The DNC with AJC: What You Need to Know about the Democratic Party’s Israel Platform (2024)

This week, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, AJC hosted a program on Israel and the path to peace. Ambassador Thomas R. Nides, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Illinois Congressman Brad Schneider (D-IL) joined us for the conversation. AJC’s chief policy officer, Jason Isaacson, who is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for a New Middle East, was moderating the program.AJC hosted a similar program on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention last month in Milwaukee.

*The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. AJC does not endorse or oppose political parties or candidates.

Episode Lineup:

(0:40) Jason Isaacson, Halie Soifer, Brad Schneider, Tom Nides

Show Notes:

Watch:

Israel and the Path to Peace - AJC at the Democratic National Convention

Listen – People of the Pod:

Is Centrism the Antidote to Political Polarization and Extremism? A Conversation with Yair Zivan

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: [emailprotected]

If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts.

Transcript of Panel with Jason Isaacson, Halie Soifer, Brad Schneider, Tom Nides:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

This week, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, AJC hosted a program on Israel and the path to peace. Joining us for the conversation was Ambassador Tom Nides, former US ambassador to Israel, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Illinois Congressman Brad Schneider.

Moderating the program was AJC’s chief policy officer Jason Isaacson, who is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for a New Middle East.

Just a reminder, AJC is a 501(c)3 nonpartisan organization, and AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office.

Jason Isaacson:

I really wanted to begin by citing some passages from the Democratic platform and some passages from the Republican platform relating to the Middle East. I'll just mention very briefly that the Republican platform's Middle East language is short and to the point. It says, We will stand with Israel and seek peace in the Middle East. We will rebuild our alliance network in the region to ensure a future of stability, peace, stability and prosperity.

And it also promises, very quickly, to restore peace in Europe and the Middle East. The Democratic platform is much more extensive. It's an 80 page document, a long section on the Middle East.

But it says that the administration opposes settlement expansion and West Bank West Bank annexation. Also opposes the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement against Israel. But it's very clear that the administration believes a strong, secure and democratic Israel is vital to the interests of the United States.

It's also quite specific about the necessity of defeating Hamas. I want to start my questioning with Halie Soifer. The question that's been on the minds of political reporters and many of us in the community, Haley, as you very well know, over the last 10 months of the war in Gaza, and has taken on new meaning in light of the change at the top of the Democratic ticket.

How can a Democratic candidate for president in the current highly charged environment maintain the support of the party's pro Israel mainstream while also keeping or winning back the loyalty of the increasingly active pro Palestinian segment of its constituency. What have we heard from Vice President Harris, for whom you worked in the Senate, that suggests that she can balance these competing policy claims?

Halie Soifer:

Well, thank you, Jason, thanks to everyone. I was told to project. And for those of you who are at the Global Forum, you know I know how to project, so I will try my best. But thanks for having me.

I did have the honor of working for then-Senator Harris, starting her first month in the Senate for two years as her national security advisor. And what I can tell you is, not only does she share the views of President Biden, we know that based on the past three and a half years, and their records standing with Israel in the lead up to and of course, in the aftermath of the horrific attacks of October 7.

Giving an unprecedented amount of military assistance to Israel, standing with Israel, not only in the aftermath of these attacks, but demanding the release of all of the hostages, and continuing to stand with Israel as it faces this threat from Iran, pre positioning military assets in the region, not once, but twice in the lead up to The attacks of April 13. But also, I can tell you from personal experience, her views on Israel didn't start from day one in the White House. I saw it from day one when she was in the Senate. She came to this role with over a decade of experience working on these issues. I traveled to Israel with her in November of 2017.

This is an issue that she feels deeply in terms of the importance of the US Israel relationship, Israel security, its right to self defense, and she is a staunch supporter of Israel. Have no doubt. I'm glad you started with the Democratic platform as well, because this also elaborates on what is the strongly pro Israel views of our party.

And make no mistake, it's not a coincidence that we have three pages detailing our support of Israel in our platform. It's pages 82-85 for those who would like to look it up. And it is no mistake that the Republican platform is empty platitudes. Two, two bullet points that barely say anything. Because this is an issue of which our party is deeply committed.

And it extends beyond Israel. It includes Israel's security in the Middle East and our platform, which has never been stronger. I testified before the platform committee. I was very happy to say this very strong pro Israel platform of 2020 not only should it not be diluted, it should be strengthened.

Because, of course, we have seen the horror of October 7, we should reflect the fact that we stand with Israel in this moment. We call for the release of the hostages, and of course, we unequivocally condemn Hamas.

All of that is reflected in this platform and more, including recognition of the horrific sexual violence that was perpetrated on that day, which the vice president herself has given voice to. So in terms of questioning how she can navigate this issue, she already has and she continues to stand with Israel.

I have no doubt that when she's elected in 78 days, with the strong support of the Jewish community, that she will continue to do so as President.

More episodes from "People of the Pod"

