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.

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

Held Hostage in Gaza: A Mother’s Fight for Freedom and Justice 03/13/2025

Held Hostage in Gaza: A Mother’s Fight for Freedom and Justice “He told me: ‘We are the same. We are the same.’ Meaning, me and the terrorists who penetrated the kibbutz are the same. They received the mission to murder and to burn, and I received the mission to hold you as bargaining chips for the release of the Palestinian prisoners. And this was a very cruel sentence, because while we were in captivity . . . they could do anything to us.” Former Israeli hostage Shoshan Haran, abducted during the Hamas terror attack on October 7, 2023, shares her harrowing story of survival and resilience. Shoshan was abducted from her home in Kibbutz Be’eri alongside her family, including her son-in-law Tal Shoham, her daughter, and her young grandchildren. While she and the other women and children were released after 50 days in November 2023, Tal remained in Gaza for 505 days and was released in February 2025. Now, as she welcomes Tal home, Shoshan opens up about the unbearable anguish of captivity, the emotional toll of waiting, and the devastating losses her family has endured. She sheds light on the humanity that persisted even in the darkest moments and issues a powerful call for continued global action to free the 59 hostages who are still being held. 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 Shoshan Haran: Manya Brachear Pashman: After 505 days as a hostage in Gaza, Tal Shoham returned to Israel to his wife and two young children and to an extended family whose lives have been on hold since the Hamas terror attacks on October 7, 2023. Tal had been taken hostage from his home in Kibbutz Be’eri with his wife, his children, his wife’s aunt, his 12-year-old niece, and his mother in law, Shoshan Haran. Shoshan returned home with the other women and children on November 26, 2023. She is with us now to talk about welcoming Tal home, the tremendous loss she and her family have suffered, and the endless fight to get the rest of the hostages home. Shoshan, welcome to People of the Pod. Shoshan Haran: Thank you. Nice being here. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, I'm glad that you are here to at least partially celebrate the return of your loved ones. It has been more than 500 days since that awful day in October. Can you take our listeners back a few days before the 7th, to October 4th: what were you doing that day? Shoshan Haran: On October 4, we had a very big event of Women Making Peace in the Dead Sea, together with a sister movement, Women of the Sun. It's a Palestinian movement. Both women-led movements working for peace on both sides. And I went there with my sister Lilach and with the founder of this movement, , who was my neighbor in Kibbutz Be’eri. And it was such an optimistic event, and heartwarming, we were there with thousands of women, some men also, and we were talking about the power of women to bring peace and how we should stop the bloodshed and how we should find a new way to live together in peace. That was on October 4. Two days later, on October 6, we are getting ready for Simchat Torah, to celebrate with our family. We had the sukkah already since a week ago, and we invited my daughter, Adi, and her husband Tal and the little kids, Naveh, who was then eight years old, and Yahel (Yula), three years old, to join us for Simchat Torah. So we were cooking, getting ready for the holidays. It was a shabbat dinner, so cooking. And then we got a call from Avshal, Avshalom, he’s my husband, his nickname is Avshal, and we got a call from his sister, Sharon, that wanted to join us for that evening with her daughter, Noam who was then 12 years old. And we celebrated together in the sukkah, having fun. The kids were playing all over. And then we went to sleep. We had kind of a loft above our house for hosting our guests, and that's where Tal and Adi and the kids stayed overnight. Sharon and her daughter stayed with us on the ground level, and we went to sleep. And then at 6:29am, we heard the red . . . color red is the code for attack. And we thought it is, I shouldn't say it, but the usual missile attack on us. So we went to the safe room. And then after a few minutes, we went out. My husband went up to the second floor to get Adi, Tal, and the kids down to be with us, and I started making hot chocolate for the grandkids. And then we got the warning on our–we have a community WhatsApp for alarms. And they told us that they suspect that some terrorists penetrated the kibbutz, and then we should go into the safe room. And a few minutes later, they confirmed that a terrorist attack was launched on the kibbutz. Manya Brachear Pashman: Who was in that safe room with you? Shoshan Haran: We were in the safe room, seven people. Tal, Adi, my daughter, the kids–my [2] grandkids, Sharon and Noam. Avshal stayed outside with a knife ready to protect his family, and also looking through the windows to understand what was going on. And then we started hearing shooting and grenades, and they got closer and closer to us. My cell phone was the only one that had reception inside the safe room. And after one hour and a half of terror, Tal texted my husband to join us in the safe room, because he understood that a knife is not gonna protect us, so there was no way. And so Avshal joined us, and Tal and him–we had a very large dinner table when we have guests, and the extensions were in the safe room, so very heavy pieces of wood. And they used it to protect the handle of the safe room door because there was no lock, but they were just pushing it against the safe room door. I heard them breaking into my neighbor's home. I heard a lot of glass and a lot of shooting and grenades. I didn't know what was happening there. And then they left. And then they penetrated our house. They just broke into it. It's easy. It was full of windows that you could easily break into. And they started shouting at us: open the door, open the door. We did not. And then they had steel penetrating bullets that went through the safe room’s iron door. And I even saw one bullet passing very close to my head. The movement of the bullet was a little bit slowed, so I could see it. And my husband shouted at me, just lie down, you know, because my head was a little bit upwards, looking at the cell phone and trying to call for help. They couldn't break in the safe room door, and then they left, and we thought that maybe we were saved. But then after a few minutes, they brought a bulldozer, and they just cracked the safe room window. And the safe room window is composed of two steel parts that should be connected. But with the bulldozer, they were able to dismantle the window and create a crack. And then we had a few seconds to decide to surrender or not. And then my husband and Tal decided to surrender. We were under the bed, so we didn't see much, but they understood that the crack will allow the terrorists to throw grenades into the room. So they decided to surrender. And then the terrorist opened the window so we stopped resisting. They opened the window, and then my husband and Tal went out first, and that was the last glance that I had of my husband. And it took us a while, because we were under the bed, and we were three women and three little kids. So we went out of the room. They grabbed us through the window. And when my daughter was out, she saw her kids. They took her kids separately. And she just shouted at them, mother, kid, mother, kids. And she, she just kidnapped. She grabbed them from the terrorist. She's a real hero, my daughter. And then they pushed us with a gun pointed at us. And when we were out of the safe room, which I saw already, six or seven members of the kibbutz were already murdered and were lying near our home, and they were pushing us towards the fence around the kibbutz, which they already destroyed. And one of them that looks really lunatic, he handcuffed me with my hands behind my back, and they just pushed us into the car that they brought from Gaza and drove towards the Gaza Strip. We didn't see any IDF soldiers. The border was completely abolished. There was no border. We didn't see any Air Force. We saw nothing. It was just driving through the open fields into the Gaza Strip. We were sitting in the back seat of the car. I had Naveh, my grandson, on my lap. Adi was holding Yula, and Sharon was holding her daughter, Noam. And the two terrorists were sitting in front. And when we crossed the border into Gaza–the theoretical border, there was nothing there–one of the terrorists told us, welcome to Gaza. And I said, thank you. And then we just entered into Gaza. Manya Brachear Pashman: You said that was your last glance of Avshal when he climbed out the window. Shoshan Haran: So we were in captivity for 50 days, and during these horrible days, I was almost sure that both Tal and Avshal were hostages in Gaza, because they were kidnapped a few minutes before us, and I understood that the goal of the terrorists was to have hostages. And so I was very confident, I should say, that both of them are hostages in Gaza. And I knew, I knew by intuition, that Israel will demand to release women and children first. I just knew it. And I told Adi and Sharon all the time. I said, we need to survive. Every day that we survive will get us closer to our release, because I knew that the terrorists see us as bargain chips to get their prisoners released. So I said our mission is just to survive. I need to keep my family. I need to survive. And I thought that Tal and Avshal are also hostages, and I learned about the fact that they murdered my husband on October 7, only after I was released and I met my daughter and my son, and they had to tell me the horrible truth that he was murdered, but not only him. My sister was murdered, my little sister, my younger sister. Her husband, his caregiver. 102 people from my kibbutz, from the little community that we know, every one were murdered on October 7. Manya Brachear Pashman: This was your sister, Lilach, who had been at the event on October 4 with you. Yes? Shoshan Haran: Yes, yes. Manya Brachear Pashman: I am so sorry. May all of those memories be a blessing, every one of them in the kibbutz. Did you stay with your daughter and grandchildren in Gaza the entire time? Or were you separated? Shoshan Haran: No, we were together, luckily. We were handed over by the kidnappers to what I used to term as guards in Gaza. And I use the term guards because we wanted the children to live in the belief that these people are guarding us, so we didn't call them terrorists, not even between ourselves. We call them guards. We were moved from one house to another. So we were not in the tunnels. We were in top Hamas leaders' houses. What they did in all of these houses, they created a separate room for us, where we did not see the family of the Hamas leader, but we heard the voices. We heard the voices of the commander. We heard the voices of his wife and the children. So it was like a provisoric arrangement. And the guards were always in between us and the family. I mean, we didn't see the family, but we heard them. And the guards were the ones who brought us food and they were kind of in between. We had an event in the second house that we stayed. We had an event of knock on the roof. Knock on the roof is a term that the IDF is using when the Air Force is aiming to hit a specific house without harming the people who live inside the house. One time it was supposed to be two blocks away from us, so the terrorists, they know exactly the address, and they told us to get away, just to stay away from the window. So if the window is, if the glass is breaking, we will not be wounded. The second time, it was very close to where we stayed, maybe even the place we stayed, specifically so they evacuated us and the family of the Hamas terrorist who was holding us. We were evacuated to the street, and then we were taken to another house. And eventually we were taken to a fourth house, where we stayed 43 days. And in that house, the Hamas person who joined us knew English. So I started to talk. Before that the guards or the captors, didn't speak any English. They knew some very basic words, like bomb, far, go, come. You know, simple words. But in the fourth house that we stayed 43 days, the Hamas terrorist knew quite good English. Manya Brachear Pashman: Did you seize on that and try to have conversations with your captors? We had lots of conversations and talks. I'm a very passionate reader, so I read a lot of books, including Holocaust survivors’ books. I used a lot of the wisdom on how to survive when I was in Gaza. So the first thing I knew: that I should not show any weakness. I looked in their eyes, I talked straight forward, I didn't show any panic or hysterical or crying or stuff like that. The other thing is, I knew I had to keep hope and be determined that we will be released. So that was very important, and that gave us strength. And also I counted the days. I knew the day of the week. And I knew the date. And to eat when you can. To sleep when you can. So to be very determined and very focused on the present. You don't have the capacity to think about the past or the future, you just focus on survival every second, every minute, every hour, how to protect your family and how to create some kind of a relationship with your captors. So they will get to know us, and this will give some some layer of protection. Manya Brachear Pashman: Did you feel like you successfully fostered a relationship? Shoshan Haran: Yeah, it's a very tricky situation. So on one hand, I used to thank–his mother was cooking, was providing the food. We never saw her, but we heard her voice. We heard the babies on the other side of the apartment, but there was no eye contact. But when I knew that she was the one who is preparing food for us and for the captors and for her family. So every time that this guy, her son, brought us the food, I said, I want you to thank your mother. And I mentioned a few times that I appreciate the fact that they are guarding us and they are providing us the food, although it was very minimal, but still. And after a few days, we started to talk about life. I know about their salaries. I know their problems. I know how they get married or why they're not married yet. I know about their mission. Their mission is very clear. They want to destroy Israel. It's a jihadistic mission. It's very clear. They talk about it very openly. And actually, they tried to convince us to leave Israel. He was saying, why don't you go back to Europe or go to Florida. I don't know for some reason, Florida is like, simple for them, for the Jewish community in the US. And he said, next time we're going to come harder on Israel, and I'm not sure that you'll have such a nice team to take care of you, so I advise you go, leave Israel. And at a certain point he said, he asked me, if you go back to Israel, will you go back to the kibbutz? So said to him, I don't want to hear the word if. When we go back to Israel. And regarding the kibbutz, I said, it's a very good question, but I never gave him an answer. I knew what he wanted to hear. They were in a state of mind that, on one hand, you do create human interactions. And they played with the children. The children were so sweet, and they started to play. His family had the same age kids at the other side of the house, so there were human interactions, but it was very clear that their mission is to keep us as bargaining chips. And at one point after I felt more, I don't know, relaxed with the interaction with him, because all my talks were with this specific guy, because he was the only one who talked English. I said, you know, I am very, I don't know which expression I said, but I'm very angry about the people I saw who penetrated the kibbutz and murdered my my friends. And I saw the house of my sister was on fire. It was already bombed. You know, with, I don't know what, with whatever. Actually, I gave her and her husband like, 1% chances to be alive. What I saw in the house was, it would require a miracle for them to survive. So I told him that I'm angry at the people who penetrated the kibbutz and did these horrible things, but I do thank him and the guards and his family, to protect us and to feed us. Manya Brachear Pashman: Did you get any glimmer of remorse or compassion or empathy from them at that point? Shoshan Haran: He told me: We are the same. We are the same, meaning me and the terrorists who penetrated the kibbutz are the same. They received the mission to murder and to burn, and I received the mission to hold you as bargaining chips for the release of the Palestinian prisoners. And this was a very cruel sentence, because while we were in captivity, we were fully dependent on every expression of their faces, they could do anything to us. So my mind couldn't handle this sentence, and I kind of buried it, I just put it aside. I didn't want to think about it, because it was so cruel. But I was sure that if anybody tried to rescue us, they will murder us. I was sure, I was not confused in that sense. I knew that they use us as assets. They see us as assets. And if they will feel that somebody is trying to rescue us by force, then they will kill us. And going to the situation now, you know that Tal, my son in law, Tal Shoham, was released two weeks ago. And actually it's the first time I started to breathe after a year and some months of fighting for his life, and, you know, taking care of helping my daughter and the grandkids and everybody, but we need To remember there are 59 more hostages in Gaza. And when we must keep on the fight. We must not give up. Manya Brachear Pashman: A religion reporting colleague of mine, Dave Schechter in Atlanta, is a cousin of yours. When Tal was released, . Were you able to feel that love or sense that family energy? Shoshan Haran: When I was a hostage in Gaza, I knew that my family and friends in Israel will not stay quiet, just because I know them. But as I said before, most of the time you don't think of anything else besides what's going on in your cell. Actually, I I looked at our situation as if we are astronauts in a hostile world, but unfortunately with terrorists pointing guns at our heads inside the satellite. So when I was in Gaza, I thought about the fact that my family and friends will not stay quiet and will fight, but only on the way to Gaza. Once I was there, the focus is survival, focus. You just don't have any capacity to think of the past or the future or on anything that is beyond here and now. After I returned, first of all, Yuval, my son, told me that he organized a march from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem with 50,000 people when we were in captivity. And Shaked, my daughter, she was then nine months pregnant, and she flew to the US with AJC, by the way. Without insurance. She was nine months pregnant, no insurance company would cover her flight, but she still went, and she was all over. And when they told me, I suddenly felt the connection. And of course, I mean, I got, while I was there, I got millions of emails and, well, WhatsApp I didn't have, because my phone was stolen, but emails from all over the world, including from Africa, the places that my my NGO is working with smaller farmers, Fair Planet, we call it. Now I think it's a bit naive... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/35678130

Meet the MIT Scientists Fighting Academic Boycotts of Israel 03/07/2025

Meet the MIT Scientists Fighting Academic Boycotts of Israel The American Studies Association has boycotted Israeli academic institutions since 2013. The Association for the Advancement of Anthropology has refrained from formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions. And just this past summer, the American Association of University Professors opened the door to academic boycotts against Israel. Enter: two scientists at MIT who see firsthand the consequences of academic boycotts and the damage it can cause to scholarship and scientific progress. To ensure Israeli scholars and their American colleagues can collaborate freely, and foster research and innovation that benefits all of humanity, they formed The Kalaniyot Foundation (pronounced Ka-la-nee-yought), named after Israel's national flower. Hear from Drs. Or Hen and Ernest Fraenkel, co-founders of this initiative, on the impact of anti-Israel boycotts on academic collaboration with Israeli scholars, and what they’re doing to rehabilitate the reputation of Israeli researchers in the eyes of the world. 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 Drs. Or Hen and Ernest Fraenkel: Manya Brachear Pashman: Since the Hamas terror attacks of October 7, 2023 many university campuses have been riven by anti-Israel protests, demonstrations, often unfortunately fueled by disinformation and rife with rhetoric that too often crosses the line into antisemitism. But even before October 7, Israeli scholarship had become a target of the boycott divestment sanctions movement. The American Studies Association has boycotted Israeli academic institutions since 2013. The Association for the Advancement of Anthropology has refrained from formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions. Even study abroad programs that give students an opportunity to live and study in Israel have come under scrutiny. Enter: two scientists at MIT who see firsthand the consequences of academic boycotts and the damage it can cause to scholarship and scientific progress. To ensure Israeli scholars and their American colleagues can collaborate freely, foster research and innovation that benefits all of humanity, they formed The Kalaniyot Foundation, named after Israel's national flower. Dr. Or Hen and Ernest Fraenkel are with us now to discuss this initiative. Dr. Hen, Dr. Fraenkel, welcome to People of the Pod. Ernest Fraenkel: Thank you very much. Manya Brachear Pashman: So I want to work backward here a bit with a purpose. I want to start by sharing with our audience a little about your research. Dr Fraenkel, you work in health science, technology. What is the goal of your research and scholarship? Are there particular diseases you're trying to cure or treat? Ernest Fraenkel: We are interested in the diseases that are the hardest to treat, ones like Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's, where we don't really know the root cause, and we believe that by gathering many different kinds of data about genes and molecules, about RNA and also about people's lived experience of these diseases, and using computational models, we can identify new targets for drugs and hopefully better therapies. Manya Brachear Pashman: Have you collaborated with Israeli scientists on this? Ernest Fraenkel: Yes, we collaborate with quite a few scientists all over the world, including top researchers in Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman: And Dr. Hen, you are a nuclear physicist, and you study the strongest force in nature, right? What is the goal of your research? Or Hen: So my research is very much on the fundamental curiosity driven science side of things, I am trying to understand how the fundamental building blocks of matter come about. We're building a new particle collider in the US called the electron hand collider. It's a $3 billion project funded by the Department of Energy, where we will try to understand why the proton and from that nucleus and all of us have mass. Trying to understand how we get the proton to a specific spin, which is the reason that we can go into an MRI machine and image ourselves. And I also try to understand things like, how do protons and neutrons interact with each other at extremely short distances, which tell us about exotic phenomena in the universe, like neutron stars. So trying to understand, really, the fundamental building blocks of matter and how they come about. Manya Brachear Pashman: Wow. And is there promising scholarship in this realm in Israel? Or Hen: Yes, there's quite a few groups working in this area. I did my own training in Israel. I am a graduate of the Hebrew University for undergrad and Tel Aviv University for grad school. And actually, ever since I came to MIT, I’ve still been collaborating with colleagues from Technion, Tel Aviv, Hebrew University, Weizmann, Ben Gurion. I've always had a strong collaboration with Israel, actually. Manya Brachear Pashman: So after October 7, or maybe even leading up to it, what were you seeing when it came to support of Israeli scholarship and collaboration in your institutions, in your fields, in academia in general? Ernest Fraenkel: I think before October 7, we were living in a bit of a bubble, because MIT is a special place which is very deeply immersed in science and technology. Where really, quite honestly, before October 7, I had no hint that there were biases against Israel, Israelis or Jews. I know that was not the experience in many other areas, especially in other fields. But things really turned 180 degrees on October 7, and what we've seen since then has been deeply disturbing. That some of the boycotts that have been bubbling for years in the humanities suddenly burst forth into the sciences and the engineering fields in ways that are both global and also very local. Seeing bias against individual researchers inside laboratories, as well as these kind of blanket attempts to boycott Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman: And Dr Hen, did you see the same? Or Hen: Yes, definitely. I work with a lot of international collaborations, actually, within collaborations, because there's structured bodies with bylaws and rules, It was very hard for anyone to object the presence of Israeli researchers. But what we have observed in many places is peer to peer collaborations dying down. We've seen a very significant social tax being applied to people who continue to collaborate with Israelis, and honestly, maybe in contrast a bit to what we know from academic boycotts in other areas, but are very much politically driven, within the STEM, within exact sciences, biosciences, etc, the social taxing is actually much stronger because we are people who usually instead, people keep a very clear separation between the politics and then, you know what they view from the work in the lab, which is very clear and data driven, and not a lot of room for opinions. It's very much exact. But on the other hand, the second that walking within Israel, and you know collaborating with Israel, is start costing other corporations, other people will now not work, then you get a problem. And that's what people really avoid and that's how an academic boycott within the STEM areas is progressing. It's a very deeply bound social tax that is just running in the air of the institutions. Manya Brachear Pashman: So what is the Kalaniyot Foundation doing to promote these collaborations? Can you give us some specific examples, or projects or partnerships? Or Hen: Yeah, so one of the things that we really believe in is that, at the end of the day, actually, what we see, also data shows, is, well, there is existing strong collaboration, that peer to peer, that person to person connection, is so strong that it's very hard to break that. You can go into my department and you can talk to people about Israel. And they know Or, and they know the person, right? And they might have a positive opinion about, you know, negative opinion about me. But whatever that opinion is, right, it's stronger than anything. They will try to protest and say, Okay, maybe there's a political issue. But you know, we know the researcher. We know the scientists. We know our colleagues. So the approach of Kalaniyot is to actually bring in more Israelis to campus, to bring in brilliant people who are excellent researchers that will come and enrich the academic environment, first and foremost, through this quality, and second, by the people that they are. Maybe Ernest, you want to continue with this? Ernest Fraenkel: So it's really this dual mission. We think that if we bring more top notch Israeli scholars to us campuses, it will normalize interaction with Israelis, humanize the Israeli, but there's a problem, right? Because if you just bring Israelis into campus environments that are hostile, they won't thrive. Many of them won't want to come, right? And so the other piece of it that's necessary is to build community, and that's something that we've been doing since October 7 of last year, trying to figure out how to do that, and what we found is face to face interaction is really critical. And so at MIT, we've been having weekly lunches of the Israelis, Jews, allies, everybody who felt isolated and left out of society by all the protests that were taking place. And the beautiful thing is that that started as a reaction, right, a sort of a safe place to retreat to, and it's actually become a wonderful, positive place. And still, now, you know, so far into this crisis, people are coming, and actually the numbers are even growing. And so on a typical week, we get more than 100 people in person. We, of course, feed them lunch, and it's just a wonderful place where you can make friendships, develop academic collaborations, and Israelis realize that there is a community here that appreciates them and welcomes them and it helps them thrive. Manya Brachear Pashman: Because, of course, food is a vital currency, both on college campuses as well in Jewish as in Jewish life. Food heals all. But I am curious, do you? In addition to building these thriving communities, are you also so that people are surrounded and comfortable but are you also trying to build bridges with people who perhaps do tend to throw the word Israeli around in a negative capacity, but you need to actually have some face to face contact. Or is that really not the purpose of Kalaniyot. Or Hen: I mean, it's a yes and a no. We certainly have done that, right. So if you think about how it all started very soon after October 7, basically after the first protest on campus at MIT. We went to talk to our president, three Jewish Israeli faculty, and we asked her. We said, Look, we hear from the students about what's happening in the dorms, what they're experiencing. It's really bad, and it's very hard to handle through the existing mechanisms. Please actually give us the budget. We'll get kosher food. I’m a Mizrahi, that's what I know how to do, feed people. Let's put everybody together, and let's make sure everybody feel welcome. And we also said, you know, we'll be your bridge. We'll help the students communicate with administration through our guidance, right? We'll be able to filter, to guide them, but also to pick up on the important things that you need to know. But then we said something else. We said, Look, this is going to become very tough, also for the students who are protesting out there right now. It was before Israel responded, but we knew exactly what happened in the kibbutzim, and we knew this is not going to be just another round with Gaza. This is going to be something different. So we actually suggested to the President that alongside starting our group, we will start a parallel group of peers who we might disagree with politically and have different perspectives on the Middle East, but we know that they are reasonable people that we can talk to, that we can collaborate with, that we can work with, despite or alongside disagreements. And so the idea was to start our lunch, to start a second lunch, and slowly, through the faculty leadership, bring the groups together. Some of it has worked. Some of it didn't work. We used to meet once a week as the faculty and say, students tell us that this and this is happening. Can you maybe walk with your students to tone that down, and they would tell us what's bothering them, etc. Getting the students to come together, that was a bigger lift, a challenging one. And there was another initiative that came about called the Third Space Lunch, that maybe Ernest can elaborate more on. Ernest Fraenkel: So just to add a little bit to that. So the faculty leads from the other group came to speak to our students. Were very respectful to them. The faculty listened quietly to the concerns of the Jewish students. And I think we did see an attempt by many of the faculty to bridge the gaps. Obviously, faculty are an extremely, you know, diverse group. We have extremists, we've got centrists, we've got moderates. And not everybody was trying to help, but many, many were, and I think that was very encouraging, and I've seen that continue throughout this. There are hidden allies. Probaby the average faculty member probably doesn't really want to know too much about Israel or Palestine. Doesn't want to have to understand the conflicts. They just want to go about their daily lives, teach what they love to teach, do the research they love to do, and they are natural allies in trying to bring order back to campus. And the more that we can engage them, the better off it is. Or Hen: But I think in terms of the formal program for Kalaniyot - Kalaniyot is really meant to bring in researchers and make sure that they have a supporting environment. And if people want to take that extra step of building bridges and building, that's all great, but it's not kind of a mandatory part of the program. Manya Brachear Pashman: I get it. You really just want to foster academic research and progress and innovation, right? Put political strife aside. You've named this foundation Kalaniyot after Israel's national flower. Can you describe for our listeners that flower and why you chose that name for this initiative? Ernest Fraenkel: The Kalaniyah looks a lot like a poppy. It's a red poppy, and during good times, there actually was an annual festival where Israelis would flock to the south in the area right around Gaza to see the bloom of this flower that would cover the otherwise fairly barren, quite honestly, countryside. And it was called the South Red, Darom Adom, and people would rush there to see it. And it was a symbol, which actually takes place right around the time we're recording. People have been sending us photos from from Israel the last few weeks of these flowers, the more they hear about the program. And it's a sign that the winter is going to end and spring is going to come, and everything will be renewed. And so it was the South in red, in a sense, that was all positive. And we think the same sort of thing is possible here, that while Israel is right now a touch point for conflict on campus, we want to see a time when Israel, this is something like, Oh, of course. You know, everybody wants to have some connection to Israel. That's where the best researchers are in every field. I often tell the story, when I was first on the faculty here, one of my first assignees as an undergraduate advisee was somebody from Hawaii, and he told me, asked him what he was going to do this summer, and he said he's going to Israel. So no, really, what's, what's your connection to Israel? He said, Oh, I don't have any I thought, maybe he's a strong Christian. I asked him about that. Said, no, no, I don't have any particular faith. I just heard it's startup nation, and I want to go and experience it. And I just think, how many students today is their first association with Israel, startup nation? Probably not that many anymore, but we can get back to that and realize that it's more than startups, right? It's basic science, it's the arts, it's culture. And so there’s much that Israel has to offer the world, and we want to get back to the point where that's the first thing people think about Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman: So this initiative did start at MIT, but it appears to be sprouting, to use a pun, it appears to be sprouting on other campuses. Dartmouth is developing a chapter and Penn, right, the University of Pennsylvania. Are they being led by fellow scientists who have seen the consequence of this scholastic snub, for lack of a better word? Ernest Fraenkel: So at each university, and there are several others in the works that are still working their way through the administration at each university, and by the way, this is not a renegade effort. At each university, the faculty form a faculty board, we encourage them to find a diverse group. So it's not all the sciences on our board. And on those boards, there seem to be many members of humanities departments. Not all Jews, not all Israelis. And these diverse faculty boards are people who are allied with the goals, and we have bylaws. This is a program entirely about positivity. It's not attempting to suppress anybody else's speech. It's not attempting to make any political points. It's a purely academic program that will help restore the image of Israel as a place of academic excellence and help the United States maintain its academic edge through those collaborations. Or Hen: And I think you're hitting on a very unique point, right? And that is that this is entirely faculty led program. When you think about the role of faculty in universities, especially faculty from STEM fields, right, we don't lead a lot of things in the academic world that are not our research, right? Honestly, that's kind of, why am I here and not in Google, right? I would probably make a much bigger salary for Google these days. I'm here because I really care about my research, those open questions I really want to explore, and that's what I'm doing. So I'm teaching my class, and I'm focusing on my research. And me is everybody else around me, that's what we do. So there is a very high activation energy to get the faculty to do something that is not their research, their own research, but once you do that, faculty is a force of nature at the university. That's kind of what we're here to stay, right? We'll tenure, we're going to be at the retirement. We run the place eventually. So it's both to activate the people who can really make an impact from within in a very strong way. That's number one, who have these decades of connections, right? Well before the challenge, you know, I've had my 10 years of collaborations here at MIT, and this has a lifetime of more than 10 years of collaborations here, right? And many of us and people remember those connections, right? Remember how we teach together, how I lent them something from my lab, and stuff like that, right? We have these personal connections. So it is really the first and uniquely faculty led program that is very helping to come back, see faculty do that. There's a lot of power, and that's also why it's such an academically focused program, because that's what we know how to do. There's many other who can combat antisemitism and can give antisemitism training and title six and all that. And we don't do it,... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/35579215

