People of the Pod

People of the Pod is an award-winning weekly podcast analyzing global affairs through a Jewish lens, brought to you by American Jewish Committee. Host Manya Brachear Pashman examines current events, the people driving them, and what it all means for America, Israel, and the Jewish people.

Zohran Mamdani and the 2025 Elections: What It Means for Jewish Communities 11/06/2025

Zohran Mamdani and the 2025 Elections: What It Means for Jewish Communities From New York to California, the 2025 elections carry important implications for the Jewish community. AJC New York Director Josh Kramer addresses concerns over New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who has questioned Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and accused it of genocide. Kramer highlights fears over rising antisemitism in New York and outlines AJC’s plan to engage the Mayor-elect on combating hate crimes while remaining vigilant against policies that could target Israel. Looking beyond New York, AJC’s Director of National Political Outreach, Rebecca Klein, provides an overview of broader election results, including the victories of Democratic governors in New Jersey and Virginia, as well as the political impact of California’s Proposition 50 on redistricting. She explains what these outcomes could mean for Jewish communities and national advocacy efforts. Key Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: The first election season since last year's presidential elections is behind us, giving New York City a new mayor, New Jersey and Virginia new governors and California a green light to redraw its map of congressional districts. We asked Rebecca Klein, AJC's Director of National Political Outreach, to explain what the 2025 election results mean for the American Jewish community. But first we wanted to hear from Josh Kramer, regional director of AJC New York, about the election of Zohran Mamdani as the 111th mayor of New York City, the largest Jewish community outside the state of Israel. Josh, if you could please tell us why that matters, why it matters that the largest Jewish community outside Israel is in New York City, and why the prospect of Mr. Mamdani at the helm of City Hall is a concern. Josh Kramer: So as you noted, New York has the largest Jewish population in the country and outside of Israel as well. Jews in New York City are scratching their heads today. They're asking themselves, how could it have come to be that a candidate has been elected to the highest office in the land who espouses views that are contrary to so much of the bulk of the mainstream Jewish population in New York City. Views that isolate and demonize and hold Israel to a double standard. This is a challenging day for many in the Jewish community. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you could rewind, for listeners who have not been following the mayoral election in New York City, because it's sometimes hard for us here in the New York metropolitan area to remember we are not the center of the world. People are more concerned with issues in their own backyard. But if you could please just kind of fill those listeners in on why Mr. Mamdani was a concern and how he expressed those views that you just spoke of being contradictory to the mainstream Jewish community. Josh Kramer: Absolutely, but I will take issue with New York not being the center of the Jewish world, of course, as the director for the AJC New York Regional Office. So I'll say that we know a lot about mayor-elect Mamdani's views on Israel from his long track record, from his statements that he's made along the campaign trail, from bills that he had proposed as a member of the state legislature. And mayor-elect Mamdani has espoused strong views in support of the BDS movement to isolate and dismantle Israel. He's called into question the Jewish nature of the world's only Jewish state, and he has had a very difficult time consistently calling out and labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization, condemning their actions of holding hostages and otherwise. So it has been a concern that these issues have been at issue during this election. But of course, we know that this election wasn't about the issues that AJC cares most about. Most people who went to the polls were voting about affordability issues or about bread and butter issues or filling potholes. Some were voting in alignment with their views on Israel. Many in the Jewish community, many who supported the mayor elect were misaligned with the candidates views on Israel. But I think most people were going to the polls based on those affordability issues. Manya Brachear Pashman: You answered my next question, which was, why did he win? And it sounds like you do not believe that it was necessarily a referendum on Israel. Josh Kramer: I think that there's been a lot of writing and a lot of discussion along the campaign trail about these issues. He has been, and other candidates have been asked about their support for the Jewish community and about what they would do to combat the rising tide of antisemitism, which has been a part of the campaign the entire time. But his non-support of the State of Israel has been a major issue in the campaign. It's just not the issue that I think that people were going to the polls and making their decisions based on. I think that there certainly were people who are motivated either by or repulsed by the now mayor-elect's views on Israel, but I don't think that it was their top issue. Manya Brachear Pashman: So you actually penned a letter to the mayor elect after his victory was announced. What did you say in that letter? What did you tell him? Josh Kramer: So AJC will work with this new mayor where we can, and that's one of the two core messages, I think, of the letter. We will work with this mayor on his pledge to quadruple, or octuple, the funding to combat hate crimes in New York City. We want to make sure that that funding is spent wisely and appropriately in the city government. We will work with him on a number of issues where we can align. Modeling, Muslim-Jewish dialog, if that is an area where we can work with the mayor elect. But the second message, and perhaps the more important message, is we will be there to speak out where we need to and understanding that this mayor elect has espoused BDS views for years now, since his days in college, and perhaps before. That we will speak out where we need to, should BDS principles be attempted by the city government as a result of those views. Manya Brachear Pashman: You mentioned the funds that he has pledged for combating hate crimes, and I imagine that will require some input from community organizations, especially Jewish organizations, since the Jewish population is often targeted by hate crimes, do you worry that weighing in as much as you did during campaign season will harm your chances of being able to work with and and negotiate and yeah, work in harmony with this mayor. Josh Kramer: AJC did feel the need to be on record for this election. And in fact, even prior to the election, we felt we needed to be on record given some of the rhetoric we've seen from this candidate. At the same time, we have engaged with representatives of the mayor's team of the now mayor elects team, and we hope to continue that dialog, to hope to continue to work together where we can. I hope that we haven't harmed our chances to provide input to where hate crimes funding should be spent or could be spent. You're right. Hate Crimes against Jews in New York City, they differ from national statistics in that in New York City, we are the victims of the majority of hate crimes, not just the victims of the religiously motivated or just religious, religiously based hate crimes. And that means, on average, Jews in New York City are subject to hate crimes, on average, about once per day throughout the year, at least that was the case in 2024 and so we hope very much to be able to monitor and affect how this funding will be spent and make sure that it's spent appropriately in combating the majority of hate crimes, which comprise the Jewish hate crimes. In fact, there was a hate crime that took place earlier today, one of our on average, one hate crimes per day that we experience against the Jewish community in New York City, and it was a swastika spray painted on a yeshiva in Brooklyn. And just earlier today, mayor elect Mamdani tweeted out, this is a disgusting and heartbreaking act of antiSemitism. It has no place in our beautiful city, and as mayor, he will stand steadfast with our Jewish neighbors to root out the scourge of antiSemitism from our city. So it's an area of interest for us to continue to engage and to see that kind of rhetoric from our leaders is very helpful. So that's, that's what we will continue to look for and also be vigilant at the same time. Manya Brachear Pashman: In fact, do you see that as being an entree into conversations and dialog that perhaps just did not, did not happen during the campaign season, for whatever reason, sometimes campaigns can get a little heated and the rhetoric can get a little fiery to fire up the base. Do you have hope? Are you optimistic that perhaps a more rational dialog will emerge during his tenure, and that perhaps this hate crime conversation will be part of it? Josh Kramer: I do think that that can happen. It can be that strong relationships can be built out of open and very much public dialog, like the letter that was sent out, and it's happened before in New York, we've started very strong relationships with elected leaders in New York City by first starting with very public disagreements. Now that's not our typical way of advocating. Of course, our typical way is diplomatically and behind closed doors, holding very open and frank conversations, but in circumstances like these, perhaps this is the best way to start a conversation. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, Josh, thank you so much for sharing your views on the mayoral election, and now we'll turn to Rebecca Klein to talk about some of the other election results from this week. Rebecca, welcome to People of the Pod. Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein: Thank you for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman: So now that was one major municipal election this week. We also had smaller municipal elections across the country. There was an election in a suburb of Boston where voters voted to divest from Israel. In this Boston suburb, were there other examples of that in elections across the country, and why did this happen? Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein: So, you know, Boston has been sort of a challenge for us for some time now, and we as an organization have been addressing this. And I think this is a movement, the BDS movement, is one that we've been sort of countering for years now, and really had made a lot of progress, and it's coming back up again now you see sort of in the wake of 10/7 and in some of the concerns about the Israeli government. But I see this too as sort of these more symbolic gestures, right? And I think there is a movement out there. The Jewish community is paying attention. We are doing everything we can to counter these measures. I do think they are few and far between, and I think largely again, really, to get their messaging out there. These are sort of messaging points, but please know that we are doing everything we can to sort of quiet that noise, that these are not city issues, and we need to be sort of supportive of the Jewish community, especially now in the wake of rising antisemitism everywhere. Manya Brachear Pashman: So we'll go up from municipal elections and look at some statewide elections, some gubernatorial votes. We had Mikie Sherril win in the state of New Jersey against Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli, and then we also had Abigail Spanberger in Virginia become governor. So two women as the head of states. What does this mean for the Jewish communities in those states and also across the country? Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein: So it's some good news, because I think both these candidates, these governors-elect have been really pro-Israel, pro-support of the Jewish community. Have loudly spoken out and shared their support. Have condemned antisemitism, and have really made it a part of their campaign, a part of their statements. I'll also just note that I think the truth is, is that whoever had won both of these elections, we were going to have a friend in the Jewish community. And this is a really important thing to note, because it sometimes can feel like there's a partisan divide between support for the Jewish community right now on Israel and antisemitism. And I'll say, when I see these races, where I look at it and I say, You know what, whoever wins, regardless of what else is going on in the background, I know that we can have lines in, we can have communication, and I feel we can have trusted partners. I'll also say that the interesting thing about, you know, we go right from the New York mayor's race to these two gubernatorial races, and you see a real shift from, you know, a very far side of the party to really moderate, centrist Democrats, both winning their primaries and now winning these elections, which I think says a lot. It's something I'm going to be looking for absolutely going into these midterms. But I do think it's very loud, and I think it's a counterbalance. For people who are concerned about the extremes of the parties, and I am too as well. Of course, I'm concerned, especially as AJC, as a nonpartisan organization that strives to be bipartisan and bring people together, that we have these now very moderate, reasonable voices leading these two very important states. Manya Brachear Pashman: And in fact, in New Jersey, AJC hosted a candidates forum, and all of the candidates had an opportunity to share their views about combating antisemitism. Correct? Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein: Absolutely, they did, and it really is a testament not to AJC and our influence, but also to the way that these candidates felt that they did need to address our issues, that they wanted to come to our forum in order to really go on the record. They felt that it was important to the population of the state of New Jersey that they had to be on the record for our issues. And absolutely, I think that's an important thing. And I'm glad to see that more and more candidates are taking these positions. They're not shying away from these positions, and they're creating important relationships within the Jewish community. Manya Brachear Pashman: And just speaking of these two candidates, Governor-elect Spanberger And Governor-elect Sherril, were they aware and alarmed by a rise of antisemitism in their states? Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein: Absolutely, and particularly some of the rhetoric so in the primary some of this antisemitism or anti-Israel rhetoric came up. And Abigail Spanberger really spoke to it. I think she spoke to it really nicely. She talked about, you know, it's okay to have differences of opinions, but ultimately, we can never cross the line into antisemitism. Mikie Sherril too really has been supportive of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Both really have addressed it. They understand that in a post 10/7 world, we really can't take these things for granted. And I know that both of these leaders, I think, will be good friends of the Jewish community and will absolutely be on the forefront of combating antisemitism in their states. Manya Brachear Pashman: So I'm going to move over to the west coast and talk about the election in California. I know we have some listeners in California who care about this, about Prop 50, but should people in other states across the nation be looking at California's Prop 50 and thinking about how it might affect them? Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein: Look, I think it's an important conversation. I think it's a difficult conversation, especially for us as we think about what democratic values really mean, when we talk about that as an ideal. Are these major redistricting efforts really the way we want to be thinking about our elections from now on? There are cases to be made on both sides. I think to some degree, if this is going to be the state of the future, you have to level the playing field. I think that's what California's voters said. They said, We need a level playing field. We need those extra five seats. You know, again, my concern is, where are we going to see the ripple effects of this? Now some states are absolutely backing off these redistricting efforts immediately after this election, which I probably think is maybe the better or the safer way to go. Because, again, one of the things to keep in mind is, when you create these new seats, you have to think about who are going to be the people running in these seats, whether we're talking about California or Texas. Are we now inviting people from the more extreme parts of the party to be running for these offices, and are we going to like what we get when those people win? Manya Brachear Pashman: Could you go back and explain to listeners what prop 50 is? Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein: Absolutely. So basically, prop 50 was on the ballot and California voters got to vote for it yesterday in the election. Basically it allows California to now create a new map, and it'll be with five seats that likely, I should say, will heavily favor Democrats. It will change the map of California pretty drastically in the upcoming midterm elections. Manya Brachear Pashman: And it's similar to the redistricting that happened in Texas, for example, although it wasn't as drastic a change, correct? I believe that's true, yes, but other states are redistricting as well, or at least discussing redrawing their maps. Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein: Yeah, other states are now talking about it. But like I said, I'm seeing some early sort of signs from some of these states that they may be backing off of that conversation. Again, you don't really know how it's going to play out when you do these efforts. I'll also say that it seems like the campaign to run this prop 50, it seemed a little disorganized all around and so again, if you're going to do this sort of thing, you really want to know that you're going to win it, because it can have really detrimental effects from cycle to cycle, election to election. So we'll sort of see, when we look at them, at these elections, these off-year elections, they’re signals. They're signals to the major parties, they're signals to state parties, they're signals to voters. And so I think everyone's sort of now doing the analysis in just the hours after this election to see, okay, what does it mean? You know, should we be pivoting our messaging? Are we pivoting the way that we're doing things? And I think we're going to see some shuffling. And you can, again, you can already sort of see it. You'll hear it in some commentary. You'll see it on Twitter. People are a little bit, there are nerves out there. There's a lot of spin. Every party is going to sort of present their case here. But again, I think there's a lot to learn from what happened yesterday, and we're going to see these effects in the days ahead, in the weeks ahead, and absolutely in the months ahead. Manya Brachear Pashman: So where else should we be talking about? We mentioned Virginia, we mentioned New York and New Jersey and California. Were there any other elections of note? Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein: Yeah, there were some local Supreme Court races in Pennsylvania that went democratic, that could have gone either way. There was something in Maine, an absentee ballot measure that was a Republican-led measure that was voted down, and many viewed that as a way to sort of bring voter participation... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/38941615

Amid Blame and Shame, Reclaiming Jewish Identity with Sarah Hurwitz 10/30/2025

Amid Blame and Shame, Reclaiming Jewish Identity with Sarah Hurwitz “To me, that ark is: engaging deeply with our traditions. It's reclaiming some of what we lost when we were assimilating and trying to fit in. We have thousands of years of text that have such wisdom about the human condition, about how to be a good person, and lead a worthy life . . . What we can really do is, we can be Jews. And to be a Jew has always been to be different.” Sarah Hurwitz—former White House speechwriter and New York Times bestselling author of Here All Along—returns to People of the Pod to discuss her new book, As a Jew: Reclaiming Our Story from Those Who Blame, Shame, and Try to Erase Us. Hurwitz reflects on why antisemitism remains, in her words, “the least mysterious phenomenon,” and how Jews can reclaim pride, wisdom, and purpose through Jewish text, practice, and community. Drawing from her work as a hospital chaplain and her conversations with Jewish students on campus, she makes a powerful case for reconnecting with the depth and resilience of Jewish tradition. Key Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: During the Obama administration, Sarah Hurwitz served as senior speech writer for President Barack Obama and chief speech writer for First Lady Michelle Obama. But after she left the White House, she did a little bit of soul searching, and in her mid 30s, reconnected with her Judaism. She wrote about it in a book titled Here All Along, and joined us at the time to talk about it. Sarah has returned with us this week to talk about the book that followed, titled As a Jew: Reclaiming Our Story from Those Who Blame, Shame, and Try to Erase Us. Sarah, welcome back to People of the Pod. Sarah Hurwitz: Thank you so much. I'm thrilled to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman: So your title has a very powerful accusation. So tell us who is blaming, shaming and trying to erase us? Sarah Hurwitz: Yeah. So, you know, it's funny. My first book, as you know, was this love letter toJudaism. This, this journey of discovery of Jewish tradition, and I loved it so much, and I wanted to share it. You know, as I was writing it, I was thinking, Oh, where has this been all my life. Kind of a lovely, almost rhetorical question. But after it came out, a few things kind of happened that made me actually ask that question more seriously. Like, Wait, why did I not see any of the 4000 years of Jewish wisdom growing up? The first thing was, I trained to be a volunteer hospital chaplain, and you know, chaplaincy is multifaith, open to chaplains of all backgrounds. But you know, the training was kind of weirdly Christian. You know, we would talk about our ministry and our theology. And I was told that prayer is God, please heal so and so who's right here in front of me, and I'm just making this prayer up spontaneously, and they can hear me, and that's prayer. And everyone prays that way, I was told. I said, You know that that's not really a common form of Jewish prayer. But I was told, No, no, as long as you don't say Jesus, it is universal. That's interesting. And then something else that happened is I visited a college campus probably a year before October 7, and I was talking to students there at the Hillel, talking to a bunch of Jewish students. And one of them asked me, What did you do to respond to antisemitism when you were in college? And I was so stunned, I didn't even understand the question at first. And then I said, I didn't, not once, never. Not a single time did I deal with antisemitism. And the kids just looked kind of shocked, like they didn't believe me. And they started sharing stories of the antisemitism they were facing on campus. And I thought, uh oh, something's going on here. And then I really began kind of taking a deep dive into my identity. Of like, wait, so why did I spend my whole life being like, oh, I'm just a cultural Jew. I knew nothing about Jewish culture. Which is a beautiful way to be Jewish, being a cultural Jew, but I knew nothing about history, language, anything like that. When I said I'm an ethnic Jew, but Jews are of every ethnicity, so that's nonsense. Or I'd say social justice is my Judaism, but I didn't know anything about what Judaism said about social justice. Unlike these wonderful Jews who do know about social justice and spend their lives acting out Jewish social justice. And so I took a deep dive into history, and what I discovered was 2000 years of antisemitism and anti-Judaism and 200 years of Jews in Western Europe in a very understandable attempt to escape that persecution, kind of erasing many of our traditions. And I think that was kind of my answer to, where has this been all my life? And also my answer to, why did I have such an apologetic Jewish identity for so much of my life? Manya Brachear Pashman: In my introduction, I left off half the title of your first book because it was very long, but I am curious, kind of, when did you realize . . . well, let me give the full title of your book, it's Here All Along: Finding Meaning, Spirituality, and a Deeper Connection to Life--in Judaism (After Finally Choosing to Look There). So I guess, how was that delayed connection to Judaism, can you elaborate a little bit more about how it was tied to these forces that you just talked about? Sarah Hurwitz: Yeah, so, you know, something that I didn't really fully understand, I had intimations of this, but didn't really understand this, is that, you know, 2000 years ago, early Christianity very much defined itself against Judaism. There was actually a name for this, the Aversos Judeos tradition, which means against the Jews in Latin. And you know, early Church Fathers very much were defining Christianity against Judaism, because back then, both of these traditions had originated from Judaism. And you know they parted ways at some point, and the Church Fathers were really trying to distinguish Christianity from Judaism, and to get people to stop kind of practicing both traditions. This tradition really continues with Judaism defined as unspiritual, legalistic, depraved, dead, spiritually superseded. A lot of very, very ugly tropes that kind of have common themes that say that Jews are diabolically powerful, so supernaturally powerful, you can't even believe it. They are also profoundly depraved, evil, bloodthirsty, perverse, and they're in a conspiracy to hurt you. So there may be very few of them, but man, they are working together to really do harm. And you see these three themes kind of making their way through history, unfortunately, all the way basically, until the Holocaust. And I based a lot of my writing on the work of a number of really distinguished Christian scholars who make this argument. It's actually a pretty common argument among Christian scholars. And, you know, in recent decades, the church has very much disavowed its historic anti-Judaism and has worked very hard to, you know, fight antisemitism in the church. But, you know, these things really did kind of continue on through the 20th century. Manya Brachear Pashman: So you do describe in your book moments when you got oddly defensive about your Judaism, or perhaps a bit revisionist about Jewish history and the origin of Jewish traditions, or the reason why they exist now in modern day. Can you elaborate on some of those moments for our listeners and explain how you've self-corrected thatdefense? Sarah Hurwitz: You know, I think a lot of it took the form of, oh, I'm Jewish, but not that Jewish. It was just sort of this immediate, but I'm not one of those Jews. You know, those really Jewish Jews. Well, I'm sorry, would it be a problem if I were? What if social justice wasn't my Judaism, but Judaism was my Judaism? Would that be okay? You know, just beginning to notice, like, Why am I always kind of pushing it away, claiming that I'm not too Jewish? That's a very strange way to announce someone's identity. I think, you know, Dara Horn has actually a really, quite an amazing essay called The Cool Kids, and she talks about these two different types of antisemitism. And one is this kind of eliminationist antisemitism which says the Jews are bad, there's nothing they can do to be good. We must kill them. And you know, that is the Holocaust, pogroms. We learn about that kind of antisemitism in school. But there's another kind of antisemitism, which is conversionist, which says, yes, the Jews are bad, but there is something they can do to be okay and saved. And that is, they can disavow whatever we, the majority, find disgusting about Jewish civilization. So you know, back in the day, it was, reject Jewish religion and convert to Christianity, and you'll be saved, maybe. For some amount of time, possibly. In my parents and grandparents generation, it was, you know, reject your last name, get a nose job. Stop being so “Jewy”, be a little bit more “waspy,” and then maybe we'll let you into our club. Then maybe we'll accept you. And today, what you see is you have to reject your ancestral homeland, you know, reject Israel, and then you'll be okay. And, you know, I visited 27 college campuses, and I kind of saw how this sometimes takes on the format of almost like a Christian conversion narrative, where it goes something like, you know, growing up, my rabbi and my parents told me Israel was perfect and amazing and a utopia. And then I got to college, and I realized that actually it's a colonialist, Nazi, racist society, and I had an epiphany. I saw the light, and I took anti-Zionism and anti-colonialism into my heart, and now I'm saved. Now I'm a good Jew. And their classmates are like, now you're a good Jew. And as Dara Horn puts it, this kind of antisemitism involves the weaponization of shame. It involves really trying to convince Jews that there is something fundamentally shameful about some aspect of themselves, their identity, their tradition. And today, that thing is Israel. This idea that there's something fundamentally . . . it’s like the original sin of the world. Manya Brachear Pashman: And you also talk about the tradition of circumcision, and how that came up, and you found yourself explaining this to someone. Can you elaborate on that for our listeners? Which I thought was really interesting. Sarah Hurwitz: This was during an encounter with a patient. I was doing a chaplaincy shift, and usually I don't tell my patients my religious background, I'm very neutral, unless they're Jewish, in which case, I do tell them I'm Jewish. But, you know, I was finishing up a conversation with this very lovely lady. And she was very curious about my background. And so I told her, you know, I'm Jewish. And her eyes kind of lit up, and she said, Oh, you know, many of my neighbors are Jewish. I've actually been to two brisses in the past month. And she just, you know, and she was so lovely, like, she actually seemed to be just really happy to be included in this tradition of her neighbors. And I got weirdly defensive, and was like, Oh, well, you know, just so, you know, medical professionals, they say whether you circumcise or don't circumcise, it's really, it's equally safe either way. And you know, we often, you know, when we do brisses, they're often done by a medical provider. And I'm going on and on and like, this woman did not say the slightest negative thing about this tradition, but suddenly I am defensive. Suddenly it's like, Huh, interesting. You know, I think that it was an illustration to me of the way that we can sometimes really imbibe all of the kind of negative views about Jews and Jewish traditions that are around us, and become defensive, and sometimes we don't even realize that they're there. It's almost like they're the air that we breathe. Manya Brachear Pashman: But let me challenge that and push back a little bit. I mean, is it okay to not agree with some of the traditions of the Jewish faith and be open about your disagreement with that? I certainly know a lot of Christians who don't like things that emerge from their tradition or from their community. Is that okay? Or is it not when Judaism is threatened? Sarah Hurwitz: So I actually do think that's okay. You know, I have no problem with that, but I think the problem in this situation was that I have no problem with circumcision, but I'm suddenly getting defensive and trying to convince this woman that it's not weird. And I'm thinking, why am I doing this? It was very interesting to me that I felt so suddenly defensive and anxious. You know, it was very surprising to me. Manya Brachear Pashman: And similarly, it's okay to criticize Israeli policy too, right? I mean, it's totally acceptable. Sarah Hurwitz: Absolutely. This is the thing that I'm so confused about. Where people are saying, well, you know, you're saying that it's not okay to criticize Israel. And I'm like, I'm sorry. Have you been to Israel? It's like the national pastime there to criticize the government. I criticize the Israeli government all the time, as do millions of American Jews. This idea that this is somehow… that we're somehow reacting to criticism of Israel, that's ridiculous. I think what we're reacting to is not criticism of Israel, but it's something else. You know, when you have students on a college campus saying from water to water, Palestine should be Arab, or Israelis are Nazis. I just, with all due respect, I don't see that as criticism. Nor would I see it as criticism if, God forbid, a Jewish student ever said from water to water, Israel should be Jewish, or, Palestinians are terrorists. That is hateful, disgusting, racist, eliminationist language. And if I ever heard a Jewish student say that, I mean, let me tell you, I would have quite a talking to with that kid. So that's not criticism. Criticism is, I am vehemently opposed and abhor, this policy, this ideology, this action, for these reasons. That's criticism. And I think you can use real strong language to do that kind of criticism. But there's a difference between a criticism and slurs and baseless accusations. And I think we need to be just clear about that. Manya Brachear Pashman: All right, so you just use the term from water to water instead of from river to sea. Was that on purpose? Sarah Hurwitz: Not necessarily. It's just a clearer illustration of what I think from the river to the sea really means, you know, I think that is the Arabic that is used. Infrom the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free. It's like, you can kind of make an argument that this is about Palestinian Liberation. And okay, fair enough. But I think when you get the from water to water, it shall be Arab, that's when I think there's less of an argument that it's about freedom, and it seems a little bit more eliminationist to me. Manya Brachear Pashman: Interesting. I've not heard that before. But I like that. So you call antisemitism the least mysterious phenomenon. Can you please explain what you mean by that? Sarah Hurwitz: Yeah, you know, I think, like a lot of young people, my antisemitism education was mainly just Holocaust education. And I kind of walked away thinking like, huh, how wild that the civilized world just lost its mind in the mid-20th century and started killing Jews. That's so shocking and disturbing, you know, why is that? And the answer was kind of like, well, you know, the Germans lost World War I. They blamed the Jews. There was a depression. They blamed the Jews. And when you ask why the Jews, it's like, well, because of prejudice and scapegoating. I'm like, Okay, right. But again, why the Jews? Prejudice and scapegoating, that's the answer. It's like, well, actually, the answer really is because of 2000 years of Christian anti-Judaism that preceded that. It wasn't mysterious why the Jews were targeted. This was a 2000-year neural groove that had been worn into the Western world psyche. And this is not my argument. This is the argument of countless Christian scholars whose brilliant work I cite. And so I think that the unfortunate thing about some forms of Holocaust education is that it leaves you with the impression that, oh, this is so mysterious, it’s just kind of eternal and kind of comes out of nowhere. Or even worse, you might even think maybe we did something to deserve this. But it's not mysterious. I can show you its path through history. And I think it's very important that Jews understand this history. And look, I think this is very hard to teach in an average American public school. Because, you know, we live in a country where, you know, saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas is very upsetting for some people. They feel very threatened and triggered by that. So for a teacher to say, like, Okay, kids today we're going to learn about how 2000 years of Christian anti-Judaism paved the way for the Holocaust . . . I don't think that's going to go well. Even if many mainstream Christian scholars would agree that that's true, this is a challenge that we face. Manya Brachear Pashman: So you have continued, as you said, to visit college campuses where antisemitism has been an issue since October 7, more of an issue than it even was beforehand. And yet, when you were at Harvard and Harvard Law, you've said you could have walked through Harvard Yard wrapped in an Israeli flag and no one would have said a word or reacted negatively. So what has changed, and does it signal a more general shift on campuses of kind of uncensored, unbridled speech? In other words, if black students support black lives matter, or gay students are marching for pride, do you feel like there's a sense that students who disagree with that from either the right or the left, have kind of claimed a license to criticize that too? Sarah Hurwitz: No. I try to explain to college students when they say, Well, okay, my campus isn't that bad, you know, I can wear my Jewish star, and I won't get, you know, harassed or ostracized. And I say, like, okay, great, if it's not that bad, I'll just wear my Israel t-shirt and we'll see how it goes. They're like, No. And then I have to go through this long litany of like, okay, if your black classmate said to you, well, this campus isn't so bad for black students, but I can't wear my Black Lives Matter t-shirt or else I'll be harassed and ostracized. I hope you would say that's not okay, that's racism, pretty clear. Or if your queer classmate said, Well, this campus is pretty good for queer people, but I can't wear my pride t-shirt, I hope you would say, That's not pretty good. That's homophobia. You know, when the majority feels entitled to decide how the minority can embody and express their identity, I think we have a really serious problem. And sometimes the kids will push back on me. Well, no, no, but the problem isn't being Jewish. It's Israel. I'm like, okay, but if your Chinese American classmate wore a t-shirt that said China, even if all your classmates knew that the Chinese government had been interning a million Muslim Uighurs in camps and subjecting them to horrific human rights violations, would they harass and ostracize her? And they're like, Well, probably not. Right, because they would assume that she has a relationship to China that maybe involves having heritage there, or maybe she... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/38851515

How the War with Hamas Has Impacted the Israeli Economy 10/23/2025

How the War with Hamas Has Impacted the Israeli Economy How did the Israeli economy react to the war against Hamas? Hear from a major player on the ground – Dr. Eugene Kandel, former economic adviser and Chairman of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, discusses Israel's financial resilience after the war against Hamas. Having made aliyah from the Soviet Union in 1977 with his family, Dr. Kandel covers the stock market rebound, missed economic opportunities with Jordan and Egypt, and the success of the Abraham Accords. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Take Action: Key Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: Professor Eugene Kandel served as economic adviser to the Prime Minister of Israel from 2009 to 2015, and with Ron Sor is a co-founder of Israel's Strategic Futures Institute. He is also chairman of the Tel Aviv stock exchange, the only public stock exchange in Israel, known locally as the Bursa. He is with us now to talk about the impact of Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza on Israel's economy, the potential and impact so far of the Abraham Accords, and how history could one day view October 7 as a turning point for Israel's democracy. Dr. Kandel, welcome to People of the Pod. Eugene Kandel: Thank you. Thank you for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman: Before we begin, your family came to Israel in 1977. Can you share your family's Aliyah story? Eugene Kandel: Yeah, when I was 14, my family was living very comfortably in the Soviet Union. My father was a quite known writer, playwright, a script writer. And around him was a group of Jewish people of culture that were quite known in their domains, mostly Jewish. And so at some point in 67 he sort of had this vision and started studying Hebrew. But 1970 and then by ‘73 when I was 14 years old, he came to me and said, Look, your mom and I decided to immigrate to Israel. What do you think about it, and I said, I don't know what I think about it. Okay, you know, if we want to immigrate, let's immigrate. I never felt too much belonging there. So unfortunately, Soviet authorities had other ideas about that. So we spent four years as refuseniks. My father, together with Benjamin Fine, were the editors of the underground publication called Tarbut. And for people who did not live there, they put their names on it. So this was, these were typewritten copies of Jewish culture monthly. And there were two names on it. You could go to jail for this. My father was always pretty brave man for his petite size, because during the Second World War, he was very, very hungry, to say the least. So he didn't really grow very much. But he's very big inside. And so the following four years were pretty tough on them, because he couldn't work anywhere. Just like in McCarty years in this country, people would give work to their friends and then publish it under their own name. That's what he did for his friends, and they would share the money with him, or give him most of the money. There were very, very brave people. And then, you know, there was an incident where they wanted to send a message to my father to be a little less publicly outspoken. And so two KGB agents beat me up. And that started a whole interesting set of events, because there was an organization in Chicago called Chicago Action for Soviet Jewry. Pamela Cohen. And I actually met Pamela when I was studying at the University of Chicago. And thanked her. So they took upon themselves to harass Soviet cinema and theater and culture officials. And so they were so successful that at some point, the writers league from Hollywood said that nobody will go to Moscow Film Festival unless they release us because they do not want to associate with people who beat up children. I wasn't a child, I was 17 years old, but still. And that sort of helped. At least, that's how we think about it. So it's worthwhile being beaten up once in a while, because if it lets you out, I would take it another time. And then we came to Israel in a very interesting time. We came to Israel four hours after Anwar Sadat left. So we came to a different Israel. On the brink of a peace agreement with Egypt. And so that was it. We came to Mevaseret Zion, which was an absorption center. A small absorption center. Today I actually live probably 500 yards from where we stayed. Sort of full circle. And today, it's a significant, it's about 25,000 people town. And that's the story, you know, in the middle, in between then and now, I served in the military, did two degrees at Hebrew University, did two degrees at the University of Chicago, served as professor at the University of Rochester, and then for 28 years, served as professor of economics and finance at the Hebrew University. So I keep doing these circles to places where I started. Manya Brachear Pashman: You say you arrived four hours after Sadat's visit to Israel on the brink of a peace agreement with Egypt. Did that peace agreement live up to expectations? Eugene Kandel: Well, it depends what are your expectations. If your expectation will continue in the war, it definitely did, because, you know, for the last, you know, whatever, 48 years, we didn't have any military activity between Israel and Egypt. And we even have security collaboration to some extent. But if you're thinking about real peace, that would translate into people to people peace, business to business peace, it did not generate that at all. Because there was a very, very strong opposition on the street level and on the intellectuals level. It actually started to break a little bit, because today you can find analysts on Egyptian television that are saying that we are, we are stupid because we don't collaborate with Israel. It is allowed today, It's allowed to be said in, you know, 20-30, years [ago], that person would have been ostracized and would never be allowed to speak. So there is some progress, but unfortunately, it's a huge loss for the Egyptian economy. For Israeli economy, it is probably also a loss, but Israeli economy has a lot of alternatives in other countries. But Egyptians don't seem to be able to implement all the things that Israelis implemented a long time ago. You know, whether it's water technologies, whether it's energy technologies. Lots of lots of stuff, and it's really, really unfortunate that we could have helped Egyptian people, the same people who rejected any relations with us. And that’s a pity. Manya Brachear Pashman: The next peace agreement that came was with Jordan in 1994, quite some time later. Did that peace agreement live up to expectations, and where were you in 1994? Eugene Kandel: 1994, I was a professor at the University of Rochester, so I wasn't involved at all. But again, it was a very, very similar story. It was the peace that was sort of forced from above. It was clearly imposed on the people despite their objections, and you saw demonstrations, and you still see. But it was clear to the leadership of Jordan that Israel is, in their case, is absolutely essential for the survival of the Hashemite Dynasty. In the end the Israeli intelligence saved that dynasty, many, many times. But again, it wasn't translated into anything economic, almost anything economic, until in the early 2000s there were some plants in Jordan by Israeli businessmen that were providing jobs, etc. But I was privileged to be the first to go to Jordan together with American officials and negotiate the beginning of the gas agreement. We were selling gas to Jordan, because Jordan was basically going bankrupt because of the high energy costs. Jordan doesn't have its own energy, apart from oil shale. Sorry, shale oil. And for some reason they weren't able to develop that. But Israeli gas that we are selling to them as a result of what we started in 2012 I believe. Actually very important for the Jordanian economy. And if we can continue that, then maybe connect our electrical grid, which is now in the works, between the water-energy system. And now maybe there is a possibility to connect the Syrian grid. If we have an agreement with Syria, it will help tremendously these countries to get economic development much faster. And it will help Israel as well, to balance its energy needs and to maybe get energy, provide energy, you know, get electricity, provide gas. You know, there's all these things where we can do a lot of things together. If there is a will on the other side. There's definitely will on the Israeli side. Manya Brachear Pashman: In addition to gas, there’s also water desalination agreements, as well, right? Eugene Kandel: Yeah, there was a Red to Dead project, which was to pump the water all the way from the Red Sea along the Arava Valley. And then there is a 400 meter, 500 meter drop. And so to generate electricity through that desalinate that water that you pump, and then send that water to Egypt, send the electricity that was generated and not needed to Israel and then dump this salt stuff into the Dead Sea. Frankly, I don't know where this project is. Nobody talks about it for the last seven, eight years. I haven't heard. Now there are different projects where you would get energy generated in Jordan and sold to Israel in Eilat, for example, because it's difficult for us to bring electricity all the way South. And so if the Jordanians have large fields of photovoltaic energy they can sell, they can satisfy the needs of a lot, and then in return, we can desalinate water and send it to them. So there's all kinds of projects that are being discussed. Manya Brachear Pashman: But Israel does provide water to Jordan, correct? Eugene Kandel: There are two agreements. One agreement, according to our peace agreement, we are supposed to provide them with a certain amount of water. I don’t remember the exact amount. But that's not enough, and so we also sell them water. So think about it. There is a sweet water reservoir called Tiberius, Kinneret, in the north, and we sending water from there into two directions according to the agreement. We're sending it to Amman, pumping it up to the mountains, and then we're sending it throughout the Jordan Valley, all the way along the Jordan River, to the Jordanian side. So it's quite striking when I used to go between Jerusalem and Amman, it's actually an hour and a half drive. That's it. You go down, you go up, and you're there. And so when you're passing the Israeli side, you see the plantations of date palms that are irrigated with drip irrigation. So very, very economically, using the brackish salt water that is pumped out of the ground there. You cross two miles further, you see banana plantations that are flood irrigated at 50-centigrade weather, and the water that comes from them comes on an open canal. So basically, 50% of the water that we send this way evaporates. Growing bananas in that climate and using so much water, it's probably, if you take into account the true cost of water, it's probably money losing proposition, but they're getting the water. The people that are the settlements on that Bank of Jordan River, are getting it for free. They don't care. And if somebody would just internalize that, and instead of sending the water down in an open canal, would send the whole water up to Amman, where there is a shortage of water, enormous shortage of water. And then you would take the gravity and use that water to generate electricity, to clean that water, the sewage, clean it and drip irrigate plantations, everybody would make enormous amounts of money. Literally enormous amounts of money. And everybody's lives would be better, okay? And I'm not talking about Israelis. It's within Jordan. And you can't say that there's no technology for that, because the technology is two miles away. You can see it. And it just puzzles me. Why wouldn't that be done by some entrepreneurs, Jordanian entrepreneurs. We could really help with that. We could even help by buying the water from them back. The water that we give them, we can buy it back. Because in Israel, the water is very expensive. So we could finance that whole thing just by sending the water back, but that would be probably politically unacceptable, I don't know. But it's really, really . . . for an economist, it's just a sad story. Manya Brachear Pashman: Missed opportunities. Well, let's go back. I introduced you as the chair of the Tel Aviv stock exchange, the Bursa. And I am curious. Let's talk about the economy. Does Israel treat its stock market the same way we do? In other words, are there opening and closing bells at the beginning and end of every day? How does the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange work compared to the United States? Eugene Kandel: Well, we do have the opening bell, but it's usually reserved for some events. We don't have the events every day. Usually, if there's a new listing, or there's somebody celebrating, like, 20 years of listing, we have all kinds. Recently, we had Mr. Bill Ackman came and gave a speech and opened the trading together with us. There are events around Jeffries Conference. But it's much more, you know, ceremony, I mean, it's not really connected to anything. Trading starts whether you press the button or don't. But Israeli stock exchange is unique in the following sense: it is an open limit book. What means that there is, you know, buyers meet sellers directly, and it works like that, not only in stocks, which is similar to what it is everywhere, but it's also in bonds, government bonds, corporate bonds, and in derivatives. So in that sense, we do have our ceremonies, but the interesting thing is, what is happening with the exchange in the last two years. Accidentally, I joined two years ago as the chairman, and over the last two years, the stock exchange, the indices of Israeli Stock Exchange were the best performing out of all developed countries, by far. Manya Brachear Pashman: Did that have something to do with the war? Eugene Kandel: Well, it should have been, you know, in the opposite direction, but, the war is, not this length of war, not this intensity of war . . . but if you look back over at least 25 years, the Israeli economy responds very robustly to military conflict. Usually they're much shorter. If you look at even quarterly returns of the stock exchange, you would not know that there was a war in the middle, definitely not annual. If you look over the last 25 years, and you look at this stock, annual returns of the indices, you would not know that there was anything wrong, apart from our 2003 crisis, and Corona. Even the great financial crisis, you would not see it. I mean it was basically past us, because we didn't have a financial crisis in Israel. We had repercussions from, you know, the rest of the world’s financial crisis, but we didn't get our own. And so we do have resilience built in, because we're just so used to it. However, having said that, it's the first time that we have such a long and intensive war on seven, whatever fronts. So it is quite surprising that just like any other time, it took about three months for the stock market to rebound after October 8. It was a big question whether to open the market on October 8. We struggled with it, and we decided that we do not want to give anybody the right to disrupt the Israeli economy. I mean, it was a really tough decision, because there was certain people were saying, Well, how can you do that? It's a national tragedy. And of course, it was a national tragedy. But closing the market would have meant two things. First of all, it would have shown the world that our economy can be interrupted. It would have given the benefit to those people that did these atrocities, that they managed to do more damage than they already did. And we didn't want to do that. And it didn't collapse. It went down, of course, but it rebounded within less than three months. By the end of that year, it was back on the same level. And then it did this comeback, which was quite phenomenal. And it's an interesting question, how come? Because during that time, we had some cases where Israel was boycotted by investors, very few, by the way, but we also saw many, many new investors coming in. You could look at the war from the negative side. Of course, huge costs. But with all that, it was about 10% of annual GDP, because we are, you know, we're a big economy, and we borrowed that very easily because we had a very strong macro position before that. So we now 76% debt to GDP ratio. It's much lower than majority of developed countries. But we still had to borrow that. It was a lot of money, and then the defense budget is going to go up. So there is this cost. But vis a vis that, A, Israeli technology has been proven to be unmatched, apart from maybe us technology in certain cases, but in some cases, even there, we have something to share. And so we have huge amounts of back orders for our defense industries. During the war, and they were going up when some of the countries that are making these purchases were criticizing us. They were learning from what we did, and buying, buying our equipment and software, etc. And the second thing, we removed the huge security threat. If you look before October 7, we were quite concerned about 150,000 missiles, some of them precise missiles in Hezbollah's hands, an uninterrupted path from Iran through Syria to Hezbollah, constantly replenishing. We would bomb them sometimes in Syria, but we didn't catch all of them. We had Hamas, we had Hezbollah, we had Syrians, we had Iranians. We had, you know, not, you know, Iraqi militia. So, Hezbollah doesn't exist. Well, it exists, but it's nowhere near where it where was at. And the Lebanese Government is seriously attempting to disarm it. Syria, we all know what happened in Syria. We didn't lift a finger to do that. But indirectly, from what happened in Hezbollah, the rebels in Syria became emboldened and did what they did. We know what happened with Hamas. We know what happened with Iran. Okay, Iran, even Europeans reimposed the sanctions. So that's the side effect. So if you look at the Israeli geopolitical and security situation, it's much, much better. And in that situation, once the war is over and the hostages are returned, and hopefully, we will not let this happen again, ever, to work hard so we remember that and not become complacent. It's an enormous, enormous boost to Israeli economy, because this security premium was quite big. So that is on the positive side, and if we play smart, and we play strategically, and we regain sort of good relations with some of the countries which are currently very critical of us, and somehow make them immune to this anti Israeli antisemitism propaganda, we can really get going. Manya Brachear Pashman: You mentioned investors. There were more investors after the war. Where were those investors coming from, internally or from other countries? Eugene Kandel: It's interesting that you asked this question, because in 2020, early 2024 a lot of Israeli institutions and individuals moved to S&P 500, and they got really hammered. Twice. Because A, S&P 500 was lagging behind the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. So there was some other players coming in, because otherwise, when you move money, usually, you should see a drop, but you saw an increase. That meant that... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/38762995

Inside the Advocacy Effort to Bring the Hostages Home 10/10/2025

Inside the Advocacy Effort to Bring the Hostages Home "Since before he was President, he [Trump] has made it clear that this is a priority, and he has instructed his team to work on this issue day in and day out . . . ” More than two years after the October 7 massacre, Hamas has agreed to return the 48 hostages still in Gaza under the U.S.-brokered peace deal. Jessica Bernton, AJC’s Director of Congressional Affairs, shares details of AJC’s joint advocacy with the hostage families of returned hostages—how personal stories, bipartisan meetings with Congress and the White House, and coordinated delegations kept the issue at the forefront. She reflects on the emotional weight of this work, its impact on the U.S. administration, and the ongoing need to press policymakers to ensure that all hostages are safely returned. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Take Action: Key Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: More than two years after the October 7 massacre, the Hamas terror group has reportedly agreed at long last, to return the 48 hostages that remain in Gaza. With us now is Jessica Bernton, AJC's director of Congressional Affairs, who has been working with the families of hostages since day one to bring them all home. Jessica, welcome to People of the Pod. Jessica Bernton: Thanks so much, Manya, it's a pleasure to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman: So you must be so relieved. I know you've been so immersed in all of this. When can we celebrate though? Is now too soon? Jessica Bernton: Oh, what a great question. I would say, I have this cautious optimism at the moment. There have been many ups and downs. There have been starts and stops throughout these long months and now two years, but this one does feel different. I would say, you know, this is the most progress we've seen since the spring, and we have to continue to have hope. We also cannot afford to let up the pressure until every single hostage is returned home. And so I would say we cannot exhale until everyone is returned. And once everybody is walking across the border, or the deceased are returned home for burial, that is when we can truly celebrate. Once every single person is returned. Manya Brachear Pashman: You said it feels different? How? How does it feel different? Jessica Bernton: You know, there's been a lot of pressure exerted in recent weeks. I'd say the US administration has stepped up their efforts as well, working with other countries, including partners across the world here. And a deal was signed. And so I think a lot can happen, though, between this announcement and actually, again, when hostages are returned, or when the first phase begins, and both sides need to continue to adhere to each side of the agreement. But this really is the most progress that there has been in some time. Manya Brachear Pashman: As I said in the introduction, you've been working since day one, bringing delegations to Washington to meet with members of Congress, meet with White House staff, including both President Biden and President Trump. What has happened most recently that might have made a difference here? Jessica Bernton: I think the most important thing here is that the families as well as the returned hostages, because we've been so far down in this process that we were advocating for the release of certain hostages, and now those individuals have come to DC and have been traveling across the world to make sure that their voice is heard. And they're speaking up for those that they were held in captivity with, who don't have a voice at the moment. And so it's been really incredible and emotional to have advocated, let's say, for somebody like the return of Keith Siegel or Doron Steinbrecher. And now we have joined them in going to the Hill, into these meetings, advocating for the return of every single hostage, and that's been really incredible. But I think the most important thing here is that these conversations have continued. And keeping this issue at the forefront of everybody's minds. The American public, government officials, foreign officials, community leaders, ensuring that the hostages have not been forgotten has been our top priority here, and ensuring that this remains a foreign policy priority for the US government in particular. And clearly it has paid off, because these hostages have been able to continue to tell their story, and we are where we are today, and hopefully this progress will continue. But it's been really incredible to see this, especially in the past couple months, as those who have been returned or released have now come to Washington, DC as well and are able to do this type of advocacy. Manya Brachear Pashman: You mentioned Keith Siegel, one of the American-Israeli hostages, who was released earlier this year. They've been able to talk about their experiences, former hostages have been able to talk about their experiences in captivity and share that with President Trump in a way that their loved ones who were advocating for their release could not. What have they revealed about their experience that their loved ones could not possibly have known? Jessica Bernton: You know, I think it's one thing to read articles or, you know, hear about what happened to them, and then it's another thing to hear it firsthand. And I think hearing about the brutality and the heartbreak and everything that they suffered, as well as what they've shared publicly about who they were held with and the information that they've been able to also offer to families and hope that they've been able to give to the families who don't know the status of their loved one. Again, it's one thing to read an article and it's another to be sitting in a room listening to these incredibly powerful, emotional, and moving stories. And I think, you know, having them be able to share this has been incredibly important, and I think very impactful. Manya Brachear Pashman: Is there a particular story or experience that stands out in your mind, that perhaps someone shared with you first intimately, before they shared it publicly? One that really stands out. Jessica Bernton: I think I'll share a little bit about Ilana Gritzewsky, because we've hosted her for delegations, and our CEO, Ted Deutch joined with her at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, on the second anniversary of the October 7 attacks. And she was also on Capitol Hill earlier this year, testifying at the House Foreign Affairs Committee at a bipartisan round table there. And she was brutally kidnapped alongside her partner, Matan Zangauker, who's still being held captive. And the words that have stuck with me about Ilana, and also sort of you know the story with her partner, Matan, is that she said she cannot heal until everyone has returned home, and the rest of the hostages who have come home also cannot heal until every single person has been returned. And I think that is something that we've heard time and time again, this process, you know, in order for them to grieve, to heal, to process. I don't think there will ever be getting back to a normal life, but as much as they can, it will begin once everybody is returned home. Manya Brachear Pashman: Former hostages, families of hostages have met with President Trump. He's welcomed them into the Oval Office. It seems like President Trump has made this a personal mission of his to get the hostages home. Perhaps that's why we've finally seen success and a deal made. Why do you think that might be the case? What moved the needle finally? Jessica Bernton: Yeah, I mean, I think since before he was President, he has made it clear that this is a priority, and he has instructed his team to work on this issue day in and day out, and to have this access to a president like this is very notable. And we've seen these incredibly powerful images of released hostages, returned hostages, and also family members of those who are still captive meeting in the Oval Office. And one can only assume that this has to be a priority for the President here, he's shown his seriousness. And again, we've now ended up with this current deal, which hopefully can be seen to fruition and can be implemented all the way. But it does seem like this has taken on greater importance as the months have gone on this past year, and it's truly incredible. Manya Brachear Pashman: Any final thoughts, Jessica, as we wait to see the hostages actually return and the various components of this deal come to fruition? Jessica Bernton: Yeah, I think you know, again, going back to this cautious optimism, I saw a video posted online where there's several returned hostages and released hostages, as well as family members who are in town this week, they've been in town for the second anniversary, and have been doing different meetings and events this week in Washington, DC. And they were on the phone with the President last night, you know, expressing their gratitude. And I think again, that's a powerful symbol here. But going back to your initial question, and, is it too early to celebrate? We need to be cautiously optimistic and keep the pressure on, and hopefully we really can be celebrating on Monday, if that's when everyone is returned. But AJC will not stop until everybody, every single hostage, has been returned, and that's when we will truly celebrate here. Manya Brachear Pashman: Thank you so much, Jessica. Really appreciate you joining us, and may we see all of this materialize in the days to come. Jessica Bernton: Absolutely thank you, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman: Prior to the High Holidays, we brought you five episodes of our limited podcast series, architects of peace, the story of the Abraham accords. Our final episode deals with the challenges presented by the Israel-Hamas war. As we approach a potential end to that war, we are pressing pause on that episode to make sure we include any significant developments. Until then, People of the Pod will resume its regular weekly interviews. Stay tuned for the final episode of Architects of Peace. /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/38544805