The Forgotten Exodus: Tunisia – Listen to the Season 2 Premiereil y a 2 jours32:44Listen to the premiere episode of the second season of The Forgotten Exodus, the multi-award-winning, chart-topping, and first-ever narrative podcast series to focus exclusively on Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews. This week’s episode focuses on Jews from Tunisia. If you like what you hear, subscribe before the next episode drops on September 3. “In the Israeli DNA and the Jewish DNA, we have to fight to be who we are. In every generation, empires and big forces tried to erase us . . . I know what it is to be rejected for several parts of my identity... I'm fighting for my ancestors, but I'm also fighting for our future generation.” Hen Mazzig, a writer, digital creator, and founder of the Tel Aviv Institute, shares his powerful journey as a proud Israeli, LGBTQ+, and Mizrahi Jew, in the premiere episode of the second season of the award-winning podcast, The Forgotten Exodus. Hen delves into his family's deep roots in Tunisia, their harrowing experiences during the Nazi occupation, and their eventual escape to Israel. Discover the rich history of Tunisia's ancient Amazigh Jewish community, the impact of French colonial and Arab nationalist movements on Jews in North Africa, and the cultural identity that Hen passionately preserves today. Joining the conversation is historian Lucette Valensi, an expert on Tunisian Jewish culture, who provides scholarly insights into the longstanding presence of Jews in Tunisia, from antiquity to their exodus in the mid-20th century. ___ Show notes: Sign up to receive podcast updates here. Learn more about the series here. Song credits: "Penceresi Yola Karsi" -- by Turku, Nomads of the Silk Road Pond5: “Desert Caravans”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Tiemur Zarobov (BMI), IPI#1098108837 “Sentimental Oud Middle Eastern”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Sotirios Bakas (BMI), IPI#797324989. “Meditative Middle Eastern Flute”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Danielyan Ashot Makichevich (BMI), IPI Name #00855552512, United States BMI “Tunisia Eastern”: Publisher: Edi Surya Nurrohim, Composer: Edi Surya Nurrohim, Item ID#155836469. “At The Rabbi's Table”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Fazio Giulio (IPI/CAE# 00198377019). “Fields Of Elysium”; Publisher: Mysterylab Music; Composer: Mott Jordan; ID#79549862 “Frontiers”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI); Composer: Pete Checkley (BMI), IPI#380407375 “Hatikvah (National Anthem Of Israel)”; Composer: Eli Sibony; ID#122561081 “Tunisian Pot Dance (Short)”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI); Composer: kesokid, ID #97451515 “Middle East Ident”; Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Alpha (ASCAP); Composer: Alon Marcus (ACUM), IPI#776550702 “Adventures in the East”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI) Composer: Petar Milinkovic (BMI), IPI#00738313833. ___ Episode Transcript: HEN MAZZIG: They took whatever they had left and they got on a boat. And my grandmother told me this story before she passed away on how they were on this boat coming to Israel. And they were so happy, and they were crying because they felt that finally after generations upon generations of oppression they are going to come to a place where they are going to be protected, and that she was coming home. MANYA BRACHEAR PASHMAN: The world has overlooked an important episode in modern history: the 800,000 Jews who left or were driven from their homes in the Middle East and North Africa in the mid-20th century. Welcome to the second season of The Forgotten Exodus, brought to you by American Jewish Committee. This series explores that pivotal moment in history and the little-known Jewish heritage of Iran and Arab nations. As Jews around the world confront violent antisemitism and Israelis face daily attacks by terrorists on multiple fronts, our second season explores how Jews have lived throughout the region for generations–despite hardship, hostility, and hatred–then sought safety and new possibilities in their ancestral homeland. I'm your host, Manya Brachear Pashman. Join us as we explore untold family histories and personal stories of courage, perseverance, and resilience from this transformative and tumultuous period of history for the Jewish people and the Middle East. The world has ignored these voices. We will not. This is The Forgotten Exodus. Today's episode: leaving Tunisia. __ [Tel Aviv Pride video] MANYA BRACHEAR PASHMAN: Every June, Hen Mazzig, who splits his time between London and Tel Aviv, heads to Israel to show his Pride. His Israeli pride. His LGBTQ+ pride. And his Mizrahi Jewish pride. For that one week, all of those identities coalesce. And while other cities around the world have transformed Pride into a June version of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, Israel is home to one of the few vibrant LGBTQ communities in the Middle East. Tel Aviv keeps it real. HEN: For me, Pride in Israel, in Tel Aviv, it still has this element of fighting for something. And that it’s important for all of us to show up and to come out to the Pride Parade because if we’re not going to be there, there’s some people with agendas to erase us and we can't let them do it. MANYA: This year, the Tel Aviv Pride rally was a more somber affair as participants demanded freedom for the more than 100 hostages still held in Gaza since October 7th. On that day, Hamas terrorists bent on erasing Jews from the Middle East went on a murderous rampage, killing more than 1,200, kidnapping 250 others, and unleashing what has become a 7-front war on Israel. HEN: In the Israeli DNA and the Jewish DNA we have to fight to be who we are. In every generation, empires and big forces tried to erase us, and we had to fight. And the LGBTQ+ community also knows very well how hard it is. I know what it is to be rejected for several parts of my identity. And I don't want anyone to go through that. I don't want my children to go through that. I'm fighting for my ancestors, but I'm also fighting for our future generation. MANYA: Hen Mazzig is an international speaker, writer, and digital influencer. In 2022, he founded the Tel Aviv Institute, a social media laboratory that tackles antisemitism online. He’s also a second-generation Israeli, whose maternal grandparents fled Iraq, while his father’s parents fled Tunisia – roots that echo in the family name: Mazzig. HEN: The last name Mazzig never made sense, because in Israel a lot of the last names have meaning in Hebrew. So I remember one of my teachers in school was saying that Mazzig sounds like mozeg, which means pouring in Hebrew. Maybe your ancestors were running a bar or something? Clearly, this teacher did not have knowledge of the Amazigh people. Which, later on I learned, several of those tribes, those Amazigh tribes, were Jewish or practiced Judaism, and that there was 5,000 Jews that came from Tunisia that were holding both identities of being Jewish and Amazigh. And today, they have last names like Mazzig, and Amzaleg, Mizzoug. There's several of those last names in Israel today. And they are the descendants of those Jewish communities that have lived in the Atlas Mountains. MANYA: The Atlas Mountains. A 1,500-mile chain of magnificent peaks and treacherous terrain that stretch across Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia, separating the Sahara from the Mediterranean and Atlantic coastline. It’s where the nomadic Amazigh have called home for thousands of years. The Amazigh trace their origins to at least 2,000 BCE in western North Africa. They speak the language of Tamazight and rely on cattle and agriculture as their main sources of income. But textiles too. In fact, you’ve probably heard of the Amazigh or own a rug woven by them. A Berber rug. HEN: Amazigh, which are also called Berbers. But they're rejecting this term because of the association with barbarians, which was the title that European colonialists when they came to North Africa gave them. There's beautiful folklore about Jewish leaders within the Amazigh people. One story that I really connected to was the story of Queen Dihya that was also known as El-Kahina, which in Arabic means the Kohen, the priest, and she was known as this leader of the Amazigh tribes, and she was Jewish. Her derrogaters were calling her a Jewish witch, because they said that she had the power to foresee the future. And her roots were apparently connected to Queen Sheba and her arrival from Israel back to Africa. And she was the descendant of Queen Sheba. And that's how she led the Amazigh people. And the stories that I read about her, I just felt so connected. How she had this long, black, curly hair that went all the way down to her knees, and she was fierce, and she was very committed to her identity, and she was fighting against the Islamic expansion to North Africa. And when she failed, after years of holding them off, she realized that she can't do it anymore and she's going to lose. And she was not willing to give up her Jewish identity and convert to Islam and instead she jumped into a well and died. This well is known today in Tunisia. It’s the [Bir] Al-Kahina or Dihya’s Well that is still in existence. Her descendants, her kids, were Jewish members of the Amazigh people. Of course, I would like to believe that I am the descendant of royalty. MANYA: Scholars debate whether the Amazigh converted to Judaism or descended from Queen Dihya and stayed. Lucette Valensi is a French scholar of Tunisian history who served as a director of studies at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris, one of the most prestigious institutions of graduate education in France. She has written extensively about Tunisian Jewish culture. Generations of her family lived in Tunisia. She says archaeological evidence proves Jews were living in that land since Antiquity. LUCETTE VALENSI: I myself am a Chemla, born Chemla. And this is an Arabic name, which means a kind of belt. And my mother's name was Tartour, which is a turban [laugh]. So the names were Arabic. So my ancestors spoke Arabic. I don't know if any of them spoke Berber before, or Latin. I have no idea. But there were Jews in antiquity and of course, through Saint Augustin. MANYA: So when did Jews arrive in Tunisia? LUCETTE: [laugh] That’s a strange question because they were there since Antiquity. We have evidence of their presence in mosaics of synagogues, from the times of Byzantium. I think we think in terms of a short chronology, and they would tend to associate the Jews to colonization, which does not make sense, they were there much before French colonization. They were there for millennia. MANYA: Valensi says Jews lived in Tunisia dating to the time of Carthage, an ancient city-state in what is now Tunisia, that reached its peak in the fourth century BCE. Later, under Roman and then Byzantine rule, Carthage continued to play a vital role as a center of commerce and trade during antiquity. Besides the role of tax collectors, Jews were forbidden to serve in almost all public offices. Between the 5th and 8th centuries CE, conditions fluctuated between relief and forced conversions while under Christian rule. After the Islamic conquest of Tunisia in the seventh and early eighth centuries CE, the treatment of Jews largely depended on which Muslim ruler was in charge at the time. Some Jews converted to Islam while others lived as dhimmis, or second-class citizens, protected by the state in exchange for a special tax known as the ji*zya. In 1146, the first caliph of the Almohad dynasty, declared that the Prophet Muhammad had granted Jews religious freedom for only 500 years, by which time if the messiah had not come, they had to convert. Those who did not convert and even those who did were forced to wear yellow turbans or other special garb called shikra, to distinguish them from Muslims. An influx of Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal arrived in the 14th Century. In the 16th Century, Tunisia became part of the Ottoman Empire, and the situation of Jews improved significantly. Another group who had settled in the coastal Tuscan city of Livorno crossed the Mediterranean in the 17th and 18th centuries to make Tunisia their home. LUCETTE: There were other groups that came, Jews from Italy, Jews from Spain, of course, Spain and Portugal, different periods. 14th century already from Spain and then from Spain and Portugal. From Italy, from Livorno, that's later, but the Jews from Livorno themselves came from Spain. So I myself am named Valensi. From Valencia. It was the family name of my first husband. So from Valencia in Spain they went to Livorno, and from Livorno–Leghorn in English–to Tunisia. MANYA: At its peak, Tunisia’s Jewish population exceeded 100,000 – a combination of Sephardi and Mizrahi. HEN: When we speak about Jews from the Middle East and North Africa, specifically in the West, or mainly in the West, we're referring to them as Sephardi. But in Tunisia, it's very interesting to see that there was the Grana community which are Livorno Jews that moved to Tunisia in the 1800s, and they brought the Sephardi way of praying. And that’s why I always use the term Mizrahi to describe myself, because I feel like it encapsulates more of my identity. And for me, the Sephardi title that we often use on those communities doesn't feel accurate to me, and it also has the connection to Ladino, which my grandparents never spoke. They spoke Tamazight, Judeo-Tamazight, which was the language of those tribes in North Africa. And my family from my mother's side, from Iraq, they were speaking Judeo-Iraqi-Arabic. So for me, the term Sephardi just doesn't cut it. I go with Mizrahi to describe myself. MANYA: The terms Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi all refer to the places Jews once called home. Ashkenazi Jews hail from Central and Eastern Europe, particularly Germany, Poland, and Russia. They traditionally speak Yiddish, and their customs and practices reflect the influences of Central and Eastern European cultures. Pogroms in Eastern Europe and the Holocaust led many Ashkenazi Jews to flee their longtime homes to countries like the United States and their ancestral homeland, Israel. Mizrahi, which means “Eastern” in Hebrew, refers to the diaspora of descendants of Jewish communities from Middle Eastern countries such as: Iraq, Iran, and Yemen, and North African countries such as: Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco. Ancient Jewish communities that have lived in the region for millennia long before the advent of Islam and Christianity. They often speak dialects of Arabic. Sephardi Jews originate from Spain and Portugal, speaking Ladino and incorporating Spanish and Portuguese cultural influences. Following their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula in 1492, they settled in regions like North Africa and the Balkans. In Tunisia, the Mizrahi and Sephardi communities lived side by side, but separately. HEN: As time passed, those communities became closer together, still quite separated, but they became closer and closer. And perhaps the reason they were becoming closer was because of the hardship that they faced as Jews. For the leaders of Muslim armies that came to Tunisia, it didn't matter if you were a Sephardi Jew, or if you were an Amazigh Jew. You were a Jew for them. MANYA: Algeria’s invasion of Tunisia in the 18th century had a disproportionate effect on Tunisia’s Jewish community. The Algerian army killed thousands of the citizens of Tunis, many of whom were Jewish. Algerians raped Jewish women, looted Jewish homes. LUCETTE: There were moments of trouble when you had an invasion of the Algerian army to impose a prince. The Jews were molested in Tunis. MANYA: After a military invasion, a French protectorate was established in 1881 and lasted until Tunisia gained independence in 1956. The Jews of Tunisia felt much safer under the French protectorate. They put a lot of stock in the French revolutionary promise of Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Soon, the French language replaced Judeo-Arabic. LUCETTE: Well, under colonization, the Jews were in a better position. First, the school system. They went to modern schools, especially the Alliance [Israélite Universelle] schools, and with that started a form of Westernization. You had also schools in Italian, created by Italian Jews, and some Tunisian Jews went to these schools and already in the 19th century, there was a form of acculturation and Westernization. Access to newspapers, creation of newspapers. In the 1880s Jews had already their own newspapers in Hebrew characters, but Arabic language. And my grandfather was one of the early journalists and they started having their own press and published books, folklore, sort of short stories. MANYA: In May 1940, Nazi Germany invaded France and quickly overran the French Third Republic, forcing the French to sign an armistice agreement in June. The armistice significantly reduced the territory governed by France and created a new government known as the Vichy regime, after the central French city where it was based. The Vichy regime collaborated with the Nazis, establishing a special administration to introduce anti-Jewish legislation and enforce a compulsory Jewish census in all of its territories including Tunisia. Hen grew up learning about the Holocaust, the Nazis’ attempt to erase the Jewish people. As part of his schooling, he learned the names of concentration and death camps and he heard the stories from his friends’ grandparents. But because he was not Ashkenazi, because his grandparents didn’t suffer through the same catastrophe that befell Europe, Hen never felt fully accepted. It was a trauma that belonged to his Ashkenazi friends of German and Polish descent, not to him. Or so they thought and so he thought, until he was a teenager and asked his grandmother Kamisa to finally share their family’s journey from Tunisia. That’s when he learned that the Mazzig family had not been exempt from Hitler’s hatred. In November 1942, Tunisia became the only North African country to come under Nazi Germany’s occupation and the Nazis wasted no time. Jewish property was confiscated, and heavy fines were levied on large Jewish communities. With the presence of the Einsatzkommando, a subgroup of the Einsatzgruppen, or mobile killing units, the Nazis were prepared to implement the systematic murder of the Jews of Tunisia. The tide of the war turned just in time to prevent that. LUCETTE: At the time the Germans came, they did not control the Mediterranean, and so they could not export us to the camps. We were saved by that. Lanor camps for men in dangerous places where there were bombs by the Allies. But not for us, it was, I mean, they took our radios. They took the silverware or they took money, this kind of oppression, but they did not murder us. They took the men away, a few families were directly impacted and died in the camps. A few men. So we were afraid. We were occupied. But compared to what Jews in Europe were subjected to, we didn't suffer. MANYA: Almost 5,000 Jews, most of them from Tunis and from certain northern communities, were taken captive and incarcerated in 32 labor camps scattered throughout Tunisia. Jews were not only required to wear yellow stars, but those in the camps were also required to wear them on their backs so they could be identified from a distance and shot in the event they tried to escape. HEN: My grandmother never told me until before she died, when she was more open about the stories of oppression, on how she was serving food for the French Nazi officers that were occupying Tunisia, or how my grandfather was in a labor camp, and he was supposed to be sent to a death camp in Europe as well. They never felt like they should share these stories. MANYA: The capture of Tunisia by the Allied forces in May 1943 led the Axis forces in North Africa to surrender. But the country remained under French colonial rule and the antisemitic legislation of the Vichy regime continued until 1944. Many of the Vichy camps, including forced labor camps in the Sahara, continued to operate. Even after the decline and fall of the Vichy regime and the pursuit of independence from French rule began, conditions for the Mazzig family and many others in the Tunisian Jewish community did not improve. But the source of much of the hostility and strife was actually a beacon of hope for Tunisia’s Jews. On May 14, 1948, the world had witnessed the creation of the state of Israel, sparking outrage throughout the Arab world. Seven Arab nations declared war on Israel the day after it declared independence. Amid the rise of Tunisian nationalism and its push for independence from France, Jewish communities who had lived in Tunisia for centuries became targets. Guilty by association. No longer welcome. Rabbinical councils were dismantled. Jewish sports associations banned. Jews practiced their religion in hiding. Hen’s grandfather recounted violence in the Jewish quarter of Tunis. HEN: When World War Two was over, the Jewish community in Tunisia was hoping that now that Tunisia would have emancipation, and it would become a country, that their neighbors and the country itself would protect them. Because when it was Nazis, they knew that it was a foreign power that came from France and oppressed them. They knew that there was some hatred in the past, from their Muslim neighbors towards them. But they also were hoping that, if anything, they would go back to the same status of a dhimmi, of being a protected minority. Even if they were not going to be fully accepted and celebrated in this society, at least they would be protected, for paying tax. And this really did not happen. MANYA: By the early 1950s, life for the Mazzig family became untenable. By then, American Jewish organizations based in Tunis started working to take Jews to Israel right away. HEN: [My family decided to leave.] They took whatever they had left. And they got on a boat. And my grandmother told me this story before she passed away on how they were on this boat coming to Israel. And they were so happy, and they were crying because they felt that finally after generations upon generations of oppression of living as a minority that knows that anytime the ruler might turn on them and take everything they have and pull the ground underneath their feet, they are going to come to a place where they are going to be protected. And maybe they will face hate, but no one will hate them because they're Jewish. And I often dream about my grandmother being a young girl on this boat and how she must have felt to know that the nightmare and the hell that she went through is behind her and that she was coming home. MANYA: The boat they sailed to Israel took days. When Hen’s uncle, just a young child at the time, got sick, the captain threatened to throw him overboard. Hen’s grandmother hid the child inside her clothes until they docked in Israel. When they arrived, they were sprayed with DDT to kill any lice or disease, then placed in ma’abarot, which in Hebrew means transit camps. In this case, it was a tent with one bed. HEN: They were really mistreated back then. And it's not criticism. I mean, yes, it is also criticism, but it's not without understanding the context. That it was a young country that just started, and those Jewish communities, Jewish refugees came from Tunisia, they didn't speak Hebrew. They didn't look like the other Jewish communities there. And while they all had this in common, that they were all Jews, they had a very different experience. MANYA: No, the family’s arrival in the Holy Land was nothing like what they had imagined. But even still, it was a dream fulfilled and there was hope, which they had lost in Tunisia. HEN: I think that it was somewhere in between having both this deep connection to Israel and going there because they wanted to, and also knowing that there’s no future in Tunisia. And the truth is that even–and I'm sure people that are listening to us, that are strong Zionists and love Israel, if you tell them ‘OK, so move tomorrow,’ no matter how much you love Israel, it's a very difficult decision to make. Unless it's not really a decision. And I think for them, it wasn't really a decision. And they went through so much, they knew, OK, we have to leave and I think for the first time having a country, having Israel was the hope that they had for centuries to go back home, finally realized. MANYA: Valensi’s family did stay a while longer. When Tunisia declared independence in 1956, her father, a ceramicist, designed tiles for the residence of President Habib Bourguiba. Those good relations did not last. Valensi studied history in France, married an engineer, and returned to Tunisia. But after being there for five years, it became clear that Jews were not treated equally and they returned to France in 1965. LUCETTE: I did not plan to emigrate. And then it became more and more obvious that some people were more equal than others [laugh]. And so there was this nationalist mood where responsibilities were given to Muslims rather than Jews and I felt more and more segregated. And so, my husband was an engineer from a good engineering school. Again, I mean, he worked for another engineer, who was a Muslim. We knew he would never reach the same position. His father was a lawyer. And in the tribunal, he had to use Arabic. And so all these things accumulated, and we were displaced. MANYA: Valensi said Jewish emigration from Tunisia accelerated at two more mileposts. Even after Tunisia declared independence, France maintained a presence and a naval base in the port city of Bizerte, a strategic port on the Mediterranean for the French who were fighting with Algeria. In 1961, Tunisian forces blockaded the naval base and warned France to stay out of its airspace. What became known as the Bizerte Crisis lasted for three days. LUCETTE: There were critical times, like what we call “La Crise de Bizerte.” Bizerte is a port to the west of Tunis that used to be a military port and when independence was negotiated with France, the French kept this port, where they could keep an army, and Bourguiba decided that he wanted this port back. And there was a war, a conflict, between Tunisia and France in ‘61. And that crisis was one moment when Jews thought: if there is no French presence to protect us, then anything could happen. You had the movement of emigration. Of course, much later, ‘67, the unrest in the Middle East, and what happened there provoked a kind of panic, and there were movements against the Jews in Tunis – violence and destruction of shops, etc. So they emigrated again. Now you have only a few hundred Jews left. MANYA: Valensi’s first husband died at an early age. Her second husband, Abraham Udovitch, is the former chair of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. Together, they researched and published a book about the Jewish communities in the Tunisian island of Djerba. The couple now splits their time between Paris and Princeton. But Valensi returns to Tunisia every year. It’s still home. LUCETTE: When I go, strange thing, I feel at home. I mean, I feel I belong. My Arabic comes back. The words that I thought I had forgotten come back. They welcome you. I mean, if you go, you say you come from America, they're going to ask you questions. Are you Jewish? Did you go to Israel? I mean, these kind of very brutal questions, right away. They’re going there. The taxi driver won't hesitate to ask you: Are you Jewish? But at the same time, they’re very welcoming. So, I have no trouble. MANYA: Hen, on the other hand, has never been to the land of his ancestors. He holds on to his grandparents’ trauma. And fear. HEN: Tunisia just still feels a bit unsafe to me. Just as recent as a couple of months ago, there was a terror attack. So it's something that’s still occurring. MANYA: Just last year, a member of the Tunisian National Guard opened fire on worshippers outside El Ghriba Synagogue where a large gathering of Jewish pilgrims were celebrating the festival of Lag BaOmer. The synagogue is located on the Tunisian island of Djerba where Valensi and her husband did research for their book. Earlier this year, a mob attacked an abandoned synagogue in the southern city of Sfax, setting fire to the building’s courtyard. Numbering over 100,000 Jews on the eve of Israel’s Independence in 1948, the Tunisian Jewish community is now estimated to be less than 1,000. There has been limited contact over the years between Tunisia and Israel. Some Israeli tourists, mostly of Tunisian origin, annually visit the El Ghriba synagogue in Djerba. But the government has largely been hostile to the Jewish state. In the wake of the October 7 attack, the Tunisian parliament began debate on a law that would criminalize any normalization of ties with Israel. Still, Hen would like to go just once to see where his grandparents lived. Walked. Cooked. Prayed. But to him it’s just geography, an arbitrary place on a map. The memories, the music, the recipes, the traditions. It’s no longer in Tunisia. It’s elsewhere now – in the only country that preserved it. HEN: The Jewish Tunisian culture, the only place that it's been maintained is in Israel. That's why it's still alive. Like in Tunisia, it's not really celebrated. It's not something that they keep as much as they keep here. Like if you want to go to a proper Mimouna, you would probably need to go to Israel, not to North Africa, although that's where it started. And the same with the Middle Eastern Jewish cuisine. The only place in the world, where be it Tunisian Jews and Iraqi Jews, or Yemenite Jews, still develop their recipes, is in Israel. Israel is home, and this is where we still celebrate our culture and our cuisine and our identity is still something that I can engage with here. I always feel like I am living the dreams of my grandparents, and I know that my grandmother is looking from above and I know how proud she is that we have a country, that we have a place to be safe at. And that everything I do today is to protect my people, to protect the Jewish people, and making sure that next time when a country, when an empire, when a power would turn on Jews we’ll have a place to go to and be safe. MANYA: Tunisian Jews are just one of the many Jewish communities who, in the last century, left Arab countries to forge new lives for themselves and future generations. Join us next week as we share another untold story of The Forgotten Exodus. Many thanks to Hen for sharing his story. You can read more in his memoir The Wrong Kind of Jew: A Mizrahi Manifesto. Too many times during my reporting, I encountered children and grandchildren who didn’t have the answers to my questions because they’d never asked. That’s why one of the goals of this project is to encourage you to ask those questions. Find your stories. Atara Lakritz is our producer. T.K. Broderick is our sound engineer. Special thanks to Jon Schweitzer, Nicole Mazur, Sean Savage, and Madeleine Stern, and so many of our colleagues, too many to name really, for making this series possible. You can subscribe to The Forgotten Exodus on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and you can learn more at AJC.org/theforgottenexodus. The views and opinions of our guests don’t necessarily reflect the positions of AJC. You can reach us at [emailprotected]. If you've enjoyed this episode, please be sure to spread the word, and hop onto Apple Podcasts or Spotify to rate us and write a review to help more listeners find us.