U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Gaza Reconstruction, Israeli Security, and the Future of Middle East Diplomacy 02/27/2025

U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Gaza Reconstruction, Israeli Security, and the Future of Middle East Diplomacy AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson sits down with U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, for a live discussion in Washington, D.C., to introduce AJC’s Center for a New Middle East. They cover plans for rebuilding Gaza, the future of Israeli-Arab relations, and the evolving geopolitical landscape, including the impact of the Abraham Accords and shifting regional alliances. Tune in for insights on diplomacy, security, and what’s next for the Middle East. The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. 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 Jason Isaacson and Steve Witkoff: Manya Brachear Pashman: This week, AJC's Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, Jason Isaacson, sat down for a live conversation with Steve Witkoff, the US Special Envoy to the Middle East. They discussed plans to rebuild Gaza, political upheaval in Syria and Lebanon and expansion of the Abraham Accords. For this week's episode, we bring you that live conversation to you. Jason Isaacson: Good evening, everyone. Thank you for being here, and thank you Special Envoy Witkoff for participating in this evening's program, introducing AJC Center for New Middle East, and extension and refocusing of the work that we've been doing for decades to advance Arab Israeli understanding, cooperation and peace. Your presence here means a great deal to us. As you've heard from my colleagues, AJC looks forward to working with you and your team in any way that we can to help ensure the success of a secure Israel, fully integrated in the Middle East. Now let me begin by thanking you again, renewing our thanks and thanking President Trump for your relentless efforts, which began even before the President took office, to assure the liberation of the hostages still held by Hamas and Gaza now for 508 days, we know how dedicated you are and the President is, to gaining the release of Edan Alexander, the last living American hostage, and the remains of the four other Americans, Itai Chen, Gadi and Judy Weinstein-Haggai, and Omer Neutra, and all of the hostages living and dead, still held captive by the terrorists. So I want to point out that leaders of the Hostage Families Forum are with us here this evening. As is Emmet Tsurkov, whose sister Elizabeth Tsurkov was kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq two years ago. We are all counting on your and your colleagues' continued efforts to free them all. Thank you again, Steve. Now my first question to you, how does a successful real estate developer make the transition to Middle East diplomacy, as you certainly have. Clearly, there are profound territorial issues at play here, but there are also powerful and tangible factors, perhaps less easily negotiated, factors of historical narrative, of religion, of nationalism. How do you cut through all that? How do you achieve success given the very different career that you've pursued up to this point? Steve Witkoff: Well, first of all, Jason, thank you for having me, and welcome everybody and to the hostage families, I just want to welcome you here. Some of the people I probably have talked to already, and just know that my heart is always with you. You know, President, I'm a very close friend of President Trump's, and I think he felt that, hopefully, that I could do a good job here. And so I think the job had a lot to do with miscommunication and correcting that. It had a lot to do with getting over to the region and understand what was happening, and maybe most importantly, it had a lot to do with his election and peace through strength and the perception that he was not he was going to take a different path, that the old policy prescriptions that that had not worked in the Middle East were not going to be tolerated by him anymore. And I think that's in large part what allowed us to get a positive result. Adding to that, of course, was all of the good work that Prime Minister Netanyahu in his administration had achieved with Nasrallah Hezbollah in Lebanon, he had basically gutted Hamas. So many good things that happened. And you know, on top of that, the raids in Iran, and it created this perception that a lot of the a lot of what emanated out of October 7 was never going to be tolerated again. And that began the, you know, that began the pathway to achieving the result we achieved in the first phase. But that's just half of the problem. So we've got a lot more to go. Jason Isaacson: I've got some questions about that, as well as you can imagine. Help us understand the President's priorities and therefore your focus in this very complicated region. There's the continued trauma of October 7, 2023 dozens of Israeli and other hostages still held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza, and the deep wounds inflicted on Israeli society in that attack. There's the need to rebuild Gaza and to assure it is no longer governed by Hamas. There's the prospect of advancing normalization between Israel and Arab states building on the Abraham Accords of the first Trump administration. There are also political upheavals and some hopeful signs, although the jury is still out in Lebanon and in Syria, and there's the ongoing threat to peace and stability posed by the Iranian regime. How do you prioritize? What are your expectations for success on these many tracks. It's an awful lot to deal with. Steve Witkoff: That was, I think I counted like 14 questions. Jason Isaacson: This is my specialty, by the way. Steve Witkoff: I can see. I have to, now you're testing my memory on all of this. Jason Isaacson: Priorities. Steve Witkoff: Yeah, I would say, How does the President think about it? Well, first and foremost, he wants something different for the region, yeah, and different in the sense that the old way of thinking we've they've rebuilt Gaza three or four times already. Like that's just an unacceptable use of resources. We need to do it in a much more in a much better way, a. B, we need to get rid of this crazy, ideological, psychopathic way of thinking that Hamas thinks. What they did, it can never be tolerated. I saw a film that many in this in this room did not see, made by Southern Command when I was in Gaza, and it's horrific. I mean, it is a horrific film. What happened in this film and what they did to people. So this is not, this is not the act of people who are going to war. This is the act of barbarians, and it can never be tolerated. Normalization is critical for the region. Saudi Arabia embraces it because they can't finance in their own markets today. And why? Because there's so much war risk. I actually saw Jamie Diamond today, and I discussed it with him, and I said to him, you know, think about an area like Saudi Arabia. They have tons of money, but they can't leverage their money. And they can't because the underwriting risk on war, it can't be underwritten. So you're not going to see typical senior financing. Go into those marketplaces they can finance if they do a deal in New York and they can't finance in their own country. Makes no sense. And that's going to lead to a lot of stability. In terms of the Iranian crescent, it's basically been decimated. Look at what's happened with Syria. No one ever thought that that was going to happen. We've got an epic election in Lebanon. And so tons of things happening. Lebanon, by the way, could actually normalize and come into the Abraham Peace Accords, as could even potentially Syria. So so many profound changes are happening there, and yet it's been a flash point of conflict, and I think that there's a possibility that we end it. Now, do we have to make sure that Egypt is stabilized? Yes, they've got some issues, economic and financial issues, and also on their streets. Same thing with Saudi Arabia, and we have to be cognizant about that. But all in all, I think there are some really good, good things that are happening. Jason Isaacson: Yeah, and I hope with your intervention and the president's power, more good things will happen in the coming months. Steve Witkoff: We're hopeful. Jason Isaacson: So you've recently returned from your latest trip to the region with meetings at the highest levels in Israel, in Saudi Arabia, in the United Arab Emirates, next Tuesday in Cairo, will be a meeting of the Arab League to discuss the future of Gaza. What is your sense of, drills down on your last answer, what is your sense of the region's readiness to advance to the next phase of negotiations, to free the Israeli hostages, to shift to a new Israeli force posture in and around Gaza, and put a governing structure in place that excludes terrorists. Can we assure that Hamas no longer rules, no longer poses a threat, that its missiles, tunnels and other infrastructure in Gaza are destroyed? Steve Witkoff: Well, you know, central to the May 27 protocol that was signed with the Biden administration and the Israelis. Central to that is that Hamas cannot have any part of a governor governing structure in Gaza. And that's from that's a red line for the Israelis, but it's a red line for us, too. You see the film. And we have to thread that needle in phase two of the negotiations. Jason Isaacson: How do we get there? Steve Witkoff: We're not entirely sure yet, but we are working. You know, we're making a lot of progress. There is, Israel is sending a team right now as we speak, it's either going to be to Doha or to Cairo, where negotiations will begin again with the Egyptians and with the Qataris, and I may if that negotiation goes positively enough. This is the initial phase of the negotiation where we've set, we've set some boundaries, some contours about what we want to talk about and what the outcomes we expect to happen. This is from the United States at the direction of President Trump. If it goes well, maybe I would be able to go on Sunday to execute and finish an arrangement. That's what we're hoping for. Jason Isaacson: Put phase two on track. Steve Witkoff: Put phase two on track and have some additional hostage release, and we think that that's a real possibility. We had a lot of conversation this morning about that, and with all of the parties I'm talking about, and people are responsive. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. That's a very chaotic place the Middle East. Jason Isaacson: But you’ve got cooperation from the Quint, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar. Steve Witkoff: Yes. All of those countries in that region, they want to see, they want to see stability. There's new young leadership there. Everybody understands that it’s untenable to be at war all the time. It just doesn't work, and it's setting everybody back. Look at Israel, by the way, they're drafting, they're conscripting people at 50 years old to go to go to the fight. That’s, uh… Jason Isaacson: And reservists are being called back to duty again and again. Steve Witkoff: Correct. People can't work, by the way, economies are suffering throughout there. But on the other hand, Hamas can't be tolerated either, and yet, we need to get the hostages back to their families. Pardon me? Jason Isaacson: Israel is still resilient. Steve Witkoff: Of course it is. Of course it is. But we, you know, look, I don't want to talk about all these things and not acknowledge that the most that the primary objective has got to be to bring those hostages home. It has to be. Jason Isaacson: I mentioned the Quint before: Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar. Egypt and Jordan, longtime peace partners with Israel, were proposed by the president as the possible place in which Palestinians evacuated from Gaza could be housed temporarily, or perhaps more than temporarily. What is your sense of the possibility of the dislocation of Palestinians from Gaza? Is that essential to the idea of rebuilding Gaza, or not essential? Steve Witkoff: Well, first of all, let me acknowledge King Abdullah, and also the Egyptians, General Hassan, who runs their intelligence unit. President Sisi, their ambassador. They're dug in. They're focused on solutions. It's a complicated situation right now, but they've done a great job, and they've been available, and whenever I call them, they're responsive. The Jordanians have had a tough trip here, but, you know, they've managed through it. But let's just talk sort of about what the President talks about. Why is he talking about Gaza in the way he's talking about it? Because all the for the last four decades, the other ways of thinking have not worked. We sort of always get back to this place. First of all, it's a giant slum. It really is, by the way, and it's a slum that's been decimated. On top of that, I was the first American official to go there in 22 years. I was literally there in the tunnels, on the battlefield. It is completely destroyed. There's 30,000 shells that are laying all over that battlefield, in large part because the Biden administration held up munitions shipments to the Israelis, and they were firing 1973 vintage ammunition that didn't explode. Who would let their children wander around these places? In New York, there would be yellow tape around it. Nobody would be allowed to come in the they were digging tunnels. So everything underneath subterranean is swiss cheese, and then it got hit by 2000 pound bunker bombs. So you could have dust down there. It's so devastated. I just think that President Trump, is much more focused on, how do we make a better life for people? How do we change the educational frameworks? Right now, people are growing up there, in textbooks, in the first grade, they're seeing AK47’s, and how you fire them. That's, that's, this is just insanity. What's going on out there. So we have to directionally change how people are thinking there, how they're going to live together. People talk about two state we at the Trump administration, talk about, how do you get to a better life if you have a home in Gaza in the middle of a slum that hasn't been fixed up correctly, is that as good as aspirationally having a great job and being able to know that you can send your kids to college and they can become lawyers and doctors and so forth? That to me, is what we want to achieve. And when, when we began talking about Gaza, we were not talking about a giant eviction plan. What we were talking about was the fact, unlike the Biden administration, and this is not a knock on them, it's that they didn't do their work correctly, the Biden administration, that May 27 protocol is based on a five year redevelopment plan. You can't demolish everything there and clean it up in five years, let alone x-ray it on a subterranean level and figure out what foundations exist, or what, what conditions exist to hold foundations, and then what we should build. It's easily a 15 year plan, and it might be 20 or 25 years. And the Wall Street Journal, one of the most mainstream publications, two days ago, finally came out with a major article talking about that and basically validating what we've been talking about. Once you understand it from that perspective, you understand it's not about an eviction plan. It's about creating an environment there for whoever's going to live there that's better than it's ever been in the last 40 years. Jason Isaacson: Steve, thank you. Before October 7, 2023 the betting in many foreign policy circles, as you know, was that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel were closing in on a deal to normalize relations, coupled with an enhanced security agreement between the US and Saudi governments and Saudi access to the full nuclear fuel cycle under US safeguards. Where would you say that formula stands today? Is that still the framework that you're expecting will describe the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia and between Saudi Arabia and Israel? Steve Witkoff: Well, that's why I keep on going back to the May 27 protocol, because it's chock full of misinformation. And so the Saudis were operating, as were the Israelis, as if you could redevelop and reconstruct Gaza in five years. You can't. You can finish demolition, you can finish refuse removal, you can do all of that in five years. But for that, there's nothing else is going to get accomplished. So when the Saudis talked normalization with the Israelis and defense treaty, they were thinking about it on a five year time frame. Once you begin to think about it as a 15 or a 20 year deal, it almost begs the question, are Gazans going to wait? Do they even want to wait? I mean, if you're a mother and a father and you've got three kids, do you want to wait 20 years to maybe have a nice, safe home there? And this has nothing to do with relocation. Maybe we should be talking about relocation, or, excuse me, the ability to come back and, you know, later on. But right now, right here, right now, Gaza is a long term redevelopment plan, and I think once the Saudis begin to incorporate that into their thinking, and the Egyptians and UAE and everybody who has a vested interest in Gaza, I think you're going to see development plans that more mirror the way the President is thinking than what the May 27 protocol contemplated. Jason Isaacson: Are you suggesting that the possibility of normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia will come after there is a fully formed Gaza redevelopment plan? Steve Witkoff: I think so. Because I believe that. I believe it's just sequentially logical, because that's when you begin to think about how Gazans are going to think about it. Right now, we're talking about it in the abstract. And there are many countries, by the way, out there, that from a humanitarian standpoint, we've talked to many of them, are actually extending themselves and saying, Hey, look, we'd, we'd love to be a part of some sort of permanent solution for the Gazan people. No one wants to see the Gazan people in some sort of diaspora, they're sort of disengaged, and that doesn't work. That only is going to fester and lead to more radicalism in the region. So we've got to get a solution for it, but we need to levelset the facts first. And the facts have not been levelset. They've been thinking about this from a perspective of facts that are inaccurate. Now we've level set those facts. We're going to conduct a summit pretty soon with probably the biggest developers in the Mideast region, many of the Arab developers, lots of master planners. I think when people see some of the ideas that come from this, they're going to be amazed. Jason Isaacson: Steve, thank you. Final question, from AJC's many contacts and visits over many years across the Arab world, including regular exchanges over three decades in Gulf Cooperation Council countries, we've come to believe in the inevitability of Israel's full integration in the region, that the more the region's leaders and elites focus on the potential advantages to their societies, including their security of normal relations with Israel, the more likely it is that we'll achieve that goal. Is that the sense that you have as well, from where you sit? Steve Witkoff: I do. I think, look, I think that the people of Israel want to live in peace with with the people of the Middle East. And it... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/35473115

Why Germany’s Antisemitic Far-Right Party is Thriving Instead of Disappearing 02/25/2025

