay? Are you okay? And learned about this. Now for many years through the generosity of the Singer Foundation. Whenever there's a national emergency, I'm immediately put on television. So starting on the morning of October 7, I was on CNN, MSNBC throughout the day, called some friends in ElAl and got myself on the first flight out of Newark that night, and landed in a war zone the next morning and went immediately to work.  So around a small kitchen table in my house, a group of volunteers together formed an emergency NGO called the Israel Advocacy Group, because what can I say, the state wasn't doing a particularly excellent job in defending itself in the media and other forums. And what began as a small sort of a ma and pa operation around the kitchen table has now become the Israel advocacy group, IAG, dealing with international media, mainstream, non mainstream, and with track two diplomacy.  So track two diplomacy is what we're doing in Washington now by bringing the delegations to the hill. We've had meetings on the hill with both parties, both houses, and today we're in the White House. So we've gone to the White House twice with these delegations. That's tracked two diplomacy and so it's a big undertaking.  So my way of dealing with the loneliness is certainly joining with other people, especially young people, who are committed to defending Israel in every possible form. I'm very blessed because I'm a member of a community in Jaffa, a kehilla, which is just wonderful and, of course, the family, the family, the family. Tammy, my, my beloved and children and grandchildren, 6.5 and counting.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  You are heading up this Israel advocacy group that's post October 7. But before October 7, you had started a think tank. I don't know if you would call it an advocacy group. I've been calling it a think tank. Called Israel 2048. You also wrote a book titled 2048: The Rejuvenated State.  It was published in one single volume in English, Hebrew and Arabic, very, very symbolically. And I'm curious if this vision that you laid out for the next century of the Jewish state, is it stalled by all of this? Michael Oren:  So first of all, 2048 it was a project that grew out of my time in Knesset, and I was the deputy in the prime minister's office, and sort of realizing that Israel is so bogged down in its daily crises, little do we know what a daily crisis was, that we never really think about our future. And the goal was to envision the Jewish state on its 100th birthday. Our 100th birthday would be 2048, and how can we assure a second successful century? What changes had to be made in the State of Israel? And they're pretty big, far reaching changes.  And it began as a discussion group online. We had a 2048 seminar at the Hartman Institute with Natan Sharansky for about a year, then covid hit and retreated to the room and wrote this book. It's an 80 page manifesto that covers 22 aspects of Israeli society. Its educational policy, social policy, health policy, foreign policy, America-Israel diaspora relations, of course, the US relations and the peace process. Certainly the largest section on the peace process and our relationship with Israeli Arabs, the Haredi issue, the ultra orthodox issue, the Bedouin issue. It's all in 80 quick pages. And the idea of the book was to sort of to spur conversation, especially among young people within Israel and in the United States elsewhere in the diaspora. In the way Zionist thinkers used to think about the future Jewish state, starting in the 1880s up to the 1940s. Huge literature on what this Jewish state was going to look like. And we seem to have lost the ability to have that sort of broad discussion about our future. And it was going very, very well, the discussion.  It was not a think tank. It was actually an anti think tank. I didn't want to produce any papers. I just wanted to have discussions. When the war broke out. Looking back at this book now, it is actually a better seller now than it was before the war, because many of the problems that were revealed by the war were anticipated by the book. And it's actually more crucial now than ever before.  You know, Manya, I’m often asked, What wars does this war most resemble? Is it the 67 war where we were surrounded by enemies, the 73 war, when we were surprised by our enemies? But truly, the war that most resembles this one is the War of Independence, where we are fighting on multiple fronts, in our neighborhoods, in our communities, and everybody's in the army. And the tremendous, tremendous cost.  So really, we're in a second Israel war of independence. And that's the bad news. The good news is we get to rebuild afterward the way we rebuilt post 1948. I don't know any other manifesto that sets out the goals that we have to strive if we're going to have a successful Second War of Independence. Certainly, we have to address the Haredi issue. That's not sustainable.  We have to address the Bedouin issue, you know, the IDF secured the release of one of the hostages several weeks ago, a Bedouin gentleman. It was an extraordinary event, definitely praiseworthy, but that Bedouin had two wives, and had settled illegally on state land, and that sort of it was indicative of the type of problems we face with a Bedouin that no one's addressing.  But it's also our education system. How can we proceed and a road to some type of better relationship with the Palestinians? How can we maintain unity within Israel, within the Jewish world? Everything from the Kotel to teaching math on a high school level in a Haredi school. Manya Brachear Pashman:  How dismaying that there are so many wars to choose from for comparison. But I, but I appreciate the one that you the analogy that you've made and the hope that that carries with it. So, Ambassador Oren, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. Michael Oren:  Thank you. Let me say Shana Tova.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  Shana Tova.  Michael Oren:  I also want to give a special thank you to the American Jewish Committee. Yesterday morning, we through the office under the aegis of the the AJC, our delegation of displaced northerners met with about 20 representatives of the diplomatic community here in Washington, including the German ambassador, the Czech ambassador, the Slovakian ambassador, diplomats from Spain, Italy, and for the first time, this diplomatic community was able to hear firsthand what it is to live under daily Hezbollah rocket and drone fire, to be displaced from their homes, and it was extremely important. We're very, very grateful to AJC. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Ambassador Oren, thank you so much for joining us. Michael Oren:  Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman:  If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with two proud Jewish Paralympians on how sports can unite athletes amid antisemitism, which surfaced during the Paris 2024 Olympic Games.