The DNC with AJC: What You Need to Know about the Democratic Party’s Israel Platform8/22/202419:01This week, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, AJC hosted a program on Israel and the path to peace. Ambassador Thomas R. Nides, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Illinois Congressman Brad Schneider (D-IL) joined us for the conversation. AJC’s chief policy officer, Jason Isaacson, who is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for a New Middle East, was moderating the program.AJC hosted a similar program on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention last month in Milwaukee. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. AJC does not endorse or oppose political parties or candidates. Episode Lineup: (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Halie Soifer, Brad Schneider, Tom Nides Show Notes: Watch: Israel and the Path to Peace - AJC at the Democratic National Convention Listen – People of the Pod: Is Centrism the Antidote to Political Polarization and Extremism? A Conversation with Yair Zivan Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [emailprotected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Panel with Jason Isaacson, Halie Soifer, Brad Schneider, Tom Nides: Manya Brachear Pashman: This week, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, AJC hosted a program on Israel and the path to peace. Joining us for the conversation was Ambassador Tom Nides, former US ambassador to Israel, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Illinois Congressman Brad Schneider. Moderating the program was AJC’s chief policy officer Jason Isaacson, who is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for a New Middle East. Just a reminder, AJC is a 501(c)3 nonpartisan organization, and AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. Jason Isaacson: I really wanted to begin by citing some passages from the Democratic platform and some passages from the Republican platform relating to the Middle East. I'll just mention very briefly that the Republican platform's Middle East language is short and to the point. It says, We will stand with Israel and seek peace in the Middle East. We will rebuild our alliance network in the region to ensure a future of stability, peace, stability and prosperity. And it also promises, very quickly, to restore peace in Europe and the Middle East. The Democratic platform is much more extensive. It's an 80 page document, a long section on the Middle East. But it says that the administration opposes settlement expansion and West Bank West Bank annexation. Also opposes the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement against Israel. But it's very clear that the administration believes a strong, secure and democratic Israel is vital to the interests of the United States. It's also quite specific about the necessity of defeating Hamas. I want to start my questioning with Halie Soifer. The question that's been on the minds of political reporters and many of us in the community, Haley, as you very well know, over the last 10 months of the war in Gaza, and has taken on new meaning in light of the change at the top of the Democratic ticket. How can a Democratic candidate for president in the current highly charged environment maintain the support of the party's pro Israel mainstream while also keeping or winning back the loyalty of the increasingly active pro Palestinian segment of its constituency. What have we heard from Vice President Harris, for whom you worked in the Senate, that suggests that she can balance these competing policy claims? Halie Soifer: Well, thank you, Jason, thanks to everyone. I was told to project. And for those of you who are at the Global Forum, you know I know how to project, so I will try my best. But thanks for having me. I did have the honor of working for then-Senator Harris, starting her first month in the Senate for two years as her national security advisor. And what I can tell you is, not only does she share the views of President Biden, we know that based on the past three and a half years, and their records standing with Israel in the lead up to and of course, in the aftermath of the horrific attacks of October 7. Giving an unprecedented amount of military assistance to Israel, standing with Israel, not only in the aftermath of these attacks, but demanding the release of all of the hostages, and continuing to stand with Israel as it faces this threat from Iran, pre positioning military assets in the region, not once, but twice in the lead up to The attacks of April 13. But also, I can tell you from personal experience, her views on Israel didn't start from day one in the White House. I saw it from day one when she was in the Senate. She came to this role with over a decade of experience working on these issues. I traveled to Israel with her in November of 2017. This is an issue that she feels deeply in terms of the importance of the US Israel relationship, Israel security, its right to self defense, and she is a staunch supporter of Israel. Have no doubt. I'm glad you started with the Democratic platform as well, because this also elaborates on what is the strongly pro Israel views of our party. And make no mistake, it's not a coincidence that we have three pages detailing our support of Israel in our platform. It's pages 82-85 for those who would like to look it up. And it is no mistake that the Republican platform is empty platitudes. Two, two bullet points that barely say anything. Because this is an issue of which our party is deeply committed. And it extends beyond Israel. It includes Israel's security in the Middle East and our platform, which has never been stronger. I testified before the platform committee. I was very happy to say this very strong pro Israel platform of 2020 not only should it not be diluted, it should be strengthened. Because, of course, we have seen the horror of October 7, we should reflect the fact that we stand with Israel in this moment. We call for the release of the hostages, and of course, we unequivocally condemn Hamas. All of that is reflected in this platform and more, including recognition of the horrific sexual violence that was perpetrated on that day, which the vice president herself has given voice to. So in terms of questioning how she can navigate this issue, she already has and she continues to stand with Israel. I have no doubt that when she's elected in 78 days, with the strong support of the Jewish community, that she will continue to do so as President. Jason Isaacson: Thank you, Haile. Brad, I'm going to turn to you. The Republican Party platform had no specific references to Iran, but the Democratic platform went on at length about the need both to halt the regime's progress toward nuclear weapons capability and to confront Iran's and its proxies, destabilizing activities across the region. The Democrats document also pointed to instances of the Trump administration's failure to respond to certain Iranian provocations. Unfortunately, the Democratic platform didn't mention the fact that Trump administration was responsible for taking out IRGC Quds Force Chief, General Soleimani. Now talk about how you imagine a Harris administration confronting the Iranian threats differently from the Biden administration. We have seen over the last three years, Iran has continued to develop its nuclear weapons capability, although it's not yet passed that threshold apparently. Its proxies are on the march across the region. We haven't really been successful in confronting Iran. Do you see a Harris administration taking a different approach? Brad Schneider Great question. And before I start, let me just welcome everybody to Chicago, to our great city, and those from Chicago, can you raise your hand? And I'm also going to take the personal indulgence to say it's good to be home with Chicago AJC. Jason Isaacson: Thank you, Brad. I should have said that. Brad Schneider Look, Iran is the greatest threat to Israel, to the region, but also to the United States. Our interests here in the region, but also here at home, and so we need to stand up to Iran and understand Iran is a threat on many different aspects. It's not just their nuclear program. It is their support of the proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and more. It is their efforts to expand their reach, their influence across the region, and they do so not by building up states, but by tearing them down, creating instability across the region. Their chant is not just Death to Israel, but Death to America. I have no doubt that the Harris-Walz administration will stay focused and understands the importance of first, ensuring that Iran never, ever gets a nuclear weapon. That has to be our number one priority. Because imagine where we would have been on April 13 if Iran had a nuclear weapon. Or this past couple of weeks, if Iran had a nuclear weapon. The second thing I think you will see is the continuation of the policy. Reflecting on April 13, Iran launched 350 drones, rockets and missiles at Israel. It was Israel, the United States, and a arrangement or alliance of other nations that defeated that attack. That sent a very clear message that we will stand up to Iran, not leaving Israel to stand alone, or the United States and Israel standing without the support of allies, but allies throughout the region. And just as important, if you look at who those allies are and what they believe in, they are countries, Arab countries, that are looking to the future. They're looking for a different dynamic in the Middle East. You mentioned that the Trump administration took out Soleimani. The Trump administration also laid the groundwork and helped establish the Abraham Accords. That is, I believe, the framework for the future that provides security and peace, not just to Israel, but to the other nations in the region. And so what I believe the administration, that the Harris-Walz administration will focus on is isolating Iran, ensuring Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. Thwarting Iran's effort to expand its reach through proxies and failed states, but at the same time building up and working towards a path towards peace, security and prosperity for Israel and the region. I think that reflection of forward thinking, it's not just about Israel. It's about everything. If you were watching last night, if you were there last night [Monday night], if you've been watching this campaign as it's unfolded. Now it'll be one month tomorrow. As it unfolds, what you're seeing is a view towards a different path that gives promise and hope to a better future that is absolutely dependent on the United States. United States leadership and US leadership on a global stage will empower and help us to ensure that Iran doesn't get that foothold on the global stage and doesn't have the ability to continue with threats to Israel in the region. Jason Isaacson: Well, let me stay on Iran for a second with you. Do you see a Harris administration try to return to the JCPOA? Brad Schneider No. Jason Isaacson: Or has that been totally discredited? Brad Schneider One thing you'll see is the Harris administration. I had a long conversation with Ilan Goldberg yesterday, the recognition that we are where we are now, we all would wish we were in a different place. 10 years ago, we were focused on getting to a place to move Iran back from the threshold of a nuclear weapon, and without relitigating the JCPOA, we moved Iran further away, a year away. Now a year away is not eliminating Iran's capacity or capability to develop a nuclear weapon, but it is buying time. And what we should have done, I will relitigate this. We should have used that time to strengthen our position, our allies’ position to improve our prospects of moving Iran further back. Instead, what happened was the Trump administration pulled out of the JCPOA and Iran marched forward, and where they are today is far closer to a nuclear weapon than they were 10 years ago. Where they are today are talking about days away from having enough nuclear enriched uranium, highly enriched uranium, to build not one, but multiple nuclear weapons. And they just announced that they're working on developing the triggering mechanism, the ability to convert that enriched uranium into a nuclear weapon. So the stakes are higher. The risks are higher. Iran is closer. We've got to start where we are today, and I think the new administration coming in will start at that point and look for ways to push back, to create space, and to use that space to buy time, to use that time to get us to a place where we have more security. But we can only go there if the administration is clear. Congress is clear. It's not a partisan issue. This has to be Democrats and Republicans saying we will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and all options are available to us to ensure that Iran does not achieve their goal. Jason Isaacson: Brad, thank you. Ambassador Nides. We were talking earlier this morning about the Abraham Accords, and of course, Congressman Schneider just talked about that as well. How do you see a Harris administration, building on the Abraham Accords, success, building on what the Biden administration has tried to do in normalizing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Will that be a priority for the Harris administration? What would be the obstacles that it will face as it tries to move forward in that direction. Thomas Nides: Well, first of all, thank you for having me. And let me give a little bit of shout out to Ted Deutch. Who is– Ted, you can't leave. I see you walking back there. Because when they decided to recruit Ted Deutsch to leave the Congress to come do this, that was your biggest, happiest day. So thank you very much for your leadership. Let me just say there were not many things I agreed about with the Trump administration, to be clear. And when my when I was being confirmed as ambassador, one of the very nice members on the Republican side asked me, Sir, it seems to be that the Biden administration won't even talk about the Abraham Accords, and they don't even call them the Abraham Accords, I remember seeing the Senate because I'm a bit of a smart aleck, and I said, Can I explain to you something? I love the Abraham Accords, okay? I love the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords was, in my view, then and is today, a foundational event. And as much as I believe that the Trump administration has done all sorts of other things, the Abraham Accords, in my view, has strengthened the State of Israel. So I congratulate them for doing it and supporting it as we have. So we should all applaud that. And as we think about the future. Because listen, what has happened here. Even after October 7, the Bahrainians, the Moroccans and the Emiratis, they didn't abandon Israel. Quite the opposite. They've stuck with, most all of them kept their ambassadors in Israel. Most of them continue to have long involved conversations with the Prime Minister about the strength of Israel. And in fact, several months ago, when the Iranians were attacking Israel, those same countries were indirectly helping with the United States and with Israel to protect the State of Israel, not directly, but indirectly. A lot of information sharing. So the foundation for the Abraham Accords should be the foundation for what comes next. And what comes next. Number one, we got to get a hostage deal. For any of you – I'm leaving here to go with the hostage families. I was in Israel a couple weeks and spoke at hostage square. For all of us, for any of us, we should sit and pray to get these hostages out. And for those of you who know some of the families, it breaks my heart. We've got to get a hostage deal. The time is now, okay? And this President and this Vice President are committed to get these hostages free, so once we can get that deal done, and that means putting pressure on Netanyahu and putting pressure on Hamas. Make no mistake, this idea that this is all about Bibi. Listen, I've got my issues with Bibi on occasions, but it's not only convincing Bibi to do what needs to be done, it also is pressuring Hamas, through the proxies, to get them to do a deal. Once there is a hostage deal, everything starts coming into place. And what does that mean? Ultimately, would have to have a plan to rebuild Gaza. Because this fight wasn't with the Palestinian people. This fight was with Hamas, and we've got to help rebuild Gaza with a new PA, with a new group of international parties, including the Saudis and Emiratis. That's a $15 or $20 billion operation to build, rebuild Gaza. Yes, we need a new PA leadership, a new what PA leadership looks like in the future. Needs to be talked about and then, and then we need to have a conversation about normalization with Saudi Arabia. Make no mistake, it is the single most important thing that we can do, including keeping in control of Iran, is getting a normalization with Saudi Arabia. Because it's not just Saudi Arabia, it's the rest of the Muslim world, and it's in our grasp. We can get this done. Now obviously it's a little dreamy. And how do you get the 67 votes? We'll let the geniuses on the Hill, including the congressman, figure that out. But I do believe there is an opportunity, because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are completely committed to this. I will say one little note. Two years ago, when Joe Biden came for his 10th visit to Israel, I remember meeting him at the airport, and if you recall, it was the same it was middle of covid. It was the same time and where he decided to go to Saudi Arabia. And you remember Joe Biden during the campaign, said some fairly aggressive things about the Saudis during the Khashoggi thing and MBS. But he was convinced by a lot of people, mostly his national security adviser and his vice president to go to Saudi Arabia. Why? Because it was good for the security of the State of Israel. He fundamentally believed that the Saudi normalization could be and should be the keys for the security of the State of Israel. So we've got to get these hostages out. We get a plan, and we need moving on a side, normalization as quickly as humanly possible. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Yair Zivan, foreign policy advisor to Israel's opposition leader, Yair Lapid, about his new book of essays “The Center Must Hold.” In that book, authors argue for a return to centrist politics as an antidote to the extremism around the globe today.
Don't miss an episode of “People of the Pod” and subscribe to it in the GetPodcast app.
Is Centrism the Antidote to Political Polarization and Extremism? A Conversation with Yair Zivan8/15/202424:18“We live in a complicated world . . . We have to balance those tensions, and the way that we do that is not by running away from them and looking for simplistic answers, but actually by embracing that complexity.” In his new book of essays, “The Center Must Hold,” Yair Zivan, Foreign Policy Advisor to Israel’s Opposition Leader Yair Lapid, who heads Israel’s largest centrist political party, argues for a return to centrist politics as an antidote to the extremism and polarized politics proliferating around the globe today. The essays, by authors including Israel's former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, American political commentator Jennifer Rubin, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and philanthropist Catherine Murdoch, call populism fatally flawed and prescribe centrism as the solution to political ire around the globe. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Episode Lineup: (0:40) Yair Zivan Show Notes: Listen – People of the Pod: What the Unprecedented Assassinations of Terror Leaders Means for Israel and the Middle East Aviva Klompas is Fighting the Normalization of Antisemitism on Social Media On the Ground at the Republican National Convention: What's at Stake for Israel and the Middle East? Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [emailprotected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Interview with Yair Zivan: Manya Brachear Pashman: Yair Zivan has served as an advisor to Israel's Foreign Minister, Prime Minister and President. Most recently, he has edited a series of essays that argue for a return to centrist politics as an antidote to the extremism and polarized politics we see proliferating around the globe today. The title of that book: “The Center Must Hold”. The essays by authors including Israel's former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, American political commentator Jennifer Rubin, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and philanthropist Catherine Murdoch, call out populism as fatally flawed and prescribe centrism as the solution to political ire around the globe. Yair, welcome to People of the Pod. Yair Zivan: Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman: So let's start with the title of this essay collection, which is a spin, your spin on the line from the Yates poem The Second Coming. And that poem was written more than a century ago, also during a time of worldwide angst after World War One and the flu pandemic and the poem's opening line is, things fall apart, the center cannot hold. Why do you argue the center must hold? Yair Zivan: So I think that the play on words there is about a kind of a fatalism that says it can't and saying, Well, we don't really have that luxury if we believe, as I do, that the center is the answer to the polarization and the populism and the extremism that's tearing us apart, then it simply has to hold. Now that's not to say that it will automatically or by default. It means we have to go out and fight for it, and that's what I've been trying to do with the book and with the events around it, is to make the case that the center can hold if we go out and make that happen. Manya Brachear Pashman: So what is centrism anyway? Yair Zivan: It's a good place to start. I'll start with what centrism isn't. Centrism is not the middle. It's not a search for some point on a map between where the left and the right happen to be at any given time. That just leaves you getting dragged around from place to place by whatever the political winds are. It's not useful as a political idea. It's also not successful as a political idea. Centrism says, here are a set of core values that we believe should be at the center of politics. They should be the things that are at the heart of our democratic political tradition, our political instinct. And you can trace it back to the early '90s, to Clinton and to Blair and the third way movement. You can trace it back much further, Oliver Wendell Holmes is often cited as a good example of a centrist political philosophy. But at its core, what centrism says is we live in a complicated world, and we have to manage that complexity. We have to balance those tensions, and the way that we do that is not by running away from them and looking for simplistic answers, but actually by embracing that complexity. And by saying when we find the best balance between these competing tensions, and that's not to say split the difference and find the middle. There are times when we go more one way and more another, it's to say that is the way that we can best hold within us the complexities of running a country today. And there are some very core values at the heart of that liberal patriotism, this idea that it's good to love your country. It's good to be a patriot without being a nationalist, without hating others, without having to degrade other people in order to affirm your sense of love for your own country. We talk about equality of opportunity, the idea that the role of government is to give everybody the best possible chance to succeed. It's not to guarantee an equality of outcome at the end, but it's to say we're going to make sure that children have a good education system and that their health care system gives them a chance to succeed, and they have a hot meal every day, and then people that want to work hard and take those opportunities and be innovative will be able to succeed in society. It talks about the politics of hope, as opposed to the politics of fear and division, so creating a national story that people can rally around, rather than one that divides us inevitably into camps and separates us, which is what I think populists and extremists try to do. So there's a whole host of them, and I would say one of the core ones, and maybe why it's so important and so relevant now, is that centrism is the place where you defend liberal democracy. It's fashionable today to talk about the death of liberalism and why liberalism can't possibly survive, and liberal democracy is an aberration in human history, and really we’re meant to be ruled by kings and autocrats. And I say no, liberal democracy is good. It's actually the best system of government we've ever had, and we should work really hard to defend it and to protect it. And the only place you can do that is in the political center. You can't trust the political right and the political left to defend the institutions of liberal democracy, because they only do it up until the point when it's uncomfortable for them. The right has taken on itself the mantle of free speech, and the right is really great at protecting free speech right up until the point that it's speech they don't like and then they're banning books in libraries. And the left loves talking about protecting the institutions of liberal democracy until it disagrees with them, and then it's happy to start bending around the edges. The Center is the place where we say the institutions, the ideas, the culture of liberal democracy, is something that's worth defending and worth defending passionately and strongly. Manya Brachear Pashman: So I'm curious, are these core values universal to centrism, or are they really up to individual communities? Is it, in other words, is it up to communities, nations to decide what centrism is in their region, in their neck of the woods, if you will? Yair Zivan: So there is always variety in any political idea, in any political approach, where people adapt it to their own systems, but the core principles have to be the same core principles. And one of the things I set out to do in this book is to say, actually, centrism is something that works across the globe. So Malcolm Turnbull, the former Australian Prime Minister, and Andreas Velasco, a former presidential candidate in Latin America, and we have Argentinians, and we have a Japanese contributor, and the idea is to say centrism as the principles that I laid out as the core idea is the antidote to the extremism and polarization that we're seeing works everywhere, and that's actually a really important part. Now, sure, there are different issues that you deal with in different countries. Also say the threat is different in different countries, if part of what we're doing is an alternative to extremism and polarization. Then in Latin America, people are more worried today about the rise of a populist far left, whereas in Europe, they might be more worried about the rise of a populist far right. And so the challenge is different and the response is different, but the core principles, I think, are the same and they are consistent. Manya Brachear Pashman: So do you believe that this philosophy is eroding? I mean, it seems to be happening at the same time around the world, in various democracies, Europe, United States, Israel. But do you agree? I mean, is this eroding, or is that too strong a word? Yair Zivan: Look, I think one of the problems with centrist is we're often not very good at talking about our successes and pretty down on ourselves, rather than actually taking pride in really good things that we've done and in places where we win and places where we do well, the test of a political idea is not if it wins every election. No one wins every election, right? That's part of politics as a pendulum. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but the more important thing is not whether you win every election. And don't get me wrong, I work in politics. I like to win. I like to get votes. I like to be in government so that we can do the things that we care about, right? That's why we're in politics. But the test of the idea is whether it can also survive, defeat, an opposition and a time when you're not in power and come back from that stronger. And I think centrism has done that, and can continue to do that. But part of the reason for the book is we haven't always been articulate enough, confident enough and coherent enough in the way that we present our case, and that's something that I hope this book will have some kind of role in changing. That is to say we need to be proud of our successes and our achievements. What happens when you have a successful centrist government, the next people in the political party that come along disavow it and move away from it. You saw it in Tony Blair's Labor Party. I would argue that new labor was an incredibly successful political project, and the thing that came next was a labor party that did everything it could to run away from that rather than embrace that legacy. And as the Labor Party reembrace that legacy, not coincidentally, it also came to power again in the UK, and you see that across the world. I think there are places clearly where we're struggling and places where we need to do a better job, but I also think there are enough examples to show that centrism can work, and the kind of politics that we're pushing for can work and can be successful. Manya Brachear Pashman: So where is it struggling and where is it succeeding the most? Yair Zivan: So look, I'll talk about something that is maybe close to our heart on this podcast, and that's the situation in Israel today, Israel is going through the most difficult time, I think, as a country that certainly in our lifetimes, if not since 1948 we October 7 was was the darkest day that any of us lived through. I'm a little reticent to talk about the political response to that, but one of the things that's interesting from a centrist perspective, is the response of the Israeli public has not been to move to the right. It's been to move to the political center. And if you look at opinion polls in Israel today, the next government, if elections were held today, would be a center center right government. And I'm confident that that will hold all the way through to whenever we have the next election. And I think that's because there is a sense in Israel that actually people want that type of governance. They want people who understand that you need to embrace compromise and moderation and pragmatism as values, rather than looking at them as kind of a political slur, as a vice, as something that we need to talk down about. And so I look at Israel as a place where, actually we lost the election. In November '22 we elected a government that was, to my mind, very right wing. And populist and incredibly problematic. I think we've paid a very high price for that in the last 18 months or so, and now there is a move back towards the political center. Look, I think Emmanuel Macron has been an example of the success of political centrism. The fact that he struggled in the parliament in the most recent parliamentary elections is not an indictment of the fact that he managed to build a political center in France that wasn't really there before. And the test, I guess, will be whether in two years, there is a successor from his party or not. So there are plenty of places I think that I can look out for being successful and where centrism does well. I think there's been some really good examples of political centrism in the US as well, despite the popular media narrative that everything is polarized. You look at groups like the problem solvers caucus in Congress, and you say, here is a group of members of Congress who are determined to work together, who are determined to cooperate and to find solutions to complicated problems and approach it in a really centrist way. Would I like to see centrists winning more in bigger majorities everywhere? Absolutely. Manya Brachear Pashman: Can you give an example of an issue, pick a country, any country, but an issue that would really benefit from that pragmatic approach, that pragmatic centrist approach, sir Yair Zivan: Arne Duncan, who was President Obama's Secretary of Education, who writes about a willingness to take on teachers unions and a willingness to demand standards and a sense of what is the focus of education, right? Where the focus of education should be providing the best possible education to children, something we should all be able to rally around, and yet, something that we seem to have lost along the way. And I think education comes back again and again as a core centrist focus. That's one. The other one that I think is really interesting is the essay by Rachel Pritzker. Rachel writes about climate change and about environment, and in it, she makes what I think is a really compelling case that says we can't fight back against the need for energy abundance, because, particularly in the developing world, people need energy in order to improve their quality of life, and they need a lot more energy than they have now. And the idea that the solution to climate change is turning off the lights every so often for a bit longer, is just not practical. Now it comes from a perspective that says climate change is real and is a problem and it's something we need to address, but it kind of pushes away from, I think, most of the orthodoxies of much of the kind of climate change movement and the environmental protection movement, and says we need something different. And that thing is a focus on technology and on innovation that will allow people to create the energy that they need in order to raise their quality of life, rather than demanding that they use less. That is, I think, a really great centrist approach. It's not a splitting of the difference. It's clearly coming down on the side that says climate change is real and it's a problem and it's something we have to address. But it's rejecting orthodoxies and offering something I think that's different. Manya Brachear Pashman: And this seems like such a no brainer, right? I mean, it seems like these are our values, our principles that everyone should be able to agree upon, maybe not the methodology, right? Maybe that's what's up for debate. But it seems like these are just not points of contention. Yair Zivan: I think we're going against the grain of politics. I think today, people don't subscribe to a real full throated defense of liberal democracy, and people aren't really willing to defend free speech, including speech that they don't like. And people are taking advantage of feelings of patriotism and dragging them to a pretty ugly nationalism or rejecting patriotism altogether. And so I think a lot of the ideas are not the most natural grain of where politics is. I was on a panel a few days ago, and one of the panelists turned to me, looked at me deeply, and said, I don't think I've ever met a centrist before. And I thought, I think you probably have, right? And if not, then, nice to meet you, hi, I'm a centrist. But the idea that actually it's going against the trend in politics is one that troubles me. Part of what I'm trying to do is to say to people, if you are a centrist, then speak up. And it's difficult when you're a centrist, you are the biggest threat today. The fight in politics today is not between left and right, it's between the center and the extremes. And so what happens when you come out and say, I'm a centrist? This is what I believe, is you find yourself attacked by the extremes, and that's sometimes a difficult place to be. When I put the first tweet out about my book within half an hour, I was called every name under the sun. I was a communist and a Nazi all at once, depending on who was attacking me, right? You have to be able to withstand that too often. Centrists have been shy and have kind of hidden back and said, I don't really mean it, and actually, I don't want to have this fight. Or actually, let's not talk about politics now, rather than saying, here's a set of values I believe in, and I'm passionate about and I'm willing to fight for them, and you know what, I am as committed to them, I am as passionate about them, and I'm as willing to fight for them as the extremes are about theirs. And because I think the majority of people are centrist and are looking for that motivation, I think that allows us to win the political argument, because if we're proud enough, then people will line up behind us who already do agree with the principles, but maybe feel like they're alone or there aren't enough people that share their views. Manya Brachear Pashman: In other words, they're kind of anti confrontational. They avoid confrontation, or perhaps too many centrists don't want to sound too passionate about their values, because. As perhaps passion equates to extreme. Yair Zivan: You should be able to be a passionate centrist. You should be passionate about defending liberal democracy. You should be passionate about being a liberal patriot. You should be passionate about trying to give children equality of opportunity, right? Those things are things that it's good to be passionate about, and you should care about them. I just don't recognize in the centrism that I see being successful, this perception of timidity, or this perception of being scared, but what you have, I think, is too many centrists who have taken that path, and you have kind of backed off and backed away from being passionate about those arguments, and that's where we lose. So my call to centrists is to be loud and to be proud and to be passionate about the things that we really care about and where there are places where people might feel a little bit uncomfortable with it and not want to be confrontational, because maybe it goes with the more moderate and pragmatic mindset. Is to say we have to overcome it because the issues are too important for us not to. Manya Brachear Pashman: Do I also want to clarify, being a centrist is not at the exclusion of the right or the left, right? It's more a conversation between both, or a consensus or a compromise of both, whatever works right, whatever works best for the greater good? Yair Zivan: There is an element of a rejection of the left and the right, to some extent, right, particularly of the fringes, and I'm incredibly critical of even some of the more moderate left and moderate right, because they're too willing to appease the extremes on their side. They're very good at calling out extremism and populism from the other camp, but not always good enough for calling out on their own side, which I think is where the challenge really lies. The idea is not to find a compromise. The idea is not to split the difference between old ideas. It is about saying we should be focusing on what works. And I write a line in the book, slightly glibly, that, if it works, and if it makes people's lives better, does it really matter if it comes from Marx or from Hayek, right? The political philosophy behind it certainly matters less than if it works the way that compromise can be a successful political tool. And I think we all compromise in our lives all the time, and suddenly when we get to politics, we see it as a sign of weakness or non-committal-ness or something like that, whereas in our everyday lives, we see it as a part of being able to function as an adult in society. I think the goal of that, the way that you do that successfully, the way you compromise successfully, is by being really clear about what your values are and what your ideals are and what you believe. And only then can you go to a compromise. If I try to compromise with people without being very firm about