Why Germany’s Antisemitic Far-Right Party is Thriving Instead of Disappearing “In Germany after 1945 . . . it was always sort of an unwritten rule or law that the more radical these [right wing populist] parties become, the less votes they get, and at some point they just disappear. And what is troubling with the AfD is that the more radical they become, the more votes they get.” Following Germany’s recent election results, the far-right party AfD, or Alternative for Germany, is now a more prominent force than ever, doubling its support. Director of AJC Berlin Lawrence and Lee Ramer Institute for German-Jewish Relations Remko Leemhuis breaks down the rise of AfD, the role of Christian Democrat’s Friedrich Merz—widely expected to be Germany’s next chancellor—and the challenges ahead for Germany’s relationship with Israel and the United States. Leemhuis also discusses the dangers of political polarization and its consequences for the Jewish community in Germany. As the Christian Democrats form a coalition and Merz takes the lead, how will Germany navigate the rise of populism while strengthening its alliances on the global stage? 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 Remko Leemhuis: Manya Brachear Pashman: German citizens went to the polls on Sunday for the fourth snap election in that nation's postwar history. Public opinion surveys indicated that the far right party, AFD Alternative for Germany, was poised to play a larger political role than ever before. The party also has attracted significant attention from US political leaders of late, including US Vice President JD Vance, who, in addition to visiting a Holocaust concentration camp during a recent trip to Europe, also met with Alice Weidel, the head of Germany's AFD party. Here to discuss the outcome of the election, its impact on Germany's relationship with Israel, and the German Jewish community is AJC Berlin director Remko Leemhuis. Remko, welcome to People of the Pod. Remko Leemhuis: Hello, and thanks for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman: So if you could just brief our audience on who exactly AfD is- what their history is and their ideology? Remko Leemhuis: So the party started out in 2013 and started out as a – I don't want to make it a joke, but they started out as a sort of party of professors who were in opposition to the European austerity policy during the financial crisis. Meaning, especially keeping Greece, who was in a deep financial crisis, and they advocated for expelling Greece, for example, from the European Union, because they were afraid that their debt will be then sort of distributed among all member states of the Europeans. So that was their starting point. But that was also their only issue. And I remember that in 2015 they were around 3-4%. But then the party changed. We had, as many of your listeners know, the influx of over a million refugees from mostly Syria, and the party sort of reinvented itself. And from then on, migration policy, illegal migration, all of the issues connected to these issues were at the center. And from there, they rose, and again, radicalized ever since. And right now, the migration issue is their central issue on which they are campaigning. And it doesn't matter what you ask. I've seen a lot of these debates that we have before elections with all the heads of the parties, and it is really astonishing how the party is always able to tie every single issue to migration, be it taxes, be it–you can come up with every issue. At the end, it's always about migration, illegal migration, and migrants. And that is something that is their central platform. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well the Trump administration also made illegal immigration central to its platform, but I think what AJC here in America found so alarming about Vance’s meeting with Weidel, perhaps there was alarm there in Germany too, was the party’s clear record of antisemitism and hostility to America. Weidel herself has called Germany a “slave state” to America and Germany’s Holocaust remembrance culture a “guilt cult”. AJC pointed these things out after the vice president’s meeting. So did AfD do as well as expected, Remko? What are the election results so far? Remko Leemhuis: So we had the highest voter turnout since 1990. We were above 80%. 83-84% which is the highest turnout since 1990, so the elections after reunification. The AfD was able to double their result. In the last general election that around 10%, now they came in with 20%. And just for comparison, the Social Democrats came in with 15, close to 16%. So this is something that should concern us very much. The Christian Democratic Union, so the German conservative center right party won the election. Although not with that many votes as expected. So their aim was 30% plus X. They now have 28-29% but still they are the strongest party. And given German election tradition, the party with the most votes then forms the government and invites other parties to form a government. Manya Brachear Pashman: And that means that Friedrich Merz is poised to be the next chancellor. Is that correct? Remko Leemhuis: Yes, if he's able to form a government, yes. I mean, at this point, he still has to talk to one party, and this will be the Social Democrats, even though they lost almost 10% compared to previous elections. Together, they have a majority, and everything indicates that they will form the next government. Manya Brachear Pashman: Is there a possibility that Alternative for Germany or AfD could be part of the coalition as well? Remko Leemhuis: No, that has been ruled out by Friedrich Merz, given that he was ahead on the polls for at least over a year, he has ruled this out on numerous occasions. He has ruled it out yesterday in interviews, so there's no chance that the AfD will be part of a federal government. Manya Brachear Pashman: So is there any reason for concern, given the trajectory of this election, and given AfD’s results in this election? They came in second, correct? Remko Leemhuis: There's a lot of reason for concern, because we can say, of course, this is a broader trend in Europe and in the Western world, that you have the rise of these right wing populist parties. But in Germany, after 1945, it's not the first time that we have right wing extremist parties in Parliament, state or federal, but it was always sort of an unwritten rule or law that the more radical these parties become, the less votes they get, and at some point they just disappear. And what is troubling with the AfD is that the more radical they become, the more votes they get. And this is something that is pretty hard to grapple with, and where I very honestly, also don't have an answer why they are able to sort of break with this rule. But this is very, very troubling, especially in light of the fact, and that is something that is well known to the German public, that the German domestic security services are surveilling the AfD and classifying them as a case of suspected right wing extremism. So the whole party and three regional branches of this party are officially confirmed by German domestic security as far right. So which means that they are in opposition to liberal democracy. And this is something that, again, is very, very concerning. Manya Brachear Pashman: Of course, AfD did not win. The Christian Democratic Union won. Could that victory have any impact on the special relationship between Germany and Israel? This is, of course, the return of the party of Angela Merkel, correct? Remko Leemhuis: First of all, we have to get credit for the outgoing government coalition, because since October 7, this coalition has been a reliable ally of Israel. Of course, there were issues where there were differences, but in general, the outgoing coalition has stood by Israel's side, which was also recognized by Israel. And it is not just a talking point for Israel diplomats when they say that Germany is Israel's second most important ally. And they have done it despite the fact that they had a lot of pressure from their respective voter bases, especially the Greens and the Social Democrats. So this is something where we really have to credit these parties. Now, the Christian Democratic Union, as you have mentioned, is the party of Angela Merkel, and it's the party that and she came up with the term of the staatsräson (reason of state), and that Israel's security is essential to Germany's policy. I think there are areas where the relationship will even improve. And just to give you one example, we are talking, today on Monday, the day after the election. And it's really astonishing. Freidrich Merz gave a press conference today, the first after the election yesterday. And really the first question was about his call that he had with the Israeli Prime Minister yesterday. And he stated very clearly that he has invited the Israeli prime minister to Germany, and that he will find a way to make sure that the Israeli prime minister will be able to visit Germany without being arrested, given the ICC warrant, something that the outgoing coalition didn't say this clearly or said they will adhere to the ICC arrest warrant. So this is something that, from our perspective, is very positive. And also, I think that the military cooperation and the defense cooperation between Israel and Germany will again, first of all, all of that will not be, again openly debated, but again in the formats where they belong. And so in general, I would say the relations will improve. But this will not mean that also this government or the next government will only say, and do what Israel wants. But I think in general, the trend and the relationship will be more positive and even improve. Manya Brachear Pashman: So what about relations with the United States? As I mentioned before, Vice President Vance met with one of the AfD leaders. Do you foresee that relationship changing significantly? Remko Leemhuis: Well, first of all, I have to say Freidrich Merz is very committed to the transatlantic relationship. But yesterday, again, in a post-election interview, he said something that I thought I would have never hear from him. But he said that, We in Europe maybe have to grapple with the fact that the US will not be the sort of ally that it was before, and that we in Europe have to think about a situation where the US will only be very little or not present at all in Europe. Especially when it comes to war in Ukraine and the support for Ukraine. So even though he is very committed to the transatlantic relationship, given the recent developments he looks much more concerned to Washington and what is happening and what is coming out of Washington. Manya Brachear Pashman: In other words, he sees a bit of a destabilizing effect when it comes to transatlantic relations and security from the direction of the United States, not within Europe itself. Remko Leemhuis: Yes, destabilizing is the right word. And that doesn't mean that he doesn't see the failures that Europe and Germany has made over the past years. And I think that's something we also, as AJC, try to highlight every time. That the Europeans, especially the Germans, for decades, haven't lived up to their commitments when it comes to defense spending. And 11 years ago now, after Russia annexed Ukraine and the NATO states agreed on the 2% goal, Germany hasn't met this. And a lot of other European countries that are member of NATO haven't met that 2% goal. And the discussion about this goes even, you know, way back longer. I think it was even started with President George W. Bush, who always highlighted this issue and that the Germans, the Europeans, have to do more. And especially the Germans as the third-largest economy in the world and the biggest economy in Europe, has to shoulder more responsibility, which means they have to spend more. So he's very aware of the fact of all these shortcomings, and he's very willing to fix that and to spend more money on defense if the US cuts its spending here, if the US withdraws troops from the European continent. And still being aware that even if you know, Europe does its best, we will not be able to fill these gaps, because we just don't have the resources or the infrastructure to do that. So we still need the US, no matter what. So he will need to find a line, sort of working with the US, and then looking at what can Europe do to become a bit more independent from the US in all of these questions. Manya Brachear Pashman: So let's zoom in and talk about the impact of the rise of AFD on the German Jewish community. Has it given license to those who might otherwise keep antisemitic attitudes to themselves? Remko Leemhuis: So in general, as I said at the beginning, nothing of this is a big surprise. The AfD in the polls over the past year or so, I would say, you know, fared around 20%. So the result yesterday wasn't a surprise, and it was also not a surprise because we have seen the AfD having even bigger successes in state elections. But of course, this is concerning. This is concerning because the AfD is also a symbol of polarization, and polarization that we see across the western world, in all democracies at this point, I think, and historically speaking, times of polarization have never been good times for the Jewish community. But I also have to say that the German Jewish community is also very aligned in how to deal with the AfD, and that means no Jewish organization speaks to the AfD. Every Jewish organization at some point in time has come out against the AfD. We as AJC have had numerous publication on highlighting the threat to democracy, and by that also to the Jewish community, by the AfD. And the AfD so far, hasn't been successful in using Jews, or, you know, Israel, or pretending to be Israel's biggest friend and the Jewish community’s biggest friends. No one, no one buys into that, and everyone can see through that, and everyone understands that this is performative at best. Manya Brachear Pashman: Here in the United States, people of opposite political persuasions are honestly having a hard time facing each other. Those who voted for Kamala Harris, they see the speed with which Trump is enacting his campaign promises. They're having a hard time facing their neighbors who voted for him, or who had yard signs up for him. People are organizing boycotts of businesses and CEOs who are aligning themselves with Trump. Is the same dynamic playing out on the ground in Berlin or Munich, for example. Do you see that kind of, as you said, the polarization. Does it play out on the very personal level? Can neighbors face each other? Remko Leemhuis: Yes. I'm not sure if we see it to the extent that we see it in the US. But of course, we see that and that political questions, political issues, have become a dividing line among friends, among families, and that people stop talking to each other. And that is a very worrying trend, that this happens. I mean, of course, there is a line, where I would say it is legitimate to say, I'm not going to discuss these issues. And I personally, and we as AJC, don't talk to AFD. For the reasons we have talked about there's nothing for us to discuss with them. But yes, I have to say that, especially over the past weeks, we have seen even an increase in this polarization and in this lack of unity, at least in terms of, everyone agrees that it is okay to fight and to fight about the issues and to have even hard debates on issues. And this is part of democracy. And I guess we Germans also have to learn that, more that democracy means debating things and having hard debates about issues. But the last weeks have seen that it then ventures into contempt and denigration, and if you are not having this position, then you're automatically on the other side, not even to be talked to. And that you don't often run into people that have an opposing view, because we all live in a bubble, and that, I guess, the only place where you encounter people with different opinions is social media. And I guess we can all agree that social media is, for sure, not the best place to debate controversial issues. We all have to come out of our bubbles, that we all have to you know, even if we have political differences with other people, still see that there's much more that aligns us with most of these people, and that if one person doesn't exactly hold the same view as you on any given policy, doesn't mean that it is an inherently bad person. But still, someone that isn't just inherently bad, but your neighbor, your co-worker. And I think that is the biggest challenge for all democratic societies in the West at this point. Manya Brachear Pashman: Remko, thank you so very much for joining us and for explaining the outcome of this election and what it narrowly avoided. Remko Leemhuis: Not narrowly but, one thing is clear, and I think that is that is much more what I'm thinking about is that certain issues aren't addressed in a way that people feel, you know, they are addressed and they are taken serious. I mean, we just have to look to our neighbor, Austria, where an openly right wing extremist party is now the strongest party. And we should do everything we can to avoid that scenario. But that means then even having difficult debates and making also difficult decisions. But, if we want the center to hold, there is no alternative. And that's why our appeal as AJC is. And a lot of people find this lame or undecided, that we have appealed on numerous occasions, also in this campaign cycle, on all democratic parties to find solutions for the pressing issues and to find a middle ground. And this is what we will continue to do. And also we'll try to continue to then bring together people from different parties to debate these issues and give, you know, these conversations a platform, and do what we can do in order to facilitate such discussions, and hopefully by that, have a healthier culture of debate and a healthier political culture. Manya Brachear Pashman: Thank you so much, Remko. Remko Leemhuis: Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week’s episode, be sure to tune in for the second installment of our two-part series on the faces behind antisemitism as part of . I ask two Jewish college students about the report’s findings that nearly a third of Jewish students in the U.S. reported feeling uncomfortable or unsafe at a campus event because of their Jewish identity. Our guests shared their own experience. /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/35429030

Spat On and Silenced: 2 Jewish Students on Fighting Campus Hate 02/21/2025

Spat On and Silenced: 2 Jewish Students on Fighting Campus Hate Imagine being spat on as you walk across your college campus simply because you’re Jewish or being asked whether you’re a “good Jew” or a “bad Jew.” As part of , AJC and Hillel International partnered to document the experiences of Jewish students on campus over the past year. The findings are deeply troubling: nearly a third of Jewish students in the U.S. reported feeling uncomfortable or unsafe at a campus event because of their Jewish identity, and 43% avoided expressing their views on Israel due to fears of antisemitism. In the second installment of this two-part series, meet two students whose experiences reflect these alarming statistics: Evan Cohen, a senior computer science major at the University of Michigan and Vice Chair of Hillel International’s Israel Leadership Network, and Daniel Solomon, a junior studying political science and urban studies at Brown University who serves on AJC’s Campus Global Board. Resources: - - - Test Your Knowledge: -How much do you really know about how antisemitism affects Americans? and put your knowledge to the test. . 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 Evan Cohen and Daniel Solomon: Manya Brachear Pashman: As part of AJC's State of Antisemitism in America 2024 report, AJC and Hillel International partnered to document Jewish students' experiences during their time on campus. Last year, the report found that 43% of Jewish college students avoided expressing their views about Israel on campus or to classmates because of fears of antisemitism. 22% of Jewish students report feeling or being excluded from a group or an event on campus because they're Jewish, and 32% of American Jewish students said they have felt uncomfortable or unsafe at a campus event because of their Jewish identity. Here to share their perspective on the ground are two students who have become advocates for their Jewish peers. Evan Cohen, a senior computer science major at the University of Michigan, is the vice chair of Hillel International's Israel Leadership Network. And Daniel Solomon, a junior political science and urban studies major at Brown University who serves on AJC's Campus Global Board. Evan, Daniel, welcome to People of the Pod. Evan Cohen: I wish it was under better circumstances, but, you know, it's a pleasure to be here. Daniel Solomon: Thank you so much for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman: So gentlemen, I just read a bunch of findings from the most recent report. Do they seem too high or too low based on your national vantage points? Evan? Evan Cohen: So I think these findings are, sadly, not that surprising. We've seen and experienced an unprecedented amount of antisemitism over the past year and a half, give or take. Clearly, it's rising. Clearly students are experiencing this on their campuses, myself included. I definitely think that, you know, there's probably some cases where students are experiencing it more. In some cases it's less, but I think, you know, in general, it's way too high, like we should not be seeing as much antisemism on campuses. Manya Brachear Pashman: And Daniel, what do you think? Daniel Solomon: You know, the numbers seem about right. I have the opportunity of helping lead AJC's Campus Global Board, which really has a very wide perspective across the world and also across the United State. And we recently just met as a board in Lisbon where we discussed at length new trends over the past year in college antisemitism and around the world. And this really holds. We really found that this data is reflective of what we find in our qualitative experiences. Manya Brachear Pashman: One finding I did not just share at the beginning is that roughly 35% of American Jewish college students or recent graduates report having personally experienced antisemitism at least once during their time on campus. Did either of you have a personal encounter of your own over the past year? Evan Cohen: So a number of months ago, I was walking through the center of campus with a rabbi and a friend of mine, and we were spat at. And the unfortunate reality is, not only were we spat at, but when I tried to report this, I was basically told that, without identifying the individual by name, there was nothing that the university could do. And this was extremely frustrating, because we were spat at. That was a deeply upsetting experience. It's something that no one should have to go through just for being Jewish, but the fact that there was almost nothing that could be done about it. Besides, you know, maybe you know, here's how we can support you, which was not something that I was particularly in need of. It was disappointing to see that there was no strong response to that. Daniel Solomon: So shortly after October 7, my friends and I in our apartment, we held a small gathering, and you know, some friends brought mutual friends, and their friends brought mutual friends, which is totally fine. And so someone who I didn't know came up to me and looked at my door frame, and I have a mezuzah on my door frame. And she said, is that your Jew thing? Which, yes, it is, but it's called a mezuzah. And she said, Well, are you a good Jew or a bad Jew? And I said, What do you mean by that? And I knew exactly what she meant by that. She meant, are you a Zionist? Or are you an anti-Zionist Jew? And the conversation ended shortly thereafter, and we asked her if she would leave. Manya Brachear Pashman: This report came after the protests and the encampments that roiled college campuses, mostly in the spring of 2024 of the Jewish students who witnessed anti-Israel demonstrations after the October 7 terrorist attacks, 51% said that these protests or encampments made them feel unsafe on campus. How did your universities handle the encampments that popped up on your campuses? Evan Cohen: There was an encampment on our campus, it sprung up the morning of the first Passover Seder of last year. And I remember receiving a text at six in the morning or something. I woke up, the first message I saw was, Evan, Do you know what's going on? And I said, Oh my god, another thing to deal with. You know, it's about to be Passover like we're supposed to be preparing for the Seder. And, you know, I think that at our university was handled extremely poorly, you know? We were told the encampment is contained, yet it grew in size, you know. So at first it took over the main part of the center of the Diag, which is the main center of campus area at the University of Michigan, and slowly crept out into farther and farther areas of that center of campus Diag. And it was really disappointing, because at the end of the year, when it's finally warm, students are out there, they're hammocking, they're playing sports, even just reading and studying. And at that point, there was nobody besides those in the encampment. And so it really destroyed the end of year atmosphere that everyone always looks forward to. And again, like I said, I think it was handled very poorly. The university did not contain it. The university waited until after graduation. They were hoping, I believe they were hoping, that if they waited until after graduation, there wouldn't be disruptions at the graduation. While I personally did not graduate last spring, I had friends who did, and there were disruptions at that graduation. So clearly, that strategy did not work, did not pay off. Sometime after graduation, they announced that the encampment was being removed because of fire hazards. Now these fire hazards were hazards the entire time the encampment was there, I saw students plugging in various electronic devices, keeping themselves warm with space heaters. That's not something that you're supposed to be able to do there, and I do have experience, because I've had to reserve that space for, you know, pro-Israel activities in the past, and so I very much understand, first, what the rules and regulations are and how that process works. Very clearly, these rules were violated. And not only that, there was clear antisemitic imaging and speech that was spewing out of this encampment. Daniel Solomon: So, you know, first and foremost, our campus is a very big advocate of free speech, just collectively. So, you know, when the encampment originally went up, you know, the university made sure to emphasize the fact that, you know, it is free speech. But free speech, you know, has, you know, consequences, in the sense that setting up an encampment is against the university policy. So, within those guidelines, you know, the encampment was up for probably a day or two, and then I remember one evening, the members of the encampment started yelling to globalize the Intifada. And this was sort of the call on the university's end to say this is actually not okay. This is when it teeters on free speech and free expression. And, you know, voicing your opinions, however different they might be than most, this is actually when it gets into hate speech. And so that's sort of the moment that our university leadership really, really took, took control of the encampment, and it ended shortly thereafter. Manya Brachear Pashman: Of course, most antisemitic content and the anti-Israel vitriol is primarily spread online and on social media, and the data back that up, almost seven in 10 American Jews, 67% reported seeing or hearing anti semitism online or on social media in the past 12 months. The number jumps to 83% for young American Jews between the ages of 18 and 29 so your peers, how has social media, the digital landscape, shaped your encounters with antisemitism? Daniel Solomon: Social media is a big part of of our generation, and a part of how we how we bond together. Similar to other universities, Brown has a platform called side chat. Other universities, they might be called Yik Yak or something else. But the only way to access this app, which is a private a private company, not, you know, affiliated with brown, but the only way to actually access the brown only channel in Sidechat is to use your Brown email. So it's sort of an anonymous message board where anyone can post whatever they feel, whatever they think. Sometimes it's funny memes. Sometimes it's satire. In the context of the post October 7 world on Brown's campus, it was nothing, but, you know, atrocious really. It was really just a cesspool and a hotbed of antisemitism. And anti-Israel rhetoric that absolutely veered into antisemitism, but also really just classic, flat out antisemitism, you know, pointing out Jews in in, in great positions of authority in the country, and on college campuses specifically, and sort of trying to connect dots that really aren't connectable. And so Side chat was really just a really terrible hotbed of antisemitism. And then also, you know, those who were more bold antiSemites would really just blatantly, you know, leave comments in Instagram posts, you know, with their profile name visible, so you knew exactly who they are. And so, you know, the digital, the digital landscape, was absolutely a pretty crucial part of what comprised, you know, the anti semitism happening. You know, as I mentioned before, the campus, the campus that we see now is really the one, is really the one that I that I remember, you know, in my freshman year, the one that I made some of my closest friends, on the one where I developed some of my, you know, some of my academic ambitions. The campus that I really fell in love with is the one that I'm seeing now, and much different than the situation that we were in last year. Evan Cohen: I could talk about, you know, two specific examples. One example was the president of our SJP chapter. Sometime, I want to say, around last March, posted something to her personal public account that said something along the lines of death to everyone who supports the Zionist state, death and more, death and worse. And I believe that Regent Acker, who was on the podcast relatively recently, actually spoke about this, I think. And that was deeply disappointing to see, because, you know, studies have shown. I even read a study recently, I think it said that about 80% of American Jews support Israel, meaning they believe in Zionism, the right for Israel to exist safely and securely, for Jews to live there in our ancestral homeland. And so to say that, you know, that's basically calling for the death of Jews, the death of fellow classmates, fellow students. So that was, you know, extremely challenging to see and to deal with. And ultimately, there were effectively no consequences. The student graduated last, last spring. And you know, we saw, we saw nothing, no repercussions from this, this activity. Another example of online anti semitism. What I experienced was during a trip to Israel last May. As part of this trip, I was going to be bearing witness to the atrocities of October 7, and so we were sharing, me and another student from the University were sharing some of our experiences, and a screenshot was taken of us, and then over, over, on top of it were overlaid messages like settlers scum, and these students were celebrating genocide. Manya Brachear Pashman: Evan, how have these encounters, both on campus with the encampments and on social media? How have they informed your time working with Hillel on an international level? Evan Cohen: You know, it's very clear that antisemitism is extremely prevalent. It's clear that anti-Zionism, anti-Israel sentiment, is very prevalent, and that we need to be constantly working toward combating it and supporting students on different campuses, this manifests in different ways. So it requires different tactics, different strategies, depending on what school you're at, depending on what your individual needs are. But now being in this leadership position, it's amazing to be able to try to offer that support and use my experiences to then help other students on their campuses deal with the troubles that they are going through and what they are experiencing. Manya Brachear Pashman: I want to point out that a lot of this happened after the October 7 terrorist attack. A lot of what you're talking about, of course, the survey itself. But antisemitism doesn't just come from anti-Israel corners and Evan I know there were instances of demonstrators waving Nazi flags in Howell and Fowlerville outside a production of The Diary of Anne Frank. Those are small towns about 30 or 40 miles away from Ann Arbor. Have there been expressions of antisemitism from the far right on Michigan's campus? I think Evan Cohen: I think it was like the 2022-2023, academic year, the students received hate mail specifically targeting Jews, saying that Jews run the media, that they're responsible for COVID messages similar to that. I want to say that was even around the High Holidays timeframe. And so this was found like, you know, passed out around off campus, student housing. And so a number of students received messages like that. You know, we also saw post October 7 swastikas on or near Jewish buildings, for example, at Hillel one time. And so, you know, we're definitely seeing anti semitism from both sides. Manya Brachear Pashman: Daniel, your campus Antisemitism Task Force, for lack of a better term, it initially formed in response to hatred from the far right. Is that right or is that correct? Daniel Solomon: Yeah. So when I was a when I was a freshman, in my freshman fall, a terrible anti semitic threat was sent to the campus rabbi and executive director of the Brown-RISD Hillel that serves both Brown University and the Rhode Island School of Design, and that's sort of where we sort of came together and started really having very proactive and very productive meetings with with Brown's administration. Partially, I, you know, I will plug just a little bit that. I think that part, you know, the reason why I was so zealous to get involved was the training I received with American Jewish Committee, with the LFT program, the Leaders for Tomorrow High School Program. So we really came together. Started having these conversations with Brown's administration, and created this really, really positive relationship, which I think is a pretty Hallmark component of being a Brown student, is this really, is this really great relationship that we formed? And I think that, you know, leading into October, 7, part of what made Brown's response so effective was that we had this really dynamic relationship with administrators already, and that, you know, there's really no gap in between Brown's institutional Jewish leaders and Brown's administration. We have, you know, an incredibly supportive administration. And I think that was something that we saw following the incident and fall of 2022, and something that we continue to see all throughout you know, the post October 7 world. Manya Brachear Pashman: And Daniel, I'll ask you the same question I just asked Evan, how has that experience, that experience on Brown's campus, informed your time on AJC's Campus Global Board? Daniel Solomon: To be honest, it's actually a little bit of the opposite. I feel as though my time on AJC's campus global board has really provided such an incredible opportunity to understand the global landscape of campus antisemitism. And also, of course, you know, we want to emphasize the global landscape of Jewish joy that's happening on college campuses, because that is definitely not in short supply. Manya Brachear Pashman: You know, I'm curious, do you get questions from your peers back home, your younger peers, questions about whether or not your campuses are the right choice, the right fit for them? Evan Cohen: I think it's really important to mention that the Jewish students on campus do absolutely have a home here. We're working extremely hard to ensure that there is Jewish joy on campus, and there are organizations here to support Jewish students. It's imperative that Jews come to campus, that we continue to build a supportive community and that, you know, we're not just hiding, we're not just shying away from this. We're actively working towards improving campus and campuses drastically improved in the 2024-2025 school year compared to the 23-24 school year. So, you know, we're standing strong. We're standing proud, and we're not going to back down. There is a thriving Jewish community, and we're here to support you. We want you to come here. The University of Michigan has such a large Jewish population in part because a long time ago, the Ivy League schools had quotas on the number of Jews who could attend, and so the University of Michigan did not as such. We have a very strong Jewish community here, and I highly recommend coming here as long as you can bear, as long as you can bear and withstand the cold. Manya Brachear Pashman: Thank you both for joining us, and reflecting on the difficulties of 2024. May 2025 be more peaceful on your campuses. Evan Cohen: Thank you very much for having me. Daniel Solomon: Thank you for having me. /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/35382215

University of Michigan Regent Jordan Acker: When Antisemitism Hits Home 02/13/2025