Architects of Peace: Episode 5 - Accords of Tomorrow 10/01/2025

Architects of Peace: Episode 5 - Accords of Tomorrow On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, AJC hosted a conversation with Jason Greenblatt, a key architect of the Abraham Accords, and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro. They discussed the challenges threatening regional stability, from unilateral moves on Palestinian statehood to political pressures within Israel, and underscored what’s at stake—and what it will take—to expand the Abraham Accords and advance peace. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Episode lineup: Dan Shapiro (1:00) Jason Greenblatt (18:05) : https://www.ajc.org/news/podcast/accords-of-tomorrow-architects-of-peace-episode-5 Resources: - Tune in weekly for new episodes. - The Abraham Accords, Explained - Find more on AJC’s Center for a New Middle East Listen – AJC Podcasts: Follow Architects of Peace on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript: Manya Brachear Pashman: In September 2020, the world saw what had been years – decades – in the making: landmark peace agreements dubbed the Abraham Accords – normalizing relations between Israel and two Arabian Gulf states, the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Bahrain. Later, in December, they were joined by the Kingdom of Morocco. Five years later, AJC is pulling back the curtain to meet key individuals who built the trust that led to these breakthroughs and turning the spotlight on some of the results. Introducing the Architects of Peace. On the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in September, American Jewish Committee hosted conversations with former Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt, a key architect of the Abraham Accords, and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro:. Both diplomats discussed the dangers threatening peace in the region, including some countries’ unilateral calls for Palestinian statehood. They shared what’s at stake and what it will take to expand the Abraham Accords and make progress toward peace in the region. We’re including those conversations as part of our series. AJC's Chief Strategy and Communications Officer Belle Yoeli starts us off with Ambassador Shapiro. Belle Yoeli: Ambassador Shapiro, thank you so much for being with us. We're going to speak primarily about unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood, but I, of course, want to ask you a couple of questions, because you have so much to share with us before we dive in. First and foremost, as we've said, It's been almost two years, and at AJC, we're all about optimism and playing the long game, as you know, but it does feel like the challenges for the Jewish community and the state of Israel continue to build. And of course, the war looms very large. What is your analysis of the geopolitical horizon for the war in Gaza. Dan Shapiro: First, thanks for having me. Thank you to American Jewish Committee and to Ted and everybody for all you do. Thank you, Ruby [Chen], and the families, for the fellowship that we can share with you in this goal. I'll just say it very simply, this war needs to end. The hostages need to come home. Hamas needs to be removed from power. And aid needs to surge into Gaza and move forward with a reconstruction of Gaza for Palestinians who prepare to live in peace with Israel. This is something that is overdue and needs to happen. I think there have been a number of missed opportunities along the way. I don't say this in a partisan way. I think President Trump has missed opportunities at the end of the first ceasefire, when the first ceasefire was allowed to expire after the Iran strike, something I strongly supported and felt was exactly the right thing to do. There was an opening to create a narrative to end the war. I think there have been other missed opportunities. And I don't say in a partisan way, because the administration I served in, the Biden administration, we made mistakes and we missed opportunities. So it can be shared. that responsibility. But what I do think is that there is a new opportunity right now, and we saw it in President Trump's meeting with Arab leaders. It's going to take very significant, deft, and sustained diplomatic effort. He's got a good team, and they need to do the follow through now to hold the Arabs to their commitments on ensuring Hamas is removed from power, on ensuring that there's a security arrangement in Gaza that does not leave Israel vulnerable to any possibility of a renewal of hostilities against it. And of course, to get the hostages released. That's pressure on the Arabs. And of course, he's got a meeting coming up with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I do think he's going to need to lean on Prime Minister Netanyahu to overcome the resistance that he has to deal with in his cabinet, from those who want to continue the war or who those who rule out any role of any kind for the Palestinian Authority in something that will follow in the day after in Gaza. So there is a real opportunity here. Once the war is over, then we have an opportunity to get back on the road that we were on. Two years ago at this UN General Assembly, I was serving as the Biden administration's Senior Advisor on regional integration, the first State Department position to hold that, trying to follow through on the excellent work that Jason Greenblatt and Jared Kushner and, of course, President Trump did in the first term in achieving the Abraham Accords. And we were building out the Negev Forum. And in fact, at that UNGA meeting, we had planned the next ministerial meeting of the Negev Forum. It was to take place October 19 in Marrakesh. Obviously, no one ever heard about that summit. It didn't happen. But getting back on the road to strengthening and expanding the Abraham Accords, to getting Saudi Arabia to the table as a country that will normalize relations with Israel, to expanding regional forums like the Negev Forum. Those are all still within reach, but none of them are possible until the war ends, till the hostages are home, till Hamas is removed from power. Belle Yoeli: Absolutely. And we look forward to talking more about the day after, in our next segment, in a segment coming up. Ambassador, you just got back from Israel. Can you tell us about your experience, the mood, what's the climate like in Israel? And any insights from your meetings and time that you think should be top of mind for us? Dan Shapiro: I think what was top of mind for almost every Israeli I spoke to was the hostages. I spent time in the hostage square in Tel Aviv, spent time with Ruby, spent time with other hostage families, and everywhere you go as everybody who spin their nose, you see the signs, you hear the anxiety. And it's getting deeper because of the time that people are worried is slipping away for, especially for those who are still alive, but for all of those hostages to be returned to their families, so deep, deep anxiety about it, and candidly, some anger, I think we just heard a little bit of it toward a government that they're not sure shares that as the highest priority. There's a lot of exhaustion. People are tired of multiple rounds of reserve duty, hundreds of days. Families stressed by that as well the concern that this could drag on with the new operation well into next year. It's allowed to continue. It's a lot of worry about Israel's increased isolation, and of course, that's part of the subject. We'll discuss how countries who have been friends of Israel, whether in the region or in Europe or elsewhere, are responding in more and more negative ways, and Israel, and all Israelis, even in their personal lives, are feeling that pinch. But there's also some, I guess, expectant hope that President Trump, who is popular in Israel, of course, will use his influence and his regional standing, which is quite significant, to put these pieces together. Maybe we're seeing that happening this week. And of course, there's some expectant hope, or at least expectant mood, about an election next year, which will bring about some kind of political change in Israel. No one knows exactly what that will look like, but people are getting ready for that. So Israelis are relentlessly forward, looking even in the depths of some degree of anxiety and despair, and so I was able to feel those glimmers as well. Belle Yoeli: And relentlessly resilient, absolutely resilient. And we know that inspires us. Moving back to the piece on diplomatic isolation and the main piece of our conversation, obviously, at AJC, we've been intensely focused on many of the aspects that are concerning us, in terms of unfair treatment of countries towards Israel, but unilateral recognition of Palestinian state is probably the most concerning issue that we've been dealing with this week, and obviously has gotten a lot of attention in the media. So from your perspective, what is this really all about? Obviously, this, this has been on the table for a while. It's not the first time that countries have threatened to do this, but I think it is the first time we're time we're seeing France and other major countries now pushing this forward in this moment. Is this all about political pressure on Israel? Dan Shapiro: Well, first, I'll say that I think it's a mistake. I think it's an ill advised set of initiatives by France, by Canada, Australia, UK and others. It will change almost it will change nothing on the ground. And so to that sense, it's a purely rhetorical step that changes nothing, and probably does little, if anything, to advance toward the stated goal of some sort of resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. And in many ways, it may actually set it back in part because of the way it appears to and certainly many Israelis understand it too. And I'm sorry to say, many Arabs understand it to reward Hamas. Hamas is celebrating it as an achievement of October 7, and that October 7 will find its place in the pantheon of the Palestinian Liberation story that should never be allowed to happen. So doing it this way, doing it without conditioning it on the release of hostages, on the disarming and removal of Hamas from Gaza, is a mistake. And of course, it tells Israelis that their very legitimate concerns about obviously the hostages, but also that some future Palestinian state, wherever and whatever form it might take, could become a threat to them from other parts, from parts of the West Bank, as it was from Gaza on October 7. And you cannot get to that goal unless you're willing to engage the Israeli public on those concerns, very legitimate concerns, and address them in a very forthright way. So I think it's a mistake. I'm sure, to some degree, others have made this observation. It is motivated by some of the domestic political pressures that these leaders feel from their different constituencies, maybe their left, left wing constituencies, some right wing constituencies, and some immigrant constituencies. And so maybe they're responding to that. And I think that's, you know, leaders deal with those types of things. I think sometimes they make bad decisions in dealing with those types of pressures. I think that's the case here, but I it's also the case. I think it's just fair to say that in the absence of any Israeli Government articulated viable day after, plan for Gaza, something we were urged Israel to work with us on all the time. I was serving in the Biden administration, and I think the Trump administration has as well, but it's remained blurry. What does what is that vision of the day after? Not only when does it start, but what does it look like afterwards? And is it something that Arab States and European states can buy into and get behind and and put their influence to work to get Hamas out and to do a rebuild that meets the needs of both Israelis and Palestinians. There hasn't been that. And so that could have been a way of satisfying some of those domestic pressures, but it wasn't really available. And so I think some of the leaders turn to this ill advised move instead. Belle Yoeli: So perhaps catering to domestic political concerns and wanting to take some sort of moral high ground on keeping peace alive, but beyond that, no real, practical or helpful outcomes, aside from setting back the cause of peace? Dan Shapiro: I think it has limited practical effects. Fact, I think it does tell Israelis that much of the world has not internalized their legitimate concerns, and that they will be, you know, cautious at best for this. Everybody knows that there are many Israelis who have been long standing supporters of some kind of two state resolution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. And post October 7, they've, they don't still hold that position, or at least they say, if it can happen, it's going to take a long time, it's going to look very different. And I think that actually is some a real practical takeaway, that if we are going to talk about some future establishment of a Palestinian state and some two state arrangement, certainly separation between Israelis and Palestinians, so they don't try to live intermixed in a way that they govern each other. I think that is that is desirable, but it's not necessarily going to look like two state outcomes that were envisioned in the Oslo period, in the 90s and the 2000s it's going to look different. It's going to take longer. And so that is something that I think we have to make sure is understood as people raise this initiative, that their goal is not the goal of 1993 it's going to have to look different, and it's going to have to take longer. Belle Yoeli: So as more and more countries have sort of joined this, this move that we find to be unhelpful, obviously, a concern that we all have who are engaged in this work is that we've heard response, perhaps, from the Israelis, that there could be potential annexation of the West Bank, and that leads to this sort of very, very, even more concerning scenario that all of the work that you were discussing before, around the Abraham Accords, could freeze, or, perhaps even worse, collapse. What's your analysis on that scenario? How concerned should we be based on everything that you know now and if not that scenario? What else should we be thinking about? Dan Shapiro: We should be concerned. I was actually in Israel, when the UAE issued their announcement about four weeks ago that annexation in the West Wing could be a red line, and I talked to a very senior UAE official and tried to understand what that means, and they aren't, weren't prepared to or say precisely what it means. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to break off relations or end the Abraham Accords, but that they would have to respond, and there's a limited range of options for how one could respond, with moving ambassadors or limiting flights or reducing certain kinds of trade or other visits. Nothing good, nothing that would help propel forward the Abraham accords and that particular critical bilateral relationship in a way that we wanted to so I think there's risk. I think if the UAE would take that step, others would probably take similar steps. Egypt and Jordan have suggested there would be steps. So I think there's real risk there, and I think it's something that we should be concerned about, and we should counsel our Israeli friends not to go that route. There are other ways that they may respond. In fact, I think we've already seen the Trump administration, maybe as a proxy, make some kind of moves that try to balance the scales of these unilateral recognitions. But that particular one, with all of the weight that it carries about what how it limits options for future endpoints, I think would be very, very damaging. And I don't think I'm the only one. Just in the last hour and a half or so, President Trump, sitting in the Oval Office, said very publicly that he, I think you said, would not allow Netanyahu to do the Analyze annexation of the West Bank. I think previously, it was said by various people in the administration that it's really an Israeli decision, and that the United States is not going to tell them what to do. And that's perfectly fine as a public position, and maybe privately, you can say very clearly what you think is the right course, he's now said it very publicly. We'll see if he holds to that position. But he said it, and I think given the conversations he was having with Arab leaders earlier this week, given the meeting, he will have his fourth meeting. So it's obviously a very rich relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu on Monday, I think it's clear what he believes is necessary to get to the end of this war and not leave us in a worse position for trying to get back on the road to his goals. His goals of expanding the Abraham accords his great achievement from the first term, getting Saudi Arabia to normalize relations, of course, getting hostages released and getting Arabs involved in the reconstruction of Gaza in a way that Gaza can never become the threat it was again on October 7, those are his goals. They'll be well served by the end of the war that I described earlier, and by avoiding this cycle that you're referencing. Belle Yoeli: Putting aside the issue of unilateral recognition, I think we've seen in our work with our Israeli counterparts, sort of differences in the political establish. Around how important it is in thinking about the day after and seeing movement on the Palestinian issue. And we've seen from some that they perhaps make it out that it's not as important that the Palestinian having movement towards a political path. It's not necessarily a have to be front and center, while others seem to prioritize it. And I think in our work with Arab countries, it's very clear that there does have to be some tangible movement towards the political aspirations for the Palestinian for there to really be any future progress beyond the Abraham accords. What's your take? Dan Shapiro: My take is that the Arab states have often had a kind of schizophrenic view about the Palestinian issue. It's not always been, maybe rarely been their highest priority. They've certainly had a lot of disagreements with and maybe negative assessments of Palestinian leaders, of course, Hamas, but even Palestinian Authority leaders. And so, you know, it's possible to ask the question, or it has been over time, you know, how high do they prioritize? It? Certainly those countries that stepped forward to join the Abraham accords said they were not going to let that issue prevent them from advancing their own interests by establishing these productive bilateral relations with Israel, having said that there's no question that Arab publics have been deeply, deeply affected by the war in Gaza, by the coverage they see they unfortunately, know very little about what happened on October 7, and they know a lot about Israeli strikes in Gaza, civilian casualties, humanitarian aid challenges, and so that affects public moods. Even in non democratic countries, leaders are attentive to the views of their publics, and so I think this is important to them. And every conversation that I took part in, and I know my colleagues in the Biden administration with Arab states about those day after arrangements that we wanted them to participate in, Arab security forces, trainers of Palestinian civil servants, reconstruction funding and so forth. They made very clear there were two things they were looking for. They were looking for a role for the Palestinian Authority, certainly with room to negotiate exactly what that role would be, but some foothold for the Palestinian Authority and improving and reforming Palestinian Authority, but to have them be... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/38428045

Architects of Peace: Episode 4 - Partners of Peace 09/19/2025

Architects of Peace: Episode 4 - Partners of Peace Tune into the fourth installment of AJC’s latest limited podcast series, Architects of Peace. Go behind the scenes of the decades-long diplomacy and quiet negotiations that made the Abraham Accords possible, bringing Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and later Morocco, together in historic peace agreements. From cockpits to kitchens to concert halls, the Abraham Accords are inspiring unexpected partnerships. In the fourth episode of AJC’s limited series, four “partners of peace” share how these historic agreements are reshaping their lives and work. Hear from El Mehdi Boudra of the Mimouna Association on building people-to-people ties; producer Gili Masami on creating a groundbreaking Israeli–Emirati song; pilot Karim Taissir on flying between Casablanca and Tel Aviv while leading Symphionette, a Moroccan orchestra celebrating Andalusian music; and chef Gal Ben Moshe, the first Israeli chef to ever cook in Dubai on his dream of opening a restaurant in the UAE. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Episode lineup: El Mehdi Boudra (4:00) Gili Masami (11:10) Karim Taissir (16:14) Gal Ben Moshe (21:59) : https://www.ajc.org/news/podcast/partners-of-peace-architects-of-peace-episode-4 Resources: - Tune in weekly for new episodes. - Find more on AJC’s Center for a New Middle East Listen – AJC Podcasts: Follow Architects of Peace on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript: El Mehdi Boudra: All the stereotypes started like getting out and people want to meet with the other. They wanted to discover the beauty of the diversity of Israel. And this is unique in the region, where you have Arabs Muslims, Arab Christians, Druze, Beta Yisrael, Ashkenazi, Sephardic Jews, Jews from India, from all over the world. This beauty of diversity in Israel is very unique for our region. Manya Brachear Pashman: In September 2020, the world saw what had been years – decades – in the making: landmark peace agreements dubbed the Abraham Accords – normalizing relations between Israel and two Arabian Gulf states, the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Bahrain. Later, in December, they were joined by the Kingdom of Morocco. Five years later, AJC is pulling back the curtain to meet key individuals who built the trust that led to these breakthroughs and turning the spotlight on some of the results. Introducing: the Architects of Peace. ILTV correspondent: Well, hello, shalom, salaam. For the first time since the historic normalization deal between Israel and the UAE, an Israeli and an Emirati have teamed up to make music. [ plays] The signs have been everywhere. On stages in Jerusalem and in recording studios in Abu Dhabi. [Camera sounds]. On a catwalk in Tel Aviv during Fashion Week and on the covers of Israeli and Arab magazines. [Kitchen sounds]. In the kitchens of gourmet restaurants where Israeli and Emirati chefs exchanged recipes. Just days after the announcement of the Abraham Accords, Emirati ruler Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan formally ended the UAE’s nearly 50-year boycott of Israel. Though commerce and cooperation had taken place between the countries under the radar for years, the boycott’s official end transformed the fields of water, renewable energy, health, cybersecurity, and tourism. In 2023, Israel and the UAE signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) to advance economic cooperation, and by 2024, commerce between the UAE and Israel grew to $3.2 billion. Trade between Bahrain and Israel surged 740% in one year. As one of the world’s most water-stressed countries, Bahrain’s Electrical and Water Authority signed an agreement to acquire water desalination technology from Israel’s national water company [Mekorot]. Signs of collaboration between Israeli and Arab artists also began to emerge. It was as if a creative energy had been unlocked and a longing to collaborate finally had the freedom to fly. [Airplane take off sounds]. And by the way, people had the freedom to fly too, as commercial airlines sent jets back and forth between Tel Aviv, Casablanca, Abu Dhabi, and Manama. A gigantic step forward for countries that once did not allow long distance calls to Israel, let alone vacations to the Jewish state. At long last, Israelis, Moroccans, Emiratis, and Bahrainis could finally satisfy their curiosity about one another. This episode features excerpts from four conversations. Not with diplomats or high-level senior officials, but ordinary citizens from the region who have seized opportunities made possible by the Abraham Accords to pursue unprecedented partnerships. For El Medhi Boudra, the Abraham Accords were a dream come true. As a Muslim college student in 2007 at Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Morocco, he founded a group dedicated to preserving and teaching the Jewish heritage of his North African home. El Mehdi knew fostering conversations and friendships would be the only way to counter stereotypes and foster a genuine appreciation for all of Morocco’s history, including its once-thriving Jewish community of more than 100,000. Five years later, El Mehdi’s efforts flourished into a nonprofit called Mimouna, the name of a Moroccan tradition that falls on the day after Passover, when Jewish and Muslim families gather at each other’s homes to enjoy cakes and sweets and celebrate the end of the Passover prohibitions. Together. El Mehdi Boudra: Our work started in the campus to fill this gap between the old generation who talk with nostalgia about Moroccan Jews, and the young generation who don't know nothing about Moroccan Judaism. Then, in the beginning, we focused only on the preservation and educating and the promotion of Jewish heritage within campuses in Morocco. In 2011, we decided to organize the first conference on the Holocaust in the Arab world. Manya Brachear Pashman: So did the Abraham Accords make any difference in the work you were already doing? I mean, I know Mimouna was already a longtime partner with AJC. El Mehdi Boudra: With Abraham Accords, we thought bigger. We brought young professionals from Morocco and Israel to work together in certain sectors on challenges that our regions are overcoming. Like environment, climate change, water scarcity and innovation, and bring the best minds that we have in Morocco and in Israel to work together. But we included also other participants from Emirates and Bahrain. This was the first one that we started with. The second was with AJC. We invited also young professionals from United States and France, which was an opportunity to work globally. Because today, we cannot work alone. We need to borrow power from each other. If we have the same vision and the same values, we need to work together. In Morocco, we say: one hand don't clap. We need both hands. And this is the strategy that we have been doing with AJC, to bring all the partners to make sure that we can succeed in this mission. We had another people-to-people initiative. This one is with university students. It's called Youth for MENA. It's with an Israeli organization called Noar. And we try to take advantage of the Abraham Accords to make our work visible, impactful, to make the circle much bigger. Israel is a country that is part of this region. And we can have, Israel can offer good things to our region. It can fight against the challenges that we have in our region. And an Israeli is like an Iraqi. We can work all together and try to build a better future for our region at the end of the day. Manya Brachear Pashman: El Mehdi, when you started this initiative did you encounter pushback from other Moroccans? I mean, I understand the Accords lifted some of the restrictions and opened doors, but did it do anything to change attitudes? Or are there detractors still, to the same degree? El Mehdi Boudra: Before the Abraham Accords, it was more challenging to preserve Moroccan Jewish heritage in Morocco. It was easier. To educate about Holocaust. It was also OK. But to do activities with civil society in Israel, it was very challenging. Because, first of all, there is no embassies or offices between Morocco. Then to travel, there is no direct flights. There is the stereotypes that people have about you going to Israel. With Abraham Accords, we could do that very freely. Everyone was going to Israel, and more than that, there was becoming like a tendency to go to Israel. Moroccans, they started wanting to spend their vacation in Tel Aviv. They were asking us as an organization. We told them, we are not a tour guide, but we can help you. They wanted to travel to discover the country. All the stereotypes started like getting out and people want to meet with other. They wanted to discover the beauty of the diversity of Israel. And this is unique in the region where you have Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, Druze, Beta Israel, Ashkenazi, Sephardic Jews, Jews from India, from all over the world. This beauty of diversity in Israel is very unique for our region. And it's not granted in this modern time, as you can see in the region. You can see what happened in Iraq, what's happening in Syria, for minorities. Then you know, this gave us hope, and we need this hope in these dark times. Manya Brachear Pashman: Hm, what do you mean? How does Israel’s diversity provide hope for the rest of the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region? El Mehdi Boudra: Since the MENA region lost its diversity, we lost a lot. It's not the Christians or the Yazidis or the Jews who left the MENA region who are in bad shape. It's the people of the MENA region who are in bad shape because those people, they immigrated to U.S., to Sweden, they have better lives. But who lost is those countries. Then us as the majority Muslims in the region, we should reach out to those minorities. We should work closely today with all countries, including Israel, to build a better future for our region. There is no choice. And we should do it very soon, because nothing is granted in life. And we should take this opportunity of the Abraham Accords as a real opportunity for everyone. It's not an opportunity for Israel or the people who want to have relation with Israel. It's an opportunity for everyone, from Yemen to Morocco. Manya Brachear Pashman: Morocco has had diplomatic relations with Israel in the past, right? Did you worry or do you still worry that the Abraham Accords will fall apart as a result of the Israel Hamas War? El Mehdi Boudra: Yes, yes, to tell you the truth, yes. After the 7th of October and things were going worse and worse. We said, the war will finish and it didn't finish. And I thought that probably with the tensions, the protest, will cut again the relations. But Morocco didn't cut those relations. Morocco strengthened those relations with Israel, and also spoke about the Palestinians’ cause in the same time. Which I'm really proud of my government's decisions to not cut those relations, and we hope to strengthen those relations, because now they are not going in a fast dynamic. We want to go back to the first time when things were going very fastly. When United States signed with the Emirates and Bahrain in September 2020, I was hoping that Morocco will be the first, because Morocco had strong relations with Israel. We had direct relations in the 90s and we cut those relations after the Second Intifada in 2000. We lost those 21 years. But it's not [too] late now. We are working. The 7th of October happened. Morocco is still having relations with Israel. We are still having the Moroccan government and the Israeli government having strong relations together. Of course, initiatives to people-to-people are less active because of the war. But you know, the war will finish very soon, we hope, and the hostages will go back to their homes, Inshallah, and we will get back to our lives. And this is the time for us as civil society to do stronger work and to make sure that we didn't lose those two years. [ plays] Manya Brachear Pashman: Just weeks after the White House signing ceremony on September 15, 2020, Israeli music producer Gili Masami posted a music video on YouTube. The video featured a duet between a former winner of Israel’s version of The Voice, Elkana Marziano, and Emirati singer Walid Aljasim. The song’s title? Ahlan Bik, an Arabic greeting translated as “Hello, Friend.” In under three weeks, the video had garnered more than 1.1 million views. Gili Masami: When I saw Bibi Netanyahu and Trump sign this contract, the Abraham Accords, I said, ‘Wow!’ Because always my dream was to fly to Dubai. And when I saw this, I said, ‘Oh, this is the time to make some project that I already know how to do.’ So I thought to make the first historic collaboration between an Israeli singer and an Emirati singer. We find this production company, and they say, OK. We did this historic collaboration. And the first thing it was that I invite the Emirati people to Israel. They came here. I take them to visit Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and then I get a call to meet in Gitix Technology Week in the World Trade Center in Dubai. Manya Brachear Pashman: Gitix. That’s the Gulf Information Technology Exhibition, one of the world’s largest annual tech summits, which met in Dubai that year and invited an Israeli delegation for the first time. Gili Masami: They tell me. ‘Listen, your song, it was big in 200 countries, cover worldwide. We want you to make this show.’ I said, OK. We came to Dubai, and then we understand that the production company is the family of Mohammed bin Zayed al Nayhan, the president of UAE. And now we understand why they agree. The brother of Muhammad bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Sheik Issa Ben Zahid Al Nahyan, he had this production company. This singer, it’s his singer. And we say, ‘Wow, we get to this so high level, with the government of Dubai.’ And then all the doors opened in Dubai. And then it was the Corona. 200 countries around the world cover this story but we can't do shows because this Corona issue, but we still did it first. Manya Brachear Pashman: The song Ahlan Bik translates to “Hello, Friend.” It was written by Israeli songwriter Doron Medalie. Can you tell our listeners what it’s about? Gili Masami: The song Ahlan Bik, it's this song speak about Ibrihim. Because if we go to the Bible, they are cousins. They are cousins. And you know, because of that, we call this Abraham Accords, because of Avraham. And they are sons of Ishmael. Yishmael. And we are sons of Jacob. So because of that, we are from back in the days. And this is the real cousins. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Morocco. They are the real ones. And this song speak about this connection. Manya Brachear Pashman: After Morocco joined the Abraham Accords, you also put together a . But your connection to UAE continued. You actually moved to Dubai for a year and opened a production company there. I know you’re back in Israel now, but have you kept in touch with people there? Gili Masami: I have a lot of friends in UAE. A lot of friends. I have a production company in UAE too. But every time we have these problems with this war, so we can do nothing. I was taking a lot of groups to Dubai, making tours, parties, shows, and all this stuff, because this war. So we’re still friends. Manya Brachear Pashman: Given this war, do you ever go back and listen to the song Ahlan Bik for inspiration, for hope? Gili Masami: I don't look about the thinking that way. These things. I know what I did, and this is enough for me. I did history. This is enough for me. I did [a] good thing. This is enough for me. I did the first collaboration, and this is enough for me. Manya Brachear Pashman: Moroccan pilot and music aficionado Karim Taissir also knows the power of music. In 2016, he reached out to Tom Cohen, the founder and conductor of the Jerusalem Orchestra East & West and invited him to Morocco to conduct Symphonyat, an orchestra of 40 musicians from around the world playing Jewish and Arab music from Morocco’s past that often has been neglected. Karim Taissir: In 2015 I contacted Tom via Facebook because of a story happening in Vietnam. I was in a bar. And this bar, the owner, tried to connect with people. And the concept was a YouTube session connected on the speaker of the bar, and they asked people to put some music on from their countries. So when he asked me, I put something played by Tom [Cohen], it was Moroccan music played by the orchestra of Tom. And people said, ‘Wow.’ And I felt the impact of the music, in terms of even, like the ambassador role. So that gave me the idea. Back in Morocco, I contacted him. I told him, ‘Listen, you are doing great music, especially when it comes to Moroccan music, but I want to do it in Morocco. So are you ready to collaborate? And you should tell me, what do you need to create an orchestra that do this, this excellency of music?’ And I don't know why he replied to my message, because, usually he got lots of message from people all over the world, but it was like that. So from that time, I start to look of musician, of all conditions, asked by Tom, and in 2016 in April, we did one week of rehearsals. This was a residence of musician in Casablanca by Royal Foundation Hiba. And this is how it starts. And from that time, we tried every year to organize concerts. Sometimes we succeed, and sometimes not. Manya Brachear Pashman: I asked this of El Mehdi too, since you were already doing this kind of bridge building Karim, did the Abraham Accords change anything for you? Karim Taissir: In ‘22 we did the great collaboration. It was a fusion between the two orchestras, under the conductor Tom Cohen in Timna desert [National Park], with the presence of many famous people, politician, and was around like more than 4,000 people, and the President Herzog himself was was there, and we had a little chat for that. And even the program, it was about peace, since there was Moroccan music, Israeli music, Egyptian music, Greek music, Turkish music. And this was very nice, 18 musicians on the stage. Manya Brachear Pashman: Oh, wow. 18 musicians. You know, the number 18, of course, is very significant, meaningful for the Jewish tradition. So, this was a combination of Israeli musicians, Moroccan musicians, playing music from across the region. Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Israel. What did that mean for you? In other words, what was the symbolism of that collaboration and of that choice of music? Karim Taissir: Listen, to be honest, it wasn't a surprise for me, the success of collaboration, since there was excellent artists from Israel and from Morocco. But more than that, the fact that Moroccan Muslims and other people with Israeli musicians, they work together every concert, rehearsals. They became friends, and maybe it was the first time for some musicians, especially in Morocco. I'm not talking only about peace, happiness, between people. It's very easy in our case, because it's people to people. Manya Brachear Pashman: How have those friendships held up under the strain of the Israel-Hamas War? Karim Taissir: Since 7th October, me, for example, I'm still in touch with all musicians from Israel, not only musicians, all my friends from Israel to support. To support them, to ask if they are OK. And they appreciate, I guess, because I guess some of them feel even before they have friends from all over the world. But suddenly it’s not the case for us, it's more than friendships, and if I don't care about them, which... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/38284370

Architects of Peace: Episode 3 - From the White House Lawn 09/11/2025

Architects of Peace: Episode 3 - From the White House Lawn Dive into the third episode of AJC’s latest limited podcast series, Architects of Peace. Go behind the scenes of the decades-long diplomacy and quiet negotiations that made the Abraham Accords possible, bringing Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and later Morocco, together in historic peace agreements. On September 15, 2020, the Abraham Accords were signed at the White House by President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the foreign ministers of the UAE and Bahrain. In this third installment of AJC’s limited series, AJC CEO Ted Deutch and Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson—who stood on the South Lawn that day—share their memories and insights five years later. Together, they reflect on how the Accords proved that peace is achievable when nations share strategic interests, build genuine relationships, and pursue the greater good. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. : https://www.ajc.org/news/podcast/from-the-white-house-lawn-architects-of-peace-episode-3 Resources: - Tune in weekly for new episodes. - Find more on AJC’s Center for a New Middle East Listen – AJC Podcasts: Follow Architects of Peace on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript: Ted Deutch: It was a beautiful day and there was this coming together, this recognition that this was such an historic moment. It’s the kind of thing, frankly, that I remember having watched previously, when there were peace agreements signed and thinking that's something that I want to be a part of. And there I was looking around right in the middle of all of this, and so excited about where this could lead. Manya Brachear Pashman: In September 2020, the world saw what had been years, decades in the making, landmark peace agreements dubbed the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and two Arabian Gulf States, the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Bahrain. Later, in December, they were joined by the Kingdom of Morocco. Five years later, AJC is pulling back the curtain to meet key individuals who built the trust that led to these breakthroughs. Introducing: the Architects of Peace. : Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. Accompanied by the Prime Minister of the State of Israel; His Highness the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International cooperation of the United Arab Emirates, and the Minister of the Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Bahrain. Manya Brachear Pashman: The guests of honor framed by the South Portico of the White House were an unlikely threesome. Two Arab foreign ministers and the Prime Minister of Israel, there to sign a pair of peace agreements that would transform the Middle East. : Thanks to the great courage of the leaders of these three countries, we take a major stride toward a future in which people of all faiths and backgrounds live together in peace and prosperity. There will be other countries very, very soon that will follow these great leaders. Manya Brachear Pashman: President Trump’s team had achieved what was long thought impossible. After decades of pretending Israel did not exist until it solved its conflict with the Palestinians, Trump’s team discovered that attitudes across the Arab region had shifted and after months of tense negotiations, an agreement had been brokered by a small circle of Washington insiders. On August 13, 2020, the United Arab Emirates agreed to become the first Arab state in a quarter century to normalize relations with Israel. Not since 1994 had Israel established diplomatic relations with an Arab country, when King Hussein of Jordan and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed a treaty, ending the state of war that had existed between them since Israel’s rebirth. A ceremony to celebrate and sign the historic deal was planned for the South Lawn of the White House on September 15, 2020. Before the signing ceremony took place, another nation agreed to sign as well: not too surprisingly the Kingdom of Bahrain. After all, in June 2019, Bahrain had hosted the Peace to Prosperity summit, a two-day workshop where the Trump administration unveiled the economic portion of its peace plan – a 38-page prospectus that proposed ways for Palestinians and Arab countries to expand economic opportunities in cooperation with Israel. In addition to Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE all participated in the summit. The Palestinians boycotted it, even as Trump’s senior advisor Jared Kushner presented plans to help them. : A lot of these investments people are unwilling to make because people don’t want to put good money after bad money. They’ve seen in the past they’ve made these investments, they’ve tried to help out the Palestinian people, then all of a sudden there’s some conflict that breaks out and a lot of this infrastructure gets destroyed. So what we have here is very detailed plans and these are things we can phase in over time assuming there’s a real ceasefire, a real peace and there’s an opportunity for people to start making these investments. Manya Brachear Pashman: Now Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain would open embassies, exchange ambassadors, and cooperate on tourism, trade, health care, and regional security. The Accords not only permitted Israelis to enter the two Arab nations using their Israeli passports, it opened the door for Muslims to visit historic sites in Israel, pray at Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam, and finally satisfy their curiosity about the Jewish state. Before signing the accords, each leader delivered remarks. Here’s Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani. : For too long, the Middle East has been set back by conflict and mistrust, causing untold destruction and thwarting the potential of generations of our best and brightest young people. Now, I’m convinced, we have the opportunity to change that. Manya Brachear Pashman: UAE’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan echoed that sentiment and also addressed accusations by Palestinian leadership that the countries had abandoned them. He made it clear that the accords bolstered the Emirates’ support for the Palestinian people and their pursuit of an independent state. : [speaking in Arabic] Manya Brachear Pashman: [translating Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan] This new vision, he said, which is beginning to take shape as we meet today for the future of the region, full of youthful energy, is not a slogan that we raise for political gain as everyone looks forward to creating a more stable, prosperous, and secure future. This accord will enable us to continue to stand by the Palestinian people and realize their hopes for an independent state within a stable and prosperous region. Manya Brachear Pashman: The Truman Balcony, named for the first American president to recognize Israel’s independence, served as the backdrop for a few iconic photographs. The officials then made their way down the stairs and took their seats at the table where they each signed three copies of the Abraham Accords in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. The brief ceremony combined formality and levity as the leaders helped translate for each other so someone didn’t sign on the wrong dotted line. After that was settled, they turned the signed documents around to show the audience. When they all rose from their seats, Prime Minister Netanyahu paused. After the others put their portfolios down, he stood displaying his for a little while longer, taking a few more seconds to hold on to the magnitude of the moment. : To all of Israel’s friends in the Middle East, those who are with us today and those who will join us tomorrow, I say, ‘As-salamu alaykum. Peace unto thee. Shalom.’ And you have heard from the president that he is already lining up more and more countries. This is unimaginable a few years ago, but with resolve, determination, a fresh look at the way peace is done . . . The blessings of the peace we make today will be enormous, first, because this peace will eventually expand to include other Arab states, and ultimately, it can end the Arab Israeli conflict once and for all. [clapping] [Red alert sirens] Manya Brachear Pashman: But peace in Israel was and still is a distant reality as Palestinian leadership did not participate in the Accords, and, in fact, viewed it as a betrayal. As Netanyahu concluded his speech to the audience on the White House Lawn, thousands of miles away, Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system intercepted 15 rockets fired by terrorists in Gaza, at least one striking Israel’s coastal city of Ashdod. Iran’s regime condemned the agreement. But across most of the region and around the world, the revelation that decades of hostility could be set aside to try something new – a genuine pursuit of peace – inspired hope. Saudi journalists wrote op-eds in support of the UAE and Bahrain. Egypt and Oman praised the Abraham Accords for adding stability to the region. Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Spain commended the monumental step. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres welcomed the deal for paving the way toward a two-state solution. AJC’s Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson was one of more than 200 domestic and foreign officials on the White House Lawn that day taking it all in. The guest list included members of Congress, embassy staff, religious leaders, and people like himself who worked behind the scenes – a cross section of people who had been part of a long history of relationship building and peacemaking in the Middle East for many years. Jason Isaacson: To see what was happening then this meeting of neighbors who could be friends. To see the warmth evident on that stage at the South Lawn of the White House, and then the conversations that were taking place in this vast assembly on the South Lawn. Converging at that moment to mark the beginning of a development of a new Middle East. It was an exciting moment for me and for AJC and one that not only will I never forget but one that I am looking forward to reliving. Manya Brachear Pashman: Jason, of course, is talking about his confidence in the expansion of the Abraham Accords. Through his position at AJC he has attended several White House events marking milestones in the peace process. He had been seated on the South Lawn of the White House 27 years earlier to watch a similar scene unfold -- when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat met to sign the Oslo Accords with President Bill Clinton. : What we are doing today is more than signing an agreement. It is a revolution. Yesterday, a dream. Today, a commitment. The Israeli and the Palestinian peoples who fought each other for almost a century have agreed to move decisively on the path of dialogue, understanding, and cooperation. Manya Brachear Pashman: Brokered secretly by Norway, the Oslo Accords established mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which claimed to represent the Palestinian people. It also led to the creation of a Palestinian Authority for interim self-government and a phased Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank and Gaza. Jason Isaacson: I mean, 1993 was a tremendous breakthrough, and it was a breakthrough between the State of Israel and an organization that had been created to destroy Israel. And so it was a huge breakthrough to see the Israeli and Palestinian leaders agree to a process that would revolutionize that relationship, normalize that relationship, and set aside a very ugly history and chart a new path that was historic. Manya Brachear Pashman: While the Oslo Accords moved the Israelis and Palestinians toward a resolution, progress came to a halt two years later with the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. In July 2000, President Clinton brought Arafat and then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to Camp David to continue discussions, but they could not agree. In his autobiography, “My Life,” President Clinton wrote that Arafat walked away from a Palestinian state, a mistake that Clinton took personally. When Arafat called him a great man, Clinton responded “I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one." Arafat’s decision also would prove fatal for both Israelis and Palestinians. By September, the Second Intifada – five years of violence, terror attacks, and suicide bombings – derailed any efforts toward peace. Jason says the Abraham Accords have more staying power than the Oslo Accords. That’s clear five years later, especially after the October 7 Hamas terror attacks sparked a prolonged war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Two years into the war, the Abraham Accords have held. But Jason recalls feeling optimistic, even as he sat there again on the South Lawn. Jason Isaacson: It's a different kind of historic moment, maybe a little less breathtaking in the idea of two fierce antagonists, sort of laying down their arms and shaking hands uneasily, but shaking hands. Uneasily, but shaking hands. All those years later, in 2020, you had a state of Israel that had no history of conflict with the UAE or Bahrain. Countries with, with real economies, with real investment potential, with wise and well-advised leaders who would be in a position to implement plans that were being put together in the summer and fall of 2020. The Oslo Accords, you know, didn't provide that kind of built in infrastructure to advance peace. Manya Brachear Pashman: Jason pointed out that the only source of conflict among the signatories on the Abraham Accords was actually a point of mutual agreement – a frustration and desire to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians. UAE and Bahrain were part of the League of Arab States that had sworn in 2002 not to advance relations with Israel in the absence of a two-state solution. But 18 years later, that had gone nowhere and leaders recognized that perhaps it would be more beneficial to the Palestinian cause if they at least engaged with Israel. Jason Isaacson: I had no fear, sitting in a folding chair on the White House Lawn on September 15, that this was going to evaporate. This seemed to be a natural progression. The region is increasingly sophisticated and increasingly plugged into the world, and recognizing that they have a lot of catching up to do to advance the welfare of their people. And that that catching up is going to require integrating with a very advanced country in their region that they have shunned for too long. This is a recognition that I am hearing across the region, not always spoken in those words, but it's clear that it will be of benefit to the region, to have Israel as a partner, rather than an isolated island that somehow is not a part of that region. : I want to thank all of the members of Congress for being here … Manya Brachear Pashman: AJC CEO Ted Deutch also was at the White House that day, not as AJC CEO but as a Congressman who served on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and chaired its Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism. Ted Deutch: It was a beautiful day and there was this coming together, this recognition that this was such an historic moment and it's exactly the kind of thing, frankly, that I remember having watched previously, when there were peace agreements signed and thinking that's something that I want to be a part of. And there I was looking around right in the middle of all of this, and so excited about where this could lead. Manya Brachear Pashman: Despite his congressional role, Ted learned about the deal along with the rest of the world when it was initially announced a month before the ceremony, though he did get a tip that something was in the pipeline that would change the course of the committee’s work. Ted Deutch: I found out when I got a phone call from the Trump administration, someone who was a senior official who told me that there is big news that's coming, that the Middle East is never going to look the same, and that he couldn't share any other information. And we, of course, went into wild speculation mode about what that could be. And the Abraham Accords was the announcement, and it was as dramatic as he suggested. Manya Brachear Pashman: It was a small glimmer of light during an otherwise dark time. Remember, this was the summer and early fall of 2020. The COVID pandemic, for the most part, had shut down the world. People were not attending meetings, conferences, or parties. Even members of Congress were avoiding Capitol Hill and casting their votes from home. Ted Deutch: It was hard to make great strides in anything in the diplomatic field, because there weren't the kind of personal interactions taking place on a regular basis. It didn't have the atmosphere that was conducive to meaningful, deep, ongoing conversations about the future of the world. And that's really what this was about, and that's what was missing. And so here was this huge news that for the rest of the world, felt like it was out of the blue, that set in motion a whole series of steps in Congress about the way that our committee, the way we approach the region. That we could finally start talking about regional cooperation in ways that we couldn't before. Manya Brachear Pashman: The timing was especially auspicious as it boosted interest in a particular piece of legislation that had been in the works for a decade: the bipartisan Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act. Approved by Congress in December 2020, around the same time Morocco joined the Abraham Accords, the law allocated up to $250 million over five years for programs advancing peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians and supporting a sustainable two-state solution. Passed as part of a larger appropriations bill, it was the largest investment of any single country in Israeli-Palestinian civil society initiatives. Ted Deutch: Here we were having this conversation about increasing trade and increasing tourism and the countries working more closely together and being able to freely fly back and forth on a regular basis – something that we've seen as the tourism numbers have taken off. The trade has taken off. So it really changed what we do. Manya Brachear Pashman: The other thing Ted recalls about that day on the White House lawn was the bipartisan spirit in the air. Although his own committee didn’t tend to divide along party lines, Congress had become quite polarized and partisan on just about everything else. On that day, just as there was no animus between Israelis and Arabs, there was none between Republicans and Democrats either. And Ted believes that’s the way it always should be. Ted Deutch: It was a bipartisan stellium of support, because this was a really important moment for the region and for the world, and it's exactly the kind of moment where we should look for ways to work together. This issue had to do with the Middle East, but it was driven out of Washington. There's no doubt about that. It was driven out of the out of the Trump administration and the White House and that was, I think, a reminder of the kind of things that can happen in Washington, and that we need to always look for those opportunities and when any administration does the right thing, then they need to be given credit for it, whether elected officials are on the same side of the aisle or not. We were there as people who were committed to building a more peaceful and prosperous region, with all of the countries in the region, recognizing the contributions that Israel... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/38184555