Following Hamas’ October 7 massacre of Israelis, antisemitism has infiltrated nearly every part of society – including the world of sports. At the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, Israeli athletes faced death threats and “Heil Hitler” salutes.  U.S. Paralympian Tahl Leibovitz, an Israeli-American, knows this hatred firsthand, having been targeted both on and off the court simply for being Jewish. Together with fellow Paralympian Ian Seidenfeld, the Para Table Tennis champions reflect on how they’ve seen sports serve as a powerful unifying force, despite the challenges. ___ Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus:  Season 2 out now exploring the untold stories of Jews from Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, and more. People of the Pod:  The DNC with AJC: What You Need to Know about the Democratic Party’s Israel Platform Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Interview with Ian Seidenfeld and Tahl Leibovitz: Manya Brachear Pashman:   It is always a joy to watch the Olympic Games with my children. I must confess, not until I had children, did I watch the Paralympics. If you want to see strength, grit, and resilience on a heroic level, behold British cyclist Sarah Story claim her 18th gold. My son’s favorite sports are wheelchair tennis and table tennis.  So he was particularly excited when I told him that I had the opportunity to sit down with two proud Jewish athletes who competed in this year’s Paralympic games in Paris. Twenty-three year old Ian Seidenfeld and 49-year-old Tahl Leibovitz are members of the USA 2024 Para Table Tennis team. They are here to talk about their approach to the sport and what it means to be a Jewish athlete. Ian, Tahl: welcome to People of the Pod.  Ian Seidenfeld: Thank you. I'm happy to be here. Tahl Leibovitz:   It is really good to be here. I'm very excited about this. Manya Brachear Pashman: So what drew you to this sport, to table tennis? Ian, how about you start us off? Ian Seidenfeld: Yeah, I don't know if I was ever interested in table tennis, but my dad was the table tennis coach, runs the table tennis in Minnesota with the Minnesota Table Tennis Federation, so it was always kind of just a part of life in that when I was four or five years old I'd want to go with my dad to work and kind of be around him and play. And it just happened to be table tennis that he was coaching. So I didn't even know what was going on, but it was something that I enjoyed to do to kind of hang out with my dad a little bit. Tahl Leibovitz:   I was in the South Beach Boys and Girls Club that was kind of in Queens, South Richmond Hill. And I had a lot of different things. I was doing martial arts there, which I really liked a lot. And my trainer was saying, if you do table tennis it can help you with your reflexes. You're gonna be faster. And I started doing table tennis, and I kind of got drawn into it, and I really like the challenge of it. It's very similar to chess – it's like chess and running at the same time. I do a lot of jiu-jitsu now, it's similar to that. You're trying to solve things. So it's very interesting. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Tahl, you were born with a physical disability that makes it difficult to kind of move on your feet and to straighten your arms or flex your wrists. So I'm curious how you've balanced that. How have you overcome that? Tahl Leibovitz:   Another good question, and most people don't even ask that, and that's probably somebody that had been playing table tennis probably for like, 10 or 20 years would kind of notice I have osteochondromas, so I have limited supination and pronation. You can't really see if I'm walking, can't see any disability, but I have bone tumors all over my body. They're benign, so it restricts movement. So to answer that, I had to find a way to adapt.  So when I hold the racket, I change the grip a lot. And I would say the two things that I never thought I would become this great player. You know, you never really know. But when I was watching the best athletes in the country in the world, I started competing against them eventually. And I started trying to think, ‘Okay, what, you know, what would be difficult? How could I make their match difficult?’ Not trying to beat them, but how can I make these matches very difficult for them?  I started doing that a lot, and then I built the style. And then, of course, you know, really believing that you can compete against anyone. I say those two things, and then I don't know, I started, I don't know what happened after. It took about eight years, and I just started doing really well, both in the able-bodied and the para competition. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Ian, can you talk a little bit about the preparation and training process for the Paralympics and other competitions as well? Ian Seidenfeld: Table tennis training, a lot of it happens on the table, as you might imagine. So we're on the table for two to three hour practice sessions. And then what I try and do outside of table tennis is, for me, cardio on the bike. I live near a lake, Lake Bde Maka Ska in Minnesota, and so it's a very beautiful lake to ride around and get that kind of cardio in, two to three days a week, and then playing on the table three to four days a week for myself. A lot of it is that hand-eye coordination is the biggest part, being able to react to the ball movement much quicker than others, I think is a defining factor, along with being able to understand spin. That's maybe the biggest difference in table tennis compared to other racquet sports, is the amount of spin we can get on the ball. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Do you have a signature move or kind of signature maneuver that you use to best your opponents? Ian Seidenfeld: I think my best thing is variation. Because of my disability of dwarfism, I have shorter limbs, so I can't reach or move as far as others. So I try and control the table with angle of play as well as spin and speed variation. So it's a very, we'll call it a thinker's game, trying to outsmart the opponent some ways and keep things very uncomfortable for them. That's kind of what I try and do to my opponents. Manya Brachear Pashman:   That’s great, keep them guessing as to what's coming their way. I love that. Well what have been some of your challenges? In other words, are there particular strategies or moves that other players use that you have really tried to get better at confronting? Ian Seidenfeld: Yeah, there's a lot of different things. As I said, with my disability, with dwarfism, a short stature and shorter limbs, I have had people use a short serve against me, so that I can't reach the serve to start off the point. And we've kind of fought over the last five or six years for me to be able to use a paddle extension, which will basically allow me to reach the first serve and then take the extension off and play like a normal point afterwards. So that's, for me, kind of a big difference. The other big difference for my disability would be I can't play as long because my joints are very malformed, so I have higher levels of inflammation sooner. So I kind of practice less than most people. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So it seems like that would be something that they would regulate or accommodate. I'm kind of surprised that they would even allow a short serve in that kind of circumstance. Ian Seidenfeld: From how my dad described the Paralympics to me when he was playing in 1988 in Barcelona, he had won a gold medal there. At the time, it was probably more about building community and acceptance among disabilities. Just because we have a disability, we're not necessarily accepting of other disabilities.  And so in those instances, you can see, back then it was, you were kind of learning to be around other people and accept their differences. I think now we've gotten to the point where a lot of it is about this higher level of competition, and so that competitive aspect has changed things a lot more. So maybe the short serves and things, tactics that might be considered underhanded are a little bit more accepted than I'd like it to be. But who am I to argue? I'm happy to just to be able to play. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You mentioned your father, Ian. He was a champion in the 1980s. He is now the coach of the U.S.A. Paralympic team. What other mentors or support systems have both of you had along the way?  Ian Seidenfeld: Yeah, I think family is the biggest crutch for all of us. I know for my teammate, Jensen, he's the same age as me, and so he has a very good support system with his parents and his brother. And myself, with my parents and my sister, I think we were able to confide in them very honestly and speak candidly about everything that we're feeling.  I recently had been talking to an energy coach as well, someone to kind of give better levels of positive energy, being able to stay more present in the moment and not get ahead of myself, and I tend to guide towards the negative aspects of things, getting upset or getting annoyed or frustrated. And so I'm trying my best to get out of that.  And so I have been talking to someone to kind of help with staying positive in tougher times. So it's really about being able to be honest with yourself and with other people, and not afraid to reach out. Because, as an athlete that's competing in Paris, a lot of people want to help and do their best for you, and so you just have to be able to communicate in a mature way. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And what about you Tahl – what does your support system look like?  Tahl Leibovitz:   Yeah, you know, that's probably one of the most important things, is when you connect to people that are, you know, trying to help you along the way. Of course, my coach Sean O’Neill has been a very good mentor. He's a two-time Olympian, five-time national champion. He's helped me greatly, helped me study for, you know, when I was doing my social work exams. We also have a lot of great coaches. Mitch Seidenfeld is our head coach. We have Vlad Farcas. He's amazing. He's, you know, a really good friend and somebody that runs the program as well. But I would say, yeah, those three individuals, and there's another person, Dr. Dov Copler, who's practicing medicine. He's helped me a lot as well. Of course, my wife, I've been married for more than 20 years, she's unbelievable, and we're, you know, best friends, and she's helped me, you know, without her, I probably couldn't make these achievements not be possible. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I'm curious, has your Jewish identity played a role in your athletic success, your academics or your professional careers? Ian Seidenfeld: Yeah, my Jewish identity. So I'm a reform Jew, but I think it's a lot about the community and family that I have that's really important to me, and I've been able to look up to them and what they've done in their careers and their lives, and how they kind of view life in a lot of ways, to just enjoy it, enjoy family. And so I think I've taken a lot of that as being very important to me, being able to try and pursue both career and being consistent with my family. Tahl Leibovitz:   I was born in Israel. You know, I was born in Haifa. Obviously, I'm very connected to Israel. And I went to a thing called the Maccabi Games that was in 1997, that was my first games. And the people, the experience, it was just so amazing. And that's the first time I had been back to Israel. I'm trying to think, I was 22 years old, I think at that time. So I would say, yeah, Israel, I feel so good there. There's a very good connection to being there. So that's the positive note and, you know, and also coming up, you know, on a negative thing. You know, being Jewish, of course, it's not easy in some ways, you know, I went through, in a lot of obstacles and different things because of that. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So can you talk a little bit about some of the obstacles that you have encountered along that being Jewish have presented? Tahl Leibovitz:   When I grew up – well, I lived in the street when I was a boy, you know, for maybe 13 to about 21 but it's interesting before that, even when I was, I grew up in Howard Beach, and then eventually I was living in kind of, like, by Cypress Hills in New York City. And there's, like, a shame that being Jewish, like I was, you know, is like, in some way, from my peers, like I wasn't around a lot of Jewish people, and they were, you know, they make fun of you. They like, you feel this, and I didn't know anything really. I was only a kid, but I think having my grandfather was, like, a really good, I mean, he made a, you know, spending time with him was a big difference. He was a Holocaust survivor. One thing I learned from him, which I think is so important, I think more people should do. When you look at the Jewish community, it's like the family. There's a very strong sense of family. And I feel, even when I'm in Israel, because I'm very good friends with a lot of people on the table tennis team, the Israeli Center, I feel such a good connection, like I feel really a part of something, and that is really important. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So in other words, being part of that sports community and a team, there's something kind of Jewish about that and that family feel. You spoke about the negative. Of course, Israeli athletes competing in Paris, some have received death threats and hate messages online, and then at the soccer match between Israel and Paraguay, spectators were yelling Heil Hitler during the Israeli national anthem. As a Jewish athlete, as an Israeli-born Jewish athlete, is this hate something that you have encountered along the way, or is this hate just reserved for the athletes representing Israel? Tahl Leibovitz:   You know, I'll say two things to that. The first being that, you know, obviously, what happened, you know, in October of last year. You feel something. You could say whatever you want. There's no words. I feel like I've overcome a lot of adversity, but to feel that, like, that you can't do anything. You feel so badly, you know. So there's a connection, I think, you know from all of us that is the first thing. So, and you look at what's happening in the schools, Columbia University, and a lot of these things, so there is a heightened sense of antisemitism, for sure. And I would say that does happen. I'll give you one quick example, which is very, very interesting. I had to play a league match. This wasn't even too long ago, just two months ago, so to play a league match. And there were, you know, I'm not saying these people are bad or good, but they were from Egypt. There were two players, and then they, they came in and they said, ‘Do you know where we were?’  And I was like, ‘Okay, where were you guys at?’ And they said, ‘Well, we're in the mosque, and we were praying for the destruction of Israel. We were praying that Israel would be destroyed.’ I'm about to start a match with these guys, and, you know, obviously I'm a therapist, so, you know, I have a lot, you know, patients, and I ended up winning against them. So they were not too happy. But the point is that I tend to think about, like when people bring that, they have great difficulties within themselves. And of course, you can match that, you know, with it, with anything you know. You can be aggressive with them. But I find if people sit long enough in some of these, I don't know if you want to call it delusions that they have, because a lot of people, we're just human beings. People hate Jewish people for no reason, like, it's like, they don't even know me. It's like, you're hating somebody for something, you don't even know them. So I think when people sit with that, they tend to, you know, they spend a little more time with you. Sports can do that too. It kind of humanized people together. Manya Brachear Pashman:   That's interesting. You have actually called your birthplace your favorite place on earth. And I'm curious, how do you honor both your American and Israeli identities while representing the United States in competition? Tahl Leibovitz:   Yeah, that's a very good question. And I would say for me, the thing, because I've been to a lot of different tournaments, the Paralympics, a lot of different things, the most incredible experience for me has been like I mentioned the Maccabi Games. So that's one thing, and I stay connected, you know, and it's also not just what I'm doing. Look, I'm a table tennis player, I do the best I can. But, you know, there's some people that I've, you know, there's a student I work with. Her name is Estee Ackerman. She does a lot of public speaking. She was a great player. We, you know, I trained her for many years. So you, kind of, I would say the answer is this sort of community, you know, and to and to be connected to yourself, and also to be even in therapy, you know, actually, I'll say one other thing. I could say a lot. I work for a few, I have contracted a few different places. And I said to one place, you know, after this thing happened in Israel, I said, and again, I have no special ability.  I just said, look, send me the people that were affected by Israel. I said, those are the people I want to work with now. I said, send me as many as you can, as much as you can. And then I started working with them. And it is, the truth is, it's profoundly effective. Like there were, you know, these people that can't function at work. You know, it's something, some of them were very connected, they're affected in some way, obviously. So I just give what I can. I can't change the world, but I know, like, I can give the best I can to people, and even if I do my small part, it's okay. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So after this year's Paralympics, what’s next? Ian Seidenfeld: I think the goal is really to just try and feel comfortable and try and have fun out there, and the results will come. But after the Paralympics, I work for a company called Allianz, a global insurance company, and so I plan to continue working for them afterwards, and they've been, they're a sponsor of the Olympics and Paralympics, so they've been very supportive of my training, and so I plan to continue working for them and continue training for the next World Championships and Maccabi Games, and we actually have our own Allianz Olympics coming up in 2026, so there's a lot more table tennis to be played, and ultimately I hope to compete in LA 2028 so I might take a month or two off, but other than that, it'll be back to training as usual. Tahl Leibovitz:   Well I set a goal that I wanted to try to continue to 2028 since I won my first gold medal in 1996. That was my biggest achievement. And so now I'm saying, all right, we have 2028 in LA, so I will continue to 2028. I'm in pretty good, playing pretty well, doing a lot of fitness. So I feel okay. And yeah, probably do that, and then I will see. Most likely I will retire, I think, although people keep pushing me to do another two, but that would be 2036 would be my last one. So it's a little, I’m 50 years old, almost, so, but we'll see. I think 2028, then I'll reevaluate. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well thank you both so much for joining us. Is there anything I have not asked you that you definitely want to share with our audience before we go? Ian Seidenfeld: I think when we're talking about acceptance and love and trying to overcome our differences and challenges, I think the Paralympics can be a very good representation of what we can all do together, as the Olympics was founded as well to find common ground among nations, and I think there is a lot of hate and rhetoric that's spoken throughout the US and throughout the world, that hopefully people will be able to watch the Olympics and Paralympics and feel a more, a greater sense of unity among people. And hopefully we won't have death threats and that kind of hate, that's really unnecessary. I hope. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well said. Thank you so much. Ian, Tahl, Mazal Tov! Ian Seidenfeld: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Tahl Leibovitz:   Thank you. Thank you so much.