what I believe and what's important to me, I'll just get dragged to wherever they are because they're passionate and I'm not. They're committed and I'm not. So you have to be really clear about what your values are. And I actually think the real test about compromise is whether you do it when you're in a position of power, not in a position of weakness. In politics, people compromise because they have to. I say you should compromise because you want to. And I'll give a kind of an example, I guess. If I had 51% of the votes in Parliament, and I could pass anything I wanted, and I had a belief, a reform that I passionately believed and wanted to get through, and I could pass it 100% the way that I wanted, or I could take it down to 80% of what I want, and take 20% from other people and increase my majority from 51% to 75% I would do that because I think it's right, because I think building consensus builds more sustainable policy, because I think it creates a healthier democracy and a healthier political culture. Because I have enough humility to say that maybe I don't know everything, and I'm not right about everything, and the other side has something useful to contribute, even to something that I'm really passionate about. That's the test of compromise. Do you do it when you don't have to, but because you think it's the right thing to do? And again, it's dependent on knowing what your values are and dependent on knowing what you're not willing to compromise on, because if you don't have that, then you don't have the anchor from which you take your political beliefs. Manya Brachear Pashman: In other words, kind of seeding a little bit to the other side, not because you have to, but because you need that little percentage bump to pass your legislation, but because you'll just build more of a consensus and more support on both sides of the aisle, or both sides of eight aisles, whatever, however it works. But yeah, I mean, it's really about building a consensus among lawmakers for the greater good, rather than just claiming that slim victory. Yair Zivan: Yeah, it creates better policy and more sustainable policy. But there's also limits to it. You very rarely in politics get 100% support for anything. And often, if you've got to the place where everyone supports it, then you've probably gone too far with the compromise, right, and you've probably watered it down too much. There are very rare moments in politics when everybody agrees about something, and there are cases, and there are cases when we can do that, but on the really big issues, it's rare for us to get to that level of consensus, and I don't think that's necessarily desirable either. But being able to build a little bit beyond your political comfort zone, a little bit beyond your camp, I think, is a really useful thing in politics, and there are models where it works really well. Manya Brachear Pashman: So let me ask you more specifically. Okay, what is eroding centrism? What forces really are working against it and in the places where the center is maintaining its hold, are those forces in reverse? In other words, have they found a way to conquer those particular forces, or have they found a way to conquer what works against centrism, or has it just not reached them yet? Yair Zivan: So I'll start by flipping the question, I don't think it's about, does centrism work when other people aren't strong enough to attack it and to take it apart? Centrism works when it's strong enough, in and of itself, and it's defining the political agenda. The goal of what I'm trying to do with the book and with the arguments that I'm making is to say, we define what is at the core of democratic politics. Now everybody else is going to have to respond to us. So that's the first thing. Is that switch in mindset away from Are we able to withstand, where the extremes are, to a place where we say, actually, we're the solid anchor, and now we are the ones that are defining the political moment and the political issues. Where is it that we do well? Is where we're confident, right? When we're able to stand up and be proud of ourselves, and then you're more easily able to rebuff some of those forces. Where do I think centrism struggles? One of the places where it struggles, and this is my criticism of my own camp, which I think is always important to have that kind of, I think, a little bit of self awareness. We're often not good enough at really connecting with people's fears and grievances and concerns that are genuine, right? People really are worried about technological innovation and the pace of automation, and people are worried about immigration. And you can be worried about immigration without being a racist and without being a person that should be shunned or that we should criticize. There is a genuine reason why people are worried about these things, and we have to be better at really connecting to those grievances and fears that people have to really understand them, to really empathize with them. That is the cost of entry, to be able to suggest different policies to them. If I want to convince someone that populist politics aren't going to work, I have to show that I care about them as much as the Populists do, and not seed that ground. And I don't think we're always really good enough at doing that. Where we are good at doing that, there's a huge reward. And ultimately, I believe that on every issue, the solutions that we offer from the political center are more successful than the solutions that are offered by the populists and by the extremists, but we have to be able to convince the public of that you can't disregard people who vote for somebody you find distasteful, even if you think that the candidate they're voting for is somebody that you have real problems with, and even if the candidate they're voting for is actually a racist or is actually illiberal and undemocratic. That doesn't mean all the people voting for them are and it doesn't mean you can afford to dismiss those people. It means you need to do a better job of listening to them and connecting with them and bringing them back to our political camp. When politicians fail to get their message across because they're not doing a good enough job, it's not because of the public. Manya Brachear Pashman: Yair, thank you so much for joining us and for giving us a little bit of a pathway to expressing these kinds of views that aren't heard of a whole lot. Yair Zivan: Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week’s episode, be sure to tune in for a conversation between my colleague Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC’s Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, and Ron Kampeas, the Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
VP Picks, Media Bias, and Antisemitism: The 2024 U.S. Election and Its Impact on Israel and the Jewish People8/8/202424:52Listen to an in-depth conversation on all the latest in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, from the vice presidential picks –Tim Walz and JD Vance – to Israel and antisemitism. Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC’s Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, speaks with Ron Kampeas, the Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Kampeas also discussed the importance of accuracy and empathy in reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, highlighting the need for journalists to avoid biases and misrepresentations. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Episode Lineup: (0:40) Ron Kampeas Learn: AJC's Call to Action Against Antisemitism U.S. Party Platforms Must Take a Stand Against Antisemitism Here are 5 Jewish Issues Republicans and Democrats Must Address at their Conventions Listen: What the Unprecedented Assassinations of Terror Leaders Means for Israel and the Middle East Aviva Klompas is Fighting the Normalization of Antisemitism on Social Media On the Ground at the Republican National Convention: What's at Stake for Israel and the Middle East? Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [emailprotected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Interview with Ron Kampeas: Manya Brachear Pashman: This week, my colleague Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, spoke to Ron Kampeas, the Washington DC Bureau Chief of JTA, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. They broke down the latest in the 2024 US presidential election. Julie, the mic is yours. Julie Fishman Rayman: Ron, thank you so much for joining us. I'm so pleased to have this conversation with you, because we get to flip the tables and someone who's really a beloved and renowned journalist in the Jewish space, and finally, I get to ask you questions. So thank you for making this opportunity available to us. Ron Kampeas: Thank you. Julie Fishman Rayman: I want to start by talking a little bit about the conventions. You were in Milwaukee covering AJC’s event, alongside a number of other things. Thank you for being there with us. What were your biggest takeaways from the Republican Convention, particularly as they related to the issues of Israel and antisemitism? Ron Kampeas: I think Israel was front and center, and they made it front and center because it's an obvious advantage that they have over the Democrats right now. So, you know, I think the representative moment was, in a way, when Matt Brooks, the CEO of the Republican Jewish Coalition, he was invited for the first time to address the Republican Convention, and the first thing he said was, let's hear it for Israel, or something like that, or let's hear it for the hostages. And there were cheers, and then he says that couldn't happen in a month at the Democratic Convention. He might be right. And so that was a big plus for them. On antisemitism it's a little more opaque, but it's problematic, I think, because after Matt spoke, he called us Jewish media reporters together for a little gaggle, and we asked him, naturally, about the isolationism that the vice presidential or the running mate pick JD Vance represents. And it's interesting, the way that Matt put it. He said, yeah, it is a problem. He was candid. He said, it's a problem in the party, and we plan to fight it. And, you know, nobody prompted him, but he said, we plan to take on the Tucker Carlson wing of the party. The interesting thing about that is that he said, prevent Tucker Carlson wing from getting a foothold. And Tucker Carlson had very much a foothold at the convention. He spoke on the last night, setting up Donald Trump's speech. He was up in the balcony with Donald Trump. And of course, you know, Matt's point is that Tucker Carlson is very much an isolationist, particularly as far as Ukraine goes, but he's given hints as far as Israel goes. But it's more than that. He's platformed antisemites, and he's kind of ventured into that territory himself – antisemites like Candace Owens, Kanye West – and I think that that is something that Jewish Republicans are going to have to grapple with. Julie Fishman Rayman: One of the things that was discussed at AJC’s event alongside the Republican National Convention was the policy positions of not just JD Vance, but others who sort of align with that faction of the Republican Party – I guess, the Tucker Carlson faction – and sort of reading the tea leaves on Ukraine and saying, you know, at what point does the hesitancy around support for Ukraine translate into hesitancy for support for Israel? And does it? What would you say to that question? Ron Kampeas: You know, it's interesting that at least as far as I could track, that played out an explicit sense only at your event, at the AJC event. There were people who were asking hard questions of the panelists, and two of the panelists were very much not stumping for Trump, they were defending Trump and the Trump policies. Kirsten Fontenrose, not so much. She was more critical, and even though she was part of the Trump NSC. And so the defense that they were saying is that simply, you know, whatever you may think of Trump's position, this is Rich Goldberg has particularly said this, but I think Ken Weinstein also said it, whatever you may think of Trump's positions on Ukraine, the strength he will project in the world. And this was right after the assassination, and Rich Goldberg kept on bringing up that Associated Press photo of Trump looking very defiant after being shot, that strength is going to deter the kind of actions that Putin has taken in Ukraine. But the flip side of that actually came up a couple of weeks later at a Christians United for Israel conference here in DC, where isolationism was very much on the mind, and what they were articulating and what might have been articulated in an AIPAC conference, if AIPAC still had conferences – it doesn't – but what they were articulating is that it's holistic, that you can't just say, like, JD Vance says, ‘Oh, I'm all for assisting Israel, but we don't need to assist Ukraine, because Russia's bad actions in Ukraine are being supported by Iran. Iran is supplying arms to Russia in Ukraine that it then can, you know, see how those arms work in Ukraine, and they can use them theoretically against Israel.’ We're seeing now, as tensions build up in the Middle East, that Russia has Iran's back. And then, you know, there's also China, which is also problematic and is buying Iranian oil and helping to prop up the Iranian economy that way. So it's not simply a matter of whether one side projects strength better than the other side, and this is the argument coming out of the Christians United for Israel thing. It's a matter of constant engagement and awareness of how all these things can interlock. Julie Fishman Rayman: I think that's a really great point, and I'm glad you made that connection. I know one of the other issues that was present or discussed at the Christians United for Israel conference was the issue of the hostages, and what you said before about the sort of rallying result of Matt Brooks’ comments about, you know, let's hear it for Israel, let’s hear it for the hostage families. And a similar cry might solicit or elicit at the DNC. What do you think we could expect? You know, would you expect that a hostage family will take to the stage as Orna and Ronen Neutra did at the DNC, and if so, what might the result be? Ron Kampeas: So that's a good question. I know that they've asked. I know that the hostage families have asked to appear at the DNC. I know that there are people who have told me that the DNC, especially like with Kamala Harris, who has spoken out for the hostages. I don't see how Kamala Harris could not have the hostages or some sort of representation of the hostages at the conference. On the other hand, the Democrats are going to have to worry about, I don't think they're going to be booed, but I think that they're not going to get the same sort of enthusiastic reception that maybe that they got at the Republican conference, and simultaneously the uncommitted movement. The movement was founded in Michigan and spread to some other states that when Biden was the nominee, particularly, they were upset that Biden wasn't doing enough to stop the war in Gaza, wasn't doing enough to force Israel into a ceasefire, and they wanted to show that they didn't necessarily have to vote for him in November, so they didn't vote for him in the primaries. And they had different effects in different states, but certainly in states like Michigan and Minnesota, I think that they had a pretty good turnout as far as that goes. And they want a doctor from Gaza to speak at the DNC. So you know which might be fine. It might be a legitimate enterprise in their part, but you know that the Democrats are going to be accused of “both sides-ing” it, that the Republicans wouldn't have somebody like that. So because of the Democrats of different constituencies, as much as the Republicans are now, at least the Trump campaign is now trying to reach out to Arab Americans. It's much more a constituency for the Democrats, as are the Jews. It's going to be like a tightrope for them to walk. And so I don't know how that's going to be a play out, but it's certainly something we're going to be tracking. Julie Fishman Rayman: Talking about that, that tightrope, and also, because you mentioned Michigan and Minnesota, let's talk for a moment about the selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for the vice presidential nominee. He has both spoken at AIPAC’s conferences, stood by Israel after the October 7 attacks, talked about Jewish students on campus dealing with encampments and anti-Israel protests and has really been outspoken about rising antisemitism in this country. On the flip side, he also speaks to the more progressive flank of the Democratic Party, and has urged the party to do more intentional kind of outreach to anti-Israel voters who aren't committed to voting the Harris-Walz ticket. What do you make of him in this moment, as both a campaigner and then presumably, if elected, what would you make of him as a vice president? Ron Kampeas: It's hard to say right now. Nobody was really aware of Tim Walz a lot outside of Minnesota until last week, but it's so funny because, you know, there was this whole push back against Shapiro from the far left because he was perceived as being – I'm talking about Josh Shapiro, the Pennsylvania Governor who was a front runner – because he was perceived as being too pro-Israel. But Yair Rosenberg did a really good job. I also did a little bit of reporting into this about how the other candidates, who other likelies that Kamala Harris were considering, are also pro-Israel, and Tim Walz has a long list of accomplishments, but you know, a measure of how fast this summer has gone, how crazy this political season has been, is this a week and a half ago, when Yair put up his story, he didn't even have Tim Walz in it. He was looking at Roy Cooper, he was looking at Mark Kelly from Arizona, and then, because nobody was even thinking about Tim Walz then, and now, he's the running mate. But from what you can see about him, and like, we just, JTA just did a big story about his master's thesis on Holocaust education, he's somebody who really wants to listen. His recommendation to the Republican Party, you know, he's coined this whole weird thing. That's actually why the Harris campaign noticed him, because he was the first to call the Republicans weird. I mean, the Republican candidates, but he said don't direct that at the voters, direct that only at the nominees, because we have to listen to the voters. And so I think that you can look at what he says about listening to the protesters on campuses in that context. For somebody who was born in Nebraska and lived most of his life in a town of 400 people in Minnesota, he shows, like, remarkably nuanced understanding of things that are of Jewish concern regarding the Holocaust. He's talked about how, you know, one can look at the Holocaust legitimately as an anomaly in history, but also understand it as something that could be repeated, which is actually Yehuda Bauer, the famous Holocaust historian's point. The way he boiled it down was that the Holocaust happened only to the Jews, but it can happen to anybody. And so that's Waltz's outlook, and it shows somebody who's really sort of read up on this and considered it in depth. Julie Fishman Rayman: Because you mentioned that Josh Shapiro had been very much in the running there, I want to get your take on the sort of social media trends of calling him “Genocide Josh” because of his pro-Israel statements and record. Is that just blatant antisemitism that we need to be mindful of, was it specific? Do you think it's just, you know, savvy opposition researchers? What do you make of that? Ron Kampeas: You know, we often think of antisemitism as, you know, planning to be antisemitic and putting out a statement. There are people who are consciously antisemitic, but the much greater, the much more vexing problem is that, how, it just seeps into the discourse. We have a polarized society, and it's just very easy when you're opposing somebody to grab whatever is in the toolbox to harm them. And for anybody who's Jewish, I mean, you see this and we talk about it openly, you see it when we talk about women in politics, about how attacks on them can be gendered. And nobody, at least nobody on the left, complains about that. Actually, maybe they did a little bit. You know, the Bernie Bros made gendered attacks on Hillary Clinton, and they didn't denied it. But anyways, so you can say that attacks can be gendered, but it's hard to explain how attacks can also be antisemitic, because that's a tool in the box. And then a lot of people on the left don't want to acknowledge that. They slip into that. And I think that's what happened with Josh Shapiro. I think that there is for some reason, I mean, I can speculate as to, not even speculate – people have said why, even though he was just as pro-Israel as Tim Walz. He's like he's not less pro-Israel. But Mark Kelly did things that I'm sure Josh Shapiro wouldn't have done. Josh Shapiro doesn't like Benjamin Netanyahu. Mark Kelly, the senator from Arizona, went to the Netanyahu speech, shook his hand afterwards and applauded, and they didn't get attacked in the same way. And if you look at some of the reasons that Shapiro was attacked, they talked about his upbringing, his going to a Jewish Day School in the Philly area, and the things that he was exposed to, they talked about his going to Israel when he was a teenager. And those are things that are part and parcel of a lot of American Jewish upbringings. And so you can say those things are indicting, but there's a point, because you're an American Jew coming up in American Jewish communities, going to be exposed to a lot of pro-Israel. But at what point does that become antisemitic? Because that's just the natural part of Jewish life. Julie Fishman Rayman: I want to ask you another question related to the media. I want to sort of get your take. Last week, AJC and the Jewish Federations of North America published an open letter to media outlets generally, really identifying how so many of them got the Hezbollah attack on the soccer field in the Golan so, so, so wrong that, after a dozen Druze kids playing soccer were murdered in the middle of the afternoon, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, others, just totally misrepresented the facts. The Washington Post headlined a story “Hezbollah denies responsibility for the fatal rocket strike.” It wasn't true. Hezbollah celebrated the attack until they learned that children were killed and then walked it back. And then doubling down, a later Washington Post story showed an image of the funeral of one of the children who was killed, but the headline read, “Israel hits target in Lebanon.” So if you only look at the picture and you only read the headline, you think it's a Lebanese kid that has been killed by a strike in Israel, not that an Israeli Druze kid was killed by a Hezbollah attack. CNN, AP, they all sort of downplayed Hezbollah's role in these really horrific murders. Is this ignorance? Is it bias? Is it both? And regardless, if we're sort of operating under this principle of journalist integrity, is this OK? Ron Kampeas: No, it's not OK. I don't know what went on at the Washington Post. I was witness, kind of, to one of the most foundational episodes in bad media takes, which happened right after the Second Intifada began, and the AP put out a photo of a policeman helping up a Haredi Jewish kid who had just been knocked down or even beaten by Palestinian writers in Jerusalem. And the AP captioned the photo saying that the policeman was attacking a Palestinian on the Temple Mount, which is so funny because there's a gas station in the back of the picture and there's no gas stations on the Temple Mount. I mean, if you know Jerusalem, you know the Temple Mount, you know how crazy that is. And so, like, what had happened was that I knew the guy who was handling photo editing at the AP that night when he got this picture. And at the time – this is in the early days of the Internet and computers – the picture came across at the AP’s, Israeli photo agency affiliate, and Hebrew couldn't work on that machine, so, like, the Hebrew was scrambled. They captioned it in Hebrew. It was scrambled. So the guy calls up the other guy who's also tired, and he said, was this like some cop beating up a Palestinian on the Temple Mount? He said, yeah, sure, and that's how the thing goes out. So it's just, like, journalists can screw up in ways that speak to a certain underlying bias about the conflict. They expect to see certain things, but it's also can be stupidity and laziness and just screw ups at the last minute. I mean, I imagine that's what happened with the Washington Post front page, but it's awful, and it needs to be remedied, and people need to be more educated, and they need to pay more attention. I think you're right. I think the way that the media has been treating the Hezbollah-Israel conflict in the north, in a way, differently than it treated, at least at the beginning, it treated Israel-Hamas. Hamas is clearly defined as a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is an organization that's holding Lebanon hostage. Historically, people now think it was a big mistake to invade Lebanon in 1982. Hezbollah was partly an outgrowth of resentment of the Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon. But Israel withdrew to UN. They went to the UN and they said, you decide where the lines are. We're not going to decide where the lines are. You decide where the lines are, and we will withdraw that to that point. In 2000 Israel did that. Hezbollah continued to attack. Hezbollah launched a war in 2006 that Israel did not want, and conflict with Israel helps uphold Hezbollah within Lebanon. And so I think that because Hezbollah is a very proficient and weathered militia, they fought a war in Syria. They fought a terrible, genocidal war in Syria. They were on the wrong side of that, but they fought a war in Syria. They're good at what they're doing. So maybe there's a reflex to see this as a conflict between two militaries, but it's not. It's a conflict between Israel and a terrorist organization that unprovoked launched missiles inside Israel on October the eighth, even before Israel was striking back in Gaza as a means of solidarity with Hamas. And so I think that needs to be front, just as I think a lot of media, obviously JTA, but even a lot of like, you know, non-Jewish media always put out there that Hamas started this war. It needs to be reminded that Hezbollah also started its version of the war, and that Hezbollah, it's not an army that's accountable to any kind of civilian infrastructure, never mind a democratic one, like the Israeli army is accountable to elected officials. It's its own militia with a stranglehold on Lebanon. So yeah, I think that should be evident in everything that's written about that conflict, and maybe that's what helped distort at least the initial reporting from what happened in Majdal Shams, which is just horrible. Julie Fishman Rayman: One of the things that AJC is always trying to call on media outlets to do is to know who to call. Right, if there is an incident related to Israel that they don't fully understand, if there's an antisemitic attack and they need more context, to understand that there are Jewish individuals and organizations who can help to provide insight and texture and understanding so that their reporting can be more accurate. That's one of the recommendations in our Call to Action Against Antisemitism in America, recommendations for media. I wonder if, you know, journalist to journalist, if folks call you and say, “Ron, this is what we're writing, is this right?” Knowing that you are just such a font of knowledge, they should, this is what I'm saying. They should call you. Ron Kampeas: My son asks me, I mean, very occasionally, I do get calls more having to do with my alleged knowledge of the American Jewish community and how it works and how it functions. I get calls about that. I think on Israel, less so because everybody's an expert. Everybody considers themselves an expert. Everybody flies in. I think what was an unfortunate standard. 20 years ago, it wasn't just the AP, it was all mainstream media, that you get your best takes from a foreign correspondent between three and six months into the assignment, because it takes them three months to learn it, but it takes them six months to go native, which is to sort of really understand the nuances. I think that's unfortunate, because I think going native, really understanding the nuances, sort of delving into a story, becoming familiar with it, becoming sympathetic in ways, with all sides to the story, actually enriches a story. And I think that that's something that maybe you know, I've been doing JTA for 21 years. I've been in journalism for 35 years. I think it's great to have fresh outlooks. It's good. I think it's also good to sometimes rely on institutional knowledge and to listen to people who have been here before. It was weird at AP. I was in a position at AP when I wasn't allowed to use my institute for bizarre reasons. Institutional knowledge, you know. But it was funny, because at the outset of the Iraq War, the first day, the major Iraq war in 2002, 2003, I knew things that signal that it was going to go wrong, because I'd lived in the Middle East, and I wasn't the only one. By far, by far, there were a lot of people who knew those things institutionally. It means literally saying, like what the Israelis said in 1982, the Shiites are throwing rice and you had actual examples in 1982 of Shiites throwing rice at Israelis, and in 2003 of Shiites throwing rice at Americans. They want this. And it never works out that way. It goes awry. But nobody was listening, because people were too invested in a particular outcome to listen to the institutionalists. And I think that that's a problem. There's a reflex sometimes to say, oh, the institutionalists got it wrong in the past, because the world is still a mess, but that's not their value. The value of the institutionalists, and a great institutionalist just passed away, Martin Indyk, the value of the institutionalists is that sometimes they can actually say, this is where I went wrong, and this is what we misunderstood, and this is how we misunderstood it, and this is how we were deep in the weeds and we misunderstood it. And that's the kind of knowledge that I think shouldn't go wasted. Julie Fishman Rayman: Thanks so much for that perspective. I was going to ask you as a final question, if there was anything that you wanted to raise that we haven't discussed yet. But I would also add to that question, feel free to answer that question. Or is there something that we're getting wrong now institutionally? Ron Kampeas: Yeah, I think that, you know, there's a lot that we're getting wrong now institutionally. I think that people are, and every side of the Israel-Hamas conflict are they retreating into sort of easy, reflexive understandings of what could go right and what could go wrong. I think that there is a value in understanding how toxic Hamas ideology is, that was, I think, grasped at the beginning after October the seventh, but has slipped away as this seems to be just a conflict, and people are retreating into Israel's bashing Gaza. We have to get it to stop bashing Gaza, which is fine, it's an outlook. It's a legitimate outlook, but it's one that's not going to register at all with any Israeli, unless you take into account how Hamas is perceived among Israelis as a genocidal organization. If it wasn't before October 7, it is now. On the other hand, I think that sort of reflexive, we can never have a two state solution. I'm not saying, advocating, for two state solution. We never have a two state solution. We're just going to go on as we've gone with the Palestinians. I think that also reflects this kind of like a reflexive blindness that you have to account for the Palestinians, somehow. Nothing is going to be imposed on them. They have to be agents and actors and whatever happens, and it might not happen in my generation, it might not happen in my lifetime, but that has to be back of mind. And I think for a lot of people, particularly in parts of the Israeli establishment, it is not back of mind. So those are things that I think that people can maybe, you know, if, if these competing, they're not actually enemies, I'm talking about people who are on the same side. They can be on the same side in Israel, they can be on the same side in America, but they're rivals, and they don't like to listen to each other. But if they did talk to each other and listen to each other, maybe they would find nuances that could get everybody to a better place. Julie Fishman Rayman: If we could do a word cloud of some of the themes that have come out of this conversation, listening is definitely one of the words that would be prominent. And I think it's not only a good aspiration, but I also want to highlight that our listening to you on these really important issues is revelatory, truthfully, and we're grateful for all the work that you're doing with JTA every day, but also for being here on People of the Pod with us and for all the wisdom that you've shared. Thank you. Ron Kampeas: Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, tune in for my conversation with AJC Jerusalem Director Avital Leibovich on what the widely reported deaths of two terror leaders last week could mean for Israel and the wider region.