Architects of Peace: Episode 2 - Behind the Breakthrough 09/04/2025

Architects of Peace: Episode 2 - Behind the Breakthrough Tune into the second episode of AJC’s newest limited podcast series, Architects of Peace. Go behind the scenes of the decades-long diplomacy and quiet negotiations that made the Abraham Accords possible, bringing Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and later Morocco, together in historic peace agreements. Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, U.S. Army General Miguel Correa, and AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson unpack the first Trump administration’s Middle East strategy, share behind-the-scenes efforts to engage key regional players, and reveal what unfolded inside the White House in the crucial weeks before the Abraham Accords signing. https://www.ajc.org/news/podcast/behind-the-breakthrough-architects-of-peace-episode-2 Resources: - Tune in weekly for new episodes. - The Abraham Accords, Explained - Find more on AJC’s Center for a New Middle East Listen – AJC Podcasts: Follow Architects of Peace on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript: : I think we’re going to make a deal. It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand. Manya Brachear Pashman: In September 2020, the world saw what had been years – decades – in the making: landmark peace agreements dubbed the Abraham Accords -- normalizing relations between Israel and two Arabian Gulf states, the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Bahrain. Later, in December, they were joined by the Kingdom of Morocco. Five years later, AJC is pulling back the curtain to meet key individuals who built the trust that led to these breakthroughs. Introducing: the Architects of Peace. Shortly after he was elected in 2016 and before he took office, President Donald Trump nominated his company’s former bankruptcy attorney David Friedman to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Israel. He gave Friedman two simple tasks. Task No. 1? Build peace across the Middle East by normalizing relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Task No. 2? Solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict that a half dozen previous White House residents had failed to fix. After all, according to conventional wisdom, the first task could not happen before the second. The future of cooperation between Israel and 20-plus other Arab countries hinged on peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Here’s former Secretary of State John Kerry. : There will be no advance and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process and Palestinian peace. Everybody needs to understand that. Manya Brachear Pashman: Ambassador Friedman disagreed with this conventional wisdom. David Friedman: We were told initially by most countries that the road to peace began with the Palestinians. This was a hypothesis that I rejected internally, but I thought: ‘OK, well, let's just play this out and see where this can go. And so, we spent a couple of years really working on what could be a plan that would work for Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians, you know, rejected discussions early on, but we had a lot of discussions with the Israelis. Manya Brachear Pashman: The son of a rabbi who grew up in Long Island, Ambassador Friedman had been active in pro-Israel organizations for decades, He had advised Trump on the importance of the U.S.-Israel bond during the 2016 presidential election and recommended nothing less than a radical overhaul of White House policy in the region. Not long after his Senate confirmation as ambassador, that overhaul commenced. In February 2017, President Trump invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House – his first invitation to a foreign leader — and a symbolic one. After their meeting, they held a joint press conference. : With this visit, the United States again reaffirms our unbreakable bond with our cherished ally Israel. The partnership between our two countries, built on our shared values. I think we’re going to make a deal. It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand. That’s a possibility. So, let’s see what we do. He doesn't sound too optimistic. But he’s a good negotiator. Benjamin Netanyahu: That’s the art of the deal. Manya Brachear Pashman: Nine months later, President Trump made another symbolic gesture -- recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city and moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Though such a move had been approved by Congress in 1995, no president had ever acted upon it. When Trump’s son-in-law, businessman, and senior White House advisor Jared Kushner opened conversations about that ‘bigger and better deal,’ Palestinians refused to participate, using the pretext of the Jerusalem decision to boycott the Trump administration. But that didn’t stop Ambassador Friedman and others from engaging, not only with Israel, but with Arab countries about a new path forward. AJC’s Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson, who has been building bridges in the region since the early ‘90s, recalls this strategy at the time. Jason Isaacson: It was very clear for many months, 2019 on into early 2020, that there was a team working under Jared Kushner in the White House that was going from country to country in the Gulf and North Africa, looking to make a deal, looking to make deals that would lead to normalization with Israel, would involve various benefits that the United States would be able to provide. But of course, the big benefit would be regional integration and a closer relationship with the United States. Manya Brachear Pashman: The pitch for a new path forward resonated in the United Arab Emirates, a Gulf country of 10 million residents, some 11% of whom are Emiratis — the rest expats and migrants from around the world. The UAE had designated 2019 the Year of Tolerance, an initiative aimed at promoting the country as a global capital for tolerance and respect between diverse cultures and nationalities. That year, the Emirates hosted a historic visit from Pope Francis, and 27 Israeli athletes competed in the 2019 Special Olympics World Games held in the capital city of Abu Dhabi. The pitch also resonated in Bahrain. In June of that year, during a two-day workshop in Bahrain’s capital city of Manama, the Trump administration began rolling out the results of its Middle East tour – the economic portion of its peace plan, titled "Peace to Prosperity." Jason Isaacson: The White House plan for Peace to Prosperity was a kind of an early set of ideas for Israeli Palestinian resolution that would result in a small, but functional Palestinian state, created in a way that would not require the displacement of Israelis in the West Bank, and that would involve large scale investment, mostly provided by other countries, mostly in the Gulf, but not only, also Europe, to advance the Palestinian economy, to integrate the Palestinian and Israelis’ economies in a way that had never happened. And there was discussion that was taking place that all led up to the idea of a very fresh approach, a very new approach to the regional conflict. Manya Brachear Pashman: The 38-page prospectus set ambitious goals — turning the West Bank and Gaza into tourism destinations, doubling the amount of drinkable water there, tripling exports, earmarking $900 million to build hospitals and clinics. The Palestinians, angered by Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem and viewing the Manama workshop as an attempt to normalize Arab-Israel ties while sidelining their national rights, boycotted the meeting and rejected the plan before ever seeing its details. But the workshop’s host Bahrain, as well as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates participated, to varying degrees. Trump’s team rolled out the rest of the plan in January 2020, including a map of land carved out for Palestinians and for Israel. The plan enabled Palestinians and Arab countries to expand economic opportunities. It enabled Israel to demonstrate that it was open to cooperation. It enabled the Trump administration to illustrate the opportunities missed if countries in the region continued to let Palestinian leadership call the shots. David Friedman: The expectation was not that the Palestinians would jump all over it. We were realistic about the possibility, but we did think it was important to show that Israel itself, under some circumstances, was willing to engage with the Palestinians with regard to a formula for peace that, you know, had an economic component, a geographic component, a governance component. Manya Brachear Pashman: The Palestine Liberation Organization accused the United States of trying to sell a "mirage of economic prosperity.” Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh criticized the Arab leaders attending the al-Manama conference, saying "The (Palestinian) people, who have been fighting for 100 years, did not commission anyone to concede or to bargain.” But that’s the thing. Arab leaders weren’t there solely on behalf of the Palestinians. They wanted to learn how their own countries’ citizens could enjoy peace and prosperity too. David Friedman: The real point of all this that got the Abraham Accords jump started was not the fact that the Palestinians embraced this, but more so that they rejected it in such a way that enabled these other countries to say: ‘Look, guys, you know what? We can't be more pro-Palestinian than you.’ Here you have, you know, the U.S. government putting on a table a proposal that gets you more than halfway there in terms of your stated goals and aspirations. Maybe you don't like all of it, that's fine, but you're never going to get everything you wanted anyway. And here's the first government in history that's willing to give you something tangible to talk about, and if you're not going to engage in something that they spent years working on, talking to everybody, trying to thread the needle as best they could. If you're not willing to talk to them about it, then don't ask us to fight your fight. There's only so far we can go. But we thought that putting this plan out on a table publicly would kind of smoke out a lot of positions that had historically been below the surface. And so, beginning right after the 28th of January of 2020 when we had that ceremony with the President's vision for peace, we began to really get serious engagement. Not from the Palestinians, who rejected it immediately, but from the countries in the region. And so that's how the Abraham Accords discussions really began in earnest. Manya Brachear Pashman: AJC had been saying for years that if Arab leaders truly wanted to foster stability in the region and help the Palestinians, engaging with Israel and opening channels of communication would give them the leverage to do so. Isolating Israel was not the answer. Nothing underscored that more than the COVID-19 pandemic, the worst global health crisis in a century. As everyone around the world donned N95 masks and went into self-imposed isolation, some governments in the Middle East concluded that isolating innovative countries like Israel was perhaps not the wisest or safest choice. In May 2020, UAE Ambassador to the United Nations Lana Nusseibeh said as much during a virtual webinar hosted by AJC. : Of course, we’ve had Israeli medics participate in previous events in the UAE, that wouldn’t be unusual. And I’m sure there’s a lot of scope for collaboration. I don’t think we would be opposed to it. Because I really think this public health space should be an unpoliticized space where we all try and pool our collective knowledge of this virus. Manya Brachear Pashman: A month later, UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dr. Anwar Gargash echoed that sentiment, during AJC Global Forum. : I think we can come to a point where we come to a given Israeli government and we say we disagree with you on this, we don’t think it’s a good idea. But at the same time there are areas, such as COVID, technology, and other things that we can actually work on together. Manya Brachear Pashman: Not surprisingly, the UAE was the first Arab country to begin negotiating with the White House to normalize relations with Israel. However, talks that summer hit a stalemate. Israel was moving forward with a plan to annex a significant portion of the West Bank, including Israeli settlements and the Jordan Valley. Even though President Trump himself had cautioned Prime Minister Netanyahu to hold off, Ambassador Friedman was not about to stop them. David Friedman: I thought that the idea of Israel walking away from its biblical heartland. Anything that required Israel to make that commitment was something I couldn't support. I was so dead set against it. Israel cannot, as a price for normalization, as great as it is, as important as it is, Israel cannot agree to cede its biblical heartland. Manya Brachear Pashman: Not only was this personal for Ambassador Friedman, it was also a major incentive for Israel, included in the Peace to Prosperity plan. The ambassador didn’t want to go back on his word and lose Israel’s trust. But annexation was a dealbreaker for the Emirates. In June, UAE’s Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba wrote a column speaking directly to the Israeli public. He explained that the UAE wanted diplomatic relations with Israel – it really did – but unilateral annexation of land that it considered still in dispute would be viewed as a breach of trust and undermine any and all progress toward normalization. David Friedman: It was a kind of a tumultuous period, both internally within our own team and with others, about what exactly was going to happen as a result of that Peace to Prosperity Plan. And even if there was an agreement by the United States to support Israeli annexation, was this something that was better, at least in the short term? Manya Brachear Pashman: Otaiba’s message got through, and the team ultimately agreed to suspend the annexation plan — not halt, but suspend — an intentionally temporary verb. In addition to writing the column, Otaiba also recommended that a friend join the negotiations to help repair the trust deficit: General Miguel Correa, a U.S. Army General who had spent part of his childhood in the Middle East, served in the Persian Gulf War and as a peacekeeper maintaining the treaty between Israel and Egypt. General Correa had joined the National Security Council in March 2020 after serving as a defense attaché in Abu Dhabi. He had earned the respect of Emiratis, not as a dealmaker so much as a lifesaver, once orchestrating a secret rescue mission of wounded Emirati troops from inside Yemen. Among those troops, the nephew and son-in-law of Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed, the then-de facto ruler and now the current president of the UAE. Kushner and Friedman had never met Correa. Miguel Correa: I didn't know them, and they didn't know me. No one else had any military experience on the team. I had a unique perspective of the Arab side of the equation. And had relationships. So, it was a match made in heaven. Jared, David Friedman, these guys obviously understood Israeli politics and understood the Israeli side, and somewhat Jewish American side. I could provide a different dynamic or a different view from the Arab side, as someone who's kind of grown up with this. It really got serious when the team came together and, and we could start working on real, concrete things. Manya Brachear Pashman: Months of negotiations had already unfolded. It was already late July, first of August, when General Correa became the last person to join the tiny circle of a half dozen negotiators – kept intentionally small to keep a lid on the conversations. It’s hard to keep a secret in Washington. David Friedman: The secrecy here was very, very important, because to be honest with you, I think anything bigger than that group of six or seven, we would have put it in jeopardy. Manya Brachear Pashman: In this situation, leaks not only threatened the deal, they could threaten lives. Though word trickled out that a deal was in the works, no one guessed just how transformational the result might be. In General Correa’s opinion, the UAE had the most to lose. Miguel Correa: That was the concern that, frankly, guys like me had, that, I hurt a nation of good people that is incredibly tolerant, that builds synagogues and churches and Sikh temples, or Hindu temples, and tolerance 101, that everybody can pray to who they would like to pray to. And I was worried that all these extremists were going to come out of the woodwork and hurt that trajectory in the UAE, that was going to be a great nation with or without the normalization. But this ruler said: ‘No, no, it's the right thing to do. Peace is the right thing to do.’ Manya Brachear Pashman: General Correa actually had quite a few concerns. He didn’t want the negotiations to be hijacked for political gain. He wanted leaders to have a security and public relations response in place before anything was announced. And the agreement? It lacked a name. Miguel Correa: A lot of it has to do with my military side. We love to name cool task forces, and things like that. And then I felt like: ‘Hey, it has to be something that rolls off the tongue, that makes sense and that will help it, you know, with staying power. Let's do something that ties the people together. There was going to be a shock, a tectonic shock that was going to occur. From 1948, we're going to do a complete 180, and wow. So what do we do to take the wind away from the extremists? As a guy who's fought extremism, militant extremism, for most of his military career, I figured, hey, we've got to do what we can to frame this in a super positive manner. Manya Brachear Pashman: To the general’s dismay, no one else shared his concern about what to call their project. A lot was happening in those last few weeks. Landing on a name – not a priority. On the morning of August 13, once all the details were hammered out, the team sat in the Oval Office waiting to brief the President before it was announced to the world. David Friedman: It came about 10 minutes before the end, we were all sitting around the Oval Office, waiting for this announcement about the UAE. And somebody, not me, said: ‘Well, we need a name for this,’ and I said, why? And they said, ‘Well, you know, you have the Oslo Accords, you have the Camp David Accords. You need a name.’ And I said, you know, Who's got an idea? And General Miguel Correa, he said: ‘How about the Abraham Accords?’ And I said: ‘That's a great name.’ And then we had a rush to call the Israelis and the Emiratis to make sure they were OK with it. Five minutes later we're broadcasting to a few hundred million people this groundbreaking announcement. And the President looks at me and says, ‘David, explain why you chose the Abraham Accords?’ So that was when we explained what the name was, which I hadn't really thought of until that point. We just thought it was a good name. So at that point I said, ‘Well, you know, Abraham was the father of three great religions. He's referred to as Abraham in English, and Ibrahim in Arabic, and Avraham in Hebrew. And no single individual better exemplifies the opportunity and the benefits of unity among all peoples than Abraham.’ And that was sort of on the fly how we got to the Abraham Accords. Manya Brachear Pashman: General Correa said he chose a name that would remind people of all faiths that what they have in common far outweighs what separates them. It was also important that the name be plural. Not the Abraham Accord. The... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/38091340

Architects of Peace: Episode 1 - The Road to the Deal 08/28/2025

Architects of Peace: Episode 1 - The Road to the Deal Listen to the first episode of AJC’s new limited podcast series, Architects of Peace. Go behind the scenes of the decades-long diplomacy and quiet negotiations that made the Abraham Accords possible, bringing Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and later Morocco, together in historic peace agreements. Jason Isaacson, AJC Chief of Policy and Political Affairs, explains the complex Middle East landscape before the Accords and how behind-the-scenes efforts helped foster the dialogue that continues to shape the region today. Resources: - Tune in weekly for new episodes. - Find more on AJC’s Center for a New Middle East Listen – AJC Podcasts: Follow Architects of Peace on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript: Jason Isaacson: It has become clear to me in my travels in the region over the decades that more and more people across the Arab world understood the game, and they knew that this false narrative – that Jews are not legitimately there, and that somehow we have to focus all of our energy in the Arab world on combating this evil interloper – it’s nonsense. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that, in fact, Israel can be a partner. Manya Brachear Pashman: In September 2020, the world saw what had been years – decades – in the making: landmark peace agreements dubbed the Abraham Accords -- normalizing relations between Israel and two Arabian Gulf states, the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Bahrain. Later in December, they were joined by the Kingdom of Morocco. Five years later, AJC is pulling back the curtain to meet key individuals who built the trust that led to these breakthroughs. Introducing: the Architects of Peace. Manya Brachear Pashman: On the eve of the signing of the Abraham Accords, AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson found himself traveling to the end of a tree filled winding road in McLean, Virginia, to sip tea on the back terrace with Bahraini Ambassador Shaikh Abdulla bin Rashid Al Khalifa and Bahrain’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani. Jason Isaacson: Sitting in the backyard of the Bahraini ambassador's house with Dr. Al Zayani, the Foreign Minister of Bahrain and with Shaikh Abdulla, the ambassador, and hearing what was about to happen the next day on the South Lawn of the White House was a thrilling moment. And really, in many ways, just a validation of the work that AJC has been doing for many years–before I came to the organization, and the time that I've spent with AJC since the early 90s. This possibility of Israel's true integration in the region, Israel's cooperation and peace with its neighbors, with all of its neighbors – this was clearly the threshold that we were standing on. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you’re wondering how Jason ended up sipping tea in such esteemed company the night before his hosts made history, wonder no more. Here’s the story. : The people of Israel look to this palace with great anticipation and expectation. We pray that this meeting will mark the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the Middle East; that it will signal the end of hostility, violence, terror, and war; that it will bring dialogue, accommodation, co-existence, and above all, peace. Manya Brachear Pashman: That was Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir speaking in October 1991 at the historic Madrid Peace Conference -- the first time Israel and Arab delegations engaged in direct talks toward peace. It had taken 43 years to reach this point – 43 years since the historic United Nations Resolution that created separate Jewish and Arab states – a resolution Jewish leaders accepted, but Arab states scorned. Not even 24 hours after Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the armies of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria attacked the new Jewish state, which fought back mightily and expanded its territory. The result? A deep-seated distrust among Israel, its neighboring nations, and some of the Arab residents living within Israel’s newly formed borders. Though many Palestinian Arabs stayed, comprising over 20 percent of Israel’s population today, hundreds of thousands of others left or were displaced. Meanwhile, in reaction to the rebirth of the Jewish state, and over the following two decades, Jewish communities long established in Arab states faced hardship and attacks, forcing Jews by the hundreds of thousands to flee. Israel’s War of Independence set off a series of wars with neighboring nations, terrorist attacks, and massacres. Peace in the region saw more than a few false starts, with one rare exception. In 1979, after the historic visit to Israel by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, he and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin joined President Jimmy Carter for negotiations at Camp David and signed a peace treaty that for the next 15 years, remained the only formal agreement between Israel and an Arab state. In fact, it was denounced uniformly across the Arab world. But 1991 introduced dramatic geopolitical shifts. The collapse of the Soviet Union, which had severed relations with Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967, diminished its ability to back Syria, Iraq, and Libya. In the USSR’s final months, it re-established diplomatic relations with Israel but left behind a regional power vacuum that extremists started to fill. Meanwhile, most Arab states, including Syria, joined the successful U.S.-led coalition against Saddam Hussein that liberated Kuwait, solidifying American supremacy in the region and around the world. The Palestine Liberation Organization, which claimed to represent the world’s Palestinians, supported Iraq and Libya. Seizing an opportunity, the U.S. and the enfeebled but still relevant Soviet Union invited to Madrid a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, along with delegations from Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Israel. Just four months before that Madrid meeting, Jason Isaacson had left his job on Capitol Hill to work for the American Jewish Committee. At that time, AJC published a magazine titled Commentary, enabling Jason to travel to the historic summit with media credentials and hang out with the press pool. Jason Isaacson: It was very clear in just normal conversations with these young Arab journalists who I was spending some time with, that there was the possibility of an openness that I had not realized existed. There was a possibility of kind of a sense of common concerns about the region, that was kind of refreshing and was sort of running counter to the narratives that have dominated conversations in that part of the world for so long. And it gave me the sense that by expanding the circle of relationships that I was just starting with in Madrid, we might be able to make some progress. We might be able to find some partners with whom AJC could develop a real relationship. Manya Brachear Pashman: AJC had already begun to build ties in the region in the 1950s, visiting Arab countries like Morocco and Tunisia, which had sizable Jewish populations. The rise in Arab nationalism in Tunisia and rebirth of Israel eventually led to an exodus that depleted the Jewish community there. Emigration depleted Morocco’s Jewish community as well. Jason Isaacson: To say that somehow this is not the native land of the Jewish people is just flying in the face of the reality. And yet, that was the propaganda line that was pushed out across the region. Of course, Madrid opened a lot of people's eyes. But that wasn't enough. More had to be done. There were very serious efforts made by the U.S. government, Israeli diplomats, Israeli businesspeople, and my organization, which played a very active role in trying to introduce people to the reality that they would benefit from this relationship with Israel. So it was pushing back against decades of propaganda and lies. And that was one of the roles that we assigned to ourselves and have continued to play. Manya Brachear Pashman: No real negotiations took place at the Madrid Conference, rather it opened conversations that unfolded in Moscow, in Washington, and behind closed doors in secret locations around the world. Progress quickened under Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. In addition to a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, reached in 1994, secret talks in Norway between Israel and PLO resulted in the Oslo Accords, a series of agreements signed in 1993 and 1995 that ended the First Intifada after six years of violence, and laid out a five-year timeline for achieving a two-state solution. Extremists tried to derail the process. A Jewish extremist assassinated Rabin in 1995. And a new terror group launched a series of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. Formed during the First Intifada, these terrorists became stars of the Second. They called themselves Hamas. AP News Report: [sirens] [in Hebrew] Don’t linger, don’t linger. Manya Brachear Pashman: On March 27, 2002, Hamas sent a suicide bomber into an Israeli hotel where 250 guests had just been seated for a Passover Seder. He killed 30 people and injured 140 more. The day after the deadliest suicide attack in Israel’s history, the Arab League, a coalition of 22 Arab nations in the Middle East and Africa, unveiled what it called the Arab Peace Initiative – a road map offering wide scale normalization of relations with Israel, but with an ultimatum: No expansion of Arab-Israeli relations until the establishment of a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 armistice lines and a so-called right of return for Palestinians who left and their descendants. As the Second Intifada continued to take civilian lives, the Israeli army soon launched Operation Defensive Shield to secure the West Bank and parts of Gaza. It was a period of high tension, conflict, and distrust. But behind the scenes, Jason and AJC were forging ahead, building bridges, and encountering an openness in Arab capitals that belied the ultimatum. Jason Isaacson: It has become clear to me in my travels in the region over the decades that more and more people across the Arab world understood the game, and they knew that that this false narrative that Jews are not legitimately there, and that somehow we have to focus all of our energy in the Arab world on combating this evil interloper – it’s nonsense. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that, in fact, Israel can be a partner of Arab countries. Manya Brachear Pashman: Jason led delegations of Jewish leaders to Arab capitals, oversaw visits by Arab leaders to Israel, and cultivated relationships of strategic and political consequence with governments and civil society leaders across North Africa, the Levant, and the Arabian Peninsula. In 2009, King Mohammed VI of Morocco bestowed on him the honor of Chevalier of the Order of the Throne of the Kingdom of Morocco. Jason’s priority was nurturing one key element missing from Arab-Israeli relations. An element that for decades had been absent in most Middle East peace negotiations: trust. Jason Isaacson: Nothing is more important than developing trust. Trust and goodwill are, if not synonymous, are so closely linked. Yes, a lot of these discussions that AJC’s been engaged in over many years have been all about, not only developing a set of contacts we can turn to when there's a crisis or when we need answers to questions or when we need to pass a message along to a government. But also, develop a sense that we all want the same thing and we trust each other. That if someone is prepared to take certain risks to advance the prospect of peace, which will involve risk, which will involve vulnerability. That a neighbor who might have demonstrated in not-so-distant past animosity and hostility toward Israel can be trusted to take a different course. Manya Brachear Pashman: A number of Israeli diplomats and businesspeople also worked toward that goal. While certain diplomatic channels in the intelligence and security spheres stayed open out of necessity – other diplomats and businesspeople with dual citizenship traveled across the region, quietly breaking down barriers, starting conversations, and building trust. Jason Isaacson: I would run into people in Arab capitals from time to time, who were fulfilling that function, and traveling with different passports that they had legitimately, because they were from those countries. It was just a handful of people in governments that would necessarily know that they were there. So yes, if that sounds like cloak and dagger, it’s kind of a cloak and dagger operation, a way for people to maintain a relationship and build a relationship until the society is ready to accept the reality that it will be in their country's best interest to have that relationship. Manya Brachear Pashman: Privately, behind the scenes, signs emerged that some Arab leaders understood the role that Jews have played in the region’s history for millennia and the possibilities that would exist if Muslims and Jews could restore some of the faith and friendship of bygone years. Jason Isaacson: I remember sitting with King Mohammed the VI of Morocco just weeks after his ascension to the throne, so going back more than a quarter century, and hearing him talk with me and AJC colleagues about the 600,000 subjects that he had in Israel. Of course, these were Jews, Israelis of Moroccan descent, who are in the hundreds of thousands. But the sense that these countries really have a common history. Manya Brachear Pashman: Common history, yes. Common goals, too. And not for nothing, a common enemy. The same extremist forces that have been bent on Israel’s destruction have not only disrupted Israeli-Arab peace, they’ve prevented the Palestinian people from thriving in a state of their own and now threaten the security and stability of the entire region. Jason Isaacson: We are hopeful that in partnership with those in the Arab world who feel the same way about the need to push back against extremism, including the extremism promoted, promulgated, funded, armed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, that we can have enough of a network of supportive players in the Arab world, in the West. Working with Israel and working with Palestinian partners who are interested in the same future. A real future, a politically free future, where we can actually make some progress. And that's an ongoing effort. This is a point that we made consistently over many years: if you want to help the Palestinian people–and we want to help the Palestinian people–but if you, fill in the blank Arab government official, your country wants to help the Palestinian people, you're not helping them by pretending that Israel doesn't exist. You're not helping them by isolating Israel, by making Israel a pariah in the minds of your people. You will actually have leverage with Israel, and you'll help the Palestinians when they're sitting at a negotiating table across from the Israelis. If you engage Israel, if you have access to the Israeli officials and they have a stake in your being on their side on certain things and working together on certain common issues. Manya Brachear Pashman: Jason says more and more Arab leaders are realizing, with some frustration, that isolating Israel is a losing proposition for all the parties involved. It has not helped the Palestinian people. It has not kept extremism at bay. And it has not helped their own countries and their own citizens prosper. In fact, the limitations that isolating Israel imposes have caused many countries to lag behind the tiny Jewish state. Jason Isaacson: I think there was just this sense of how far back we have fallen, how much ground we have to make up. We need to break out of the old mindset and try something different. But that before the Abraham Accords, they were saying it in the years leading up to the Abraham Accords, with increasing frustration for the failure of Palestinian leadership to seize opportunities that had been held out to them. But frankly, also contributing, I think, to this was this insistence on isolating themselves from a naturally synergistic relationship with a neighboring state right next door that could contribute to the welfare of their societies. It just didn't make a whole lot of sense, and it denied them the ability to move forward. Manya Brachear Pashman: Jason remembers the first time he heard an Arab official utter the words out loud – expressing a willingness, daresay desire, to partner with Israel. Jason Isaacson: It took a long time, but I could see in 2016, 17, 18, 19, this growing awareness, and finally hearing it actually spoken out loud in one particular conference that I remember going to in 2018 in Bahrain, by a senior official from an Arab country. It took a long time for that lesson to penetrate, but it's absolutely the case. Manya Brachear Pashman: In 2019, Bahrain hosted an economic summit where the Trump administration presented its "Peace to Prosperity" plan, a $50 billion investment proposal to create jobs and improve the lives of Palestinians while also promoting regional peace and security. Palestinians rejected the plan outright and refused to attend. Bahrain invited Israeli media to cover the summit. That September, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, AJC presented its inaugural Architect of Peace Award to the Kingdom of Bahrain’s chief diplomat for nearly 20 years. Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, Bahrain’s Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, told Jason that it was important to learn the lessons of the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and late Jordanian King Hussein, both of whom signed peace treaties with Israel. He also explained the reason why Bahrain invited Israeli media. : President Anwar Sadat did it, he broke a huge barrier. He was a man of war, he was the leader of a country that went to war or two with Israel. But then he knew that at the right moment he would want to go straight to Israeli and talk to them. We fulfilled also something that we’ve always wanted to do, we’ve discussed it many times: talking to the Israeli public through the Israeli media. Why not talk to the people? They wake up every day, they have their breakfast watching their own TV channels, they read their own papers, they read their own media, they form their own opinion. Absolutely nobody should shy away from talking to the media. We are trying to get our point across. In order to convince. How will you do it? There is no language of silence. You’ll have to talk and you’ll have to remove all those barriers and with that, trust can be built. Manya Brachear Pashman: Jason had spent decades building that trust and the year to come yielded clear results. In May and June 2020, UAE Ambassador to the UN Lana Nusseibeh and UAE Minister of State Dr. Anwar Gargash both participated in AJC webinars to openly discuss cooperation with Israel – a topic once considered taboo. So when the Abraham Accords were signed a few months later, for Jason and AJC colleagues who had been on this long journey for peace, it was a natural progression. Though no less dramatic. Sitting with Minister Al Khalifa’s successor, Dr. Al Zayani, and the Bahraini ambassador on the evening before the White House ceremony, it was time to drink a toast to a new chapter of history in the region. Jason Isaacson: I don't think that that would have been possible had there not been decades of contacts that had been made by many people. Roving Israeli diplomats and Israeli business people, usually operating, in fact, maybe always operating with passports from other countries, traveling across the region.... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/38006065

3 Ways Jewish College Students are Building Strength Amid Hate 08/15/2025

3 Ways Jewish College Students are Building Strength Amid Hate "Our duty as Jewish youth is paving the way for ourselves. Sometimes we may feel alone . . . But the most important thing is for us as youth to pave the way for ourselves, to take action, to speak out. Even if it's hard or difficult.” As American Jewish college students head back to their campuses this fall, we talk to three leaders on AJC's Campus Global Board about how antisemitism before and after the October 7 Hamas terror attacks revealed their resilience and ignited the activist inside each of them. Jonathan Iadarola shares how a traumatic anti-Israel incident at University of Adelaide in Australia led him to secure a safe space on campus for Jewish students to convene. Ivan Stern recalls launching the Argentinian Union of Jewish Students after October 7, and Lauren Eckstein shares how instead of withdrawing from her California college and returning home to Arizona, she transferred to Washington University in St. Louis where she found opportunities she never dreamed existed and a supportive Jewish community miles from home. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Key Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: MANYA: As American Jewish college students head back to their campuses this fall, it’s hard to know what to expect. Since the Hamas terror attacks of October 7, maintaining a GPA has been the least of their worries. For some who attend universities that allowed anti-Israel protesters to vandalize hostage signs or set up encampments, fears still linger. We wanted to hear from college students how they’re feeling about this school year. But instead of limiting ourselves to American campuses, we asked three students from AJC’s Campus Global Board – from America, Argentina, and Australia – that’s right, we still aim for straight A’s here. We asked them to share their experiences so far and what they anticipate this year. We’ll start on the other side of the world in Australia. With us now is Jonathan Iadarola, a third-year student at the University of Adelaide in Adelaide, Australia, the land down under, where everything is flipped, and they are getting ready to wrap up their school year in November. Jonathan serves as president of the South Australia branch of the Australian Union of Jewish students and on AJC’s Campus Global Board. Jonathan, welcome to People of the Pod. JONATHAN: Thank you for having me. MANYA: So tell us what your experience has been as a Jewish college student in Australia, both before October 7 and after. JONATHAN: So at my university, we have a student magazine, and there was a really awful article in the magazine that a student editor wrote, very critical of Israel, obviously not very nice words. And it sort of ended with like it ended with Death to Israel, glory to the Intifada. Inshallah, it will be merciless. So it was very, very traumatic, obviously, like, just the side note, my great aunt actually died in the Second Intifada in a bus bombing. So it was just like for me, a very personal like, whoa. This is like crazy that someone on my campus wrote this and genuinely believes what they wrote. So yeah, through that experience, I obviously, I obviously spoke up. That's kind of how my activism on campus started. I spoke up against this incident, and I brought it to the university. I brought it to the student editing team, and they stood their ground. They tried to say that this is free speech. This is totally okay. It's completely like normal, normal dialog, which I completely disagreed with. And yeah, they really pushed back on it for a really long time. And it just got more traumatic with myself and many other students having to go to meetings in person with this student editor at like a student representative council, which is like the students that are actually voted in. Like student government in the United States, like a student body that's voted in by the students to represent us to the university administration. And though that student government actually laughed in our faces in the meeting while we were telling them that this sort of incident makes us as Jewish students feel unsafe on campus. And we completely were traumatized. Completely, I would say, shattered, any illusion that Jewish students could feel safe on campus. And yeah, that was sort of the beginning of my university journey, which was not great. MANYA: Wow. And that was in 2022, before October 7. So after the terror attacks was when most college campuses here in America really erupted. Had the climate at the University of Adelaide improved by then, or did your experience continue to spiral downward until it was addressed? JONATHAN: It's kind of remained stagnant, I would say. The levels haven't really improved or gotten worse. I would say the only exception was maybe in May 2024, when the encampments started popping up across the world. Obviously it came, came to my city as well. And it wasn't very, it wasn't very great. There was definitely a large presence on my campus in the encampment. And they were, they were more peaceful than, I would say, other encampments across Australia and obviously in the United States as well. But it was definitely not pleasant for students to, you know, be on campus and constantly see that in their faces and protesting. They would often come into people's classrooms as well. Sharing everything that they would like to say. You couldn't really escape it when you were on campus. MANYA: So how did you find refuge? Was there a community center or safe space on campus? Were there people who took you in? JONATHAN: So I'm the president of the Jewish Student Society on my campus. One of the things that I really pushed for when the encampments came to my city was to have a Jewish space on campus. It was something that my university never had, and thankfully, we were able to push and they were like ‘Yes, you know what? This is the right time. We definitely agree.’ So we actually now have our own, like, big Jewish room on campus, and we still have it to this day, which is amazing. So it's great to go to when, whether we feel uncomfortable on campus, or whether we just want a place, you know, to feel proud in our Jewish identity. And there's often events in the room. There's like, a Beers and Bagels, or we can have beer here at 18, so it's OK for us. And there's also, yeah, there's bagels. Then we also do Shabbat dinners. Obviously, there's still other stuff happening on campus that's not as nice, but it's great that we now have a place to go when we feel like we need a place to be proud Jews. MANYA: You mentioned that this was the start of your Jewish activism. So, can you tell us a little bit about your Jewish upbringing and really how your college experience has shifted your Jewish involvement, just activity in general? JONATHAN: Yeah, that's a great question. So I actually grew up in Adelaide. This is my home. I was originally born in Israel to an Israeli mother, but we moved, I was two years old when we moved to Adelaide. There was a Jewish school when I grew up. So I did attend the Jewish school until grade five, and then, unfortunately, it did close due to low numbers. And so I had to move to the public school system. And from that point, I was very involved in the Jewish community through my youth. And then there was a point once the Jewish school closed down where I kind of maybe slightly fell out. I was obviously still involved, but not to the same extent as I was when I was younger. And then I would say the first place I got kind of reintroduced was once I went to college and obviously met other Jewish students, and then it made me want to get back in, back, involved in the community, to a higher level than I had been since primary school. And yeah, then obviously, these incidents happened on campus, and that kind of, I guess, it shoved me into the spotlight unintentionally, where I felt like no one else was saying anything. I started just speaking up against this. And then obviously, I think many other Jews on campus saw this, and were like: ‘Hang on. We want to also support this and, like, speak out against it.’ and we kind of formed a bit of a group on campus, and that's how the club actually was formed as well. So the club didn't exist prior to this incident. It kind of came out of it, which is, I guess, the beautiful thing, but also kind of a sad thing that we only seem to find each other in incidences of, you know, sadness and trauma. But the beautiful thing is that from that, we have been able to create a really nice, small community on campus for Jewish students. So yeah, that's sort of how my journey started. And then through that, I got involved with the Australsian Union of Jewish Students, which is the Jewish Student Union that represents Jewish students all across Australia and New Zealand. And I started the South Australian branch, which is the state that Adelaide is in. And I've been the president for the last three years. So that's sort of been my journey. And obviously through that, I've gotten involved with American Jewish Committee. MANYA: So you're not just fighting antisemitism, these communities and groups that you're forming are doing some really beautiful things. JONATHAN: Obviously, I really want to ensure that Jewish student life can continue to thrive in my city, but also across Australia. And one way that we've really wanted to do that is to help create essentially, a national Shabbaton. An event where Jewish students from all across the country, come to one place for a weekend, and we're all together having a Shabbat dinner together, learning different educational programs, hearing from different amazing speakers, and just being with each other in our Jewish identity, very proud and united. It's one of, I think, my most proud accomplishments so far, through my college journey, that I've been able to, you know, create this event and make it happen. MANYA: And is there anything that you would like to accomplish Jewishly before you finish your college career? JONATHAN: There's a couple things. The big thing for me is ensuring, I want there to continue to be a place on campus for people to go and feel proud in their Jewish identity. I think having a Jewish space is really important, and it's something that I didn't have when I started my college journey. So I'm very glad that that's in place for future generations. For most of my college journey so far, we didn't have even a definition at my university for antisemitism. So if you don't have a definition, how are you going to be able to define what is and what isn't antisemitic and actually combat it? So now, thankfully, they do have a definition. I don't know exactly if it's been fully implemented yet, but I know that they have agreed to a definition, and it's a mix of IHRA and the Jerusalem Declaration, I believe, so it's kind of a mix. But I think as a community, we're reasonably happy with it, because now they actually have something to use, rather than not having anything at all. And yeah, I think those are probably the two main things for me, obviously, ensuring that there's that processes at the university moving forward for Jewish students to feel safe to report when there are incidents on campus. And then ensuring that there's a place for Jewish students to continue to feel proud in their Jewish identity and continue to share that and live that while they are studying at the university. MANYA: Well, Jonathan, thank you so much for joining us, and enjoy your holiday. JONATHAN: Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. MANYA: Now we turn to Argentina, Buenos Aires to be exact, to talk to Ivan Stern, the first Argentine and first Latin American to serve on AJC’s Campus Global Board. A student at La Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Ivan just returned to classes last week after a brief winter break down there in the Southern Hemisphere. What is Jewish life like there on that campus? Are there organizations for Jewish students? IVAN: So I like to compare Jewish life in Buenos Aires like Jewish life in New York or in Paris or in Madrid. We are a huge city with a huge Jewish community where you can feel the Jewish sense, the Jewish values, the synagogues everywhere in the street. When regarding to college campuses, we do not have Jewish institutions or Jewish clubs or Jewish anything in our campuses that advocate for Jewish life or for Jewish students. We don't actually need them, because the Jewish community is well established and respected in Argentina. Since our terrorist attacks of the 90s, we are more respected, and we have a strong weight in all the decisions. So there's no specific institution that works for Jewish life on campus until October 7 that we gathered a student, a student led organization, a student led group. We are now part of a system that it's created, and it exists in other parts of the world, but now we are start to strengthening their programming and activities in Argentina we are we now have the Argentinian union with Jewish students that was born in October 7, and now we represent over 150 Jewish students in more than 10 universities. We are growing, but we are doing Shabbat talks in different campuses for Jewish students. We are bringing Holocaust survivors to universities to speak with administrations and with student cabinets that are not Jewish, and to learn and to build bridges of cooperation, of course, after October 7, which is really important. So we are in the middle of this work. We don't have a strong Hillel in campuses or like in the US, but we have Jewish students everywhere. We are trying to make this grow, to try to connect every student with other students in other universities and within the same university. And we are, yeah, we are work in progress. MANYA: Listeners just heard from your Campus Global Board colleague Jonathan Iadarola from Adelaide, Australia, and he spoke about securing the first space for Jewish students on campus at the University of Adelaide. Does that exist at your university? Do you have a safe space? So Hillel exists in Buenos Aires and in Cordoba, which Cordova is another province of Argentina. It's a really old, nice house in the middle of a really nice neighborhood in Buenos Aires. So also in Argentina another thing that it's not like in the U.S., we don't live on campuses, so we come and go every day from our houses to the to the classes. So that's why sometimes it's possible for us to, after classes, go to Hillel or or go to elsewhere. And the Argentinian Union, it's our job to represent politically to the Jewish youth on campus. To make these bridges of cooperation with non-Jewish actors of different college campuses and institutions, as I mentioned before, we bring Holocaust survivors, we place banners, we organize rallies. We go to talk with administrators. We erase pro- Palestinian paints on the wall. We do that kind of stuff, building bridges, making programs for Jewish youth. We also do it, but it's not our main goal. MANYA: So really, it's an advocacy organization, much like AJC. IVAN: It's an advocacy organization, and we are really, really, really happy to work alongside with the AJC more than once to strengthen our goals. MANYA: October 7 was painful for all of us, what happened on university campuses there in Argentina that prompted the need for a union? So the impact of October 7 in Argentina wasn't nearly as strong as in other parts of the world, and definitely nothing like what's been happening on U.S. campuses. Maybe that's because October here is finals season, and our students were more focused on passing their classes than reacting to what was happening on the Middle East, but there were attempts of engagements, rallies, class disruptions and intimidations, just like in other places. That's why we focused on speaking up, taking action. So here it's not happening. What's happening in the U.S., which was really scary, and it's still really scary, but something was happening, and we needed to react. There wasn't a Jewish institution advocating for Jewish youth on campus, directly, getting to know what Jewish students were facing, directly, lively walking through the through the hallways, through the campus, through the campuses. So that's why we organize this student-led gathering, different students from different universities, universities. We need to do something. At the beginning, this institution was just on Instagram. It was named the institutions, and then for Israel, like my university acronym, it's unsam Universidad national, San Martin unsam. So it was unsam for Israel. So we, so we posted, like every campaign we were doing in our campuses, and then the same thing happened in other university and in other universities. So now we, we gathered everyone, and now we are the Argentinian Union of Jewish students. But on top of that, in November 2023 students went on summer break until March 2024 so while the topic was extremely heated elsewhere here, the focus had shifted on other things. The new national government was taking office, which had everyone talking more about their policies than about Israel. So now the issue is starting to resurface because of the latest news from Gaza, So we will go where it goes from here, but the weight of the community here, it's, as I said, really strong. So we have the ability to speak up. MANYA: What kinds of conversations have you had with university administrators directly after. October 7, and then now, I mean, are you, are you communicating with them? Do you have an open channel of communication? Or is are there challenges? IVAN: we do? That's an incredible question there. It's a tricky one, because it depends on the university. The answer we receive. Of course, in my university, as I said, we are, we are lots of Jews in our eyes, but we are a strong minority also, but we have some Jewish directors in the administration, so sometimes they are really focused on attending to our concerns, and they are really able to to pick a call, to answer back our messages, also, um, there's a there's a great work that Argentina has been, has been doing since 2020 to apply the IHRA definition in every institute, in every public institution. So for example, my university, it's part of the IHRA definition. So that's why it was easy for us to apply sanctions to student cabinets or student organizations that were repeating antisemitic rhetorics, distortioning the Holocaust messages and everything, because we could call to our administrators, regardless if they were Jewish or not, but saying like, ‘Hey, this institution is part of the IHRA definition since February 2020, it's November 2023, and this will be saying this, this and that they are drawing on the walls of the of our classrooms. Rockets with Magen David, killing people. This is distortioning the Jewish values, the religion, they are distortioning everything. Please do something.’ So they started doing something. Then with the private institutions, we really have a good relationship. They have partnerships with different institutions from Israel, so it's easy for us to stop political demonstrations against the Jewish people. We are not against political demonstrations supporting the Palestinian statehood or anything. But when it regards to the safety of Jewish life on campus or of Jewish students, we do make phone calls. We do call... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/37842650

From the Amazon to Academia: Antisemitism, Zionism, and Indigenous Identity 08/07/2025

From the Amazon to Academia: Antisemitism, Zionism, and Indigenous Identity As the school year kicks off, Adam Louis-Klein shares his unexpected journey from researching the Desano tribe in the Amazon to confronting rising antisemitism in academic circles after October 7. He discusses his academic work, which explores the parallels between indigenous identity and Jewish peoplehood, and unpacks the politics of historical narrative. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: Adam Louis-Klein is a PhD candidate in anthropology at McGill University, where he researches antisemitism, Zionism, Jewish peoplehood, and broader questions of indigeneity and historical narrative. His work bridges academic scholarship and public commentary, drawing on field work with indigenous communities in the Amazon and studies in philosophy at Yale, The New School and the University of Chicago. He writes on translation and the politics of peoplehood across traditions, and is committed to developing a Jewish intellectual voice grounded in historical depth and moral clarity. He blogs for The Times of Israel, and he's with us today to talk about his experience emerging from the Amazon, where he was doing research after October 7, 2023, and discovering what had happened in Israel. Adam, welcome to People of the Pod. Adam Louis-Klein: Thank you so much for having me. It's a real pleasure to be here on this podcast with the American Jewish community. Manya Brachear Pashman: So tell us about the research that you are doing that took you into the depths of the Amazon rainforest. Adam Louis-Klein: So I work with a group called the Desano people who live in the Vaupés region, which is a tributary of the upper Rio Negro. Part of it's in Brazil, part of it's in Colombia today. I went there because I was really interested in trying to understand how people were often seen at the margins of the world, the periphery of the global economy. See themselves and their own sort of role in the cosmos and in the world in general. And what I found actually is that these people see themselves at the center of it all, as a unique people, as a chosen people. And that was something that really inspired me, and later led me to rethink my own relationship to Jewish peoplehood and chosenness, and what it means to be a kind of indigenous people struggling for survival and recognition. Manya Brachear Pashman: So were you raised Jewish? Did you have a Jewish upbringing? Adam Louis-Klein: Yeah, I was raised as kind of a cultural and reform Jew. I wouldn't say that Israel was super present in our lives, but we did travel there for my younger brother's Bar Mitzvah at the Kotel, and that did have an impression on me. And then later on, I wear a wristband of Brothers for Life, which is a charity for injured Israeli soldiers. But as time went on, I got involved in these radical academic scenes. And you know, my own field, anthropology, has fundamentally turned against Jewish peoplehood and Israel, unfortunately. But it was really in the Amazon, actually, that my journey of Teshuvah and rediscovering my Jewishness and the importance of Jewish peoplehood was really re-awoken for me. Manya Brachear Pashman: You were involved in these radical circles. Did you ascribe to some of the beliefs that a lot of your academic colleagues were ascribing to? Did you start to question the legitimacy of Israel or the actions of the Israeli government? Adam Louis-Klein: I think I started to ascribe to them in a kind of background and passive way. In the way that I think that many people in these communities do. So I had actually learned about Israel. I did know something. But as I wanted to kind of ascribe to a broader social justice narrative, I sort of immediately assumed when people told me, that Israelis were the ones doing the oppression and the injustice, that that had to be true. And I didn't question it so much. So it's ironic that those spaces, I think, that are built around critical thought, have become spaces, in my opinion, that are not so critical today. And I think we really need a critical discourse around this kind of criticism, sort of to develop our own critical discourse of what anti-Zionism is today. Manya Brachear Pashman: So what inspired the research? In other words, so you're involved in these radical circles, and then you go and immerse yourself with these tribes to do the research. What inspired you to do it, and was it your Jewishness? Adam Louis-Klein: So I think what led me to anthropology was probably a kind of diasporic Jewish sensibility. So I'd studied philosophy before, and I was very entrenched in the Western tradition. But I was kind of seeking to think across worlds and think in translation. I've always kind of moved between countries and cities, and I think that's always been an intuitive part of who I am as a Jew. And anthropology was founded by Jews, by Franz Boas, Emile Durkheim, Claude Lévi-Strauss, so I think that's kind of part of what brought me there. But I ended up rediscovering also the meaning of, you know, homeland as well, and what it means to be part of a people with a unique destiny and relationship to territory and land. And that made me understand Zionism in a completely new light. Manya Brachear Pashman: And did you understand it when you were there? Did you come to these realizations when you were there, or did you start to piece all of that together and connect the dots after you emerged? Adam Louis-Klein: So part of my research looks at how indigenous people engage with Christian missionaries who try and translate the Bible into indigenous languages. So when that encounter happens, it's actually quite common throughout the world, that a lot of indigenous people identify with the Jewish people quite strongly. So this might sound a little counterintuitive, especially if someone's used to certain activist networks in which indigeneity is highly associated with Palestinians, Jews are treated now as settler colonists, which is basically the opposite of indigeneity. And that's become a kind of consensus in academia, even though it seems to fly in the face of both facts and our own self understanding as Jews. So I saw that in the Amazon, in the way people at the margins of the world who might not already be integrated in the academic, activist kind of scene, sort of organically identify with the Jewish people and Israel. And they admire the Jewish people and Israel, because they see in us, a people that's managed to maintain our cultural identity, our specific and distinct civilization, while also being able to use the tools of modernity and technology to benefit us and to benefit the world. So I think that also kind of disrupts some primitivist notions about indigenous people, that they should remain sort of technologically backwards, so to speak. I think that they have a more nuanced approach. Manya Brachear Pashman: So I guess, what did you discover when you did emerge from the Amazon? In other words, October 7 had happened. When did you emerge and how did you find out? Adam Louis-Klein: So I'd been living in a remote Desano village without internet or a phone or any connection to the outside world for months. And then I returned a couple days after October 7 to a local town, so still in the Amazon, but I was signing onto my computer for the first time in months, and I remember signing onto Facebook and I saw the images of people running from the Nova Festival. And that was the first thing that I saw in months from the world. So that was a very traumatic experience that sort of ruptured my sense of reality in many ways, but the most difficult thing was seeing my intellectual milieu immediately transform into a space of denial or justification or even just straightforward aggression and hate to anyone who showed any solidarity with Israelis in that moment, or who saw it as a moment to to say something positive and inspiring and helpful about the Jewish people. That was actually seen as an act of violence. So I went to Facebook, and I don't remember exactly what I said, I stand with the Jewish people, or with Israelis, or Am Yisrael Chai, or something like that. And many people in my circles, really interpreted that as an aggression. So at that point, it was really strange, because I'd been living in the Amazon, trying to help people with their own cultural survival, you know, their own struggle to reproduce their own civilization in the face of assimilation and surrounding society that refuses to validate their unique identity. And then I came back to the world, and I was seeing the exact same thing happening to my own people. And even stranger than that, it was happening to my own people, but in the language of critique and solidarity. So the very language I'd learned in anthropology, of how to support indigenous people and sort of to align myself with their struggles was now being weaponized against me in this kind of horrible inversion of reality. Manya Brachear Pashman: Had you sensed this aggressive tone prior to your time in the Amazon and when you were involved with these circles? Adam Louis-Klein: No, I'd never witnessed anything like this in my life, and so it took some real searching and going inward, and I was still in the jungle, but encountering all this anti-Zionist hate online from people I thought were my friends. And I had to really ask myself, you know, maybe I'm in the wrong, because I've never seen people act like . . . people who are scholars, intellectuals who should be thinking critically about antisemitism. Because antisemitism, you know, we talk a lot about in the academy, critical race theory. So we look at ideologies, tropes, and symbols that are used to dehumanize minority groups, and we learn to be skeptical. So we learn that there are discourses that speak at times, in languages of reason, of justice, even that are actually biased, structurally biased, against minorities. So then I was deeply confused. Why did these same people not know how to apply those same analytics to Jews? And not only did they not know how, they seemed to think it was offensive to even try. So that was really strange, and I had to kind of think, well, you know, maybe I'm wrong, you know, I think there's a process of they've attempted to sort of stabilize this consensus at such a degree. That Israel is committing genocide, that Israel is a settler colonial entity that is fundamentally evil, basically. And Israelis are fundamentally oppressors. They've created a space it's almost impossible to question them. And it took me a long time to emerge and to come to that realization that I think anti-Zionism is really a discourse of libel, fundamentally. And these accusations, I wouldn't say, are offered in good faith. And it's unfortunately, not much use to try and refute them. And so instead, I started writing, and I started trying to analyze anti-Zionism itself as an object of critique and as an ideology that we can deconstruct. Manya Brachear Pashman: So did this change the course of your academic research? In other words, you said you started writing, are you writing academic articles, or is it more The Times of Israel blog and your more public writings? Adam Louis-Klein: So I've been writing publicly. I started writing on Facebook, and then the readership on Facebook started to grow, and then I sent it to the Times of Israel. And I do have some plans lined up to try and get this material out in the academic context as well. Because I think that's really important, that we build parallel academic spaces and our own language of academic legitimacy. Because I think that academic language, and as well, that kind of activist language, critique of oppression is valuable, but it's also culturally hegemonic today. And so I think that as Jews, if we abandon that language, we will have trouble telling our story. So I think there are also projects like this. I'd like to mention the London Center for the Study of contemporary antisemitism. I think that's a great model. So they're doing serious academic work on contemporary antisemitism, not just classical antiSemitism, which we're all familiar with, Neo Nazis, etc. You know, what does it look like today? You know, red triangles, Hamas headbands. This is a new language of hate that I think we need to be on top of. Manya Brachear Pashman: In fact, you presented a paper recently, there, correct, at the London Center, or at a conference sponsored by the London Center? Adam Louis-Klein: Yeah, I did. I presented a paper. It was called the Dissolving the Denotational Account of Antisemitism. So denotational means, what words refer to. Because what I found very often is that it's a trope that's become really familiar now. Anti-Zionists, they say, we don't hate Jews, we only hate Zionists. We don't hate Judaism, we hate Zionism. We're not antisemitic, we're critical of Israel. So these distinctions that are made are all about saying, you can't point to us as attacking Jews, because our language is such that we are denoting we are referring to something else. So in my talk, I was trying to explain that I like look at anti-Zionism more like a symbolic anthropologist. So when an anthropologist goes and works with an indigenous culture, we look at the kinds of symbols that they use to articulate their vision of the world. The Jaguar, for example, becomes a symbol of certain kinds of potency or predation, for example. So I look at anti-Zionism in the same way. It's not important to me whether they think they're referring to Israel or Jews. What's important to me is the use of conspiratorial symbols, or a symbol of child killing, for example. So we see that classical antisemitism accused Jews of killing children. Anti-Zionism today constructs Israelis as bloodthirsty and desiring to kill children. So when we see that, we see that even if they say not Jews, Zionists, they're using similar symbols that have mutated. So I think that's what I'm trying to track, is both the mutation of classical antisemitism into anti-Zionism, and also the continuities between the two. Manya Brachear Pashman: Did you ever experience antisemitism from your academic circles or really anywhere in life through from childhood on? Adam Louis-Klein: Not particularly. So I went to a northeastern prep school, and we were, there were very few Jews, so I think we were sort of seen as another to the kind of traditional northeast New England aristocracy. But it wasn't something that overt, I would say. I think that antisemitism is something that occurs more so in cycles. So if you look at the 19th century, emancipation of Jews and integration of Jews into society, that was the up part of the cycle, and then the reaction to that came on the down part of the cycle. So unfortunately, I think we're in the same thing today. So Jews have very successfully assimilated into American society and became very successful and integrated into American society. But now we're seeing the backlash. And the backlash is taking a new form, which is anti-Zionism, which allows itself to evade what classical antisemitism looks like, and what we're used to identifying as classical antisemitism. Manya Brachear Pashman: So I do want to talk about the word indigenous or indigeneity. Jews celebrate the creation of Israel as a return to their indigenous homeland, and Palestinians also consider it their indigenous homeland. So how are their definitions of indigeneity, how are those definitions different or distinct? I mean, how are their experiences distinct from each other's and from the people and the tribes with whom you immersed yourself in the Amazon? Adam Louis-Klein: So I think indigeneity, in its fundamental meaning, captures something very real that's common to tons of different groups across the world. Which is a certain conception of the way that one's genealogical ancestry is connected to a specific territory where one emerged as a people, and through which one's own peoplehood is defined. So as Jews, our own peoplehood is connected to the land of Israel. It's the Promised Land, it's the place where our civilization first flourished, and it's the place we've always looked to return to. And so that is very similar to indigenous groups around the world. Now, at the same time, I think there's another concept of indigeneity that gets thrown in and sometimes confuses the issue a little bit, and that's that being indigenous relates to a specific history of dispossession, usually by European colonialism, starting in the 16th century. Now, in fact, there have been many colonialism throughout history. So there have been Islamic civilization practiced widespread colonialism. The Romans practiced colonialism. The Babylonians. But there is a tendency to only look at this form of colonialism. And now when we look at the Middle East, what we find then is these analytics are becoming confused and applied in strange ways. So we see that Palestinians, for example, their genealogical traditions, they understand themselves as tribally derived from tribes in Arabia that expanded with Muhammad's conquest, and that's very common. And Arabian culture and Arabic language is what they practice. And so at that level, from a factual perspective, Palestinians are not indigenous in the genealogical sense. However, there's a tendency to believe, since Jews have a state today, then since they appear not as dispossessed, because Jews have actually repossessed our ancestral land, that Jews can't be indigenous. But so I think that's a confusion. The basic understanding of what indigenous means, and largely what the UN definition is based on, is this notion of continuous identification with the territory. So I really think that this isn't so much a question of who can live where. I think Palestinians’ right to live in the land has largely been recognized by the UN Partition Plan in 1947, or the Oslo Accords, and other peace deals, but it's a question of conceptual clarity and fact. And so at this level, I believe that the UN and other institutions should formally recognize Jews as indigenous to the land of Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman: You have written, and I want to read this line, because it's so rich you have written that the recursive logic of an antiSemitic consensus builds upon itself, feeds on moral certainty, and shields its participants from having to ask whether what they are reproducing is not justice at all, but a new iteration of a very old lie. I. So are there other examples of that phenomenon in academia, either currently or in the past? Adam Louis-Klein: So what I was trying to grasp with that was my sense of despair in seeing that it was impossible to even point to people, point people to fact within academia, or debate these issues, or explain to non Jews who Jews even are. So I got the sense that people are talking quite a lot about Jews, but don't seem to really care about our voices. So some of that writing that you're quoting is an attempt to understand anti Zionism, not just not only as libel, but also as a kind of practice of exclusion, where Jews feel silenced in spaces. And where, where for all the talk of... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/37723240