Listen to the premiere episode of the second season of The Forgotten Exodus, the multi-award-winning, chart-topping, and first-ever narrative podcast series to focus exclusively on Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews. This week’s episode focuses on Jews from Tunisia. If you like what you hear, subscribe before the next episode drops on September 3. “In the Israeli DNA and the Jewish DNA, we have to fight to be who we are. In every generation, empires and big forces tried to erase us . . . I know what it is to be rejected for several parts of my identity... I'm fighting for my ancestors, but I'm also fighting for our future generation.”  Hen Mazzig, a writer, digital creator, and founder of the Tel Aviv Institute, shares his powerful journey as a proud Israeli, LGBTQ+, and Mizrahi Jew, in the premiere episode of the second season of the award-winning podcast, The Forgotten Exodus. Hen delves into his family's deep roots in Tunisia, their harrowing experiences during the Nazi occupation, and their eventual escape to Israel. Discover the rich history of Tunisia's ancient Amazigh Jewish community, the impact of French colonial and Arab nationalist movements on Jews in North Africa, and the cultural identity that Hen passionately preserves today. Joining the conversation is historian Lucette Valensi, an expert on Tunisian Jewish culture, who provides scholarly insights into the longstanding presence of Jews in Tunisia, from antiquity to their exodus in the mid-20th century. ___ Show notes: Sign up to receive podcast updates here. Learn more about the series here. Song credits:  "Penceresi Yola Karsi" -- by Turku, Nomads of the Silk Road Pond5:  “Desert Caravans”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Tiemur Zarobov (BMI), IPI#1098108837 “Sentimental Oud Middle Eastern”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Sotirios Bakas (BMI), IPI#797324989. “Meditative Middle Eastern Flute”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Danielyan Ashot Makichevich (BMI), IPI Name #00855552512, United States BMI “Tunisia Eastern”: Publisher: Edi Surya Nurrohim, Composer: Edi Surya Nurrohim, Item ID#155836469. “At The Rabbi's Table”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Fazio Giulio (IPI/CAE# 00198377019). “Fields Of Elysium”; Publisher: Mysterylab Music; Composer: Mott Jordan; ID#79549862  “Frontiers”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI); Composer: Pete Checkley (BMI), IPI#380407375 “Hatikvah (National Anthem Of Israel)”; Composer: Eli Sibony; ID#122561081 “Tunisian Pot Dance (Short)”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI); Composer: kesokid, ID #97451515 “Middle East Ident”; Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Alpha (ASCAP); Composer: Alon Marcus (ACUM), IPI#776550702 “Adventures in the East”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI) Composer: Petar Milinkovic (BMI), IPI#00738313833. ___ Episode Transcript: HEN MAZZIG: They took whatever they had left and they got on a boat. And my grandmother told me this story before she passed away on how they were on this boat coming to Israel.  And they were so happy, and they were crying because they felt that finally after generations upon generations of oppression they are going to come to a place where they are going to be protected, and that she was coming home. MANYA BRACHEAR PASHMAN: The world has overlooked an important episode in modern history: the 800,000 Jews who left or were driven from their homes in the Middle East and North Africa in the mid-20th century. Welcome to the second season of The Forgotten Exodus, brought to you by American Jewish Committee. This series explores that pivotal moment in history and the little-known Jewish heritage of Iran and Arab nations. As Jews around the world confront violent antisemitism and Israelis face daily attacks by terrorists on multiple fronts, our second season explores how Jews have lived throughout the region for generations–despite hardship, hostility, and hatred–then sought safety and new possibilities in their ancestral homeland. I'm your host, Manya Brachear Pashman. Join us as we explore untold family histories and personal stories of courage, perseverance, and resilience from this transformative and tumultuous period of history for the Jewish people and the Middle East.  The world has ignored these voices. We will not. This is The Forgotten Exodus.  Today's episode: leaving Tunisia. __ [Tel Aviv Pride video] MANYA BRACHEAR PASHMAN: Every June, Hen Mazzig, who splits his time between London and Tel Aviv, heads to Israel to show his Pride. His Israeli pride. His LGBTQ+ pride. And his Mizrahi Jewish pride. For that one week, all of those identities coalesce.  And while other cities around the world have transformed Pride into a June version of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, Israel is home to one of the few vibrant LGBTQ communities in the Middle East. Tel Aviv keeps it real. HEN: For me, Pride in Israel, in Tel Aviv, it still has this element of fighting for something. And that it’s important for all of us to show up and to come out to the Pride Parade because if we’re not going to be there, there’s some people with agendas to erase us and we can't let them do it. MANYA: This year, the Tel Aviv Pride rally was a more somber affair as participants demanded freedom for the more than 100 hostages still held in Gaza since October 7th.  On that day, Hamas terrorists bent on erasing Jews from the Middle East went on a murderous rampage, killing more than 1,200, kidnapping 250 others, and unleashing what has become a 7-front war on Israel. HEN: In the Israeli DNA and the Jewish DNA we have to fight to be who we are. In every generation, empires and big forces tried to erase us, and we had to fight. And the LGBTQ+ community also knows very well how hard it is. I know what it is to be rejected for several parts of my identity. And I don't want anyone to go through that. I don't want my children to go through that. I'm fighting for my ancestors, but I'm also fighting for our future generation. MANYA: Hen Mazzig is an international speaker, writer, and digital influencer. In 2022, he founded the Tel Aviv Institute, a social media laboratory that tackles antisemitism online. He’s also a second-generation Israeli, whose maternal grandparents fled Iraq, while his father’s parents fled Tunisia – roots that echo in the family name: Mazzig. HEN: The last name Mazzig never made sense, because in Israel a lot of the last names have meaning in Hebrew.  So I remember one of my teachers in school was saying that Mazzig sounds like mozeg, which means pouring in Hebrew. Maybe your ancestors were running a bar or something? Clearly, this teacher did not have knowledge of the Amazigh people. Which, later on I learned, several of those tribes, those Amazigh tribes, were Jewish or practiced Judaism, and that there was 5,000 Jews that came from Tunisia that were holding both identities of being Jewish and Amazigh.  And today, they have last names like Mazzig, and Amzaleg, Mizzoug. There's several of those last names in Israel today. And they are the descendants of those Jewish communities that have lived in the Atlas Mountains. MANYA: The Atlas Mountains. A 1,500-mile chain of magnificent peaks and treacherous terrain that stretch across Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia, separating the Sahara from the Mediterranean and Atlantic coastline.  It’s where the nomadic Amazigh have called home for thousands of years. The Amazigh trace their origins to at least 2,000 BCE  in western North Africa. They speak the language of Tamazight and rely on cattle and agriculture as their main sources of income.  But textiles too. In fact, you’ve probably heard of the Amazigh or own a rug woven by them. A Berber rug. HEN: Amazigh, which are also called Berbers. But they're rejecting this term because of the association with barbarians, which was the title that European colonialists when they came to North Africa gave them. There's beautiful folklore about Jewish leaders within the Amazigh people. One story that I really connected to was the story of Queen Dihya that was also known as El-Kahina, which in Arabic means the Kohen, the priest, and she was known as this leader of the Amazigh tribes, and she was Jewish.  Her derrogaters were calling her a Jewish witch, because they said that she had the power to foresee the future. And her roots were apparently connected to Queen Sheba and her arrival from Israel back to Africa. And she was the descendant of Queen Sheba. And that's how she led the Amazigh people.  And the stories that I read about her, I just felt so connected. How she had this long, black, curly hair that went all the way down to her knees, and she was fierce, and she was very committed to her identity, and she was fighting against the Islamic expansion to North Africa.  And when she failed, after years of holding them off, she realized that she can't do it anymore and she's going to lose. And she was not willing to give up her Jewish identity and convert to Islam and instead she jumped into a well and died. This well is known today in Tunisia. It’s the [Bir] Al-Kahina or Dihya’s Well that is still in existence. Her descendants, her kids, were Jewish members of the Amazigh people.  Of course, I would like to believe that I am the descendant of royalty. MANYA: Scholars debate whether the Amazigh converted to Judaism or descended from Queen Dihya and stayed.  Lucette Valensi is a French scholar of Tunisian history who served as a director of studies at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris, one of the most prestigious institutions of graduate education in France. She has written extensively about Tunisian Jewish culture.   Generations of her family lived in Tunisia. She says archaeological evidence proves Jews were living in that land since Antiquity. LUCETTE VALENSI: I myself am a Chemla, born Chemla. And this is an Arabic name, which means a kind of belt. And my mother's name was Tartour, which is a turban [laugh]. So the names were Arabic. So my ancestors spoke Arabic. I don't know if any of them spoke Berber before, or Latin. I have no idea. But there were Jews in antiquity and of course, through Saint Augustin. MANYA: So when did Jews arrive in Tunisia? LUCETTE: [laugh] That’s a strange question because they were there since Antiquity. We have evidence of their presence in mosaics of synagogues, from the times of Byzantium. I think we think in terms of a short chronology, and they would tend to associate the Jews to colonization, which does not make sense, they were there much before French colonization. They were there for millennia. MANYA: Valensi says Jews lived in Tunisia dating to the time of Carthage, an ancient city-state in what is now Tunisia, that reached its peak in the fourth century BCE. Later, under Roman and then Byzantine rule, Carthage continued to play a vital role as a center of commerce and trade during antiquity.  