What the Unprecedented Assassinations of Terror Leaders Means for Israel and the Middle East8/1/202423:12This week, two major terrorist leaders were assassinated in the Middle East. Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh was killed in an explosion in Tehran, just a day after top Hezbollah leader Fuad Shukr was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Beirut in retaliation for the horrific rocket attack that killed 12 children on a soccer field in northern Israel. What does this mean for Israel and the wider region? Is this a major setback for Iran and its terror proxies? Tune in to hear what AJC Jerusalem Director Lt. Col. (res.) Avital Leibovich, who visited the site of the terror attack in Majdal Shams, has to say. Episode Lineup: (0:40) Avital Leibovich Learn: What to Know About Hamas Terror Leader Ismail Haniyeh What to Know About Hezbollah’s Escalation Against Israel Listen: Aviva Klompas is Fighting the Normalization of Antisemitism on Social Media On the Ground at the Republican National Convention: What's at Stake for Israel and the Middle East? Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [emailprotected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Interview with Avital Leibovich: Manya Brachear Pashman: This week marked 300 days of captivity for the 115 remaining hostages kidnapped by Hamas terrorists on October 7. There was also a major development: confirmation that an operation in July led to the death of Hamas’ military leader Muhammad Deif. But there were two more assassinations this week, the leaders of two terror groups targeting Israel. On Wednesday, we learned that Hamas terror leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed in an explosion in Tehran shortly after meeting with Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Haniyeh had been in Tehran for the inauguration of its new president. This just a day after top Hezbollah leader Fuad Shukr was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Beirut in retaliation for the horrific rocket attack that killed 12 children on a soccer field in Golan Heights. AJC Jerusalem director Avital Leibovich is with us now to discuss these developments. Avital, welcome back to People of the Pod. Avital Leibovich: Thank you. Manya. Good to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman: So, Avital, my first question is, are we safer now than we were at the start of the week? Do two fewer terror leaders lead to less terror? Avital Leibovich: Well, I would say the world in general is a safer place with the absence of Shukr and Haniyeh. However, the neighborhood here is not changing. And unfortunately, we are still surrounded by vicious enemies, who still are seeking to see our erosion and eradication. So while I'm very happy with your outcome in the last 24 hours, I also know there's still a lot of reason for concern. Manya Brachear Pashman: So tell us about these terror leaders. Who was Ismail Haniyeh? And what was his role with Hamas? Avital Leibovich: Sure. So Ismail Haniyeh, who's also, by the way, has another name, which is Abu al-Abed, he actually served as the number one political leader of Hamas since May 2017. He actually substituted in this role, Khaled Mashal and other terrorists, and before that, he actually served as the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority just for a very brief, short time between 2006 and 2007. And he actually became very close to a Hamas leader called Ahmed Yassin. And basically, he really grew into the very radical agenda of Hamas. Interesting enough, his background was totally different. I mean, even worked in Israel in the city closest to Gaza called Ashkelon. So he knows the country. He knows the mentality. So in addition to this, he also began to do some terror activity after the three years of working in Ashkelon in Israel. And then he initiated different kinds of activities. Among them was the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, a soldier who we’ll remember. And after being involved in the terror realm and the political realm, he decided to focus more on Hamas’ agenda, on Hamas’ charter. And basically, what we have seen in the last couple of years are a few things. Number one, Hania got very rich, because he received millions and millions of dollars from the Qataris. Number two, he left Gaza and he spent the last years of his life in Qatar, in lavish hotels and apartments, enjoying great life. And this is also an indication of how much does he care about the people of Gaza. And I want to connect to the current war and give you a quote of who Haniyeh was because I see that some of the media outlets have the nerve to call him a moderate negotiator. Therefore, I'd like to help them and share with you the following quote, which was said on October 27 — that was the first day where the IDF entered Gaza following the October 7 massacre. So he said, "We need the blood of women, children, and the elderly of Gaza, so it awakens our revolutionary spirit." This is the moderate guy that international media is referring to in their reports. He was a radical, he was a terrorist, and we had a very good opening of our day this morning when we heard the news. Manya Brachear Pashman: And Fuad Shukr, what was his role with Hezbollah? Avital Leibovich: He also, you know, this is a name which is not known, I think, to many people, but he does have a French connection and an American connection — of course, an Israeli connection. The guy was number two in the level of seniority in Hezbollah. He was actually the manager of the army in a way of the Hezbollah military apparatus. But more than that, he was a strategist, and he knew what direction should Hezbollah take in the next years. He was in charge of developing the entire missile industry that Hezbollah had, including the accurate missiles. In other words, he was a strategist but also was a practical man. Now, here's the connection that he had to the US and to France. In 1983, he was one of the orchestrators of the attack in the marine base in Beirut. On that terrible day, 241 American marines lost their lives, but 70 French soldiers were killed as well. So as you can imagine, this terrorist Fuad Shukr has 40 years of terror activities, primarily against Israel, but also against Israeli allies. So again, I think it was a very courageous and accurate Israeli operation. And more than anything, Manya, it shows the amazing level of intelligence, where that person was exactly in which room, in which building, in which floor, and to be able to very surgically act in the right time, at the right moment and target him, I think that shows a lot for the Israeli intelligence capabilities. Manya Brachear Pashman: Was Haniyeh part of the ceasefire and hostage release negotiations? Avital Leibovich: So if you look at the title that Hanieyeh had, which is the head of the political branch of Hamas, you could think that he had some impact on the decision making process with the hostage deals. But I can tell you that he had really no impact, very little impact. Because from the analysis that we have here in Israel, the main decision maker is Sinwar. Now the question is, will the death of Haniyeh have an impact, number one on Sinwar? And therefore, number two on the hostage deal? Now, I'm not sure it will have an effect. I have to say. Sinwar is known as the longtime rival of Haniyeh. So in other words, he will not be mourning his death. But he had the last word with regard to any of the discussions on the hostages. And at the end of the day, Sinwar said numerous times, that he's willing to die. And his ultimate goal is to make sure that Hamas has some sort of a controlling Gaza. He understands today Sinwar, that Hamas will no longer control the government, therefore, he's willing to compromise. For example, let's say Hamas will be giving the role of being in charge of the renovations in Gaza. Or perhaps they will be in charge of the education system and so on, in other words, just to have some sort of a stronghold inside Gaza in terms of governance of some sort. Now, if that will not be a part of any possible deal, then Sinwar has no interest to give a positive answer to a deal. Manya Brachear Pashman: I am curious why Haniyeh would have met with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei before his death? Avital Leibovich: Hamas and Iran have different kinds of cooperation. We have seen that across the region. In other words, we have seen Hamas representatives in Lebanon, working alongside Nasrallah, the health Hezbollah, but also meeting the Iranian foreign minister, when he came to Lebanon for visits. We understand that this time around there is a clear interest which Iran supports, is to target Israel as much as possible. And obviously Iran prefers a proxy like Hamas to be representative of its own goals and intentions. And therefore you saw Haniyeh last time, was last night paying respects for the inauguration ceremony in Iran. And according to what I'm hearing, he was also hosted in a Revolutionary Guards facility. In other words, whoever targeted Haniyeh had a great level of intelligence by knowing how to get to that specific building. But moreover, this is a very secure area, because the Revolutionary Guards are considered the body which is the most guarded of all bodies in Iran. They're the ones controlling the budget of the Iranian government. They're the ones operating Hezbollah and other militias and proxies. So in other words, the fact that it was a Revolutionary Guards headquarters, Antonia was there and despite of all this information, the security system around him cracked. I think that sends a very loud and clear message to the Iranians. Manya Brachear Pashman: How is the relationship between Iran and Hamas and the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah different? Can you explain that to our audience? Avital Leibovich: First of all, I mean, you know, Iran is the chief orchestrator of everything that we have been seeing here since October 7, but actually before that as well. Now, I would say that with Hezbollah, it's a long love story between the two. Actually, Hezbollah was founded by Iran, quite shortly after the revolution in '79. When the country became a fundamentalist Islamist and obviously, took the wrong path, distancing itself from the Western world. Iran actually built Hezbollah, founded Hezbollah, first the military wing, and then adding three years later the political wing. And the idea was to use them in order to attack Israel. And this is very convenient. Think about it, Iran is 1300 kilometers away from Israel. It's not convenient to fire a rocket all the way from that country to Israel. But let's say you want to use simpler means and within half an hour to take an operation out, it's easier to use someone who's bordering with Israel. So gradually, we saw Hezbollah taking over almost the entire country. And everything had to do with Iranian funding. Now, in order to have Iranian funding in terms of sanctions, Iran and Hezbollah, found alternative options like laundering money, like a whole chain of drug trafficking in Syria and other countries. So they found solutions to do that. By the way, Iran is doing the same thing with the Houthis in Yemen, also using them as a proxy. Because you know, this is the most poor country in the region, huge unemployment rates, you can recruit 10s of 1000s and hundreds of 1000s of people, as long as you pay them a very minimal salary. Now, as for Hamas, Hamas was built a little bit later. It's actually an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, so not directly of Iran. However, sometimes there are joint interests between different terror groups. Actually, Iran founded the Islamic Jihad in Gaza, in 79, right after the revolution, because he thought this would be the main actor controlling Gaza with the best assets and so on. But with the course of the years, when Hamas controlled Gaza, and was able to develop its terror means rockets, drones, etc, then, of course, Iran moved to cooperate with Hamas, according to its needs for Iran, it's, of course, more worthwhile to use the blood of Palestinians than the blood of Iranians to sacrifice Palestinians and not the Iranians. This is how they see it. At the end of the day, Iran now wishes to resume to the situation of being a major empire as it used to be, a Persian empire decades and decades ago. So this is the longtime dream, I would say. And the proxies are just another, I would say detail in the path to reach that dream. Manya Brachear Pashman: Now, Hezbollah did not claim responsibility for the attack that killed a dozen children on a soccer field. Why not? They're usually proud of the death and destruction that they wreak. Why did Israel target the terror group anyway? Avital Leibovich: Look, say a few words about this tragic event that took place just a few days ago in a very small, beautiful, pastoral village called Majdal Shams, which, by the way, means the tower of sun. It's on the Syrian border, and the other side is on the Lebanese border. And, you know, people asked me if this is the first time that Hizballah ever targeted Druze or targeted Muslims. Now this specific village was targeted five times already by Hezbollah. Saturday, obviously, was the deadliest of all the five. It was 6:18 in the afternoon, beautiful summer day, lots of kids outside. I visited the soccer field where it happens. And the rockets left, really not a chance for those kids who were playing there. Although there was actually a shelter right there, maybe two feet from where the rocket hit the ground. They really didn't have a chance to make it and go into the shelter. And unfortunately, those poor 12 year old kids, ages 10-16, died in place. We still have over 30 people hospitalized, many of them are kids as well. And I have to say, Manya, that I saw a village who has been traumatized. People are still wearing black clothes. There are black flags hanging everywhere inside the village. The pictures of the kids are, you know, pasted everywhere, on the squares just on random villages and walls of buildings. I also went to one of the bereaved families. And you know, you sit there with a parent who lost his 12 year old boy named Johnny [Wadeea Ibrahim]. And he tells you about his dreams. And he says to me, you know, these dreams will never be fulfilled. And he says to me, we don't even know how to digest what happened to us. So, for Hezbollah, they don't really care who they're firing at, whether it's Jews or Arabs, or Muslims or Christians, whoever, they don't care if it's in the eastern Galilee, or the Western Galilee, or the Golan. All these areas are relevant for the Hezbollah fire since October 8. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, Hezbollah did not take responsibility. Why not? Avital Leibovich: So here is the mistake. Hezbollah actually made the mistake. Hezbollah has a TV station, which is its mouthpiece, just like Hamas's TV station mouthpiece is Al Jazeera. Hezbollah's is Al Mayadeen. Now, immediately after an attack, a Hezbollah attack, Al Mayadeen immediately publishes responsibility taking by Hezbollah always every time. And by the way, we're talking about an average of eight attacks a day, every day. And that's what they did here too. On Saturday, they immediately took responsibility in the name of Hezbollah. Unfortunately, for them, after 20 minutes, they understood the extent of the mistake they did, and deleted, of course, this responsibility, and then they made up their own narrative. The narrative was that a misfiring of an Iron Dome interceptor, mistakenly killed the kids, like Israel's fault is that the kids died. Now, this narrative, if you think it was only the social media, then think again, they sent the foreign minister of Lebanon to the media to repeat it. But they also did something more. They sent the head of the Druze community. It's the same blood and flesh of the Druze in the Golan. They sent him to the press to declare that it was not a Hezbollah rocket. So they understood that they will pay a price of some sort. I'm sure they understood that I'm not sure they understood the extent of the intelligence Israel had. And now of course, they're threatening to target Israel. I think the next 48 hours will reveal where we're heading. Manya Brachear Pashman: And you talk about the incredible intelligence that led to the precise explosion in Beirut as well as the death of Haniyeh. Has Israel taken responsibility for his death and what it claimed credit if it was responsible, Avital Leibovich: Up to this minute, Israel did not take any responsibility for Haniyeh's death. Of course, yes, for the Hizballah number two guy Fuad Shukr, but not for Haniyeh. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister ordered the Cabinet members and the ministers not to speak publicly on the issue. And basically, there's been a lot of quiet from the political echelon here since the morning. Manya Brachear Pashman: And you touched on what my last question is, and that is, how will this elevate the tensions? Does this raise the chance of a war between Israel and Lebanon, Israel, and Iran, these assassinations? Avital Leibovich: So I would say we are already in a war to some extent with Hezbollah, because Hezbollah has fired more than 6000 rockets since October 8. And I've counted 43 Israeli casualties since October 8. So we are talking about an active war in a sense, I think that there is a good reason to believe that both Hezbollah and Iran will react to these two targets. I'm not sure in which way. I do think that Hezbollah still has the notion and the strategy of not completely escalating the situation to a full scale war. I'm sure that Nasrallah is sitting in his bunker in the darkened neighborhood, seeing the footage from Gaza and understanding Israel's capability and does not want to turn Beirut into a similar kind of situation. And he also saw the building last night and he also understood the extent of the intelligence capability. So I think he will have to react in such a way that on the one hand, he could be proud that he did something but on the other hand, would not engage in a full scale war. Iran, on the other hand, is a different story. Because three months have passed since April 14 in which Iran decided to gift us with hundreds of drones and different kinds of ballistic missiles. And from their perspective, it failed. It failed because Israel has a great defense system. It also failed because the US led the great coalition of countries who supported the interception attempts in April 14. However, and this is a big however, Iran learned its lessons. Iran learned why it failed in April. And therefore, my concern is that they will take these lessons and implement them in whichever reaction they will have. I'm not sure it will be tomorrow morning. Tomorrow, they will celebrate Haniyeh in the big funeral in Iran, and then there will be additional mourning days in Qatar. So it may take a few days, but I have no doubt that they will both, Hezbollah and Iran react. Manya Brachear Pashman: Avital, thank you so much for just explaining all of these developments and what they mean. Avital Leibovich: Of course, I just hope that for once they will be able to talk about positive things and not only terror and wars. Manya Brachear Pashman: We hope so too. We hope so too. Thank you so much. Avital Leibovich: Thank you and Am Yisrael Chai.
Aviva Klompas is Fighting the Normalization of Antisemitism on Social Media7/26/202425:07Aviva Klompas has long been a fierce advocate for Israel and is no stranger to the forces that try to delegitimize the Jewish state. Klompas, cofounder of Boundless Israel, a think tank dedicated to strengthening education about Israel while also keeping an eye on the surge of antisemitism in the U.S., joins us to discuss how she’s working to combat antisemitism and shape the conversation, both online and off. Listen to this candid conversation, recorded on the sidelines of AJC Global Forum 2024 in Washington, D.C. Episode Lineup: (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, Rich Goldberg Show Notes: Watch: Voices of Truth: Advocating for Israel on Social Media with Aviva Klompas and Michael Rapaport Listen – People of the Pod: On the Ground at the Republican National Convention: What's at Stake for Israel and the Middle East? Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [emailprotected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Interview with Aviva Klompas: Manya Brachear Pashman: Aviva Klompas has long been a fierce advocate for Israel and is no stranger to the forces that try to delegitimize the Jewish state. After leading Birthright trips, she became the speechwriter for Israel’s Mission at the United Nations where she was always looking for ways to give voice to Israel’s side of the story, amid a cacophony of anti-Israel sentiments. After working for Combined Jewish Philanthropies, she co-founded Boundless Israel, a think tank dedicated to strengthening education about Israel while also keeping an eye on the surge of antisemitism in the U.S. Aviva might still write the occasional speech, but on Instagram and X, that’s where she’s really shaping the conversation and confronting haters. We sat down with Aviva on the sidelines of AJC Global Forum 2024 in Washington D.C in early June. Aviva, welcome to People of the Pod’s pop-up studio here in Washington. Aviva Klompas: Absolutely. Manya Brachear Pashman: Together with Rachel Fish, you co-founded a nonprofit called Boundless. can you tell us the purpose of boundless and the origins of its name? Aviva Klompas: The idea is to look at the larger issues that are plaguing the ecosystem in Israel in North America and to function both both as a think tank that does research to understand what's happening under the surface, but then to not just investigate and study for curiosity sake, but then to turn to action, and really to extract recommendations, and to pull together partners in order to take meaningful action in order to address some of the larger challenges. So the two areas in which we primarily focus are one, education. How do we reimagine Israel education in North America, for both Jews and for non-Jews? And the area where I spend most of my time has to do with the narrative war? Understanding how did we get here? What's happening below the surface, both in traditional and on social media? Manya Brachear Pashman: You previously served as the director of speech reading at the Israeli Mission to the United Nations. And at that time, did you find yourself not just talking to a traditional institution but actually trying to persuade or convince, maybe even combat the sentiments of that audience? Aviva Klompas: Working as a speechwriter for Israel at the United Nations is certainly an experience and an education unto itself. And my former boss, Ambassador Ron Prosor always used to say to us, it's not so much politics and diplomacy as it is theater and a game of chess. And so to some extent, it's about who you can convince in these speeches and in these conversations in the halls, in the corridors of the United Nations, but the meaningful action, the real relationship building, tends to happen behind the scenes where there's no camera, and when there's no public audience. What people tend to see, the speeches that are broadcast, statements that make headlines around the world, that's really theater. Manya Brachear Pashman: And you mentioned, when you were onstage with Michael Rapaport, at Global Forum yesterday, you mentioned how that job is very limiting compared to your job now and your representation on social media. Can you talk a little bit about why it's important to be on social media to use that as a platform. Aviva Klompas: Yeah, so I worked both for the Israeli delegation. So that was working for the Israeli government. I also worked as a policy advisor for the Canadian government. And certainly when you're working for a government, there are limitations on what you can say, and what you can do. And one of the great blessings of having co-founded Boundless and working in this nonprofit is that at this moment in time, there's a lot of flexibility and latitude for Rachel and I to really hone in on what we think needs to be done and spend our time and our energy there. The great education that I got when I was working at the United Nations, was the fact that people would always ask me, Well, why is it that Israel participates in the United Nations? This is an institution that is notorious for its bias against Israel. So why does Israel participate? Why would it be a member of an institution that notoriously demonizes, delegitimize, vilifies, ostracizes it. No country has to be a member of the United Nations. And more than that, in order to be a member in good standing, you have to pay dues. So Israel pays its membership dues to endure the sort of abuse that we see day in and day out at the United Nations. That's the number one question that I get asked, but it was never once a conversation that we had inside of the United Nations, because we never for a moment doubted that Israel has every right to participate in and contribute to global affairs. And that mentality is what I've taken with me throughout my career that Israel has, and the Jewish people have every right to participate in and contribute to our communities, our societies, our countries and bettering this planet. Manya Brachear Pashman: You also, since October 7, you have emphasized that it's very important to tell Israel's story, tell the story of October 7, day to day, hour to hour, which is how I viewed the news cycle of social media. Why? Why is it that it's so important? Aviva Klompas: It’s a part of that mentality that I was describing, which says, I won't for a moment accept that any of this is either normal or acceptable. I'm not going to tolerate a world that speaks to us and treats us as if we had this coming. As if what happened on October 7 was due to us. As if it is normal to be holding over 100 people hostage. As if it is acceptable that Jewish people have to hide their Jewish identity. And I'm not interested in people that will speak with great sympathy about dead Jews, but not take any meaningful or consequential action to safeguard living Jews, which is ultimately what's most important. And at the end of the day, the reason that I'm spending so much time and energy on social media is because I refuse to allow the normalization of what we're seeing day in and day out. And the only way you stop that normalization is two things is one, you have to use your voice, you have to stand up. And we also have to use our Yiddishe kops a bit and try to think about what's happening under the surface. What are the root causes? What are the points of origin for what's taking place? And how can we outthink them? And that's the work we're doing at Boundless. Manya Brachear Pashman: You have primarily focused your messaging on X, or Twitter. You recently though moved your posts to Instagram as well. Aviva Klompas: After a lot of people told me that I had to, yeah, a lot. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, can you talk a little bit about your social media choices? In other words, is there a particular audience on X that you were trying to reach? Aviva Klompas: I joined X when I was actually speechwriter for Israel at the UN. And I was very at the time we're talking, I don't know, 10 or 11 years ago, I was opposed to the notion of joining social media, I thought, I don't think everybody needs to know my thoughts. That's ridiculous. And then one of my colleagues Israel Nitzan, a good friend, and a diplomat of Israel, he was the one that convinced me said, this is very much in line with Elon Musk, I would say is, it's the town square, this is where conversations are happening. This is where politicians and diplomats and reporters are having conversation. And it's important that you participate. And that is an idea that resonates with me very deeply, is that we need to have a voice in the public square. So that's how I got started on X. And I left my Facebook, and I did have Instagram, but I really left it for that personal private space. And then early on in the war, had to change the privacy settings because all of a sudden, it was being flooded with with requests, my Instagram, my personal Instagram, when you open it up, it's 1000s and 1000s of people that want to follow me and I'm like, It's my vacation photos and it's family. No. So that's not going to happen. So instead, after a lot of people said to me, there's obviously a whole other audience of much younger people and different people that are on Instagram, can you just pull your posts over? So I started a second Instagram account, which is just replicating the tweets and it's @AvivaKlompas. Manya Brachear Pashman: I'm curious if you have developed relationships, either real or virtual with other social media influencers. In other words, did you know Michael Rapaport before October 7, before he became so vocal on social media and is that in particular and are others new and surprising friendships and partnerships? Aviva Klompas: So I met Michael Rapaport because I got a DM on X from him. That was three words. And they were: who are you? And I wrote back: who are you? And that's where we started chatting. And then we had the opportunity to meet in Israel and he's become a very good friend and a person that I admire enormously. And that's happened in other instances as well that there's been other influencers that I've met as a result of this that started his online conversation. chanson turned into real world relationships. And ultimately, all of us need to have a community social media is a very lonely place and it's a dystopia. When you pull people in the real world, which is what we do at Boundless, it asked her attitudes and opinions about Israel and anti semitism, you get one set of answers. When you look on social media you get a different set of answers. The world is much bleaker and darker. And that's because the rule on social media is if it enrages, it engages. So the most vitriolic, hateful, disgusting, vile content is the content that will trend that's most likely to appear in your feed. I always likened social media to the Coliseum in ancient Rome, where you have people battling it out in the center of the arena. And then you have the throngs of crowds surely, lustily screaming for them for someone's demise. It is not a venue that is conducive to relationships are conversations are chasing or changing minds, if you can sort of visualize that Coliseum analogy. And at the same time, because social media is this kind of dystopia, bleak place, you need to have a community. And that's what I have found with other pro-Israel pro-Jewish voices is that it makes you feel like you're not alone in this that you're not this like single voice that standing against an enormous tide. So I'm very grateful to the other people that have lent their friendship in this moment. Manya Brachear Pashman: So I want to pivot a little bit to what you put on social media, mostly the Israel-Hamas war. Why do you think Hamas terrorists are being treated as heroes in so many outlets and venues? Aviva Klompas: Yeah, what we're really seeing is new tactics and an old strategy. This strategy of how Israel and the Jewish people is being demonized. It's not new, the only new part of it is is the advent of social media as a way to more quickly and more spread the these lies and disinformation much further, but it really goes back to a Soviet strategy you had after World War Two, you had the Cold War, and you had the United States pitted against the Soviet Union. And you never want to fight a war on your own territory. So to the extent that you can you want to fight it on a different front, and that's really what the Middle East became. Israel as it moved away from its socialist roots and towards a capitalist roots, begins to align itself more with the United States. That poses a threat, the Soviet Union sees Israel in the Middle East as a forward operating base for the United States. And so it begins to align itself more closely with the Arab nations. And in order to fight this battle, it begins a disinformation campaign that has a number of strategies to it that I think will sound very familiar. The first is to claim that there's no connection between the Jewish people and land of Israel to paint us as colonizers. The second is to paint us as aggressors. And just to frame it in such a way as it is, isn't the Nakba, not the story of how a number of surrounding Arab armies attacked Israel, not the story of how Israel accepted a two state Partition Plan from the United Nations, but rather the story of the Nakba, and the demise. And the third is to paint the Palestinians as a people that have no agency, and that all of this is happening to them and that they are victims in this colonialist, racist world. And then what the Soviets did is they begin to use that type of language that says Zionists are Nazis, and Nazis are the epitome of evil. And so all of the worst racist colonialist, etc. Accusations that's not new, we saw that from the infamous Zionism is racism resolution at the United Nations in the 1970s. So this is a continuation of a very, very old strategy. And as we always see, it starts with the Jews, but it never ends with the Jews. Manya Brachear Pashman: On the morning that many of us traveled here to Washington for AJC's Global Forum, we woke up to the news of the IDS rescue for hostages. Headlines talked about the four hostages being freed, not rescued. And sadly, many more headlines focused on the hundreds of Palestinians who were killed in that rescue effort. I asked why Hamas terrorists are being treated as heroes and I ask this knowing the IDF has certainly made some tragic errors in this war. But do you get a sense that there is a concerted effort not to treat IDF as heroes? Aviva Klompas: So first off, I mean, I saw them being the hostages being spoken about as having been released, as if, as if commerce just opened the doors and let them go. And the level of condemnation about us going into rescue or hostages? What did they want us to do? Ask nicely. It's been eight months, we've tried a series of hostage deals in negotiations, and it's gone nowhere. I don't measure the standard of the IDF behavior by what the world says. That's going to be a failing strategy for us. I think it's measured by the values of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. And that's why the army has a code of conduct. The people that are more outraged that Israel went to get its people back than the fact that terrorists took them and held them for eight months. Those people need to check their thinking and their values. And that's one of the things that we need to call out all the time. And I think that's a question the mainstream media that's been reporting on it, it's been embarrassing to watch people just essentially regurgitate Hamas press releases. How about a little bit of journalistic integrity? How about asking some hard questions like, Do we even know the casualty figure? I saw it grow by 100, since yesterday. I don't think anybody actually knows the number of casualties. And then, if you had the number, how would you assess how many were actually combatants? If you're counting journalists and doctors that hold hostages in their home as civilians…I don't understand how mainstream media have sort of suspended rational analysis in this war. Manya Brachear Pashman: Do you also get the impression that the hostages' stories have been downplayed by mainstream media? I mean these are truly ordinary people, ordinary families who now suffer extraordinary uncertainty, which, you know, I would argue, is worse than loss, this uncertainty. Do you feel like that has been lost in mainstream media coverage? Aviva Klompas: I think that for a while, we saw that the hostage family stories were prominent, and they were certainly getting a lot of attention. And now it's a lot harder. Now it's been eight months, and it's a very visual war. No war in the history of the world has had this level of scrutiny, and certainly not this level of playing out real or disinformation on social media. And people are being bombarded with very difficult and very honestly very, very tragic scenes from Gaza. And we haven't really seen that many new images emerging about the hostages, because there's so much silence. So in that sense, I can understand why there is a level to which humans can stay interested in a topic without new information. I think that's part of what we're struggling with. And at the same time, we have seen journalists be shockingly callous to the hostage families, and that's absolutely unacceptable. Manya Brachear Pashman: Can you give an example of what you mean? Aviva Klompas: Well, we just saw a very prominent reporter from the hill roll her eyes while speaking to the sister of a hostage when she asked her to believe women. Manya Brachear Pashman: The New York Times broke a big story–I'm putting big and finger quotes–earlier this week that Israel's Ministry of diaspora affairs organized and paid for an influence campaign last year that targeted US lawmakers, American public with pro Israel messaging, but the story never mentioned the barrage of propaganda that pro Palestinian organizations have put out quite effectively. How do you guard against spreading disinformation as a social media influencer? Aviva Klompas: So I don't agree With what the Israeli government did, I think it was pretty inevitable that that was going to become public. And so I think we could have all seen that this was coming in, and it was not a wise decision to target American lawmakers. I'm not sure that I would call that a disinformation campaign. Disinformation is a deliberate attempt to spread fake information. And I don't think that was the case, but