War and Poetry: Owen Lewis on Being a Jewish Poet in a Time of Crisis 08/01/2025

War and Poetry: Owen Lewis on Being a Jewish Poet in a Time of Crisis “The Jewish voice must be heard, not because it's more right or less right, but it's there. The suffering is there, the grief is there, and human grief is human grief.” As Jews around the world mark Tisha B’Av, we’re joined by Columbia University professor and award-winning poet Owen Lewis, whose new collection, “A Prayer of Six Wings,” offers a powerful reflection on grief in the aftermath of October 7th. In this conversation, Lewis explores the healing power of poetry in the face of trauma, what it means to be a Jewish professor in today’s campus climate, and how poetry can foster empathy, encourage dialogue, and resist the pull of division. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Owen Lewis: Overheard in a New York Restaurant. I can't talk about Israel tonight. I know. I can't not talk about Israel tonight. I know. Can we talk about . . . Here? Sure. Let's try to talk about here. Manya Brachear Pashman: On Saturday night, Jews around the world will commemorate Tisha B'av. Known as the saddest day on the Jewish calendar, the culmination of a three week period of mourning to commemorate several tragedies throughout early Jewish history. As a list of tragedies throughout modern Jewish history has continued to grow, many people spend this day fasting, listening to the book of Lamentations in synagogue, or visiting the graves of loved ones. Some might spend the day reading poetry. Owen Lewis is a Professor of Psychiatry in the Department of Medical Humanities and Ethics at Columbia University. But he's also the award-winning author of four poetry collections which have won accolades, including the EE Cummings Prize and the Rumi Prize for Poetry. His most recent collection, A Prayer of Six Wings documents in verse his grief since the October 7 terror attacks. Owen is with us now to talk about the role of poetry in times of violence and war, what it's been like to be a Jewish professor on the Columbia campus, and a Jewish father with children and grandchildren in Israel. And also, how to keep writing amid a climate of rising antisemitism. Owen, welcome to People of the Pod. Owen Lewis: Thank you so much, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman: So you opened with that short poem titled overheard in a New York restaurant. I asked you to read that because I wanted to ask whether it reflected how you felt about poetry after October 7. Did you find yourself in a place where you couldn't write about Israel, but yet you couldn't not write about Israel? Owen Lewis: Among the many difficult things of that First Year, not only the war, not only the flagrant attacks on the posters of the hostages one block from where I live, 79th and Broadway, every day, taken down every day, put back up again, defaced. It was as if the war were being fought right here on 79th and Broadway. Another aspect that made this all so painful was watching the artistic and literary world turn against Israel. This past spring, 2000 writers and artists signed a petition, it was published, there was an oped about it in The Times, boycotting Israeli cultural institutions. And I thought: artists don't have a right to shut their ears. We all need to listen to each other's grief, and if we poets and artists can't listen to one another, what do we expect of statesmen? Statesmen, yeah, they can create a ceasefire. That's not the same as creating peace. And peace can only come when we really listen to each other. To feel ostracized by the poetry community and the intellectual community was very painful. Fortunately, last summer, as well as this past summer, I was a fellow at the Yetzirah conference. Yetzirah is an organization of Jewish American poets, although we're starting to branch out. And this kind of in-gathering of like-minded people gave me so much strength. So this dilemma, I can't talk about it, because we just can't take the trauma. We can't take hearing one more thing about it, but not talk about it…it's a compulsion to talk about it, and that's a way to process trauma. And that was the same with this poetry, this particular book. I feel in many ways, it just kind of blew through me, and it was at the same time it blew through me, created this container in which I could express myself, and it actually held me together for that year. I mean, still, in many ways, the writing does that, but not as immediately and acutely as I felt that year. Manya Brachear Pashman: This book has been praised as not being for the ideological but for the intellectually and emotionally engaged. So it's not it's not something that ideologically minded readers will necessarily be able to connect to, or is it actually quite the opposite? Owen Lewis: Well, it's very much written from the gut, from the experience, from in a sense, being on the ground, both in Israel and here in New York and on campus, and trying to keep a presence in the world of poetry and writers. So what comes from emotion should speak to emotion. There are a few wisps of political statements, but it's not essentially a politically motivated piece of writing. I feel that I have no problem keeping my sympathies with Israel and with Jews. I can still be critical of aspects of the government, and my sympathies can also be with the thousands of Palestinians, killed, hurt, displaced. I don't see a contradiction. I don't have to take sides. But the first poem is called My Partisan Grief, and it begins on October 7. I was originally going to call the bookMy Partisan Grief, because I felt that American, Jewish, and Israeli grief was being silenced, was being marginalized. And I wanted to say, this is our grief. Listen to it. You must listen to this. It doesn't privilege this grief over another grief. Grief is grief. But I wanted ultimately to move past that title into something broader, more encompassing, more humanitarian. Manya Brachear Pashman: And did that decision come as the death toll in Gaza rose and this war kept going and going and the hostages remained in captivity, did that kind of sway your thinking in terms of how to approach the book and frame it? Owen Lewis: Yes, but even more than those kind of headlines, which can be impersonal, the poetry of some remarkable Palestinian poets move me into a broader look. Abu Toha was first one who comes to mind Fady Joudah, who's also a physician, by the way. I mean his poetry, I mean many others, but it's gorgeous, moving poetry. Some of it is a diatribe, and you know, some of it is ideological, and people can do that with poetry, but when poetry really drills down into human experience, that's what I find so compelling and moving. And that's what I think can move the peace process. I know it sounds quite idealistic, but I really think poetry has a role in the peace process here. Manya Brachear Pashman: I want to I want to unpack that a little bit later. But first, I want to go back to the protests that were roiling Columbia's campus over the past year and a half, two years. What was it like to be, one, writing this book, but also, teaching on campus as a Jewish professor? Owen Lewis: Most of my teaching takes place up at the Medical Center at 168th Street. And there I have to say, I didn't feel battered in any way by what was happening. I had a very shocking experience. I had a meeting that I needed to attend on, or that had been scheduled, I hadn't been quite paying attention. I mean, I knew about the encampments, but I hadn't seen them, and I come face to face with a blocked campus. I couldn't get on the campus. And what I'm staring at are signs to the effect, send the Jews back to Poland. I'm thinking, Where am I? What is this? I mean, protest, sure. I mean we expect undergraduates, we expect humans, to protest when things really aren't fair. But what did this have to do…why invoke the Holocaust and re-invoke it, as if to imply the Jews should be punished? All Jews. And what it fails to account for are the diversity of Jewish opinion. And you know, for some Jews, it's a black or white matter, but for most thinking Jews that I know, we all struggle very much with a loyalty to Israel, to the Jewish people, to the homeland and larger humanitarian values. So that was quite a shock. And I wrote a piece called “The Scars of Encampment,” in which I say, I can't unsee that. " And I go to campus, and, okay, it's a little bit more security to get onto campus. It's a beautiful campus. It's like an oasis there, but at the same time, I'm seeing what was as if it still is. And in a way, that's the nature of trauma that things from the past just roil and are present with almost as much emotion as when first encountered. Manya Brachear Pashman: So did you need to tune out those voices, or did that fuel your work? Owen Lewis: No, that fueled my work. I mean, if anything, it made me feel much more, a sense of mission with this book. And a commitment, despite criticism that I may receive, and no position I take is that outlandish, except to sympathize with the murdered on October 7th, to sympathize with their families, to resonate with what it must be like to have family members as hostages in brutal, brutal conditions. Not knowing whether they're dead or alive. So I really felt that the Jewish voice must be heard, not because it's more right or less right, but it's there. The suffering is there, the grief is there, and human grief is human grief. Manya Brachear Pashman: Owen, if you wouldn't mind reading another poem from the collection. Of course, many of us remember the news out of Israel on Thanksgiving Day 2023, right after October 7th. And this poem is titled, “Waiting for the Next Release, Reported by the New York Times, November 23 2023”. Owen Lewis: Waiting For the Next Release, Reported N.Y. Times, Nov. 23, 2023 Maybe tomorrow, if distrust doesn't flare like a missile, some families will be reunited. How awful this lottery of choice; Solomon would not deliberate. Poster faces always before my eyes, Among them, Emma & Yuli Cunio. Twins age 3, Raz Katz-Asher, age 4, Ariel Bibas, another four year old. What do their four year old minds make of captivity? What will they say? What would my Noa say? What will the other Noas say? Remembering Noa Argamani, age 26, thrown across the motorcycle to laughter and Hamas joy. I have almost forgotten this American day, Thanks- giving, With its cornucopian harvests, I am thinking of the cornucopian jails of human bounty. (What matter now who is to blame?) Manya Brachear Pashman: Really beautiful, and it really captures all of our emotions that day. You have children and grandchildren in Israel, as I mentioned and as you mentioned in that poem, your granddaughter, Noa. So your grief and your fear, it's not only a collective grief and fear that we all share, but also very personal, which you weave throughout the collection. In another poem, “In a Van to JFK”, you talk about just wanting to spend one more hour with your family before they fly off to Israel. And it's very moving. But in addition to many of the poems, like the one you just read, they are based on and somewhat named for newspaper headlines, you said that kind of establishes a timeline. But are there other reasons why you transformed those headlines into verse? Owen Lewis: Yes, William Carlos Williams in his poem Asphodel, says, and I'm going to paraphrase it badly. You won't get news from poems yet, men die every day for wanting what is found there. And I think it's a very interesting juxtaposition of journalism and poetry. And I mean, I'm not writing news, I'm writing where my reflections, where my heart, goes in response to the news, and trying to bring another element to the news that, you know, we were confronted. I mean, in any time of high stress, you swear off – I'm not watching any more TV. I'm not even gonna look at the newspaper. And then, of course, you do. I can't talk about Israel today. I can't not talk about it. I can't read the paper. I can't not read the paper. It's kind of that back and forth. But what is driving that? And so I'm trying to get at that next dimension of what's resonating behind each one of these headlines, or resonating for me. I mean, I'm not claiming this is an interpretation of news. It's my reaction, but people do react, and there's that other dimension to headlines. Manya Brachear Pashman: That seems like it might be therapeutic, no? Owen Lewis: Oh, totally, totally. You know, I'm very fortunate that having started a career in medicine, in psychiatry, and particularly in child and adolescent psychiatry. I always had one foot in the door academically. I spent, you know, my life as, I still teach, but I'm very fortunate to have, maybe 10+ years ago, been introduced to a basically a woman who created the field of Narrative Medicine, Rita Sharon. And now at Columbia in the medical school, we have a free-standing Department of Medical Humanities and Ethics, of which she's chairman. So I've had the fortune of bringing psychiatry and medicine and writing together in a very integrated way. And yes, writing is therapeutic, especially, I could say in medicine, which has given itself over to electronic medical record keeping, but our whole society is moving towards the electronic. And what happens when you sit and write, and what happens when you then sit and read, you reflect. Your mind engages in a different way that is a bit slower than the fast pace of electronic communications and instant communications and instant thinking. And now with AI, instant analysis of any situation you want to feed data from. So that's sorely lacking in the human experience. And the act of writing, the act of reading has huge therapeutic values, huge salutary benefits for humans in general, but particularly in times of stress. In a lot of work on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, finding an outlet, an artistic outlet, it doesn't have to be writing, but that's often a way of transcending the trauma. And medicine is filled with trauma. People trying to come to terms with acute illnesses, chronic illnesses. Doctors and caregivers trying to come to terms with what they can and can't do. And you know, we're coming up against limitations. But how do you make peace with those limitations? And it's not that it's a magical panacea, but it's a process of engagement, not only with the subject, but with yourself in relation to the subject. Manya Brachear Pashman: I mean, I imagine dialogue is really the healthiest way of conversation and speaking through and interacting with a topic. And so I would imagine poetry, or, as you said, any art form, responding to news reports, it makes that a two way conversation when you're able to process and it's not just the headlines shouting at you, you're actually interacting and processing it by writing and reaction, or painting and reaction, whatever you choose to do. Owen Lewis: Exactly. Manya Brachear Pashman: You have said that poetry can serve a purpose during times of war. Is this one of the purposes to to be therapeutic or are you talking more in terms of what statesmen could learn from it? Owen Lewis: Well, yes, of course, what statesmen could learn from it, but it's human nature to want to take sides. I mean, that's kind of just what we do. But I think we can always do better than that. So I'm really talking about the people. I mean, there are also many Jews who are so angry at Israel that they can't listen to the story of Jewish grief. They should be reading mine and others poetries from this era. I wish the Palestinian poets were. I wish the Palestinian people. I mean, of course, in their current situation, they don't have time when you're starving, when you're looking for your next glass of fresh water. You don't have time for anything beyond survival. But once we get beyond that, how long are these positions going to be hardened. I mean, I think when the people of all sides of the dilemma really listen to the others, I mean, they're, I mean, if, unless as Hamas has expressed, you know, wants to push Israel into the sea, if Israel is going to coexist with the Palestinian people, whether they're in a nation or not in a nation, each has to listen to the other. And it's, you know, it's not one side is right, one side is wrong. It's far too complex a history to reduce it to that kind of simplicity. And I think poetry, everyone's poetry, gets at the complexity of experience, which includes wanting to take sides and questioning your wanting to take sides and moving towards something more humanitarian. Manya Brachear Pashman: You said earlier, you recommend Abu Toha, Fady Joudah, two Palestinian poets who have written some beautiful verse about– tragically beautiful verse–about what's happening. But there have been some really deep rifts in the literary world over this war. I mean, as you mentioned before, there was a letter written by authors and entertainers who pledged to boycott Israeli cultural institutions. Some authors have refused to sell rights to their books to publishers in Israel. So why not reciprocate? And I know the answer. I think you've already addressed it pretty well. What's wrong with that approach? Owen Lewis: In any conflict, there are at least three sides to the conflict. I mean, claims to nationhood, claims to who shoved first, who. I mean, you don't entangle things by aggressively reacting. I mean, if we learned anything from Mahatma Gandhi, it's what happens when we don't retaliate, right? And what happens when we go the extra mile to create bridges and connections. There are a host of people in Israel who continue to help Palestinians get to medical facilities, driving them back and forth, working for peace. I mean, there's a Palestinian on the Supreme Court of Israel, and well, he should be there. You know, that's the part of Israel that I am deeply proud of. So why not retaliate? I think it entrenches positions and never moves anything forward. Manya Brachear Pashman: So have you gotten any negative feedback from your writing colleagues? Owen Lewis: Some cold shoulders, yes. I mean not nothing overtly. I haven't been slammed in a review yet. Maybe that's coming. But when I publish pieces, I tend not to look at them. I had an oped in the LA Times. I've had some other pieces, you know, that precipitates blogs, and I started to read them. And the first blog that came off of the the LA Times oped was, God, is he an opportunist, just taking advantage of having a daughter in Israel? And trying to make a name for himself or something. And I said, You know what, you can't put yourself out and take a position without getting some kind of flack. So occasionally, those things filter back, it's par for the course. Manya Brachear Pashman: Right, not really worth reading some of those. You included Midrash in this book. You also spelled God in the traditional sense in the poems. Why did you choose to do that? Owen Lewis: Well, I felt it honors a tradition of Jewish writing. It mean we have yud, hey,... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/37641295

An Orange Tie and A Grieving Crowd: Comedian Yohay Sponder on Jewish Resilience 07/24/2025

An Orange Tie and A Grieving Crowd: Comedian Yohay Sponder on Jewish Resilience What do you do when you’re an Israeli comedian set to perform in Paris on the very day the world learns the fate of the Bibas family? Yohay Sponder faced that moment in February 2025—and chose to take the stage. Wearing an orange tie in their honor, he brought laughter to a grieving crowd. Since October 7th, he has used comedy to carry pain, affirm his identity, and connect through resilience. Hear how his Jewish identity shapes his work, how his comedy has evolved since the Hamas attacks, and what he says to those who try to silence him. Recorded live at AJC Global Forum 2025. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: Israeli stand up comedian Yohay Sponder: first gained popularity for his funny Monday shows in Tel Aviv, which attracted a following on YouTube. A few years ago, Sponder made the decision to perform Israeli comedy in English to reach a wider audience and a wider audience it has reached. He has hundreds of thousands of followers on social media, and in May, launched the North American leg of his international tour in Baltimore. Sponder is with us now on the sidelines of AJC Global Forum 2025. Sponder, welcome to People of the Pod. Yohay Sponder: Thank you so much for this eulogy. Manya Brachear Pashman: I’m curious how you found your way to stand up comedy and tell us a little bit about your upbringing in general. Yohay Sponder: Doing comedy, I always been fascinated about the laughing reaction of humans. You know, it's fascinating, if you think about it, if you have the ability to improve the frequency in the room. As a kid, I was really intrigued by that. So you saying few things, and people go, haha. It's like designing a vibe. So as a kid, I was attracted to that. So as a kid, you watch video cassettes, back in the day, I would watch all of the comedy stuff. I had all of them cassettes. I was very, very affected by it, impersonations, imitating them, doing jokes of my own, and always around that. And in my show, I'm talking about comedy. I have a bit about comedy in my show that I'm saying that I was, I wasn't just the class clown in my school. I was the jokes technician. If you had a broken joke or a joke that didn't work, you would come to me. I would fix it for you, bring it back. Not using it as my own resume. I would bring it back, when it's fixed. Manya Brachear Pashman: That’s great. So you helped others clown around as well. Yohay Sponder: Yeah, I was a clown teacher. Manya Brachear Pashman: Were you raised in a secular home, a particularly Jewish home? Yohay Sponder: I was raised in a, let's say secular but Jewish, celebrated holidays, family Friday night family dinners. But we weren't like super Shabbat keepers. I think I became closer now, when, after my father passed away, I for the Kaddish and I put tefillin a little bit. And the war, you know, this war, activated a lot of Jews to the to this kind of level. Manya Brachear Pashman: Right. You’re sitting across from me, and you're wearing a gigantic Star of David. On your chest. Yohay Sponder: Yeah, you see what she did, you see what she did? You're sitting across and you're wearing a gigantic Star of David. Manya Brachear Pashman: Have you always worn that or did you put it on after October 7? Yohay Sponder: No, it's after the war kicked in. I don't know. I had a vision that that's what we should do right now. We need to be out there and show other Jews that we’re there. That's what I felt. And I imagine that, I need a big star of David. And the day I thought about it, I saw that. So there was a sign for me, like I had this vision, that I need a big star of David here. And less than 24 hours, that one find me. I didn't look for it. It came across my eyes. Manya Brachear Pashman: Which I imagine you'll be wearing your Magen David on tour. The tour itself is called Self Loving Jew. What is the meaning of that title? Yohay Sponder: So, basically, you know, this is so awesome, because before October 7, you could argue of other opinion. You could hear some people saying, Yeah, but maybe we should this. After October 7 that we know so all these monsters that came and attack us, the self hating Jews that they're doing now, super horrific, disgusting job of mocking us. And I find it really bad, and I think so I'm I'm bringing the other side. I'm just bringing the you know, it doesn't mean that I hate someone that is not Jewish. I'm just, I want to inspire other people to be to love themselves, even if they're not Jewish. But as Jews, we have to love us, because we're probably the last ones to love us, and if we won't love us, that's that's over for us. And people, people saying that it's very harsh to compare the self hating Jews of now to the Kapos and and I'm saying, yes, it's it's not fair for the Kapos, because they didn't have a choice. You guys have a choice, and you did it just for likes and for other people from other cultures to like you. I really, I really believe. I really deeply believe I'm coming from there. I'm coming from the war. I really believe that the people that don't, they don't give us the credit, people that not supporting Israel, they're uneducated. I really believe in that they don't know enough. They might be not bad people, but they might be stupid people. Self hating Jews, like whatever Dave Smith, all these guys that try to be liked by, you know, others, and they they just out of their own idiocy. Listen, you don't know anything about what's going on. As Douglas Murray told them, ou've been there. You saw those things that you're talking about when you're saying, Israel, starving the Gazans you're never seeing the the trucks that going every day. You're You're an idiot. You're just an idiot. You listen to other people, and you listen to other lies. And they will say, No, I just want peaceful. We all want peace. Just the fact that you're Jewish, it means that you want peace. We say Shalom when we see each other, when we say Shabbat Shalom. The holiest day of the week. We say telech bshalom, tachzor bshalom. Go in peace, come back in peace. You don't want peace more than I want. We all want peace, but we're willing to fight for peace because we have to make sure that no innocent people from both sides, by the way, will get hurt. So yeah, it's really bad and shitty situation, war, but you blame us without checking it. So anyway, I don't want it to make it too much political. It's not political, by the way, Self Loving Jew. It's about loving yourself and being, you know, being in touch with what's going on right now. Manya Brachear Pashman: So there is so much misinformation out there, you launched your you started doing English language comedy to reach a wider audience. Now you're doing an English language international tour. Do you have a message that you want to get out to the wider world to especially this region where there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding? Yohay Sponder: Yeah, the message is that, we're living in a time that it's very hard to agree on something, and I really miss the days that we all agree that the world is round. You know, a little long ago, a few years ago. But yeah, the message is that you do your research and come to laugh with us. Manya Brachear Pashman: It’s an important message that gets forgotten. October 7, and its aftermath were so horrific. Did you press pause on your comedy career for a little while? At what point did you find it acceptable to make people laugh again in the aftermath? Yohay Sponder: No, it took time. It took time. It took a day. Manya Brachear Pashman: One day. Okay. Yohay Sponder: Because right after that, after the attack, they start to arrange people to go to volunteer in squads and families that got evacuated from their house and soldiers and hospitals, people got wounded. So I've been around. I did that. That was my duty service. And also I did regular reserves duty, stuff like that. Manya Brachear Pashman: And what did you do on reserve duty? Yohay Sponder: I was in Ramat Gan patrol. So not super serious, but I did what I did. Manya Brachear Pashman: And at what point did you go back to the stage and so more standup? Yohay Sponder: So I'm running the show Funny Monday, I think roughly a month after October 7, we get. Maybe two months, yeah, something like around that. January, maybe, I remember, like a little bit after that, the show went back and we did stand up in English. People really followed what's going on in Israel. No matter what you do from the country, they follow that. And we had strong they were saying, Wait, Shahar Hassan, my co-host, very good friend. Really funny man, serious comedian, like one of A-list, Top list. And people follow, people watching what we have to say. That was the main purpose of Funny Monday, when we launched it in 2016 nine years ago. Manya Brachear Pashman: Did it shift? When you restarted it after October 7, was it different? How so? Yohay Sponder: Yeah. We always talked about current events, what's going on in the world? It's the international perspective of not just news, but Israel perspective and stuff like that. So in that case, you're talking about Iran's attack. What the news with Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu? Whatever is happening politically, or current events and yeah, people were more attached to the screen those days. And also in comedy. It's a great form of art to deliver, you know, your point of view, or your, yeah, your what you want to say. So it's, it was great to do that, and till this very day, that's what we do. Manya Brachear Pashman: So you really though, have to read the room, right? I mean, different audiences, I imagine, receive your comedy in different ways, especially in different regions of the world. So I'm curious if there are differences in the kind of humor that resonates with an Israeli audience, and the kind of humor that resonates with an American audience or a European audience. Yohay Sponder: So that's the thing, why I love my country so much, because you can just stand up in any form you want. You can go as dark as you want in Israel or as political as you want. We have some issues right now with people having fight with each other, of political issues, and we have a lot of demonstrations and stuff. So there's that. But beside that, you can get away with a lot of what people say here in America, woke culture, politically correct. In Israel, we don't have it. You don't stand up like in the 80s. If someone looks gay in the audience, you say, Hey, you look gay man. That's very gay. You’re fat. You these, you're old, you're very brown. We just say that, and that's fine. No one canceled. We don't even know what it means to cancel someone. No one get canceled in Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman: Holocaust humor, is that acceptable in Israel? Yohay Sponder: Yeah, it's not just it's acceptable. For example, from my wife's point of view, she was shocked when people came back to say, wow, mitlachot poh shoah—the shower was like, it's the Holocaust. Holocaust shower. They sang that. There's something that you say in the army and it's kind of fine. No one like, hey, how can you compare this? Because the water was cold, so they were called. So they say, but in the Holocaust, no water at all, was gas. And also, when my wife told me, Don't honk like this, it's ghetto. You know, it's American thing to say, Don't honk. It's ghetto. It's like, I'm pretty sure that in Auschwitz, they didn't have cars. Manya Brachear Pashman: She's talking about a different kind of gheto. Yohay Sponder: And she said, like, you can't do these jokes. Yeah, you can't do this. She's like, she's from American perspective, you can't do these jokes. It's horrible. It's like, that's jokes we do here all the time. And in Israel, you use Nazi sometimes, like, as a, not only as a bad thing. It's like, accuracy. You say, like, Nazis coming on time. I need a Nazi plumber, not . . . someone that is a good commander. When I'm having the perspective of my wife and American people, I understand how horrible that is. However, some Holocaust survivors testify that they had humor in the camps. They used humor, even dark humor, in the camps, and it helped them raise their frequency and raise their morality and maybe survive, maybe humor saved them. So when you saying too soon, sometimes it's, yeah, it's too soon for someone but it's okay for someone else. I see black humor as spicy food. We all have our own scale for it. You can, you can eat spicy like a crazy mental person, and I can just taste it. And, you know, it's too harsh for me, and vice versa. So I did jokes about October 7, in November 7, and horrible ones, and it was also with the Holocaust. That's how horrible that was. So maybe it's too soon for the Holocaust. It's too soon for October 7. I said, the people that compare compared October 7 to the Holocaust. And I'm saying at least in the Holocaust, no one kidnapped Holocaust survivors. It's not even a funny, like, haha, funny. It's like, oh shit, yeah, yeah, that's the joke. It's not a joke of a punch line. It's a punch in your belly. Yeah. Manya Brachear Pashman: What have been some of the most memorable moments from your shows, from your live shows, and I'm talking good and bad, have there been really positive responses and have there been really ugly? Yohay Sponder: So let's just take this afternoon in Paris that I'm sitting in my hotel and Instagram and social media exploding from what's going on with the releasing of the Bibas babies. That we're getting back coffins, and I'm getting, I don't know, hundreds of messages from people that like we don't know if we're coming to the show. Two shows sold out in a huge theater in Paris. I'm not there every day. That's the show. That's it. One day since October 7, and no one knows when I'm going to come again. And my heart is broken, and people tell me we want to come but we can't. What do you think we should do? Now, I responded to all of them, my wife and I responded to all of them, you do what you feel. I totally support your feelings. And the show is going to happen, and we get together tonight, and it's going to be a group hug, but if you can't make it, that's fine. I went on stage with an orange tie that I bought, and we talked it through. Arthur is the comedian and producer of those shows. He opened the show, he talked about the situation, and we did the shows. Now, that's the beauty of it, that's, that's the genome of the Jewish people. That's so in us to . . . . what we talked earlier about the Holocaust survivors that testify that they want to laugh, they want to have a good time. They don't want to let these terrorists decide for us what we gonna feel. Yeah, we feel bad. Yes, you're the worst people on the planet. I wish God will wipe you out, or IDF as fast as possible. You're a disgusting dirt of…but for us, for what we can do right now, we're gonna, we're gonna do our best to raise our morality and frequency. And I did the shows. I'm not gonna lie to you, I was very sad. But you know, the people that, that's what Bob Marley said after, he got shot, you know, and he did the show anyway, and he said, the people that want us to feel bad, they don't take a day off. So how could I? That's a very nice thing to say. Manya Brachear Pashman: You had a show at City Winery where some people in the audience came with, maybe with intentions to protest, or at least they expected to disagree with you, and they met up with you after the show. And what happened? Yohay Sponder: After my show, one of the presidents of the BDS organizations. She approached me and she said, we came to hassle the show. We came to ruin your show. So like, why you didn't do it? And she said we were waiting for the right moment, but the more the show went on, the more we liked what you said. You talk a lot about peace, you talk a lot about mutual values and how to solve problems, and you talk about the nice things of the Jewish tradition and the Jewish religion. We couldn't ruin that. We have conscience and we also liked you. They liked the show. They wanted to ruin it, but they loved it, and they laughed. I told her, that's exactly what I do. In my stand up show, when you see that bit, it's with the whole structure of what happened there and how I almost made peace with these guys, but it didn't work out. Manya Brachear Pashman: Maybe you need to do your stand up routine in Gaza and that would solve everything. Yohay Sponder: I checked that. They don't have comedy clubs there. I said that when I hosted the show, we have an Arab comedian, a friend of ours. You know, people like they don't know that, but Arab-Israelis, are Palestinians. To their definition, to the Palestinians definition, it's the same thing, but they don't identify as Palestinians. It's like we're Muslims, we're Arabs. Anyway, they're with us. They're like siblings to us. So when I introduced him, I also made fun of the situation. I said, When is going to be in Palestine? When it's going to be the Jewish comedian goes on stage like you going here and stuff like that, and there is no comedy clubs in Ramallah or in Gaza, but Inshallah, when there will I go and I do a spot. Manya Brachear Pashman: How many of your shows, as you've been traveling around, have actually been canceled or moved or postponed. I read something about your Amsterdam show, for example, was moved to an undisclosed location because of security concerns. Has that happened elsewhere? Yohay Sponder: Australia. And they tried to cancel my show in Brussels, didn't make it. They tried to cancel my show in Paris. They couldn't make it, but demonstrated outside. And every time that thing happened, I got a lot of press covers and interviews, and people get insane. And like, oh, we have to support and come to see the show. So every time it happens, I doubling or sometimes tripling the amount of people. Which is so weird, you know, because they're always the people they hate us. Always go, oh, Jews, money and you guys this, and you made me make more money. I didn't want to make that much money. I want to make third of the amount of money. But because of your protesting. Your hate, that's how bad you are of what you do. And how amazing we are what we do. You know, I didn't want to make that much money, so now I hire them, the protesters. So they work for me. Manya Brachear Pashman: They do your marketing, generate publicity. So none of the shows have been successfully cancelled? Yohay Sponder: No, the Amsterdam show canceled. The Boom Chicago, which also surprising. Your name is Boom Chicago. What's your security concerns. That's gonna be a boom. Let it be. Manya Brachear Pashman: But I thought it was moved. Yohay Sponder: We moved that like because they a week before the show, they said we're not doing the show. And was like, guys, let me respond. Let me say something. No, no. Police said that. We called the police.... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/37539375

From Broadway to Jewish Advocacy: Jonah Platt on Identity, Antisemitism, and Israel 07/17/2025

From Broadway to Jewish Advocacy: Jonah Platt on Identity, Antisemitism, and Israel Being Jewish podcast host Jonah Platt—best known for playing Fiyero in Broadway’s Wicked—joins People of the Pod to discuss his journey into Jewish advocacy after October 7. He reflects on his Jewish upbringing, challenges media misrepresentations of Israel, and shares how his podcast fosters inclusive and honest conversations about Jewish identity. Platt also previews The Mensch, an upcoming film he’s producing to tell Jewish stories with heart and nuance. Recorded live at AJC Global Forum 2025. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: Jonah Platt: is an award winning director of theater and improv comedy, an accomplished musician, singer and award winning vocal arranger. He has been on the Broadway stage, including one year as the heartthrob Fiyero in Wicked and he's producing his first feature film, a comedy called The Mensch. He also hosts his own podcast, Being Jewish with Jonah Platt:, a series of candid conversations and reflections that explore the many facets of Jewish identity. Jonah is with us now on the sidelines of AJC Global Forum 2025. Jonah, welcome to People of the Pod. Jonah Platt: Thank you so much for having me, happy to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman: So tell us about your podcast. How is being Jewish with Jonah Platt: different from Jewish with anyone else? Jonah Platt: That's a great question. I think it's different for a number of ways. I think one key difference is that I'm really trying to appeal to everybody, not just Jews and not just one type of Jews. I really wanted it to be a very inclusive show and, thank God, the feedback I've gotten, my audience is very diverse. It appeals to, you know, I hear from the ultra orthodox. I hear from people who found out they were Jewish a month ago. I hear from Republicans, I hear from Democrats. I hear from non Jews, Muslims, Christians, people all over the world. So I think that's special and different, especially in these echo-chambery, polarized times online, I'm trying to really reach out of that and create a space where the one thing we all have in common, everybody who listens, is that we're all well-meaning, good-hearted, curious people who want to understand more about our fellow man and each other. I also try to really call balls and strikes as I see them, regardless of where they're coming from. So if I see, let's call it bad behavior, on the left, I'll call it out. If I see bad behavior on the right, I'll call it out. If I see bad behavior from Israel, I'll call it out. In the same breath that I'll say, I love Israel, it's the greatest place. I think that's really unfortunately rare. I think people have a very hard time remembering that we are very capable of holding two truths at once, and it doesn't diminish your position by acknowledging fault where you see it. In fact, I feel it strengthens your position, because it makes you more trustworthy. And it's sort of like an iron sharpens iron thing, where, because I'm considering things from all angles, either I'm going to change my mind because I found something I didn't consider. That's going to be better for me and put me on firmer ground. Or it's going to reinforce what I thought, because now I have another thing I can even speak to about it and say, Well, I was right, because even this I checked out, and that was wrong. So either way, you're in a stronger position. And I feel that that level of sort of, you know, equanimity is sorely lacking online, for sure. Manya Brachear Pashman: Our podcasts have had some guests in common. We've had Dara Horn, Sarah Hurwitz, you said you're getting ready to have Bruce Pearl. We've had Coach Pearl on our show. You’ve also had conversations with Stuart Weitzman, a legendary shoe designer, in an episode titled Jews and Shoes. I love that. Can you share some other memorable nuggets from the conversations you've had over the last six months? Jonah Platt: I had my dad on the show, and I learned things about him that I had never heard about his childhood, growing up, the way his parents raised him. The way that social justice and understanding the conflict and sort of brokenness in the world was something that my grandparents really tried to teach them very actively, and some of it I had been aware of, but not every little specific story he told. And that was really special for me. And my siblings, after hearing it, were like, We're so glad you did this so that we could see Dad and learn about him in this way. So that was really special. There have been so many. Isaac Saul is a guy I had early on. He runs a newsletter, a news newsletter called Tangle Media that shows what the left is saying about an issue with the right is saying about an issue, and then his take. And a nugget that I took away from him is that on Shabbat, his way of keeping Shabbat is that he doesn't go on social media or read the news on Shabbat. And I took that from him, so now I do that too. I thought that was genius. It's hard for me. I'm trying to even start using my phone period less on Shabbat, but definitely I hold myself to it, except when I'm on the road, like I am right now. When I'm at home, no social media from Friday night to Saturday night, and it's fantastic. Manya Brachear Pashman: It sounds delightful. Jonah Platt: It is delightful. I highly recommend it to everybody. It's an easy one. Manya Brachear Pashman: So what about your upbringing? You said you learned a lot about your father's upbringing. What was your Jewish upbringing? Jonah Platt: Yeah, I have been very blessed to have a really strong, warm, lovely, Jewish upbringing. It's something that was always intrinsic to my family. It's not something that I sort of learned at Hebrew school. And no knock on people whose experience that is, but it's, you know, I never remember a time not feeling Jewish. Because it was so important to my parents and important to their families. And you know, part of the reason they're a good match for each other is because their values are the same. I went to Jewish Day School, the same one my kids now go to, which is pretty cool. Manya Brachear Pashman: Oh, that’s lovely. Jonah Platt: Yeah. And I went to Jewish sleepaway camp at Camp Ramah in California. But for me, really, you know, when I get asked this question, like, my key Jewish word is family. And growing up, every holiday we spent with some part of my very large, amazing family. What's interesting is, in my city where I grew up, Los Angeles, I didn't have any grandparents, I didn't have any aunts or uncles or any first cousins. But I feel like I was with them all the time, because every holiday, someone was traveling to somebody, and we were being together. And all of my childhood memories of Jewish holidays are with my cousins and my aunts and my uncles and my grandparents. Because it was just so important to our family. And that's just an amazing foundation for being Jewish or anything else, if that's your foundation, that's really gonna stay with you. And my upbringing, like we kept kosher in my house, meat and milk plates. We would eat meat out but no pork, no shellfish, no milk and meat, any of that. And while I don't ascribe to all those things now, I'm grateful that I got sort of the literacy in that. In my Jewish Day School we had to wrap tefillin every morning. And while I don't do that now, I'm glad that I know how to do that, and I know what that looks like, and I know what that means, even if I resisted it very strongly at the time as a 13 year old, being like what I gotta wrap this up every day. But I'm grateful now to have that literacy. And I've always been very surprised to see in my life that often when I'm in a room with people, I'm the most observant in the room or the most Jewish literate in the room, which was never the case in my life. I have family members who are much more observant than me, orthodox. I know plenty of Orthodox people, whatever. But in today's world, I'm very grateful for the upbringing I had where, I'll be on an experience. I actually just got back from one in Poland. I went on a trip with all moderate Muslims from around the North Africa, Middle East, and Asia, with an organization called Sharaka. We had Shabbat dinner just this past Friday at the JCC in Krakow, and I did the Shabbat kiddush for everybody, which is so meaningful and, like, I'm so grateful that I know it, that I can play that role in that, in special situations like that. Manya Brachear Pashman: So you've been doing a lot of traveling. Jonah Platt: Yes. Manya Brachear Pashman: I saw your reflection on your visit to Baku, Azerbaijan. The largest Jewish community in the Muslim world. And you went with the Jewish Federation's National Young leadership cabinet. Jonah Platt: Shout out to my chevre. Manya Brachear Pashman: And you posted this reflection based on your experience there, asking the question, how much freedom is too much? So can you walk our listeners through that and how you answered that question? Jonah Platt: Yes. So to be fair, I make very clear I don't have the answer to that question definitively, I just wanted to give people food for thought, and what I hoped would happen has happened where I've been getting a lot of people who disagree with me and have other angles at which they want to look and answer this question, which I welcome and have given me a lot to think about. But basically, what I observed in Azerbaijan was a place that's a little bit authoritative. You know, they don't have full freedom of the press. Political opposition is, you know, quieted, but there's no crime anywhere. They have a strong police presence on the streets. There are security cameras everywhere, and people like their lives there and don't want to mess with it. And so it just got me thinking, you know, they're an extremely tolerant society. It's sort of something they pride themselves on, and always have. It's a Muslim majority country, but it is secular. They are not a Muslim official country. They're one of only really two countries in the world that are like that, the other being Albania. And they live together in beautiful peace and harmony with a sense of goodwill, with a sense of national pride, and it got me thinking, you know, look at any scenario in our lives. Look at the place you work, look at the preschool classroom that your kid is in. There are certain rules and restrictions that allow for more freedom, in a sense, because you feel safe and taken care of and our worst instincts are not given space to be expressed. So that is what brought the question of, how much freedom is too much. And really, the other way of putting that is, how much freedom would you be willing to give up if it meant you lived in a place with no crime, where people get along with their neighbors, where there's a sense of being a part of something bigger than yourself. I think all three of which are heavily lacking in America right now that is so polarized, where hateful rhetoric is not only, pervasive, but almost welcomed, and gets more clicks and more likes and more watches. It's an interesting thing to think about. And I heard from people being like, I haven't been able to stop thinking about this question. I don't know the answer, but it's really interesting. I have people say, you're out of your mind. It's a slippery slope. The second you give an inch, like it's all going downhill. And there are arguments to be made there. But I can't help but feel like, if we did the due diligence, I'm sure there is something, if we keep the focus really narrow, even if it's like, a specific sentence that can't be said, like, you can't say: the Holocaust was a great thing. Let's say we make that illegal to say, like, how does that hurt anybody? If that's you're not allowed to say those exact words in that exact sequence, you know. So I think if it's gonna be a slippery slope, to me, is not quite a good enough argument for Well, let's go down the road and see if we can come up with something. And then if we decide it's a slippery slope and we get there, maybe we don't do it, but maybe there is something we can come to that if we eliminate that one little thing you're not allowed to say, maybe that will benefit us. Maybe if we make certain things a little bit more restrictive, it'll benefit us. And I likened it to Shabbat saying, you know, on Shabbat, we have all these restrictions. If you're keeping Shabbat, that's what makes Shabbat special, is all the things you're not allowed to do, and because you're not given the quote, unquote, freedom to do those things, you actually give yourself more freedom to be as you are, and to enjoy what's really good about life, which is, you know, the people around you and and having gratitude. So it's just something interesting to think about. Manya Brachear Pashman: It’s an interesting perspective. I am a big fan of free speech. Jonah Platt: As are most people. It's the hill many people will die on. Manya Brachear Pashman: Educated free speech, though, right? That's where the tension is, right? And in a democracy you have to push for education and try to make sure that, you know, people are well informed, so that they don't say stupid things, but they are going to say stupid things and I like that freedom. Did you ever foresee becoming a Jewish advocate? Jonah Platt: No. I . . . well, that's a little disingenuous. I would say, you know, in 2021 when there was violence between Israel and Gaza in the spring over this Sheik Jarrah neighborhood. That's when I first started using what little platform I had through my entertainment career to start speaking very, you know, small things, but about Israel and about Jewish life, just organically, because I am, at the time, certainly much more well educated, even now, than I was then. But I was more tuned in than the average person, let's say, and I felt like I could provide some value. I could help bring some clarity to what was a really confusing situation at that time, like, very hard to decipher. And I could just sense what people were thinking and feeling. I'm well, tapped into the Jewish world. I speak to Jews all over the place. My, as I said, my family's everywhere. So already I know Jews all over the country, and I felt like I could bring some value. And so it started very slowly. It was a trickle, and then it started to turn up a little bit, a little bit more, a little bit more. I went on a trip to Israel in April of 2023. It's actually the two year anniversary today of that trip, with the Tel Aviv Institute, run by a guy named Hen Mazzig, who I'm sure, you know, well, I'm sure he's been on the show, yeah. And that was, like, sort of the next step for me, where I was surrounded by other people speaking about things online, some about Jewish stuff, some not. Just seeing these young, diverse people using their platforms in whatever way, that was inspiring to me. I was like, I'm gonna go home, I'm gonna start using this more. And then October 7 happened, and I couldn't pull myself away from it. It's just where I wanted to be. It's what I wanted to be spending my time and energy doing. It felt way too important. The stakes felt way too high, to be doing anything else. It's crazy to me that anybody could do anything else but be focusing on that. And now here we are. So I mean, in a way, could I have seen it? No. But have I sort of, looking back on it, been leaning this way? Kinda. Manya Brachear Pashman: Do you think it would've you would've turned toward advocacy if people hadn't been misinformed or confused about Israel? Or do you think that you would've really been more focused on entertainment. Jonah Platt: Yeah, I think probably. I mean, if we lived in some upside down, amazing world where everybody was getting everything right, and, you know, there'd be not so much for me to do. The only hesitation is, like, as I said, a lot of my content tries to be, you know, celebratory about Jewish identity. I think actually, I would still be talking because I've observed, you know, divisions and misunderstandings within the Jewish community that have bothered me, and so some of the things I've talked about have been about that, about like, hey, Jews, cut it out. Like, be nice to each other. You're getting this wrong. So I think that would still have been there, and something that I would have been passionate about speaking out on. Inclusivity is just so important to me, but definitely would be a lot lower stakes and a little more relaxed if everybody was on the same universe in regards to Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman: You were relatively recently in Washington, DC. Jonah Platt: Yeah. Manya Brachear Pashman: For the White House Correspondents Dinner. I was confused, because he just said he was in Krakow, so maybe I was wrong. Jonah Platt: I flew direct from Krakow to DC, got off the plane, went to the hotel where the dinner was, changed it to my tux, and went downstairs for the dinner. Manya Brachear Pashman: Wow. Jonah Platt: Yeah. Manya Brachear Pashman: Are you tired? Jonah Platt: No, actually, it's amazing. I'll give a shout out. There's a Jewish businessman, a guy named Andrew Herr, who I was in a program with through Federation called CLI in LA, has started a company called Fly Kit. This is a major shout out to Fly Kit that you download the app, you plug in your trip, they send you supplements, and the app tells you when to take them, when to eat, when to nap, when to have coffee, in an attempt to help orient yourself towards the time zone you need to be on. And I have found it very useful on my international trips, and I'm not going to travel without it again. Yeah. Manya Brachear Pashman: Wow. White House Correspondents dinner. You posted some really thoughtful words about the work of journalists, which I truly appreciated. But what do American journalists get wrong about Israel and the Jewish connection to Israel? Jonah Platt: The same thing that everybody who gets things wrong are getting wrong. I mean, we're human beings, so we're fallible, and just because you're a journalist doesn't make you immune to propaganda, because propaganda is a powerful tool. If it didn't work, people wouldn't be using it. I mean, I was just looking at a post today from our friend Hen Mazzig about all the different ways the BBC is getting things horribly, horribly wrong. I think part of it is there's ill intent. I mean, there is malice. For certain people, where they have an agenda. And unfortunately, you know, however much integrity journalists have, there is a news media environment where we've made it okay to have agenda-driven news where it's just not objective. And somehow it's okay for these publications that we've long trusted to have a story they want to tell. I don't know why that's acceptable. It's a business, and I guess maybe if that, if the dollars are there, it's reinforcing itself. But reporters get wrong so much. I'd say the fundamental misunderstanding that journalists as human beings get wrong, that... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/37447840

Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War: The Dinah Project’s Quest to Hold Hamas Accountable 07/11/2025

Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War: The Dinah Project’s Quest to Hold Hamas Accountable “In so many cases, as is the case of October 7, there are no direct victims who are able to speak – for the very grim reason that Hamas made sure to kill almost each and every one of them. The very few that did survive are too traumatized to speak . . . “ Shortly after the October 7 Hamas terror attacks on Israel, witness accounts emerged of women brutally raped and mutilated before they were murdered and silenced forever. For Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, Professor of Law at Bar-Ilan University, that silence was deafening. And the silence of the international community unwilling to hold Hamas accountable, disturbing. ”Does that mean that [Hamas] can walk away without being prosecuted, without being charged, and without being pointed to as those who perpetrate sexual violence and use it as a weapon of war?” she asks. In this episode, Halperin-Kaddari explains how she and her colleagues have erased any doubt to make sure Hamas is held accountable. Their initiative The Dinah Project, named for one of Jacob’s daughters, a victim of rape, just published A Quest for Justice, the most comprehensive assessment to date of the widespread and systematic sexual violence that occurred during and after the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas terrorists and their allies. The report demonstrates that sexual violence was widespread and systematic during the October 7 attack, that there are clear patterns in the methods of sexual violence across geographic locations, and that sexual violence continued against hostages in captivity. It concludes that Hamas used sexual violence as a tactical weapon of war during and after the October 7 attack. Resources: Read: The groundbreaking new report, Read: Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: Shortly after the October 7 Hamas terror attacks on Israel, witness accounts emerged of women brutally raped and mutilated before they were murdered and silenced forever. For Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, Professor of Law at Bar Ilan University, that silence was deafening. And the silence of the international community unwilling to hold Hamas accountable, disturbing. In response, Ruth and colleagues, former military prosecutor Sharon Zagagi-Pinhas and retired judge Nava Ben-Or founded The Dinah Project, an effort to seek justice for the victims of sexual violence during conflicts, particularly in Israel, on October 7, 2023. This week, together with visual editor Nurit Jacobs-Yinon and linguistics editor Eetta Prince-Gibson, they released A Quest for Justice, the most comprehensive report yet on the sexual violence committed on October 7 and against hostages afterward. Ruth is with us now. Ruth, welcome to People of the Pod. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari: Thank you very much for having me on your podcast. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, it's really an honor to have you. I should note for our listeners that you are also the founding Academic Director of the Rackman Center for the Advancement of the Status of Women, and you've served on the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. So you're no newcomer to this subject matter. You know, we've talked a lot about how Hamas sexually assaulted women and men during the October 7 terror attacks on Israel. Without getting too graphic, or at least getting graphic enough to make your point clear and not sanitize these crimes, what new information and evidence does this report offer? Ruth Halperin-Kaddari: The specific new finding in the report is to actually take all the already published and existing information and put it together and come down with the numbers that prove that sexual violence on October 7 was not sporadic. Was not isolated. It was systematic. It happened in at least six different locations, at the same time, with the same manner, the same patterns. And the, I think, most significant finding is that there are at least 17 survivors who witnessed the sexual violence, and they reported on at least 15 different cases. So there were 17 people who either saw or heard, in real time, the rapes and the gang rapes, some of them involving mutilation, some ending, and the witnesses saw, the execution at the end of the assaults. And this is the first time that anybody came with the actual aggregation and the classification and the naming of all the various sexual assaults and all the various cases that occurred on October 7, and then also later on in captivity. What we did is to, as I said, take all the testimonies and the evidence and the reports that people had already given, and they published it, either on social media or regular media, in addition to some information that was available to us from from other sources, and grouped it into specific categories according to their evidentiary value. So the first group is, of course, those who were victims or survivors of sexual violence themselves, mostly returned hostages, but also one survivor of an attempted rape victim, attempted rape, on October 7, who had actually not spoken before. So that's the first time that her testimony is being recorded or reported. But then the returned hostages, who also report on repeated and similar patterns of sexual abuse and sexual assaults that they had been subjected to in captivity. Manya Brachear Pashman: So the United Nations has acknowledged that women were raped, mutilated, murdered, executed, as you said, but did it attribute responsibility to Hamas? Ruth Halperin-Kaddari: We have to differentiate between the first report of the Assistant Secretary General, Special Representative on sexual violence in conflict, Ms. Pramila Patten, who refrained from specifically attributing these atrocities to Hamas, saying that there needs to be more or follow up examination or investigation into the question of attribution. But then in June of 2024, the Commission of Inquiry on Palestinian Authority, Gaza, Israel, and East Jerusalem, did attribute in their report, they did attribute the sexual violence to Hamas in at least two different places in their report. So in our view, this is already a settled issue. And the information that we gathered comes on top of these two reports. We have to bear in mind the issue of time that passes, first of all, with respect to those survivors, mostly of the Nova music festival, who themselves were victims of the terror attack. And as can be expected, took time before they could recount and speak in public about what they had seen, what they had witnessed, suffering also from trauma, being exposed to such unbelievable acts of human cruelty. And then the other group of the returned hostages, who, some of them, were freed only after 400 or 500 days. So obviously we could not hear their reports before they were finally freed. So all these pieces of information could not have been available to these two investigative exercises by the United Nations. Manya Brachear Pashman: And when the UN Secretary General's annual report on the conflict related sexual violence, when it comes out in August, right, it's expected out next month, there is going to be more information. So do you have high hopes that they will hold Hamas accountable for using sexual violence as a tactical weapon of war, and that this will be included in that report? Ruth Halperin-Kaddari: So this is, in fact, our first recommendation request, ask, if you want to put it that way. We call upon the Secretary General to blacklist Hamas, to include Hamas in the list of those notorious organizations, entities, states that condone or that actually make use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, side by side with ISIS, with Boko Haram, with other terrorist organizations and terrorist groups around the world. And expose them, finally, for what they are, not freedom fighters and not resistance fighters, but rapists and terrorists that use the worst form of violence of human cruelty, of atrocities to inflict such terror and harm on the enemy. Manya Brachear Pashman: You know, we talk about the dangers of nuclear warfare, especially lately, in the context of Iran, we talk about cyber attacks. What are the broader implications of sexual violence when it's used as a weapon of war? Ruth Halperin-Kaddari: Perhaps this is where we should clarify the sense in which sexual violence as a weapon of war is different from the regular term of sexual violence, and from the phenomena of, for lack of a better word, everyday sexual violence. It’s really very important to bear this in mind when thinking about those broader implications and when seeking justice for victims of sexual violence when used as a weapon of war. It is directed not against the individual. It is directed against the community as a whole. Against the group of the enemy, the nation of the enemy. So the bodies of women, and sometimes also of men, are used as vessels, as symbols, symbolizing the body of the whole nation, and when the specific body is targeted and when the specific woman is invaded, conquered, violated, it is as if the whole body of the of the nation, of the enemy's nation, is being invaded and conquered. So the target is the total dehumanization and destroying of the whole community, of the whole group of the enemy. And these are the ramifications of using sexual violence as a weapon of war. It inflicts such a degree of terror, and then also of shame and of stigma, so as to paralyze the whole community. And it goes on and on. And we know from sadly, from other cases of the usage of sexual violence as a tool of war that it is transmitted to generation after generation, this collective trauma. And it's important, not just in understanding and perhaps being prepared for treatment, for healing, etc. But it is also important in the sense of seeking justice. Of attempting to prosecute for these crimes of sexual violence in conflict or in war. We know that it is always a very difficult challenge for the legal system, for institutions, legal institutions, institutions of justice, to prosecute perpetrators of CRSV, of conflict related sexual violence, because of the of the unique aspects and the unique nature of this kind of crime, which are different from everyday sexual violence. In so many cases, as is the case of October 7, there are no direct victims who are able to speak for the very grim reason that Hamas made sure to kill almost each and every one of them so as to leave no traces, to silence them forever. And the very few that did survive, are too traumatized to speak, are unable to come up and say what they had been through. But this is very often the case in CRSV. And then the next challenge is that it is almost always impossible to identify or to point to a specific perpetrator and it's almost impossible to know who did what, or to connect a specific perpetrator to a specific victim. In the case of October 7, the victims were buried with the evidence. The bodies were the evidence and they were buried immediately, or as soon as it was possible, according to Jewish tradition. So does that mean that they can walk away without being prosecuted, without being charged, and without being pointed to as those who perpetrate sexual violence and use it as a weapon of war? That is why we, in our work at The Dinah Project and in the book that we had just published this week, on top of the evidentiary platform that I already described before, we also develop a legal thesis calling for the prosecution of all those who participated in that horrific attack, all those who entered Israel with the genocidal intent of total dehumanization and total destruction. And we argue that they all share responsibility. This is a concept of joint responsibility, or joint criminal enterprise, that we must make use of, and it is a known concept in jurisprudence, in criminal law, and it has to be employed in these cases. In addition to understanding that some of the usual evidence that is sought for prosecution of sexual violence, namely the evidence, the testimony, of the victim herself or himself is not available. But then those eyewitnesses and ear witnesses in real time, 17 of them reporting 15 different cases, these are no less credible evidence and acceptable evidence in evidentiary, in evidence law. And these should be resorted to. So there has to be a paradigm shift in the understanding of the prosecutorial authorities and the law in general. Justice systems, judicial systems in general. Because otherwise, perpetrators of these crimes have full impunity and there will never be accountability for these crimes. And any terrorist organization gets this message that you can do this and get away with it, as long as you don't leave the victims behind. This is a terrible message. It's unacceptable, and we must fight against it. Manya Brachear Pashman: Ruth, can you explain to our audience the origins of The Dinah Project? How old is it? When did you found it, and why? Ruth Halperin-Kaddari: The Dinah Project is really a very interesting case. Can be seen as a case study of the operation of civil society in Israel, from the bottom up, forming organically, without any plan, at first, without any structure. Each of us found ourselves working in parallel channels immediately after October 7. I was very much involved and invested in the international human rights arena. My colleagues were more invested on the national front in seeking to, first of all, to raise awareness within the Israeli authorities themselves about what had took place, and then collecting the information and putting all the pieces of the puzzle together. And then we realized, as we realized that we are all working towards the same goal, we first of all formed a WhatsApp group. This is how things are being done in Israel, and we called it: Sexual Atrocities War Room. And then we understood that we have to have some kind of a structure. And it was only natural that the Rackman Center that I established, and I'm still heading more than 25 years ago, would be the natural organization to host The Dinah Project. As an organization that has always been leading justice for Israeli women, for women in Israel, gender justice, we realize that we are now facing a new front of where justice needs to be done for women in Israel. And we also can utilize the human power that we have in the academia, in the university, of course the organizational structure. So we expanded The Rackman Center, and for the past almost year and a half, The Dinah Project is part of the Rackman Center. And the book that we published now is really the culmination of a very, very careful and meticulous work, thousands of hours, as I said. I would like to add that we are, I'm trying to think of the proper words. It's actually a subject matter where you so often find yourself looking for the proper words. So I want to say we're pleased, but it's really not the right expression. But we see, we acknowledge that there is a huge amount of interest in our work since we launched the book this week and handed it over to the First Lady of Israel, Michal Herzog, at the presidential residence. And I hesitate to say that perhaps this demonstrates that maybe there is more willingness in the international media and in the world at large to hear, maybe to accept, that the situation is more nuanced than previously they prefer to believe. And maybe also because more time passed on. Of course, new information was gathered, but also when this is a work by an academic institution, coming from independent experts and a very solid piece of work, maybe this is also what was needed. I'm really, really hopeful that it will indeed generate the change that we're seeking. Manya Brachear Pashman: In other words, that denial that we encountered in the very beginning, where people were not believing the Israeli women who said that they were sexually assaulted, you find that that is shifting, that is changing. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari: I hope so. I hope that this media interest that we are experiencing now is a signal for some kind of change. It is our aim to refute the denialism. Manya Brachear Pashman: There are some that point to Israeli Forces as well and say that they are also using sexual violence as a weapon of war. Does The Dinah Project address that, has it worked with the IDF to try to figure out . . . in other words, is it a broad application, this report? Ruth Halperin-Kaddari: This is not our mission. Our mission is concerned with the victims of Hamas. We are aware of the allegations against Israeli soldiers, against IDF. We are aware, and we made some inquiries to know the facts that investigations are ongoing against those who are being accused of perpetrating sexual violence against Palestinian detainees. But we must point out a major difference, at least in our understanding. Hamas entered Israel on October 7 under a genocidal indoctrination. Just reading the Hamas charter, going through those writings that were found in the vessels of Hamas terrorists here in Israel, or later on in Gaza, the indoctrination there is clear. And they all entered civilian places. They attacked civilians purposefully, with the intent of total dehumanization and destruction. Whatever happened or not happened with respect to Palestinian detainees, and I do trust the Israeli authorities to conduct a thorough investigation and to hold those accountable, cannot be compared to a structured and planned and ordered attack against the civilian population. Manya Brachear Pashman: And total lack of accountability as well. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari: Obviously there is absolutely no accountability on the part of the Palestinian people, of Hamas leadership, or Palestinian Authority, if that's relevant. Obviously there are no investigations there and no accountability, no acceptance of responsibility on their part. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, Ruth, thank you so much for producing this report, for continuing to investigate, and keeping the fire lit under the feet of the United Nations and authorities who can hold people accountable for the crimes that were committed. Thank you so much. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari: Thank you. Thank you very much. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for a replay of a conversation with award-winning journalist Matti Friedman at AJC Global Forum 2025. He breaks down the media bias, misinformation and double standards shaping global coverage of Israel. /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/37374925

Journalist Matti Friedman Exposes Media Bias Against Israel 07/03/2025

Journalist Matti Friedman Exposes Media Bias Against Israel How has the media distorted Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas attacks? In this powerful conversation from AJC Global Forum 2025, award-winning journalist and former AP correspondent Matti Friedman breaks down the media bias, misinformation, and double standards shaping global coverage of Israel. Moderated by AJC Chief Communications and Strategy Officer Belle Etra Yoeli, this episode explores how skewed narratives have taken hold in the media, in a climate of activist journalism. A must-listen for anyone concerned with truth in journalism, Israel advocacy, and combating disinformation in today’s media landscape. Take Action: Take 15 seconds and urge your elected leaders to send a clear, united message: We stand with Israel. . Resources: : Watch the full video. Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: I’ve had the privilege of interviewing journalism colleague Matti Friedman: twice on this podcast. In 2022, Matti took listeners behind the scenes of Jerusalem’s AP bureau where he had worked between 2006 and 2011 and shared some insight on what happens when news outlets try to oversimplify the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then in 2023, I got to sit down with Matti in Jerusalem to talk about his latest book on Leonard Cohen and how the 1973 Yom Kippur War was a turning point both for the singer and for Israel. Earlier this year, Matti came to New York for AJC Global Forum 2025, and sat down with Belle Yoeli, AJC Chief Strategy and Communications Officer. They rehashed some of what we discussed before, but against an entirely different backdrop: post-October 7. For this week’s episode, we bring you a portion of that conversation. Belle Yoeli: Hi, everyone. Great to see all of you. Thank you so much for being here. Matti, thank you for being here. Matti Friedman: Thanks for having me. Belle Yoeli: As you can tell by zero empty seats in this room, you have a lot of fans, and unless you want to open with anything, I'm going to jump right in. Okay, great. So for those of you who don't know, in September 2024 Matti wrote a piece in The Free Press that is a really great foundation for today's discussion. In When We Started to Lie, Matti, you reflect on two pieces that you had written in 2015 about issues of media coverage of Israel during Operation Protective Edge in 2014. And this piece basically talked about the conclusions you drew and how they've evolved since October 7. We're gonna get to those conclusions, but first, I'm hoping you can describe for everyone what were the issues of media coverage of Israel that you first identified based on the experience in 2014? Matti Friedman: First of all, thanks so much for having me here, and thanks for all of the amazing work that you guys are doing. So it's a real honor for me. I was a reporter for the AP, between 2006 and the very end of 2011, in Jerusalem. I was a reporter and editor. The AP, of course, as you know, is the American news agency. It's the world's largest news organization, according to the AP, according to Reuters, it's Reuters. One of them is probably right, but it's a big deal in the news world. And I had an inside view inside one of the biggest AP bureaus. In fact, the AP's biggest International Bureau, which was in Jerusalem. So I can try to sketch the problems that I saw as a reporter there. It would take me seven or eight hours, and apparently we only have four or five hours for this lunch, so I have to keep it short. But I would say there are two main problems. We often get very involved. When we talk about problems with coverage of Israel. We get involved with very micro issues like, you call it a settlement. I call it a neighborhood. Rockets, you know, the Nakba, issues of terminology. But in fact, there are two major problems that are much bigger, and because they're bigger, they're often harder to see. One of the things that I noticed at the Bureau was the scale of coverage of Israel. So at the time that I was at the AP, again, between 2006 and the very end of 2011 we had about 40 full time staffers covering Israel. That's print reporters like me, stills photographers, TV crews. Israel, as most of you probably know, is a very small country. As a percentage of the world's surface, Israel is 1/100 of 1% of the surface of the world, and as a percentage of the land mass of the Arab world, Israel is 1/5 of 1%. 0.2%. And we had 40 people covering it. And just as a point of comparison, that was dramatically more people than we had at the time covering China. There are about 10 million people today in Israel proper, in China, there are 1.3 billion. We had more people in Israel than we had in China. We had more people in Israel than we had in India, which is another country of about 1.3 billion people. We had more people in Israel than we had in all of the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. That's 50 something countries. So we had more people in Israel than we had in all of those countries combined. And sometimes I say that to Jews, I say we covered Israel more than we covered China, and people just stare at me blankly, because it's Israel. So of course, that makes perfect sense. I happen to think Israel is the most important country in the world because I live there. But if the news is meant to be a rational analysis of events on planet Earth, you cannot cover Israel more than you cover the continent of Africa. It just doesn't make any sense. So one of the things that first jumped out at me– actually, that's making me sound smarter than I am. It didn't jump out at me at first. It took a couple of years. And I just started realizing that it was very strange that the world's largest organization had its largest international bureau in the State of Israel, which is a very small country, very small conflict in numeric terms. And yet there was this intense global focus on it that made people think that it was the most important story in the world. And it definitely occupies a place in the American political imagination that is not comparable to any other international conflict. So that's one part of the problem. That was the scope, the other part was the context. And it took me a while to figure this out, but the coverage of Israel is framed as an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conflict is defined in those terms, the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and everyone in this room has heard it discussed in those terms. Sometimes we discuss it in those terms, and that is because the news folks have framed the conflict in those terms. So at the AP bureau in Jerusalem, every single day, we had to write a story that was called, in the jargon of the Bureau, Is-Pals, Israelis, Palestinians. And it was the daily wrap of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. So what Netanyahu said, what Abbas said, rockets, settlers, Hamas, you know, whatever, the problem is that there isn't an Israeli=Palestinian conflict. And I know that sounds crazy, because everyone thinks there is. And of course, we're seeing conflicts play out in the most tragic way right now in Gaza. But most of Israel's wars have not been fought against Palestinians. Israel has unfortunately fought wars against Egyptians and Jordanians and Lebanese and Iraqis. And Israel's most important enemy at the moment, is Iran, right? The Iranians are not Palestinian. The Iranians are not Arab. They're Muslim, but they're not Arab. So clearly, there is a broader regional conflict that's going on that is not an Israeli Palestinian conflict, and we've seen it in the past year. If we had a satellite in space looking down and just following the paths of ballistic missiles and rockets fired at Israel. Like a photograph of these red trails of rockets fired at Israel. You'd see rockets being fired from Iraq and from Yemen and from Lebanon and from Gaza and from Iran. You'd see the contours of a regional conflict. And if you understand it's a regional conflict, then you understand the way Israelis see it. There are in the Arab world, 300 million people, almost all of them Muslim. And in one corner of that world, there are 7 million Jews, who are Israelis. And if we zoom out even farther to the level of the Islamic world, we'll see that there are 2 billion people in the Islamic world. There's some argument about the numbers, but it's roughly a quarter of the world's population. And in one corner of that world there, there are 7 million Israeli Jews. The entire Jewish population on planet Earth is a lot smaller than the population of Cairo. So the idea that this is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where Israelis are the stronger side, where Israelis are the dominant actor, and where Israelis are, let's face it, the bad guy in the story, that's a fictional presentation of a story that actually works in a completely different way. So if you take a small story and make it seem big. If you take a complicated regional story and you make it seem like a very small local story involving only Israelis and Palestinians, then you get the highly simplified but very emotive narrative that everyone is being subjected to now. And you get this portrayal of a villainous country called Israel that really looms in the liberal imagination of the West as an embodiment of the worst possible qualities of the age. Belle Yoeli: Wow. So already you were seeing these issues when you were reporter, earlier on. But like this, some of this was before and since, since productive edge. This is over 10 years ago, and here we are. So October 7 happens. You already know these issues exist. You've identified them. How would you describe because obviously we have a lot of feelings about this, but like, strictly as a journalist, how would you describe the coverage that you've seen since during October 7, in its aftermath? Is it just these issues? Have they? Have they expanded? Are there new issues in play? What's your analysis? Matti Friedman: The coverage has been great. I really have very I have no criticism of it. I think it's very accurate. I think that I, in a way, I was lucky to have been through what I went through 10 or 15 years ago, and I wasn't blindsided on October 7, as many people were, many people, quite naturally, don't pay close attention to this. And even people who are sympathetic to Israel, I think, were not necessarily convinced that my argument about the press was right. And I think many people thought it was overstated. And you can read those articles from 2014 one was in tablet and one was in the Atlantic, but it's basically the two chapters of the same argument. And unfortunately, I think that those the essays, they stand up. In fact, if you don't really look at the date of the essays, they kind of seem that they could have been written in the past year and a half. And I'm not happy about that. I think that's and I certainly wrote them in hopes that they would somehow make things better. But the issues that I saw in the press 15 years ago have only been exacerbated since then. And October seven didn't invent the wheel. The issues were pre existing, but it took everything that I saw and kind of supercharged it. So if I talked about ideological conformity in the bureaus that has been that has become much more extreme. A guy like me, I was hired in 2006 at the AP. I'm an Israeli of center left political leanings. Hiring me was not a problem in 22,006 by the time I left the AP, at the end of 2011 I'm pretty sure someone like me would not have been hired because my views, which are again, very centrist Israeli views, were really beyond the pale by the time that I left the AP, and certainly, and certainly today, the thing has really moved what I saw happening at the AP. And I hate picking on the AP because they were just unfortunate enough to hire me. That was their only error, but what I'm saying about them is true of a whole new. Was heard. It's true of the Times and CNN and the BBC, the news industry really works kind of as a it has a herd mentality. What happened was that news decisions were increasingly being made by people who are not interested in explanatory journalism. They were activists. Activists had moved into the key positions in the Bureau, and they had a very different idea of what press coverage was supposed to do. I would say, and I tried to explain it in that article for the free press, when I approach a news story, when I approach the profession of journalism, the question that I'm asking is, what's going on? That's the question I think you're supposed to ask, what's going on? How can I explain it in a way that's as accurate as as possible? The question that was increasingly being asked was not what's going on. The question was, who does this serve? That's an activist question. So when you look at a story, you don't ask, is it true, or is it not true? You ask, who's it going to help? Is it going to help the good guys, or is it going to help the bad guys? So if Israel in the story is the villain, then a story that makes Israel seem reasonable, reasonable or rational or sympathetic needs to be played down to the extent possible or made to disappear. And I can give you an example from my own experience. At the very end of 2008 two reporters in my bureau, people who I know, learned of a very dramatic peace offer that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had made to the Palestinians. So Olmert, who was the prime minister at the time, had made a very far reaching offer that was supposed to see a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, most of the West Bank, with land swaps for territory that Israel was going to retain, and a very far reaching international consortium agreement to run the Old City of Jerusalem. Was a very dramatic. It was so far reaching, I think that Israelis probably wouldn't have supported it. But it was offered to the Palestinian side, and the Palestinians rejected it as insufficient. And two of our reporters knew about this, and they'd seen a map of the offer. And this was obviously a pretty big story for a bureau that had as the thrust of its coverage the peace process. The two reporters who had the story were ordered to drop it, they were not allowed to cover the story. And there were different explanations. And they didn't, by the way, AP did not publish the story at the time, even though we were the first to have it. Eventually, it kind of came out and in other ways, through other news organizations. But we knew at first. Why were we not allowed to cover it? Because it would have made the Israelis who we were trying to villainize and demonize, it would have made Israel seem like it was trying to solve the conflict on kind of reasonable lines, which, of course, was true at that time. So that story would have upended the thrust of our news coverage. So it had to be made to go away, even though it was true, it would have helped the wrong people. And that question of who does this serve has destroyed, I want to say all, but much, of what used to be mainstream news coverage, and it's not just where Israel is concerned. You can look at a story like the mental health of President Biden, right. Something's going on with Biden at the end of his term. It's a huge global news story, and the press, by and large, won't touch it, because why? I mean, it's true, right? We're all seeing that it's true, but why can't you touch it? Because it would help the wrong people. It would help the Republicans who in the press are the people who you are not supposed to help. The origins of COVID, right? We heard one story about that. The true story seems to be a different story. And there are many other examples of stories that are reported because they help the right people, or not reported because they would help the wrong people. And I saw this thinking really come into action in Israel 10 or 15 years ago, and unfortunately, it's really spread to include the whole mainstream press scene and really kill it. I mean, essentially, anyone interested in trying to get a solid sense of what's going on, we have very few options. There's not a lot, there's not a lot out there. So that's the broader conclusion that I drew from what I thought at the time was just a very small malfunction involving Israel coverage. But Israel coverage ends up being a symptom of something much bigger, as Jews often are the symptom of something much bigger that's going on. So my problems in the AP bureau 15 years ago were really a kind of maybe a canary in the coal mine, or a whiff of something much bigger that we were all going to see happen, which is the transformation of the important liberal institutions of the west into kind of activist arms of a very radical ideology that has as its goal the transformation of the west into something else. And that's true of the press, and it's true of NGO world, places like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which were one thing 30 years ago and are something very different today. And it's also true of big parts of the academy. It's true of places like Columbia and places like Harvard, they still have the logo, they still have the name, but they serve a different purpose, and I just happen to be on the ground floor of it as a reporter. Belle Yoeli: So obviously, this concept of who does this serve, and this activist journalism is deeply concerning, and you actually mentioned a couple other areas, academia, obviously we're in that a lot right now in terms of what's going on campus. So I guess a couple of questions on that. First of all, think about this very practically, tachlis, in the day to day. I'm a journalist, and I go to write about what's happening in Gaza. What would you say is, if you had to throw out a percentage, are all of them aware of this activist journalist tendency? Or you think it's like, like intentional for many of them, or it's sort of they've been educated that way, and it's their worldview in such a way that they don't even know that they're not reporting the news in a very biased way. Does that make sense? Matti Friedman: Totally. I think that many people in the journalism world today view their job as not as explaining a complicated situation, but as swaying people toward the correct political conclusion. Journalism is power, and the power has to be wielded in support of justice. Now, justice is very slippery, and, you know, choosing who's in the right is very, very slippery, and that's how journalism gets into a lot of trouble. Instead of just trying to explain what's going on and then leave, you're supposed to leave the politics and the activism to other people. Politics and activism are very important. But unless everyone can agree on what is going on, it's impossible to choose the kind of act, the kind of activism that would be useful. So when the journalists become activists, then no one can understand what's what's going on, because the story itself is fake, and there are many, many examples of it. But you know, returning to what you asked about, about October 7, and reporting post October 7, you can really see it happen. The massacres of October 7 were very problematic for the ideological strain that now controls a lot of the press, because it's counterintuitive. You're not supposed to sympathize with Israelis. And yet, there were a few weeks after October 7 when they were forced to because the nature of the atrocities were so heinous that they could not be ignored. So you had the press covering what happened on October 7, but you could... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/37274860

John Spencer’s Key Takeaways After the 12-Day War: Air Supremacy, Intelligence, and Deterrence 06/26/2025

John Spencer’s Key Takeaways After the 12-Day War: Air Supremacy, Intelligence, and Deterrence John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, joins guest host Casey Kustin, AJC’s Chief Impact and Operations Officer, to break down Israel’s high-stakes strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the U.S. decision to enter the fight. With Iran’s terror proxy network reportedly dismantled and its nuclear program set back by years, Spencer explains how Israel achieved total air superiority, why a wider regional war never materialized, and whether the fragile ceasefire will hold. He also critiques the international media’s coverage and warns of the global consequences if Iran’s ambitions are left unchecked. Take Action: Take 15 seconds and urge your elected leaders to send a clear, united message: We stand with Israel. . Resources and Analysis: Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Casey Kustin: Hi, I'm Casey Kustin, AJC's Chief Impact and Operations Officer, and I have the pleasure of guest hosting this week's episode. As of the start of this recording on Wednesday, June 25, it's been 13 days since Israel launched precision airstrikes aimed at dismantling the Iranian regime's nuclear infrastructure and degrading its ballistic missile capabilities to help us understand what transpired and where we are now, I'm here with John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, co-director of the Urban Warfare Project and Executive Director of the Urban Warfare Institute. John, welcome to People of the Pod. John Spencer: Hey, Casey, it's good to see you again. Casey Kustin: Thanks so much for joining us. John, you described Israel's campaign as one of the most sophisticated preemptive strike campaigns in modern history, and certainly the scope and precision was impressive. What specific operational capabilities enabled Israel to dominate the Iranian airspace so completely? John Spencer: Yeah, that's a great question, and I do believe it basically rewrote the book, much like after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, where Israel did the unthinkable, the United States military conducted 27 different studies, and it fundamentally changed the way we fight warfare. It's called Air-Land Battle. I think similarly with Operation Rising Lion, just the opening campaign rewrote what we would call, you know, Shock and Awe, Joint Forcible Entry, things like that. And the capabilities that enabled it, of course, were years of planning and preparation. Just the deep intelligence infiltration that Israel did before the first round was dropped. The Mossad agents texting the high command of the IRGC to have a meeting, all of them believing the texts. And it was a meeting about Israel. They all coming together. And then Israel blew up that meeting and killed, you know, in the opening 72 hours, killed over 25 senior commanders, nine nuclear scientists, all of that before the first bomb was dropped. But even in the opening campaign, Israel put up over 200 aircrafts, almost the entire Israeli air force in the sky over Iran, dominating and immediately achieving what we call air supremacy. Again, through years of work, almost like a science fiction story, infiltrating drone parts and short range missiles into Iran, then having agents put those next to air defense radars and ballistic air defense missile systems. So that as soon as this was about to begin, those drones lost low cost drones and short range missiles attacked Iranian air defense capabilities to give the window for all of the Israeli F-35 Eyes that they've improved for the US military since October 7 and other aircraft. Doing one of the longest operations, seconded only to one other mission that Israel has done in their history, to do this just paralyzing operation in the opening moment, and then they didn't stop. So it was a combination of the infiltration intelligence, the low-tech, like the drones, high-tech, advanced radar, missiles, things like that. And it was all put together and synchronized, right? So this is the really important thing that people kind of miss in military operations, is how hard it is to synchronize every bit of that, right? So the attack on the generals, the attack on the air defenses, all of that synchronized. Hundreds of assets in a matter of minutes, all working together. There's so much chance for error, but this was perfection. Casey Kustin: So this wasn't just an operational success, it was really strategic dominance, and given that Iran failed to down a single Israeli Aircraft or cause any significant damage to any of Israel's assets. What does that tell us about the effectiveness of Iran's military capabilities, their Russian built air defenses that they have touted for so long? John Spencer: Absolutely. And some people say, I over emphasize tactics. But of course, there's some famous sayings about this. At the strategic level, Israel, one, demonstrated their military superiority. A small nation going against a Goliath, a David against a Goliath. It penetrated the Iranian myth of invincibility. And I also failed to mention about how Israel, during this opening of the campaign, weakened Iran's ability to respond. So they targeted ballistic missile launchers and ballistic missile storages, so Iran was really weakened Iran’s ability to respond. But you're right, this sent a signal around the Middle East that this paper tiger could be, not just hit, it could be dominated. And from the opening moments of the operation until the ceasefire was agreed to, Israel eventually achieved air supremacy and could dominate the skies, like you said, without losing a single aircraft, with his really historic as well. And hit what they wanted with what they wanted, all the military infrastructure, all the senior leaders. I mean, eventually they assigned a new commander of the IRGC, and Israel found that guy, despite him running around in caves and things. It definitely had a strategic impact on the signal to the world on Israel's capabilities. And this isn't just about aircraft and airstrikes. Israel's complete dominance of Iran and the weakness, like you said. Although Israel also taught the world back when they responded to Iran's attack in April of last year, and in October of last year, is that you probably shouldn't be buying Russian air defense systems like S-300s. But Iran still, that was the backbone of their air defense capabilities, and Israel showed that that's a really bad idea. Casey Kustin: You mentioned the component of this that was not just about going after infrastructure sites, but targeting Iranian military leadership and over 20 senior military and nuclear figures, according to public reporting. This was really a central part of this campaign as well. How does this kind of decapitation strategy alter the regime's military capability now, both in this immediate short term, but also in the long term, when you take out that kind of leadership? John Spencer: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, much like when the United States took out Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force, who had been decades of leadership of the Quds Force, the terror proxies, which I'm sure we'll talk about, overseeing those to include the ones in Iraq, killing my soldiers. It had a ripple effect that was, it's hard to measure, but that's decades of relationships and leadership, and people following them. So there is that aspect of all of these. Now we know over 25 senior IRGC and Iranian basically leadership, because they killed a police chief in Tehran and others. Yet that, of course, will ripple across. It paralyzed the leadership in many ways during the operation, which is the psychological element of this, right? The psychological warfare, to do that on the opening day and then keep it up. That no general could trust, much like Hezbollah, like nobody's volunteering to be the next guy, because Israel finds him and kills him. On the nuclear though, right, which all wars the pursuit of political goals. We can never forget what Israel said the political goals were – to roll back Iran's imminent breakout of a nuclear weapon, which would not only serve to destroy Israel, because that's what they said they wanted to do with it, but it also gives a nuclear umbrella, which is what they want, to their exporting of terrorism, and the Ring of Fire, the proxy networks that have all been defanged thanks to Israel. That's the reason they wanted. So in taking out these scientists.So now it's up to 15 named nuclear scientists. On top of the nuclear infrastructure and all the weaponization components. So it's not just about the three nuclear enrichment sites that we all talked about in the news, you know, Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. It's about that complete, decades-long architecture of the scientists, the senior scientists at each of the factories and things like that, that does send about, and I know we're in right now, as we're talking, they’re debating about how far the program was set back. It holistically sets back that definitely the timeline. Just like they destroyed the Tehran clock. I'm sure you've heard this, which was the doomsday clock that Iran had in Tehran, which is the countdown to the destruction of Israel. Israel stopped that clock, both literally and figuratively. Could they find another clock and restart it? Absolutely. But for now, that damage to all those personnel sets everything back. Of course, they'll find new commanders. I argue that you can't find those same level of you know, an Oppenheimer or the Kahn guy in Pakistan. Like some of those guys are irreplaceable. Casey Kustin: So a hallmark of Israeli defense policy has always been that Israel will take care of itself by itself. It never asks the United States to get involved on its behalf. And before President Trump decided to undertake US strikes, there was considerable public discussion, debate as to whether the US should transfer B2s or 30,000 pound bunker busters to Israel. From purely a military perspective, can you help us understand the calculus that would go into why the US would decide to take the action itself, rather than, say, transfer these assets to Israel to take the action? John Spencer: Sure. It's a complex political question, but actually, from the military perspective, it's very straightforward. The B2 stealth fire fighter, one of our most advanced, only long range bomber that can do this mission right, safely under radar, all this stuff. Nobody else has it. Nobody else has a pilot that could do it. So you couldn't just loan this to Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East, and let them do the operation. As well as the bomb. This is the only aircraft with the fuselage capable of carrying this side. Even the B-52 stratomaster doesn't have the ability to carry this one, although it can push big things out the back of it. So just from a logistics perspective, it wouldn't work. And then there's the classification. And there's many issues with, like, the somebody thinking that would have been the easiest, and even if it was possible, there's no way to train an Israeli pilot, all the logistics to it, to do it. The Israel Begin Doctrine about, you know, taking into their own hands like they did in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, is still in full effect, and was shown to be literally, a part of Israel's survival is this ability to, look, I understand that allies are important. And I argue strongly that Israel can never go at it alone, and we should never want it to. The strength of any nation is its allies. And the fact that even during this operation, you saw immense amounts of American military resources pushed into the Middle East to help defend Israel and US bases but Patriot systems on the ground before this operation, THAAD systems on the ground before the system. These are the advanced US army air defense systems that can take down ballistic missiles. You had Jordan knocking down drones. You had the new Assad replacement guy, it's complex, agreeing to shoot things down over their airspace. That is part of Israel's strength, is its allies. I mean, the fact that you have, you know, all the Arab nations that have been helping and defending Israel is, I think, can't be underscored under Israel doesn't, shouldn't need to go it alone, and it will act. And that's the Begin Doctrine like this case. And I do believe that the United States had the only weapon, the only capability to deliver something that the entire world can get behind, which is nuclear proliferation, not, you know, stopping it. So we don't want a terror regime like the Islamic regime, for so many different reasons, to have a nuclear weapon close to breakout. So United States, even the G7, the United Nations, all agree, like, you can't have a nuclear weapon. So the United States doing that limited strike and midnight hammer, I think, was more than just about capabilities. It was about leadership in saying, look, Iran's double play that the economic sanctions, or whatever, the JCPOA agreement, like all these things, have failed. Conclusively, not just the IAEA statement that they're 20 years that now they're in violation of enrichment to all the different intelligence sources. It was not working. So this operation was vital to Israel's survival, but also vital for the world and that too, really won in this operation. Casey Kustin: Vital both in this operation, in the defense of Israel, back in April 2024 when Iran was firing missiles and we saw other countries in the region assist in shooting them down. How vital is Israel's integration into CENTCOM to making that all work? John Spencer: Oh, I mean, it's life saving. And General Carrillo, the CENTCOM Commander, has visited Israel so much in. The last 20 months, you might as well have an apartment in Tel Aviv. It's vital, because, again, Israel is a small nation that does spend exponential amounts of its GDP in its defense. But Iran, you know this, 90 million much greater resources, just with the ballistic missile program. Why that, and why that was so critical to set that back, could overwhelm Israel's air defense systems. Could. There's so much to this, but that coordination. And from a military to military perspective, and this is where I come and get involved, like I know, it's decades long, it's very strong. It's apolitical on purpose. It's hidden. Most people don't know it, but it's vital to the survival of our greatest ally in the Middle East. So it meets American interest, and, of course, meets Israel's interest. Casey Kustin: Can you help us understand the Iranian response targeting Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, because this seemed like a very deliberate way for the regime to save face and then de-escalate. But if the ceasefire falls apart, what are the vulnerabilities for us, troops and assets in the region. How well positioned are our bases in Qatar, Al Dhafra in the UAE, our naval assets in Bahrain, our bases in Iraq? How well positioned are we to absorb and deter a real retaliatory response? John Spencer: Yeah, it's a great question. I mean, first and foremost, you know, there is a bit of active defense. So, of course, all of our US bases are heavily defended. A lot of times, you can see things are about to happen, and you can, just like they did, they moved to naval aircraft that would have been even vulnerable in some of these locations, out to sea, so they can't be touched. Heavily defended. But really, active defense is absolutely important, but really deterrence is the greatest protection. So that has to be demonstrated by the capability, right? So the capability to defend, but also the capability to attack and the willingness to use it. This is why I think that supposedly symbolic to the 14 bunker busters that the United States dropped during Operation Midnight Hammer. Iran sent 14 missiles. President Trump says, thanks for the heads up. You know, all of it was evacuated, very symbolic, clearly, to save face and they had a parade, I guess, to say they won something. It's ludicrous, but sometimes you can't get inside the heads of irrational actors who are just doing things for their own population. Our bases, the force protection is heavy. I mean, there's never 100% just like we saw with all the air defenses of Israel, still about 5% or if not less, of the ballistic missiles got through one one drone out of 1000 got through. You can never be 100% but it is the deterrence, and I think that's what people miss in this operation. It set a new doctrine for everyone, for the United States, that we will use force with limited objectives, to send an immense amount of strength. And when somebody says there's a red line now that you should believe that, like if you would have injured a single American in the Middle East, Iran would have felt immense amount of American power against that, and they were very careful not to so clearly, they're deterred. This also sent a new red line for Israel, like Israel will act just like it did in other cases against even Iran, if they start to rebuild the program. War is the pursuit of political objectives, but you always have to look at the strategic on down. Casey Kustin: On that last point, do you think we have entered a new phase in Israeli military doctrine, where, instead of sort of a more covert shadow war with Iran, we will now see open confrontation going forward, if necessary? John Spencer: Well, you always hope that it will not be necessary, but absolutely this event will create, creates a new doctrine. You can see, see almost everything since October 7, and really there were just things that were unconceivable. Having studied and talked to Israeil senior leaders from the beginning of this. Everybody thought, if you attacked Hezbollah, Iran, was going to attack and cause immense amounts of destruction in Israel. Even when Israel started this operation, their estimates of what the damage they would incur was immense. And that it didn’t is a miracle, but it's a miracle built in alliances and friendships with the United States and capabilities built in Israel. Of course, Israel has learned a lot since October 7 that will fundamentally change everything about not just the military doctrine, but also intelligence services and many aspects that are still happening as they're fighting, still to this day in Gaza to achieve the realistic, measurable goal there. Yes, it absolutely has set forth that the old ways of doing things are gone, the you know, having these terror armies, the ring of fire that Israel has defanged, if not for Hamas dismantled and destroyed. It sets a new complete peace in the Middle East. But also a doctrine of, Israel is adapting. I mean, there's still some elements about the reserve forces, the reigning doctrine, that are evolving based on the magnitude of the war since October 7. But absolutely you're right about they will, which has been the doctrine, but now they've demonstrated the capability to do it to any threat, to include the great, you know, myth of Iran. Casey Kustin: So when you talk about this defanging of the Iranian proxy network obviously, Israel undertook significant operations against Hezbollah. Over the last year, they've been in active conflict with the Houthis. How does this operation now alter the way that Iran interacts with those proxies and its capacity to wage war against Israel through these proxies? John Spencer: Yeah, cripples... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/37169060

Iran's Secret Nuclear Program and What Comes Next in the Iranian Regime vs. Israel War 06/18/2025

Iran's Secret Nuclear Program and What Comes Next in the Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Since Israel launched Operation Rising Lion—a precise and defensive military campaign aimed at preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons—Iran has responded with a barrage of ballistic missiles and drones, indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians. Dr. Matthew Levitt, director of the Reinhard Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a leading expert on Iran’s global terror network, explains what’s at stake—and what could come next. Take Action: We must stop a regime that vows to murder millions of Israelis from gaining the weapons to do it. . Resources and Analysis: Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Israel's shadow war with the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, erupted into open conflict last week following a stunning report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that confirmed Iran was much closer to obtaining nuclear weapons than previously known. Since Israel launched a wave of attacks on nuclear sites and facilities, Iran has fired missiles toward Israel's most populated cities. Joining us to discuss what this all means is one of the foremost experts on Iran and its global threats, and a regular guest when trouble arises with Iran. Dr. Matthew Levitt, director of the Reinhard Counterterrorism Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Matt, welcome back to People of the Pod. Matthew Levitt: It's a pleasure to be back, but I need to come sometime when the world's okay. Manya Brachear Pashman: That would be nice. That'd be nice. But what will we talk about? Matthew Levitt: Yeah, just call me one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, you are one of the foremost experts on the dangers posed by Iran, especially its terror proxies. And you've written the definitive book on Hezbollah, titled Hezbollah: the Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God. And I say that whole title, I want to get in there, because we are talking about global threats here. Can you explain the scale of Iran's global threat and the critical role that its terror proxies, like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, play in advancing that strategy? Matthew Levitt: So I really appreciate the question, because it's really important to remind listeners that the Israel Iran war did not start Thursday night US time, Friday morning, Israel time. In fact, it's just the latest salvo where the Israelis, after years and years and years of Iranian we call it malign activity, but that's too soft a term. We're talking about Iran sending weapons and funds to proxies like Hamas to carry out October 7, like Hezbollah to fire rockets at Israel almost daily for almost a year. Like the Houthis, who were much more than a thorn in the Saudi backside until the Iranians came and gave them more sophisticated capabilities. We're talking about an Iran that a few years ago decided that instead of making sure that every gun that it sent to the West Bank had to go to Hamas or Islamic Jihad. They decided to just flood the West Bank with guns. Who cares who's shooting at the Israelis so long as somebody is. And an Iran that not only carries out human rights abuses of all kinds at home, but that threatens Israel and its neighbors with drones, low altitude cruise missiles, short range ballistic missiles, and medium and long range ballistic missiles. And so the totality of this, much like the totality of Hezbollah's striking Israel for almost a year, ultimately led Israel to do what most people thought couldn't be done, and just tear Hezbollah apart, that the Israel war on Hezbollah is the prequel to what we've been seeing over the past few days in Iran. Similarly, for the Israelis, it got to be too much. It wasn't even really that President Trump's 60 days expired and Israel attacked on day 61. It wasn't only that the IAEA came out with a report saying that the Iranians have refused to explain certain activities that can only be explained as nuclear weaponization activities. It was that the Israelis had information that two things were happening. One, that Iran was working very, very hard to rebuild its capability to manufacture medium, long range ballistic missiles that can hit Israel. After the Israeli reprisal attack last October took out a key component of that program, the mixers that are important for the solid propellant, without which you can't make ballistic missiles. And Iran is believed to have, at least the beginning of this recent round of the conflict –Thursday, Friday–about 2000 such missiles. Far fewer now, the Israelis say they've taken out about a third of them, plus launchers, plus radars, et cetera. But that Iran had a plan within just a few years to develop as many as 8000 of these. And that simply was not tolerable for the Israelis. And the second is that the Israelis say that they compiled evidence that Iran had a secret, secret nuclear weapons program that had been going on predating October 7, but was fast tracked after October 7, that they were planning to maintain this program, even as they were negotiating over the more overt program with the Trump administration. President Trump has even taken issue with his own Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that the US intelligence committee does not assess that Iran is weaponizing. And President says, I don't care what she says, I think they were very close to weaponizing. The Israelis say they have shared this information at least recently with their US counterparts and that was not tolerable. So the primary goals that Israel has set out for itself with this campaign is beyond the critically important shattering the glass ceiling. Think where people in particular, in Iran thought this would never happen, was two things, one, addressing and significantly degrading and setting back the Iranian ballistic missile production program, and second, doing the same to the nuclear program. They've already carried out strikes at Isfahan, Natanz, even at the upper parts of Fordow. And there is an expectation that the Israelis are going to do something more. The Israeli national security advisor said on Israeli television today, We are not going to stop without addressing the nuclear activities at Fordow. Manya Brachear Pashman: You know, you called it a prequel, Israel's operations against Hezbollah last year. Did you know that it was a prequel at the time and to what extent did it weaken Iran and leave it more vulnerable in this particular war? Matthew Levitt: I'm going to be the last person in Washington, D.C. who tells you when he doesn't know. And anybody who tells you they did know is lying to you. None of us saw what Israel did to Hezbollah coming. None of us saw that and said, Oh, they did it to a non-state actor right across their border. So they'll definitely be able to do it to Iran, 1000+ kilometers away, big nation state with massive arsenals and a nuclear program and lots of proxies. One plus one does not equal three in this. In other words, the fact that Israel developed mind boggling capabilities and incredible intelligence, dominance and then special tools, pagers and walkie talkies, in the case of Hezbollah, did not mean that they were going to be able to do the same vis a vis Iran. And they did. The same type of intelligence dominance, the same type of intelligence, knowing where somebody was at a certain time, that the protocols would be that certain leaders would get in a certain secret bunker once hostilities started, and they'd be able to take them out in that bunker. As they did to a bunch of senior Hezbollah commanders just months ago. Drone operations from within Iran, Iran being hit with missiles that were fired at Iran from within Iran, all of it. One case did not necessarily translate into the other. It is exponentially impressive. And Israel's enemies have to be saying, you know, that the Israelis are just all capable. Now you're absolutely right. You hit the nail on the head on one critical issue. For a very long time, Israel was at least somewhat deterred, I would say very deterred, from targeting Iran. Because Iran had made very, very clear if Israel or the United States or anybody else targeted Iran or its nuclear program, one of the first things that would happen would be that Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel, Iran's first, most important proxy would rain hellfire in Israel in the form of 1000s upon 1000s of rockets. Until Israel addressed the problem, Hezbollah is believed to have had 150 to 200,000 different types of projectiles, up to and including precision guided munitions. Not only have the overwhelming majority of those been destroyed, Hezbollah still has 1000s of rockets, but Hezbollah leadership has been decimated. There's a new sheriff in town in Lebanon. There's a new government that immediately, when hostility started with Iran's, went to Hezbollah and said, You're not doing this, not dragging Lebanon back into a war that nobody wanted again. We are finally coming out of this economic crisis. And so Iran was faced with a situation where it didn't have Hezbollah to deter Israel. Israel, you know, paved the way for a highway in the air to Iran, taking out air defense systems. It was able to fly over and through Syria. The Syrians are not shedding any tears as they see the Quds Force and the IRGC getting beaten down after what Iran did in Syria. And the Israelis have air dominance now. President Trump said, We, using the we term, air dominance now, earlier today. And they're able to slowly and methodically continue to target the ballistic missile program. Primarily, the medium and long range missiles that target Israel, but sometimes it's the same production lines that produce the short range missiles that Iran uses to target U.S. Forces in the region, and our allies in the Gulf. So Israel is not just protecting itself, it's protecting the region. And then also taking out key military security intelligence personnel, sometimes taking out one person, then a couple days later, taking out the person who succeeded that person, and then also taking out key scientists who had the know-how to potentially rebuild all the things that Israel is now destroying. Manya Brachear Pashman: But Israel is also not hearing from the Houthis, is not hearing from Hamas. It's not hearing from other terror proxies either. Very few attacks from Iran's terror proxies in the aftermath of this wave. Why? Why do you think that is? Matthew Levitt: The crickets are loud. The crickets are loud. Look, we've discussed Hezbollah. Hezbollah understands that if it were to do something, the Israelis will come in even harder and destroy what's left. Hamas is still holding hostages. This is still an open wound, but it doesn't have the capabilities that it once had, and so there have been a couple of short range things that they tried to shoot, but it's not anything that's going to do huge damage, and the Israeli systems can deal with those. The Houthis did fire something, and it hurt some Palestinians near Hebron. You know, the Houthis and the Iranians in particular, in this conflict have killed Palestinians, and in one case, Syrians. They're continuing to hurt people that are not Israelis. One of the things that I think people are hopeful for is that as Iran tries to sue for peace, and it already is, it's been reaching out to Cyprus to pass messages, etcetera. The hope is that Iran will recognize that it's in a position whereby A) there has to be zero enrichment and the facilities have to be destroyed, whatever's left of them. And B) there's a hope that Israel and the United States together will be able to use this diplomatic moment to truly end the conflict in Gaza and get the hostages home. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, that was what I was going to ask. I mean, if Israel achieves its objectives in this war, primarily eliminating Iran's nuclear threat, how significant a setback would that be for Hamas and Iran's other terror proxies, and could it indeed pave the way for an end of the war in Gaza and the return of the hostages? Matthew Levitt: Like everybody else, I'm so scarred, I don't want to get my hopes up, but I do see this as a distinct possibility, and here's why. Not Hezbollah, not the Houthis, not Hamas, none of them, and plenty of other proxies that don't start in the letter H, none of them could have been anywhere as capable as they've proven to be, were it not for Iranian money and weapons. Also some training, some intelligence, but primarily money and weapons. And so Hamas is already on its back foot in this regard. It can still get some money in. It's still being able to make money off of humanitarian aid. Iran is still sending money in through money exchange houses and hawaladars, but not weapons. Their ability to manufacture weapons, their military industrial complex within Gaza, this is destroyed. Hezbollah, we've discussed, discussed, and a lot of their capabilities have been destroyed. And those that remain are largely deterred. The Houthis did shoot up some rockets, and the Israelis did carry out one significant retaliatory attack. But I think people are beginning to see the writing on the wall. The Israelis are kicking the stuffing out of Iran with pinprick attacks that are targeting the worst of the bad guys, including people who have carried out some of the worst human rights transgressions against Iranians. Let's not pretend that this is not affecting the average Iranian. It is. The president says, Everybody get out of Tehran. That's just not possible. People, average Iranians, good people. It must be just an absolute terror. But Israel's not bombing, you know, apartment buildings, as Iran is doing in Israel, or as Russia is doing in Ukraine. And so it really is a different type of thing. And when the Houthis, when Hamas, when Hezbollah, look at this, you don't you don't poke the tiger when it's angry. I think they also understand now's the time to get into survival mode. What you want is for the regime in Iran not to be destroyed. This is no longer a moment, as it's been since long before October 7, but certainly since then, of how Iran as proxies, export Iran's revolution. This is now a question of how they maintain and preserve the revolution at home. And it's extremely important to the proxies that Iran remain, so that even if it's knocked down over time, hopefully, theoretically, from their perspective, it can regain its footing. It will still have, they hope, its oil and gas, etcetera, and they will get back to a point where they can continue to fund and arm the proxies in. Maybe even prioritize them as it takes them longer to rebuild their ballistic missile, drone, and nuclear programs. Manya Brachear Pashman: Which is a scary prospect as well to know that terror proxies could be spread throughout the world and empowered even a little bit more. President Trump left the G7 summit a day early to meet with security advisors, and just a few hours ago, prior to this interview, President Trump called for Iran's, quote, unconditional surrender, saying that the US knows where the Supreme Leader is, and some other threatening language. But I mean, this appears to be a kind of a clear commitment to Israel. So I'm curious how you assess his administration's actions before and during the war thus far, and do you see the United States edging toward direct involvement? Matthew Levitt: All politics is local, and there is a tug of war within the MAGA movement over whether or not the US should be getting involved. Not only in supporting an important ally, but in removing a critical threat. The President is clearly frustrated that Iran was not being more forthcoming in the negotiations. He said many times, we'd offered you a great deal, you should have taken the deal. He's very aware that his deadline ended, and they didn't particularly seem to care. There's also the background that once upon a time, they tried to assassinate him, I think, after the Israelis did what they did, the President appreciates capabilities. He appreciates success. He likes backing the winning horse. And so the New York Times is reporting that after getting off the phone with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump reportedly turned to some aides and said, maybe we need to help him. Now it's not clear that's what's going to happen, and my understanding is that the Israelis have plans of their own for things like the heavily fortified facility at Fordow, which is the most important and highly fortified, protected of the nuclear installations. The Israeli National Security Advisor spoke today and said, you know, we're not going to be done until we do something with Fordow. The United States can do multiple things only the United States has the MOP: the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, and the airplanes to deliver it, and they could end Fordow if they wanted. Short of that, they could do other things to support Israel. There's been defensive support for the State of Israel already, but there's other things they could do, refueling and other things if they wanted to. And at a minimum, I don't see the president restraining Israel at all. Now, I've heard some people say that so far, the President has fired nothing more than some social media postings, some of them even in all caps. But the truth is, those do have an effect, and so long as Israel is not restrained. I think the Israelis went into this with a plan. That plan is not necessarily to entirely destroy the entire nuclear program, but if the ballistic missile program and the nuclear program are sufficiently degraded so that it will take them years and a tremendous amount of time and money to rebuild, knowing that Israel has broken the glass ceiling on this idea of targeting Iran, that if the Israelis feel they need to, they will come back. If the Iranians rebuild their air defense systems, the Israelis will address them and create a new highway going if they need to. I think the Israelis are making that clear. Knowing that it's going to be a little bit of a road for Iran, especially when it will have to deal with some domestic issues coming out of this. Finally, the Israelis have started signaling there's other things they could do. The Israelis have not yet fully targeted oil and gas fields and facilities. For example, they had one set of attacks where they basically knocked at the front door of some of these facilities without walking in the house. That's signaling, and I think it's one of the reasons you're seeing Iran quietly trying to reach out for some type of a ceasefire. Other signaling, for example, is the Israelis deciding to fly all the way to Mashhad, which is in far eastern Iran, to take out an airplane. That airplane was not particularly important. It was the message. There is nowhere in Iran we can't go. It's not a question of distance, it's not a question of refueling, it's not a question of air defense systems. We can do what we need to do. And I think the Iranians understand that now. Manya Brachear Pashman: So we talked about the commitment to Israel, and how clear, how important it is to clarify that commitment to Israel. How important is it to clarify the United States commitment to Arab partners in the Middle East to help defend them in other words, if this conflict escalates? Matthew Levitt: This... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/37062650

Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran’s Nuclear Program 06/13/2025

Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran’s Nuclear Program Why did Israel launch defensive strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites — and what does this mean for regional security? AJC Jerusalem Director Lt. Col. (res.) Avital Leibovich joins from IDF reserve duty to explain Operation Rising Lion — Israel’s precision military strikes aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. Find out why Israel saw this defensive action as vital to protect millions of lives and prevent Iran’s nuclear breakout. Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman Late Thursday night, Israel launched a series of preemptive strikes against Iran in a military offensive dubbed Operation Rising Lion. The wave of strikes comes after the International Atomic Energy Agency censured Iran for obstructing its inspections after the revelation of a secretive nuclear site. What is happening on the ground, what's next, and what are the implications for Israel, Iran, and the broader Middle East? AJC Jerusalem director, Avital Leibovich, who also serves as Lieutenant Colonel in the IDF reserves, joins us now from reserve duty as counterattacks from Iran have begun. Avital, thank you for joining us with pleasure. Avital, negotiations for a new nuclear deal with Iran have been underway since April. There have been five rounds, maybe six, and another was going to begin on Sunday. President Trump also asked Israel to hold off on this preemptive operation. So why did Israel choose to launch these strikes? At this particular time, Avital Leibovich Israel took a decision already to prepare for a preemptive attack on Iran. Since November, what happened in November? In November, Hezbollah lost the majority of its capabilities, of its military capabilities, and also of its leadership. Actually, a lot of his leaders, military leaders, have been eliminated, starting with Nasrallah, Hassan, Nasrallah, and going on to all the major generals of the organization. And basically the Shiite axis, as we call it here in Israel, was broken. Add to this, what happened a month later in December, when Assad's regime crashed, collapsed and was replaced by an anti Iranian man, jihadist, which jihadist background, by the name of Ahmed al Shara. So Iran was actually by on its own, really, because instead of circling Israel from the north, both from Syria and from Lebanon. Now it was circling in a very one dimension way, only from the east. So in order to do that, Iran figured out it needed to really upscale its nuclear capabilities, and for that, they sped up a few processes, for example, uranium enrichment, but not only that, also the weaponization of a potential nuclear bomb. And all of these steps actually brought us to a point that we are today, the point of no return. Iran will not be able to return to 20 years ago, 30 years ago, when it did not have those capabilities as it has today. For us in Israel, this is an issue of existence, either we exist or we don't, and that is the sole reason why the preemptive strike actually began today. This is according to Israeli intelligence, we have all the indications and data showing us this really major leap. And look the IAEA, you know, they issue reports every couple of months. It's their kind of responsibility for us. It's a matter of life and death. We cannot, you know, comply only with reports. And the reports sit on some shelf somewhere and and there's a lot of dust which is piling up on these reports for us, we needed action. So based on this very accurate intelligence, and some of this intelligence that has been accumulated for many, many years, you can see in the attack in Iran, you can see the very accurate attacks, the pinpointed strikes, which actually are directed at specific terrorists and not causing damage to uninvolved civilians, just To the locals. Yeah, Manya Brachear Pashman And how do you evaluate the Trump administration's response so far, given the diplomatic efforts underway? Well, Avital Leibovich I think that he is using the attacks to leverage and put pressure on Iran to resume the negotiation table in a few days. And as you know, there were six rounds of talks, and the best of my knowledge, there were huge gaps between the two sides, the American side and the Iranian side. I'm not sure these gaps can be bridged. We heard over and over again, President Trump say that Iran will never be able to enrich uranium. And then we heard Iranian leaders like Hamina say, this is the basic right of the Iranian people to enrich uranium. So I'm not sure how you can get you can bridge such a deep gap overall, I think that the President. Uh, has been congratulating Israel on its excellent attacks until now. But again, we are in the beginning. We're in the beginning phase of the attacks, although they're spread all over Iran. This is still the first day. We need to keep this in mind. Manya Brachear Pashman The targets included more than nuclear sites. It included ballistic missile sites as well, and we're receiving word that Iran has fired ballistic missiles toward Israel as we speak, they fired ballistic missiles on Israel in April. If this counterattack continues, do you expect the United States to step in to defend Israel, and do you expect some of your neighbors to step in and help as well as they did in April the United Arab Emirates or Bahrain Avital Leibovich So as for the neighbors, I think that if their aerial space will be violated and breached by Iran, then of course, they have the right, like any other country, they're sovereign, to protect their own airspace. First of all, they will be protecting themselves and their people, not Israel, as for the US. This really depends on what Iran chooses to do next. The retaliation that Iran had practiced until now was launching 100 plus drones, explosive drones, to Israel. Almost all of these drones have been intercepted. This happened in the morning today. Now if Iran will decide that the ballistic missiles or the cruise missiles that it will launch here, will attack not only Israel, but also US bases across the region. Then here, there's a question, how will the US respond? Will the US retaliate as well? If that would happen, we could have even a more significant strike together the US and Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman These attacks killed two lead scientists, IRGC commanders, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leaders. Is there a long-term goal of prompting a regime change? Avital Leibovich So first of all, there are few types of targets in Iran, and you mentioned some of them. Physics and nuclear scientists are, of course, a critical human resource to the Iranian regime, as they rely on their long term knowledge and expertise on producing the bomb as soon as possible, as quick as possible, and by eliminating them in a way, you are removing the immediate threat. Other options are economic options. For example, really Iran relies on oil and buys it from China and maybe other countries as well. So obviously, Israel could decide to target its oil reserves, and this will be, of course, a significant economic blow. The third option is to target the government, leadership, politicians. Now, Israel, up to this moment, did not choose an economic target or a political target, but this may change in the future. The military targets, of course, are the most immediate targets that Israel is attacking, and the idea is to eliminate the immediate threat on Israel for the long range? Well, in the Middle East, in this part of the world, unfortunately, long range is something we can only put as a vision which is not bad. I'm happy to dream. I'm dreaming often Iran, which is similar to the Iran we knew before 1979 before the revolution, a moderate country, a human, loving country with values that I can share and adopt just the same. I'm looking at a different Middle East, maybe in a few years, with an expansion of the Abraham Accords, and creating an axis of moderate countries and other Shiite countries. So all of these changes that we're witnessing right now in the region and may still witness in the future, may all have an impact also on the long range outcome of the current war, which is unprecedented. Manya Brachear Pashman I know Israel calls this a preemptive attack, but what do you say to countries who have already expressed concern about what they call an unprovoked attack? Avital Leibovich Well, I think it's enough for them just to look at the many kind of materials, which Israel and the Israeli. Army released today, showing what they have done, what Iran has done on its own soil. Now, when you follow the targets we just spoke about, you can see that these are not civilian targets. In other words, Israel is not attacking a school or a building just in the middle of Tehran for nothing. It's attacking deliberate military related sites. Actually, I think that, if I'm daring to dream again, I think that the people of Israel and the people of Iran have a lot in common. They're both people with deep heritage, with beautiful cultures. So I do envision one day a different regime in Iran, such a regime that could really bring the two countries together, opening a new page. And I think it will do a better Middle East here for all of us. Manya Brachear Pashman We have talked about how Hamas embeds itself among the Palestinian civilians in Gaza. So no matter how precise Israel's attacks are, civilians are killed. Does Iran do the same thing? Or, I should say, does the Iranian regime do the same thing in Iran? Avital Leibovich Obviously, Iran is not a democracy, and there is a similarity here with Hamas. We are talking about almost a fanaticist religious kind of aspect, which is also very similar to Hamas. Actually, Hamas and Iran have been connected for decades, for many, many decades, so they do share a lot of similarities. But unfortunately, the freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of of culture, is not something which is of an ordinary situation in Iran. It's very unfortunate. You know, I'm sometimes following the social media in Iran, and I see how people speak about the regime. I see how they curse the regime. I see how they aspire for better lives. I see them organize parties in basements and so so the regime will not find out. I see them the women wearing jeans underneath hijabs long dresses, trying to conceal them for God forbid, so they would not be considered as not modest. So it's very unfortunate that the public is suffering in Iran, and we see that, not only in the general atmosphere, but also we see it with the standards of life, they have only electricity a couple of days of couple of hours a day. Water is scarce. The the prices of food, they are huge. Take, for example, today, one American dollar, it equals almost 1 million rials. For comparison, $1 equals three point 60 Israeli shekels. So yeah, they're suffering from many, many perspectives. Manya Brachear Pashman Thank you so much for joining us stay safe. Avital Leibovich Thank you, Manya, and I'll just thank everybody for their support. I'm Israel. If Manya Brachear Pashman you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for a special crossover episode between people of the pod and Books and Beyond, the podcast of the Rabbi Sacks legacy, Dr Tanya white, host of Books and Beyond, and Joanna benaroche, global, Chief Executive of the legacy, sit down with my colleague, Maggie wishegrad Fredman to discuss how the wisdom and perspective of the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks still endures today. /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/37007225

What Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks’ State of the Jewish World Teaches Us Today 06/12/2025

What Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks’ State of the Jewish World Teaches Us Today In 2014, the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks stood on the AJC Global Forum stage and delivered a powerful call to action: “We have to celebrate our Judaism. We have to have less oy and more joy… We never defined ourselves as victims. We never lost our sense of humor. Our ancestors were sometimes hated by gentiles, but they defined themselves as the people loved by God.” Over a decade later, at AJC Global Forum 2025, AJC’s Director of Jewish Communal Partnerships, Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman, revisits that message in a special crossover episode between People of the Pod and Books and Beyond, the podcast of the Rabbi Sacks Legacy. She speaks with Dr. Tanya White, one of the inaugural Sacks Scholars and host of Books and Beyond, and Joanna Benarroch, Global Chief Executive of the Legacy, about Rabbi Sacks’s enduring wisdom and what it means for the Jewish future. Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: On this week 16 years ago, the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks published Future Tense, a powerful vision of the future of Judaism, Jewish life, and the state of Israel in the 21st Century. Five years later, he delivered a progress report on that future to AJC Global Forum. On the sidelines of this year’s Global Forum, my colleague Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman spoke with two guests from the Rabbi Sacks Legacy, which was established after his death in 2020 to preserve and teach his timeless and universal wisdom. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman: In 2014, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks addressed our Global Forum stage to offer the state of the Jewish world. Modeled after the US President's State of the Union speech given every year before Congress and the American people, this address was intended to offer an overview of what the Jewish people were experiencing, and to look towards our future. The full video is available on AJC's website as well as the Sacks Legacy website. For today's episode, we are holding a crossover between AJC's People of the Pod podcast and Books and Beyond, the Rabbi Sacks podcast. On Books and Beyond, each episode features experts reflecting on particular works from Rabbi Sacks. Channeling that model, we’ll be reflecting on Rabbi Sacks’ State of the Jewish World here at AJC's 2025 Global Forum in New York. AJC has long taken inspiration from Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks and today, AJC and the Rabbi Sacks legacy have developed a close partnership. To help us understand his insights, I am joined by two esteemed guests. Dr. Tanya White is one of the inaugural Sacks Scholars and the founder and host of the podcast Books and Beyond, the Rabbi Sacks podcast. Joanna Benarroch is the Global Chief Executive of the Rabbi Sacks legacy. And prior to that, worked closely with Rabbi Sacks for over two decades in the Office of the Chief Rabbi. Joanna, Tanya, thank you for being with us here at AJC's Global Forum. Tanya White: It's wonderful to be with you, Meggie. Joanna Benarroch: Thank you so much, Meggie. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman: I want to get to the State of the Jewish World. I vividly remember that address. I was with thousands of people in the room, Jews from different walks of life, Jews from around the globe, as well as a number of non-Jewish leaders and dignitaries. And what was so special is that each of them held onto every single word. He identifies these three areas of concern: a resurgence of antisemitism in Europe, delegitimization of Israel on the global stage, and the Iranian regime's use of terror and terror proxies towards Israel. This was 2014, so with exception of, I would say today, needing to broaden, unfortunately, antisemitism far beyond Europe, to the skyrocketing rates we're living through today, it's really remarkable the foresight and the relevance that these areas he identified hold. What do you think allowed Rabbi Sacks to see and understand these challenges so early, before many in the mainstream did? And how is his framing of antisemitism and its associated threats different from others? And I'll let Tanya jump in and start. Tanya White: So firstly, I think there was something very unique about Rabbi Sacks. You know, very often, since he passed, we keep asking the question, how was it that he managed to reach such a broad and diverse audience, from non Jews and even in the Jewish world, you will find Rabbi Sacks his books in a Chabad yeshiva, even a Haredi yeshiva, perhaps, and you will find them in a very left, liberal Jewish institution. There's something about his works, his writing, that somehow fills a space that many Jews of many denominations and many people, not just Jews, are searching for. And I think this unique synthesis of his knowledge, he was clearly a religious leader, but he wasn't just uniquely a religious leader. He was a scholar of history, of philosophy, of political thought, and the ability to, I think, be able to not just read and have the knowledge, but to integrate the knowledge with what's going on at this moment is something that takes extreme prowess and a very deep sense of moral clarity that Rabbi Sacks had. And I would say more than moral clarity, is a moral imagination. I think it was actually Tony Blair. He spoke about the fact that Rabbi Sacks had this ability, this kind of, I think he even used the term moral imagination, that he was able to see something that other people just couldn't see. Professor Berman from University of Bar Ilan, Joshua Berman, a brilliant Bible scholar. So he was very close to Rabbi Sacks, and he wrote an article in Israeli, actually, an Israeli newspaper, and he was very bold in calling Rabbi Sacks a modern day prophet. What is a prophet? A prophet is someone who is able to see a big picture and is able to warn us when we're veering in the wrong direction. And that's what you see in the AJC address, and it's quite incredible, because it was 11 years ago, 2014. And he could have stood up today and said exactly the same thing. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks: But there is nonetheless a new antisemitism. Unlike the old it isn't hatred of Jews for being a religion. It isn't hatred of Jews as a race. It is hatred of Jews as a sovereign nation in their own land, but it has taken and recycled all the old myths. From the blood libel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Though I have to confess, as I said to the young leaders this morning, I have a very soft spot for antisemites, because they say the nicest things about Jews. I just love the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Because, according to this, Jews control the banks, Jews control the media, Jews control the world. Little though they know, we can't even control a shul board meeting. Tanya White: So what's fascinating is, if you look at his book Future Tense, which was penned in 2009.The book itself is actually a book about antisemitism, and you'll note its title is very optimistic, Future Tense, because Rabbi Sacks truly, deeply believed, even though he understood exactly what antisemitism was, he believed that antisemitism shouldn't define us. Because if antisemitism defines who we are, we'll become the victims of external circumstances, rather than the agents of change in the future. But he was very precise in his description of antisemitism, and the way in which he describes it has actually become a prism through which many people use today. Some people don't even quote him. We were discussing it yesterday, Joanna, he called it a mutating virus, and he speaks about the idea that antisemitism is not new, and in every generation, it comes in different forms. But what it does is like a virus. It attacks the immune system by mutating according to how the system is at the time. So for example, today, people say, I'm not antisemitic, I'm just anti-Zionist. But what Rabbi Sacks said is that throughout history, when people sought to justify their antisemitism, they did it by recourse to the highest source of authority within that culture. So for example, in the Middle Ages, the highest recourse of authority was religion. So obviously we know the Christian pogroms and things that happen were this recourse the fact, well, the Jews are not Christians, and therefore we're justified in killing them. In the Enlightenment period, it was science. So we have the and the Scientific Study of Race, right and Social Darwinism, which was used to predicate the Nazi ideology. Today, the highest value is, as we all know, human rights. And so the virus of antisemitism has mutated itself in order to look like a justification of human rights. If we don't challenge that, we are going to end up on the wrong side of history. And unfortunately, his prediction we are seeing come very much to light today. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman: I want to turn to a different topic, and this actually transitioned well, because Tanya, you raised Prime Minister Tony Blair. Joanna, for our listeners who may have less familiarity with Rabbi Sacks, I would love for you to fill in a larger picture of Rabbi Sacks as one of the strongest global Jewish advocates of our time. He was a chief rabbi, his torah knowledge, his philosophical works make him truly a religious and intellectual leader of our generation. At the same time, he was also counsel to the royal family, to secular thought leaders, world leaders, and in his remarks here at Global Forum, he actually raised addressing leading governing bodies at the European Union at that time, including Chancellor Merkel. These are not the halls that rabbis usually find themselves in. So I would love for you to explain to our audience, help us understand this part of Rabbi Sacks’ life and what made him so effective in it. Joanna Benarroch: Thanks, Meggie. Over the last couple of weeks, I spent quite a bit of time with people who have been interested in learning more about Rabbi Sacks and looking at his archive, which we've just housed at the National Library in Israel. Then I spent quite a significant amount of time with one of our Sacks Scholars who's doing a project on exactly this. How did he live that Judaism, engaged with the world that he wrote so eloquently about when he stepped down as chief rabbi. And a couple of days ago, I got an email, actually sent to the Sacks Scholar that I spent time with, from the gifted archivist who's working on cataloging Rabbi Sacks’ archive. She brought our attention to a video that's on our website. Rabbi Sacks was asked by a young woman who was a student at Harvard doing a business leadership course, and she asked Rabbi Sacks for his help with her assignment. So he answered several questions, but the question that I wanted to bring to your attention was: what difference have you sought to make in the world? The difference that he sought to make in the world, and this is what he said, “is to make Judaism speak to people who are in the world, because it's quite easy being religious in a house of worship, in a synagogue or church, or even actually at home or in the school. But when you're out there in the marketplace, how do you retain those strong values? And secondly, the challenge came from University. I was studying philosophy at a time when there were virtually no philosophers who were religious believers, or at least, none who were prepared to publicly confess to that. So the intellectual challenges were real. So how do you make Judaism speak to people in those worlds, the world of academic life, the world of economy? And in the end, I realized that to do that credibly, I actually had to go into the world myself, whether it was broadcasting for the BBC or writing for The Times, and getting a little street cred in the world itself, which actually then broadened the mission. And I found myself being asked by politicians and people like that to advise them on their issues, which forced me to widen my boundaries.” So from the very beginning, I was reminded that John–he wrote a piece. I don't know if you recall, but I think it was in 2005, maybe a little bit earlier. He wrote a piece for The Times about the two teenagers killed a young boy, Jamie Bulger, and he wrote a piece in The Times. And on the back of that, John Major, the prime minister at the time, called him in and asked him for his advice. Following that, he realized that he had something to offer, and what he would do is he would host dinners at home where he would bring key members of either the parliament or others in high positions to meet with members of the Jewish community. He would have one on one meetings with the Prime Minister of the time and others who would actually come and seek his advice and guidance. As Tanya reflected, he was extremely well read, but these were books that he read to help him gain a better understanding into the world that we're living in. He took his time around general elections to ring and make contact with those members of parliament that had got in to office, from across the spectrum. So he wasn't party political. He spoke to everybody, and he built up. He worked really hard on those relationships. People would call him and say so and so had a baby or a life cycle event, and he would make a point of calling and making contact with them. And you and I have discussed the personal effect that he has on people, making those building those relationships. So he didn't just do that within the Jewish community, but he really built up those relationships and broaden the horizons, making him a sought after advisor to many. And we came across letters from the current king, from Prince Charles at the time, asking his guidance on a speech, or asking Gordon Brown, inviting him to give him serious advice on how to craft a good speech, how long he should speak for? And Gordon Brown actually gave the inaugural annual lecture, Memorial Lecture for Rabbi Sacks last in 2023 and he said, I hope my mentor will be proud of me. And that gave us, I mean, it's emotional talking about it, but he really, really worked on himself. He realized he had something to offer, but also worked on himself in making his ideas accessible to a broad audience. So many people could write and can speak. He had the ability to do both, but he worked on himself from quite a young age on making his speeches accessible. In the early days, they were academic and not accessible. Why have a good message if you can't share it with a broad audience? Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman: What I also am thinking about, we're speaking, of course, here at an advocacy conference. And on the one hand, part of what you're describing are the foundations of being an excellent Jewish educator, having things be deeply accessible. But the other part that feels very relevant is being an excellent global Jewish advocate is engaging with people on all sides and understanding that we need to engage with whomever is currently in power or may who may be in power in four years. And it again, speaks to his foresight. Joanna Benarroch: You know, to your point about being prophetic, he was always looking 10, 15, 20 years ahead. He was never looking at tomorrow or next week. He was always, what are we doing now that can affect our future? How do I need to work to protect our Jewish community? He was focused whilst he was chief rabbi, obviously on the UK, but he was thinking about the global issues that were going to impact the Jewish community worldwide. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman: Yes. I want to turn to the antidote that Rabbi Sacks proposed when he spoke here at Global Forum. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks: I will tell you the single most important thing we have to do, more important than all the others. We have to celebrate our Judaism. We have to have less oy and more joy. Do you know why Judaism survived? I'll tell you. Because we never defined ourselves as victims. Because we never lost our sense of humor. Because never in all the centuries did we internalize the disdain of the world. Yes, our ancestors were sometimes hated by gentiles, but they defined themselves as the people loved by God. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman: So he highlights the need to proudly embrace the particularism of Judaism, which really in today's world, feels somewhat at odds with the very heavy reliance we have on universalism in Western society. And underpinning this, Rabbi Sacks calls on us to embrace the joy of Judaism, simchatah, Chaim, or, as he so fittingly puts it, less oy and more joy. How did both of these shape Rabbi Sacks's wider philosophy and advocacy, and what do they mean for us today? Tanya White: Rabbi Sacks speaks about the idea of human beings having a first and second language. On a metaphorical level, a second language is our particularities. It's the people, it's the family we're born. We're born into. It's where we learn who we are. It's what we would call today in sociology, our thick identity. Okay, it's who, who I am, what I believe in, where I'm going to what my story is. But all of us as human beings also have a first language. And that first language can be, it can manifest itself in many different ways. First language can be a specific society, a specific nation, and it can also be a global my global humanity, my first language, though, has to, I have to be able to speak my first language, but to speak my first language, meaning my universal identity, what we will call today, thin identity. It won't work if I don't have a solid foundation in my thick identity, in my second language. I have nothing to offer my first language if I don't have a thick, particular identity. And Rabbi Sacks says even more than that. As Jews, we are here to teach the world the dignity of difference. And this was one of Rabbi Sacks’ greatest messages. He has a book called The Dignity of Difference, which he wrote on the heels of 9/11. And he said that Judaism comes and you have the whole story of Babel in the Bible, where the people try to create a society that is homogenous, right? The narrative begins, they were of one people and one language, you know, and what, and a oneness of things. Everyone was the same. And Rabbi Sacks says that God imposes diversity on them. And then sees, can they still be unified, even in their diversity? And they can't. So Rabbi Sacks answers that the kind of antidote to that is Abraham. Who is Abraham? Abraham the Ivri. Ivri is m’ever, the other. Abraham cut this legacy. The story of Abraham is to teach the world the dignity of difference. And one of the reasons we see antisemitism when it rears its head is when there is no tolerance for the other in society. There is no tolerance for the particular story. For my second language. For the way in which I am different to other people. There's no real space for diversity, even when we may use hashtags, okay, or even when we may, you know, proclaim that we are a very diverse society. When there is no space for the Jew, that's not true dignifying of difference. And so I think for Rabbi Sacks, he told someone once that one of his greatest, he believed, that one of his greatest novelties he brought into the world was the idea of Torah and chochma, which is torah and wisdom, universal wisdom. And Rabbi Sacks says that we need both. We need to have the particularity of our identity, of our language, of our literacy, of where we came from, of our belief system. But at the same time, we also need to have universal wisdom, and we have to constantly be... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/36976455

“They Were Bridge Builders”: Remembering Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky 06/06/2025

“They Were Bridge Builders”: Remembering Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky We remember Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky through the voices of those who knew them. Hear about Sarah’s peacebuilding in Morocco and Yaron’s diplomatic efforts to forge stronger ties between Israel and its neighbors. Both were members of the Israeli diplomatic corps and AJC’s extended family. They were tragically murdered after leaving an AJC event in Washington, D.C. Dr. Dana Walker, the director of AJC ACCESS, the young professional program that hosted the reception, shares memories of traveling with Sarah to Morocco last fall as part of the for Emerging Leaders, organized by AJC and the Mimouna Association. Then, Benjamin Rogers, AJC’s Director for Middle East and North Africa Initiatives, reflects on his conversations with Yaron, who held a parallel diplomatic portfolio at the Israeli Embassy. Benjy and Yaron spoke quite often about their diplomatic work and the importance of Israel’s relationship with its neighbors. Benjy recalls their last exchange, just moments before Yaron was gunned down. Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episode: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: American Jewish Committee and Jews around the world have been left completely shaken by the devastating events in Washington, D.C., where two members of the Israeli diplomatic community and AJC’s community—Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lishinsky were brutally murdered after leaving an AJC reception. Last week, AJC CEO Ted Deutch returned from Sarah’s funeral in Kansas City to share what he’s learned about Sarah and Yaron. He also shared how graciously people have reached out to express their support, including families of Israeli hostages. This week, to remember Sarah and Yaron, we invited two AJC colleagues who knew them personally to help us remember. Dana Levinson Walker is the director of AJC ACCESS, the program for young Jewish professionals. In that role, she traveled to Morocco with Sarah and two dozen other young bridge builders as part of the for Emerging Leaders organized by AJC and the Mimouna Association. Dana is with us now to share her memories. Dana, thank you for being here. Can you please tell us about that trip last fall? Dana Walker: I had the privilege of traveling with Sarah and 25 other young professionals and staff from the US, Israel, Morocco and France. And it was an extraordinary seven days. We traveled to six different cities in seven days. Normally, we backend an Israel trip as a part of this delegation. But due to some geopolitical issues happening in the region, we made a decision to just go to Morocco at that time, and then we were going to go to Israel later. And we are indeed scheduled to go to Israel in September of 2025. It was an extraordinary experience for all different kinds of reasons. I think that the environment that we were walking into in Morocco was not only an embracing one, but it was also a challenging one. The day that we arrived in Morocco was the day we found out that the six hostages had been murdered in Gaza, and it was an incredibly painful moment for the Jewish participants, many of whom had a connection to the hostages or their families. And especially for someone like Sarah, who worked at the embassy, it felt really personal, because she had been advocating, of course, for their release, but also had just been a voice for many of them. And it was deeply devastating. But the trip could have taken a really depressing and sad turn, and in reality, it actually took an incredible turn where I've often told people that it wasn't necessarily the trip we planned for, but it was the trip we needed. In that it really fostered and created a family that is bound together now for life. They wept together, they laughed together. And I think what was so powerful is that it was Sarah's first time in Morocco, and she really just had this look of awe most of the time we were there. It was a look of deep reflection, a look of kind of taking it all in. We have really amazing photos of her, where she's just kind of looking very ethereal and like looking up in awe walking around the kind of old city of Marrakesh and things like that. And she was an incredible addition to our trip. She was a calming figure, a grounding figure. She spent a lot of late nights with the folks, just talking on the bus, talking by the pool. I know that on the last night of our trip in Marrakech, she and a couple of other participants, Israelis and Moroccans and Americans, were up until 5:30 in the morning just talking about life and their ambitions and their goals and just understanding one another by the pool for hours and hours and hours. And Sarah was one of the people in that conversation. Manya Brachear Pashman: Can you share what perspectives she added to the conversations? What did she contribute? And also, if you know anything about those ambitions and life goals that she shared with others. Dana Walker: Sarah was really passionate about the environment. She was really passionate about sustainability. She loved her dog. She was really passionate about animals, and specifically dogs. I remember one of the things that we were talking about when she was preparing to go on the trip, and we had to kind of navigate when we were going and if we were still going, because of the geopolitics of the region, and she was really concerned about boarding her dog. It's just so clear that she cares so much about everyone in her life, and especially in this case, her dog, who was a really focal part of her heart. You know, she studied agriculture and sustainability, primarily sustainability. She was really interested in leaving the world a better place than she found it. And when we were going through the acceptance process for the Sachs Fellowship, we had a ton of applicants. And I think really what drew us to Sarah's application was that she was someone who was literally about to start her job at the embassy. We decided to put her in the agriculture and sustainability track because that's what she cared about. She was really passionate about finding sustainable solutions, especially in the region, because the region is growing hotter with each kind of succeeding year. Food and water security is becoming a challenge. Although, you know, after she started her role at the embassy, she really was doing a little bit of everything, but one of the key features that she worked on was working with survivors who had experienced gender and sexual based violence after October 7, and we couldn't really fathom anyone being more suited to do that work because of her gentle and calm and compassionate, assuring disposition. So she was ambitious in that she had a lot of big dreams for the future, about what she wanted to do, and she was really figuring out what was going to come next for her. The diplomat's life is never easy, especially in these incredibly uncertain and overwhelming times after October 7, and she and Yaron were planning a future, and they were really figuring out what was coming next for them. Manya Brachear Pashman: Was that trip to Morocco the only time you spent with Sarah? Dana Walker: I met her in person for the first time at last year's AJC Young Diplomats reception, where we focused on talking about regional integration, which was something she was really passionate about. She was with her other embassy friends and colleagues, and it was great to meet her, because I knew I was going to be traveling with her in the fall. So it was great to meet her in person. And then I saw her a few more times in DC over the course of our year, getting to know her. And then the last time I saw her was at the AJC Global Forum in April of just this year. Manya Brachear Pashman: The Sachs Fellowship is named in memory of Michael Sachs. He was someone who dedicated his life to promoting Arab-Israeli engagement. We’ve heard a lot of people talk about Sarah’s commitment to that as well. How could you tell? Is there a moment in your mind that stands out? Illustrates her belief that interfaith, intercultural engagement could and should happen? Dana Walker: I believe in Essaouira–I believe that's where we were–and they had given us the option that we could either go around the souq and do a little bit of shopping, or we could go to a mosque and participate in an opportunity with this incredible singer and spiritual leader. And there were a few of us who said, Okay, we're gonna go. And Sarah was one of them, and she came with me and with the others. And it was so extraordinary, not only the experience of being in the mosque and hearing this unbelievable. Whole singing and just being kind of enveloped in this like spiritual warmth, which was just so wonderful. But she could have gone shopping, and she chose to go to the mosque, and she chose to put herself out there and experience something that she would likely not get to experience again, in this kind of environment. She really took advantage of it. She was really eager to learn. In order to be a peace builder, in order to be someone who can really transform hearts and minds, you have to understand the people that you're working with, and she really took advantage of that in the best way possible. I have some really great photos and videos of us in the mosque. And of course, they have this amazing tea ceremony. So the spiritual leader of the mosque had this really, really, really cute child who must have been maybe four or something. And, you know, hospitality is one of the pillars of Moroccan society, and everybody always does kind of the double cheek kiss. And the spiritual leader wanted to make sure that his child went around and gave everybody these little kisses. And I remember Sarah, and I were like, Oh my God, this kid is so cute and so well behaved. Like, I can't believe it. So he came over and gave us these little you know, these little bissou or, you know, whatever, the cheek kisses. And we were just melting. He was so adorable. Manya Brachear Pashman: It sounds like you were met with so much warmth and kindness in Morocco. As you said, it was what it was the trip you needed. And it sounds like she didn't hesitate to immerse herself, to really engage with that, that kind of cross-cultural experience. Do you know of any examples of when she engaged with a not-so friendly crowd? Dana Walker: One of the things that Sarah talked a lot about on the trip, and I know that my ACCESS leader and friend Laura mentioned this at the vigil yesterday is that, after Sarah started working for the embassy, a lot of her friends from graduate school and other places were really unkind to her and were really, really awful to her about her decision to work for the Israeli embassy. And in many cases, they stopped talking to her, they blocked her, they cropped her out of photos, they excluded her, and that was the kind of hostility she was facing. So I think what's really telling is that the people who love her and embrace her so much include Moroccan Muslims who saw her for the kind of person that she was. Which was this extraordinarily warm and caring and kind and compassionate person, but also someone who had a vision for securing a better future for everyone in the region, regardless of whether they were Jewish or Muslim, regardless of whether they were Israeli or Palestinian or Moroccan. Manya Brachear Pashman: Did she ever talk about how she handled those broken friendships? Dana Walker: I think they were just really painful for her. I think they were really hard. I think she found a lot of comfort in hearing from the other Americans on the trip who had also lost friendships and relationships and relationships after October 7. It was a very common refrain from a lot of the participants that some of their coworkers or long friendships, relationships, even with family, had been fractured or damaged or kind of beyond a place of repair. And I think in many ways, not misery loves company, but you know, she was surrounded by others who understood her experience and vice versa. That they all could appreciate, because they had all been through it in some way or another. So her experience was a familiar one, unfortunately, and a familiar one for many American Jews. So I think she took comfort in knowing that other people on the trip were experiencing similar things. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Dana, how are you finding any glimmers of hope going forward, after that evening? Dana Walker: You know, I . . . in my almost seven years of working at AJC, which is a long time, I think at this point, have discovered that the key to keep doing what we do is looking at our work through a glass, half full lens, because If we don't, it's just exhausting and debilitating. And I what gives me hope is knowing that even in her last sort of moments, that she was fulfilling her desire to be a glass half full person. She had vision for how to support a sustainable region, how to deeply invest in her relationships with her colleagues and friends across many nations and many backgrounds. And I urge others to try and embody that sense of optimism and glass half full approach, because the person who perpetrated this brutal act sought to destroy the work, and the only way forward is to amplify it and double down on it. So that's the hope that I get out of this experience. Is just knowing that we owe it to Sarah and to Yaron to keep amplifying their vision for what was possible. Manya Brachear Pashman: Sadly, Sarah is not the first Sachs Fellow that the current cohort lost this past year. At AJC Global Forum in New York in April, AJC honored Laziza Dalil, a co-founder of Mimouna Association. She was a Moroccan Muslim who dedicated her life to repairing Arab Israeli relations. She posthumously received the Ofir Libshtein Bridge Builder Award at Global Forum. Dana, how are you and the Sachs Fellows doing through what I can only imagine has been a difficult time? Dana Walker: It just all seems so unfair. Deeply unfair and deeply painful. That two of the best and brightest were taken from us. Were stolen from us, really. And it's something that we are grappling with. We're still processing. We're still dealing with it. I think what has been tremendously helpful is that we are grieving as a family. We are grieving as a group of not Moroccans or Israelis or Americans or French people, but as a collection of people who by fate and circumstance, are now bound to each other forever by both the trauma and the joys of what we've experienced as a community in service of trying to make the world a better place. And it's hard. But we are going to keep going because of it. Manya Brachear Pashman: If only that shared sense of grief was as powerful in the region. Dana, thank you so much. Dana Walker: Thank you, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman: As AJC’s Director for Middle East and North Africa Initiatives, Benjamin Rogers handles the Middle East portfolio for American Jewish Committee. The same portfolio that Yaron Lischinsky handled for the Israeli Embassy. Benjy and Yaron spoke quite often about the importance of Israel’s relationship with its neighbors. Benjy is with us now to recall his last conversation with Yaron, moments before his death. Thank you for joining us, Benjy. You were at the event in Washington that night. Where were you when the shots were fired just after 9 p.m.? Benjamin Rogers: I left the museum around 8:55pm and I was in a taxi heading home, when I got a text message letting me know that there's been shots fired. Talked to a lot of people from the Israeli embassy, from AJC, trying to get a sense of what was happening. I remember calling Yaron, asking if he was okay, texting him if he was okay. And then everything kind of unfolded once I got home. A lot of confusion initially, and then kind of everyone's worst fears were soon realized. Manya Brachear Pashman: You knew Yaron through the particular work that you both did, correct? Benjamin Rogers: I have the privilege of working on the Middle East file for AJC and Yaron also had the privilege of working on the Middle East file for the Embassy of Israel. And the Embassy of Israel is quite large, but believe it or not, there's only two people that really focus on the Middle East–Yaron and then his supervisor, Noa Ginosar. So Yaron was someone who I used to see frequently in Washington. He would always be at various events. It was always fun to have Yaron, an Israeli representative at different programming with Arab diplomats, Arab representatives. Something that was clearly important to us at AJC, but also deeply personal to Yaron. Israel at the time of the Abraham Accords, Israel post October 7, Israel at a time of difficulty, how could we work together on a shared mission of advancing regional integration. And this was something that – you know, Yaron was not the loudest person in the room ever. He, in that sense, was not your typical Washingtonian. But he always had this presence. He always had this smile on his face. So whenever he was there, you knew you felt this comfort. People have been saying a lot, who have been meeting his family, that he comes from a very noble family, and I think that perfectly describes Yaron. He was a noble guy. He was always somebody who was happy to be where he was. You could tell the work meant a lot to him, and someone who I always enjoyed being able to see. That night, I got to spend a good amount of time with him. I had seen him a few weeks prior, but we didn't really have the time to catch up, and it was just a great opportunity to be able to talk with him. He shared, he was very excited to go home. He hadn't been home in close to a year. Was going to see his family. He was going to go over Shavuot. Again, with that typical Yaron smile, calm energy, noble engagement. He was really happy that night, and that's something, the more I talk about this, the more that's important for me to share. Just because I am a new father, I can only imagine what his parents are going through. But he was happy that night. He was at a really good place. And I think that that, I hope, that brings some solace and meaning to all who knew and loved him. Manya Brachear Pashman: I know people did more than mingle at this reception. Much has been said about the cruel irony that this was a program about humanitarian aid to Gaza. Could you speak a little more about that? Benjamin Rogers: The event on Wednesday night was one that I moderated, and one that I was actually quite nervous to moderate. It was on humanitarian diplomacy. This is not an easy topic to discuss right now. There's a lot of complexity, a lot of hardship, a lot of heartbreak, but the fact that he was there for this conversation showed his willingness to engage, his willingness to hear a conversation. It was not a political discussion. It was a discussion with representatives from IsraAID and representatives from Multifaith Network–that was really working on showcasing how interfaith engagement, how IsraAID came together to say, how do we do something good? How do we do something good at a time when there's not so much humanity right now. And it was about trust. It was about doing better. It was about looking forward. And that I think... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/36897275

AJC’s CEO Ted Deutch: Messages That Moved Me After the D.C. Tragedy 05/29/2025

AJC’s CEO Ted Deutch: Messages That Moved Me After the D.C. Tragedy In this episode about the week following the antisemitic murders of Israeli embassy employees Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, AJC CEO Ted Deutch shares how leaders and allies around the globe, as well as hostage families, despite their own state of grief, have reached out to offer comfort and condolences, and what we all must do to shape a new future for the Jewish people. Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: : Latest Episodes: Related Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: On May 21, Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky were murdered outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., following the Young Diplomats Reception hosted annually by American Jewish Committee. Yaron returned to his home in Israel to be buried on Sunday. Sarah’s funeral in Kansas City took place on Tuesday. AJC CEO Ted Deutch was there and is with us now to talk about this incredibly sad and significant loss for the Jewish community – really for the world. Ted, thank you so much for joining us. Ted Deutch: Thanks, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Ted, I have to ask, Where were you when you heard the news of what happened? Ted Deutch: Well, I had been in Washington with the team there. I had done meetings in the capital. I've had some meetings in Atlanta. I flew to Atlanta, and there were some questions as I was flying. But it wasn't until I landed that it was clear what had happened. And the rest of the night on into the morning, obviously, we’re all completely tied up trying to address the crisis and make sure that everything was being addressed for our people. For those who were there with law enforcement, with the administration, was a really, really horrible, horrible night. Manya Brachear Pashman: This was an annual reception for Young Diplomats. What was the theme of the event this year, though, was it different from years past? Ted Deutch: The theme was humanitarian diplomacy, which is the cruel irony here. This brutal, violent terror attack came immediately after a big group of young leaders from across Washington came together. AJC leaders, Jewish leaders, young diplomats, literally Young Diplomats from across the diplomatic corps all came together to focus on how to bring people together to provide humanitarian assistance, ultimately, to make life better for everyone. For Jews and Muslims and Christians, for Israelis and Arabs, Palestinians. Everyone coming together with this sense of hope, and then that was, of course, followed with the despair that we felt immediately after, as a result of this tragedy. Manya Brachear Pashman: Given the climate since October 7, given the rise in antiSemitism and the virulence of a lot of the protests, was this predictable, sadly, or was it really unimaginable? Ted Deutch: Strangely, I think both of those things can be true. It was, on the one hand, absolutely predictable. We've been saying since before October 7, but certainly since we've seen these horrific protests and people chanting to globalize the Intifada and Palestine from the river to the sea and calling for the destruction of Israel, and the attacks against Jews on the streets. We’ve been saying that words can lead to violence. We've seen this happen. We've seen it happen throughout our history. We've seen it happen across Europe, and we've seen the kind of deadly violence here in the United States. At Tree of Life and Poway and elsewhere. And so, on the one hand, completely predictable, at the same time, unimaginable. How is it that a group of dedicated young Jewish leaders and their allies from around the world could come together in a Jewish museum, to focus on the hope for a better future for everyone and be a target for a brutal, vicious antisemitic killer? And that's the point we've been trying to make since. Is that sure, that incitement, that words aren't just words because they can lead to violence, but also that we shouldn't live in a place where we just expect that the Jewish community is always going to be under threat. That's not normal. It's not normal in the United States. It shouldn't be normal anywhere. Manya Brachear Pashman: What have you learned about Yaron and Sarah, since last Wednesday? Ted Deutch I have…Yaron was a partner of AJC on a lot of work, but among the many messages that I received since last Wednesday, there was a really touching message from a diplomat, from an ambassador in Washington, who had just recently met with a group of hostages, hostage families, I should say, that Yaron brought to them, and he wanted to share how meaningful was, and in particular, the care that Yaron showed for these families who have been struggling now as we're recording this, 600 days. I thought that was really meaningful to hear from someone who had only recently spent considerable time with him. In Sarah's case, I just got back from her funeral and Shiva in Kansas City, and I learned a lot. And I had met her before, but I didn't know a fraction of the ways that she's made so many meaningful contributions to her community in Kansas City, to the work that she's done in all of the jobs that she's had, to the incredible work that she's done at the Embassy in Washington, working to go out into the community, to groups. In particular groups that included people who had ostracized her because of her strong positions, and when she took this job at the Israeli embassy and worked to bring people together and to build bridges in all of these different communities across Washington and around the country, really, really meaningful. We knew that both of them, I've said this a lot, and you can tell, even just from the photo, they're a beautiful couple, and they really represented the best of us. But when you hear her rabbis, her friends, her family talk about all that Sarah really was. It's a really, really tremendous loss. And there's this feeling in Kansas City. There was this feeling in the synagogue yesterday, which was, of course, filled to overflowing, that–everyone there felt invested in Sarah's life, her development, her success, the impact that she's had on the Jewish community and the world. And everyone felt the loss personally, and it really speaks to the way that we've all reacted to this. The more that we get to know about Sarah and Yaron the more we understand just how dramatic a tragedy this really was. Manya Brachear Pashman: You know, your story about Yaron, bringing the hostage families together just is heartbreaking, because I just can't imagine the pain that's amplified now for those families having met and worked with Yaron, and now this. Ted Deutch: Manya, among the most powerful messages that we've received since last week were the many messages from the hostage families that we at AJC have gotten to know so well now for 600 days, because of all of the times that we've spent with them and getting to know them and trying to lift up their voices with leaders in Washington around the world, to think about what they have experienced, the loss that some of them have felt, the tragedy of knowing that their loved ones are gone, but being unable to bury them and have closure, and yet the decency and the humanity to reach out to express their sadness over these losses, it's just really, really powerful. Also, not in the Jewish community, but along these same lines. I mean, as you know, when I was in Congress, I got to know many of the families who lost loved ones in the school shooting in Parkland, and after spending a lot of time with them and trying to be there for them, it's just unbelievable to me, the number of those families who almost immediately reached out to see if there's anything they could do. Manya Brachear Pashman: Oh, wow, wow. That’s amazing. That encounter you had with gun violence that took other young lives–how was that experience similar to this one, and how is it very different? Ted Deutch: Well, I've actually been thinking about this a lot. And the greatest similarity, is really beyond the sadness, obviously, which is profound. It's the outrage in in the case of Parkland, it's the fact that students went to school that day to a place that should be safe and never returned to their families, that their school became the most dangerous place they could have been. And last Wednesday, for Sarah and Yaron, they were with peers, friends, leaders in the Jewish community and beyond in a hopeful setting, talking about the way to address suffering, really the best of what we would want anyone, anyone, especially our young people, to be spending their time on. And this was the most dangerous place for them. And ultimately, when, when the event ended and they walked outside, they lost their lives as well. And the world that we live in, in which both of those things happen, that's what I've really struggled with. Manya Brachear Pashman: We're all struggling with this. What is the takeaway? How do we find any glimmer of hope in any of this? Ted Deutch: Well, Rachel Goldberg-Polon has, we've all heard her say over and over that hope is mandatory. And for the hostages and look, I think, for where we go as a Jewish people, hope is also mandatory. But hope alone isn't enough. We have work to do. We if, if we're going to if, if we're going to come through this as a community that is, that is different and, and, frankly, safer and living in a world which is different than the one that we live in now, then, then we have to, we have to honor Sarah and Yaron’s lives by making this conversation different than it normally is. Yes, we have to focus on increasing security and making sure that the community is safe and but if all we're doing is, if the only thing that we're doing is talking about how to get more money for security and and police officers with bigger guns and metal detectors and and and creating turning our synagogues and day schools and JCC's into fortresses. Some of that is necessary at this moment, but we have to change the conversation so that no one thinks that it's normal in America for Jews to be the only group that has to think about how they represent a target, just by being together, that that has to change It's not just about making people care about antisemitism and fighting antisemitism and acknowledging this, the loss of the tragic loss of life that has happened. I mean, there the messages from around for the highest levels of government, from around the United States, from around the world, so much sympathy and and it's important. But as I told one governor yesterday, I am grateful for the additional security that you'll be providing. But there is so much more than that in terms of changing this conversation, the conversation about why it's not normal for Jews to be afraid, why we have to recognize once and for all, that calls for globalizing the Intifada are not the calls of a social justice movement. They're the cause of a terrorist movement. We have to understand that when people that when people decide that because of something that's happening in Gaza, that they're going to they're going to protest outside of synagogues and and they're going to vandalize Jewish owned restaurants, and they're going to get on the subway in New York, and they're going to march in other places, and they're going to accost Jews, that can't be tolerated, and that's a different conversation than we then we've been willing to have, and we need to force that conversation and force it upon our leaders. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, I do hope that this is a turning point in that direction so Ted, thank you so much for joining us. Ted Deutch: Manya, I appreciate it. Since you had asked about hope, I want to make sure that we try to end on a hopeful note, which is, what's been especially striking for me is not the responses from all of the leaders for which we are really grateful. It's the responses from people, especially young people, especially like the ones that I saw yesterday at Sarah's funeral, who understand that the world has to change, and that they have to play a role, helping to change it and to really honor Sarah and Yaron’s memory, providing more and more opportunities for young people to play exactly the roles that the two of them were playing on the night that they were killed, where they were trying to change the conversation, to build bridges, to bring people together. That's what has to happen. Those are the opportunities that we have to provide going forward. Manya Brachear Pashman: Thank you so much, Ted. Ted Deutch: Thanks, Manya. I appreciate it. /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/36779785