University of Michigan Regent Jordan Acker: When Antisemitism Hits Home What would you do if jars of urine were thrown through the windows of your house in the middle of the night? How would you feel if antisemitic messages were spray painted on your cars? How would you respond if you were targeted simply because you’re Jewish? In the first installment of a 2-part series, meet a face behind the alarming findings of AJC's , the first analysis of the impact of antisemitism on American Jews and the U.S. general public for the full-year following Hamas’ October 7, 2023 massacre of Israelis. In this week’s episode, Jordan Acker, a lawyer and member of the University of Michigan's Board of Regents, shares what happened to him and his family in late 2024 when they were personally targeted by anti-Israel and antisemitic protesters. He criticizes the broader campus climate and faculty’s response, while emphasizing the need for productive dialogue and understanding as a way forward, all the while stressing the importance of standing up to antisemitism. Resources: - Test Your Knowledge: -How much do you really know about how antisemitism affects Americans? and put your knowledge to the test. . 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 Jordan Acker: Manya Brachear Pashman: For six years now, AJC has published the , and each year the findings become more alarming and sad. found that 77% of American Jews say they feel less safe as a Jewish person in the United States because of the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023. A majority of American Jews, 56%, said they changed their behavior out of fear of antisemitism, opting not to wear a Star of David, or put up a mezuzah. And a third of American Jews say they have been the personal target of antisemitism, in person or virtually, at least once over the last year. While the numbers alone are telling, the encounters with antisemitism behind those numbers are even more powerful. Here to discuss these findings, and sadly, his own family's experience with antisemitism in 2024 is Jordan Acker, a member of the University of Michigan's Board of Regents. Mr. Acker, welcome to People of the Pod. Jordan Acker: Thank you so much for having me. On such an unpleasant topic, but . . . Manya Brachear Pashman: Despite the circumstances, it's a pleasure to speak with you as well. So I want to tell our audience a little bit about what you experienced in the last year. Last May, the doorbell camera at your home showed a stranger, with their face covered, walking up to the front door, laying a list of demands, signed by the University of Michigan Gaza Solidarity Encampment. Laid those demands on your front porch. And then a month later, your law office in suburban Detroit was vandalized with anti-Israel phrases, profanity, directed at you personally. And then in December, you and your family awoke one morning to a pretty horrifying sight. So could you kind of walk through what you encountered last year? Jordan Acker: Yeah, absolutely. So you know, what's interesting about this is that as much as I oppose BDS, I was not the person on the board who was speaking about it, the people that were speaking about it were actually my non-Jewish colleagues. We’re an elected body, six Democrats, two Republicans, and universally, we oppose the idea of boycotts, divestment and sanctions, and we said so. We've affirmed this in 2018, we affirmed this in 2023. And at some point, while we had an encampment on our campus, it remained relatively peaceful to what other campuses have dealt with, until they started showing up at our homes. We had this happen, a list of demands. Ironically, including, defunding the police was one of the demands. And then, you know, it went to a different level, when it went from all of my colleagues to just me getting the treatment. My office is an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood. They went to my office in the middle of the night and spray painted messages all over it, including profanities. But they caused over $100,000 worth of damage. And I don't think that location was unintentional. I think that as people were waking up in the neighborhood, going to synagogue the next day, they wanted to make sure that people in that neighborhood saw what had been done. It was certainly on purpose. And what was so disturbing about it was that three student groups actually posted photos of it in the middle of the night on Instagram, before the police knew about it, before we knew about it, and then quickly took them down, obviously, because, you know, they realize this is a crime. And then things had remained relatively quiet through the fall. Experiences had been much different than prior semesters, until I was awoken about two in the morning to jars of urine being thrown through my window. And this had followed up several instances of similar incidents. On October 7, the president of our university, who's not Jewish, his personal home was vandalized. The Jewish Federation in Metro Detroit was also vandalized. The head of our endowment, a member of law enforcement, all of their homes were vandalized with pretty much the same messages. Ethnic related, calling them cowards, demanding divestment. Of course, the worst part for me was obviously the jars flying through my home. I have three small children, and having my oldest woken up to that was terrible. But they spray painted my wife's car with messages to divest, but also upside down triangles, which I think most Jews now take to see as a direct threat. That is a Hamas symbol for a target. And as I've said before, I'm not in the Israeli military. I'm not a military target. I'm not a target at all. I'm a trustee of a public university in the Midwest. And this kind of behavior, frankly, is unacceptable. It's unacceptable from any members of our community, regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum. And frankly, it's deeply antisemitic. And the fact that there's some people that are questioning that, or wonder why, is part of the problem, part of why we've gotten here. It's a deeply troubling time, I think, for American Jews, for a lot of these reasons. Manya Brachear Pashman: You said that you are the only Regent who has been targeted in this way any any sense of why. Jordan Acker: It's a good question. You know, I think there's a few different layers to this. I think being Jewish is a big part of the layer, obviously. But also a part of it is that I have a public social media presence. It's something I've maintained since, frankly, when I was running for this office. This is an elected office, obviously, in Michigan. And I think that has something to do with it, for sure. But the degree in the manner is very, very different. And it's really hard to understand why it would happen in this particular way. Again, except for, you know, an excuse to engage in violent behavior. You know what's so disturbing about this, and what is so heartbreaking to me is that, I understand, you know, for those who are on the other side of this issue, who care deeply about Palestinian rights and Palestinians having their own state? I care about that. I'm the only regent that actually met with SJP prior to October 7. Not because we agree on everything. We do not. But because there's some things that we do agree on. And by the way, the vast majority of American Jews agree on. I think that's what's been so disturbing about everything that's happened since October the 7th in America, is that you probably have no group of Americans that's more empathetic or sympathetic to Palestinians than American Jews. And yet, there's obviously a large group of this protest movement, or the remains of it at this point, that are deeply antisemitic and are using Palestinians essentially as a weapon to go after and to isolate American Jews. Manya Brachear Pashman: Are you the only Jewish regent? Jordan Acker: I'm not. At the time, we had three actually, of our eight-member board, were Jewish. But our board is almost universally pro-Israel and almost universally opposed to BDS, and has been for a very long time. And there are lots of reasons for that, but this is, you know, perhaps the person who's been most outspoken about this, interestingly enough, is Denise Ilitch, who, you know, if they were looking to attack a pro Israel business. Well, there are two Little Caesars locations on campus. Right, again, this has nothing to do with being pro-Israel. Coming to my office has a very distinct, very specific message that they're trying to send. Manya Brachear Pashman: You said there are a number of reasons why the Board of Regents is universally opposed to BDS. Can you explain those reasons? Jordan Acker: I think the first one, and I can only obviously speak for myself on this. The board speaks through its pronouncements and its decisions, but the biggest one actually is that, generally speaking, academic boycotts do not add anything to the conversation. They don't get people closer to resolving conflict. They don't even get people talking about conflict. And to me, that's antithetical to the purpose of the American University. One of the incidents that has most disturbed me over the last few months, other than obviously, the physical violence, but what's disturbed me is a group of mass protesters went to a lecture by a professor named Marc Dollinger, a guest professor on campus, and Marc Dollinger was teaching, as he does, about the relationship between the black community and the Jewish community during the Civil Rights Movement. And a group of mass protesters came in and said, We don't engage with Zionists here. And what I've told people is actually the second part of that phrase is deeply offensive, but the first part of that phrase, “we don't engage with” is actually antithetical to the existence of the University of Michigan, and should be tossed aside. We do engage. We engage with everyone, and we especially engage with the people that we disagree with. And so, that kind of speech and behavior is, to me, the most problematic. Because, again, American universities are places where deeply unpopular ideas should be thrown around. That doesn't give it as an excuse for violence, but it certainly is a place for deeply unpopular ideas, or for popular ideas, or for anyone who's different than you. That's the purpose of this. And yet, this movement has again decided that Jews, or people who are affiliated with Israel are uniquely deserving of being tossed out. And it's unacceptable and it's un-American. Manya Brachear Pashman: Is it just this movement, or has the campus climate been changing more and more in recent years, when it comes to a refusal to engage or the treatment of Jews on campus? Jordan Acker: I think that. It's a great question. So what I think is that what has changed actually is not the values of the students. Because, look, college students protest lots of things. When I was a student, BDS was an issue 20 years ago. What's actually changed is the faculty. And that's actually what's most concerning to me, is the way that our faculty has behaved, not all of them, and certainly not even a majority or a minority, but a small group, has behaved since this happened. Throughout this process, throughout these protests, any criticism of the methods has been responded to by the faculty as criticizing everything about the movement. And so I think the faculty has actually, frankly, made the situation a lot worse. You know, one of the things that I that I learn in conversations with other regents and other trustees across the country, and I'll never forget the story, because it's so telling about where we are here, a person was who's a professor at Columbia now, was telling a story about how he protested the Vietnam War. His mentor at Columbia, who was also opposed to the war, after they invaded Hamilton Hall, came up to him and said, I agree with you on what you're thinking. I don't agree with what you're doing. And we've gotten to this place now for some reason that we can't do that anymore, that our faculty can't say this is bad behavior, period and deserves punishment, while we also may agree with the underlying politics. What has been most disturbing is, is that, for example, our faculty senate still hasn't condemned the attack on the academic freedom of Professor Dollinger, and only condemned the attack on what happened to my family after I called out the Faculty Senate Chair publicly because she feels the need to publicly defend open antisemitism. And yet, when it comes to the safety of Jews, she's too busy. And it's really disturbing, quite frankly, and it's a disturbing reflection on our faculty. But I will say that since I pointed this out, I've had dozens of faculty members reach out to me and say, Thank you, thank you for speaking out about this. I don't feel comfortable either, but I can be fired. You know, these promotion decisions come from this group of faculty. So what I would say is, that there's real problems with the way faculty have been responding, and unlike students, they're grown ups, they're adults. And certainly, I don't want to infringe on academic freedom, but academic freedom does not include the freedom from criticism, and they deserve a lot of how we've gotten here. Manya Brachear Pashman: That's interesting that you heard from faculty who were grateful that you spoke up. And I’m curious, you said in an interview last year that since the October 7 attacks in 2023 many of us have been asked to distance ourselves from our Jewish identity. And I'm curious if you are hearing that from some faculty, if you're hearing that from students, can you explain what you meant by that? Jordan Acker: I will admit that I stole this phrase from Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo, is ‘protest koshering,’ right? And that's a really interesting way, I think, of what has been asked of a lot of Jews, that Jews have to apologize for their heritage or for their love of the people of Israel, even if, like me, they don't like the government of the people of Israel, right? And that's, I think, been a big challenge. But what I've seen mostly is, on our campuses, it's not so overt. It shows up in students avoiding certain classes, students avoiding certain professors, or students simply not speaking up at all. And again, those are really disturbing breaches of student academic freedom to have to choose. Oh, well, I can't take this class or that professor, even if that professor might be good, because I might be judged differently, or I might have to listen to a completely unrelated lecture about the Middle East. Or even worse, we've had professors, and frankly, they're mostly graduate student instructors, canceling class and encouraging people to go to protests. It's an unacceptable place to be. And again, part of the issue here with the faculty is, knowing where the border of your own political activism is and your taxpayer funded job is, right? They're different, and we have to get back to a place where we respect both of those. We can't stop someone from going out, engaging politically, nor should we. But the person also has a responsibility to not bring that into the classroom, especially when it's not directly related to their class. Manya Brachear Pashman: And so, what specific examples have you heard from students and faculty in terms of wanting to hide their Jewish identity? Are you hearing any examples of people who perhaps aren't wearing a Star of David necklace or aren't participating in Jewish events because they don't want to be identified as such? Jordan Acker: I'm not seeing much of that, to be honest with you, and I think that's a great thing. You know, I was really worried about this myself. I attended the last Shabbat dinner at Hillel prior to the end of the previous school year, and there were hundreds of students there, and it felt like any other Friday night. What I've gotten most from students is that they've been annoyed by it, but they haven't necessarily been, they haven't been overwhelmed. It hasn't been like UCLA or Columbia. It's like I said, it's been less overt. But I do think that there's been some level of, people keep their heads down right. And that's, I think, a big challenge and a big problem here. But I think, again, I think it's worse among the faculty, far worse among the faculty than it is among our students. I mean, imagine being a Jewish or Israeli professor on campus right now and thinking that someone like this is going to be responsible for your promotion, for your tenure decisions. Those things are highly disturbing, and we see this all the time. Just last night, you know, we see an epidemiologist who people want to protest because he's Israeli. Well, at some point it says, Well, how is this person able to get a fair shake on their own academic research at our university, if this is what happens every time you know, they're singled out in a way that, frankly, no Chinese student, or Chinese professor would ever be singled out. Because you would know that that would be clearly anti-Chinese racism. Somehow, this seems to be acceptable when it comes to Israelis and to Jews generally. And it's not. And you know, it's a big problem in the academy, quite frankly. Manya Brachear Pashman: You had also said in a previous interview that there has been an intense policing of Jews’ ability to determine for themselves what is antisemitic and what is not. Is that one example, are people actually willing to say, Oh, that's not antisemitic, that just because we protest him, because he's Israeli or Jewish, I would do people, is that what people argue or are there other examples that you can share? Jordan Acker: Well, you know, I had professors come to me and say, How could you say what happened to your office is antisemitic? How could you say what happened to your house is antisemitic? And I think that, honestly, in a lot of places, it doesn't come from a bad place. I think it comes from a place of not knowing, right? And I think it comes from a blind spot. And I think that's really the big issue here, is that there's a real lack of education and interest on the far left with, engaging with us. And I think it's frankly, you know, to say, Oh, it's a failure, the far left is not actually doing the Jewish community generally, a service. I think the Jewish community has also, quite frankly, failed when it comes to helping people on the left who are not antisemitic, but have very real, legitimate criticisms of Israel, helping them do so and engage in a way so the conversations are productive, while pushing out actual antisemitism. And that's, I think, a big difference. I think that we know, and we're very clear, and I know this, having just come back from from Israel about a month ago, that the criticisms of the Israeli government are quite harsh among other Israelis. And I don't think that stopping the Israeli government from being criticized in America is helpful at all either. I think it, frankly, deserves a lot of criticism, just like any other democratically elected government does. But it's the how, it's the what, who's the messenger? How does the message come across, that I think things are really lacking, and people are are really not understanding why it veers so frequently into antisemitism and how to tell people, you know, that language is not... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/35277415

Unpacking Trump’s Gaza Plan 02/07/2025

Unpacking Trump’s Gaza Plan During a White House press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Donald Trump made a stunning proposal: that the United States take control of Gaza. His remark sparked intense global debate. This week, we break down the implications with Jason Isaacson, AJC’s Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer. Jason examines the proposal and shares AJC’s perspective on what it means for the future of the region. 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 Jason Isaacson: Manya Brachear Pashman: During a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House this week, US President Donald Trump proposed that the United States “take over and own the Gaza Strip”, suggesting long term control and suggesting the Israel Hamas war would soon come to an end. Whether one considers the proposal innovative or absurd, the surprising declaration underscored the need for a new approach to Gaza's future. With us now to discuss the impact of the President's words is Jason Isaacson, AJC's Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer. Jason, thank you for joining us. Jason Isaacson: Thank you, Manya. It's good to be back. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Jason, I'll just ask you straight up, is this proposal innovative or absurd? Jason Isaacson: Well, of course, there are people who will say it's both. From my sense of the conversations I've been having in the Middle East over the last several days, last couple of days. First of all, it caught everybody by surprise. It does seem to be a little bit half baked, because there are many questions that arise when one starts digging into some of the details, which have been lacking. And it's also very important to point out that the day after the President presented this very surprising, innovative, out of the box proposal, there were comments from various White House officials that suggested, you know, don't take it quite so literally as the way it was laid out by the President. Even Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor, suggested that it really, in many ways, is an attempt to kind of change everyone's thinking in the region, and force, urge, somehow move the Arab states to put forward their own innovative proposals. Because clearly, we're stuck, and we've been in a rut for decades, certainly since the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip almost two decades ago. And over the last year and a half of terrible conflict, the last 16 months of war, it's clear that no reasonable plan has been put forward that will really nail down not only the release of the hostages right away–which is insane that you've had hostages held for 16 months–but not even achieving the objectives that had been laid out at the very beginning of this conflict by the Israeli government, which was the necessity of Hamas no longer ruling Gaza. Because with Hamas ruling Gaza, you will never have a two state solution. You'll never have Palestinian rights. You'll never have peace in that region. You won't have 10s of 1000s of Israelis moving back to their homes in southern Israel, you will not be able to make the kind of progress toward regional peace that is necessary. Hamas is an extremist terrorist organization that wants to kill Jews. Wants to destroy the State of Israel. They don't want a 2-state solution. They want the end of Israel. So they can no longer be in charge. They can no longer threaten the Palestinian people with their aspirations for political change, and they can no longer threaten the people of Israel. They can no longer govern Gaza. And no one has come up yet with the definitive path forward to eliminate that continued Hamas threat. So there is a ceasefire agreement, ceasefire hostage release deal, that is in progress right now. Ultimately, the third stage of all of that, after we get through the second stage, which is yet to dawn, would be a new governing structure, but that is still in the future, and it's still not clear that we're going to get there anytime soon. So the idea of putting forward something bold and new and totally different has a certain logic to it, even if elements of what the President was saying the other night seem to be wanting certain degrees of logic. But we're still trying to figure out whether it was a genuine proposal, or just a slap in the face of the region saying, Okay, let's do something different and bold. Let's move forward. Manya Brachear Pashman: Even if we aren't supposed to take this proposal quite that literally, can you explain the proposal and what led to it? Jason Isaacson: Well, the proposal, basically says, if I understand it correctly, that the United States would kind of take charge and would conduct demining and clearing of the rubble and coordinating the reconstruction of Gaza. Which would require, according to the President's formulation, the removal of the Palestinian population. Some 1.7, 1.8 billion Palestinians who live there and are living in terrible conditions right now because so much of the infrastructure and the homes have been either badly damaged or destroyed. And so there's a certain logic, certainly, if you're a real estate man and you know how to redevelop property, if you're knocking down lots of buildings and you're trying to put up something new, you've got to get the people out of the way. So I can understand that reason, that reasoning. But this is a population that doesn't necessarily want to leave. Obviously, maybe some do, but it's very clear that there is a long embedded national movement among the Palestinians, which clings to that land, as miserable as the conditions may be there. And so therefore, if you are going to follow the President's plan, which would require the removal of people, they will be removed against their will, many of them, at least, and where would they be moved to? Unclear. The President originally said several days ago that he thought that they should go to Egypt and Jordan. Both countries have said clearly, as clear as day, no thank you, we do not want them. Palestinians belong in Palestine, which doesn't yet exist. They don't belong in our countries. This was a long standing position of both the Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt. And then where else would they go? There is no market internationally for accepting hundreds of thousands, let alone more than a million Palestinian temporary dislocated persons. Not clear that they would be away for very long, although I think the way the President was describing this project, we could be talking about a 10 or 15-year redevelopment plan in which he envisions a Riviera on the Mediterranean, another Riviera on the eastern Mediterranean, which is, you know, a wonderful vision, but how we actually get from here to there with so many complications in the way is totally unclear. There will be so much resistance. There already is. Within hours, there were immediate statements of pushback from the region. So what I hope this will mean is people across the region, and AJC is staying in the region. We've been in Israel for the last several days, we had an AJC Board of Governors solidarity mission to Israel earlier this week, and then a number of us are staying on and talking to people across the region. We'll get a sense for how the region is responding and whether this plan to prod the region to come up with something decisive that will actually help resolve this problem in Gaza, end the terrorist scourge that makes it impossible to move forward on peace, makes it impossible for Israelis to live in peace alongside their Palestinian neighbors. We'll get a sense of that. Right at this point, really, the ball is in both courts. The American court, because clearly the president wants ownership of some kind of a solution to this problem. Israel obviously has a huge stake in this, a security stake, especially. And the region also wants to move forward, and wants to see a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and frankly, relief for the Palestinians who have suffered through this terrible war over the last 16 months, brought about by Hamas' attacks on Israel of October 7, 2023. So it's a period in which the people in the region cannot tolerate the continued misery in Gaza, the continued threat that Hamas poses to Israel, the continued holding of hostages, dozens of hostages who have not yet been released. We need to see an end to all of this. The President has put forward a dramatic proposal. It may or may not make sense. It's up for the region to actually step forward and see what else, what else could be put down that will allow us to move forward. Manya Brachear Pashman: So you are on the ground there. What has been the reaction to it so far on the ground? Jason Isaacson: Well, I mean, so far, there have been statements issued by regional governments. Some quite detailed. Others, just commentary. Making it very clear that they have no interest in the dislocation of the Palestinian population. And some have really been quite harsh in how they have phrased that. But I think there is also a realization, and I expect to dig into this further in the coming days, that something bold, something that we haven't tried before, is necessary. Because what we have tried before simply hasn't worked. And you even have, 16 months into this terrible war Hamas, still, as the basically the governing authority in Gaza. Even with the Palestinian population there, I think clearly understanding that this misery that they have faced for the last 16 months has been brought about by Hamas, by their cynical policy of placing their entire military infrastructure embedded in a civilian population, so that when they made this brutal series of attacks on October 7 and killed 1,200 people and captured 251 and kidnapped them and been holding them for months, knowing that there would be a massive Israeli retaliation, a massive Israeli effort to bring back these hostages and to punish those who came across the border and killed and raped and pillaged southern Israel. They knew that that was going to bring about enormous destruction. Palestinians in Gaza recognize that it was Hamas that did this. But still, they're stuck in this terrible cycle of being governed by the very people who have brought about this terrible misery to the people of the Gaza Strip. So we all know that we have to move forward into something different. The ceasefire and hostage release deal allows us in stages, to get to a better place to release all of the hostages. Some 18 were released as of yesterday. I think we're on track to release several more in the coming days and we hope all of them and the conclusion of the second phase. But we have to get through the second phase, and then we have to get to someplace else. So Hamas can no longer govern. We have to see a way forward to a resolution that allows us to envision peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the well being of the Palestinian population, the return of Israelis to the southern cities and towns and clearly, the release immediately, as quickly as possible, of the hostages who have been suffering for 16 months. Manya Brachear Pashman: Why do you think the White House has tried to walk back his comments? Jason Isaacson: Well, President Trump is famous for big ideas and bold statements and also sometimes saying things that kind of upset the norms of discourse. He's known for doing this in lots of different contexts, domestic policy, foreign policy. And it was very clear, the reaction from the region was so sharp, so immediate, that they had to find some way of explaining what the President intended. And the way they have framed it is that basically, this wasn't about the United States owning Gaza. It wasn't necessarily about the United States building luxury resorts and condominiums on the shores of the Mediterranean and Gaza, because there was also a statement that made it clear that there weren't going to be US troops involved, and maybe not even US investment involved. So it was just clear that there were holes in this plan. It was a kind of a big, dreamy vision, intended as we are hearing from the White House in the days after the President spoke to kind of shake up the establishment, the establishment in the region, the establishment in the sort of the foreign policy community and and force people to come up with a better idea, a clear path forward that would rebuild Gaza without Hamas, and allow the Palestinian people some relief from all of this, and obviously assuring the security, the release of the hostages, and the security of the people of Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman: You've mentioned the hostages coming home in the days to come. But do you think this declaration could derail the hostage agreement the first stage of it, especially given second stage negotiations have not even begun yet? Jason Isaacson: Well, there is that danger, and that is one of the points that that AJC made in the statement that we issued immediately after, the day after the President spoke. While also recognizing that what he did say about the alliance between the United States and Israel was hugely important. The fact that he received Prime Minister Netanyahu as the first foreign visitor to the White House in this second Trump administration sends a powerful signal to the region. Certainly to our community, but to the region, that Israel's security is vital to the United States’ national interest. He was very clear about that, and also very clear about the threat posed by Iran and the necessity of pushing back against the Iranian nuclear threat, but also its support for proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, of course, in Lebanon and others in Yemen and Iraq. And other changes that will have to be made to this ring of resistance, of fire that the Iranians tried to strangle Israel with. The President's been very clear about all of that, and it's really welcome, and we welcome that. But we had to express concerns about the policy, the proposal that was put forward on Gaza, because it clearly rattled the region, and it could–if the signal to Hamas which is in negotiations with Israel through Qatar and Egypt and the United States, if Hamas, which continues to hold hostages, sees that there is some alternate universe that the administration is proposing in which they would just clear out the whole area–how does that affect their thinking about their hopes that they can still have some kind of a presence in Gaza, which we don't want. Israel can't stand. Frankly, the region doesn't want either. But it could be that if Hamas is negotiating with a sense that they have some future in which they will still have some role to play in the conduct of affairs in Gaza. This remaking of the entire map could force them to retreat and to say, You know what? Maybe we're not going to go ahead with these negotiations right now. We're going to rethink our position, and that would be terrible. It is imperative that the process that was set in place on January 19, the last full day of the Biden administration, with very strong support from the incoming Trump administration, move forward. It is essential that we move forward on the hostage release deal. And Israel will continue to protect itself, will continue to have a security presence in the region. But will end the war at least while this is going forward, assuming that Hamas abides by the agreement, and Hamas, then, in the next stage, no longer governs Gaza. Manya Brachear Pashman: We've talked about the impact of this proposal on the hostage negotiations. What about expansion of the Abraham Accords, which was certainly one of the major milestone achievements of the first Trump administration. You are in the region now, that is something that you have worked very hard for for decades. How could this derail the expansion of the Abraham Accords? Jason Isaacson: Well, the Abraham Accords, the whole idea of expanding Arab-Israeli peace, of Israel's integration into the region, is so abundantly clearly in the interest of the region. We have seen again and again instances in which it's been proven, demonstrated of the advantage that accrues to the region by having Israel as part of the region, instead of pretending that it's somehow separate from the region. What happened last April, what happened last October, when Iran fired missiles and drones to Israel and the region joined Israel a couple of countries, not the entire region, couple of countries in the Arabian Gulf, joined with Israel and with Israel, but also with the United States and with the UK and other navies and air forces to combat this incursion. You have the creation, the emergence, of a regional security architecture in which Israel plays a significant role. The benefit of that is so clear to wise leaders across the region that I am completely confident that that progress will continue. Even if this weird statement was made by the White House the other day. I want to read that, and I'm hoping that I will hear from contacts across the region that they want to hear that as just simply a clarion call for something new and bold and different that can break us out of the. Paralysis that we are suffering in Gaza without having any effect on the natural course of progress in Arab Israeli peace and cooperation, security infrastructure, exchange programs of various kinds, medical technology, the public health, education, water resources, environmental issues. There are so many things that are happening at a lower level right now that when the cover is removed and it's allowed to kind of move forward, is extremely exciting to people across the region. Which is why, by the way, last June, at the AJC Global Forum in Washington, AJC CEO Ted Deutsch announced the creation, launch of the AJC Center for a New Middle East, which builds on the work that we've been doing for decades to introduce people to each other across the Arab world, with Israel, with our community to talk about the benefits that will accrue to the people of the region from Israel's integration in the region, the contributions that Israel continues to make and will make in a much amplified way if it is accepted and normally interacting with its neighbors, as It does with now, in the last four years, with the UAE and Bahrain and Morocco. And of course, has had long standing peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, with which, even though there are many disagreements and dissatisfaction with these agreements, they have been enormous contributors to regional peace and stability, and frankly, the welfare of both of those countries as well. So the advantages are clear. We've been part of this process for a long time. We will continue to be part of this process. Whatever is said in the way of unusual statements from the White House about new ways forward that don't fit into the normal pattern of diplomacy. The leaders of the region understand that this is the direction that they should be pursuing, and we will continue to encourage that process. Manya Brachear Pashman: Jason, thank you so much for joining us. Jason Isaacson: Happy to be here, Manya. /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/35198005