nonetheless, not wise. The difference is, is that my beloved Jewish people believe in truth and integrity. And we believe that if we just tell the same story one more time and maybe tell it a little bit differently, people will finally listen to us. And I think after trying that for a couple 1000 years, maybe we should adopt a different approach. And we again, have to look at what's happening under the surface. If we want to do better at social media. You're right, the other side will say anything, do anything and show whatever image, true or not. People say it immediately 6000 people were killed in the bombing, an intentional IDF bombing of a hospital, okay, based on what? It's been 15 minutes, nobody actually knows what happened. Same thing with the rescue mission. Day by day, the count of quote unquote, civilian casualty grows by 100. We don't know the facts on the ground, we're not relying on third party verification in the way that we should, and people are just soaking this up. And the other side has realized as much, and they understand that they have the freedom and latitude to say everything. Understanding that we have to rethink what this picture looks like. In understanding social media, we have to be thinking smarter about the type of information we're putting out and what some of the challenges are. You have algorithmic manipulation, you have bots and inauthentic activity, you have foreign intervention campaigns, you have the echo chambers that exist, we have the algorithms that even when they're not manipulated, as I said, what engages and engages. We know all of these things. But I don't think we're working hard enough and smart enough to design our campaigns and our messaging, in order to address some of them. One of the things that we're doing at Boundless is we started with the very simple question that says, Who do we need to be talking to? Any messaging, any communications, begins with understanding who’s your audience because you need to tailor your message appropriately. And I'm not sure that we're doing that as much as we should. So at Boundless, we started with that question, we did a major study with a national research firm, and we identified six priority audiences. And we ask them their opinion, we want to learn from them, we want to understand why do you think what you think? Why do you believe what you believe? Where are you getting your news and information, we're very open about going to them and saying, We want to learn with you, we want to understand what your challenges are. One of the things that we learned is that every minority population in this country believes that they are the victim, they believe that they are one of the most highly targeted people for hate crimes. And the challenge that we have is that when we come we present them and say no, we're the most hated group, what we're doing is we're minimizing their experience. And we're catalyzing a sort of victim Olympics, it makes them feel defensive, it makes them feel like they're not being seen and heard. And we're not tailoring our messaging with that understanding. So we need to do a little more, a lot more, front work in order to understand who do we want to speak to? What are their values, what are their positions, what's informing how they feel, and think about different issues, before we start to construct messages. And then we really have to think about the distribution and dissemination techniques that we have. Which are right now, they're too uniform, we need to be doing a lot more and a lot differently. And we're hyper reliant on social media. And social media has a very important role to play. But we all know that if we see social media as sort of this coliseum, this arena in which people are thrashing it out, you're never going to really have a conversation. Manya Brachear Pashman: Shortly after October 7, you wrote, quote, The State of Israel was supposed to be a living promise that there would always be a place for Jews to be saved for the pogroms in the Holocaust that plague Jewish history. After the October 7, mass terror attacks, that promise is broken. Do you still feel that way? Aviva Klompas: I've been to Israel seven times in seven months. And I think a lot about when I first went the first time I went was two weeks after October 7 And I was in Jerusalem. And that was deserted. And I wanted to go walk to the Western Wall to the Kotel and I walked through the Old City and it was unbelievable. It was the middle of the week in the middle of the day and everything there was not a person in sight. Everybody was so scared. And I recall friends saying to me, we're having conversations as if it's the 1940s we're talking, we're whispering husbands to wives about where we would hide our children. Because exactly that sense of security, that sense of comfort had been shattered. The idea was that anybody could jump out and didn't matter where you were in Israel, the sense of safety had dissipated. And it wasn't that different here in the United States. And I think to some extent, people probably still feel it. Whereas in Israel, it's been more alleviated with the notion that antisemitism, that you're not safe in your places of worship in Jewish day schools and community centers that you have to think twice before you go to a walk for Israel, you have to think twice, about whether you're going to wear a kippa or a magen david. I think really, our sense of security has been shattered. And that's one of the great tragedies, beyond the enormous tragedy that is October 7, than the living tragedy of the hostages, is the fact that we are all shaken by this. And that it feels scary for a lot of people to be a Jew in the world right now. There's a lot to say about what social media does wrong and how harmful it is and how difficult it is. But also, the one thing that means the most to me, about being active on social media in the last eight months, is the number of messages I get, and people that come up to me in the real world and say to me, I'm scared. And I feel a little bit less scared because you have a voice in the world, you and other people, that people are feeling very alone, that people are saying I'm in workplaces where I'm the only Jew or I'm in schools where I'm being targeted where I feel like I can't speak up in class where I have to hide my head when I am choosing to stay in my room rather than go out. And it's a lonely, lonely feeling right now. And if the only thing that my social media is doing is helping people have a voice and to know that there's others who think this is not normal, this is not acceptable. And we're going to spend every single day raging against it. That will have been worth it. Manya Brachear Pashman: Aviva, thank you so much for joining us on the sidelines of Global Forum. Aviva Klompas: Thank you for having me.
On the Ground at the Republican National Convention: What's at Stake for Israel and the Middle East?7/18/202422:56Israel’s right to self-defense and security, governance in Gaza, the Iranian regime and its network of terror, the Jewish state’s relationship with Arab countries in the Gulf, and much more were among the topics of discussion at an AJC-convened panel discussion at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Listen to an excerpt of the panel, moderated by AJC’s Chief Policy Officer and the head of AJC’s Center for a New Middle East, Jason Isaacson, along with policy experts Dr. Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, and Rich Goldberg. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. AJC does not endorse or oppose political parties or candidates. Episode Lineup: (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, Rich Goldberg Show Notes: Watch: Israel and the Path to Peace - AJC at the Republican National Convention Listen – People of the Pod: Europe at the Ballot Box: Insights and Impact on Jewish Communities and Beyond Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [emailprotected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Panel with Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, and Rich Goldberg: Manya Brachear Pashman: America’s political parties are kicking off the 2024 convention season, starting this week with the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. AJC was on the sidelines of the RNC, with a live program titled Israel and the Path to Peace, moderated by AJC's chief policy officer, Jason Isaacson. Jason is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for A New Middle East. Joining Jason was Dr. Ken Weinstein, former longtime CEO of the Hudson Institute and the Walter P. Stern Distinguished Fellow at Hudson; Kirsten Fontenrose, the President of Red Six Solutions and Senior Director of Gulf Affairs in the National Security Council under President Trump; and Rich Goldberg, Senior Adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Director of Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction for the National Security Council, under President Trump. Just a reminder: AJC is a 501(c)3 nonpartisan organization and neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. A similar program will be offered at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago later this summer. Now onto today’s episode: an excerpt from AJC’s convention program. Jason Isaacson: Let me begin by reading to you a couple of passages from the Republican platform, which was adopted yesterday at the Republican National Convention. This is what it said about Israel. Quote, We will stand with Israel and seek peace in the Middle East, we will rebuild our alliance network in the region to ensure a future of peace, stability and prosperity. And then there was, as you may recall, for the Republican platform, his list of 20 promises. And it's described as 20 promises that we will accomplish very quickly when we win the White House and Republican majorities in the House and Senate. And number eight, on that list of 20 promises is the following, quote: restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East. So let's drill down with our panelists on those two statements in January 2025. That's more than six months away. It may be that the Israel Hamas war will be won over by them, and perhaps whatever conflict is so close to boiling over between Israel and Hezbollah, that that might not any longer be the case, might have boiled over, might be a thing of the past. But let's say for the sake of argument, that hostilities are in fact, continuing, and let's assume that the Republican Party is victorious this fall. What are you expecting the Trump administration to do to, quote restore peace in the Middle East and to accomplish that, quote, very quickly. And let me begin Kirsten, with you. Kirsten Fontenrose: Great, thanks so much for having us. All of us like to nerd out about these kinds of topics all the time when we're just grateful that there are other people who are as interested. What I expect to see in America is a revived peace plan. So you all remember the deal of the century, the vision for peace, we will see that come back. If there's a second Trump administration. Not in isolation, it will be part of a larger context. That will also include assurances about Israel security and governance for Gaza and the like. Why have we not seen this yet? Because no one's asked the Trump team. But that will come back and you will see that. There's an expectation, whether it's naive or not, which we'll see, that there will be a greater receptiveness among the Palestinian population for an economic plan that offers improvements in livelihood after this conflict. If there is a marginalized Hamas, there'll be more movement in this space for reviving these kinds of ideas. So we will definitely see a revived peace plan, you won't see less attention on this issue, you'll see very top level attention on the issue. You're also going to see, I think gloves off with the Houthis in the Red Sea. The US military has been very careful to make sure that all of our strikes so far had been from a defensive perspective. But you will see, I believe, because the world has not criticized any of these strikes, I think you're gonna see more latitude there. More room for movement for preemptive striking, for instance, because the perception is that for the whole world, this shipping interception problem is just out of hand. So I think we'll see more latitude there. And we'll see gloves come off a bit there. And then I think you're gonna see some tough talk, frankly, with Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Trump has watched the US be yanked around a bit by the current Israeli government. And I think you're going to see less tolerance for that recognition that Israel is a sovereign country, but more of an attempt to say the US is the superpower here, and we will be leading the ideas from hence. If we're expected to play a role, we will be leading in that role. What you will see, however, will be interesting to watch as there is division among Trump advisors about a two state solution. So you'll see that be debated out. Jason Isaacson: Thank you for that. Ken, let me ask you, restoring peace in the Middle East and Europe and doing it very quickly, you've had a very broad focus on a whole range of foreign policy issues at the Hudson Institute and before and since. Tell me how you see that playing out under a second Trump administration? Ken Weinstein: I'd say first of all, I think President Trump came to the conclusion early on, in his first term, he came in remember, talking about the deal of the century with you know, this peace agreement, he was booed at the Republican Jewish Committees event when he was a candidate. And he quickly came into office and understood he could not trust Mahmoud Abbas, because of the incitement to terror by the Palestinian Authority and the tensions that were given out, and the pay for slay efforts that the Palestinian Authority has. Whereby people who kill Jews, kill Americans, were getting Palestinian Authority pensions in prisons, for their families and the like. And so, Trump quickly came to understand that the challenge in the peace process wasn't bringing Israel and the Palestinians together, it was that the peace process itself was misconstrued. The peace process was being used by Middle Eastern governments, in particular, the Iranians, but also the Palestinians as a means to put leverage on Israel, exercise leverage on Israel, by a bunch of people who wanted to see the end of Israel's existence. And Trump quickly reversed that equation. He understood that the best way to move forward was to remove items from the table such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem, which didn't have any of the backlash that John Kerry and others predicted would happen. And he quickly understood the best way to move things forward was to put pressure on the Palestinians. Trump's a real estate guy. And so he understands leverage, he understands how to put pressure forth, and how to deter. I think we're going to see much more of that moving forward. We're not going to have a vice president of the United States who's going to get up and say, the Israelis can't evacuate Rafah, it's going to lead to 10s of 1000s of deaths. And here I actually disagree slightly, I think Trump will actually give the Israelis the latitude they need to finish the mission, which is to destroy Hamas, and eventually bring about a transformation in Gaza, with the assistance of the Saudis. Who were absolutely critical in de-radicalizing Gaza, they have done it successfully themselves, as has the UAE. And so I think we're going to look much more at a regional approach on these issues. Obviously, Iran is going to be, to borrow a term from Joe Biden, President Biden, in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, as they were before. You're gonna see massive sanctions again, we're gonna get them, we're gonna enforce those sanctions. And Rich can talk to this stuff far more deeply than I ever could. And you're gonna have the Iranians on the run so that they don't feel that they can work with Hamas or work with Hezbollah, to do more damage to Israel. And already we're seeing a deterrent effect on the Northern Front. And also with regard to Hamas. Because with regard to Hamas, we see that the fear of a Trump administration is leading to a greater willingness to negotiate with Israel. And on the northern front, I think it's less likely that the Israelis will take dramatic action before the US election, knowing that they will not be reined in by an administration that is somehow searching for a delusion of peace with Hezbollah and with Lebanon. Jason Isaacson: What about peace in Europe? Is is that something that you see, that you can envision under a Trump administration? Ken Weinstein: First, let me say something with regard to Europe and the Middle East. I think that the Trump administration, the Trump team has been infuriated by this notion of enforcing this ridiculous ICC policy with regard to Israel and those who threatened to arrest Netanyahu. I think you're going to see in places particularly, I can just think of the kinds of actions they'll take in Germany. I think you can expect individual sanctions on the people who were behind Nord Stream as a sign to not dare mess with Netanyahu, period. And you'll see other actions like that. I know the Spanish ambassadors here with regard to Spain with that we will be taking numbers, as Nikki Haley did so effectively at the UN, and as the Biden team does not. So with regard to Europe. Look, I think the situation with regard to Ukraine, as President Trump understands it, I think, Trump, you have to understand he comes to this. He's not a policy person. He thinks that policy people like the three of us, four us up here, we lack creativity, we have a sense the policy options run from the letter L or P to the letter Q or R. And in fact, for Trump, they run from A to Z. And so that meant fire and fury in Pyongyang, but it meant eventually potentially beachfront condominiums in North Korea and an economic vitality to North Korea, if it gave up its nuclear program. With regard to Iran, it was maximum pressure, but it was the new Iran deal that got rid of the nuclear program that got rid of the missile program that got rid of regional activities, and that internally reshaped Iran, and led to a new relationship with Iran, with not only the region but the rest of the world. And with China, it was massive tariffs on China, but a new trade deal in the phase one that was gonna get rid of intellectual property stuff, which was at the core of what President Trump saw correctly as the engine of the Chinese economy, and the engine of the China 2025 program. So I'd say with regard to Ukraine, the President is looking at options that will, as he himself has said, he would tell the, you know, the Ukrainians on day one, you've got to, you know, we've got to end the fighting, you would tell Putin, if you don't end the fighting, we're gonna arm the sh*t out of Ukraine, pardon my French, as he said something along those lines. And I think what we'll see at the end of the day, is a massive program to guarantee Ukrainian security, that is going to take massive security guarantees. But the Europeans are going to have to step up and step up in a very serious way. And we've seen since the announcement of the JD Vance nomination are ready to reaction in Europe, the Europeans, you know, have to understand they're not gonna be able to backchannel they’re not going to be able to figure out some way out of this. They're gonna have to be big providers of security guarantees, we will do the same for the Ukrainians as well, but Europe has to take up a big portion of it. And Trump does not, he is not Joe Biden, he's not going to cut and run, as in Afghanistan, he doesn't want to be humiliated on the stage, he understands deterrence, he's going to send a very clear signal to the Russians, as he did to the Taliban. When they were talking about when they were negotiating with the Taliban, Trump was on a video call once with the Taliban leader, and said, I want to make this very clear, you're not to strike at any of our people. And if you do, and hit the button on Play, and he showed a video of I think, the Taliban leader's kid leaving their house to say we're watching you every moment, and we will take care of you. And there'll be some kind of a version of that with regard to Putin, that's going to be very clear. He was very blunt with Putin behind closed doors, from the White House in particular. And I think there was a good reason why Putin didn't go into Ukraine during Trump's term. And so I think that there's going to be some kind of a square in the circle solution that's going to have to come together. And I've been telling European foreign and defense ministers for the last few months, think about this now, how to do it, how to implement it. Jason Isaacson: Ken, thank you so much. Rich, let me turn to you. We've been talking about Iran, and you are an expert on Iran. It happened for years. I didn't see a reference to Iran and the Republican platform. But of course, we know, former President Trump's record on Iran. And Ken has been talking about that. Should he return to the White House next January, what do you foresee on this front to return to maximum pressure, or something more kinetic? And what is your sense of our regional strategic partners priorities? Are our friends in the Gulf hoping for a decisive showdown with Iran? Or are they sufficiently risk averse that they prefer a less confrontational approach? What do you think? Rich Goldberg: I think if you look at the top lines, right, and you compare the policy, the recipe, if you will, under the Trump administration: maximum pressure on Iran, maximum support for Israel gets you peace, gets you deterrence. And when you flip the narrative and you go to maximum deference to Iran and pressure on Israel, you get conflict in the Middle East. It's not disconnected from what Ken's just talking about in other regions of the world as well, whether in Europe, whether you're in the Indo-Pacific. This comes down to the ability to restore American deterrence. And then you have options. There are a lot of genies that are out of the bottle due to the last three and a half years. Iran today and its nuclear program is at the one yard line of nuclear weapons thresholds. They were not there four years ago. In fact, after the killing of Soleimani, in early 2020, the rest of the year the Iranians never escalated the nuclear program again. They waited until January of 2021. And that's when they started jumping to 20% high enriched uranium. And then they saw nothing's happening to us. So they went to 60% high enriched uranium. They started installing all the advanced centrifuges, they've advanced, so far accelerated to this incredible capacity to produce a dozen nuclear weapons in just a couple of months if they so chose. Plus Intel now coming in that the administration is trying to downplay work on weaponization. There's a lot of genies out of the bottle here that Donald Trump's going to have to try to put back into the bottle. And that will not be easy. But the formula remains correct. Restore deterrence, have maximum pressure and isolation on the Iranian regime and provide support to your allies. Now, the Gulf Arabs, by the way, the Saudis, the Emiratis, they've made some strategic decisions due to the policies that they saw, sustained by Joe Biden. They've cut deals with the Iranians and sort of cut their own JCPOA. with Iran with the Houthis. I'm not sure they're going to be on board for what's coming next. And they need to make some preparations for the return of a Trump administration and hawkishness towards Tehran and understand that we also won't tolerate them hedging with the Chinese. Now, that comes from the fact that America is hedging on them. And so there's going to be a lot of parts that have to come together like a puzzle, to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, actual restored turns and regain that peace through strength in the region. This is true in the Middle East. It's true in Europe, and it's true in the Indo Pacific. So what is deterrence? I think that's a major question. What is deterrence? Made up of two big things, capacity and will. Joe Biden and Donald Trump both have capacity. They were the commander in chief at some point of the most powerful military on Earth. Nobody doubts that you have capacity when you are the president of the United States. But our enemies do doubt the will. And they test the will early on. Every single administration gets tested, whether it's China, whether it's Putin, whether it's Iran, they get tested. At some point, Donald Trump got tested by the Iranians and Soleimani is dead. And that changed a lot of things in the world. And over the course of time, the unpredictability, the some of the craziness of the media went hysterical over the red button with Kim Jong Un did get the attention of people like Vladimir Putin. The Taliban tested Joe Biden, and he failed the test. And Kabul fell. And then Ukraine was invaded. And then now in China, they're expanding and starting to harass and actually attack in some ways, the Philippines and Taiwan. And what are we seeing? Nothing. So, the minute Donald Trump becomes president, when I hear Trump say, just my election is going to start bringing about a change on the Ukraine front, a change in the world. You might have laughed at that. I think after Saturday, you're not laughing anymore. A picture that if you're Xi Jinping, the Ayatollah, Putin, Kim Jong Un, looking at that on your desk every day of Donald Trump with his fist in the air blood dripping, right after being shot, saying fight. You're not questioning will. And that will be, I think, the big game changer. Now, they might still test it. And there's a Chinese proverb, which is, you have to kill the chicken to scare the monkey. And I think President Trump might have to kill a chicken. He'd have to pick the chicken wisely. I think it might be the Houthis. That makes no sense to me. There is a national interest, there's a strategic importance to it. And it will game change how you're trying to get the Gulf Arabs back on side, see that we are committed to the security in the Gulf in the broader Middle East, it will send a major signal to Tehran, and it'll be part of that pivot back to maximum pressure on Iran and maximum support for Israel. Jason Isaacson: Rich, thank you. But before I turn back to the Abraham Accords, let me ask you, what's your sense of the Saudi and UAE and Bahraini overtures to Iran? Are they just seeking some kind of stability, some kind of channel, but it doesn't have a whole lot of meaning, or what's your sense and how should the US respond? Rich? Rich Goldberg: I think there is meaning to it. I think that Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia has changed his strategic calculus over the last three years. I think that there was a game changing moment for him when the Houthis were raining down missiles, next to a Formula One race he was hosting out in Jeddah. And you’re talking about major investors, world leaders, important people all driving into a race course already there. And you're seeing a ballistic missile explode within your line of sight. And the United States does nothing. And then Abu Dhabi comes under attack by the Houthis, and the United States does nothing. And they're saying, Wow, they're just at the table trying to give the Iranians whatever they can, they've taken the Houthis off the terror list. They're not defending us anymore. They've pulled the missile defense augmentation that Trump put in, in 2019-2020. And they're still trying to get this nuclear deal done. What are we doing here? Why are we just waiting around for Godot? Why are we exposed? We should cut a deal here. And why if the United States can hedge on us, can't we hedge on them, and they start cozying up to the Chinese and doing things that we probably don't like very much I need to put an end to. So I think it's very real. These channels are real. They're in a hedge. I think it's taken a while for others that are far more suspicious of Iran, like Bahrain to get on board this strategy. But everybody sort of signed up to this. There's a normalization process with Assad that I think is partially connected to it as well. All of that's going to have to change. You have Donald Trump is back in office. And I don't know that they appreciate that very much. Jason Isaacson: There's also a recollection of the Trump administration in this reaction or non reaction to this Iranian attack on Saudi Aramco facilities. So it's been a mixed bag. But But first, let me let me let me turn back to you. And we were talking about the Abraham accords before. That was a great foreign policy access success of the last months of the Trump administration, first of the UAE, then Bahrain and then with different terminology, but Morocco and Sudan. As you know, the Biden administration has been vigorously pursuing an effort to normalize Saudi relations with Israel, and objective that was also very much a part of the Trump administration's vision. What are your perspectives on the likelihood of that kind of a deal being closed in the last months of the current Biden administration, if they do move forward on such a deal with the Republicans getting the Senate joined with Democrats in the Senate to support such a deal before the election? Or perhaps in a lame duck session after the election? Kirsten Fontenrose: Well that's the big question. So I think if you have a deal that includes normalization with Israel, Saudi us still includes normalization with Israel, it has a shot of getting through, but the closer we get to the election, the smaller that shot gets, because the more Republicans Congress will want to hold out to grant that foreign policy when to potential Republican administration. But if you have a deal that is being discussed now, as a Plan B, that is just a US-Saudi deal, without normalization. And this is because of the Israeli government's decision, perhaps not to grant that the Saudis are fully on board, you won't get it through, there's just not enough in it. For the US. There are lots of questions about why we'd be granting Saudi assistance with civilian nuclear technology. And a security guarantee, when we're not really getting much out of it. There's nothing in this deal in terms of concrete asks on the relationship with China. And we can really go quite far in blocking Chinese influence in the Gulf by just improving our own foreign military sales process. We don't need to grant security guarantees, the Israeli Saudi relationship is so close right now. It's normalization and everything but public statement and name and that public statement name is important for the follow on effects you have around the world globally and with other Muslim populations. But in terms of their coordination, they're in a pretty good place. So we're not in some sort of crisis rush to make sure this happens in the next few months, unless you're the Biden team. And you're desperate for a foreign policy win, because your promises on other foreign policy fronts have not borne out. So I think you will still see this continue, though we have doubled down on the Saudi discussion, if there is a second Trump administration. But you will not see this granting of a deal to Saudi Arabia, even though they are a phenomenal partner. And we are quite close, without more concrete asks that benefit U.S. goals as well. It's not the opinion that just having Saudi on side with nothing we've actually signed them up to, would they grant overflight rights, if things came down with Iran. We need to make those more specific before we would do something that would require commitment of troops, large resources, equipment, perhaps to the detriment of other partners, we would be able to send those same troops and equipment. So I don't think we're going to see it in the last months of this administration. Manya Brachear Pashman: To hear the rest of the panel, head to the link in our show notes. Another reminder that AJC is a nonpartisan organization and will be at the DNC next month in Chicago. We hope to see some of you there. Next week on People of the Pod, tune in for our sit down with two Jewish Olympians before they head to Paris for the Summer Olympic Games.