Besides the role of tax collectors, Jews were forbidden to serve in almost all public offices. Between the 5th and 8th centuries CE, conditions fluctuated between relief and forced conversions while under Christian rule.  After the Islamic conquest of Tunisia in the seventh and early eighth centuries CE, the treatment of Jews largely depended on which Muslim ruler was in charge at the time.  Some Jews converted to Islam while others lived as dhimmis, or second-class citizens, protected by the state in exchange for a special tax known as the jizya. In 1146, the first caliph of the Almohad dynasty, declared that the Prophet Muhammad had granted Jews religious freedom for only 500 years, by which time if the messiah had not come, they had to convert.  Those who did not convert and even those who did were forced to wear yellow turbans or other special garb called shikra, to distinguish them from Muslims. An influx of Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal arrived in the 14th Century. In the 16th Century, Tunisia became part of the Ottoman Empire, and the situation of Jews improved significantly. Another group who had settled in the coastal Tuscan city of Livorno crossed the Mediterranean in the 17th and 18th centuries to make Tunisia their home. LUCETTE: There were other groups that came, Jews from Italy, Jews from Spain, of course, Spain and Portugal, different periods. 14th century already from Spain and then from Spain and Portugal. From Italy, from Livorno, that's later, but the Jews from Livorno themselves came from Spain.  So I myself am named Valensi. From Valencia. It was the family name of my first husband. So from Valencia in Spain they went to Livorno, and from Livorno–Leghorn in English–to Tunisia. MANYA: At its peak, Tunisia’s Jewish population exceeded 100,000 – a combination of Sephardi and Mizrahi. HEN: When we speak about Jews from the Middle East and North Africa, specifically in the West, or mainly in the West, we're referring to them as Sephardi. But in Tunisia, it's very interesting to see that there was the Grana community which are Livorno Jews that moved to Tunisia in the 1800s, and they brought the Sephardi way of praying.  And that’s why I always use the term Mizrahi to describe myself, because I feel like it encapsulates more of my identity. And for me, the Sephardi title that we often use on those communities doesn't feel accurate to me, and it also has the connection to Ladino, which my grandparents never spoke.  They spoke Tamazight, Judeo-Tamazight, which was the language of those tribes in North Africa. And my family from my mother's side, from Iraq, they were speaking Judeo-Iraqi-Arabic.  So for me, the term Sephardi just doesn't cut it. I go with Mizrahi to describe myself. MANYA: The terms Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi all refer to the places Jews once called home.  Ashkenazi Jews hail from Central and Eastern Europe, particularly Germany, Poland, and Russia. They traditionally speak Yiddish, and their customs and practices reflect the influences of Central and Eastern European cultures.  Pogroms in Eastern Europe and the Holocaust led many Ashkenazi Jews to flee their longtime homes to countries like the United States and their ancestral homeland, Israel.  Mizrahi, which means “Eastern” in Hebrew, refers to the diaspora of descendants of Jewish communities from Middle Eastern countries such as: Iraq, Iran, and Yemen, and North African countries such as: Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco. Ancient Jewish communities that have lived in the region for millennia long before the advent of Islam and Christianity. They often speak dialects of Arabic. Sephardi Jews originate from Spain and Portugal, speaking Ladino and incorporating Spanish and Portuguese cultural influences. Following their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula in 1492, they settled in regions like North Africa and the Balkans. In Tunisia, the Mizrahi and Sephardi communities lived side by side, but separately. HEN: As time passed, those communities became closer together, still quite separated, but they became closer and closer. And perhaps the reason they were becoming closer was because of the hardship that they faced as Jews.  For the leaders of Muslim armies that came to Tunisia, it didn't matter if you were a Sephardi Jew, or if you were an Amazigh Jew. You were a Jew for them. MANYA: Algeria’s invasion of Tunisia in the 18th century had a disproportionate effect on Tunisia’s Jewish community. The Algerian army killed thousands of the citizens of Tunis, many of whom were Jewish. Algerians raped Jewish women, looted Jewish homes. LUCETTE: There were moments of trouble when you had an invasion of the Algerian army to impose a prince. The Jews were molested in Tunis. MANYA: After a military invasion, a French protectorate was established in 1881 and lasted until Tunisia gained independence in 1956. The Jews of Tunisia felt much safer under the French protectorate.  They put a lot of stock in the French revolutionary promise of Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Soon, the French language replaced Judeo-Arabic. LUCETTE: Well, under colonization, the Jews were in a better position. First, the school system. They went to modern schools, especially the Alliance [Israélite Universelle] schools, and with that started a form of Westernization.  You had also schools in Italian, created by Italian Jews, and some Tunisian Jews went to these schools and already in the 19th century, there was a form of acculturation and Westernization.  Access to newspapers, creation of newspapers. In the 1880s Jews had already their own newspapers in Hebrew characters, but Arabic language.  And my grandfather was one of the early journalists and they started having their own press and published books, folklore, sort of short stories. MANYA: In May 1940, Nazi Germany invaded France and quickly overran the French Third Republic, forcing the French to sign an armistice agreement in June. The armistice significantly reduced the territory governed by France and created a new government known as the Vichy regime, after the central French city where it was based.  The Vichy regime collaborated with the Nazis, establishing a special administration to introduce anti-Jewish legislation and enforce a compulsory Jewish census in all of its territories including Tunisia. Hen grew up learning about the Holocaust, the Nazis’ attempt to erase the Jewish people. As part of his schooling, he learned the names of concentration and death camps and he heard the stories from his friends’ grandparents.  But because he was not Ashkenazi, because his grandparents didn’t suffer through the same catastrophe that befell Europe, Hen never felt fully accepted.  It was a trauma that belonged to his Ashkenazi friends of German and Polish descent, not to him. Or so they thought and so he thought, until he was a teenager and asked his grandmother Kamisa to finally share their family’s journey from Tunisia. That’s when he learned that the Mazzig family had not been exempt from Hitler’s hatred. In November 1942, Tunisia became the only North African country to come under Nazi Germany’s occupation and the Nazis wasted no time. Jewish property was confiscated, and heavy fines were levied on large Jewish communities. With the presence of the Einsatzkommando, a subgroup of the Einsatzgruppen, or mobile killing units, the Nazis were prepared to implement the systematic murder of the Jews of Tunisia. The tide of the war turned just in time to prevent that. LUCETTE: At the time the Germans came, they did not control the Mediterranean, and so they could not export us to the camps. We were saved by that. Lanor camps for men in dangerous places where there were bombs by the Allies. But not for us, it was, I mean, they took our radios. They took the silverware or they took money, this kind of oppression, but they did not murder us.  They took the men away, a few families were directly impacted and died in the camps. A few men. So we were afraid. We were occupied. But compared to what Jews in Europe were subjected to, we didn't suffer.  MANYA: Almost 5,000 Jews, most of them from Tunis and from certain northern communities, were taken captive and incarcerated in 32 labor camps scattered throughout Tunisia. Jews were not only required to wear yellow stars, but those in the camps were also required to wear them on their backs so they could be identified from a distance and shot in the event they tried to escape. HEN: My grandmother never told me until before she died, when she was more open about the stories of oppression, on how she was serving food for the French Nazi officers that were occupying Tunisia, or how my grandfather was in a labor camp, and he was supposed to be sent to a death camp in Europe as well. They never felt like they should share these stories. MANYA: The capture of Tunisia by the Allied forces in May 1943 led the Axis forces in North Africa to surrender. But the country remained under French colonial rule and the antisemitic legislation of the Vichy regime continued until 1944. Many of the Vichy camps, including forced labor camps in the Sahara, continued to operate.  Even after the decline and fall of the Vichy regime and the pursuit of independence from French rule began, conditions for the Mazzig family and many others in the Tunisian Jewish community did not improve.  But the source of much of the hostility and strife was actually a beacon of hope for Tunisia’s Jews. On May 14, 1948, the world had witnessed the creation of the state of Israel, sparking outrage throughout the Arab world. Seven Arab nations declared war on Israel the day after it declared independence.  Amid the rise of Tunisian nationalism and its push for independence from France, Jewish communities who had lived in Tunisia for centuries became targets. Guilty by association. No longer welcome. Rabbinical councils were dismantled. Jewish sports associations banned. Jews practiced their religion in hiding. Hen’s grandfather recounted violence in the Jewish quarter of Tunis.  