Last week, AJC CEO Ted Deutch traveled to Philadelphia to meet with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro for an in-depth discussion on combating antisemitism, ensuring the future vitality of Jewish communities in Pennsylvania and beyond, and addressing the challenges posed by rising political polarization both locally and nationally. “When it comes to antisemitism . . . there is no nuance. Antisemitism, bigotry, and hatred in all forms is not okay. Everyone in a position of public trust . . . has a responsibility to speak and act with moral clarity and speak out against it,” said Governor Shapiro.

AJC is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization. AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office.

Watch:

• AJC CEO Ted Deutch, Gov. Josh Shapiro Say Fight Against Antisemitism Must Be Bipartisan

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

• The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

• People of the Pod: 

  • Mijal Bitton on What It Means to Be a Jew Today

  • The Next Chapter in Catholic-Jewish Relations

  • What’s Next for the Abraham Accords Under President Trump?

  • Honoring Israel’s Lone Soldiers This Thanksgiving: Celebrating Service and Sacrifice Away from Home

  • The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know

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

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Ted Detuch and Josh Shapiro:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Last week, AJC CEO Ted Deutch traveled to Philadelphia and sat down with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro for a conversation about antisemitism, the future of Jewish communities in Pennsylvania and across the nation, and growing political polarization not only in Philadelphia but throughout the country. The conversation was so powerful, we wanted to share it with a wider audience. So, I turn it over to Ted and Governor Shapiro. 

Ted Deutch:  

I'm going to start just by fessing up to something that I tried to do, that I fortunately failed at. I don't often tout my failure, but there was a time some number of years ago, Governor, where I thought that your future should take you to the United States House of Representatives. I tried to convince you to run for Congress, and you had other plans. Fast forward many years, thank God I was wrong, and thank you for the remarkable job you've done as governor of Pennsylvania. 

Josh Shapiro:  

Thank you. It's so good to be with you. 

Ted Deutch:  

Obviously, it’s a really great to be with you. But I had, I wanted to break the ice just a little bit, if I may, with just some quick questions, just to lose, just to loosen you up a little, if that's alright.

Josh Shapiro:  

Do I not seem loose? I feel pretty loose. 

Ted Deutch:  

Alright, very quickly. Favorite eagle of all time?

Josh Shapiro:  

You know what I was on Eagles pregame live just yesterday, before the Birds played the Steelers. Birds beat the Steelers, by the way. And I got to sit next to Jaws. Ron Jaworski, and like, it was just a normal day. I was a little bit starstruck. So I guess I'd go with Jaws. Yeah. 

Ted Deutch:  

Alright. Better play-by-play announcer– Merrill Reese, Gene Hart?

Josh Shapiro:  

Oh my God, come on. All right. That’s like asking me to pick between my kids.

Ted Deutch:  

Alright, I’ll move on. Moving on, moving on, moving on. Some people here who don't, the handful who don't really get this at all, and my staff, who's saying, why are you doing this.

Josh Shapiro:  

Merrill Reese by the way is about to get inducted into the Hall of Fame for, they do once a year, they do an announcer, and Merrill just won that award this year. Pretty amazing. 

Ted Deutch:  

He is amazing. Best Philly movie ever made? 

Josh Shapiro:  

Rocky.

Ted Deutch:  

Easy. Thank you. Inappropriate question, perhaps at an AJC dinner, provolone or swiss?

Josh Shapiro:  

I do enjoy provolone, but I'm not a cheesesteak guy, so. We have a kosher governor's residence. I can't be out eating cheesesteaks. 

Ted Deutch:  

It was a bit of a trick question, I'll admit. And then we'll just finish this off. Favorite Israeli food?

Josh Shapiro:  

Falafel, but not from some fancy restaurant, though I do love Goldies and I love Michael, but on some like stand in the middle of nowhere in Israel, it's always delicious.

Ted Deutch:  

This also gives me an opportunity to acknowledge Tsach Saar, who is the Consul General of Israel. Thank you very much for being here.

All right, I tried. Thanks for playing along. 

Josh Shapiro:  

Did I not do well? You did try. 