Empathy Is Who We Are: Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove on Being Jewish Today 01/30/2025

Empathy Is Who We Are: Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove on Being Jewish Today “To be a Jew is to know that because of who we are, because of our historical experience, we care for the other. This is really one of the great tensions of our moment. Of how to be eyes wide open to Israel's need for self-defense, and at the same time recognize the real suffering that's going on in Gaza and to know that we need to find a way to hold both of those together.” Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, spiritual leader of Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, explores the complexities of Jewish identity in a post-October 7th world in his new book, For Such a Time As This: On Being Jewish Today. In this conversation, he unpacks the tension between Israel’s need for self-defense and the suffering experienced by Gazans and Israelis and the challenge of balancing empathy with vigilance. He also shares his personal journey to the rabbinate and what it means to live as a Jew in this pivotal moment. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Sign up for AJC Global Forum: Register at for the premier global Jewish advocacy conference of the year, in New York City, April 27-29 2025 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 Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove: Josh Kramer: AJC Global Forum is returning to New York City, April 27 to 29th 2025. I'm Josh Kramer. AJC New York Regional Director, and I hope to see you there. You won't want to miss this opportunity to join with more than 2000 other activists and engage in thought provoking discussions on the future of the Jewish people, Israel, America, and the world. Our program will feature large plenary sessions with headline speakers, smaller breakout sessions designed to explore the key political, strategic and social concerns affecting the global Jewish community, and exclusive opportunities to engage with diplomats, decision makers, interfaith partners, community leaders and more. Will you be in the room? Register today at to take part in the premier global Jewish advocacy conference of the year. Now is the time to join AJC in shaping a new future. Head to . Manya Brachear Pashman: I've done quite a bit of soul searching in the 15 months since October 7. How do I grapple with the tragedy in Israel and Gaza and the hatred Jews face on American soil without scaring my children away from Judaism? Then came our Temple's Purim spiel last spring. That story of Queen Esther's bravery, in some ways, helped. It was about that same time that Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, the spiritual leader at Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, picked up his pen and began to write his latest book, named for a line in Queen Esther's tale – For Such a Time As This: On Being Jewish Today. Rabbi Cosgrove is with us now. Rabbi, welcome to People of the Pod. Elliot Cosgrove: Thank you. It's great to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman: So I have to tell you, rehearsals began for this year's Purim spiel as I was reading this book, which made it all the more powerful. What inspired you to write this? Elliot Cosgrove: Well, for me, I draw wisdom from text, and I was trying to think of what would be an analogous moment for what we were going through as American Jews from the ancient text. And for me, as you say, this is now on the cusp of Purim 2025, it was the story of Esther that we read. And in many of our synagogues, we have Purim spiels, where we act out the story, which is basically the story of a Jewish community of ancient Shushan who believed themselves to have it good, that they were comfortable in the diaspora. And the wicked decree of Haman came down and Esther, whose name actually means to hide, she hid herself, her Jewish identity in the king's palace, and believed that she was comfortable there. When the decree came down, Mordechai, her uncle, by way of an emissary, sent a message to her. “Don't think yourself to be safe from Haman's decree. Who knows, if it was not for such a time as this that you've arrived at your station.” And I saw this as really the calling card of our moment that we all felt ourselves in the wake of October 7, Esther-like called to action. The trauma of October 7, but also the call to action, to step up to the moment, the needs of our people. Manya Brachear Pashman: Tell us about your writing process. Elliot Cosgrove: I buried myself in my writing from before dawn until mid-morning, and then I would hit a wall. And I didn't take a sabbatical. I actually went into my day job as a congregational rabbi. It was a very intense writing process and then in the course of about three to four months sent the manuscript off to the publisher. Manya, the thing about the book is it was very disorienting to write as the events were playing out, both in Israel and in the States. And one of the worries that I had that I spoke to the publisher about was, well, what if this becomes dated? You know, it was not journalism, but I was writing as the news was happening, and the good news and the bad news is that the themes that I pick up on: the trauma of Israel, the blurred line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, how we balance empathy and vigilance, the question of the hostages, of thinking about a day after for Israel and the Palestinians, these questions are not only still relevant, but they're actually more pressing than ever. So unfortunately, the themes that I hit on in the book, very much present right now. Manya Brachear Pashman: How did that writing process help you personally process what you were witnessing and experiencing as a Jew in America? Elliot Cosgrove: I'll say this, that as a rabbi, I often see my job–someone calls, they've just gotten bad news in the hospital, a loved one has passed away. Or a happy thing, that their child has just gotten engaged, or they themselves have just become new parents. And people turn to clergy to get the first line of constructing the narrative of what it is they are experiencing. And for me, there is something deeply personal and deeply pastoral about this book, because I feel like it's seeking, hopefully, to give the language to American Jews as to how to construct this new reality of a post October 7 existence, the jumble of emotions, of trauma, but also the emergence of Jewish identity, the likes of which we've never seen before, the argument for continued defense of Israel's right to self determination, as well as an assurance that the traumas of October 7 never happen again. And in the same breath to think actively about what does the day after look like. I think we're all searching for language for these and other tensions of our moment, and I'm hoping that the book is sort of a vocabulary builder for our time. Manya Brachear Pashman: One word that you used many times in the book, and it stuck with me, just because maybe it's one of my favorite words, and that is empathy. And you used it in different chapters, different contexts. And I'm curious if you could share with the audience the role of empathy and how it is a guiding force, how it has been a guiding force since October 7. Elliot Cosgrove: Empathy, both its presence and its absence, has been a subplot of this moment, because I think empathy is ingrained into the Jewish DNA. You open up the Passover Haggadah, and on the one hand, we know that we are vigilant against every generation a pharaoh arises to destroy us. We are guards up. We are a people who knows the importance of ancient hatreds, of being vigilant against them, and also the ring of fire that Israel sits in by way of Iran and its proxies. I mean, Israel's in a very tight spot, and American Jewry is in a very tight spot. And at the same time, empathy is who we are. You were once a stranger in a strange land. Therefore you should know the heart of a stranger. To be a Jew is to know that because of who we are, because of our historical experience, we care for the other. And I think that this is really one of the great tensions of our moment of how to, you know, be eyes wide open to Israel's need to self defense, and at the same time recognize the real suffering that's going on in Gaza and and to know that we need to find a way to hold both of those together. That Israel needs to fight this war as if there's no tomorrow, and Israel has to fight this war with an eye to tomorrow, with the same ferocity that it prosecutes this war, it has to pursue a day after plan. And I think that somewhere along the way, it's the voices on the extremes who are speaking with the loudest megaphones. And the goal of this moment is to realize that we need to find a way to embrace both. I think it was Fitzgerald who said the test of a great mind is the ability to hold two opposing ideas and retain the ability to function. I think the test of the Jewish community right now is the ability to hold both vigilance and empathy at the same time and retain the ability to move forward with hope. Manya Brachear Pashman: And how can empathy help here on American soil, where we're facing protesters, we're facing all kinds of opposition and questions and hatred because of what's happening overseas. How do we use empathy here on American soil? Elliot Cosgrove: First of all, it's hard. It's hard. When you are under attack, the last thing anyone wants to do is feel someone else's pain. When someone is calling me a colonialist oppressor, when someone is calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, something which is part and parcel to my identity, core to my very being – my initial instinct is not to inquire into how they feel and have empathy. My initial instinct is to have shields of self-defense, prioritize the needs of my people over anyone else's. I think that's a human thing to do. And as long as the hostages are hostages, as long as Israel stands in a vulnerable position, I think we need to be eyes wide open to that, and then we need to breathe, and we need to remember what it means to be a Jew. And we need to remember that it takes two to tango, and that if we are going to create a future whereby Jews and Palestinians can live side by side in safety and self determination, then we need to realize that there are two peoples worthy of realizing that dream, and that requires empathy, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman: You were not always that religious or observant of your religious tradition. Can you tell our audience how you became a rabbi? Elliot Cosgrove: How long do we have? This is a big question, but, look as with any way we construct our realities and tell our origin stories, there are a million ways to tell it. The truth of the matter is, I am the grandson of a congregational rabbi, an orthodox rabbi. So to say that I had somehow strayed from the path is a little bit of an overstatement. But I will say that I grew up in a traditional Jewish background. I'm very proud of the home I grew up in, but when I went off to college, it was very much something I did, Judaism was something I did at home. And I can't say that my first few years at my alma mater at University of Michigan were known by way of my religious affiliations and commitments. And then I got a phone call my junior year of college, that a figure from my youth, a grandfather figure I never really knew. My grandparents had passed away, and he was a guy who used to sit next to us in synagogue and slip me up peppermint candy as the rabbi was about to start the sermon or come over for Passover Seders or Shabbat dinner, Mr. Gendun, and he had passed away. And I got the phone call. I said, What would Mr. Gendun want me to do? And I thought, maybe I'll say Kaddish. So I called one of my Jewishy friends. I had never been inside the Hillel building up until that moment. And I called up one of my Jewishy friends and I said, What's, where's the Hillel? And they said, you're an idiot, Elliot. It's this huge building right on campus at Michigan. And I went in and I said my Kaddish, and I was getting up like it was the end of an airplane ride just to run back out to whatever my evening plans were. And a man stood between me and the door, boxing me out, and I was trying to shimmy one way and the other. And he said, I notice you've never been here before. And he said, Well, I'm wondering if you'd like to come to Shabbat dinner. And I lied, truth be told, because I figure he didn't want to know about dollar pitcher night. And I said, I already have Shabbat plans. And he said, Well, do you have Shabbat plans next week? And I was caught in my tracks, and I said, No, and before I could say another word, he said, Good, then you'll come over for Shabbat dinner. And that man was Michael Brooks, who was the Hillel Director of the Michigan Hillel. I went over to Shabbat dinner. I got involved in the Israel group. I was an editor of the student journal. I sat on the Hillel governing board. One thing led to the other, and I became a rabbi. But important [as] that story is obviously in my own religious formation and choice of vocation, is how it informs my own life and my own rabbinate. It's that ability to look around the room when you're in a class, a Jewish event, a service, and who's the person who looks a little out of place like they might have been there for the very first time, and just do that small human act of reaching out to them, and whether you're going to invite them to Shabbat dinner or not, but just to acknowledge their humanity, that has been the north star of my rabbinate ever since. We're all just human beings looking for a place to hang our hats. Manya Brachear Pashman: You talk about empathy. I think empathy caught my attention every time you mentioned it in the book, because I think it's so key to journalism. It's such an important component of it. And then I think hospitality is such an important component to Judaism and to congregational life, Elliot Cosgrove: Absolutely. Hospitality is something that is key to our text at the beginning of the Passover Seder. But hospitality is also a spiritual demeanor that we welcome people into our souls, into our presence, into our life. Hachnasat Orchim in Hebrew, this idea that there's always space within our souls, within our hearts. Manya Brachear Pashman: Having had such an important turning point on a university campus, how did you interact with, council, university students during this time, as they were facing such pressures and such opposition, crushing opposition during this past year and a half? Elliot Cosgrove: So there's a chapter about that in the book. It's really the part of the book that I think has struck a nerve, and appropriately so, because I'm the father of four college age or thereabouts children. And that story I tell about Maya, and Maya is a young woman who, I joke, shares half a brain with my own college age daughter. She's grown up in my household, and she is what you or I might identify as a non Zionist Gen zer, and she approached me and perhaps reproached me for having a Israeli flag on the pulpit, for doing the prayer for the State of Israel in the midst of the service, and said, you know, and she grew up in the Jewish Day School. She grew up going to Jewish summer camp. She did gap year programs in Israel. Not a small amount of money has been invested in the Mayas of the world, and she herself is asking whether or not her liberal, American Jewish self can be simpatico with the policies of this or that Israeli government, because they don't speak for her sensibility. And to this question of empathy, I think the first move one makes in any such situation is to try to understand where the other person is coming from. And I think a 21, 22, 23 year old is coming of age in a moment of time where the only Prime Minister they know of is Bibi Netanyahu, who either is or is beholden to the most right-wing elements of Israeli society. The only policies they know of the Israeli government are an expansionist policy in the West Bank, which has precluded the possibility of a two state solution. The only paradigm they have is an Israel which is a Goliath to the Palestinian David, this is their reality. You can't blame someone for the time into which they are born. I can pick apart and engage in a dialog on what's true and what's not true. But to tell someone that their reality is not, their reality is is not, you know, a move that one can make. And by the way, if they're during the time of the judicial reform, and to this day, there are 1000s of Israelis marching on the streets on a Saturday night protesting the Israeli government as an expression of their love of country. To tell the Mayas of the world, a college age student today, that they are treif, they are beyond the bounds of Jewish discourse, for doing the exact same thing is just an argument that doesn't hold water anymore. And so the the the goal here, Manya, is to engage with their questions, to listen intently, to prompt that young mind to come up with their own answers for the defense and the well being of the Jewish people, given the harsh realities that Israel faces, and also to make room for their very real question. So I look long on the Maya generation. It's actually a controversial moment within the organized Jewish community –do we write them off, do we not write them off? I think they're our future, and I think we do terrible damage to ourselves if we write them off. Manya Brachear Pashman: Because it is such a time as this. We have to pay attention to the context, right, and to where we are in history, without losing sight of history. Elliot Cosgrove: Look, it's very easy to take pot shots from the left and from the right. You know where this brave space is. The brave space is standing in the middle and dignifying the claims and counterclaims of both sides, and knowing that real leadership is trying to keep our people together. Manya Brachear Pashman: Your book does such a beautiful job of inspiring that sense, sparking those, those right emotions in my head. So thank you so much for writing it. And I encourage all of our listeners to pick up a copy of Rabbi Cosgrove's book–For Such a Time as This: On Being Jewish Today. It is full of challenges, and I think that the challenge is worth facing and taking on. Thank you. Elliot Cosgrove: Thank you so much, Manya. /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/35088965

The Oldest Holocaust Survivor Siblings: A Tale of Family, Survival, and Hope 01/23/2025

The Oldest Holocaust Survivor Siblings: A Tale of Family, Survival, and Hope When the USC Shoah Foundation named three sisters and their brother from Sanok, Poland the oldest surviving siblings of the Holocaust, Canadian Jewish filmmaker Allan Novak, the son of one of those shvesters (sisters in Yiddish), realized it was time to use the footage he'd been collecting for years to tell their story. The result? Crossing the River: From Poland to Paradise – a heartwarming short documentary about how members of one family miraculously survived the Holocaust by staying together with each other and their parents. Listen to this conversation with Novak on his family’s dream of moving to Israel, unwavering resilience, and positive outlook, despite losing 80 family members to the horrors of Nazism. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Resources: Watch the film: Artist Zoya Cherkassky print created in the spirit of the film: 250 signed and numbered prints will be sold with 100% of proceeds going towards Holocaust education through a series of initiatives developed and implemented in collaboration with AJC. The cost of the prints is $250. They can be purchased by credit card by calling 212-891-1454 or by emailing [email protected]. Or, you can send a check made out to AJC to the address below. In all instances, please be sure to mention that this is for a Zoya print. American Jewish Committee - 165 E. 56th St., New York, NY 10022 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 Allan Novak: Ruth Zimmer: That's a camera. Allan Novak: No, this records sound. Sally Singer: [in Yiddish: It's so small.] Ruth Zimmer: Ok, Sally. Allan Novak: Meet the shvesters: Auntie Ruthie, Auntie Sally, and my mum, Anne. Anne Novak: I'm the quiet one. Ruth Zimmer: And I'm the pisk (loudmouth). Allan Novak: Along with my uncle Saul, they've been together since the 1920s. As they began to hit 100 the media started to take notice, and when the USC Shoah Foundation named them the oldest Holocaust survivor siblings in the world, I knew I needed to tell their story now. Ruth Zimmer: What do you want us to . . you want to ask questions? Okay, that's easier. Allan Novak: I want to talk about the war. ____ Manya Brachear Pashman: When the Shoah Foundation named three sisters and their brother from Sanok, Poland the oldest surviving siblings of the Holocaust, filmmaker Allan Novak, the son of one of those sisters, realized it was time to use the footage he'd been collecting for years to tell their story. The result? Crossing the River: From Poland to Paradise – a heartwarming short documentary about how members of one family miraculously survived the Holocaust by staying together with each other and their parents. Allan is with us now to talk about his extraordinary aunts, uncle and mom and this equally extraordinary Holocaust story. Allan, welcome to People of the Pod. Allan Novak: Thank you, Manya, great to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman: So you had been recording interviews and kind of a life with your family for decades, right, while kind of working on various other projects. But what finally moved you to make this a project? Allan Novak: Sure, well, I've been filming them since I got my Bar Mitzvah Super Eight camera a while ago, in the 70s, actually. And, yeah, I've been collecting footage, you know, at different times. Was inspired to interview, to capture their story, but really, more is just kind of a personal archivist kind of project. But then when the Shoah Foundation identified them as the oldest Holocaust survivor siblings in the world, as you mentioned, I kind of posted that in my social media. And then there was a huge reaction. People just loved this idea that these people survived all this, and we're still together and survived, and we're thriving, in fact. And actually had a producer friend of mine inquire about where the rights available to their story. So I had to laugh, because, you know, I'm a filmmaker, so I immediately realized that somehow, you know, my little family story had kind of broken in a way, and it didn't deserve to be told and shared with the world. Manya Brachear Pashman: So without giving too much away, can you tell our listeners a little bit about these extraordinary family members and what your relationship with them was like growing up? When did you realize they had such an extraordinary backstory? Allan Novak: Well, you know, they often talked about, you know, Siberia, which is where they survived the war. And they were, they were kind of small little stories. And I understood they were hungry and it was cold and that kind of a thing, but it was always kind of light hearted, and there was laughter. You know, my auntie Ruthie, who is prominent in the film, she was an actress in the Yiddish theater, and she's really a natural comedian, and so she would always, they would make it funny. And my uncle, Saul, I call him the most positive person in the world. He actually also would look on the bright side of things. So although they went through, you know, really tremendous trauma, somehow the way they processed it was with a positive outlook. And that kind of rubbed off on me. So I never felt, you know, unlike the people whose parents were unfortunate enough to have been in places like Auschwitz and under the Germans, I didn't have that sort of really, really dark sense of a traumatic story, but rather kind of this sort of triumphant survivalist story. So survival is kind of the key word and positivity together. So that's how I saw them growing up, as sort of somewhat fun old country of uncles and aunts. Manya Brachear Pashman: Now one of the reasons your mother and most of her siblings survived is because the river that ran through Sanok also divided it into German and Russian territory, and your family fled to your great grandparents home on the Russian side, but about 80 of your family members stayed on the Nazi occupied side of Sanok and were murdered. One of them was your uncle Eli? Allan Novak: Yeah, yeah. Eli. Manya Brachear Pashman: Eli, yeah. Who did not stay with the siblings and parents. He had a bad feeling about where the Russians might take them. Did you ever get a sense of why the rest of the family stayed on the west side of the river in Nazi occupied Sanok? Allan Novak: You know, it's a sad thing, but part of it was economic. You know, my grandfather had a relatively prosperous butcher shop. It was unusual because he supplied meats to the Polish military regiment there, but also to Jews. So he sort of had a half kosher, half not kosher shop, which was, I didn't even realize that could exist, but it did. He was quite Orthodox, and so they were sort of comfortable, but they shared a house, for instance, with my grandfather's brother, and he had like nine kids, and he wasn't so successful. And so when I asked them, like, Why didn't everybody go over to the other side? It's like they didn't have the money to hire a driver, horseman, get across the river. And so it was just unfortunate. And as well, it was my mother's grandmother that had the property, so on the father's side, they didn't really have that option to sort of show up on the other side of the family. So it was kind of cruel twists of family and economics and also nobody knew, like they didn't know that that would be the right side. Nobody knew what would happen. You know, the week the Germans marched into Poland in September. So, you know, they went with their instinct, stay with the grandmother. But nobody knew what would happen. And of course, Eli, the brother, thought he was making the clever choice. He thought he was going to survive because he didn't want to get on the train. Manya Brachear Pashman: How old were these people when they made these decisions to stay together or stay in Sanok? Allan Novak: So there were five siblings. Sally, the oldest, would have been 19. So they were like 1917--15, 13, and 11. So Eli was 11, so they stuck together. They were young, you know, it probably seemed like a bit of an adventure, you know, to a 13 year old Auntie Ruthie, they didn't know, nobody knew what was to come. But Eli was 11, and he was, by all accounts, a stubborn child and a willful kid. A tough cookie, as my uncle Saul says. And so there's a point in the story where everybody was told you have to get on this train by the Russians, and the family huddled together. And this 11 year old boy who thought he was smarter than everyone and was more willful, said, I'm not getting on that train. I'm going to stay with my grandparents, who were not being sent out. The others were deported because they were Polish citizens, and on the other side, they weren't. So that's what happened. So he was 11, strong willed, and he made a choice. And then in the end, obviously, like one of those sort of lessons of the story is families that stay together do better than not. Manya Brachear Pashman: As you mentioned, your family ends up in Siberia. That's where this Russian train takes them. I'll let listeners kind of watch the film to find out exactly how that unfolds. There is a story that did not make it into the film, but I read about the spilled milk, and I'm hoping that you can share that story as I think it's so sweet, but it also just gives listeners an idea of the conditions that your aunts, uncle and mom survived. Allan Novak: I mean, they were living essentially in a small wooden room inside of a long wooden barrack, and every family didn't matter how many people you got this, this wooden room. There were no beds. There were just sort of boards that came down from the wall. And there was like a bucket where they would put wood in and that sort of all they had to kind of keep them warm. But sometimes they could do things like they could trade. There were Siberian peasants around. And if you had an earring or something, you could get some milk, right, from a farmer nearby. And so, yeah, I think my Aunt Sally, she was able to kind of get this milk for the family. And it was this huge, huge treasure to have this small little pail of milk. And she put it under the bed for safekeeping until she could share it the next morning, and then she knocked it over in the night, and this precious, precious milk spilled on the floor, and she really like, for her whole life, she just had this deep sense of regret and shame for spilling this milk, because it was just so precious to have anything to eat other than the few grams of bread they were given. Manya Brachear Pashman: She literally cried over spilled milk for decades. Allan Novak: Yes. Manya Brachear Pashman: Did her siblings know about this? And I'm just curious, what was the dynamic? You actually asked this very question in the film. You asked them, what is the dynamic between all of you? And they interpreted that as the difference. But I'm curious, just from your perspective, what was the dynamic of these siblings through the years? Allan Novak: Well, you know, they came from a traditional family. The father was Orthodox, you know, Shomer Shabbos, kosher, as probably were most of the Jews in Poland at that time, in the 20s and 30s. So they had a great deal of respect for the mother and father, would be nothing like today. It was just pure respect and love. And so between them, Sally, who's in the film, they called her the smart one. She was the most educated one. So she kind of ruled the roost, in a way. But Ruth, the youngest, she was a troublemaker. She's my auntie Ruthie, the comedian. And so she would make trouble. She would follow them. If somebody had a date, like if Sally had a date with a boy, you know, Ruthie would be sneaking up behind and, like, harassing them and not going home, or chasing after them. She was kind of wild and incorrigible. My mother was always the middle child, so she was the peacemaker, which you see in the film, always trying to bridge between Sally and the younger Ruth. And Saul was kind of, he was the boy, the only boy, and they really just cherished him. He was good with his hands. He could fix anything. There's a story in the film of how he had to kind of steal little parts, pieces of wood and things to end up building a cart that he could sell to get milk, that kind of thing. So they really appreciated each other, and they each had their positions, you know, judging by birth order, in a way. Manya Brachear Pashman: You also talk in the film about how Saul and your aunt Ruthie, they were determined to fulfill their dream of going to Israel and going to a kibbutz in Israel. Spoiler alert, they did not make it, because, again, they put family first. Was this family first theme, a through line of your upbringing? And also, did they ever make it to Israel as just tourists? Allan Novak: Yeah, family first, certainly. Yeah. I grew up with a lot of cousins, the uncles and aunts, and they all lived very close to each other for their entire adult lives. You know, every night, one of the uncles and aunts would be walking over down the street and sitting there, so yeah, and we would hang with my cousins during the summer. So yeah, family first, definitely. We were all very close with our cousins, and we still continue to be. With respect to Israel, I mean, it was really something. They really wanted to be in Israel. You know, they were part of Zionist groups called Akiba growing up. My father, this story isn't in the film, was actually the head of, like, a whole group of Kibbutzim in Poland, and he ran the organization getting people over to Israel, you know, in 1947-48 and it was actually a great embarrassment to him that he ended up going with his new wife to Canada versus Israel. And he was very embarrassed because, you know, Oscar, you know, she and Novak, the organizer, ended up going to Canada. So it was a bit awkward. But, you know, they went where they got their immigration, and there was already family there. And just a very quick sidebar, so my father had one sister. My father lost like nine siblings, but he had one sister who emigrated to Palestine at the time in the 20s, and she had one son. And so my only living relative in Israel was the greatest living soccer star of his era. It's the equivalent of like having Pele as your cousin. His name is Nahum Stelmach. They called him Rosh Zahav, the golden head, because he won a famous match against Russia in the 60s. And this small country beat Russia, and he won. Sidebar. So they did get to Israel. It took until the mid 60s to get there to visit his, you know, Nahum, and then they went subsequently a few more times, but, you know, it was expensive, particularly, you know, in the 50s, and you know, until the 60s. So it took until the 60s, till they got there. But, yeah, it was a lifelong regret, but it was just kind of the twists of fate. Well, it's in the film. They might have ended up in Israel. They were on the Exodus. They were booked on the boat the Exodus, and then my grandfather had a stroke just before. So part of the themes of the film is kind of the random twists of fate and the choices that we make, and what happens is unknowable. Manya Brachear Pashman: The film includes footage of your mother turning 100, the birthday party, and she would always say that the best revenge against Hitler was to live long lives. What do you think has kept your family members alive for so long, what has kept them alive? Allan Novak: Coincidentally, Uncle Saul just had his 100th birthday party three days ago. Now, three of them hit 100 and over, and Ruthie just is gonna have her 90th birthday next week. One of the things I say is they live with intense moderation. Everything they did was moderate. They didn't eat too much, they didn't tan too much, they didn't smoke, they didn't travel, just everything was just kind of this moderate lifestyle and exercise, right? So I believe that's part of it. They really were well preserved, physically and mentally like, right to the end. And then, of course, you know the closeness, I think, the social cohesion that the fact that they, three of them, moved in together to assisted living facilities, you know, in their late 90s together. You know, as they lived in a condo. They all had three apartments next to each other for 20 years as well, with Saul close by. So I think that family cohesion and closeness and they didn't fight. They never fought, never saw a feuding moment. So, you know, we know things like stress and all of that contribute to long lives. So I think they sort of had this mild and loving long life. Manya Brachear Pashman: I'm sure their experience gave them some perspective. There's nothing really worth fighting about when you've survived what you did together. Allan Novak: Yes, absolutely right. Manya Brachear Pashman: What has kept them so young, not so old? What lessons can we take away from the shvesters story today? Allan Novak: Certainly take care of your siblings. Stay close. Keep them close, keep relations good. Choose togetherness over isolation when the chips are down. Positive spirit, Uncle Saul's positive spirit and their positive outlook. Again, never wallowing in what had happened to them and the things that were lost, even the family members that were lost, moving forward and cherishing what they have. And you know, loving your children, if you have them, and their caring family gave them a lot of meaning. They did everything for us, everything for the kinder, even to the point of when the film initially premiered, actually at Lincoln Center last January, and my mother was in the hospital at 100 and a half, and she stayed alive and alert until we had this premiere. We flew back, and then it was kind of like three days later, she let herself go with us there and said proper goodbyes. And I firmly believe that she just held on for the kinder, as they would say, for the children. So I think that's part of what kept them vital and youthful and alive. Manya Brachear Pashman: Thank you so much. Allan, thank you for making this documentary and sharing it with the world. Allan Novak: My complete and utter pleasure, and I hope people take as much joy and uplifting positive and laughter, which is ironic for a film dealing with that time period, but they won. Hitler lost, and they won. And so it's kind of a triumphant story. And there's a final image which people would see of them on their balcony, you know, all around 100. In the snow in Winnipeg, holding hands, just persistent and alive. And they're together, immortalized now in the film. Manya Brachear Pashman: Thank you so much, Allan. Allan Novak: My pleasure. Manya Brachear Pashman: To watch the short film, head to the . And a special thank you to Debi Wisch, AJC Board of Governors member and the producer of Crossing the River, for her work to further Holocaust education through the arts. If you missed our last two episodes, be sure to tune in for my conversations with AJC Jerusalem Director Avital Leibovich and AJC Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs Julie Fishman Rayman about the high stakes negotiations to bring the October 7 hostages home. /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/34985285

Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What’s Next 01/21/2025

Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What’s Next After 471 harrowing days in Gaza, Israeli hostages Emily Damari, Romi Gonen, and Doron Steinbrecher are finally reunited with their families. Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC’s Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, discusses the emotional impact of these reunions, the high-stakes prisoner exchange deal, and the collaboration between the outgoing Biden administration and newly inaugurated President Donald Trump. This breakthrough highlights the broader societal trauma in Israel, the complexities of negotiating with Hamas, and the ongoing efforts to bring all hostages home. Learn how this pivotal moment could reshape U.S.-Israel relations and Middle East policy moving forward. 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 Julie Fishman Rayman: Manya Brachear Pashman: The world watched Sunday as three women held hostage in Gaza for 471 days reunited with their families. The moving footage was juxtaposed against the frightening prospect of more than 1000 Palestinian prisoners, many of them convicted murderers and terrorists, would eventually return to freedom as well in exchange for the hostages. There was also the strange irony of a hostage crisis nearing an end amid a transition in the White House, just a week after President Carter, who departed the White House as the Iran hostage crisis neared the end, was laid to rest. Here to discuss the painful and painstaking process of bringing the hostages home is Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC's Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs. Julie, welcome. Julie Fishman Rayman: Thank you so much, Manya, for having me. I appreciate the opportunity to tell this amazing story. Manya Brachear Pashman: It has been a long 470 days now for you and your team as you have worked so closely with hostages' families. What was it like for you to watch those reunion videos? Julie Fishman Rayman: Pure, pure joy. One of the things that I talk about with my team a lot is that we missed an opportunity during the last agreement, during the last releases, to really celebrate. You know, we sort of thought, oh, okay, this, this is it. Now we're going to soon be able to celebrate everyone coming home. But what we missed in that moment was that that was just the end of the sprint and the start of the marathon that we've been in now for so long. So being able to see these three released, all I could think was dayenu, this would be enough. You know, after all of this, after all the work, after all the agony, and certainly, you know, the families don't feel that way, and our work must continue. There's no question, we have to keep going until they're all home. But even, even if it were just Emily, just Romi, just Doron, this, to me, personally, feels enough. Manya Brachear Pashman: There was also talk of the very high price that was paid for these, for these hostages to return. It was so wonderful to see Gilad Shalit return home, but at the cost of more than 1000 prisoners, including Yawah Sinwar, who was the architect of the October 7 attack. And so I know there is this huge fear among Israelis now and that there are efforts underway to prevent this kind of deal, specifically, this kind of deal, from happening again. But where do you stand on this? Where does AJC stand on this? And where do the families stand on this? Julie Fishman Rayman: Well, I'll start by answering your question with regards to the families, because they are not a monolith. They're not unanimous in their opinions on this, and a lot of them, you know, even within families, feel very ambivalent, and don't even necessarily feel the same way in the morning that they do in the evening, because there's just so so so much emotion around this. Any deal to get hostages, to get political prisoners, to get anyone unjustly held, released, is ugly. If you peel back the onion layers or or look behind the curtain, you see all of the really yucky things that we don't want to acknowledge about, you know, negotiating with terrorists, about allowing people who have committed the most heinous crimes to be free. But that's the only way it works, right? That's the only way you get to an agreement. So unless you are fully confident, as you know, a government or a power that has citizens held unjustly, that you are going to be able to complete many heroic rescues, as the Israeli Defense Forces has done, the only viable solution is to get to a deal. And I think that there is, there's a recognition in the United States, in Israel that a deal was the only way to get these folks released, finally. But there are really heavy costs to be paid, and I do feel as though there is, there's a nervousness, you know, what comes? What happens next? Manya Brachear Pashman: And then, of course, there's also the trauma that a number of survivors are feeling out there, whose family members were murdered by these prisoners who are going free. Has AJC worked with them in any way and connected with them in any way? Julie Fishman Rayman: I believe our Jerusalem office knows a number of those families. It has some of those connections on the ground. We have not engaged with them in Washington or in our work, sort of throughout the United States, in the same way that we have with hostage families. But one of the things that I think is incumbent, not just on AJC, but really on the Jewish community and all who care about Israel, is to lift up those stories and to sort of collectively hold the pain of those families who felt when the murderers of their family members, when they were imprisoned, they felt okay, we have justice, you know, like we have a sense of closure, and that this pain that we've endured has has not, has not been for, for no reason. And now they have to go back into that trauma and go back into that pain and without that sort of sense of closure. So there's a lot of trauma that those families are going to be going through. And if we've learned one major lesson from this big hostage ordeal that we're going through now, is that the pain of one family in Israel is not exclusive to that family, that it reverberates throughout society, that it ripples throughout the entire population. And so as one family is grieving or suffering, all of the families are. That's one thing that we've seen throughout the course of the last you know, 478 days in Israel. That the families are not alone, that the tragedy and the horror that they have experienced has created this terrific rift in a lot of ways, in Israeli society, this feeling of a lack of trust that the that the government, that the Israeli Defense Forces, that the population as a whole, could protect them to this point. And we can only hope that this deal will be concluded, that as we're in phase one, that phase two will continue to be negotiated. That we will get to the end, so that the families can all be reunited, and this feeling of cohesion in Israeli society and throughout the diaspora can continue. Manya Brachear Pashman: Julie, can you share with our audience--I said you worked closely, you and your team worked closely with the hostages' families, and have been ever since this ordeal on October 7. Can you explain to our audience what that means? What have you been doing? What have you been working toward, and how have you been working toward it? Julie Fishman Rayman: Absolutely. So since the very early days after October 7, we've been deeply engaged with families, and it started just, I think five or six days after the seventh, my phone rang, and it was a number from Israel. I didn't know the number, but of course, you know, it's a number from Israel. I'm going to answer, so my answer and the caller explained that he was Jon Polin, the father of Hersh Goldberg-Polin. That his son had part of his arm blown off by a grenade. They knew that, and that he was being held hostage, and that he was one of many, many parents who are going through this experience, and he didn't really know what to do, and could we help? And choking back tears right, choking them back, I said, Yes, of course, we can help, like, what's Let's talk this out. Let's make you know, let's make a plan. But AJC is here. We're here for your family. We can be here for the families . And it started what I think none of us could have imagined, in terms of this ongoing, continuous support, not just for Jon and Rachel, although we continue to stay very closely engaged with them, but for more than 50 families who started seeing elected officials when they traveled to Israel, who started to come to Washington, DC. Because they felt like in Washington, the elected officials that they could meet wit had power, had influence, would hear their stories and try to move heaven and earth for their children. So virtually, you know, every month, at least sometimes every week, every other week, we opened our doors in Washington, DC, we opened our rolodexes and said, we'll help you with meetings. Whether that was with members of Congress, with the administration, with members of the media, with the diplomatic corps, with other partners. Sometimes the delegations were random. It was whoever, whichever family members wanted to come. Sometimes they were specific, right? Sometimes we would bring family members of female hostages to talk specifically about their concerns related to gender based violence, and just simply try to give them the biggest and broadest platform that we could to tell their stories. And that's what they've been doing for 470 days, and that's what needs to continue, really and truly, until every single hostage comes home. Manya Brachear Pashman: Clearly, Monday was also a big day here in the United States, President Joe Biden left the White House, handed the keys back to Donald Trump, who was inaugurated as the 47th president. And really, I could not help but think about the Carter-Reagan transition and the Iran hostage crisis that came to an end soon after. Clearly, Trump has made the issue of releasing the hostage as a core foreign policy priority for his administration. What is the reaction you're hearing from the families about the Trump administration's efforts and as well as the efforts by the former Biden administration? Julie Fishman Rayman: The families had really great access within the Biden administration, really at the very top. Know, a lot of the families, especially the families of the American hostages, met with some frequency with the President himself, with Jake Sullivan, with Roger Carstens, the special envoy for hostages, and really felt as though this administration was was with them on this horrific journey, and they always spoke with and continue to speak with a lot of gratitude towards the Biden administration. But it also became very clear that when Trump was elected, that they were eager to seize on any opportunity. And so you talk about this, this Carter-Reagan sort of moment. The families, for some time, had been talking to the president elect, now President, and his team, and saying, we need a Reagan moment. This can be President Trump's Reagan moment. They've been planting that seed and really playing to the hope that this would be something that would be meaningful as well for him. And I think we're deeply successful in doing this. We would not be where we are today without this amazing display of collaboration between the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration. The ability for the two of them to work together, build on what the Biden administration had been doing for so long, and then also come in with the sort of bravado of President Trump, and a commitment, really, he said he’s going to rain hell down if the hostages aren't released. So sort of the combination of these efforts, I think, was so remarkable and really got us to where we are today, but we're not, we're not there yet. And so, as we celebrate Emily and Doron and Romi’s return, their triumphant return. We also know that there's a lot that could continue to go wrong at any stage of this, of this agreement, and even President Trump himself said, I'm not confident. And this is from a man who is sort of eternally confident. So the fact that he's expressing that caution, that nervousness about the ability to get to the finish line, means that we still, and the families still have a lot of work to do. Manya Brachear Pashman: I find it interesting that you are referring to it as a collaboration, because, because my next question was going to be, I mean, how much credit does the incoming administration deserve for the hostage deal versus the outgoing administration? Would you say it really was a genuine collaboration? Julie Fishman Rayman: All signs point to a genuine collaboration. I think there's a lot that we don't know, and we will know for some time, just as when we look at, you know, the last 470 days, there's so much of this amazing story that needs to be told. I feel very proud about the role that AJC played. But success has many people to credit, always. And there were tons of players, not just in Washington, DC, across the country, across the globe, who made it possible to get to where we are today. So it will be very interesting at this point, we sort of see a jockeying for credit amongst the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration. I am willing to give that credit out like candy on Halloween. Everyone who had the smallest part should be taking that victory lap, patting themselves on the back and then preparing themselves for the next round of advocacy and pressure. Manya Brachear Pashman: President Trump did have former hostages at his rally at the arena on Monday night. What message do you think he was trying to send, and I'll follow that with, what message do you think they are taking back home to Israel? Julie Fishman Rayman: I am ecstatic that he brought the families up on stage with him. I think that was such a meaningful moment, and certainly deeply meaningful to them. Because amidst all of this, there must be some there must be some fear that, okay, we've started to bring people home. What if we don't get across the finish line, right? So the commitment, even after Emily, Doron, and Romi were returned, to bring them up and to show the importance of their families and their cause, I think, was deeply, deeply important. Cynically, I think part of that was to show, look, I've just come into office and look at the win that I've already had. But if it takes that sort of seizing of credit to keep the push going, I welcome that 100%, without question. The families will no doubt take tremendous comfort in the fact that they were called up to stage. That representatives of this really large and robust community, sad community, of the hostage families that they had representatives called up on that stage. I think they'll see that as a really important signal that their cause is not forgotten, that even as there are celebrations welcoming Romi and Emily and Doron back, that this is not a box that has been checked, but rather a recognition that this is a job not yet finished. Manya Brachear Pashman: So with that in mind, Julie, what are your priorities? What are AJC's priorities with this new administration? Julie Fishman Rayman: We are looking for every opportunity to engage with this administration, as closely as we did with the last around the issues that are really important to AJC. First and foremost, of course, that is support for Israel, that is making sure that the US-Israel relationship remains strong, that the United States is continuing to play a vital role in supporting Israel on the world stage, whether that's at the UN, with European partners and so on. And lifting up our vital ally in this moment. And not secondarily, just secondarily in terms of how I'm talking about it, but of equal importance is working with this administration to counter antisemitism. In all its forms, from all its sources. We worked really hand in glove with the Biden administration on not just creating but implementing the first ever US National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. And I think it's, it's fair to say that there were a lot of phenomenal successes that came out of that strategy. And now it's a matter of working with the incoming administration officials, and the President himself, to make sure that we are moving forward. That this idea that it requires the whole of government and all of society to be working together, to be working in tandem and coordination, in lock step to counter antisemitism. That strategy in and of itself, is critical. So whether it's something written on paper or implemented in that way, or whether it's, you know, appointing a coordinator, or what have you, we are here, and we're ready to be a part of that process. Manya Brachear Pashman: Julie, thank you so much for joining us the day after the inauguration and all of the many changes that began to unfold. Thank you. Julie Fishman Rayman: Thanks for having me, Manya. /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/34948430

Bring Them Home: Understanding the Israel-Hamas Hostage Deal and Its Impact 01/16/2025

Bring Them Home: Understanding the Israel-Hamas Hostage Deal and Its Impact After 467 days of anguish, Israel and Hamas have reached a pivotal agreement to begin releasing hostages. AJC Jerusalem Director Lt. Col. (res.) Avital Leibovich breaks down the deal's details, the phased approach to releases, and the emotional toll on families and the nation. Hear about the complexities of the negotiations, the potential political fallout, and the profound resilience of those waiting for their loved ones to come home. 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 Avital Leibovich: Manya Brachear Pashman: On Wednesday, the Israeli government and Hamas terror group, at long last, 467 days, to be exact, announced a deal to bring the hostages home. The deal, which will unfold in phases, calls for Hamas to ultimately release the 98 remaining hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners convicted of terrorism and serving life sentences. The first exchange could happen as early as Sunday. Here, on day 468, to explain the deal and the mood on the ground in Israel, where families wait to see whether the Israeli cabinet will sign the agreement, is AJC Jerusalem director Avital Leibovich. Avital, thank you so much for joining us. Wow. 468 days, and this seems like such a breakthrough, at least on this end. Can you walk us through the details of what has been agreed upon? Avital Leibovich: So currently, the Israeli delegation is still in Doha in Qatar, and have not returned to Israel. When they will turn to Israel, after the agreement will be finalized, then the Cabinet will meet, the government will gather, and they will approve the agreement. So according to the draft that has been leaked to the Palestinian media, the agreement has a few stages. The first one has to do with releasing 33 hostages. That's the first stage. The 33 hostages, as we know, most of them, are alive, but unfortunately, there will be around 10 hostages that either have been murdered on October 7 by Hamas, and their bodies hijacked to Gaza, or those that have been murdered in captivity by Hamas. Now we know that the first ones to be released, hopefully on Sunday, we are praying for that, are women, children, female soldiers, and also men over the age of 50 with some illnesses or some health issues or humanitarian condition. Which, I think everybody is in a humanitarian condition after such a long time. So that is the first stage. The first stage will last 42 days. 42 days is a long time, and as we've seen and based on our past experience, Hamas can actually turn away, decide to change things last minute, halt the agreement and so on. In the course of those 42 days, Israel will release Palestinian prisoners. I have to say that the price is extremely high, because I'm talking about around 1000 Palestinian prisoners. When I look at the scale of how many prisoners will be released, versus a hostage, it's unbelievable. The price, quote, unquote, of an Israeli soldier, a female soldier, is very high compared to just an ordinary civilian. So around 1000 prisoners will be released in this duration. In addition to this, the IDF will gradually leave some areas, and then on day 16, there will be discussions regarding the second phase. Israel would like to see, on the second phase, the remaining hostages released. That's 65 additional hostages. And then we're talking about the third phase, which will be the reconstructing of Gaza. So these are the three phases. This is what we know for now. There are other components, like humanitarian aid, increasing significantly the number of trucks filled with aid going into Gaza, and we can talk about the implications of these prices, which Israel will be paying. Manya Brachear Pashman: Now a lot of American media are reporting this as a cease fire. Is that accurate? Avital Leibovich: No, the Israeli policy is very clear. Only after the last hostage we leave Gaza, this means 98 hostages will be out of Gaza. Only then Israel will be willing to cease fire. That's the reason why it's called a hostage agreement, and not a ceasefire agreement. Now we know Hamas. Hamas is a vicious enemy. It's a cruel enemy. You know, I just watched Palestinian media, and you'll be amazed to see how many civilians in Gaza, not Hamas related or Hamas oriented Palestinians, are saying that they wish that October 7 will return every year. They're supporting the repetition of October 7 year after year. And so, you know, this is the atmosphere that we are seeing. And Hamas can be affected by this atmosphere, and this would maybe lead even to the possibility that there will never be a second phase to this agreement. So this is definitely something that Israel wants to be very, very cautious, and this is the reason why it's not called a ceasefire deal at this point of time. Manya Brachear Pashman: So you said 33 hostages, but 10, possibly who have died either in captivity or on October 7, those are the hostages that will be released in the first phase. Do we know who those hostages might be? Avital Leibovich: We don't know who. I mean, there are some kind of lists, so there are some indications, but it's based on rumors, and until the agreement is signed, the families themselves do not know. So you can imagine what's going on in the homes of 98 families of hostages, and of course, the second circles of these families, not sleeping, not eating, not breathing, just waiting for any kind of an announcement, the potential light in their lives. The tension is really unbearable. Manya Brachear Pashman: I cannot imagine. Can you also speak to the tension in the nation? What about those who don't have relatives in a hostage situation, but who are still part of this nation? Can you kind of talk about the emotion there. Avital Leibovich: Yeah, it's a great question. We know the hostages by name. We know what music they like. We know who the parents are. We know what their hobbies are. At this point of time, we all know the hostages, almost like it's another child of ours, or another aunt or another uncle or a grandfather or a son in law. This is how we feel. And if you were to visit now Israel, and you would take any road, you will most likely see yellow flags symbolizing the hostages alongside the road. And if you'll enter a school, you'll probably hear in the yard the songs which the hostages love to play. And if you go to a supermarket and check yourself out at the self checkout counter, you want to swipe your credit card, you'll see a picture of a hostage. So the issue is surrounding us, 24/7. Manya Brachear Pashman: Does the prospect of an agreement that would finally bring them home – has that generated a unified sense of hope or optimism there on the ground? Avital Leibovich: Even among the families, there are different opinions. So today, for example, families of hostages blocked the main road to Jerusalem and protested later near the prime minister's office because they think that the agreement is a bad one. And they have kids held in Gaza. They think it's a bad one because they think that we may never reach the second phase, and their loved ones will stay forever in Gaza. And then there are other parts of the families who protest in Tel Aviv to make sure that the government signs this agreement. And there is no right and wrong answer here. Families are torn. The country is torn. In order to patch the situation, we need the hostages back. There is no question about it. Manya Brachear Pashman: You raise a very good point. There is a divide, and it is a political divide, and so I am curious what your thoughts are on the prospect of the cabinet actually signing this agreement and going forward with this–and then also what the political implications are if the cabinet does or does not sign the agreement? Avital Leibovich: It is a political divide, but both sides are blaming the same person, the Prime Minister, doesn't matter from which side of the political map they are, they still see one person responsible to get them out of the situation. Look, I do think that there will be a majority in the government. I do think that the Cabinet will vote for the agreement. I think that most of the ministers understand there is really no chance. And this is the turning point. This should be a turning point. I can say that one of the ministers in the cabinet, Minister Zohar, which is the Minister of Culture, actually wrote a letter to all the other cabinet members and ask them to vote to support the agreement and release the hostages. So I do have reason to believe that it will be approved, by the way, according to the law in Israel, after it will be approved, both in the cabinet and in the government. Then the very long list of Palestinian terror prisoners will be published publicly. Because, according to the law in Israel, anybody who wants to object –t can be my next door neighbor, it could be a family of a hostage. It could be an NGO. They could go and sue. They have 48 hours to go and file a lawsuit against the release of a specific or a few people on the prisoners list. So the High Court of Justice will discuss these appeals, and it will take 48 hours maximum. This brings us to Sunday as the closest possible point of the return of the hostages. Manya Brachear Pashman: Could those names change on that list, and would that void the agreement? Avital Leibovich: So one of the arguments I understood that rose today in Doha in Qatar is exactly on that point Israel wants to veto the list, although it has agreed to release prisoners which are sentenced not to one life sentence, but even to two and three life sentences, so it is willing to pay the price, but it is not willing, for instance, to release those symbols of leadership of Palestinian prisoners, because there will be implications for that. And by the way, even to those who are only one sentence for only one life sentence, there's also implications. Because Hamas, from a military perspective, is in a very dire situation, and they need all the professional manpower they could get. So this is a situation that we may see these prisoners return to the lines of Hamas tomorrow morning, right after they're being released. So it is, it is a heavy price. So I think that if this will come through, and I think it will come through, Israel will need to set up a whole list, a new kind of security measure, list that will be compatible with the new situation, the new challenge in Gaza, and take it from there. And of course, this cannot go back to what, where we were on October 6. Manya Brachear Pashman: And just going back to the political implications, you said, everyone, no matter what side they're on, they all point to Prime Minister Netanyahu as being responsible, good or bad. So what are the implications for him, for his future as the leader? Avital Leibovich: So you’re basically asking me about the chance of survival for the Netanyahu government. Currently, they have 68 seats, because, as you remember, Gideon Saar, who was in the opposition, alongside three other politicians, members of Knesset joined Netanyahu’s coalition, and now it's more stable. The coalition needs 361 seats to survive, and the planned elections will be in 2026, so the question is, what will happen with Ben Gvir and Smotrich? One is holding six seats. The other one is holding seven seats. What I'm hearing now about Smotrich, that he will agree to the first phase of the agreement, the hostage agreement, and then he wants some guarantees regarding the second stage, mainly with security issues, which is kind of ridiculous, because this person who does not have any background in military or security or things like that. And then Ben Gvir is a bit more on the radical side, and he is actually in a political landslide with Netanyahu for the past couple of weeks. So the situation with him is just deteriorating. Having said all of that, you know, he fulfilled his dream to be a minister, and he would never have dreamt of it a few years ago. And now that he's there, and now that we have President Trump going in in a few days, he may understand that the potential here for him is a lot bigger, and then he should take advantage of it, rather than just walk away. So I think that, if I would have to bet, I would say that this government will stay until 2026. Manya Brachear Pashman: I don't want to end with politics, so I want to go back to the personal side of this. You are there on the ground, as you said, you see the faces of the hostages when you check out at the supermarket. You see these families pleading. You also are in a very key advocacy position there. Have you met with families recently? Have you spoken with anyone recently? And can you share that conversation? Avital Leibovich: Yeah, I've been in touch with a few of the huh, maybe 20 of the hostages families. And I'll share one story, which, of course, a lot of the stories are very emotional, and you get attached to them. But once in particular is a young mother. Her partner is in hostage in Gaza, and she gave birth to a beautiful girl when he's in Gaza. And she was here, as a matter of fact, on October 7, 2023 when she was sitting hiding in the shelter with her two other kids, she was eight months pregnant, and for her, it's about an everyday kind of survival, because on the one hand, she needs to be strong mother for three toddlers, but on the other hand, she's fighting constantly to bring her husband home, and so there's a conflict there, and I keep on asking her, how does she not break down? And she is surrounded by families and so on, but at the end of the day, when she goes to sleep, she's alone, and if the baby cries in the middle of the night, then it's only her. And of course, there is work to be done and the kids to be taken and picked up and going to the doctors and, you know, whatever kids need. And three small kids, I mean, one is in first grade. And again, the first grade, for example, she started school, and she was only escorted by her mother and and also, the kids are asking these naive questions, but they understand they know because they've seen many times their parents being kidnapped. So this is something they will carry on for the rest of their lives, and the fact that a baby has never met her father, that's really heartbreaking. But I do want to say that I think they're finding inner strength, inner sources of strength for themselves, which is maybe a symbol of resilience of the Israeli people. This resilience, I think, is something very common in Israeli society. So this is a little bit of positivity in all the darkness. Manya Brachear Pashman: Absolutely well, I really do hope that her prayers are answered, that her partner returns home safely, as well as the other 97 hostages who are still in captivity. And those who do not return alive, may their memories be for a blessing. Avital, thank you so much. Avital Leibovich: Thank you. /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/34887450