HEN: When World War Two was over, the Jewish community in Tunisia was hoping that now that Tunisia would have emancipation, and it would become a country, that their neighbors and the country itself would protect them. Because when it was Nazis, they knew that it was a foreign power that came from France and oppressed them. They knew that there was some hatred in the past, from their Muslim neighbors towards them.  But they also were hoping that, if anything, they would go back to the same status of a dhimmi, of being a protected minority. Even if they were not going to be fully accepted and celebrated in this society, at least they would be protected, for paying tax. And this really did not happen. MANYA: By the early 1950s, life for the Mazzig family became untenable. By then, American Jewish organizations based in Tunis started working to take Jews to Israel right away.  HEN: [My family decided to leave.] They took whatever they had left. And they got on a boat. And my grandmother told me this story before she passed away on how they were on this boat coming to Israel.  And they were so happy, and they were crying because they felt that finally after generations upon generations of oppression of living as a minority that knows that anytime the ruler might turn on them and take everything they have and pull the ground underneath their feet, they are going to come to a place where they are going to be protected. And maybe they will face hate, but no one will hate them because they're Jewish.  And I often dream about my grandmother being a young girl on this boat and how she must have felt to know that the nightmare and the hell that she went through is behind her and that she was coming home. MANYA: The boat they sailed to Israel took days. When Hen’s uncle, just a young child at the time, got sick, the captain threatened to throw him overboard. Hen’s grandmother hid the child inside her clothes until they docked in Israel. When they arrived, they were sprayed with DDT to kill any lice or disease, then placed in ma’abarot, which in Hebrew means transit camps. In this case, it was a tent with one bed. HEN: They were really mistreated back then. And it's not criticism. I mean, yes, it is also criticism, but it's not without understanding the context. That it was a young country that just started, and those Jewish communities, Jewish refugees came from Tunisia, they didn't speak Hebrew. They didn't look like the other Jewish communities there. And while they all had this in common, that they were all Jews, they had a very different experience. MANYA: No, the family’s arrival in the Holy Land was nothing like what they had imagined. But even still, it was a dream fulfilled and there was hope, which they had lost in Tunisia. HEN: I think that it was somewhere in between having both this deep connection to Israel and going there because they wanted to, and also knowing that there’s no future in Tunisia. And the truth is that even–and I'm sure people that are listening to us, that are strong Zionists and love Israel, if you tell them ‘OK, so move tomorrow,’ no matter how much you love Israel, it's a very difficult decision to make.  Unless it's not really a decision. And I think for them, it wasn't really a decision. And they went through so much, they knew, OK, we have to leave and I think for the first time having a country, having Israel was the hope that they had for centuries to go back home, finally realized. MANYA: Valensi’s family did stay a while longer. When Tunisia declared independence in 1956, her father, a ceramicist, designed tiles for the residence of President Habib Bourguiba. Those good relations did not last.  Valensi studied history in France, married an engineer, and returned to Tunisia. But after being there for five years, it became clear that Jews were not treated equally and they returned to France in 1965. LUCETTE: I did not plan to emigrate. And then it became more and more obvious that some people were more equal than others [laugh]. And so there was this nationalist mood where responsibilities were given to Muslims rather than Jews and I felt more and more segregated.  And so, my husband was an engineer from a good engineering school. Again, I mean, he worked for another engineer, who was a Muslim. We knew he would never reach the same position. His father was a lawyer. And in the tribunal, he had to use Arabic. And so all these things accumulated, and we were displaced. MANYA: Valensi said Jewish emigration from Tunisia accelerated at two more mileposts. Even after Tunisia declared independence, France maintained a presence and a naval base in the port city of Bizerte, a strategic port on the Mediterranean for the French who were fighting with Algeria.  In 1961, Tunisian forces blockaded the naval base and warned France to stay out of its airspace. What became known as the Bizerte Crisis lasted for three days. LUCETTE: There were critical times, like what we call “La Crise de Bizerte.” Bizerte is a port to the west of Tunis that used to be a military port and when independence was negotiated with France, the French kept this port, where they could keep an army, and Bourguiba decided that he wanted this port back. And there was a war, a conflict, between Tunisia and France in ‘61.  And that crisis was one moment when Jews thought: if there is no French presence to protect us, then anything could happen. You had the movement of emigration.  Of course, much later, ‘67, the unrest in the Middle East, and what happened there provoked a kind of panic, and there were movements against the Jews in Tunis – violence and destruction of shops, etc. So they emigrated again. Now you have only a few hundred Jews left. MANYA: Valensi’s first husband died at an early age. Her second husband, Abraham Udovitch, is the former chair of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. Together, they researched and published a book about the Jewish communities in the Tunisian island of Djerba. The couple now splits their time between Paris and Princeton. But Valensi returns to Tunisia every year. It’s still home. LUCETTE: When I go, strange thing, I feel at home. I mean, I feel I belong. My Arabic comes back. The words that I thought I had forgotten come back. They welcome you. I mean, if you go, you say you come from America, they're going to ask you questions. Are you Jewish? Did you go to Israel? I mean, these kind of very brutal questions, right away. They’re going there. The taxi driver won't hesitate to ask you: Are you Jewish? But at the same time, they’re very welcoming. So, I have no trouble. MANYA: Hen, on the other hand, has never been to the land of his ancestors. He holds on to his grandparents’ trauma. And fear.  HEN: Tunisia just still feels a bit unsafe to me. Just as recent as a couple of months ago, there was a terror attack. So it's something that’s still occurring.  MANYA: Just last year, a member of the Tunisian National Guard opened fire on worshippers outside El Ghriba Synagogue where a large gathering of Jewish pilgrims were celebrating the festival of Lag BaOmer. The synagogue is located on the Tunisian island of Djerba where Valensi and her husband did research for their book. Earlier this year, a mob attacked an abandoned synagogue in the southern city of Sfax, setting fire to the building’s courtyard. Numbering over 100,000 Jews on the eve of Israel’s Independence in 1948, the Tunisian Jewish community is now estimated to be less than 1,000.  There has been limited contact over the years between Tunisia and Israel. Some Israeli tourists, mostly of Tunisian origin, annually visit the El Ghriba synagogue in Djerba. But the government has largely been hostile to the Jewish state.  In the wake of the October 7 attack, the Tunisian parliament began debate on a law that would criminalize any normalization of ties with Israel. Still, Hen would like to go just once to see where his grandparents lived. Walked. Cooked. Prayed.  But to him it’s just geography, an arbitrary place on a map. The memories, the music, the recipes, the traditions. It’s no longer in Tunisia. It’s elsewhere now – in the only country that preserved it. HEN: The Jewish Tunisian culture, the only place that it's been maintained is in Israel. That's why it's still alive. Like in Tunisia, it's not really celebrated. It's not something that they keep as much as they keep here.  Like if you want to go to a proper Mimouna, you would probably need to go to Israel, not to North Africa, although that's where it started. And the same with the Middle Eastern Jewish cuisine. The only place in the world, where be it Tunisian Jews and Iraqi Jews, or Yemenite Jews, still develop their recipes, is in Israel.  Israel is home, and this is where we still celebrate our culture and our cuisine and our identity is still something that I can engage with here.  I always feel like I am living the dreams of my grandparents, and I know that my grandmother is looking from above and I know how proud she is that we have a country, that we have a place to be safe at.  And that everything I do today is to protect my people, to protect the Jewish people, and making sure that next time when a country, when an empire, when a power would turn on Jews we’ll have a place to go to and be safe. MANYA: Tunisian Jews are just one of the many Jewish communities who, in the last century, left Arab countries to forge new lives for themselves and future generations.  Join us next week as we share another untold story of The Forgotten Exodus. Many thanks to Hen for sharing his story. You can read more in his memoir The Wrong Kind of Jew: A Mizrahi Manifesto. Too many times during my reporting, I encountered children and grandchildren who didn’t have the answers to my questions because they’d never asked. That’s why one of the goals of this project is to encourage you to ask those questions. Find your stories. Atara Lakritz is our producer. T.K. Broderick is our sound engineer. Special thanks to Jon Schweitzer, Nicole Mazur, Sean Savage, and Madeleine Stern, and so many of our colleagues, too many to name really, for making this series possible.  You can subscribe to The Forgotten Exodus on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and you can learn more at AJC.org/theforgottenexodus.  The views and opinions of our guests don’t necessarily reflect the positions of AJC.  You can reach us at theforgottenexodus@ajc.org. If you've enjoyed this episode, please be sure to spread the word, and hop onto Apple Podcasts or Spotify to rate us and write a review to help more listeners find us.