Modern-Day Miriams: Jewish Women Shaping Global Diplomacy 05/15/2025

Modern-Day Miriams: Jewish Women Shaping Global Diplomacy “This has been my favorite session of the three days. Thank you,” said one attendee following a powerful live conversation at AJC Global Forum 2025. This exclusive episode of AJC’s People of the Pod, presented by AJC’s Women’s Global Leadership Network, features a candid discussion on the critical impact of Jewish women leaders in global diplomacy and conflict resolution. Casey Kustin, AJC’s Chief Impact and Operations Officer, joins former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Mira Resnick and Dana Stroul, Research Director and Kassen Family Senior Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, to share how they’ve navigated the corridors of power, shaped international policy from the Middle East to Europe and beyond, and opened doors for the next generation of women in foreign affairs. ___ Resources– returns to Washington, D.C. Will you be in the room? Listen – AJC Podcasts: Most Recent Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Interview Transcript: Manya Brachear Pashman: Live from AJC Global Forum 2025, welcome to People of the Pod. For audience members who are not in this room, you are listening to a show that was recorded in front of a live studio audience on April 29 at AJC Global Forum 2025 in New York. I'm your host, Manya Brachear Pashman. Thank you all for being here. In countries around the world, women are working more than ever before. But compared to men, they are not earning as much or being afforded an equal voice – at work, at home, or in the community. In no country in the world do women have an equal role. Let me repeat that. In no country in the world, do women have an equal role–when it comes to setting policy agendas, allocating resources, or leading companies. With us today are three modern-day Miriams who have raised their voices and earned unprecedented roles that recognize the intellect and compassion they bring to international diplomacy. To my left is AJC Chief Impact and Operations Officer, Casey Kustin. Casey served as the staff director of the Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee on the House Foreign Affairs Committee for 10 years. She has worked on political campaigns at the state and national level, including on Jewish outreach for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Welcome, Casey. To Casey's left is Dana Strohl. She is the Director of Research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. She was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East. In this role, she led the development of U.S. Department of Defense policy and strategy for Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq–I'm not done–Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Prior to that, she also served on Capitol Hill as the senior professional staff member for the Middle East on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Welcome, Dana. And last but not least, Mira Resnick. Mira was the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs and Arabian Peninsula Affairs, in which she handled two crucial Middle East portfolios, usually helmed by two separate people. Previously, she oversaw the Department's Office of regional security and arms transfers, where she managed foreign arms sales and shepherded the Biden administration's military assistance to Ukraine and Israel after Russia's invasion and after the October 7 Hamas attacks. Like Casey, Mira has also served as a senior professional staff member with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, focusing on the Middle East and North Africa. Thank you for being here, Mira. Welcome to all of you, to People of the Pod. I think it's safe to say, this panel right here, and all the knowledge and experience it represents could solve the Middle East conflict in one day, if given the chance. Casey, you served for a decade as staff director for the Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee. A decade, wow. You witnessed a lot of transition, but what were the constants when it came to regional cooperation and security needs? Casey Kustin: What’s the saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that's the world that we're all trying to build. So, you know, from an American perspective, which we all came from in our government work, it was trying to find those shared interests, and trying to cultivate, where we could, points of common interest. And even with the challenges of October 7 now, perhaps stalling some of those areas of progress, you still see that the Abraham Accords haven't fallen apart. You saw when Iran launched missiles at Israel. You saw other countries in the region come to, maybe they wouldn't say Israel's defense. It was their airspace defense. But you saw that still working. You see that still working now. And it's every day when we come to work at AJC, we're thinking about how to increase and strengthen Israel's place in the world. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Mira, your role encompassed both Israel and the Gulf for the first time, right? Mira Resnick: That was the first time at my level. Yes. Manya Brachear Pashman: Okay, so whose idea was that, and did that put you or the US in a position to work for the good of the neighborhood, rather than just Israel, or just the Gulf States? Mira Resnick: Yeah, this was an opportunity for the State Department to be able to see all of the different threads that were coming throughout the region. This is something that Dana did on a daily basis. This is something that our colleagues at the NSC did on a daily basis. The Secretary, of course, needs to be able to manage multiple threads at the same time. When I was overseeing arms sales, of course, I would have to consider Israel and the Gulf at the same time. So this wasn't a new idea, that our interests can be aligned within one portfolio, but it was particularly important timing for the United States to be able to see and to talk to and to hear our Gulf partners and our Israeli partners at the same time within the same prism, to be able to truly understand what the trends were in the region at that particularly critical moment, post-October 7. Manya Brachear Pashman: Dana, in your role as Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense, you met with military leaders in the Middle East, around the world, and you were often the only woman at the table. What do women contribute to international conflict resolution that's missing when they're not given a seat at the table? Dana Strohl: Well, let me start out by stating the obvious, which is that women make up 50% of the global population of the world. So if 50% of the world is missing from the negotiating table, from the peacemaking table, from conflict prevention mechanisms, then you're missing 50% of the critical voices. There's evidence, clear evidence, that when women are part of peace processes, when they are part of negotiations, the outcomes on the other side are 35% more sustainable. So we have evidence and data to back up the contention that women must be at the table if we are going to have sustainable outcomes. When I think about the necessity, the imperative, of women being included, I think about the full range of conflict. So there's preventing it, managing it, and then transitioning to peace and political processes in a post-war or post-conflict situation. In every part of that, there's a critical role for women. As examples, I always think about, when you make policy, when you have a memo, when there's a statement that's really nice, in the big capital of some country, or in a fancy, beautiful palace somewhere in the Middle East or in Europe. But peace only happens if it's implemented at a local level. Everyone in the world wants the same things. They want a better life for their kids. They want safety. They want access to basic services, school, health, clean water and some sort of future which requires jobs. Confidence you can turn the light on. You can drive your car on a road without potholes. Those are details that often are not included in the big sweeping statements of peace, usually between men, that require really significant compromises. But peace gets implemented at a very local level. And at the local level, at the family level, at the community level, at the school level, it's women. So how those big things get implemented requires women to champion them, to advance them. And I will also just say, you know, generally we should aspire to prevent conflict from happening. There's data to suggest that in countries with higher levels of gender equality, they are less likely to descend into conflict in the first place. Manya Brachear Pashman: Can you recall a particularly consequential moment during your tenure, when you were at the table and it mattered? Dana Strohl: So my view on this is that it was important for me to be at the table as a woman, just to make the point. That women can serve, just like men. Do the same job. And frankly, a lot of the times I felt like I was doing a better job. So what was really important to me, and I can also just say sitting up here with Mira and Casey, is that all of us have worked together now for more than a decade, at different stages of, getting married, thinking through having kids, getting pregnant, taking parental leave, and then transitioning back to work. And all of us have been able to manage our careers at the same time. That only happens in supportive communities, in ecosystems, and I don't just mean having a really supportive partner. My friends up here know, I ask my mom for a lot of help. I do have a partner who really supported me, but it also means normalizing parenthood and being a woman, and having other obligations in the office space. I would make a point of talking about being a parent or talking about being a woman. To normalize that women can be there. And often there were women, really across the whole Middle East, there were always women in the room. They were just on the back wall, not at the table. And I could see them looking at me. And so I thought it was really important to make the point that, one, a woman can be up here, but I don't have to be like the men at the table. I can actually talk about, well, I can't stay for an extra day because I have a kindergarten, you know, theater thing, and I have to run back and do that. Or there were many times actually, I think Mira was Zooming for parent teacher conferences after we were having the official meeting. But I think it's important to actually say that, at the table, I'm going to leave now and go back to my hotel room because I'm making a parent teacher conference. Or, I have to be back by Friday because I'm taking a kid to a doctor's appointment. So all the women that come after us can see that you can do both, and the men at the table can understand that women have a right to be here. Can do the jobs just as effectively and professionally as the men, and do this other absolutely critical thing. Manya Brachear Pashman: But your point about, it requires a supportive network, a supportive work community. You told me a story before we got up here about just how supportive your colleagues were in the Department of Defense. Dana Strohl: I will give a shout out to Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense. So one of the things you do in our positions is travel with the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. And these are not the kind of things where they get on a plane and you land in whatever country. There's a tremendous amount of planning that goes into these. So on a particular trip, it was a four country trip, early in 2023. Secretary Austin was going to multiple countries. He had switched the day, not he, but his travel team, of his departure, which then caused us to switch the day of my son's birthday party. And then they switched the time of his departure from Andrews Air Force Base, and we could not change the birthday party. So I called Secretary Austin's office and said, Listen, I want to be at my son's birthday party. So I've looked and it looks like I can take this commercial flight. So I won't be on the Secretary of Defense's plane, but I can largely land around the same time as you all and still do my job in the region. And to their credit, they said, okay, and then one of the things that you do in my position is you get on the airplane and you talk to the Secretary of Defense about the objectives and the goals and the meetings. So they said, Okay, we'll just change that to earlier. You can do it the day before we depart, so that he can hear from you. You're on the same page. You can make the birthday party. He can do the thing. So we were actually going to Jordan for the first stop. And it turns out, in his itinerary, the first thing we were doing when we landed in Jordan, was going to dinner with the King. And it was very unclear whether I was going to make it or not. And quite a high stakes negotiation. But the bottom line is this, I finished the birthday party, had my mother come to the birthday party to help me clean up from the birthday party, changed my clothes, went to Dulles, got on the airplane, sort of took a nap, get off the airplane. And there is an entire delegation of people waiting for me as you exit the runway of the airplane, and they said, Well, you need to go to this bathroom right here and change your clothes. I changed my clothes, put on my suit, ran a brush through my hair, get in a car, and they drove me to the King's palace, and I made the dinner with the king. It's an example of a team, and in particular Secretary Austin, who understood that for women to have the opportunities but also have other obligations, that there has to be an understanding and some flexibility, but we can do both, and it took understanding and accommodation from his team, but also a lot of people who are willing to work with me, to get me to the dinner. And I sat next to him, and it was a very, very good meal. Manya Brachear Pashman: I find that so encouraging and empowering. Thank you so much. Casey, I want to turn to you. Mira and Dana worked under particular administrations. You worked with members of Congress from different parties. So how did the increasing polarization in politics affect your work, or did it? Casey Kustin: It's funny, I was traveling last week for an AJC event, and I ended up at the same place with a member of Congress who was on my subcommittee, and I knew pretty well. And he looked at me and he said, the foreign affairs committee, as you know it, is no longer. And that was a really sad moment for me, because people always described our committee as the last bastion of bipartisanship. And the polarization that is seeping through every part of society is really impacting even the foreign policy space now. As you see our colleague, our Managing Director of [AJC] Europe, Simone Rodan[-Benzaquen], who many of you know, just wrote a piece this week talking about how, as Israel has become to the progressive, when Ukraine has become to the far right. And I think about all the years I spent when Ted Deutch, our CEO, was the top Democrat on the Middle East subcommittee, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), a great friend of AJC, was the chair of the subcommittee. And Ted and Ileana would travel around together. And when she was the chair, she always made a point of kind of joking like Ted's, my co chair, and we did so many pieces–with Mira’s great support of legislation for the US, Israel relationship, for Syria, for Iran, that we worked on together, really together. Like at the table with my staff counterparts, trying to figure out, you know, what can your side swallow? What can your side swallow? And I hear from so many of our former colleagues that those conversations aren't really taking place anymore. And you know, the great thing about AJC is we are nonpartisan, and we try so hard to have both viewpoints at the table. But even that gets harder and harder. And Dana's story about the King of Jordan made me laugh, because I remember a very similar experience where I was on a congressional delegation and Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, and I was six months pregnant at the time, and I wanted to go on the trip, and the doctor said I could go on the trip. And we were seated around the table having the meeting. And I, as you won't be able to hear on the podcast, but you in this room know, look very young, despite my age. And you're self conscious about that. And I remember Ileana just being so caring and supportive of me the entire trip. And I wasn't even her staffer, and I remember she announced to the King of Jordan that I was six months pregnant, and you could kind of see him go, okay. That's very like, thank you. That's very nice. But even just having that moment of having the chairwoman on the other side of the aisle. That whole trip. I think I've told some AJC people another funny story of on that same trip, we met with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Jerusalem, and she pulled me up to him, and she said to the patriarch, will you bless her unborn child? Knowing I'm Jewish, she leaned over and said to me: Can't hurt. So I hope that we return to a place like that on Capitol Hill. I think there are really good staffers like us who want that to happen, but it is just as hard a space now in foreign policy as you see in other parts of politics. Manya Brachear Pashman: Mira, I want to ask you another policy related question. How did the Abraham Accords change the dynamics of your combined portfolio, and how could it shape the future? Mira Resnik: My first, one of my first trips, certainly my first trip to the Middle East, when I was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security, overseeing security assistance and security cooperation, was to Dubai, as the State Department representative for the Dubai Airshow. And it is a huge event that showcases the world's technology. And I remember walking into the huge hangar, that every country that has a defense industry was showcasing their most important, their most important munitions, their most important aircraft. And I remember seeing the enormous Israeli pavilion when I was there. And I was staying at a hotel, and I get to the breakfast and they said, Would you like the kosher breakfast or the non-kosher breakfast. And I'm like, Am I in Israel? And I was blown away by the very warm relationship–in the security space, in the humanitarian space. I agree with Casey that things have gotten a little tougher since October 7, and since the aftermath in Gaza. But what I would also point out is that April and October, during the time when when we witnessed Israel under cover, when we witnessed Iran's missiles and projectiles going toward Israel and going toward other regional airspace, our diplomats, our militaries, our intelligence officials, all had earlier warning because of the work of other Gulf governments, even those who have not joined the Abraham Accords. And that is a prime example of where this security cooperation really matters. It saves lives. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Casey, so much of what AJC does has to do with international diplomacy and maintaining that regional cooperation and security, and that sounds a lot like your previous role. So I'm really curious how much your job truly has changed since you came to AJC? Casey Kustin: You’re absolutely right.... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/36585930

A United Front: U.S. Colleges and AJC Commit to Fighting Campus Antisemitism 05/09/2025

A United Front: U.S. Colleges and AJC Commit to Fighting Campus Antisemitism This week, groups representing more than 1,600 colleges and universities —a major breakthrough in the effort to end anti-Jewish hatred and create campuses where Jewish students feel safe. In collaboration with American Jewish Committee (AJC), the groups urged the Trump administration to continue making the eradication of antisemitism a priority, but without endangering the research grants, academic freedom and institutional autonomy of America's colleges and universities. Here to discuss this collaboration are Sara Coodin, Director of Academic Affairs for AJC, and Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Resources: Watch – Listen – AJC Podcasts: Most Recent Episodes: Related Episodes: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of Conversation with Ted Mitchell and Sara Coodin: Manya Brachear Pashman: This week, groups representing more than 1,600 colleges and universities pledged reforms to fight campus antisemitism -- a major breakthrough in the effort to end anti-Jewish hatred and create campuses where Jewish students feel safe. In collaboration with American Jewish Committee, the groups urged the Trump administration to continue making the eradication of antisemitism a priority, but without endangering the research grants, academic freedom and institutional autonomy of America's colleges and universities. Here to discuss this collaboration is Sara Coodin, Director of Academic Affairs for AJC and Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. Ted, Sara, welcome to People of the Pod. Ted Mitchell: Thanks, Manya, good to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Ted, if you could please give our listeners an overview of who signed on to this. Who are the six organizations, and do they encompass all of the higher ed institutions in the country? Ted Mitchell: We represent everybody. And so it's everybody, from the Community College Association to the land grant universities, to AAU, the big research universities, the state colleges and universities, and then ACE is an umbrella organization for everybody. So we've got built in suspenders, and we've got every institution in America on the side of eliminating antisemitism. Manya Brachear Pashman: And then, I guess, the next question is, why? I mean, why was it necessary for American Council on Education and these other associations to join this effort? Ted Mitchell: Well, a couple, a couple of things. I mean, first of all, we have partnered. AJC and Ace have partnered for a number of years to identify and try to address issues of antisemitism. So feel like we've been in partnership for some time on these issues. And unfortunately, the need has continued to grow. I think that last spring was a real wake up call to a lot of our institutions, that they might have been comfortable believing that there was no antisemitism on their campus, but boy, they got up. They got a notice in the mail. So I think that we have, as a group, all six of us, we have worked with our institutions since last spring to create opportunities for institutions to do better. And so we had long conversations over the spring and summer about changes in disciplinary policy, everything from masks to how to make sure that every group that was seeking to have a voice make a protest was operating under the same rules, make sure that everybody understood those rules. And frankly, I think we've made great progress over the course of the summer. There are still things that we can do better. There are always things we can do better. But I think the call for this letter was the conflation by the Trump administration of antisemitism and efforts to eradicate antisemitism with all of the other activities that go on on a university campus that are not really related to antisemitism. And case in point is the administration's willingness to hold research funds hostage to institutional changes and behaviors that have never been stipulated. So we're in this interesting spot where we want to do better. We're working on doing better, and the administration is saying, well, just do more. We can't tell you when you'll get there. Not only is that sort of fruitless, we also think it's illegal. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Sara, I know AJC published an action plan for university administrators last year, and that not only includes concrete steps to address antisemitic incidents when they happen immediately, but also ways to cultivate a healthier culture. Does AJC expect the member schools of these six associations to draw from that action plan? Sara Coodin: So, we hope so. You know, we don't have the power to mandate that any university in particular, much less a range of universities representing all of higher ed the entire spectrum adopt our specific action plan, but our action plan is really, I think, quite thoughtful, and covers a lot of territory. So we're thinking about all of the citizens of campus. We're thinking about administrators. We're thinking too about how administrators can create frameworks so that students can get the education that they're meant to receive on site, and for which they, you know, attend university in the first place, we're thinking too about the role of faculty, and specifically at this crucial moment, because so much attention has been paid to the experience of students and to what happens when you create clear expectations and convey them to students through codes of conduct and other kinds of regulatory initiatives. We're thinking very seriously about what it would mean for administrators to convey those expectations to their faculty as well, and we think that there are lanes through which they can do this that have been under scrutinized and underutilized, and usually that falls into the bucket of professionalization. What do you do with faculty who are showing up fresh out of grad school on your campus? How do you as an institutional leader or a provost, convey the expectations that you have about the rights and responsibilities of being a teacher, a research supervisor, someone who might be supervising student activities and clubs like the student newspaper. How do you convey your institutional expectations and your expectations of these folks who are in positions of leadership for a generation or more? So it's it's an area that we think is really ripe for conversation and for folks to be convening in meaningful discussions about what the next steps consist of. Ted Mitchell: Manya, if I can, if I can interject, I really applaud the framework. I think is a great place for us to start. And I know that one of the things that was important and beginning to get support from my members and other people's members was the convening that we that we held a while ago in Washington that drew 85 college presidents together, and that was a solutions focused meeting. And I think it really suggests to me that there is quite an opening for us to work together on creating a framework that could be adopted either formally or informally by many institutions. As you say, none of us can mandate what's going to happen. That's also true for the government, frankly. But I think the more and the sooner we can build a common common consensus around this, the better. And to your point about faculty responsibilities. We hear a lot about academic freedom. We hear a lot about faculty rights. We often forget that there is a responsibility for faculty to be the adults in the room and to expand the dialog and raise the level of discussion, and we need, we need to promote that. Manya Brachear Pashman: You know, I'm curious, are there any examples of institutions that have made a change have drawn from that action plan, and it created positive results. Sara? Sara Coodin: So I think we're seeing the effects of time, place and manner restrictions, and we first saw those being articulated through the task force at Columbia. And we know Columbia is not, not exactly an ideal institution right now for for a lot of different reasons, but that's not to disparage the efforts of the folks who sat on that antisemitism Task Force who came up with very specific and extremely thoughtful recommendations for their school. And I pride myself on having worked with a team that took those ideas and made sure that other schools were aware of them, so that they weren't trying to reinvent the wheel. And I think that's often the function that we've served, and particularly in the last year, because schools can and do operate in silos, whether they're geographical silos or silos within their own particular brand of school, big research institutions, Ivy League institutions, sometimes they're in conversation, but it can be very useful to serve, for us to serve as a convening function. We're not also not reinventing the wheel necessarily, but we're working in partnership to try to bring a solutions focused kind of perspective to this, because we think there are solutions in view? Obviously, leadership plays a key role in any institutional context. Are people emboldened enough to actually feel like they can convey those solutions to their communities and stand by them? And that's something that we have seen happen. I wish it were pervasive. I wish it were happening in every case. It's not, but there are certainly institutions that have taken the lead on this, whether quietly or very loudly, and I think it's important to bring our solutions to the attention of other institutions as well. Manya Brachear Pashman: Ted, I'm curious, can you shed light on the conversations that have unfolded since October 7, 2023 I mean, as students were setting up encampments and staging sit ins. Was there hand wringing, or was it considered, well, at least at first, typical college activism part of university life, Ted Mitchell: I think it started off as I certainly would never say ho hum. It started off with a sense that there has been a horrific event in the world. And of course, our campuses are going to be places where students need to respond to that and reflect on it. So I think in the early days, there was a sense that this was a right thing for campuses to be engaged in. I think the surprise came in the following weeks. 90s when the pro Palestinian, anti Israel and antisemitic counter protests began to happen and and that was something that we really didn't expect, certainly not in the volume and intensity that took place. And I think I've said this from from the beginning, I think that we were taken by surprise and on our back foot, and so I can't, I don't know a college president who would say, stand up and say we did everything right after October 7. And you could see this in, you know, presidents making a statement on a Tuesday that they had to either retract or revise on a Thursday, and then by Monday, everything was up in the air. Again, I think that there was a lack of a sense of what the framework is looking for. There's a there was a lack of a sense of, here's where we stand as an institution. Here's what's permissible, here's what's not permissible, and we're going to be even handed in the way we deal with students who are protesting and expressing expressing their beliefs. We need them to be able to express their beliefs, but under no circumstances can those expressions be violent. Under no circumstances can they discriminate against other groups or prevent other groups from access to the education that they came for. Manya Brachear Pashman: Is some of what you're saying informed by 2020, hindsight, or is it informed by education? In other words, have you? Have you yourself and have have college presidents learned as as this year has progressed, Ted Mitchell: Well, this goes to Sara's really good point. I think that there have been two kinds of learning that have taken place. One is sort of informal communication back and forth between Presidents who sort of recognize themselves in other circumstances. And I think that that's been very powerful. We for a while, in the spring, had informal Friday discussion discussions where any president who wanted to come and talk would come and talk, and they were avidly taking notes and trying to learn from each other in real time. I think the second kind of learning was after students went home, and there really was a broad agreement that institutions needed to tackle their policies. We ran into presidents in the spring who had not read their student conduct policies, and from from there to people who had very elaborate Student Conduct policies but weren't actually following them very well, or had a lot of exceptions, or, you know, just crazy stuff. So summer was an incredible time of calculated learning, where people were sharing drafts of things. Sara was deeply involved in, in making sure that institutions were learning from each other, and that Sara and her colleagues were pulling these together in the framework, in the framework that we have, you know it's still happening. I talk often with with presidents, and they're still exchanging notes and tactics about things that are going on, going on this fall, but they're doing so from a position of much more stability, Manya Brachear Pashman: Having taken that breath over the summer and prepared. Ted Mitchell: Having taken that breath, having sort of been through the fire, having taken that breath and having really regrouped. And one of the things that has been most essential in that regrouping is to make sure that all parties on campus understand what the rules and regulations are. From faculty to staff to Student Affairs personnel, to make sure that when a campus takes an action that it's understood to be the appropriate response to whatever the event might have been. Sara Coodin: And just to add to that point, about how, many institutions were caught flat footed. And I won't attest to whether I experienced this first personally, but thinking back to the history, the days of, you know when, when protests were either about apartheid in South Africa or it, it seemed like there was a very clear position and a clear kind of moral line there when it came to protests. So that's one example where it seems like there was a right side to be on. And I think that that is much, obviously we look at the protests from last year as being far more out of line with any sense of a moral right, they were in some cases host to horrific antisemitism and directly responsible for making Jewish students feel unsafe on campus. So the other example of protest, which is before my time, were the Vietnam protests on college campuses. Were really directed against the government. And last year and two years ago, we saw protests where one group of students was effectively protesting against another student group, another student population. And that is something that university administrators haven't seen before. If they were caught flat footed, it's because this was a novel set of circumstances and a really challenging one, because if you have students being activists about a geopolitical event, the focus is somewhere out there, not a population that has to live and learn on your campus. And so we're seeing the kind of directed impact of those protests on a particular group of students that feel like they no longer have a home on campus or on particular campuses, and that is a uniquely challenging set of circumstances. Of course, we would have loved it if everyone had a playbook that worked, that could have really caught this stuff from the get go and had a very clear plan for how to deal with it, but that simply wasn't the case. And I think there are good reasons to understand why that was the case. Those codes of conduct hadn't been updated, in some cases, in 70 years. Ted Mitchell: Your insight is really powerful, that this was one group of students against another group of students, and that's very different. But taking it back, not historically, but just sociologically, one of the things that we also learned is that this generation of students comes to our campuses with almost zero muscle and no muscle memory of how to deal with difference. And so this generation of students is growing up in the most segregated neighborhoods since the Civil Rights Act. They're growing up in the most segregated schools since Brown. And they are parts of these social media ecosystems that are self consciously siloing. And so they come to our campuses and they confront an issue that is as divisive as this one was last spring, and they really don't know how to deal with it. So that's the other learning that we've taken. Is that we need to get very serious about civic education, about how to have conversations between left and right, Jewish students and non-Jewish students, Muslim students and others, and white and black. And we need to get better at that, which, again, comes into the where's the faculty in this? And if they're not a part of that kind of engagement, especially if they take sides, then we've really lost a lot of our power to create a kind of contentious but productive democratic citizenship. Sara Coodin: What we have been privy to, and in the conversations that we've had with, I think leading university presidents and chancellors who really have have done the right thing, I think in the last year, they're, they're affirming a lot of what you're saying, Ted, about this inability to engage in in civil discourse. And in some ways, it's an admissions problem. It's admitting students who are, you know, they're writing to an audience that is looking for world-changing activism. And when you do that, you're going to get a lot of really inflamed activists on your campus. I think the faculty piece is more complicated. I think that speaks to a couple of generations’ worth of lack of framing, of what academic freedom even is, and a kind of entry into the conversation through all kinds of back channels, that the most powerful thing you can be as a teacher is a world changer. And that means gravitating towards the extremes. It doesn't mean cultivating civil discourse, because that's boring. Why would you want to do that? That's, that's not the way to make a splash. It's disappointing to see that kind of ethos take hold. But I think there are ways in which it can be more actively discouraged. Whether it's through admissions, through looking to hire on the basis of different criteria when you're looking for faculty. And it's also a K-12 problem, and we affirm that, and that's something our Center for Educational Advocacy looks at very seriously in the work that we do in the K-12 space. How do we work with instructors and heads of school in that space to better prepare students who arrive on a college campus, knowing how to engage in civil discourse, knowing how to disagree in a way that doesn't have to result in everyone holding hands at the end and singing Kumbaya. But it shouldn't produce the culture that we saw last year. It shouldn’t. It's incredibly damaging. And I think we've seen how ineffective that model is and how turbulent it is. Ted Mitchell: It’s interesting that you raise the admissions question, because I think that, Manya, to your question about what have people done? A lot of this gets really granular, like, what essay questions do you ask?... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/36508025

Why TikTok is the Place to Talk about Antisemitism: With Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman 04/23/2025

Why TikTok is the Place to Talk about Antisemitism: With Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman Tova Friedman was just six years old when she walked out of Auschwitz. Now, 80 years later, Tova is devoted to speaking about her experiences as a child survivor of the Holocaust and being vocal about the threat of antisemitism. She knows how easily a society can transition from burning books to burning people, and she is determined to ensure that never happens again. Tova speaks to audiences worldwide–in person and on the social media platform TikTok, where she has amassed over half a million followers. Listen to Tova’s harrowing, miraculous testimony of survival, as part of a live recording at the Weizmann National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia, in partnership with AJC Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey. Lisa Marlowe, director of the Holocaust Awareness Museum and Education Center (HAMEC), joined us to discuss the museum's mission to bring Holocaust survivors to schools, the importance of teaching history through eyewitness accounts, and the significance of preserving stories of righteous individuals like her Danish great-grandmother, who saved thousands of Jews during WWII. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Photo credit: Christopher Brown Resources: - - - Listen – AJC Podcasts: - - Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of Interview with Tova Friedman and Lise Marlowe: Manya Brachear Pashman: Yom HaShoah, Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, begins on the evening of April 23. To mark this remembrance, our broadcast this week features our recent live event at the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia. There I had a conversation with Lise Marlowe, of the Holocaust Awareness Museum and Education Center in suburban Philadelphia and author and Holocaust survivor Tova Friedman. __ Thank you to all of you for being here today to participate in a live recording of People of the Pod, American Jewish Committee's weekly podcast about global affairs through a Jewish lens. I'm your host, Manya Brachear Pashman. Down here on this end is Lise Marlowe, our partner and organizer of this wonderful event. She is the program and Outreach Director of the Holocaust awareness Museum and Education Center, otherwise known as HAMC in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, which is just outside here in Philadelphia. She is also a long time teacher who has come up with some quite innovative ways to teach Holocaust history to middle school students. But before we begin and get to all of that, I do want to turn to Lisa for a few minutes. If you could just tell us a little bit about HAMC. What is it? Because we are in a different museum venue now. Lise Marlowe: Thank you Manya, and thank you everyone for being here today. So HAMC is America's first Holocaust Museum, which started in 1961 by Holocaust survivor named Jacob Riz, who lost 83 family members to the Nazis. Our Museum's mission is to bring Holocaust survivors to schools and organizations. We believe it's important to give students the opportunity to learn history through an eyewitness. When we host a school program, we tell students that they are the last generation to meet a survivor, and once they hear a survivor's story, it becomes their story to tell. It also becomes their responsibility to speak up and stand up to the Holocaust deniers of the world and to say, I know you're lying because I met a survivor. It's not easy for our survivors to tell their story, but they want to honor the family they lost. And to make sure students know what happened so history hopefully doesn't repeat itself. Hearing about the rise of antisemitism, seeing hate towards other groups, can bring trauma to our survivors, but our survivors teach students that there are things we can do to stand up to hate. We can remember that words matter, kindness matters, that we can support and help each other when bad things happen. The Holocaust did not begin with concentration camps. It began with words. Our museum brings hundreds of programs all over the world, so please reach out to us at HAMC.org. Because we believe education is stronger than hate. We find that students are inspired by the messages our survivors tell them, which is to not hate others. Even though they lost everything. Their families, their property, their identity, their childhood, they teach students that hate can only destroy yourself. Manya Brachear Pashman: Thank you so much, Lise. I met some of Lise's former students who are here in the audience today. You have some really remarkable ways of teaching Holocaust history so that it sticks. I would like to get into that a little bit later. And you also have your own family story to share, and we'll learn more about that later, as she is one of our two guests on today's podcast. You see, there are three pieces to our podcast today, including the traditional format of a conversation with our guests, which will come later, and then your opportunity to ask questions. But to really comprehend what we discuss, you must first hear the powerful story that our guest of honor, the woman next to me, Tova Friedman, one of the youngest people to emerge from Auschwitz, the Nazi's concentration camp and extermination camp in occupied Poland. You must hear her story first. Tova has worked tirelessly to share her story in every format possible, to reach the widest audience. In addition to telling her story in person, at venues such as this, she worked with a journalist to produce an accurate and comprehensive memoir, and next month, a young adult version of that memoir will be released. She's worked with her grandson, Aaron, a student at Washington University, to share portions of her story on Tiktok on a channel called , that has about 522,000 followers, and she is here today to reach our podcast listeners. And you. After her presentation, Tova will have a seat once again, and we'll continue the conversation. But right now, it is my honor to turn the mic over to Tova Friedman:. Tova Friedman: Thank you. I have no notes and I can't sit because I'm a walker. You know, I think better when I walk. I think better on my feet. Let me tell you, a few months ago, I was in Poland. I was invited as a speaker to the 80th commemoration of Auschwitz liberation. Five years ago, I was there also–75th. And there were 120 Holocaust survivors there with their families and their friends from Auschwitz. This time there were 17 [survivors], and we'll have no more commemoration. We're done. People, the lucky people, are dying from old age. You know, they're, or they’re Florida, or they're gone, okay, they're not available. So what's scary is that many young people will not meet a survivor, and they will be told in colleges and high schools, probably it never happened. It's an exaggeration. You know, the Jews. They want everybody to be sorry for them. That will happen. And that's been happening here and there to my grandchildren. Right now, I've got eight grandchildren, but two are in colleges, and one is in Cornell. And I got the saddest phone call on Earth. To me it’s sad. He got a beautiful Jewish star when we went to Israel. He called me to ask me if he should wear it inside, hidden, or if he should wear it outside. That's so symbolic. And I said to him, do you want to be a visible Jew, or do you want to be a hidden Jew? Do what you want. I will not criticize you. I know that life is changed from when I went to college. America is different, and I'm just so upset and unhappy that you, at age 18-19, have to go through that. One of my grandkids had to leave the dormitory because of the absolute terrible antisemitism. She is in McGill in Canada, and she has to live by herself in an apartment because even her Jewish friends stopped talking to her. So what kind of a world are we living in? Extraordinarily scary, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I talk. You can hear my voice. I talk as much as I can for a number of reasons. First, I talk in order for those people who were murdered, million and a half children, some of the faces I still remember, and a total 6 million Jews, they cannot be forgotten. They cannot be forgotten. This is such a wonderful place here that I hear you have classes and you have survivors talking to kids. You take them to schools. I think it's fabulous, but you got to do it fast, because there's just not many of us going to be here for a long time. So one thing is memory. The other reason I speak is a warning. I really feel that this world is again turning against us. We have been scapegoats all through history. Books have been written. Why? Why this? Why that? Why this? Why that? I can't figure out why. They're jealous, we feel with the chosen people. Oh, my God, it goes on and on. But why us? It started 2000 years ago. So I'm here to remember, so that all those people didn't just die and became ashes. But we're living in a world where we have to be aware. We have to be aware. You heard statistics that were scary. You know, I didn't even know some of the statistics. That Jews are stopping to use their Jewish last name when they make reservations somewhere? In America.? You know, I remember when I walked out from Auschwitz with my mother. My mother survived, and I'll take you back and just give me a certain amount of time. What happened? She said to me, remember I was exactly six and a half years old. And I do, I remember. And one of the reasons I remember is because my mother was a big talker. Talker just like I am. I inherited it from her. She would tell me everything. We were in all kinds of conditions. And I'd say, Mom, what is that? She says, Yeah, that's the smoke, people are being burned. She didn't say, you know, Oh, it's nothing. Don't worry about it. No, no, no, no. She talked and she talked as long as I was with her, until we were separated. That's why my memory is so sharp, and I always tell the younger generation: stop texting and start talking. Texting, you won't remember anything. It doesn't go into your brain. When somebody talks to you, you will never forget. When your mom or dad says things to you, you will remember them. If they text it to you, it lasts a few minutes and it's gone. So that's why I remember so much. My mother lost 150 people. She was the only survivor of Auschwitz. The only survivor, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, all gone, and she died very young. She died at 45. Her war never ended. Her Auschwitz, she brought with her to America because she just couldn't get over it. My father lost about all his brothers and sisters except two, and he was able to handle life a little bit better, but she wasn't. In my town, there were hundreds of Jewish children at the end of the war. There were five left. Five. I'm the youngest. That's why I'm still here talking. Two have died, and one is in her 90s, and she doesn't talk much anymore. So I feel like I'm representing an entire town that's gone, just gone. A town that had synagogues and they had football and they had a very vibrant town. Where my mother was a young woman. She was studying. My father was an actor, a singer, and a tailor, so he should have some money, but they were all functioning. It's all gone. When I went to visit, because I took my grandchildren so they can see, there was no sign the Jews even were there. It's like we disappeared. My memory of the war starts when I was four, not so much before. My parents lived in a very modern town. And because they left the shtetl, my mother wasn't interested in all the religious and the sheitles, and you know, the wigs people used to wear, which, by the way, my daughter now is wearing a wig, which is sort of strange, right? And they went to live a modern life. As soon as Kristallnacht came, he knew right away that this is not a place for him. And what do you do when you're scared? You go home, you go to your parents. So my mother and father, I was one year old, went back to their parents' home. What did they find there? That they were already in a ghetto. Now, I remember the ghetto at the age of four, there were lots and lots of people in a tiny apartment, no running water, no bathrooms, no food, no room. So I was under the table. All my memories were under the table. And I knew things that were going on. How did I know? Because I heard it. You know, a kid at four, four and a half, people make mistakes. The children don't know. Children know everything. They may not be able to verbalize it, but they know. And I knew what was the issue. I knew that they killed children and that I have to be under the table. I knew that. I knew that my grandparents are going to die soon. I heard it. I heard my father talking. I heard my mother talking. I heard the other people talking in the apartment in Yiddish. I still remember the words, oh, they name it. They're taking the elderly. They're taking this. Well, one day they came in, they took my grandmother, and they shot her, right outside our window, you know, took her outside. You know what's amazing when I think about this? Because I've tried to get some perspective. I've always tried to figure out, how did that happen? Why? How is it possible? Hitler was brilliant, and if he wasn't brilliant, he had brilliant people helping him. Idiots could not have done what he did. They were educated people. He had therapists. He had a nutritionist. And you know what they said, break up the family, and you will break up people. People die when their family is killed, they die sometimes physically, sometimes emotionally. Listen, I'm a grandmother. I have eight grandchildren. I know what it means to be a grandmother in my role, and I'm sure many of you feel the same way. So they took away the elderly. One day, my father comes in, and he says to my mother, I just put them on the truck. I know what he meant. I was exactly four and a half because I was standing by a table. I could tell my size. The table went up to my chin, and I knew that there were because the day before these people in their 20s and 30s, they were the strong guys. They dug graves for their own parents. We, the Jews, dug graves for our children and our parents. You know when the Nuremberg Trials came, some of the guys said, we didn't do anything. We never killed any…you know why? Because they used us to kill our own people. So that time, my father told my mother what was going on. He was sitting, his tears were coming down. And I could picture it, because, by the way, whatever I tell you, multiply by hundreds. This was a template, you know, like you have a template on a computer, you just fill in the name and everything is the same. You can fill in all kinds. You apply for a job. There is a special way. That's what happened. The Germans when they came to a town, they didn't have to think what happened. They had the piece of paper, kill the elderly, kill the children, as soon as possible. So I knew. I knew exactly what was going on. I knew that my grandparents were gone, my father's parents, my mother's mother was killed. Her my grandpa died before the war from some disease. He was very lucky. So here we are. One day. I had this uncle, James. He was a German Jew. He spoke a perfect German. So he thought, look at our minds. He thought, he speaks German. He's going to volunteer. He didn't have working papers, and he was scared to die. His wife, my aunt, she had working papers. So he went to the Gestapo, and he said, I'll be your translator. I speak a perfect German. I was born in German. And they shot him on the spot. So I remember he used to come and visit us. I sat on his lap one day. My father said, you won’t go to see Uncle James anymore. He's not coming back. I didn't say anything. I know he was dead. I didn't know how he was dead. So the reason I'm telling you all the different things is because this happened in every other ghetto. We were living 16,000 Jews in 250 apartments, and we couldn't go in, and we couldn't get out, except certain people who had privileges. They had working papers, they had special papers. They could go out. That's how the smuggling started. Also, certain people could go out, bring some food, because we were starving. We were starving to such a point. You know why? Because the nutritionist, the PhD, the best nutritionist in Germany, told Hitler how much to feed us in order to die. You want them to die in two months? Give them that much bread. You want them to die in two weeks? Give them that. My town, which was called Tomaszow Mazowiecki, has no Jews anymore. I just wanted to mention the name because my family was there for 200 years, because the Poles in the beginning were very good to the Jews. They wanted the Jews because we were good business people. Every time the Jews were there, the place thrived. There were close to 100 tailor shops in town, all Jewish. So how could you go wrong? They brought business from everywhere. But now, of course, there isn't anybody. And slowly, all those people were sent to Treblinka. There were left about 50-60, people, my parents, I among them. There were very few kids left. And we were the cleanup squad. Not only did my father had to dig the graves, I don't think my mother did. My father, dig the graves, but afterwards you have to clean up. You can't leave a town so dirty because they wanted to leave no witnesses. Hitler had an order all the way from Berlin, no witnesses. That's another reason he killed the children. Kids can grow up and be a witness like me, and that was very dangerous for him. Because, you know, it's interesting from the psychological point of view, no matter what atrocities he and his people did, in the back of their mind, they were afraid of the consequences. They were afraid of consequences. That's why you leave no witnesses. But at that time, my father buried people and he said Kaddish. I didn't know what Kaddish was. I didn't know what being Jewish was. I don't remember any Jewish holidays. I knew that being Jewish means death, but I wasn't sure what that meant, Juden. What is this Juden business? But look at four and a half. I wasn't going to think about it. Anyhow, they moved the camp. We cleaned it up. We came to the next camp, and the next camp was the labor camp. Only work. We worked for more, not me, my parents did, and I want to tell you something about that. Slowly they did the same exact thing they did in every other camp. People were taken away. The moment you were sick, the moment you were tired, straight into some camp. One day, I heard, I heard– my mother told me, I didn't hear anything. She said they’re taking the children, whoever, whatever, there were very few children left, maybe 20-30–we've got to hide you. And she hid me in like a crawl space, like they had these tiles or something. I don't know it was tile, something. And she put me in there, and she followed me, just the two of us, my father didn't get in there. And she put me on her lap, I remember. And she put her hands on my mouth. I shouldn't scream. I remember it was so tight that for weeks I had blue marks right here. And from the little window, I see where all my friends that I was playing with outside, because my parents were gone a whole day, I was outside with the other kids, put on trucks, but I knew where they were going. They were going to the place where the big graves were dug for them. So anyhow, when my mother said, we have to hide, we were there for maybe an hour or two. After it was all done, the kids were gone. We went up downstairs in a little... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/36278355

What Is Pope Francis' Legacy With the Jewish Community? 04/22/2025

Inside the New U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks: What’s at Stake? 04/11/2025