Europe at the Ballot Box: Insights and Impact on Jewish Communities and Beyond7/12/202429:28Election season in Europe is in full force, including recent elections in France, the United Kingdom, and the European Parliament. American Jewish Committee's offices across Europe have closely followed the results, which have had dramatic outcomes across the continent. Listen to an excerpt of this live podcast recording with AJC Europe Managing Director Simone Rodan-Benzaquen for expert analysis on what these developments mean for the future of Europe, European Jewry, Israel and the region, and more. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Episode Lineup: (0:40) Simone Rodan Benzaquen Show Notes: Resources: European Elections: June-July 2024; Results and AJC Expert Analysis Listen – People of the Pod: Rebuilding Israel’s Devastated Negev Region Post 10/7 The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election: What Does it Mean For Israel? Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [emailprotected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Interview with Simone Rodan-Benzaquen: Manya Brachear Pashman: Welcome to this live recording. Election season in Europe is in full force, including recent elections in France, the United Kingdom and the European Parliament. American Jewish Committee's offices across Europe have closely followed the dramatic results across the continent. Joining us to share what these developments mean for Israel and the Jewish people is someone who has become a fairly regular guest, thanks to her expertise, AJC Europe Managing Director Simone Rodan-Benzaquen. Simone, welcome back to People of the Pod. Simone Rodan Benzaquen: Thank you very much Manya. It's very good to be with you. Manya Brachear Pashman: So let's start with the most recent election in France, which is home to the second largest diaspora Jewish community behind the United States. So President Emmanuel Macron surprised a lot of people by calling for a snap election after his party was pummeled by the far right in European Parliament elections. Why was a snap election his solution? And what was the outcome? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: So the President has said that after the European Parliamentary elections, which indeed have been a huge failure for his party, he only gained 17% of the French vote while the far right gained 33% – that he wanted to use this occasion to give back the voice to the people and use it basically as a means to clarify the situation. Now, there has been a little bit of clarification. The one clarification, I'd say, is the fact that after the first round, where it became very clear that the far right is gaining more and more weight within the French public opinion and therefore, possibly also in Parliament, where it was expected that the far right would become the first party and possibly be able to have a government–the clarification was nevertheless that the majority of the country doesn't want the National Rally, meaning the far right to rule the country. It has also been a clarification because it has also showed that to some extent, the National Front is probably not yet ready to rule apart from the fact that majority of the people don't believe it should be, because nearly 100 candidates were as, one could say, problematic. Some of them had a criminal past. Some of them had made antisemitic, racist statements in the past. Some of them were truly not very competent, broke down in all of the interviews or the confrontations, not being able to respond to any of the questions. So that was, I'd say, one part of the clarification. The other part of the clarification, which is to some extent, problematic, and brings us to the situation we're in today is the fact that France is now clearly split into I'd say, three blocks: the far right, which is strong, the center and the left. And so just to give you a little bit of an understanding of what the results look like after the second round of the of the elections, so it gave what we call the NFP basically an alliance of all of the left parties – the far left, the Socialist Party, the Greens and the Communists – 182 seats in the 577-seat National Assembly. A majority is needed of 289 seats, so they only have, as the largest bloc, 182 seats. Marine Le Pen's national rally party has, again, despite the fact that they were expecting to win only 143 seats, nevertheless gaining 50 seats compared to the previous election. And for President Macron's party, the results come as something probably of a relief, because they have 168 seats, down from the 250 seats it held in the outgoing parliament, but still far more than what people were expecting. So we now have basically three scenarios. We have, in theory, a left bloc that doesn't have an absolute majority, that could be the ones, nevertheless, to try and find a coalition to rule the country. You could have something of a sort of a grand coalition which would include the moderate left, the center, and the moderate right. But France is not really used to making coalitions. It's not how we work. It's not like in Israel, it's not like in Germany, or other European countries. Or, we could have a third option, again, one that we've not had previously, in the Fifth Republic. It's called something like a technical government as it was the case for example, in Italy, under the Draghi government. Manya Brachear Pashman: So what do these results mean for the French Jewish community? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: Now, first of all, I'd say that many Jews after the second round of the elections, probably felt, just as much of the country, a sigh of relief. In between the two rounds, everybody was talking about the fact that whether the National Rally would have an absolute majority, we would have Prime Minister Bardella from the far right ruling the country, what it would mean. And that's not happening. So I think a majority of French Jews, again, just as the majority of French people probably seem somewhat relieved. But I think it was very quickly gained by a sense of worry, because of the presence of the far left Unbowed party in the left coalition that is now the largest part. And so many, many questions arise, because we know that in that part of the coalition, there are very, very, very problematic elements, particularly with relation to Jews and antisemitism. And they have really made sort of, you know, “anti-Israelism,” or even antisemitism a core part of the ideology. And I think more largely, I'd say, Jews, I think are very, very uncomfortable. We were really the Jewish question, if I may put it that way, was really at the center of this election. It was all day long about which party is antisemitic, which party isn't, who’s trying to get the attention of the Jews. And so many people around us, around me, really had the impression that they were being instrumentalized in a very, very horrible manner. And I think that the large feeling within the Jewish community is uncomfortable. They are afraid. And all of this also particularly in a context where we have an explosion of antisemitism. Manya Brachear Pashman: So are you saying that that question of who is more antisemitic – the right, the left – was not actually, that question was not coming from the Jewish community? It was coming from another source. What were the origins of that question? And why is antisemitism the sin that has been instrumentalized? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: So first of all, you have to understand that the far left party from Jean-Luc Mélenchon has really used the issue of Gaza and of the Palestinians as a weapon. It's not about the Palestinians. It's about – how can I call it – “Palestinianism” – it's really become sort of a cultural marker for that party, constantly being at the border of antisemitism. So you have, for example, people within his party who considered that the October 7 terrorist attacks were not terrorist; you have those who say that it was actually resistance; you have those who deny that babies were killed. And the other side of the political spectrum, Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, really made the issue of antisemitism, position themselves as basically, the defenders, the protectors of the Jews, all while at the same time, still having elements within their own party that were clearly problematic. The National Front also knows that this is the best way for them to become normalized to become a regular party that can actually be taken seriously by large parts of the French society. So basically, everybody was pulling at the Jews on all sides. And we all know that whenever you make the issue of antisemitism a political issue, or basically a political football game, or baseball game in the American context, it means that you're actually not serious about antisemitism. And the same can be said on the left, in particular, the far left always pretends not to be antisemitic, says how is it even possible that anyone could believe they would be antisemitic while they only believe that antisemitism only exists on the on the right and on the far right? So it's very problematic, because again, in the middle, are there actually Jewish citizens who the only thing they want is for everybody within the French society to take antisemitism seriously, and to fight it, collectively, knowing in particular that antisemitism is always the problem of society at large and should therefore be taken seriously by everybody. Manya Brachear Pashman: I mean, it is well known the history of antisemitism within France’s far right party. Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s father, was repeatedly convicted for hate speech, Holocaust denial, and it does appear that his daughter Marine Le Pen has taken steps to distance her party from that history. She has expressed support for Israel. She has expressed support for France’s Jewish community, as you said. Are you saying that it's really nothing more than a political strategy, a facade? Or do you think there is an authentic evolution of principles in her party, that has, a party that has some residual antisemitism from this long history? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: First of all, it's better to have a party to say what they say than the opposite. Let's be very clear about that. It's better to have Marine Le Pen and Bardella say the same things that they say, meaning, expressing support for the Jewish community, expressing support for Israel, than the opposite, as her father used to say, who used to consider that the gas chambers were just the detail in history. But nevertheless, I spoke about the fact that Emmanuel Macron, in his decision to call for snap elections, has wanted to clarify things. And once the focus came back to actually looking at the party and looking at the candidates of those that were actually presented by the national rally as being candidates for the parliamentary elections, you could see that the problems were still there. So it's one thing to talk the talk, which is good, but at the same time, when you give nearly 100 seats to elements within your own party who are clearly problematic, I mean, we had a woman who wore a Nazi cap, like actually a cap from from from the Nazi era and took a picture of herself and posted it on social media. You have Holocaust deniers. You have people who actually had a library with where they sell Holocaust denying books, and the list goes on. You can't just consider that this is just residual, that this is just a small problem. And again, I think for the party to really be taken seriously and really make sure that to know that what they're doing is genuine, they will have to have a very serious inward-looking approach. Meaning, not using the issue of antisemitism and considering that it only exists ever on the far left, or that it only exists only within Islamist elements within the society, but actually agree and actually understand that it exists within their own ranks. Once that happens, we can take them a little bit more seriously. And we know that this will not only be part of a political strategy. In the meantime, I think we need to stay vigilant and call them out whenever that's necessary. Manya Brachear Pashman: So now let's turn to the left. I have to say I used the word “residual” in my previous question on purpose because that was a word that Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the far left leader, used to describe antisemitism in France. It's not rising, it's just residual. He's also called Israel's operation in Gaza genocide. I'm curious, should we be concerned about the far left’s first place result? And what could be the ramifications of a far left victory in 2027 in the presidential election? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: So we did a survey, our biannual survey that we do together with IFOP, one of the largest polling institutes in France. And we found that 92% of French Jews consider Jean-Luc Mélenchon's unbound party to be the main reason why antisemitism is growing in the political sphere. So 92% of French Jews consider it to be antisemitic. A large majority or 54% of French Jews when they're being asked if Jean-Luc Mélenchon was to be president of France, would they leave the country or not, 55% say they would. So this is very, very clear. French Jews are very concerned about the far left. The different comments by himself, whether it's because he called, for example, when Jeremy Corbyn lost the election in the United Kingdom at the time, he said that the reason why he lost the elections was because of the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, or because of the networks of the Likud. He, as you said, he's spoken about a Gaza genocide, but that's happening basically every single day. He considers antisemitism to be residual, all while knowing that 1,000% increase in antisemitism has happened since October 7. He has used the issue of Gaza, of the Palestinians really as a political game to create chaos within its parliament. He has had, they have had Palestinian flags. They have called Israel an apartheid state. I mean, this is basically happening every single day. So this is why Jews in France are extremely concerned and consider the far left to be the main cause of antisemitism today in the French political sphere. Now, what is very, very concerning, and this is we’re paying the consequences today, is that when after the first round of the parliamentary elections, the traditional left wing parties, meaning the Socialists, the Green, the small Communist Party, decided to make an alliance with Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s party, this was another not only a feeling of concern for French Jews, but probably a feeling of betrayal. Because it means that the moderate left does not consider antisemitism to be a red line. It doesn't consider antisemitism to be so important. For it not to create an alliance with a party that has very clearly made antisemitism one of its major causes. And let's be clear, in the Socialist Party, you have, for example, Francois Hollande, the former President of France, who was just elected in Parliament again, and who has, you know, indirectly considered that antisemitism is not a red line for him, and therefore, has decided to create an alliance with the far left. So for French Jews, it's both a sense of fear, but also clearly a sense of betrayal. Because how, what is the message not only to the French left, but what is the message to the rest of society? If you consider antisemitism not to be a red line? How do you want to continue to explain to the rest of society, to French children that antisemitism needs to be fought, that this is a priority for the country as such, if you don't consider it to be a red line? So we are now living with these consequences and therefore, the question arises, who will be in the government? Will it be, you know, will it be the far left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, or will after the second round of the elections, the traditional moderate left decide to split off and, you know, take its distance with third party or again, continue in the same way, as they have until today, but it's a major issue, and one that we will possibly pay the price for in the future, again, beyond the very political issue, but in the country as such. Manya Brachear Pashman: So what role did the Israel-Hamas war play in this election and its outcome? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: The far left had a candidate, Palestinian woman by the name of Rima Hassan, who has a very, very radical approach to the Palestinian issue, considers that there needs to be a Palestinian state from the river to the sea. And this was really sort of the poster child of the unbowed party from Jean-Luc Mélenchon. And more largely, the issue of antisemitism played a role on the other side by all the other parties. We know, for example, of this horrible case of a 12-year-old Jewish girl who was raped by three boys of 12 and 13 years old, who hurled antisemitic insults and raped her. So all of this has really taken a center stage in the election, which makes many French people uneasy. I mean, so many friends of mine who said, you know, I wish we would be talking about something else. Manya Brachear Pashman: I want to also look at the United Kingdom, another major country that also had elections last week, the UK Labour Party had a major victory ending 14 years of conservative rule. What can you tell us about that election and its results? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: This is major. The Labour Party led by Sir Keir Starmer really scored resounding victory in the general elections. Its majority is the largest one by any government since 1997. The party flipped seats in all corners, really, of the United Kingdom, defeating conservative candidates in constituencies that had been conservative since, really, the 19th century. The conservative vote collapsed by nearly 20 percentage points. It's the largest decline by any governing party in British political history. And voters abandoned the party not only in favor of the Labour Party, but also for other parties – for the Liberal Democrats, for reform UK, and also for the Green Party. And also plenty stayed at home. Fewer than three-fifths of the voters turned out to vote, and it's the second lowest turnout in the past century. Now, the Liberal Democrats took 60 seats held by the conservatives. The party increased its representation in the House of Commons from 11 seats in 2019 to 72, and seats in which the Liberal Democrats were competing against the conservative really saw substantial tactical voting to ask the governing party in the seats. The Tories vote share fell by an average of 24 percentage points, while that of the Liberal Democrats increased by 12. Also the Reform Party, Euro-skeptic, rather pro Russian anti-immigration party that was led by Nigel Farage was the biggest beneficiary of the conservative collapse in terms of vote share. Reform achieved 14% of the vote nationwide, which is basically 12 points compared with the Brexit party that Nigel Farage used in 2019. Nevertheless, the interesting thing, though, I think, for the Labour Party in particular, is that we see to some extent that when Labour becomes a normal social democratic center left party, it can win elections, which wasn't the case under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn where the Labour Party very, very clearly lost the elections. Manya Brachear Pashman: But now, Jeremy Corbyn, as you mentioned earlier, very troubling history of antisemitism that spread throughout that party. So what should we know about the new prime minister Keir Starmer? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: Keir Starmer has made the issue of antisemitism a top priority. The party under Jeremy Corbyn had really become one could say institutionally antisemitic. And one of the first actions as Keir Starmer took over the party was the public apology to the Jewish community calling antisemitism a stain on the party that needed to be eradicated. And so I think as such, that needs to be clearly noted. Before Starmer also took over, before he now became Prime Minister, it's also important to note that the Jewish Labour MPs, like Luciana Berger, like Louise Ellman, who had left the party under Jeremy Corbyn, because basically they were being harassed, have decided to come back. So I think it's really sort of an endorsem*nt of Labour as sort of a renewed confidence in the party's election. So, I think overall, the Jewish community is in the United Kingdom somewhat reassured by the stance that Keir Starmer has taken, since he has taken over the party, and there is no reason to believe that he will take a different stance. One should also probably note, even though this is, of course, his personal life, that Sir Keir Starmer knows the Jewish community very well. His wife is Jewish. She is the daughter of a Polish-British Jew, a Polish Jew who had emigrated to the United Kingdom in the 20s. Then was married to a non-Jewish woman who then converted to Judaism. So she was brought up Jewish. She is involved in Jewish community affairs. Keir Starmer has had in the past said that he would stop working at 6 pm on Friday night in order to be able to be with his family for Shabbat dinner. And so this is, of course, an important sign. That being said, there will also be pressure without a doubt from other elements within the political spectrum. There are other parties who did particularly well – the Green Party, the Reform Party, the Liberal Democrats, and there will be pressure, nevertheless, on many of the issues that in particular on foreign policy with relations to Israel and Gaza, that will be made. But overall, I think many in the Jewish community are reassured about the fact that the Labour Party was somehow cleansed of the most problematic antisemitic elements within the party. Manya Brachear Pashman: So put this all in context for us now. And how do these elections fit in with what we're seeing across the continent, from the recent EU Parliament elections to the Dutch elections? Simone Rodan Benzaquen: There is clearly, across the continent, a huge polarization. We see radicalization of the political spectrum. We see a certain inability of people to even talk with each other, to even share a common sense of reality, a common sense of shared values. And I think this is really what we're seeing across the European continent, and probably more widely across Western democracies. And this I think, needs to be seen, particularly also in a wider geopolitical point of view. We are clearly witnessing these days, an assault by autocratic nations or groups across the world, who have decided to team up despite their differences and to have to attack the Western worlds for their hegemony, to attack the Western world because they want to change the world order. So of course, militarily, by the war that is being waged by Russia against Ukraine, the war that is also being waged by Iranian proxies against Israel – Hamas, of course, since October 7, but also Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc, etc. And they're really, I think, trying to test the grounds. We see those autocrats teaming up – Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, to some extent – waging this war against the West, and we in the West, really falling apart to some extent from within both because there is a hybrid war that is being waged by those autocratic elements and countries from the outside, but also because we ourselves have our own huge problems, of course, as we know, and there I think, this is what we're seeing. This is the polarization of the political spectrum. And the fact that the far right is gaining more and more ground is part of that. It's part of the fact that many, many European citizens feel that what they used to believe Europe was about is falling apart. There is a lot of cultural insecurity. There's a lot of fear, and to some extent, the job that by the sort of traditional conservative and liberal parties on the left and right, that should have been there to address the concerns of European citizens, whether it's on immigration, whether it's on globalization, whether it's about the middle class have not been addressed by those parties. And so in this vacuum, and in this wider geopolitical context, the populist parties are exploiting that part. So my appeal to European and Western democracies and Western parties who care about Western values and European values is to start addressing the issues from within, stand up for themselves stand up for the minorities and in particular Jews. Knowing that antisemitism is always the first sign of societies falling apart, and deal with the very serious threats that are coming from the outside, and stand firm. Because we are at a crossroads of the world as we know it. Manya Brachear Pashman: Once again, thank you, Simone for joining us and informing all of our conversations on these matters.
Rebuilding Israel’s Devastated Negev Region Post 10/76/28/202417:21The October 7 Hamas attack severely affected Israel’s Ben-Gurion University (BGU) and its surrounding community. The university lost over 110 people, several students were taken hostage, including Noa Argamani, and thousands of students were called up for reserve duty. Doug Seserman, CEO of Americans for Ben-Gurion University, joins us to discuss the impact of the October 7 Hamas massacre on BGU and Israel’s Negev region. Hear about the university's emergency response and volunteer efforts, highlighting the region’s resilience and the university’s innovation in sustainability, water conservation, and energy solutions. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Episode Lineup: (0:40) Doug Seserman Show Notes: Listen – People of the Pod: The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election: What Does it Mean For Israel? Seven Months In: What Israelis Think About the War Against Hamas, Campus Antisemitism in America, and More What Does it Mean to be a Jewish American Hero? A Jewish American Heritage Month Conversation with AJC CEO Ted Deutch Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [emailprotected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Interview with Doug Seserman: Manya Brachear Pashman: The Negev, the vast desert region that covers 60% of Israel's territory is home to only 10% of its population. It's also home to Ben-Gurion University and many of the communities attacked by Hamas terrorists on October 7. Doug Seserman is the CEO of Americans for Ben-Gurion University. In that role, he has worked to highlight the innovations and technology know-how that Israel can offer America and the world when it comes to sustainability, water conservation, energy solutions and ecology. But since October 7 BGU’s efforts have shifted from sustaining lives across Israel’s south to rebuilding them. Doug Seserman is with us now to discuss those efforts. Doug, welcome to People of the Pod. Doug Seserman: Thank you so much for inviting me. Manya Brachear Pashman: So compared to other Israeli universities, the BGU community was disproportionately impacted by the October 7 massacre, correct? Can you give our listeners some perspective on the scope of loss? Doug Seserman: Sure. So as the crow flies our main campus in Beer-Sheva is only about 22 miles from Gaza. We had a number of students at the Nova music festival site, and a number of our employees and their families live in the western Negev or Gaza Envelope area. So as a university today, we have 111 dead. That includes those murdered on October 7, as well as fallen soldiers. We've had close to 6,600 of our students, faculty, employees, administration, called up to milu'im, reserve duty, and not all of them have come back. Some 2000 are still fighting. So that was a direct and disproportional impact. Now everybody in Israel has experienced this war. Every family knows somebody, but for us, it's definitely disproportional. Literally every colleague's kids are fighting. Every younger woman who's a colleague in her 30s, their husbands are fighting. People are on their WhatsApp just trying to hear what's going to happen next. It's a very surreal situation. Manya Brachear Pashman: Four hostages were rescued by the IDF earlier this month. Were there any faculty, staff, or students from Ben-Gurion taken hostage? Doug Seserman: Noa Argamani, you may recall her name. She was at the music festival and forcibly separated from her boyfriend Avinatan Or, who's a BGU alum. But Noa is a 26-year-old information systems student of ours. Manya Brachear Pashman: Yes, thank you. Of course, Noa was one of those hostages recently rescued. We are so thankful that Noa is now home. 124 hostages are still being held in Gaza. We are praying and advocating for the safe return home of all hostages, and will highlight those that are part of the BGU family: Sasha (Alexander) Trufanov, Avinatan Or, Alex Dancyg, and Segev Kalfon And Doug, how many at BGU were called up for reserve duty? Doug Seserman: That’s about a third of the student body. Classes, obviously, they were supposed to start on October 15, and they didn't resume until December 31. The president of the University, Professor Daniel Chamovitz, did his best to have no student be left behind. But at some point, we had to resume classes. And so today, when you go to the campus, it's, I don't want to say it's thriving, but it's functioning. There's a normalcy about life in Israel and also on campus. But there's nothing normal about this new normal. Many of our reservists are back and they're in the classroom, but even going from being in Gaza, in conflict, to then studying for a test, you know, writing papers and things. People are traumatized, and the university has done an amazing job providing psychological support and counseling for the students and the faculty and the families who've been directly impacted. But still, it's a very difficult situation. Manya Brachear Pashman: In addition to those called up for reserve duty immediately after October 7, was there a sizable volunteer effort? Or was the community just too shell-shocked? Doug Seserman: Thank you for asking. Today when you go to campus, it's happening and it's alive and doing as well as it can. On October 7, that immediately pivoted from a university that was closing – had to close because of the war – to almost a hub for activity to support not only the faculty and students, but also the community – a logistics center, if you will. We were housing, in our dorms, evacuated families and also medical professionals from the center of the country that needed help. Soroka, which is the main hospital of the Negev and also the teaching hospital for our two medical schools. Very close relationship with Soroka Medical Center. Our medical students immediately became ER triage doctors. They learn by doing. If you talk with some of them today, they'll tell you in this strange way that October 7 may have really accelerated their knowledge in terms of their career, etc. And then we just started doing what we could. Students mobilized, as Israelis do, to create care packages and provide clothing and anything that was necessary for these evacuated families. We had, I want to say close to 1500 members of our community that were evacuated. Manya Brachear Pashman: You know, I imagine it's even more than medical students getting this, you know, on the ground experience. I happened to be in journalism school in New York when 9/11 happened. I remember places in New York City all of a sudden transforming into emergency centers, like what you're describing, and I think a lot of my classmates got a crash course, right, in journalism from covering that. Doug Seserman: Absolutely. Even our social work and psychology students became kind of caseworkers. I mean, everybody was doing what they could and, in a way, we should feel really good about it. It's hard to say there are silver linings from October 7. But the resilience that the country has demonstrated in the university, in particular, is incredible and quite inspiring. One thing about Ben-Gurion University that’s unique is, yes, we are an educational and research institution and one of the leading universities in Israel, and we're quite proud of those accomplishments. But we have a particular and very unique mandate to develop the Negev region. And it's almost in what we call the Ben Gurion DNA, to activate the social justice aspect of being a Jew, honestly. But it's particularly manifest at the University and we're proud of it. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, you know, let's talk a little bit more about that innovative spirit that I hear a lot about, that characterizes Israel and, obviously, BGU. And I mentioned earlier how BGU has introduced, you know, all of these technologies, innovative solutions for environmental concerns. I think David Ben Gurion said “making the desert bloom” – that was his goal and what the university aims for – but has the aftermath of October 7 highlighted other faculty, other fields? You talked about psychology and social work. Can you talk a little bit about how this kind of innovative spirit has been applied and has really shown itself since October 7? Doug Seserman: Yeah, absolutely. I'm happy to do that. And it's important to note also that Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, it was important on October 6. When you visit the Beer-Sheva campus, it's, in a way, it's startup nation on steroids. You have Ben-Gurion University and Soroka hospital, the advanced technology park that has 3000 employees and 70 multinational companies, right across the high speed train station to get you to Tel Aviv in just over an hour. And you have the IDF moving south and their IT and computing base literally adjacent to the university. It's an amazing place. I actually feel like a lot of people visit Israel, and they don't really go south. And the truth is, you haven't seen the future of Israel until you spend time in the Negev. And you don't really understand the Negev until you've spent time at the University. But in terms of areas that the University excels at, that are important in the aftermath. I mean, it's everything. But some of the things I would highlight is our strength in engineering, computer sciences, IT, cybersecurity. The cyber capital of Israel is actually Beer-Sheva. This IDF base that's adjacent to us, I call them 22nd century defense systems, remote sensing satellite defense technology. Hatzerim Air Force base is in the Negev, that's where all members of the Israeli Air Force get their wings, but they actually get their degree, their educational degree, from Ben-Gurion University. So when we think about the future, listen, it takes a village. And you can never do wrong by doing right. So I'd encourage your listeners to just get involved in something in Israel that's consistent with their values. Manya Brachear Pashman: I know the South has supplied much of Israel's kind of homegrown food, vegetable crops, barley, wheat, dairy, but obviously, I mean, many of the Palestinian and Thai workers who tended those fields, they're not returning anytime soon, neither are the residents of those kibbutzim. Has BGU played a role in filling that gap? Doug Seserman: The answer is yes, and doing our best and not enough. And very proud of all the volunteers and that you're seeing, especially also from the diaspora coming to Israel to help pick fruit and etc. We had faculty that basically stop because they weren't teaching and they had time, they just started going into the fields and helping the farmers, both with their hands and their heart. At the end of the day, there's a very close relationship and literally hundreds of our students and faculty and administration has been involved in volunteer efforts. At the end of our board of governors meeting last week, we had a whole afternoon dedicated for volunteers who came from around the world to volunteer as well. Manya Brachear Pashman: I want to go back to campus real quick and talk a little bit more about the students. I know that BGSU has a really robust diversity and inclusion effort that covers Druze, other Arabs, women, disabilities, Ethiopian immigrants, ultra-Orthodox Jews – it's a very diverse campus. And I'm curious how this diverse student population views the scenes from some American university campuses. I mean, has there been vigorous debate on BGU’s campus about how Israel is fighting this war? And does it look any different? Doug Seserman: Now that's a big question. I can say this: we're extremely proud of the diversity on campus and sometimes what we call a shared society. We have Sarab Abu-Rabia-Queder, who's the Vice President of Diversity and Equity and Inclusion in Israel. That DEI term has become controversial, in the United States, but in Israel, you know, in our campus, it's a thriving concept. We have approximately 20,000 students. Most of them are Israeli. We have about 1000 international students that study in English, mostly from China and India, but also from North America. And then we have about 2000 Arab-Israelis. So of the Arab-Israeli, a number of them are Bedouin. We're by far the largest university for Bedouin students in Israel. So we have robust discussions underneath that framework of the diversity, VP of diversity, to try to bring students together. Sometimes there have been, before October 7, protests, peaceful protests, with Arab students protesting and Jewish students also there. And we've never had issues. You know, there's a way to have civil discourse, and free speech and academic freedom is critical. I mean, it's a hallmark to a just society. So you know, you have to be able to have peaceful protests. Now going back to what's happening on American campuses. You know, I'm personally embarrassed. I wrote an op-ed recently in The Times of Israel about what do you do when your alma mater no longer reflects your values? I'm a proud Wildcat from Northwestern University. And we had a terrible situation on campus. And then our president Michael Schill, who's a smart guy, and also a Jew, negotiated with the encampment leaders and created a precedent almost like, it's not negotiating with terrorists, but it's compromising and rewarding, enabling bad behavior and creating a precedent that the way to make change is to be lawless and create hate speech. So something's happened in the US that on college campuses, that's absolutely out of control. But at the same time, freedom of speech, and especially in academic institutions, must be protected, but it has to be safe. We teach chemistry on university campuses all across the country, perhaps we should be teaching morality. And maybe that should be a required course. Now, I don't even know what that looks like. But I think people have lost a sense for the difference between proper behavior and improper behavior. And they sometimes use free speech to do hateful and wrongful things. And that's, that's not appropriate. Manya Brachear Pashman: In other words, you're suggesting social chemistry lessons? How do we get along? How do relationships work? Doug Seserman: I love that. I think what's happened is we all are talking in echo chambers. We've no longer figured out how to understand the narrative of the other, and how to find some sort of central place to move forward where people can agree to disagree, but you can move forward in some kind of democratic and civil way. Manya Brachear Pashman: So I don't want to lose sight of the fact that you head Americans for BGU, right, the arm of the university that works to garner American support? Has October 7 presented some unexpected challenges in that realm? Doug Seserman: You know the answer, to that is yes. And also, unfortunately, opportunities at the same time. There's been an October, I call it October 8 awakening, some people are calling it October 8 Jews – people in this country and in the diaspora are waking up, that something is happening out there with antisemitism, and the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. And as an American diaspora Jew, you have sort of like three options. You can do nothing, and no miracles are going to come from that. Or you can kind of wait and see and no miracles are gonna come from that. Or you can kind of double down your efforts and get involved with institutions that matter, can make a difference. And that's what we're encouraging. Manya Brachear Pashman: Well, Doug, thank you so much for joining us and for giving us a snapshot of what people are trying to do to rebuild Israel’s south and help it recover after October 7. Thank you so much. Doug Seserman: Thank you so much for having me.