Ted Deutch: 

You did great. You did great. Thank you. 

Josh Shapiro:  

No more lightning round?

Ted Deutch: 

I have more.

Josh Shapiro:  

Now we got to do this serious stuff?

Ted Deutch:  

We do. And frankly, look, your answer to the silly question about cheesesteaks is the perfect lead in to my first question for you. The first governor, I grew up in Bethlehem, the first governor I remember was governor Milton Shapp, who was born Milton Shapiro. So in that respect, you're actually the second Governor Shapiro in Pennsylvania's history. He was governor from 1971 to 79. 

But you are Governor Shapiro. You're a proud Jew who dismisses a question about cheesesteaks because you have a kosher home. You quote Pirkei Avot in your life as governor and the speeches that you give. It's so clear, and we and everyone has come to know how important Shabbat dinner is for you, with your family. Your Judaism matters to you a lot, and for those of us who are so involved in the community, it's something that obviously we admire. But I would love to hear a little bit more about how it informs what you do and why it's so important.

Josh Shapiro:  

I want to just say on a serious note, how grateful I am to AJC for the important work that you do every day, how grateful I am to Ted, who's been a friend for more than a decade. How thankful I am to the leaders here who raise money and do this important work. For Mark, who I think asked me to do this like a year ago, and has checked in with me each month to make sure he's going to do it. I'm proud to do it, and to the Liebmans, and everyone, I appreciate what you all do. 

I just celebrated, Lori noted the other night that I've been in public office for 20 years, and I'm a proud public servant. I think public service is a noble profession, and the reason I am in public service, it's fitting that my dad is here tonight, is because of my family and because of my faith. Both draw me to service. Our faith teaches us that, as you mentioned, I quote Pirkei Avot. I quote it in a synagogue. I'll quote it at a Kiwanis Club. I was proud to quote it from the pulpit at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, just a couple months ago, that no one is required to complete the task, but neither are we free to refrain from it. Meaning each of us has a responsibility to get off the sidelines, get in the game and do our part. 

Now, doing our part can come in a lot of different ways. Some people do their part in a courtroom. Some people do their part in a business. Some people do their part through charitable work, like here at AJC. For me, my part is through public service. My part is through serving my community, and I'm honored to do it. I share that with you because as I was getting ready to launch my campaign for governor, you may recall I was attorney general at the time, a group of us came together and said, Well, how do we want to kind of reintroduce you to the good people of Pennsylvania as you launch your campaign? You could start by talking about a policy or for some initiative you want to get past, but actually what I wanted to do was talk about the issue I just mentioned to you, what drew me to want to serve in the first place. Why I was even contemplating running to be your governor. 

And so we had a long conversation about what motivates me, Ted, and why I do this. To me, being able to bring together family and faith was really important, and the best way to show that is by doing what I do every single Friday night since I was a kid, and what we continue to do, and that is having Shabbat dinner with my family. 

And so the first ad in my campaign was all of us sitting around the Shabbat dinner table. Now, fun fact for all of you, I think we filmed it like on a Tuesday, so it really wasn't Shabbat. My kids remind me of that, but we did have everything on the table. And what was so interesting about it was, after the ad started running, and I would show up in communities where there aren't a lot of Jews, if any Jews, in Pennsylvania. Folks would grab me and say, Hey, I saw your ad. That was great. I want to tell you what Sunday lunch is like after I get home from church. I want to tell you what Christmas dinner is like in our family. I want you to know what we experience when we leave our place of worship. 

And in a lot of ways, it actually brought me closer together with the community. We were able to see one another in a deeper way. I think faith has allowed me to get into living rooms and conversations and communities in a much deeper way than perhaps I ever could before, as I think it is critically important if you want to be a public servant, to be true to who you are and express that to folks. So I'm proud of who I am. I'm proud of the way I've lived my life. I'm proud of the way Lori and I are raising our four children, and I appreciate the fact that the good people of Pennsylvania acknowledge that and open themselves up and share that back with me as I go out serving them as their governor. 