This week, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, AJC hosted a program on Israel and the path to peace. Ambassador Thomas R. Nides, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Illinois Congressman Brad Schneider (D-IL) joined us for the conversation. AJC’s chief policy officer, Jason Isaacson, who is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for a New Middle East, was moderating the program. AJC hosted a similar program on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention last month in Milwaukee. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. AJC does not endorse or oppose political parties or candidates. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Halie Soifer, Brad Schneider, Tom Nides Show Notes: Watch: Israel and the Path to Peace - AJC at the Democratic National Convention Listen – People of the Pod: Is Centrism the Antidote to Political Polarization and Extremism? A Conversation with Yair Zivan Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: 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, Halie Soifer, Brad Schneider, Tom Nides: Manya Brachear Pashman: This week, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, AJC hosted a program on Israel and the path to peace. Joining us for the conversation was Ambassador Tom Nides, former US ambassador to Israel, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Illinois Congressman Brad Schneider. Moderating the program was AJC’s chief policy officer Jason Isaacson, who is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for a New Middle East.  Just a reminder, AJC is a 501(c)3 nonpartisan organization, and AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. Jason Isaacson:   I really wanted to begin by citing some passages from the Democratic platform and some passages from the Republican platform relating to the Middle East. I'll just mention very briefly that the Republican platform's Middle East language is short and to the point. It says, We will stand with Israel and seek peace in the Middle East. We will rebuild our alliance network in the region to ensure a future of stability, peace, stability and prosperity.  And it also promises, very quickly, to restore peace in Europe and the Middle East. The Democratic platform is much more extensive. It's an 80 page document, a long section on the Middle East. But it says that the administration opposes settlement expansion and West Bank West Bank annexation. Also opposes the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement against Israel. But it's very clear that the administration believes a strong, secure and democratic Israel is vital to the interests of the United States.  It's also quite specific about the necessity of defeating Hamas. I want to start my questioning with Halie Soifer. The question that's been on the minds of political reporters and many of us in the community, Haley, as you very well know, over the last 10 months of the war in Gaza, and has taken on new meaning in light of the change at the top of the Democratic ticket.  How can a Democratic candidate for president in the current highly charged environment maintain the support of the party's pro Israel mainstream while also keeping or winning back the loyalty of the increasingly active pro Palestinian segment of its constituency. What have we heard from Vice President Harris, for whom you worked in the Senate, that suggests that she can balance these competing policy claims? Halie Soifer:   Well, thank you, Jason, thanks to everyone. I was told to project. And for those of you who are at the Global Forum, you know I know how to project, so I will try my best. But thanks for having me.  I did have the honor of working for then-Senator Harris, starting her first month in the Senate for two years as her national security advisor. And what I can tell you is, not only does she share the views of President Biden, we know that based on the past three and a half years, and their records standing with Israel in the lead up to and of course, in the aftermath of the horrific attacks of October 7.  Giving an unprecedented amount of military assistance to Israel, standing with Israel, not only in the aftermath of these attacks, but demanding the release of all of the hostages, and continuing to stand with Israel as it faces this threat from Iran, pre positioning military assets in the region, not once, but twice in the lead up to The attacks of April 13. But also, I can tell you from personal experience, her views on Israel didn't start from day one in the White House. I saw it from day one when she was in the Senate. She came to this role with over a decade of experience working on these issues. I traveled to Israel with her in November of 2017.  This is an issue that she feels deeply in terms of the importance of the US Israel relationship, Israel security, its right to self defense, and she is a staunch supporter of Israel. Have no doubt. I'm glad you started with the Democratic platform as well, because this also elaborates on what is the strongly pro Israel views of our party.  And make no mistake, it's not a coincidence that we have three pages detailing our support of Israel in our platform. It's pages 82-85 for those who would like to look it up. And it is no mistake that the Republican platform is empty platitudes. Two, two bullet points that barely say anything. Because this is an issue of which our party is deeply committed.  And it extends beyond Israel. It includes Israel's security in the Middle East and our platform, which has never been stronger. I testified before the platform committee. I was very happy to say this very strong pro Israel platform of 2020 not only should it not be diluted, it should be strengthened.  Because, of course, we have seen the horror of October 7, we should reflect the fact that we stand with Israel in this moment. We call for the release of the hostages, and of course, we unequivocally condemn Hamas.  All of that is reflected in this platform and more, including recognition of the horrific sexual violence that was perpetrated on that day, which the vice president herself has given voice to. So in terms of questioning how she can navigate this issue, she already has and she continues to stand with Israel.  I have no doubt that when she's elected in 78 days, with the strong support of the Jewish community, that she will continue to do so as President. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Haile. Brad, I'm going to turn to you. The Republican Party platform had no specific references to Iran, but the Democratic platform went on at length about the need both to halt the regime's progress toward nuclear weapons capability and to confront Iran's and its proxies, destabilizing activities across the region. The Democrats document also pointed to instances of the Trump administration's failure to respond to certain Iranian provocations. Unfortunately, the Democratic platform didn't mention the fact that Trump administration was responsible for taking out IRGC Quds Force Chief, General Soleimani.  Now talk about how you imagine a Harris administration confronting the Iranian threats differently from the Biden administration. We have seen over the last three years, Iran has continued to develop its nuclear weapons capability, although it's not yet passed that threshold apparently. Its proxies are on the march across the region. We haven't really been successful in confronting Iran. Do you see a Harris administration taking a different approach?  Brad Schneider   Great question. And before I start, let me just welcome everybody to Chicago, to our great city, and those from Chicago, can you raise your hand? And I'm also going to take the personal indulgence to say it's good to be home with Chicago AJC. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Brad. I should have said that. Brad Schneider   Look, Iran is the greatest threat to Israel, to the region, but also to the United States. Our interests here in the region, but also here at home, and so we need to stand up to Iran and understand Iran is a threat on many different aspects. It's not just their nuclear program. It is their support of the proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and more. It is their efforts to expand their reach, their influence across the region, and they do so not by building up states, but by tearing them down, creating instability across the region.  Their chant is not just Death to Israel, but Death to America. I have no doubt that the Harris-Walz administration will stay focused and understands the importance of first, ensuring that Iran never, ever gets a nuclear weapon. That has to be our number one priority. Because imagine where we would have been on April 13 if Iran had a nuclear weapon. Or this past couple of weeks, if Iran had a nuclear weapon.  The second thing I think you will see is the continuation of the policy. Reflecting on April 13, Iran launched 350 drones, rockets and missiles at Israel. It was Israel, the United States, and a arrangement or alliance of other nations that defeated that attack. That sent a very clear message that we will stand up to Iran, not leaving Israel to stand alone, or the United States and Israel standing without the support of allies, but allies throughout the region.  