The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election: What Does it Mean For Israel?6/21/202434:50In AJC’s signature AJC Global Forum session, the Great Debate, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Morgan Ortagus, former Spokeswoman for the Department of State under the Trump administration, engaged in a debate on the 2024 presidential election and its impact on the global Jewish community, Israel, and the future of democracy. Listen to this session, moderated by AJC’s Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson, recorded live on the AJC Global Forum 2024 stage in Washington, D.C. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a 501(c)3 not for profit organization and does not endorse political candidates for elective office. Episode Lineup: (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Morgan Ortagus, Halie Soifer Show Notes: Listen – People of the Pod: Seven Months In: What Israelis Think About the War Against Hamas, Campus Antisemitism in America, and More What Does it Mean to be a Jewish American Hero? A Jewish American Heritage Month Conversation with AJC CEO Ted Deutch Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [emailprotected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Debate with Morgan Ortagus and Halie Soifer: Manya Brachear Pashman: In AJC’s signature AJC Global Forum session, the Great Debate, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Morgan Ortagus, former Spokeswoman for the Department of State under the Trump administration, engaged in a debate on the 2024 presidential election and its impact on the global Jewish community, Israel, and the future of democracy. Moderating the debate was AJC’s Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson. Here’s Jason now to explain the format. Jason Isaacson: We had a coin toss, and Morgan won the coin toss, and will go first. Each of them will have two minutes to provide opening statements. There will be the opportunity for a minute of rebuttal afterwards, then we'll plunge into a series of questions that I'll be posing to each of them. Morgan, you’re up. Morgan Ortagus: Thank you so much for having me. I want to start this discussion today really telling a few stories from my time in the Trump administration, but also talking about this from a policy perspective. For those of you who don't know me, I've actually served in multiple administrations, including in the Obama administration, as well. And I say that to provide the context that I think the State of Israel cannot have a relationship with just one political party in the United States, just as we pray for the success of Israel. I pray for the success of our leaders, whomever wins in November. And I think no matter what happens today, in this debate in November, we must stand with our ally, we must stand with the State of Israel. You know, what's amazing is, I think about four years ago, I was standing in the Oval Office after many, many months of having worked with Secretary Pompeo, Jared Kushner, and the entire team on something that you all came to learn about called the Abraham Accords. And in that moment, I was pregnant with my daughter Adina Ann, this beautiful Jewish baby. And I thought to myself, the Middle East has entirely changed for her. This is going to be so radically different. Fast forward three and a half years later, to see October 7th and what happened that day, the worst killing of the Jewish people in any single day since the Holocaust. It felt like everything I had worked on in Abraham Accords had been shattered. But I am here to say that there is hope, with the right president, with the right policies. And that's what I really want to talk about today. With the right policies, we can get back to an era, not only have a strong America, a strong Israel, and a much stronger Middle East, happy to debate the policies. I'm not a campaign person. But I do believe that under the Trump administration, under Mike Pompeo, we had the right policies that were best for Israel, and best for the Middle East. So I guess as the famous song goes, all I'm here to say is give Trump a chance. Jason Isaacson: Morgan, thank you. Halie Soifer. Halie Soifer: Jason, Morgan, AJC, thank you for having me. And thank you for your efforts advocating for the Jewish people for Israel and defending democratic values. I'm grateful for your work, which has made a difference, and particularly grateful for the leadership of your CEO, my friend, Ted Deutch. This is the third time I've joined AJC's Great Debate in advance of an election with Joe Biden and Donald Trump on the ballot. The first was in 2019. The second was 2020. But 2024 is different for three reasons. First, the stakes of this election are higher. Second, the positions of the two candidates have never been more clear or divergent. And third, both candidates have been president before and can and should be judged on their records. Unlike the last debate, this is no longer a hypothetical in terms of what kind of President Joe Biden or Donald Trump would be. We know the answer. Joe Biden has sought to restore the soul of America by taking unprecedented steps to combat antisemitism and bigotry, while Donald Trump has emboldened, echoed and aligned with dangerous extremists and antisemites. Joe Biden is a self declared Zionist who has stood with Israel for more than five decades, including after October 7, when he pledged his staunch support of Israel and the Jewish people. While Donald Trump is a self declared dictator on day one, who marched Israel's leaders and praised Hezbollah after October 7. Best summarized by his former national security adviser John Bolton, who told the New York Times, Trump's support of Israel is not guaranteed in a second term. Joe Biden is an ardent defender of democracy, while Donald Trump incited a deadly insurrection in order to stop the peaceful transfer of power in the last election, and is preparing to weaponize the US government as an act of political retribution. If he wins the next one. And let's not forget, he's also a twice impeached 34 Time convicted felon. So three times is clearly a charm. There's plenty to debate and I'm happy to be here. Thanks. Jason Isaacson: Very good. Thank you, Halie. You can each rebut the others statements. Morgan, would you like to say a word? Morgan Ortagus: I think the only response I would have to that is do you feel safer as a Jew in America today than you did four years ago? That's it. Jason Isaacson: Halie, would you like to say anything in response? Halie Soifer: Sure. Four years ago, I mentioned I joined this debate. We did so via zoom, where we were in our home stuck for more than a year. It was an unprecedented pandemic that really epitomized Donald Trump's leadership. He was ignorant, chaotic or erratic, and demonstrated a reckless disregard for a fundamental Jewish value pickoff nephesh. The sanctity of life. Since Joe Biden has become president, we emerged from this dark period, the economy has grown. Unemployment is at a 50 year low. And yes, anti semitism has risen, including after the horrific attacks perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, and our unequivocal condemnation of this violence and of rising anti semitism is something on which I'm sure we agree, Morgan, and you know, who else agrees with us, Joe Biden. On May 2, he said in response to the campus protests, there should be no place on any campus or any place in America for antisemitism. It's simply wrong. Jason Isaacson: Thank you. Okay. Let's get into the questions if I could begin with you, Morgan. As you know, in election after election over the last century, a substantial majority of Jews have voted for Democratic presidential candidates over Republican candidates, the sharpest differences were under FDR in the 1940s and the Johnson Goldwater election of 1964, when Democrats were reported to have scored 90% of the Jewish vote, but Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Barack Obama weren't far behind, and Joe Biden was reported to have led Donald Trump four years ago, according to Pew by 70%, to 27%. AJC's latest polling shows a somewhat narrower gap, but still has President Biden beating former President Trump by more than two to one among American Jews. If these numbers are predictive and accurate, how does the Republican Party break through that traditional Democratic predisposition among Jewish voters and why does it matter? Morgan Ortagus: I think there's a couple ways to unpack that first, I think there's a big difference between saying the right thing and doing the right thing. There's no doubt that the Biden administration, the Biden-Harris administration is great on the rhetoric. But I would say that the policy is lacking. First of all, I think most Jewish voters care about Israel care about antisemitism in this country. But let me just also say that I think Jewish voters, Jewish moms and grandmas in this audience, Jewish parents, you care about things that I care about in Nashville, Tennessee, which is the price of groceries, which is filling up your car with gasoline, which is all of the things that matter to all of us as consumers. And it is not a good time in America for the American family. People are making real decisions, whether to fill up their gas tank or whether to fill up their cart full of groceries. That happens in real America in Nashville, Tennessee, where I live. I would also say that, you know, Lindsey Graham said this to me once and it really made me laugh. He said about Trump, I've never seen somebody so willing to cut off their own arm just to spite him. And he certainly incites a lot of heated emotion and passion. But again, I would get back to the question that I asked you, do you feel more safe as a Jew in America today than you did four years ago? Do you think our policies are stronger at protecting Israel, with standing with our ally than they were four years ago, I would argue that we have turned the Middle East on its head in the past four years by beginning at the beginning of this administration to spend the past three and a half years, chasing the Islamic Republic around the world, begging and cajoling and pleading with them to get back into a nuclear deal, giving them billions of dollars in sanctions relief by not enforcing those sanctions. That was three and a half years of policies that led to events like October 7. We also saw multiple times at the UN, including yesterday, ways in which that I think the Biden administration has sold Israel down the river. has not stood up for them at the United Nations or on the world stage. And so I'm quite simply argue that the Middle East is chaotic today, specifically from the policies of the past three years that were put in place by the Biden Administration. Jason Isaacson: Thank you, Morgan. Halie, you can respond if you wish. You have a minute. Halie Soifer: Well, as a Jewish mom, I can say I absolutely feel safer knowing that Joe Biden is in the White House because he shares our values, our fundamental values, our Jewish values, defending democracy, and of course, support of Israel. A lot of Republicans mentioned Donald Trump's move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2017. Something we agree with–Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. What we don't mention enough is that in August of 2020, Donald Trump said he did that for the evangelicals, which demonstrates two things. One, Donald Trump's Israel policy has always been based on his self interests. His own former national security adviser has revealed that in an article in The New York Times in early April, and also it’s clear that Donald Trump has great animus toward the vast majority of Jewish Americans, those who vote for Democrats because of it.. He has called us disloyal. He has called us uninformed. He has said we hate Israel, we hate our religion, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We're loyal to our values, which is why the overwhelming majority of us support Democrats. Jason Isaacson: Halie, I want to ask you a different version, or the pretty much the same version of the question that I asked Morgan at the beginning, why it matters where the Jewish vote is. Remembering that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz had a piece after the 2020 election, that maintained it was Jewish voters in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona who actually made the crucial difference in that tight race moving those swing states and their deciding Electoral College votes into the Biden column. Although polling and voting history is obviously on your side, there are signs of slippage for President Biden in our own polling and in other samples. Some of that may have to do with the President's being seen as inappropriately pushing the Israeli government in ways that didn't want to go in the conduct of the war against Hamas. And in a post conflict path to Palestinian statehood. Some of it may be factors that have nothing to do with Israel or with the Jewish community, but reflect attitudes in the general population. Why the slippage and how are you addressing it? Halie Soifer: Well, Jason, you're right. The Jewish vote absolutely matters. The states you mentioned, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona determined the outcome of the 2020 election and may do so again in 2024. Joe Biden won those three states in total by just over 100,000 voters. And in those states the Jewish vote, and even more said the Jewish vote that supported Joe Biden was exponentially higher than the margin by which he won. So where are Jewish voters in 2024? Well, 74% of Jewish voters supported Democrats in our last election in the 2022 midterms. It's the same amount approximately three quarters who have supported Democrats historically, and it's the amount I predict will support Joe Biden in this election for two reasons. One, Joe Biden represents the vast majority of Jewish voters on every key issue, domestic policy, democracy, abortion, access, guns, climate change the economy, antisemitism, and foreign policy, Israel, Ukraine and defending democracy abroad. And too, Jewish voters overwhelmingly disapprove of and oppose Donald Trump in 2016, in 2020, and they're going to do it again in 2024. Because there's even more reasons to oppose him now, going into a potential second term. AJC's new poll only confirms this. The poll indicates that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have essentially the same amount of support–61%/23%--among Jewish voters as they did among that same group of voters in 2020, when it was 64%/21%. Donald Trump has not broken 25%. It also shows that Jewish voters trust Biden more than Trump on Israel by a two to one margin and on antisemitism by three to one margin. So AJC is consistent in its polling, and it's consistent with what we've seen in other polling as well that Jewish voters will continue to overwhelmingly support Democrats and Joe Biden, especially with Donald Trump on the ballot. Jason Isaacson: Morgan, you may respond. Morgan Ortagus: Again, you know, I'd say there's a big difference between rhetoric and policy action. The truth is, the reality is, there has never been a more unsafe time in America, for Jews, especially young Jews on college campuses. Today, the antisemitism unveiled and unchecked during the Biden administration should scare all of us. The fact that Jewish students have to make decisions if they want to wear a yarmulke, if they want to wear a Star of David, if they want to openly embrace Judaism in the United States of America is a stain on the Biden administration. And something that I think that there has been no real action. In 2019, again, I'm going to keep going back to policy because when you have bad policy, you have to run on rhetoric. When you have good policy, you can talk about things that we did like the executive order to combat antisemitism in 2019. That executive order focused on criminalizing antisemitism, basically bringing it up to the level of any other persecution against, you know, sex, gender. We could go through everything in Title Six. That's incredibly important because we have real world ramifications for antisemitism that this administration has ignored. Jason Isaacson: Thank you, Morgan. Let me ask you another question. And I'm going to turn to a foreign policy issue again. Since President Trump in May 2018 pulled the United States out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, calling it a horrible one-sided deal that should never ever have been made. Iran has marched closer and closer to becoming a nuclear threshold state with a stockpile of enriched uranium calculated to be more than 6000 kilograms as of last month, more than 20 times the limit that was set in the nuclear deal. But enough of that uranium enriched to a near weapons grade level to fuel at least three atomic weapons. It's been said that the maximum pressure campaign waged in the last year and a half of the Trump administration had little effect on Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. How would you answer the charge that pulling the US out of an unsatisfactory nuclear deal actually made the problem worse? How would a second Trump administration approach this threat from Iran? Morgan Ortagus: Thanks, now we're getting to my favorite subject. So you don't even have to listen to President Trump on this. You can look at Senator Schumer, Majority Leader at the time in his speech and his debate why he did not support the JCPOA. We know of course, that the JCPOA was never brought before the Senate because it was a bad deal that would never get passed, including by Democrats. Let's also remember that under the JCPOA, we left the deal in 2018 in the Trump administration, at the time and during the entire Trump administration. Iran never exceeded the 5% enrichment. In fact, it didn't happen until the Biden administration and under Biden, they've gone up to an 84% enrichment strategy with zero ramifications. That's enough material to get a bomb within eight months if we wanted to. More importantly, Americans and Israelis are dying at the hands of Iran. And why is that? Because once again, you have a Democratic administration who have not enforced sanctions, they got billions of dollars in sanctions relief. About three weeks before October 7, this administration negotiated a deal that I didn't think that could be worse than the JCPOA. But they actually managed to top themselves by promising to give Iran $6 billion for returning five American hostages home. Now, I love getting American hostages home. In fact, in the Trump administration, we got two American hostages home from Iran, guess how much we paid for those hostages, zero. And so there is a way to negotiate to be tough with Iran and to protect Americans. But Americans are dying in places like Jordan, from Iranian made drones. We know that American ships are being taxed on a daily basis, again, from material that is supplied to the Hussein's by Iran. And so whenever you reward enemies, like the Islamic Republic of Iran and punish friends like Israel, the Arab states, then you end up with a chaotic Middle East. So the Middle East is on fire today principally because of the appeasem*nt of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran will likely get a nuclear weapon in the next administration, if it isn't stopped. President Trump will stop it. President Biden will just beg and plead them to stop. Jason Isaacson: Thank you, Morgan. Halie, you may respond. Halie Soifer: We talked a lot about, of course, the horrific acts of what happened on October 7. What I don't think we talked enough about is what happened on April 13, when Iran launched over 300 projectiles at Israel and an unprecedented direct attack. In the end, Israel survived that attack relatively unscathed. Miraculously, because Joe Biden had deployed two aircraft carriers to the eastern Mediterranean preparing for such attacks, and had encouraged a coalition, Arab partners, to stand with Israel and directly intercepted over 100 ballistic missiles. It was the first time the US military had been deployed to prevent a direct attack on Israel. Following the attack, Biden took steps to hold Iran accountable, including imposing new sanctions and exports control on Iran. The sanctions targeted leaders and entities connected to the IRGC, the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps. During the Biden administration, the US has sanctioned over 600 individuals and entities including Iran and its proxies. And the President has directed the administration to continue to impose sanctions that further degrade Iran’s military. This is on top of the Trump era sanctions against Iran that Biden kept in place. So Joe Biden has demonstrated great strength in defending against the threat of Iran, especially as it relates to the threat posed by Israel. Jason Isaacson: There are increasingly loud and influential voices in the Democratic Party, expressing harsh criticism of Israel's conduct of the war against Hamas in Gaza and among constituencies on which democratic election victories have often depended. There's opposition to Israel more generally, not just to the current war, but to the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Over the last two years, according to Gallup sympathy for Israelis over Palestinians has slipped among Democrats from a majority to a minority position, although there is still a plurality with more favorable views of Israel versus Palestinian Authority. For comparison among Republicans sympathy for Israelis earlier this year was recorded by Gallup is more than 10 times that for Palestinians. How can President Biden and the party counter the critics and assure that US support for the Middle East's sole democracy remains bipartisan. And how do you respond to the charge that Trump criticism of Israel in progressive circles contributes to attacks on supporters of Israel and incidents of antisemitism? Halie Soifer: Antisemitic and anti-Israel views have been expressed by elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Neither party is hom*ogenous in their view on either issue. When antisemitism and or anti-Israel views have emerged among Democrats in Congress, JDCA, our organization has condemned it, and in some cases endorsed a primary opponent to anti Israel, Democratic incumbents. There are two such primaries that we're engaged in right now as we speak in New York and in Missouri, to elect Democrats who share our values. There are some Democrats who have opposed or proposed conditioning aid to Israel, something which JDCA opposes. But House Republicans, including their entire leadership, recklessly delayed essential military aid for Israel that Joe Biden pledged in October for six months, at a time when it could not have been needed more. When it comes to antisemitism, there is a sharp difference between how it is handled by the two parties. The Democratic Party marginalizes those who have used antisemitic rhetoric, while the Republican Party has elevated extremists and antisemites, one of whom is at the top of the ticket in the past three election cycles, including this one. Leadership matters, and the words and actions of our leaders matter. When the American people were faced with the same choice for president in 2020, on the debate stage, President Biden implored Donald Trump to condemn white supremacy, we all remember it. Trump blatantly refused, he could not, would not condemn this insidious ideology that motivated the perpetrator of the worst massacre of Jewish Americans in our history two years earlier at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. What did he do instead, he incited dangerous right wing extremists, the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by from the debate stage. And less than four months later, they heated his call on January 6. This election is a binary choice. There are two names on this ballot, two men vying to be leader of the free world. One has been a staunch friend and ally of the Jewish people in Israel, since he was first elected to the Senate in 1972. And the other who has always done and will continue to only do what is good for himself. Jason Isaacson: Morgan, I think you may want to respond. Morgan Ortagus: You know, I will concede, I don't watch MSNBC. And maybe they're just not covering what I see going on in America on a daily basis, which is a Charlottesville every single day in this country, which is the calling for not only supporting Hamas and other terrorist organizations, but calling for the genocide and the extermination of the Jewish people blatantly and openly every single day in this country. You also see yesterday in New York City, while there was a memorial to what happened on October 7, people there openly demonstrating support for more October 7, support for more terrorism. And while that was happening, the United States was shamefully at the United Nations calling for a ceasefire resolution that made us look like we were Hamas’ personal lawyer. If you're a party that doesn't have the moral clarity, to stand by the Jewish faith to just stay defending itself against terrorism, how can you claim to have the moral clarity on anything. I was in Israel three weeks ago Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu told me that in fact, the Biden administration is slow walking military aid that he needs. Just last week in the Congress, the Biden administration was whipping votes against bipartisan ICC sanctions, which are undermining again the leadership of a democratic elected Jewish state. We’ll remember famously that after the attack that he talked about a few minutes ago from Iran, Biden famously told Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu for Israel just to take the win essentially. At every turn, then not only tie one hand behind Israel's back, they tie both hands behind the back as they tried to defeat the terrorists that invaded them and by the way, killed Americans on October 7, and the last time I checked, we still have five Americans that are held captive eight months later by a terrorist organization behind enemy lines. Bring them home. Jason Isaacson: Morgan, you're up. Your last question and President Trump and other leaders of your party had been harshly critical of a range of diversity and equity programs, affirmative action and college admissions and educational curricula that cast a negative light on aspects of American history. And these stances have earned the support and loyalty of among others, individuals and groups with extremist views on race and ethnicity. How do you answer critics, including President Biden, who charge that this so-called anti-woke agenda lends legitimacy and support to forces of intolerance? As you know, there are also accusations that divisive rhetoric can fuel antisemitism. And the example of Charlottesville, which we've been talking about is often cited. How do you counter that, in a minute, if you may. Morgan Ortagus: I’ll be very quick and say that I agree with Halie that there is antisemitic problems that happen on both the left and the right, and we must be countering them. And every time it happens, again, I'm a foreign policy professional. I look at the policies. I don't necessarily get involved in domestic politics. But I will say that what we have seen, especially on college campuses, is that DEI and intersectionality are the parents of antisemitism and fostering intolerance. Can anybody look at our college campuses and say this isn't true. I don't think President Biden and vice president Harris are doing enough to rein in anti-Jewish Jewish violence in this country. Let's look at Biden's so-called efforts, is there more or less antisemitism in our universities? Are there fewer encampments? How about what's happening to the American flag? The last I've seen, the Iranian people have more respect for the American flag and the Israeli flag than liberals on university campuses today. Many students who had to start college online and COVID have gone back to going online because it's unsafe to be Jewish in America in an American university today. Jason Isaacson: Thank you, Morgan. And Halie, we're not going to have rebuttals to these questions. Halie, your last question: the Iranian threats, foreign policy question. The Iranian threat isn't confined to its accelerated nuclear program. Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq firing missiles and drones at Israel sometimes with deadly effect. The Iranian supported Hutus in Yemen regularly attack ships in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. In recent years, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have come under attack from Iran or its proxies and vessels of many nations, including the US Navy, have been targeted or damaged or seized. Iranian agents abroad from the IRGC, Hezbollah, Hamas and other groups have been implicated in assassination plots, including in our own country. Critics charge the Biden administration, which yearned from day one to return to the 2015 nuclear deal has failed to confront Iran forcefully over these multiple threats. What's your response? In a minute, if you could? Halie Soifer: Ok, in order to answer this, you have to go back to May of 2018 when President Trump against the advice of many in the US intelligence community and Israeli security establishment, withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement. While the JCPOA was not a perfect agreement, Iran was in compliance with it. According to international observers and American intelligence officials. It was effectively verifying restrictions on Iran's nuclear development, as AJC itself said at the time in its own press release, despite our many reservations, we had hoped to see the deal fixed, not next. It was with the same objective. And given the fact that Iran was at that time weeks away from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. The Biden administration explored whether it was possible to reenter the JCPOA and reach a better deal if Iran came back into compliance. In the end, it wasn't possible because Joe Biden refuse to capitulate to Iranian demands, including lifting the terrorists designation on the IRGC, Joe Biden should be praised, not criticized, for working with our allies to explore whether the resumption of a multilateral deal that would contain Israel's nuclear aspirations was possible, and for standing up to Iran, not just by refusing to give in to their demands, but by continuing to implement sanctions against Iran. And as I mentioned, in an unprecedented act, defending Israel against an unprecedented direct attack by the Iranians on April 13. Jason Isaacson: Halie, thank you. We're gonna go directly to closing statements and Morgan, having won the coin toss, you go first. Morgan Ortagus: Okay. You know, Halie just talked about working with allies. How about last week at the IAEA, whenever the E three, the UK, France, Germany, had to actually go and beg and plead us to stand up against Iran at the IAEA which we didn't do. We just talked about the ICC in which bipartisan sanctions are before the Congress that the Biden administration is not only not supporting, they're whipping against and the multiple votes at the UN either abstaining or actually working on ceasefire, right. solutions that undermine the State of Israel. Listen, I would say there's a far big difference between bad rhetoric and bad policy. If you want pretty tweets, vote for Biden, if you don't want dead Israelis and dead Americans vote for Trump. When you look at the people that Biden has empowered in his administration look no further than his Iran envoy, Rob Malley, who was fired, who was under FBI investigation, and also the State Department inspector general investigation because of his leaking of classified information and potential ties to Hamas. These are not the people that we will promote and support in the Trump administration. President Trump will defend Israel, he will stand by Israel and things like October 7 won't happen under President Trump. You will have peace like under the Abraham Accords and you will have an Iran that is curtailed because we will actually stand up to them and we will stop them from getting a nuclear weapon. Jason Isaacson: Morgan, thank you. Halie Soifer, your closing comment? Halie Soifer: Well, you will soon hear from Joe Biden's National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, there is no stronger champion of the US Israel relationship. You will see that Maya Angelou famously said when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. Whether it's acquainting Neo Nazis with peaceful protesters declaring very fine people on both sides as Donald Trump did after Charlottesville, dining with white supremacists, Nick Fuentes and Kanye West in Mar-a-Lago, quoting Hitler, and reportedly saying he did some good things. Donald Trump has shown us exactly who he is, time and time again. Don't believe me listen to his own words. As has President Biden. And the contrast could not be more stark. This past weekend, President Biden welcomed the heroic rescue of four Israeli hostages and pledged to not stop working until all the hostages are home. Donald Trump also mentioned those who he refers to as hostages. Are they the more than 100 Israelis and Americans and others being held by Hamas? No. He's referring to incarcerated January 6 insurrectionists. That's who he is. And the American people, the Jewish people, and Israel, deserve far better from a US president and we have far better. He's currently in the White House. President Biden recently said that democracy begins with each of us. He's right. It could also end with each of us. And we each have a responsibility to defend it at the ballot box in November. Jason Isaacson: Halie, Morgan, thank you. That closes our great debate. Our community, our country have a big decision to make this November. AJC will continue to provide information on the issues that are at stake. And we thank you guys very much and we thank all of you for your attention to this important debate.

More Episodes