Inside the New U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks: What’s at Stake? As new negotiations begin to tackle Iran’s nuclear program, missile development, and support for terror proxies, tensions are escalating. Jason Isaacson, AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, joins us to unpack the legacy of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and withdrawal in 2018, and Iran’s dangerous stockpiling of uranium, getting them closer to nuclear weapons capabilities. With U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff leading talks and key UN sanctions expiring soon, the stakes are higher than ever. Don’t miss Jason’s insights on what the U.S. is demanding, the potential for successful diplomacy, and the global risks posed by Iran. ___ Listen – AJC Podcasts: Social media influencer on leaving Tunisia Chef on leaving Iran Playwright on leaving Syria Cartoonist on leaving Iraq Novelist on leaving Egypt : Latest Episode: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of Interview with Jason Isaacson: Manya Brachear Pashman: Negotiations begin on Saturday to curtail Iran's nuclear fuel enrichment, infrastructure, missile program and support of Hezbollah Hamas and other terror proxies around the world. US Special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, will shepherd the talks. At the same time he's handling discussions around Gaza and Ukraine with us to discuss the potential of these negotiations and their impact is AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, Jason Isaacson. Jason, welcome back to People of the Pod. Jason Isaacson: Thanks, Manya. It's good to be back. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Jason, the Obama administration sealed the deal in 2015 to curtail Iran's nuclear program, which President Trump then withdrew from in 2018. What did that original deal look like? Jason Isaacson: Of course, the United States pulled out of the deal in 2018 as you said, whereupon, after a period of reflection and some uncertainty, the Iranians started violating the agreement. The original agreement that was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action allowed the Iranians to enrich their uranium up to 3.67% purity of uranium. You need something like 90% in order to make a bomb. They were allowed to keep just 300 kilograms of that enriched uranium. The rest of their stockpile of uranium had to be shipped out of the country, which it was. There were other restrictions that were imposed on Iran. They had to disable a plutonium facility that also was a possible avenue toward a nuclear device. They had to allow intrusive inspections, not as intrusive as some had hoped, and they had to limit the degree of sophistication of their centrifuges. They had a very robust centrifuge production capacity, which had to be limited. They had to disable certain centrifuges that they already had, and they couldn't advance them further. There were a number of these other restrictions that were imposed in the return for which the Iranians were going to have sanctions removed, sanctions that had held back their economic growth, limited the degree to which they could ship their oil and gas to vendors, to customers around the world. It was a good trade for the Iranians, but from our perspective, it lacked certain things. It certainly lacked objectives that the administration, at that time, the Obama administration, we thought, had been pursuing, which was not only to limit the ability of the Iranians to produce a nuclear weapon, but to affect other aspects of Iranian behavior, their missile program, their advanced ballistic missile program, their support for proxies that endangered stability and security across the region and beyond. Those issues ended up getting dropped in the nuclear negotiations. They were just focused on nuclear program, which was a reason why AJC opposed the deal when it was announced in 2015 and why Donald Trump campaigning for president and then after he became president, after giving it a run to try to find a way to perhaps induce European partners to go back to the negotiating table and impose additional restrictions on the Iranians, including covering the missile program, lengthening the amount of time that would be held in check the nuclear program of Iran for maybe not just 15 years, but 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years. Those efforts were ultimately abandoned. Was impossible to reach an agreement between the United States and the European allies, and so in 2018 the president pulled out. Manya Brachear Pashman: So besides the man in charge, what has changed in the last decade since that time? Jason Isaacson: Iran has serially and outrageously violated the terms that were agreed to 2015 they were initially allowed, as I said, to have 300 kilograms of low enriched uranium. They now have 8200 kilograms plus, according to the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and some of that is enriched up to a level of 60% which is really, frankly, just below the level needed for a nuclear device. So they're way out of alignment, way out of the agreement that they had reached in 2015 now, of course, in addition to that, the Iranian economy has suffered a decade of sanctions, high inflation, high unemployment, rolling. Blackouts in major cities, the brain drain. Smart Iranians realizing there's no economic future in their country and have left and of course, over the last year and a half, after the Hamas attacked on Israel of October 7, 2023 Iran, a supporter of Hamas, a funder and supplier of Hamas, after a few months, it posed its own attacks, fired missiles and drones at Israel in support of Hamas' activities and also in support of Hezbollah, the other Iranian proxy on Israel's northern border. So twice in the last year and a half, we've had attacks by Iran against Israel, which Israel responded to, and significantly weakened terrorists in Lebanon, Hezbollah. And of course, the Hamas, they decapitated Hezbollah, and they also struck back at Iran, after Iran fired missiles and drones that had mostly been intercepted by Israel's air defenses in cooperation with the United States, and frankly, some Arab partners and also France and the UK. Manya Brachear Pashman: So does Iran have as much leverage as it had in 2015? Jason Isaacson: It must be said that Iran is weakened. It's weakened economically, it's weakened militarily, its air defenses have been exposed and significantly damaged, and it has seen that its attempts to strike at Israel are deflected. By a combination of us and and especially Israeli forces, and also with the support of some regional allies and European allies as well. So Iran goes into this negotiation with the Trump administration in a poorer position to make its demands heard and enforced, except for the fact that Iran is proud and it has shown under enormous economic duress, they have continued to advance their nuclear program. They clearly believe that this is part of their right and necessity if they are going to provide some kind of a defense for themselves against what they see as a US led us in cooperation, in partnership with Israel, led effort to weaken them and drive them away from their power in the Gulf, to limit their ability to exert influence across the region. So they may be in a poorer position. Whether that will be evident in the negotiating table is another question. Manya Brachear Pashman: President Trump criticized the Obama administration for not walking away when Iran didn't meet America's demands. Do you see this negotiation unfolding quite differently than that one did? Jason Isaacson: Well, there are a couple of factors here. One the Iranians are famous negotiators, famous for being exacting and excruciating and insistent on certain points in the texts that they discuss. They have their own interpretations for texts. This was an issue in the past. And the pain that is exerted on their counterparts in negotiations, I have heard people talk about, both from the Gulf and from US officials, how difficult it is to actually have the negotiation with the Iranians. They will insist on going again and again and again through every codicil, every agreement, every annex, to a point that will sort of drive people up a wall until they, according to, I think the Iranians calculation, give up and say, Okay, fine, we'll concede you on that point. I'm concerned that they are so practiced at this negotiating style, which I suppose you have to say they've been practicing for thousands of years. I am not sure that in this kind of rushed effort to move into negotiations with, frankly, a very capable negotiator in Steve Witkoff, who certainly has the trust of the President. And he was successful in helping move forward hostage negotiations very early on. In fact, frankly, the day before the inauguration of President Trump, Steve Witkoff was instrumental in advancing that cease fire and hostage release deal. But there's a lot on Steve Witkoff's shoulders. He's also involved in the Ukraine, Russia negotiations. He is not and I'm sure he would say this himself, an expert on the Iranian nuclear file and all the details of the nuclear enrichment and the capabilities of the Iranians to deceive their negotiators. So I am hopeful that we will have something to celebrate after these negotiations get off the ground. But I think it's also fair to say that it's with some trepidation that we look ahead to the possibility of sitting down with practiced negotiators who have been doing this for decades. Manya Brachear Pashman: Is there a sense of urgency here? How long do you anticipate these negotiations taking? Jason Isaacson: Frankly, the negotiation over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action took something like two years. We had a preliminary agreement in 2014 the final agreement in 2015 then the Biden administration, after the Trump administration, pulled out of the deal. When the Biden administration came in, in 2021 there was an effort for about two years to go back to the negotiating table with the Iranians. Very complicated, very difficult. Ultimately unsuccessful. It is not easy to negotiate with these guys. I'm hopeful that this administration have taken lessons from the experience of the past. Have experts around them who know the Iranian file, who have actually sat across the table from Iranians and can work with them to a successful conclusion. The other issue that must be put on the table here is that come October, one key point of leverage in this entire process, the ability to snap back the United Nations sanctions that were put in place years ago and that were then suspended when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action took effect, with the support of the United Nations. The ability to snap back those very heavy UN sanctions, which don't only apply to oil, energy sector applies to transportation and banking and other aspects of Iranian behavior, would really be crippling sanctions. The ability to snap those back, put those back in place, will expire on October 18 of this year, which means that we have just a few months to come up with some kind of agreement with Iran that is better than what we had in 2015. If we don't, all bets off. Then we're back to a place where we have lost the ability to have the entire international community, all UN member states, comply with a renewed set of sanctions. And then it'll be a whole process of trying to get other countries on board. If we're going to try to exert maximum pressure, really maximum pressure. That means not just us pressure, but maximum pressure applied by the international community at large. We're going to lose that if we don't reach some kind of an agreement or snap back before October 18. So the clock is ticking. The pressure is on. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, certainly the scope of what the Trump administration is pursuing with Iran is much broader. The Obama era agreement, for example, limited Iran's stockpiles of nuclear material. The Trump administration wants to take it all apart, completely dismantle the country's nuclear infrastructure, dismantle its missile program, its longtime support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Certainly, that's what everyone wants. But is it realistic? Jason Isaacson: What we've heard from President Trump and from Mike Waltz, the national security adviser and Secretary Rubio others who have commented on this in recent days, they are insisting that the Iranians dismantle, fully dismantle, in the words of the National Security Advisor, their ability to enrich uranium to have the stockpile necessary for an eventual nuclear bomb. You know, countries can have a nuclear program, but they don't have to enrich their own uranium. They can buy uranium for their nuclear reactors, for energy purposes and research and medical purposes. The Iranians want the full nuclear cycle. They basically got that in the negotiations a decade ago. This administration clearly wants to remove that ability for the Iranians. That's going to be a very hard thing to sell to the Iranians. And in addition to that, the administration has made it clear that preventing the Iranians from advancing a military nuclear program is just one of their objectives. It's a main objective, but the other objectives are eliminating their ability to advance their ballistic missile program, which was really designed for the sole purpose of being able to carry a nuclear warhead to Europe, to the United States, to Israel, other neighbors, other enemies of the Iranians. And then also, very clearly that this administration wants to negotiate an end to Iranian support for its proxy network, for the militias in Iraq and Syria. Used to be in Syria for Hezbollah, for Hamas, for other terrorist groups. That's a very tall order. You're basically saying, Iran, get down on your knees and give up all of the weapons that you have assiduously assembled over the last decades to protect yourself against the depredations of the horrible West and of your longtime neighbors who have maybe some designs on your territory, you might think. And they're not going to do that. So it's going to be very difficult. We have sanctions, we have influence, we have pressure that we can put on the Iranians, and there are two aircraft carrier battle groups that are stationed not very far away that will exert military pressure on the Iranians. So very complicated negotiations, a lot of assets, a lot of equities at play here, I wish the administration well. It will be a very difficult road to get the Iranians to see ground on all of these points. Manya Brachear Pashman: It is hard to believe that a hostile country, especially, that supports terrorism around the world, would agree to become essentially defenseless. But there is a history of it, right? I mean, in the early aughts, Libya, they agreed to dismantle their nuclear program under the Bush administration in 2003. Could something similar happen here? Or does the United States just not have that same leverage? Jason Isaacson: Look, we've heard the reference to Libya. In fact, it was made by the administration just in recent days as well. And yes, it's true that in 2003 the Libyans did relinquish their nuclear weapons program. There were, I think, 10 sites across Libya that international inspectors were allowed to visit. And dismantle the program that had been going on for a number of years. But then, of course, we all know, eight years later, Muammar Gaddafi was toppled, was overthrown and hunted down and later killed. Another example in 1994 is the Budapest Memorandum in which Ukraine and Belarus and Kazakhstan gave up their nuclear weapons that were part of the arsenals that have been kept there by the former Soviet Union. Relinquished those weapons, those warheads were sent back to Russia. It was a very complicated negotiation. The United States and the United Kingdom and Russia all agreed at that time, 1994, that they would never attack Ukraine and Belarus and Kazakhstan. They would not use military force, they would not use economic coercion unless an act of self defense. But the agreement very controversial in Ukraine at the time, to give up what had been the world's third largest nuclear stockpile was relying on these assurances from the West that they would not be attacked if they gave up their nuclear deterrent and turned it back to now, what was Russia, which is the seat of power of the Soviet Union. Two decades later, Russia comes along and annexes Crimea and attacks in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. And now, of course, you know, here we are a decade after that, where Russia is seizing a significant portion of Ukrainian territory and killing 1000s of Ukrainians. So the lesson, yes, is that you can negotiate away a nuclear program. But the other lesson that follows from that is, yes, you can negotiate it away, and you can find yourself facing terrible dangers, having lost that deterrent capacity. Manya Brachear Pashman: Okay, so the US did previously hammer out a deal in 2015. Are there any details of that deal that are worth bringing back to the table, or is the Trump administration starting from scratch? Jason Isaacson: Well, look, if they're able to, in these negotiations, come to an agreement on the dismantling, really the destruction, of the capacity of the Iranians to with any centrifuges advanced or otherwise, to enrich uranium, to create a stockpile from which they could later secretly advance a military nuclear program. If that's what we agree to, there have to be very comprehensive and intrusive and unannounced inspections by the IAEA, perhaps by other national agencies as well. If the Iranians could agree to that the United States overseeing the destruction of these facilities, that would pick up on sort of the inspection aspect of the 2015 agreement. And go, of course, significantly farther. If they're able to provide other assurances on other research facilities that the Iranians have, making sure that any research is unearthed, is exposed, is destroyed, ceases to present the possibility that the Iranians could actually advance the military nuclear program if all those steps could be put in place, which again, would be taking what happened in 2015 and JCPOA, and just magnifying it, intensifying it way beyond what was possible to negotiate at that time, according to those who tried very hard to negotiate a stronger agreement, but we're left with what they actually were able to accomplish in 2015. Let's hope that's possible. I don't know if it will be possible. But there would be, of course, in any agreement going forward, there would be certain elements that are related to and are outgrowths of and are really expansions on what happened in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, except that this administration has set a very high bar, and there will be many critics in the United States and Congress, around the world, in Israel but elsewhere in the region, if the administration rushes to a deal that falls short of its very ambitious expectations. Manya Brachear Pashman: You mentioned Israel, if President Trump follows through on his threats of military strikes on Iran, if negotiations don't go as he has planned, could that put Israel at more risk than it already is. Jason Isaacson: It could. I think there is really no one in the region who wants a war, as everyone knows, as everyone has seen in successive military conflicts, the outcome of war is unpredictable, usually worse than what is expected. I think Israel does not want a war, but Israel cannot live... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/36098485

This Often Forgotten 1929 Massacre is Key to Understanding the Current Israel-Palestinian Conflict 04/03/2025

This Often Forgotten 1929 Massacre is Key to Understanding the Current Israel-Palestinian Conflict On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust, calling it Operation Al Aqsa. For journalist Yardena Schwartz, the massacre was a chilling echo of the 1929 Hebron Massacre—the brutal slaughter of nearly 70 Jews, incited by propaganda that Jews sought to seize the Al Aqsa Mosque. At the time, she was deep into writing her first book, Ghosts of a Holy War: The 1929 Massacre in Palestine That Ignited the Arab-Israeli Conflict. In this episode, Yardena shares how history repeated itself, how the October 7 attack reshaped her book, and why understanding the past is essential to making sense of the present. ___ Read: Listen – AJC Podcasts: Social media influencer on leaving Tunisia Chef on leaving Iran Playwright on leaving Syria Cartoonist on leaving Iraq Novelist on leaving Egypt : Latest Episode: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Interview with Yardena Schwartz: Manya Brachear Pashman: Hello, and welcome to People of the Pod, brought to you by American Jewish Committee. Each week, we take you beyond the headlines to help you understand what they all mean for America, Israel and the Jewish people. I'm your host Manya Brachear Pashman:. In October 2023 journalist Yardena Schwartz was in the middle of writing her first book exploring the rarely talked about 1929 Hebron massacre, in which nearly 70 Jews were murdered, dozens more injured by their Muslim neighbors during riots incited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spread lies that Jews wanted to take over the Al Aqsa Mosque. When she heard reports of the October 7 terror attacks by Hamas dubbed Operation Al Aqsa, she realized just how relevant and prescient her book would be, and began drafting some new chapters. Yardena is with us now to discuss that book titled Ghosts of a Holy War: The 1929 Massacre in Palestine that ignited the Arab Israeli conflict. Yardena, welcome to People of the Pod. Yardena Schwartz: Great to be here, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman: So full disclosure to you and our audience. You attended Columbia Journalism School 10 years after I did, and you took Professor Ari Goldman's class on covering religions 10 years after I did that, class had always traveled to Israel, and I had hoped it would be my ticket to go to Israel for the first time, but the Second Intifada prevented that, and we went to Russia and Ukraine. Instead, your class did go to Israel, and that was your first visit to Hebron, correct? Yardena Schwartz: So it was in 2011 and we went to Hebron for one day out of our 10 day trip to Israel, and it was my first time there. I was the only Jewish student in our class. It was about 15 of us, and I was the only one who had been to Israel. I had been all over Israel, but I had never been to Chevron. And our tour was with Breaking the Silence, an organization of former Israeli soldiers who had served in Hebron or in other parts of the West Bank and wanted Israelis to know what was happening in Hebron and how Palestinians were living there, and the various restrictions that were put in place as a result of terrorist attacks. But nevertheless, you know, those restrictions were extremely disturbing, and that brief visit in 2011 made me really never want to go back to Hebron. And when I moved to Israel two years later to become a freelance journalist there, and, you know, to move to Israel because I loved Israel, and still obviously love Israel, I didn't really go back to Chevron because I, you know, was really troubled by what I saw there. But this book took me, of course, back to Chevron hundreds of times, spending hundreds of hours there. And it came to be, you know, my expertise in this conflict, in my reporting. And you know, of course, Heron is kind of the main character in this book, Manya Brachear Pashman: Tell us how you came to find out about this massacre. Was it mentioned during that class visit in 2011 or was it later that you learned about it? Yardena Schwartz: So that was one of the most interesting things about my early adventure into writing this book, was that I had of course been to have Ron, and yet, during that day that we spent there learning so much about the history of this place, this deeply holy place to so many people, there was no mention of the massacre of 1929, so, you know, I knew that Chevron is, you know, the second holiest city in Judaism, the burial place of Abraham And the matrix and patriarchs of the Jewish people. And you know the first place where King David established his kingdom before Jerusalem. So it was holy before Jerusalem. And yet I had no idea that this ancient Jewish community in Hebron had been decimated in 1929 in one of the worst pogroms ever perpetrated. We all know about the kishineff pogrom of 1904 and yet the pogrom in 1929 in Hebron, perpetrated by the Muslim residents of Hebron, against their Jewish neighbors, was more deadly and more gruesome than the kishineff pogrom, and it effectively ended 1000s of years of Jewish presence in this holy city. And so when I was told by my mentor, Yossi Klein Halevi, the amazing writer, that there was a family in Memphis, Tennessee that had discovered a box of letters in their attic written by a young American man from. Memphis, who had traveled to Chevron in 1928 to study at the Hebron yeshiva, which was at the time, the most prestigious yeshiva in the land of Israel in what was then, of course, British Mandate Palestine. And that this young man had been killed in that massacre. Yet his letters, you know, painted this vivid portrait of what Chevron was before the massacre that took his life. I was immediately fascinated. And I, you know, wanted to meet this family, read these letters and see how I could bring the story to life. And I was introduced to them by, yes, in 2019 so that's when I began working on my book. And you know, as you mentioned, I was still writing the book in 2023 on October 7, and this book I had been writing about this massacre nearly a century ago immediately became more relevant than I ever hoped it would be. Manya Brachear Pashman: The young American man from Memphis. His name was David Schoenberg. Give our listeners a history lesson. Tell us about this 1929 massacre. So Yardena Schwartz: On August 24 1929 also a Shabbat morning in crevorone, every Jewish family had locked their doors and windows. They were cowering in fear as 1000s of Muslim men rioted outside their homes, throwing rocks at their windows, breaking down their doors and essentially hunting down Jews, much like they did on October 7, families were slaughtered. Women and teenage girls were raped by their neighbors in front of their family members. Infants were murdered in their mother's arms. Children watched as their parents were butchered by their neighbors, rabbis, yeshiva students were castrated and Arabic speaking Jews, you know, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Jews, who composed about half of the Jewish population in Hebron at the time, and were very friendly with their Arab neighbors. You know, they went to each other's weddings and holidays, went to each other's shops, and these people were also slaughtered. It wasn't just the yeshiva students who had come from Europe or from America to study there, or, you know, the Ashkenazi Jewish families. It was, you know, Arabic speaking Jews whose families had been there for generations and had lived side by side in peace with their Muslim neighbors for centuries. They too were slaughtered. Manya Brachear Pashman: Why did their Muslim neighbors turn on them so suddenly and violently? The Yardena Schwartz: rioters that day were shouting Allahu Akbar. They claimed to be defending Islam and Al Aqsa from this supposed Jewish plot to destroy Al Aqsa in order to rebuild the Third Temple. This is what they had been told by their leaders and by Imams and their mosques and in Hebron, that Lai had also extended to the tomb of the patriarchs and matriarchs, which is known in Arabic as the Ibrahimi mosque. Imams there had told Muslims in Hebron that the Jews of Hebron were planning to conquer Ibrahimi mosque in order to turn it into a synagogue. So this incitement and this disinformation that continues to drive the conflict today. Really began in 1929 the rumors about this supposed Jewish plot to destroy Al Aqsa that began in 1928 around the same time that David Schoenberg arrived in Palestine to study at the yeshiva. Manya Brachear Pashman: So in addition to the letters that David Schoenberg wrote to his family back in Tennessee. How else did you piece together this history? How did you go about reporting and researching it? Who kept records? Yardena Schwartz: So it's really interesting, because I was so surprised by the lack of literature on this really dramatic moment in history, in the history of Israel, the history of this conflict. And yet, despite the fact there are really no books in English, at least, about the massacre and about these riots and what led to them, there were mountains of, you know, testimony from victims and survivors. The British carried out this commission after the riots that produced this 400 page report filled with testimony of British officials, Arab officials, Jewish officials, survivors. So there was just so much material to work with. Also, survivors ended up writing books about their experiences in Hebron, very similar to David's letters, in a way, because they wrote not only about the riots and the massacre itself, but also what they experienced in Hebron before they too, wrote about, you know, the relatively peaceful relations between the city's Jewish minority and the Arab majority. And I also relied on archival newspaper reports so the. Riots really occupied the front pages of American newspapers for about a week, because it took about a week for the British to quell the riots, and they did so with an air, land and sea campaign. They sent warships and war planes from across the British Empire and sent troops from other parts of the British Empire. Because one of the reasons the riots were so effective, in a way, you know, were so deadly, especially in kharag, was because there was just no military force in Palestine. At the time, the British did not have a Palestine military force, and it was only after the 1929 riots that they did have troops in Palestine. Until then, they had the Palestine police force, and that police force was mostly Arabs. In Hebron, for example, there were about 40 policemen under the stewardship of one British police chief, and all but one of those policemen were Arabs, and many of them participated in the massacre or stood by outside of Jewish homes and allowed the mobs to enter the homes and carry out their slaughter. And Manya Brachear Pashman: I'm curious. There was a lot of newspaper coverage, but what about the international community's response beyond the British Empire? Yardena Schwartz: So there were actually protests around the world against the massacre in New York. 35,000 people marched through the streets of Manhattan to protest the British failure to protect their Jewish subjects from these riots. Most of the marchers were Jewish, but nevertheless, I mean 35,000 people. We didn't see anything like that after October 7. Of course, we saw the opposite people marching through the streets of New York and cities around the world supporting the mass of October 7. You know, I mentioned this March in New York, but similar protests were held around the world, mostly in Jewish communities. So in Poland, Warsaw and in England, there were protests against the British failure to protect Jews in Palestine from these riots. And the American government was livid with the British and they sent statements put out, statements to the press, criticizing the British inaction, the British failure to protect the Jewish subjects and the American citizens who were in Palestine at the time, there were eight Americans killed in Hebron on August 24 1929. Out of the 67 Jewish men, women and children who were killed, and all of them were unarmed. The Haganah at the time, you know, the underground Jewish Defense Force that would later become the nucleus of the IDF, the Haganah was active then, mostly in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, there were no Haganah members in Hebron. The Hebron Jewish community was very traditional, very religious, and when Haganah came to Hebron two days before the riots erupted, they because they knew that these riots were going to happen. There had been calls from Arab officials to riot, to attack Jewish communities across Palestine. And so the Haganah came to Hebron to warn Jewish leaders of Hebron that they could either come there to protect them or evacuate them to Jerusalem to safety until the riots subsided and the Jewish leaders of Hebron were unanimous in their opposition. They said, No, you know, we're friends with our Arab neighbors. They'll never hurt us. We trust them. If anything happens elsewhere, it won't happen here. And they believed that because, not only because they had such a good relationship with their Arab neighbors and friends, but also because in previous outbursts of violence in other years, like in 1920 1921 when they were much smaller riots and much less deadly riots. When those riots reached other parts of Palestine, they didn't reach Hebron because of those relations and because they weren't fueled by incitement and disinformation, which was what led the riots of 1929 to be so massive and so deadly, and what led them to be embraced by previously peaceful neighbors. Manya Brachear Pashman: How did that disinformation travel in 1929 How did it reach those neighbors in Hebron? Yardena Schwartz: When we talk about disinformation and misinformation today, we think of it as this, you know, modern plague of, you know, the social media era, or, you know our fractured media landscape. But back in 1929 disinformation was rampant, and it also traveled through Arabic newspapers. They were publishing these statements by Arab officials, mostly the Grand Mufti Hajime Husseini, who was the leader of Palestinian Muslims under British rule, he began this rumor that the Jews of Palestine were plotting to conquer Al Aqsa mosque to rebuild their ancient temple. Of course, Al Aqsa is built upon the ruins of the ancient temples. Temple Mount is the holiest place for Jews in the world. And in 1929, Jews were forbidden from accessing the Temple Mount because it was considered, you know, a solely holy Muslim site. But the closest place they could pray was the Western Wall, the Kotel. And Jews who were demanding British protection to pray in peace at the Western Wall without being attacked by Muslims as a result of this disinformation campaign were then painted by the Arabic press as working to conquer the Western Wall, turn it into a synagogue, and then from there, take Al Aqsa Mosque. So this disinformation traveled from the very highest of Muslim officials. So the imams in mosques across Palestine, specifically in Al Aqsa and in Hebron, were repeating these rumors, these lies about this supposed Jewish plot. Those lies were then being published in flyers that were put in city squares. Jewish officials were warning the British and telling, you know, they should have known and they should have done more to end this campaign of disinformation, not only to achieve peace in this land that they were ruling over, but also because they were responsible for installing hajamina Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, into his position they had chosen him for that position, that all powerful position. And so they were responsible, in a way, for all of these lies that he was spreading. And yet they took no responsibility. And even in the commission that they sent to Palestine from London to investigate the causes of the riots, despite the fact that, you know, if you read these, you know, 400 pages, I don't recommend it. It's a tough reading. But, you know, I did that for this book. And it's so clear from all of these hearings that this disinformation campaign was very obvious, very clear and very clearly to blame for the riots. And yet, because saying so would have made the British responsible for so much death, their conclusions in this commission was that it was Jewish immigration to Palestine and Jewish land purchases at the time that had sparked the riots, and that it was this Jewish demonstration, peaceful demonstration at the Western Wall on to Shabaab in August of 1929 that had sparked these riots. So there's just, you know, this absolute lack of accountability, not only for the Mufti, who retained his position and became even more powerful and more popular as a leader after these riots, but also for the British and instead, you know, the Jewish victims were blamed for their suffering. At the time, Jews were just 20% of the Palestinian population, which was just 1 million people. Of course, today, Israel is home to more than 10 million people. So you know, clearly there was room for everyone. And the Jews at the time were very peaceful. The Haganah was a very, you know, weak, decentralized force, and after these riots, it became much stronger, and Sephardi Jews and Mizrahi Jews, more traditional Jews who had not joined the Haganah before 1929 had not really embraced Zionism before 1929 now agreed that if Jews were going to be safe in our homeland, then we would need our own army. Manya Brachear Pashman: Can we talk a little bit about the turn toward radicalization and extremism during this time, and what role that has played in the years since? Yardena Schwartz: you know, the Zionist leadership was very adamant that Jews in Palestine should not be carrying out attacks against Arabs in Palestine. You know, it should be really about defending Jews, preventing attacks, but not carrying out retaliatory attacks. But as we've seen throughout the century, of this conflict. You know, extremism begets extremism. And you know, when violence is being used by one side, it is going to be used by the other side as well. And so the rise of a more militant form of Zionism was a direct result of 1929 and this feeling of just helplessness and this feeling of relying on this foreign power, the British, to protect them, and realizing that no foreign power was going to protect the Jews of Palestine and that Jews would have to protect themselves, and the radicalism and the extremism within the Muslim population, particularly the Muslim leadership of Palestine, really just accelerated after the massacre, because they saw that it succeeded. I mean, the British punished the Jewish population of Palestine for the riots by vastly limiting Jewish immigration, vastly limiting Jewish land purchases. Notice, I use the word land purchases because, contrary to a lot of the disinformation we hear. Much today, none of this land was being stolen. It was being purchased by Jews from Muslim land owners. Many of them were absentee landowners. Many of them were from the wealthiest families in Palestine. And many of them were members of, you know, this anti Zionist, pro Mufti circle, who were then telling their own people that Jews are stealing your land and evicting you from your land, when, in fact, it was these wealthy Arab landowners who were selling their land to Jews at exorbitant prices. Manya Brachear Pashman: Did you establish a motive for the Mufti and what were his intentions spreading this disinformation? Yardena Schwartz: Great question. So it was very clear. I mean, he never admitted this, but it was very clear what his motives were, and that was to counter the criticism and accusations of corruption that had dogged him for years, until he began this campaign of... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/35998635

Higher Education in Turmoil: Balancing Academic Freedom and the Fight Against Antisemitism 03/27/2025

Higher Education in Turmoil: Balancing Academic Freedom and the Fight Against Antisemitism Following the Trump administration's decision to revoke $400 million in federal funding over Columbia University's failure to protect Jewish students, the university announced sweeping policy changes. Meanwhile, the U.S. moved to deport former Columbia student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, accusing him of concealing his ties to UNRWA and participating in antisemitic campus protests. Dr. Laura Shaw Frank, Director of AJC’s Center for Education Advocacy, joins People of the Pod to discuss the delicate balance between combating antisemitism, safeguarding free speech, and ensuring campuses remain safe for all students. ___ Resources: : AJC’s Flagship Leadership Development Initiative for High School Students Listen – AJC Podcasts: -: with , , and . -: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Laura Shaw Frank: Aaron Bregman: Hi, this is Aaron Bregman, AJC's Director of High School Affairs. If you're the parent of a Jewish high school student, you've probably asked yourself, "How can I help my teen feel proud and prepared to lead in today's world?" Well, that's exactly what AJC's Leaders for Tomorrow program, or LFT, is all about. LFT gives Jewish teens the tools to navigate challenging conversations and advocAte about antisemitism and Israel—whether in the classroom, online, or in their community spaces. Our monthly deep-dive sessions into the issues faced by Jews - both historically and today - become the place where LFT students find community, build confidence, and strengthen their Jewish identity. If your teen is ready to expand their understanding of what it means to be a Jewish leader — have them visit AJC.org/LFT to learn more. Let's give them the tools they need to step up, speak out, and lead with pride. Again, that's . Manya Brachear Pashman: Three federal agencies said this week that they welcomed the policy changes that Columbia University announced Friday, following the Trump administration's revocation of $400 million in federal funding. The government recalled the funding in response to the university’s failure to enforce its own rules to protect Jewish students after the terror attacks of October 7, 2023. Masked protesters of the Israel Hamas War spewed antisemitic rhetoric, built encampments that blocked students from attending classes and, in some cases, took over classes. Also this week, the government announced new charges against Mahmoud Khalil, an Algerian citizen and green card holder here in the United States, and a former Columbia University graduate student who was detained due to his activism on campus. International students on other campuses also have been detained in the weeks since. As a community that values academic freedom, as well as freedom of expression, and democracy, how do we balance those values with the importance of fighting antisemitism and making sure our campuses are safe for Jewish students? With me to discuss this balancing act is Laura Shaw Frank, director of the AJC Center for Education Advocacy and director of AJC's Department of Contemporary Jewish Life. Laura, welcome to People of the Pod. Laura Shaw Frank: Thanks, Manya. Good to be with you. Manya Brachear Pashman: So let's start with the issue of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student. He was detained due to his activism on campus. And we're learning from government this week that he reportedly did not disclose that he was a member of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNWRA) as a political officer. And he was also part of Colombia's Apartheid Divest movement when he applied to become a permanent resident in 2024. He was taken into custody, though, in a very troubling way. And frankly, he was one of the few who didn't conceal his identity during the protests and encampments. He negotiated with the University. What is AJC's stance on this? Laura Shaw Frank: Great question Manya, and it deserves a very, very careful and nuanced answer. So I want to start by saying that AJC, as it has always done, is striving enormously to remain the very nuanced and careful voice that we always have about every issue, and particularly about the issues that we're talking about here, which are so so fraught in a moment that is so so fraught. AJC issued a statement that we published on X and on our website that talked about the fact that we deplore so many of Mahmoud Khalil's views and actions. And at the same time, it is critically important that the government follow all rules of due process and protections of free expression that we have in our country. And I wanted to emphasize, while I am an attorney, my law degree is incredibly rusty, and I'm not going to pretend to know all the legal ins and outs here, but I do know this, that free speech does attach, even for non-citizens in this country. So we're trying to express a very careful position here. It is possible that Khalil needs to be deported. It is very possible. What has to happen, though, is a trial with due process that is open, transparent and legal. And once those factual findings are determined, if it is the case that Khalil has violated United States law, and has provided material support for terror, and I know the government is actually no longer relying on that particular statute, or has endangered US interests, I don't remember exactly the language that the statute has, but endangered US interests, then he can be deported. But we want to make sure that even as we deplore so much of what he has stood for--he's been the spokesperson for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, which is sort of an umbrella organization for many, many other student organizations at Columbia, including Students for Justice in Palestine, which was banned from campus, and some other groups which have espoused terribly antisemitic and anti-Israel views and actions on campus. They have engaged in protest activity that has been at times violent and exclusionary of Jewish students. There's a lot to be horrified by there. And even as we abhor all of that, we love America, we love due process, we love democracy, and we feel very fiercely that those norms have to be upheld, and we hope that the government will uphold them. We expressed that concern because of the circumstances of his detention, and we're watching the case closely. Manya Brachear Pashman: We also have the government threatening to cancel about $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia. This is a separate matter, but those cuts could include funding for scholarship and research and law. Education and health care. You know, a number of students and scholars alike are very afraid that this could backfire, if indeed, this is done at other universities across the country, in the name of protecting Jewish students. That the backlash could actually hurt the Jewish community. Do you think that there is some credence to that? And if so, how do we prevent that? Laura Shaw Frank: It's a great question, so I want to stop for a second before I answer the question, and talk a little bit about the position AJC has taken with respect to the $400 million. We issued a statement, a letter to the government, to the task force, about the $400 million. Where we, again, expressed our enormous gratitude to the administration for shining a light on antisemitism and for taking it seriously. Which it needs to be taken incredibly seriously in this moment. And we fear that it has not been taken seriously enough until this moment, so we're very grateful that the administration is taking it seriously. And at the same time, we expressed our concern about the $400 million dollars being withheld because of what that $400 million will fund. That $400 million is largely funding for research, scientific and medical research, and we know that in this moment, there is a great deal of research money that is being withheld in various places in this country from universities that is funding really critical research. Pediatric brain cancer, Parkinson's disease, COVID. Whatever it is, that research is incredibly important. So we want to make sure that even as the government is doing the good work of shining a light on antisemitism and ensuring that our higher education institutions are not harboring and fostering atmospheres of antisemitism. We want to make sure that they are simultaneously not using a hatchet rather than a scalpel in order to attack the problem. We are keenly aware that much of the most antisemitic discourse that occurs on campus among faculty is discourse that comes out of humanities departments and not generally out of science, research, medicine departments. And it feels wrong to perhaps be withholding the funds from those who are not the problem. Generally, humanities departments don't get hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the federal government. The research that they do is of a different scale. It's less expensive. Frankly, they don't have to run labs, so the funding is really mostly in that medical and science realm. So I wanted to just start by saying that, and would definitely encourage folks to take a look at the letter that AJC sent to the task force. With respect to your question about whether this is going to backfire against the Jewish community. It is definitely a concern that we've thought about at AJC. There have been many moments in Jewish history where Jews have become scapegoats for policies of governments, or policies in a society, or failures of a society. I'm thinking of two in this particular moment that are just popping into my head. One of them was the Khmelnytsky massacres in 1648 and 49. I know that sounds like a long time ago, but feels kind of relevant. When Jews, who were representing the nobles in exchanges with peasants, collecting taxes, things of that nature, were attacked and murdered in tens of thousands. And Jews were really, you know, was there antisemitism involved? Absolutely. Were Jews being scapegoated for rage against nobles? Also, absolutely. So I'm thinking about that. I'm also thinking about the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1920s and 30s, where this myth of the German population being stabbed in the back by the Jews who quote, unquote, made them lose World War I–which is, of course, obscene and ridiculous–led the way for Nazi ideology finding a foothold in German society. So I'm thinking of those moments when Jews became a scapegoat. And I'm keenly aware of how much our universities rely on research dollars to do their work, and also the anger that so many who are working in that space must be feeling in this moment. It does make me fearful to think that those who are working in the research and those who need the research, you know, people who are struggling with health issues, people who are relying on cutting edge research to help them, could say, No, this is all the Jews’ fault. It's all because of them. They're causing the government to do this and that. You know, it feeds into that antisemitism trope of control. I do worry about the Jews becoming the target. What should we do about that? I think it's very important for us to have the open lines of communication that we're grateful to have with government officials, with elected officials and appointed officials in the Administration and across the aisle in Congress, with Democratic and Republican elected officials. I think it's important for them to understand, at least, you know, from AJC's perspective, that we hope that as they continue to shine that very important spotlight on antisemitism, and continue to ensure that we hold our institutions of higher education to the standard which they must be held to, taking antisemitism very seriously and combating it with all of their power and strength. That at the same time, we want to make sure that the strategies that the government is using to address this issue are strategies that will truly address the problem. And we hope that our statements, our transparency about our stance, will help this country see the views of the Jewish community in this moment. That there are diverse views in the Jewish community, that we do care deeply about the success of higher education, about the success and the importance of research dollars, and that we also care deeply that the administration is taking antisemitism seriously. So really trying to hold that very special AJC nuance. Manya Brachear Pashman: I know AJC offers an entire package of strategies to combat antisemitism in many different arenas, including university campuses. And I want to take a look at some of the changes that Columbia announced in response to the government's threats to cut funds, to restore those funds. They said that they would make it easier to report harassment and enable the provost to deal with disciplinary action against students who are involved in protests. These seem to reflect some of the strategies that AJC has shared, Yes? Laura Shaw Frank: Yes, for sure. I want to say, before I respond, that there seems to be a bit of murkiness right now, as we are recording, regarding sort of where some of the some of the agreement stands. So I'm just going to just note that, that it could be that by the time we air this episode, things will be different. But AJC's strategy for higher education administrators, which could be found on our website, and you can probably link to that in the show notes too, calls for very clear codes of conduct. Calls for enforcement, clear enforcement of those codes of conduct. We don't specifically say where discipline should be situated, because every university has a different kind of plan for how, how that should be situated. And I know that's an issue that appears to be ongoingly unclear between the government and Columbia right now, so I'm not going to say where that's landing. It's not clear to me where it's landing, yet. But there's no question that the kinds of asks that the federal government or demands, really that the federal government has made of Columbia, are demands that are rooted in the same issues that we have highlighted on campus. So there's this issue of discipline. Not just codes of conduct, but also the enforcement of codes of conduct. We've seen very often, including at Columbia, that there are rules that are on the books, but they're not actually enforced in reality. And they're useless if they're not enforced in reality. So that's one thing that we have been very clear about in our plan. We also have encouraged universities to think about faculty, to think about the role that faculty plays on a campus, and that's also been a part of the Columbia agreement with the federal government. Again, this is a little bit murky, still, but the federal government had asked for the Middle East and African Studies Department, maybe Asian Studies. I'm not sure exactly what the title of the department is to be put in receivership. That is a very extreme thing that can be done. Universities do it if a department is completely failing in whatever way. They could put it in receivership, give it over to somebody else to head. And it seems, at least as of this moment, that what Columbia has done is appoint a new Vice President who is going to oversee studies in the Middle East and Jewish studies, but it's not really exactly receivership. So I'm not going to opine on what they've done, but what I will opine on is what AJC is asking campuses to do in this moment. We've alluded to it in our campus plan that we have up on the website, but we are going to shortly be issuing updated guidance specifically about how we think universities should be addressing the issue of faculty members who are creating an atmosphere that's making Jews feel harassed, or that they're advancing antisemitism. Our State of Antisemitism Report that was released about a month and a half ago showed that, I think it's 32% of students felt that their faculty members were advancing an antisemitic atmosphere or an atmosphere that was harassing of them. And I want to be clear that obviously this is a question of feel, right? We ask the students, do you feel that way? And we know that feelings are not empirical data. Every person has their own set of feelings. And what some students might feel is antisemitic. Other students might say, no, no, that's not antisemitic. That's simply a different viewpoint. That's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. So with that caveat, I want to say that we're very concerned about that statistic, and we do think that it reflects a reality on campus, specifically on campuses like Columbia. And what we are asking universities to do at this moment is to think really carefully about how they're talking to faculty. How are they professionalizing their faculty? Our Director of Academic Affairs, Dr. Sara Coodin, has been working a great deal on coming up with a plan of what we would like to ask universities to work on in this moment, to work on the summer when they have some downtime. How are they going to talk to their faculty, especially emerging faculty, TA's,graduate students and young, untenured faculty about what their responsibilities are. What are their responsibilities to have classrooms with multiple viewpoints? What are their responsibilities to not treat their classrooms as activist spaces for their own political ideologies? What are their responsibilities to not require students to take actions that are political in nature. Such as, we're going to hold class in the encampment today, or I'm canceling class in order for students to go to protest. Those are not appropriate. They are not responsible actions on the part of faculty. They do not fall under the category of academic freedom, they're not responsible. So academic freedom is a very wide ranging notion, and it's really important. I do want to emphasize very important. We do want faculty members to have academic freedom. They have to be able to pursue the research, the thinking that they do pursue without being curtailed, without being censored. And at the same time, faculty has that privilege, and they also do have responsibilities. And by the way, we're not the only ones who think that. There are national organizations, academic organizations, that have outlined the responsibilities of faculty. So as we kind of look at this issue with Columbia, the issue of those departments that are the government has asked for receivership, and Columbia has appointed this vice president, the issue that we would like to sort of home in on is this issue of: what are we doing to ensure that we are creating campuses where faculty understand their role in pedagogy, their role in teaching, their role in upholding University spaces that are places of vibrant dialog and discourse–and not activism for the professor's particular viewpoints. Manya Brachear Pashman: I'm curious, there's been a lot of talk about Columbia failing its Jewish students, and these measures, these threats from the government are really the government's way of trying to repair that. Trying to motivate Columbia to to fix that and serve its Jewish students. But I'm curious if it's not just the Jewish students that Columbia is failing by not protecting Jewish students. In what ways are–and not just Columbia, but–universities in general failing students in this moment, maybe even students including Mahmoud Khalil? Laura Shaw Frank: I'm so glad you asked that question. I... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/35893585

Will Ireland Finally Stop Paying Lip Service When it Comes to Combating Antisemitism? 03/20/2025

Will Ireland Finally Stop Paying Lip Service When it Comes to Combating Antisemitism? In late 2024, Israel closed its embassy in Dublin, accusing the Irish government of extreme anti-Israel policies, antisemitic rhetoric, and double standards. Meanwhile, the small Jewish community in Ireland, numbering nearly 3,000, has faced antisemitism in the streets. AJC’s Director of International Jewish Affairs, Rabbi Andrew Baker, joins us to discuss his recent meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, examples of antisemitic activity in Ireland, including Holocaust inversion and the chilling impact of widespread anti-Israel sentiment on Irish Jews. He also shares insights on Ireland’s adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and the future of Holocaust remembrance in the country. ___ Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: -: with , , and . -: Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at You can reach us at: If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Andrew Baker: Manya Brachear Pashman: In December, Israel closed its embassy in Dublin, accusing the Irish government of extreme anti-Israel policies, antisemitic rhetoric, and double standards. Meanwhile, the small Jewish community in Ireland, numbering nearly 3000 has faced antisemitism in the streets. With us now to discuss the situation in Ireland, and his meeting with the Irish Prime Minister last week, is AJC's Director of International Jewish Affairs, Rabbi Andrew Baker, who also serves as the personal representative on combating antisemitism in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Andy, welcome to People of the Pod. Andrew Baker: Great to be here, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman: This situation did not develop overnight. Can you take our listeners back to the first clues that the relationship between Israel and Ireland was deteriorating? Andrew Baker: Ireland has a small Jewish community, perhaps about 3000 people. And a significant number of them, maybe upwards toward 1000, also people with Israeli citizenship who moved to Ireland to work there with a number of the social media tech companies based in Ireland. Over the years, and certainly even predating October 7, in Ireland there's been a fairly high degree of anti-Israel animus. It's not dissimilar to what we may find in a number of other northern European countries. They view the political scene in the Middle East through a certain prism that creates and maybe amplifies this form of animus. But that said, there have also been, I think, issues between this community and government policy, even as it's reflected in ceremonies marking Holocaust remembrance in Ireland. In many cases, the particular focus in that history of what happened to the Jewish people in Europe during World War II, the genocide of the Holocaust. While there may be commemoration events, in principle to market, they've really, in many ways, washed out the Jewish nature of that. In 2016 I was an invited speaker to the official Holocaust Commemoration Day in Ireland. Almost the entire focus was on the refugees, at the time coming in from North Africa and the Middle East. I was actually the only person who spoke the word antisemitism at that event. You also had an effort through legislation to really separate out Israel, the occupied territories, as they understood it, and the name of this bill that was passed by the legislature was called the Occupied Territories Bill. Which sought to separate Israel, at least the territories commercially from Ireland, but it would have a very onerous impact, frankly, on any anyone, certainly members of the Jewish community, who would choose to visit Israel. If they purchased a kippa in The Old City of Jerusalem, brought it back with them to Ireland, under this law, if it were enacted, they could literally be arrested for that action. So I think also at the time I made a visit there in 2019 in my OSC role, Israel was preparing to host the Eurovision Song Contest in Tel Aviv, and there was a very public campaign in Ireland to boycott the Eurovision contest. Advertisements calling for this on the side of buses, people in the state media already indicating that they were going to refuse to attend. So you had this sort of environment in Ireland, again, a good number of years before what happened on October 7, which really changed everything throughout Europe. Manya Brachear Pashman: And now there has been a more moderate government recently elected in Ireland. Prime Minister Micheál Martin was in the United States last week in Washington, DC, and you actually met with him when he was here, correct? Andrew Baker: That's correct. Manya Brachear Pashman: Did you share some of these concerns? Did you address, for example, the Occupied Territories Bill with him? Andrew Baker: Yes, we spent a bit over an hour together. I was joined also by Marina Rosenberg from the ADL. Our two organizations met. There were some initial plans that other organizations would also participate, but in the end, it was the two of us. One of the most significant issues that has arisen, it's partly why Israel closed its embassy, was the fact that Ireland has joined with South Africa in the charges brought before the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide. So our goal at this meeting was to raise a number of these issues, including that, including the status of the Occupied Territories bill. But also, really to impress on him that the community itself was feeling, sieged, if you will, by these developments. And so we wanted him to understand that the anti-Israel animus, which at times, crosses over to a form of antisemitism, has had a direct impact on the Jews in Ireland. It also was brought to the fore only this past January at this year's International Holocaust Remembrance event, Michael Higgins, the Irish president, spoke, even though the Jewish community had actually urged that he not be given a platform. He used the opportunity to focus on the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. And again, by that, drawing an analogy between Israel, between the Jewish experience during the Holocaust and somehow Israel's treatment of Palestinians today. So this, too, was an issue we brought up with the Prime Minister. Manya Brachear Pashman: But this prime minister has made some overtures to address antisemitism, right? I mean, his administration, for example, just announced it was adopting the working definition. Andrew Baker: Yes, in fact, several weeks before coming to Washington, the prime minister did announce that Ireland would accept the international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. And we also have a set of global guidelines that some, I think, over over 30 countries now have adopted, that lay out measures that government should take. So we did, of course, discuss this with the prime minister. He indicated to us that he was in the process of appointing a national coordinator, someone who could sort of oversee the development of national strategy to combat anti semitism. This is a very important step, by the way, it's one that almost all, with only a couple of exceptions, EU Member States, have already done. So. It is good that Ireland is doing this. Of course, it comes quite late to the game in this the IHRA definition is very important, because it offers old and new examples of antisemitism, and to digress only for a moment, this IHRA definition began as the definition endorsed presented by the European monitoring center on racism and xenophobia, already 20 years ago. And in my AJC role at that time, I worked closely with the EUMC in the drafting and the adoption of that definition. And notably, it speaks about antisemitism related to Israel. Frankly, if one had that definition in front of him or her, you would be able to look at some of the actions, even by members of government, and certainly the President's own remarks in January, and say, well, this could constitute a form of antisemitism itself. Manya Brachear Pashman: And did he address the bill legislation that is so troublesome? Andrew Baker: Yes, he did. He indicated to us that the Occupied Territories Bill as drafted is probably unconstitutional, since it really concerns international trade and economics. This is the purview of Brussels for all EU member states. So in that regard, they're really not expected or permitted to have their own economic international policy. He also said it was probably unenforceable. Now I asked him to simply dispel with this bill altogether. That was not something that he could agree to, but he did inform me that it would be, at least for now, off the legislative calendar. So we know there are others in Ireland who are pushing for that law to be redrafted and enacted. So this was somewhat reassuring to be told that no, at least this will not happen this year. Manya Brachear Pashman: Though he adopted the IRA working definition, I know that he also received some pressure from activists to dispense of that, to not adopt it and to reject it. And he assured them that it was not legally binding. Was that discouraging to hear? Or did he seem to be willing to implement it in training of law enforcement and education of students? Andrew Baker: Look, these are the very elements that we speak of when we speak about employing the IHRA definition. And as you said, it's identified as a non legally binding definition, but it ought to be used to advise, to inform law enforcement, the judiciary, if and when they address incidents of antisemitism. Again, he made the decision to adopt the definition, to accept the global guidelines only, only a few weeks ago, really. So how it will be used to what extent remains to be seen. I have to say we, and my ADL colleague indicated we're certainly prepared to work with the government to offer advice on how these things can be employed. We hope that they'll consider and take up our offer, but at this point, we have to see what happens. Manya Brachear Pashman: You mentioned that the small Jewish community there is largely Israeli expats doing business. And they were certainly uncomfortable at Holocaust Remembrance event. Are there other examples of harassment or antisemitic behavior, assaults, protests. What are they seeing on a day to day basis? Andrew Baker: Yes, first, I mean, the majority of the community are not Israelis, but there's a significant number who are. And I think what they're finding is, it's not unique, but it's intensive for them, that in schools, in the workplace, there's a high level of discomfort. And a result of this, where people may have the choice they will try not to identify publicly in some way that would signal to others that they're Jewish. There are incidents. There haven't really been violent attacks but clearly kids in school have been harassed and made to feel uncomfortable. Because they're Jewish because of this sort of strong anti-Israel animus. There was, only shortly after we had our meeting, an incident in one of the resort towns in Ireland where Israeli tourists in a restaurant were harassed by other patrons. They were cursed. They were spit at. It was the sort of thing, and the local council did issue a kind of apology. But I think it illustrates that when you have such a high level of anti-Israel animus, which at times can be just a harshly critical view of Israel or Israel's government, but it can spill over and create a sense that there is, as we've termed it, a kind of ambient antisemitism. It is sort of in the atmosphere, and so it does have an impact on this small Jewish community. Manya Brachear Pashman: Last year, Israel recalled its ambassador to Dublin. It closed its embassy in December, but in May, it actually recalled its ambassador, after Ireland announced, along with other countries, Norway, Spain, Slovenia, that it would recognize a Palestinian state. And I'm curious if there's something about Ireland's history that informs this approach? Andrew Baker: I think that's partly true. Look, first of all, Ireland had a somewhat checkered role, even during the Holocaust. You know, the Irish Ambassador government signed a condolence book when Adolf Hitler died. And it accepted German refugees after the war, but it was really quite reluctant to accept even some small number of Jewish refugees. And I think over time, Ireland in its own fight for independence with Great Britain, maybe drew the same analogy to Palestinians. This notion of being a colonialist subject. Perhaps there are those connections that people make as well. But in the case with the Israeli ambassador first being withdrawn, and then the embassy closed, unfortunately, much of the normal diplomatic relations that an ambassador wants to do, is expected to do, were really precluded from Israeli Ambassador Erlich. Gatherings of political parties where diplomats as a kind of standard rule, invited to attend, she was not invited. Other events the same was true. So there was also a frustration to be ambassador in what ought to be a friendly country, a fellow democracy, a member of the European Union, and yet to be made a kind of de facto persona non grata was a quite troubling experience. Manya Brachear Pashman: So whether there was an ambassador or an embassy there didn't seem to matter. They were still being excluded from diplomatic events already. Andrew Baker: The Israeli government made the decision that they needed to do something dramatic to express the state of affairs and this discomfort, and that was first through recalling the ambassador, but ultimately, As you pointed out, essentially closing the embassy, that's a dramatic step, and some might disagree, particularly if you have Israeli citizens that would otherwise want the services of an embassy in that country, but they believe this was one way of sending a message, and I think it was a message that was received. I would point out that following our meeting with the Prime Minister, it drew significant attention in the Irish press. Perhaps one of the most prominent read newspapers in Ireland, The Independent, this past Sunday, had an editorial that spoke about our meeting with the Prime Minister and really called on the government to reassess its relationship with Israel. In other words, to try and repair that relationship. So if it leads to that, then I think we will feel it was well worth it. Manya Brachear Pashman: Going back to the Holocaust Remembrance events that seem to be a continuing issue. Did you speak with the Prime Minister about the Jewish community perhaps having a role in organizing those commemorations from now on? Andrew Baker: We did. The fact is, there has been a organization that had some government support, but it's separate from the Jewish community that has been responsible for organizing these events. As I noted when I was invited in 2016, this was the organization that organized it, but it has sort of fallen out of favor with the Jewish community. There have been internal tensions, and again, as a result of this last event in January, the Jewish community has asked the government to really be given the authority to to organize these events. I have to point out that it does have, typically, the participation of senior figures in the government. When I was there, the prime minister at the time spoke, and members of the High Court participated, the Mayor of Dublin. So I think that level of participation is important and should continue. But I think the problem we're seeing is that even that history is being instrumentalized, so we need to be certain that doesn't continue. Manya Brachear Pashman: Andy, a number of Jewish leaders declined to meet with Prime Minister Martin, given the tension and animosity Jews in Ireland have been facing. Why did you meet with him? Andrew Baker: AJC values, sees itself as playing an important diplomatic role, not simply with Ireland, but with various countries. And while some other organizations felt in the end, they should not participate, because by not talking to the Irish Prime Minister that was sending a message, our approach is rather quite the opposite. It's important to talk. I'm not sure that it's always the easiest conversations, and the results may not always be all that we would hope them to be, but I want to say we're in this for the long haul. We've been back and forth to Ireland, with other countries, of course, as well over the years. We hope that those visits and these meetings will continue. Frankly, it's only by this kind of ongoing engagement, I believe that we can really make a difference, and that's what we're all about. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well Andy, thank you so much for joining us. Andrew Baker: You're welcome, Manya. /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/35795275

People of the Pod

TOPICS