And just as important, if you look at who those allies are and what they believe in, they are countries, Arab countries, that are looking to the future. They're looking for a different dynamic in the Middle East. You mentioned that the Trump administration took out Soleimani. The Trump administration also laid the groundwork and helped establish the Abraham Accords. That is, I believe, the framework for the future that provides security and peace, not just to Israel, but to the other nations in the region.  And so what I believe the administration, that the Harris-Walz administration will focus on is isolating Iran, ensuring Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. Thwarting Iran's effort to expand its reach through proxies and failed states, but at the same time building up and working towards a path towards peace, security and prosperity for Israel and the region. I think that reflection of forward thinking, it's not just about Israel. It's about everything.  If you were watching last night, if you were there last night [Monday night], if you've been watching this campaign as it's unfolded. Now it'll be one month tomorrow. As it unfolds, what you're seeing is a view towards a different path that gives promise and hope to a better future that is absolutely dependent on the United States. United States leadership and US leadership on a global stage will empower and help us to ensure that Iran doesn't get that foothold on the global stage and doesn't have the ability to continue with threats to Israel in the region.  Jason Isaacson:   Well, let me stay on Iran for a second with you. Do you see a Harris administration try to return to the JCPOA? Brad Schneider  No. Jason Isaacson:   Or has that been totally discredited?  Brad Schneider   One thing you'll see is the Harris administration. I had a long conversation with Ilan Goldberg yesterday, the recognition that we are where we are now, we all would wish we were in a different place. 10 years ago, we were focused on getting to a place to move Iran back from the threshold of a nuclear weapon, and without relitigating the JCPOA, we moved Iran further away, a year away.  Now a year away is not eliminating Iran's capacity or capability to develop a nuclear weapon, but it is buying time. And what we should have done, I will relitigate this. We should have used that time to strengthen our position, our allies’ position to improve our prospects of moving Iran further back. Instead, what happened was the Trump administration pulled out of the JCPOA and Iran marched forward, and where they are today is far closer to a nuclear weapon than they were 10 years ago. Where they are today are talking about days away from having enough nuclear enriched uranium, highly enriched uranium, to build not one, but multiple nuclear weapons. And they just announced that they're working on developing the triggering mechanism, the ability to convert that enriched uranium into a nuclear weapon. So the stakes are higher. The risks are higher. Iran is closer. We've got to start where we are today, and I think the new administration coming in will start at that point and look for ways to push back, to create space, and to use that space to buy time, to use that time to get us to a place where we have more security. But we can only go there if the administration is clear. Congress is clear. It's not a partisan issue. This has to be Democrats and Republicans saying we will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and all options are available to us to ensure that Iran does not achieve their goal. Jason Isaacson:   Brad, thank you. Ambassador Nides. We were talking earlier this morning about the Abraham Accords, and of course, Congressman Schneider just talked about that as well.  How do you see a Harris administration, building on the Abraham Accords, success, building on what the Biden administration has tried to do in normalizing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Will that be a priority for the Harris administration? What would be the obstacles that it will face as it tries to move forward in that direction. Thomas Nides: Well, first of all, thank you for having me. And let me give a little bit of shout out to Ted Deutch. Who is– Ted, you can't leave. I see you walking back there. Because when they decided to recruit Ted Deutsch to leave the Congress to come do this, that was your biggest, happiest day. So thank you very much for your leadership.  Let me just say there were not many things I agreed about with the Trump administration, to be clear. And when my when I was being confirmed as ambassador, one of the very nice members on the Republican side asked me, Sir, it seems to be that the Biden administration won't even talk about the Abraham Accords, and they don't even call them the Abraham Accords, I remember seeing the Senate because I'm a bit of a smart aleck, and I said, Can I explain to you something? I love the Abraham Accords, okay? I love the Abraham Accords.  The Abraham Accords was, in my view, then and is today, a foundational event. And as much as I believe that the Trump administration has done all sorts of other things, the Abraham Accords, in my view, has strengthened the State of Israel. So I congratulate them for doing it and supporting it as we have. So we should all applaud that. And as we think about the future. Because listen, what has happened here. Even after October 7, the Bahrainians, the Moroccans and the Emiratis, they didn't abandon Israel. Quite the opposite. They've stuck with, most all of them kept their ambassadors in Israel. Most of them continue to have long involved conversations with the Prime Minister about the strength of Israel. And in fact, several months ago, when the Iranians were attacking Israel, those same countries were indirectly helping with the United States and with Israel to protect the State of Israel, not directly, but indirectly. A lot of information sharing.  So the foundation for the Abraham Accords should be the foundation for what comes next. And what comes next. Number one, we got to get a hostage deal. For any of you – I'm leaving here to go with the hostage families. I was in Israel a couple weeks and spoke at hostage square. For all of us, for any of us, we should sit and pray to get these hostages out. And for those of you who know some of the families, it breaks my heart. We've got to get a hostage deal. The time is now, okay?  And this President and this Vice President are committed to get these hostages free, so once we can get that deal done, and that means putting pressure on Netanyahu and putting pressure on Hamas. Make no mistake, this idea that this is all about Bibi. Listen, I've got my issues with Bibi on occasions, but it's not only convincing Bibi to do what needs to be done, it also is pressuring Hamas, through the proxies, to get them to do a deal.  Once there is a hostage deal, everything starts coming into place. And what does that mean? Ultimately, would have to have a plan to rebuild Gaza. Because this fight wasn't with the Palestinian people. This fight was with Hamas, and we've got to help rebuild Gaza with a new PA, with a new group of international parties, including the Saudis and Emiratis. That's a $15 or $20 billion operation to build, rebuild Gaza. Yes, we need a new PA leadership, a new what PA leadership looks like in the future. Needs to be talked about and then, and then we need to have a conversation about normalization with Saudi Arabia.  Make no mistake, it is the single most important thing that we can do, including keeping in control of Iran, is getting a normalization with Saudi Arabia. Because it's not just Saudi Arabia, it's the rest of the Muslim world, and it's in our grasp. We can get this done. Now obviously it's a little dreamy. And how do you get the 67 votes? We'll let the geniuses on the Hill, including the congressman, figure that out.  But I do believe there is an opportunity, because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are completely committed to this. I will say one little note. Two years ago, when Joe Biden came for his 10th visit to Israel, I remember meeting him at the airport, and if you recall, it was the same it was middle of covid. It was the same time and where he decided to go to Saudi Arabia. And you remember Joe Biden during the campaign, said some fairly aggressive things about the Saudis during the Khashoggi thing and MBS.  But he was convinced by a lot of people, mostly his national security adviser and his vice president to go to Saudi Arabia. Why? Because it was good for the security of the State of Israel. He fundamentally believed that the Saudi normalization could be and should be the keys for the security of the State of Israel. So we've got to get these hostages out. We get a plan, and we need moving on a side, normalization as quickly as humanly possible. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Yair Zivan, foreign policy advisor to Israel's opposition leader, Yair Lapid, about his new book of essays “The Center Must Hold.” In that book, authors argue for a return to centrist politics as an antidote to the extremism around the globe today.

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

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

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.