Pack One Bag: Stanley Tucci and David Modigliani Uncover His Jewish Family’s Escape from Fascism and Antisemitism in 1930s Italy 01/09/2025

Pack One Bag: Stanley Tucci and David Modigliani Uncover His Jewish Family’s Escape from Fascism and Antisemitism in 1930s Italy As Stanley Tucci reflects, "Given the circumstances in today’s world, the parallels between then and now are impossible to ignore. It’s an incredible story, but it’s also happening today, to millions of people . . . It's a story about people in a certain place and time, and what happened to them, and what happened to them has happened before, and has happened since, and will continue to happen. Unless we as the human race begin to understand that we are all the same.” What would you do if fascism and antisemitism seized your homeland? In his award-winning podcast, Pack One Bag, documentarian David Modigliani takes listeners on a gripping journey through his family’s escape from Italy in 1938. The podcast series features actor Stanley Tucci as Modigliani’s great-grandfather, who was known as Italy’s “King of the Books,” and once advised Mussolini but later turned against him. As Modigliani retraces his family’s steps across Italy, he uncovers hidden Fascist spy documents, personal family diaries, and the poignant Jewish love story of his grandparents that echoes through time. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Listen – AJC Podcasts: : with , , and . : 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 David Mogdiliani and Stanley Tucci: Manya Brachear Pashman: As a documentary filmmaker, David Modigliani has created a variety of works on politics in America, improv comedy, and the improv comedy of politics in America. But during the pandemic, he discovered the love letters of his grandparents, written moments before they fled fascist Italy. Those letters led him to produce a more personal project – an award-winning podcast series starring Stanley Tucci, titled Pack One Bag. David is with us now to talk about that journey. David, welcome to People of the Pod. David Mogdiliani: Thank you so much for having me. I'm so glad to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman: So, at the core of your podcast, Pack One Bag, is the story of your grandfather, a Nobel Prize winner who fled Italy in 1938 and this was a story that you heard as a young man, as a teenager, right? But if you could share with our listeners what that story was, when you originally heard it. David Mogdiliani: Yeah, so my grandfather, I was just a five year old kid when he won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1985. But as I became a teenager and started to grow up, I became sort of fascinated by their love story, the story of escape. Which was basically that my grandfather, Franco Modigliani, had been a 19 year old kid in Rome when Mussolini passed the racial laws against Jews like him, and he didn't know quite what to do, and he was so fortunate that he had fallen in love with this girl from Bologna named Serena Calabi, whose family had really been planning for this moment for many years, had had the foresight and the privilege to move resources outside of the country, put together an exit strategy, and when they fled Italy for Paris in the fall of 1938 they invited him to join them. They invited their daughter's boyfriend to join them. And the family was in Paris for about nine months and then made it onto the Normandie, a French ocean liner that left the coast of France in August of 1939 and turned out to be the last boat out of mainland Europe before Hitler invaded Poland and World War II began. So that kind of fairy tale escape, a whirlwind romance, that getting married, you know, in Paris on the run, and arriving in the US, kind of just in the nick of time, was the kind of origin story that I grew up with as a kid. Manya Brachear Pashman: And how did your grandmother's family know how to read those tea leaves? David Mogdiliani: My grandmother's father had been known as ile de libri, the king of the books in Italian because he had founded and run along with his wife, something called La messaggerie italiane, which was the biggest book distribution business in all of Italy. It gave him resources and an understanding of where things might be going in Europe in the 1930s so I had known all of that. But when I sort of became more interested in this project and wanted to learn more, and dug into some boxes that my dad had, 19 boxes of my family's documents, we found inside them, a couple of letters from Benito Mussolini to my great grandfather, the king of the books, and that kind of was a staggering moment to see the signature of the future dictator of Italy there at the bottom of the page. Mussolini had been a lefty socialist newspaper editor in 1914, 1915, and when he had been kicked out of the Socialist Party for supporting Italy's intervention and involvement in World War I, the Socialist Party had kicked him out, and he had decided to start his own newspaper. He needed help doing that, and it turns out that my great grandfather had not only advised him on sort of launching his startup newspaper, but had also funneled a secret subsidy from the French government to Mussolini to fund this paper. So I was relieved to learn that he later had broken with Mussolini, you know, didn't follow sort of the whole fascist experiment, but that he had a sense of Mussolini's temperament, his character. And really, after Mussolini killed a political opponent of his in 1924, a couple of years after coming into power, that is when my great grandfather said, if things continue this way, there's no future for us in this country. Manya Brachear Pashman: And when you say your great grandfather, the king of the books, concluded that there was no future for us, did he mean your family, or did he mean the Jewish community? David Mogdiliani: I think at that time, in 1924, he meant our family, and I suppose also those who were not interested in kind of following a blindly fascist authoritarian dictator to the extent that he might transform the country. One of the things that I was sort of fascinated to learn in this project was that Italy was, in fact, a very inclusive place for Jews. In 1870, the country was sort of unified, and the Jews who had been in ghettos across Italy for hundreds of years, were released, became really central part of Italian society, which was a very tolerant society. Mussolini, in fact, had a couple of Jews in his cabinet. As late as 1935 had a Jewish lover. And it was not really until a later stage of Mussolini's fascism that he very swiftly turned against the Jews, eventually passing the Leggi Razziali, the racial laws, which really instituted a whole set of restrictions that only got worse. Manya Brachear Pashman: So talk a little bit about your process. I mean, how did you piece together this saga and all of the many pieces of this story that you had not known before, this saga that eventually became 10 episodes of your podcast. David Mogdiliani: Yeah, you know, during COVID, a lot of people baked banana bread. I pulled out my grandparents' love letters. I had always wanted to interview them to document– I had been a documentary filmmaker for many years and to capture their story–and I kind of just never got around to it. Before I did it, they died. They passed away. And so I had kind of been living with a sense of guilt about that. But I was in a new romance with a woman named Willa. We had become quarantine mates during the pandemic, she was really curious about the seeds of this family story that I'd shared with her. And we pulled out these love letters, which, in fact, my grandmother had translated into English for her grandchildren, because she really wanted them to know how you know, love had gotten them through the horror of that period. And pulling out those love letters, I was sort of stunned by how fresh and relevant they seemed. Not these kind of black and white mementos from a time gone by, but in a world where there was increasing authoritarian leadership around the world where antisemitism was on the rise, again, their letters to one another, which were going back and forth between Rome and Bologna. They were dealing with these questions, how do we deal with rising fascism? How bad is the antisemitism getting, and what do we do about it? And inside of those boxes, we found not only letters from Mussolini, but kind of the other part of the story. You asked me about the story I grew up with the fairy tale escape that was kind of the baseline that I was operating from. What I had not fully understood was that when my grandfather fled Italy with his girlfriend, and the king of the books, and was so fortunate to escape with them, he left behind his whole family, including his mother and his older brother, Giorgio. And eventually, as World War II kicked off, as they got into the Nazi occupation of Rome, all he could do was read about, you know, the Nazis invading his hometown, what was going on abroad, and he had lost touch entirely with his brother, and yet, what We found inside of these 19 boxes was a 25 page letter from my grandfather's brother, Giorgio, from the older brother that he'd left behind. And that 25 page letter, it had come just after the war ended. And it said, essentially, you know, we survived. And there's so much to tell you, you know, here's how. And it was just this page turning epic of how my grandfather's brother had shepherded his young family through the war, how they had hid in a small hill town outside of Rome, how he had taken on fake identity, and his little children had learned their fake names and identities and how to cross themselves and go to church and pose as though they were Catholic, and ultimately, how they had made it all the way through to the liberation of Rome. And that, to me, felt like this whole other world, the kind of parallel universe that my grandparents had escaped, the experiences that they might have had if they'd not been so fortunate to be among. Those who were able to flee, and that, along with the question of, why do we have these letters from Mussolini, you know, in the basement, and what's going on with the king of the books, all of that made me want to go back to Italy to dig into my family's past, to better understand this story, to find, you know, answers that could inform my present moment. At the time, you know, I thought, well, I'll need someone to help me, an audio engineer, at least if we're going to do a podcast. And Willa said, Well, you know, or I could do it. She had learned some audio skills in film school, and I had this question of, like, is this a good idea? Like mixing my budding romance with, you know, digging into my family's, you know, unknown history, but her curiosity had kind of inspired me to dig into this story in the first place, and so we set off together back to Italy with kind of no idea of just how far that adventure would take us. Manya Brachear Pashman: So I should explain that that saga, you tell that saga in the 10 episodes of the podcast, and the voice of your grandfather is actually that of actor Stanley Tucci. How did you connect with Stanley about this project, and what was it about the project that appealed to him? David Mogdiliani: I knew that we wanted to bring not only the personal investigative nature of kind of solving some of these mysteries, putting together the pieces, but also to bring to life the experiences and the stories of the characters in this podcast. And so I knew that I could bring to life the voices of my grandparents, which I remembered so well, but I really wanted to bring to life as well the king of the books, my great grandfather, and whenever I thought about him as this kind of debonair Italian, you know, media magnate who got his family out of dodge just in time, he seemed like this kind of cultured, congenial hero that someone like Stanley Tucci might play. And I'd been in touch with Stanley Tucci a few years prior in regards to his searching for Italy series, we almost worked together on that the scheduling didn't work out, but we'd formed a relationship, and so I shared with him, Hey, I'm digging into the story. I'm finding all this incredible stuff. I want to tell it in audio. And he said, I'd love to help. How can I be part of this? In addition to those more standard documentary techniques. We also do a little bit of kind of creative storytelling, and it's wonderful to have Stanley Tucci do that. We travel to London, where he lives, and did two long recording sessions with him, and he, having Italian parents and grandparents of his own, speaking Italian well, was able to snap right into that character. He needed very little direction, and it was a great joy to hear him kind of bring that character to life. Manya Brachear Pashman: And in fact, you had a conversation with him about his own family history and the importance of connecting to that. And I want our listeners to hear a clip of that conversation. __ David Mogdiliani: Okay, so tell me, I guess what drew you to the story. Why spend some time doing this? Stanley Tucci: Well, a number of things. I'm interested in Italian history, Italian stories, Italian people. I'm interested in World War II, and given the circumstances in today's world, you can't help but be interested in the parallels of that time and our time. It's your family story. It's an incredible story, but it's something that's happening today. It's happening as we speak. It's happening all over the world to literally millions of people. David Mogdiliani: I know you get asked this a lot, but what was your first connection to learning about Italy and its history and what happened to there? Stanley Tucci: My mother's father fought in World War I. He was a corpsman, and he was up in the Alps, and I mean, like the worst fighting, but he never spoke of that. But we were always told about our family history. We were able to live in Italy when I was a kid, and we were able to go visit my family. This is in the early 1970s down in Colombia, and that was fascinating, because it wasn't even 30 years after the war. But that history was really important to us, and the way that those stories were really funny that they would tell, or really frightening that they would tell. And like basically every Italian family, those stories were always told at, you know, dinner parties, at gatherings, at holidays, and you always had a connection with your family. You were always doing things with your family. Sometimes you were like, Why are we here? No one seems to be getting along, you know. But that said, it's invaluable. Understanding that history, knowing those people. And I really love this story because it's a universal story. It is an Italian story, but it's not an Italian story. It's a Jewish story, but it's not a Jewish story. It's a story about people in a certain place and time, and what happened to them. And what happened to them has happened before and has happened since and will continue to happen. Unless we as the human race begins to understand that we are all the same. That's why I like this story. It's about hope for equality. ___ Manya Brachear Pashman: David, you use the word refugee. I'm just curious if your grandparents considered themselves refugees, given the timing of their departure and then the timing of what their relatives that they left behind experienced. David Mogdiliani: Yeah, and I know actually they specifically did. There's a letter, when my grandmother fled with her parents in early September of 1938. Her father had told her, we're going to leave in the morning. We're going to make this look just like we're going on vacation so we don't draw any undue attention. And I want you to pack one bag and we'll take off in the morning. And they went ahead to Paris, and they were joined there a few weeks later by my grandfather, who had to settle some of his affairs in Rome and get his act together. And so there are letters from my grandmother, having just arrived in Paris, writing to her boyfriend back in Rome and hoping that he's going to come soon. And she says, quite specifically, we're in this tiny hotel room, and we're really refugees now, everything feels quite different. She, of course, had come from this privileged background. She grew up in this beautiful villa on the hill above Bologna that her father had built, a villa that they had to abandon very quickly. And so she was sort of encountering the reality of being outside of her comfort zone, of not having sort of the comforts that she had grown up with and wishing and hoping that her beloved would join her soon, which would kind of allay some of her anxiety as a refugee. I think they also felt that sense of being unsettled through their nine months in Paris, from the fall of 1938 until the summer of 1939 being unsure of whether war might break out during that period, my great grandfather, my grandmother's father, the king of the books, he found that his bank accounts inside of Italy had been blocked by the fascist regime, something that we uncovered in more detail in the archives in Rome as we dug into these fascist documents that were kept about all of this persecution, and they had this sense of being unsure of quite when they would leave and how far kind of the tentacles of the fascist regime might extend. And so I do think that they felt like refugees, even if they themselves did not encounter one tenth of the horrors that the family members who remained behind did. Manya Brachear Pashman: We have a narrative podcast series called that really speaks to that. It's about Jews fleeing the Middle East and leaving their homes behind. I mean, that's what you're doing, is you're leaving your home behind, even if you were hated in your home, even if you faced violent antisemitism, it was still home. I'm curious how much your family was fleeing fascism, or were they fleeing antisemitism? Were they fleeing more of one than the other, or did they go hand in hand? David Mogdiliani: Yeah, well, I think that their initial plans that my great grandfather, the king of the books, was making, were related more to fascism, to his understanding of Mussolini and to political violence and how far things might go. But in the summer of 1938 as he began to get information about the coming racial laws against Jews, and in early September of 1938 when the racial laws were passed such that Jewish children could no longer go to public schools. Teachers couldn't teach at public schools or universities if they were Jewish. Jews could not own a business with more than 99 employees. They couldn't have domestic help of non Jews. And that initial, you know, set of restrictions against them only increased that fall in the following months, you know, obviously getting to the point eventually that Jews could own nothing, that even the debts that they owed to other people should be diverted to the state. But the beginning of those racial laws is quite literally what they were fleeing when they then decided to execute their exit strategy. It was the promulgation of the racial laws that caused them to leave. Manya Brachear Pashman: In other words, they began to develop that exit strategy because of fascism. It was initially kind of envisioned as a flight from fascism, but when the culture became antisemitic. That was the trigger. David Mogdiliani: Exactly. Manya Brachear Pashman: What have I not asked you, David, that you think is a really important point to mention. David Mogdiliani: I would say, just about the love and humor that's such a big part of this story. My grandparents were, you know, constantly bickering at one another in this very... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/34791480

Gov. Josh Shapiro and AJC CEO Ted Deutch on Combating Antisemitism 12/23/2024

Gov. Josh Shapiro and AJC CEO Ted Deutch on Combating Antisemitism Last week, AJC CEO Ted Deutch traveled to Philadelphia to meet with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro for an in-depth discussion on combating antisemitism, ensuring the future vitality of Jewish communities in Pennsylvania and beyond, and addressing the challenges posed by rising political polarization both locally and nationally. “When it comes to antisemitism . . . there is no nuance. Antisemitism, bigotry, and hatred in all forms is not okay. Everyone in a position of public trust . . . has a responsibility to speak and act with moral clarity and speak out against it,” said Governor Shapiro. AJC is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization. AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. Watch: 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 Ted Detuch and Josh Shapiro: Manya Brachear Pashman: Last week, AJC CEO Ted Deutch traveled to Philadelphia and sat down with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro for a conversation about antisemitism, the future of Jewish communities in Pennsylvania and across the nation, and growing political polarization not only in Philadelphia but throughout the country. The conversation was so powerful, we wanted to share it with a wider audience. So, I turn it over to Ted and Governor Shapiro. Ted Deutch: I'm going to start just by fessing up to something that I tried to do, that I fortunately failed at. I don't often tout my failure, but there was a time some number of years ago, Governor, where I thought that your future should take you to the United States House of Representatives. I tried to convince you to run for Congress, and you had other plans. Fast forward many years, thank God I was wrong, and thank you for the remarkable job you've done as governor of Pennsylvania. Josh Shapiro: Thank you. It's so good to be with you. Ted Deutch: Obviously, it’s a really great to be with you. But I had, I wanted to break the ice just a little bit, if I may, with just some quick questions, just to lose, just to loosen you up a little, if that's alright. Josh Shapiro: Do I not seem loose? I feel pretty loose. Ted Deutch: Alright, very quickly. Favorite eagle of all time? Josh Shapiro: You know what I was on Eagles pregame live just yesterday, before the Birds played the Steelers. Birds beat the Steelers, by the way. And I got to sit next to Jaws. Ron Jaworski, and like, it was just a normal day. I was a little bit starstruck. So I guess I'd go with Jaws. Yeah. Ted Deutch: Alright. Better play-by-play announcer– Merrill Reese, Gene Hart? Josh Shapiro: Oh my God, come on. All right. That’s like asking me to pick between my kids. Ted Deutch: Alright, I’ll move on. Moving on, moving on, moving on. Some people here who don't, the handful who don't really get this at all, and my staff, who's saying, why are you doing this. Josh Shapiro: Merrill Reese by the way is about to get inducted into the Hall of Fame for, they do once a year, they do an announcer, and Merrill just won that award this year. Pretty amazing. Ted Deutch: He is amazing. Best Philly movie ever made? Josh Shapiro: Rocky. Ted Deutch: Easy. Thank you. Inappropriate question, perhaps at an AJC dinner, provolone or swiss? Josh Shapiro: I do enjoy provolone, but I'm not a cheesesteak guy, so. We have a kosher governor's residence. I can't be out eating cheesesteaks. Ted Deutch: It was a bit of a trick question, I'll admit. And then we'll just finish this off. Favorite Israeli food? Josh Shapiro: Falafel, but not from some fancy restaurant, though I do love Goldies and I love Michael, but on some like stand in the middle of nowhere in Israel, it's always delicious. Ted Deutch: This also gives me an opportunity to acknowledge Tsach Saar, who is the Consul General of Israel. Thank you very much for being here. All right, I tried. Thanks for playing along. Josh Shapiro: Did I not do well? You did try. Ted Deutch: You did great. You did great. Thank you. Josh Shapiro: No more lightning round? Ted Deutch: I have more. Josh Shapiro: Now we got to do this serious stuff? Ted Deutch: We do. And frankly, look, your answer to the silly question about cheesesteaks is the perfect lead in to my first question for you. The first governor, I grew up in Bethlehem, the first governor I remember was governor Milton Shapp, who was born Milton Shapiro. So in that respect, you're actually the second Governor Shapiro in Pennsylvania's history. He was governor from 1971 to 79. But you are Governor Shapiro. You're a proud Jew who dismisses a question about cheesesteaks because you have a kosher home. You quote Pirkei Avot in your life as governor and the speeches that you give. It's so clear, and we and everyone has come to know how important Shabbat dinner is for you, with your family. Your Judaism matters to you a lot, and for those of us who are so involved in the community, it's something that obviously we admire. But I would love to hear a little bit more about how it informs what you do and why it's so important. Josh Shapiro: I want to just say on a serious note, how grateful I am to AJC for the important work that you do every day, how grateful I am to Ted, who's been a friend for more than a decade. How thankful I am to the leaders here who raise money and do this important work. For Mark, who I think asked me to do this like a year ago, and has checked in with me each month to make sure he's going to do it. I'm proud to do it, and to the Liebmans, and everyone, I appreciate what you all do. I just celebrated, Lori noted the other night that I've been in public office for 20 years, and I'm a proud public servant. I think public service is a noble profession, and the reason I am in public service, it's fitting that my dad is here tonight, is because of my family and because of my faith. Both draw me to service. Our faith teaches us that, as you mentioned, I quote Pirkei Avot. I quote it in a synagogue. I'll quote it at a Kiwanis Club. I was proud to quote it from the pulpit at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, just a couple months ago, that no one is required to complete the task, but neither are we free to refrain from it. Meaning each of us has a responsibility to get off the sidelines, get in the game and do our part. Now, doing our part can come in a lot of different ways. Some people do their part in a courtroom. Some people do their part in a business. Some people do their part through charitable work, like here at AJC. For me, my part is through public service. My part is through serving my community, and I'm honored to do it. I share that with you because as I was getting ready to launch my campaign for governor, you may recall I was attorney general at the time, a group of us came together and said, Well, how do we want to kind of reintroduce you to the good people of Pennsylvania as you launch your campaign? You could start by talking about a policy or for some initiative you want to get past, but actually what I wanted to do was talk about the issue I just mentioned to you, what drew me to want to serve in the first place. Why I was even contemplating running to be your governor. And so we had a long conversation about what motivates me, Ted, and why I do this. To me, being able to bring together family and faith was really important, and the best way to show that is by doing what I do every single Friday night since I was a kid, and what we continue to do, and that is having Shabbat dinner with my family. And so the first ad in my campaign was all of us sitting around the Shabbat dinner table. Now, fun fact for all of you, I think we filmed it like on a Tuesday, so it really wasn't Shabbat. My kids remind me of that, but we did have everything on the table. And what was so interesting about it was, after the ad started running, and I would show up in communities where there aren't a lot of Jews, if any Jews, in Pennsylvania. Folks would grab me and say, Hey, I saw your ad. That was great. I want to tell you what Sunday lunch is like after I get home from church. I want to tell you what Christmas dinner is like in our family. I want you to know what we experience when we leave our place of worship. And in a lot of ways, it actually brought me closer together with the community. We were able to see one another in a deeper way. I think faith has allowed me to get into living rooms and conversations and communities in a much deeper way than perhaps I ever could before, as I think it is critically important if you want to be a public servant, to be true to who you are and express that to folks. So I'm proud of who I am. I'm proud of the way I've lived my life. I'm proud of the way Lori and I are raising our four children, and I appreciate the fact that the good people of Pennsylvania acknowledge that and open themselves up and share that back with me as I go out serving them as their governor. Ted Deutch: The importance of Shabbat dinner, part of it, obviously is your Judaism, but it also anchoring for your family. And for everyone that you interact with to know that on Friday nights, that's the time for your family. There's something there in a time of really polarizing politics and fragmentation of society, there's something there that we should learn from, right? Josh Shapiro: I just think making sure you're committed to family, you're committed to yourself at some key moments, each day, each week, is really important. Lori and I live crazy lives right now, running all over the place. I'm not complaining. I asked for this, and I love what I do. I hope you can tell the joy that I have every day in serving you as your governor. And no matter where we are during the week, we always know, Friday night we're going to be together. We always know that it's going to be a moment where we can be with the kids and have conversations with them. And I'll be honest with you, Ted. I mean, some of it, of course, is the prayers and the rituals and the religious aspect of it, but so much of it is just the family part of it, and being grounded in that, and knowing that that will be our moment during the week, whether we're at the governor's residence or our home in Montgomery County, we are always together Friday night, and it's something we don't compromise on. I think it's important that you've got to set those boundaries. You got to say what's important. And that's exactly what we do. Ted Deutch: It's especially important to have time to be together in this period where, for almost 15 months, the community has really, in so many ways, struggled. We had the deadliest attack on the Jewish community since the Holocaust, the equivalent, just in terms that people in America can try to understand. The 1200 people, the equivalent of 45,000 Americans, God forbid, if you use the same ratios, the equivalent of 7000 people being taken hostage. Now still, 100 hostages still being held beneath Gaza. It's been really hard for the community. And yes, Israel has fortunately made advances, and from a geostrategic standpoint, is doing better. But this has still been really difficult for the community, for those of us who care about Israel, and then layer on top of that, the antisemitism that we've seen, that you've been so outspoken about in the work that you do. How, again, given what's at your core, is it hard sometimes with the way that we're feeling, the way that you feel as a committed Jew, in the face of all this, to speak about it? Do you ever feel that you need to hold back because this is all so personal to you? Josh Shapiro: I never feel like I need to hold back. I think it is always important to speak out. But I also think it is important that we have two separate conversations, one about antisemitism and the other about Israel. When it comes to antisemitism, I think it is critically important that folks understand: there is no nuance in that conversation. Antisemitism, hatred, bigotry in all forms. It is not okay. And everyone, everyone in a position of public trust, everyone has a responsibility to speak and act with moral clarity, to speak out against it, and it doesn't matter who is sharing those sentiments. If they're members of your own party, if they're people who you otherwise might agree with on some other issue, we have a responsibility to speak out against it, and we have a responsibility as a community to be unified against antisemitism, hatred, bigotry, in all forms. There is no nuance on that. When it comes to the issue of Israel and foreign policy and Middle East policy, that's a far more gray area. And I think it is important to continue to speak out in support of Israel, and I think it is also acceptable, if one wants to respectfully criticize a policy coming from the Israeli government, there is a difference there. And so what I try and do is not hold back in any way, but to make sure folks understand we are having two different conversations. We got to speak out and stop antisemitism in our communities, and yes, we can express an opinion as it relates to the policies in Israel or by the Israeli government. And I think it is also critically important to acknowledge the very real fact that there is antisemitism in this country. There is antisemitism in this Commonwealth, and it is on the left and it is on the right, and there is no one party that has a clean record on it, and we've got to make sure that no matter who is putting forth those words of hate, they are condemned. Ted Deutch: AJC is fiercely non-partisan in the way that we do our work and recognize and talk constantly, try to make the point exactly the way you have. That there's antisemitism, wherever it is, we have to call it out. But that it's harder for some to see it or to call it out when it's among their friends, in their own party, than if it's in the other party. This was something that I dealt with as a member of Congress. But when it when conversations turn to you during the election and people refer to you as Genocide Josh. Josh Shapiro: Yeah, I saw that. Ted Deutch: Yeah. There are those, I think we have to acknowledge it's on both sides. And clearly there are those on the far left who don't want to criticize Israel, but have now taken the position that Israel essentially has no right to exist. That then bring that into that kind of language, which is clearly antisemitic in the way it's applied. How do you deal with that? Josh Shapiro: I must tell you, it did not upset me and it didn't affect me. What did upset me was the way those attacks against me made other people feel. As I was traveling across this commonwealth, across the country, folks would come over to me and tell me, you know, I saw what they said about you, and it was making them feel less safe in their communities. It was making them feel less safe in their schools or on their college campuses. That upset me. And on that I felt a responsibility to try and lift them up and strengthen them, and let them know that they should be proud of who they are. I'm proud of who I am, and sort of help them brush off the noise and recognizing and I think this is an important point, that while a lot of that noise did exist, and it is empirically true that antisemitism is on the rise, and thank God for groups like AJC doing this work. The vast, vast, vast majority of people that I come across every day, they're good people. They're not bigots, they're not spewing hate, they're actually looking to try and figure out ways in which we can bring people together. That is what I see. And so I'm comforted by that every day. I'm not offended or upset by the attacks that people make against me, even the antisemitic attacks against me. What I get upset about, what I worry about, is how it makes other people feel, and whether that causes them to retreat or causes them to maybe not do something they were going to do or not, go somewhere where they were going to go. That is upsetting to me, and I try and spend as much time as I can with the people who are affected by that, to try and make sure they have the strength to continue to go forward and lead by example in a way that gives them the strength that they need to move forward. Ted Deutch: And sometimes, while the overwhelming majority of people are good, I agree with you, and I think it's important for us to realize that the data tells us that the vast majority of Americans are supportive of Israel as well, and are overwhelmingly opposed to antisemitism. Small numbers can do real damage. And that's what we saw on a number of college campuses, where the the protests, some of them going back to October 8, which were not protests about, obviously, about the Israeli government, but just protests in support of Hamas, some of these protests in support of a terror group, really put people at risk. And you were very clear in the way that you approach that, right here in Philadelphia and around the state. How should, now that we're 15 months in, AJC has worked with universities around the country to try to ensure that they're doing what they need to to fight antisemitism. From your perspective, how are they doing, how are we doing, 15 months later? Josh Shapiro: I commend AJC for the important work they've done on college campuses. And I don't know if John Fry is still here, the president of Temple University, and an outstanding leader who was at Drexel University for some time and now is at Temple. He's an example of a strong leader dealing with these challenges on campus. And there are others to be sure. Look, I think it is critically important that we protect people's first amendment rights to be able to protest on campus, protest on our streets, they of course, have to follow the rules of the road, whether on campus or in a city, Commonwealth, you name it, but they should be able to express themselves. But that expression is not okay if you're violating the rules of the campus, the rules of the city or the community. It's also not okay if it puts other people at risk. Universities have a moral and a legal responsibility to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to this country to keep all students safe on campus. And for some universities, I think they were willing to forgo that responsibility, or it got a little bit out of balance. Some universities were willing to accept a little bit of hate over here, but no hate over here, and that's not okay. Hate and bigotry in all forms, needs to be condemned. All students need to be safe on campus, and yes, there should be places where students can express themselves and have their views heard. So while I realize there's a lot of gray area when it comes to figuring out exactly where that line is, I do think it's important everybody adhere to those basic principles. And there are many colleges and universities here in Pennsylvania that are. I think, candidly, Penn lost its way. They are working to get back. I think Susanna Lachs-Adler and others. Susanna has done really wonderful work, and there's some important work there happening under their interim president. I think they are moving in the right direction there, and many other universities are as well. And so I... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/34592390

Mijal Bitton on What It Means to Be a Jew Today 12/19/2024

Mijal Bitton on What It Means to Be a Jew Today As many Jews deepen their sense of Jewish identity, Dr. Mijal Bitton joins the podcast to explore the significance of our Jewish heritage, texts, and peoplehood and what it means as we enter the Hanukkah season. Bitton is a sociologist, storyteller, podcast host, and Jewish advocate who also serves as the spiritual leader of the Downtown Minyan in Manhattan. As one of the first Sacks Scholars, she helps young people reclaim and reimagine Jewish traditions. In this week’s episode, Dr. Bitton discusses Sephardic Jewry, Jewish peoplehood, academia, the needs of young Jews, and the realities of intergroup and interfaith after October 7. 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 Mijal Bitton: Manya Brachear Pashman: Dr. Mijal Bitton is a sociologist, storyteller and Jewish advocate. As the spiritual leader of the Downtown Minyan in Manhattan and one of the first Sacks Scholars, she helps young people reclaim and reimagine Jewish traditions. Michal is no stranger to our AJC audiences. Earlier this month, she delivered a powerful to commemorate Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, for which the Sacks Scholars are, of course named. And as co-host of Jewish Unpacked’s podcast , she and Jewish educator Noah Weisman explore questions we all ask about the Jewish experience, from the mundane to the miraculous. In fact, just recently, they interviewed . The podcast has covered topics spanning from how summer camp shapes Jewish lives, how to constantly juggle joy and pain, the impact of the Jewish vote in the most recent election, and in turn, the impact of Trump's resulting victory on Jewish America. Mijal is with us now in our Midtown Manhattan studio to rehash a little of that, but also to discuss what led her to take on her many roles, including her newest project. Mijal, welcome to People of the Pod. Mijal Bitton: Thank you, thank you for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you could please share with our listeners about your heritage, about your upbringing. You were born in Argentina, correct? Mijal Bitton: I was born in Argentina. My father's family moved to Argentina from Morocco and Syria. My mother is from Spain. And part of what shaped my interest in Jews from the Middle East and North Africa, is that when we moved to America, we moved to a Persian Jewish community. So that was like my introduction to American Jews, this very tight knit Persian community in Long Island. Eventually, I met my husband, who is a Syrian Jew, with Egyptian and Iraqi background, and I wrote my PhD on the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn, which all just shows you a little bit my fascination. It's not just an identity, it's a tradition that I draw from and that I believe can actually give us very powerful tools right now. Manya Brachear Pashman: Now, is this a Syrian Jewish community from Aleppo or Damascus? Mijal Bitton: Historically, there is a big difference. I would say that a lot of these communities, you can think of them as pre-immigration and then new settlement in America. Right now in America, it's one community. The differences between Aleppo and Damascus are not that pronounced, maybe like when you cook a little bit the recipe that you use, or slightly different songs that you might have, depending where your family is from. Manya Brachear Pashman: You are, in fact, a visiting researcher at NYU, and you are the director of the National Study of the Sephardic and Mizrahi in the United States. What is that study all about? Mijal Bitton: Yeah. So when I wanted to do a PhD at NYU, which I did, on Syrian Jews, and I wanted to study Sephardic Jews, what I realized very quickly, and you might have seen this from your other podcast, is that there is very little good scholarship, good literature to explain to us who these Jews are. This is a problem, both in terms of historical research, and for me, I'm really interested in contemporary Jewish life. There was a huge gap of not having resources to understand Sephardic Jews in the United States. So I had to do my PhD, kind of trying to reconstruct, you know, even, like the categories of study, how do we think about Jewish observance and really religiosity with Jews from the Middle East. So this study is an early attempt by early I mean, we hope it's the first of many studies to begin to tease out the main pillars of what we need to know to understand Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews roughly. And again, we'll go into this more in the actual report, which will come out in a couple of months, roughly 10% of American Jews are Sephardic or Mizrahi, very similar to, let's say, the Orthodox Jewish population, the Russian-speaking Jewish population, but much less understood, much less studied. So it's an important first attempt to begin to lay out the foundations of knowledge. Manya Brachear Pashman: So would you say that study is overdue? Mijal Bitton: Yes, very much overdue. I think it's overdue for many reasons. One of them is that in the American Jewish community we've had for many years now, conversations around diversity, around inclusion and the like. And Sephardic Jews have not really been part of this conversation. Or let me say this with more precision, they have not been part of this conversation in terms that they would want to be part of this conversation. Maybe I'll be a little bit more explicit as to what I mean. Many of the Jews that we've cited that I know tend to reflect more socially conservative, Middle Eastern forms of Jewish life, and these communities don't fit in very neatly in diversity efforts that tend to align with progressive understandings of diversity. So that means that there's been a real gap in how Sephardic Jews are included or not included in many spaces that are trying to be more inclusive. So we really believe that diversity is not easy, and that it begins with listening and understanding, who are the individuals and communities that we want to include. Manya Brachear Pashman: I mean, how does kind of a deeper and broader knowledge of one's Jewish identity, one's Jewish history, how does your deeper and broader knowledge of your identity and history help you be a better advocate? And how can it help others be better Jewish advocates? Mijal Bitton: That's a great question. So you know, you mentioned before that I started a weekly Jewish wisdom Substack. It's called Committed and I'll be grateful to share the link with everyone. The first piece that I wrote there on Genesis was actually about Jewish pride, and it was an idea that I had been thinking for a long time about, and it was that, especially since October 7, I have been in all of these spaces with people who are newly reawakened, energized, outraged about what's been happening. And they speak constantly about the need for Jewish pride, Jewish pride. We need more Jewish pride, more Jewish pride, more Jewish pride. And on the one hand, I love that. I love that awakening. It resonates with me strongly. On the other hand, I had like this little voice whispering to me, because, as a sociologist, I've actually done research that talks about pride as something, I want to try to say this carefully, as something that is sometimes the last thing a group holds on to before assimilating fully. So in very simplistic terms, if you think about Italian Americans or Irish Americans right over three or four generations in this country, they will slowly lose a lot of their communal elements. They will move away from their neighborhoods. They will stop only cooking Italian food. They will stop working in certain professions. But they will still have a little bit of that Irish pride in St Patrick's Day. So I have been concerned when we speak about Jewish pride, that Jewish pride can be seen as unsustainable if we don't know what we are proud of. There is a world of a difference between someone who says there's something here, that seems really good, and I think I'm proud. I'm proud. And it's different that if you're standing there and you say, I am proud of a heritage spanning 1000s of years, I stand on the shoulders of giants. I am continuing a legacy of Jews who have survived persecutions, who've survived assimilation, who've survived living in different countries and in different times, and I am holding all of this when I stand up as a Jew. That, to me, is the kind of confident pride that can help us as advocates when we are facing challenges, because we are facing challenges and we're going to continue to face challenges. So we desperately need that sense of Jewish history, that sense of spiritual sustenance. We have to know what we are proud of, what we are fighting for. Manya Brachear Pashman: You wrote a piece shortly after October 7, and it was titled, . And it was incredibly powerful. It went viral. Because it so perfectly captured what so many Jews were feeling at that moment. And for those who haven't read it, can you share what led you to write it and kind of summarize it for our listeners. Mijal Bitton: I lead a community, I’m the spiritual leader of a community called the Downtown Minyan. And like many spiritual leaders and clergy on that Simchat Torah. I had to, you know, I'm not saying anything new. Here I was, I was heartbroken, reeling. I don't use a phone on Shabbat didn't always happening. My family in Israel, the reports that were coming in, I felt like my soul, my heart was being ripped. I think many of us felt this. And I had a Shul to run, and I had to figure out, like, what Jewish wisdom can I use right now? And it was very primal and instinctive. There was a teaching that I had taught before because I thought it was important, but at that moment, it felt essential, and it just like, came out. I stood in front of my community who were in pain, and I wanted to give them names to explain what was happening. And I described, I use a very famous teaching by Rav Soloveichik, who speaks about who asked the question, can we still speak of ourselves as Jewish people, even with all of our diversity and differences and disagreements? And it brings up a Talmudic question about, if you have a man of two heads, is this considered one person or two? And it's a complicated question, if you take it seriously, and he offers a gruesome test to figure this out. You pour boiling water on one head, and then you look at the other, and if it cries out in pain, it is one people. If it doesn't, it is two. The reason that this teaching was important for me to say, and I think the reason you said it went viral is because, you know. I haven't said this like this before, so I am expressing this now, thinking with you. I think for very long, for us Jews in America, we have been pushed and compelled to think of Judaism along Protestant religious terms. What I mean by this, it's a faith, it's a set of beliefs, it's a value system. It has to fit in like some universalistic framework, and that pain that we felt on October 7 was different. It was a reminder that to be a Jew is to be part of a family. That it doesn't matter how different we are from each other, how much we disagree. When your relative is in pain, you cry with them. And it's almost like that pain, to me was like a way of saying we are reminded that we're part of a family. And there's something. I don't have the right words here. There's something almost to treasure about the pain, because it reminds us that we are connected to each other, committed to each other, responsible for each other. And I think we all felt it, and it took away some of the layers of conditioning that many of us have had, to pretend like we aren’t a family. That's what I think was one of the things that were so powerful about the tragedy that we all experienced. Manya Brachear Pashman: Yeah, because we're so trained to be individuals, right, especially here in America, right, that individual spirit, and that's, that's not part of peoplehood. Or is it? I don’t know. Maybe that’s not the point. Mijal Bitton: Yeah, listen, I think our tradition is amazing and complex, and there's strands of faith that brings up individualism and agency, but there's powerful strengths that talk about us as a family, as a collective, as a tribe, and there's powerful elements in our culture that have been pushing against that. And in many parts of our community, I think we drank the Kool Aid and we said we are not like, you know, that's backwards. That's not who we are anymore. And then we were reminded that there's something there that we all felt was true. It existed before October 7, but I think October 7 kind of like woke it up. When I've shared this metaphor of the two headed men with people, many of them have offered an objection, and they've said, how awful is it for us to speak about who we are based on antisemitism? It shouldn't have to be like that. But, I mean, I would agree with that critique on theoretical terms. On sociological human terms, there is nothing that is more potent than having a shared enemy, a shared tragedy. Think about a family again, how tragedy brings us together. So I think that unfortunately, the fact that there is still antisemitism vibrant in our societies and our streets has served to continue to reinforce that initial sense that we had after October 7. Of course, there are rifts. We can talk about debates that are happening. We are not as united as right after the tragedy. But, you know, I wrote a piece for CNN basically saying that the virulent anti semitism in the anti-Zionist movement is creating more Zionists. It's creating more Jewish solidarity. And it hasn't gone away. I am a religious woman. When I pray to God, I ask God that God should give us the challenge of having to remain connected in good times. I prefer that, but being that we don't have that right now, I do think that we have to double down on what our response is. Manya Brachear Pashman: You wrote another piece for CNN that had to do with the anti-Israel protests on university campuses and the fear that it was inducing in so many Jewish young people, and the solidarity that was coming out of that. So with that in mind, one thing that the Jewish communal world is experiencing, we're certainly seeing it here at AJC, is an influx in involvement. Not just solidarity, but activism and advocacy, people who want to be more involved. Have you given any thought to this influx, and whether or not the infrastructure is in place here in America especially, to kind of sustain that, that level of involvement and activism. Mijal Bitton: So one of the things that I've seen, and I'll be honest, that I'm still trying to understand it, but one of the things that I'm seeing is, there's, there's the thing called the organized Jewish community, okay? And it's a powerful ecosystem, you know, with lovers of power and influence. And I'm also privy, partially because of my work with young Jews, to a whole world of people who are wanting to be active, but who either don't have the access or the orientation to do so, you know, within the organized Jewish community And for me, part of what's still missing are the bridges between these different ecosystems. There's all of these people who are active on social media, right? The world of influencers, there's these groups of young Jews who are creating pop up Shabbat dinners, like all over the place, and like creating new clubs to celebrate Shabbat with each other and Jewish identity. And there is a lot of energy there. And what I'm trying to figure out is, I'm thinking of this as almost two powerful ecosystems, and I think that they would both be more powerful if they're in better conversation with each other. So that, to me, again, it's a little bit abstract. I'm still thinking it through. I am a scholar in residence at the Maimonides Fund, and this is one of the questions that I have right now in this post-October 7 world: what would it mean to better bridge between these different ecosystems? Manya Brachear Pashman: We just talked about the campus protests and the solidarity that they fuel, and we've also talked about the lack of research and scholarship out there about Jews in the Middle East and and North Africa and the diversity of the Jewish community. Do you think if young people had a better grasp of the thousands of years of history, of Jewish history in the Middle East, do you think that would shift the conversation at all, that education? And I don't mean obviously just within the Jewish community, I mean more broadly. Mijal Bitton: I mean, broadly speaking, yeah. So I would say two things I take to heart with my friend Haviv Retig Gur, who's a brilliant analyst. He speaks a lot about the fact that Jews, we don't know our own story. And I do think there is, like, huge lack of literacy in understanding that there were nearly 1 million Jews all across the Middle East and North Africa, and they left, fled, or were expelled in like massive Arab nationalist, anti-Zionist regimes that were propped up across the region. So I do think that for people to know these stories would be incredibly powerful. I do want to note something, though, as someone who has been active in academia, I still have one foot there. I think that in many places, and we need to not be naive. In many places, people have vested interest in certain narratives, and they are emotionally attached to this narrative, and they have no incentive to change them, no matter how many counterfactuals you provide to them. So there are definitely many parts in academia that want to think of the world as divided between the oppressors and the oppressed, and who want to think of Jews and Israel and Zionists as aligned with the oppressors, who they equate to Europeans and white and Westerners. And no matter how many counterfactuals you will give to them, they will find a way again, and I'm happy to explain this. They will find ways to make it fit into their narrative. So we need a multi-pronged approach. One approach is to give the literacy to those who are seeking it as a way to have greater strength and intellectual tools at their disposal. Also, there's like a huge middle to convince, you know that can be moved. And when it comes to those ideologues, we have to battle their narratives. Manya Brachear Pashman: In other words, offering that literacy to the Jewish community first, to those who actually want it, who are curious enough to want it, that's step one. Mijal Bitton: Yeah, Jewish community, friends of the Jewish community, people who are intellectually honest and want to have a better discourse around Israel, the Middle East and current reality. Manya Brachear Pashman: So Mijal, I am curious how your conversations have changed and evolved since October 7. Initially I wanted to ask you about interfaith dialog, but maybe intercultural dialog is a better way to put it. But did you have more intercultural dialog before October 7 or after October 7, or is your work really immersed in the Jewish community and Jewish dialog? Mijal Bitton: Yeah, so I would say like this: I think before October 7, I had spent many years focused on interfaith work. I think that the interfaith work was often anchored in more liberal and progressive spaces, and many of those efforts really imploded. And I think that I represent, because I've heard this from so many people who basically said, we've invested years into showing up for others and into relationships. And then if I can’t get someone to say... /episode/index/show/peopleofthepod/id/34537030

People of the Pod

TOPICS