Ted Deutch:  

The importance of Shabbat dinner, part of it, obviously is your Judaism, but it also anchoring for your family. And for everyone that you interact with to know that on Friday nights, that's the time for your family. There's something there in a time of really polarizing politics and fragmentation of society, there's something there that we should learn from, right?

Josh Shapiro:  

I just think making sure you're committed to family, you're committed to yourself at some key moments, each day, each week, is really important. Lori and I live crazy lives right now, running all over the place. I'm not complaining. I asked for this, and I love what I do. I hope you can tell the joy that I have every day in serving you as your governor. And no matter where we are during the week, we always know, Friday night we're going to be together. We always know that it's going to be a moment where we can be with the kids and have conversations with them. 

And I'll be honest with you, Ted. I mean, some of it, of course, is the prayers and the rituals and the religious aspect of it, but so much of it is just the family part of it, and being grounded in that, and knowing that that will be our moment during the week, whether we're at the governor's residence or our home in Montgomery County, we are always together Friday night, and it's something we don't compromise on. I think it's important that you've got to set those boundaries. You got to say what's important. And that's exactly what we do.

Ted Deutch:  

It's especially important to have time to be together in this period where, for almost 15 months, the community has really, in so many ways, struggled. We had the deadliest attack on the Jewish community since the Holocaust, the equivalent, just in terms that people in America can try to understand. The 1200 people, the equivalent of 45,000 Americans, God forbid, if you use the same ratios, the equivalent of 7000 people being taken hostage. Now still, 100 hostages still being held beneath Gaza. It's been really hard for the community. 

And yes, Israel has fortunately made advances, and from a geostrategic standpoint, is doing better. But this has still been really difficult for the community, for those of us who care about Israel, and then layer on top of that, the antisemitism that we've seen, that you've been so outspoken about in the work that you do. How, again, given what's at your core, is it hard sometimes with the way that we're feeling, the way that you feel as a committed Jew, in the face of all this, to speak about it? Do you ever feel that you need to hold back because this is all so personal to you?

Josh Shapiro:  

I never feel like I need to hold back. I think it is always important to speak out. But I also think it is important that we have two separate conversations, one about antisemitism and the other about Israel. When it comes to antisemitism, I think it is critically important that folks understand: there is no nuance in that conversation. Antisemitism, hatred, bigotry in all forms. It is not okay. 

And everyone, everyone in a position of public trust, everyone has a responsibility to speak and act with moral clarity, to speak out against it, and it doesn't matter who is sharing those sentiments. If they're members of your own party, if they're people who you otherwise might agree with on some other issue, we have a responsibility to speak out against it, and we have a responsibility as a community to be unified against antisemitism, hatred, bigotry, in all forms. There is no nuance on that. 

When it comes to the issue of Israel and foreign policy and Middle East policy, that's a far more gray area. And I think it is important to continue to speak out in support of Israel, and I think it is also acceptable, if one wants to respectfully criticize a policy coming from the Israeli government, there is a difference there. And so what I try and do is not hold back in any way, but to make sure folks understand we are having two different conversations. 

We got to speak out and stop antisemitism in our communities, and yes, we can express an opinion as it relates to the policies in Israel or by the Israeli government. And I think it is also critically important to acknowledge the very real fact that there is antisemitism in this country. There is antisemitism in this Commonwealth, and it is on the left and it is on the right, and there is no one party that has a clean record on it, and we've got to make sure that no matter who is putting forth those words of hate, they are condemned.

Ted Deutch:  

AJC is fiercely non-partisan in the way that we do our work and recognize and talk constantly, try to make the point exactly the way you have. That there's antisemitism, wherever it is, we have to call it out. But that it's harder for some to see it or to call it out when it's among their friends, in their own party, than if it's in the other party. This was something that I dealt with as a member of Congress. But when it when conversations turn to you during the election and people refer to you as Genocide Josh.

Josh Shapiro:  

Yeah, I saw that. 

Ted Deutch:

Yeah. There are those, I think we have to acknowledge it's on both sides. And clearly there are those on the far left who don't want to criticize Israel, but have now taken the position that Israel essentially has no right to exist. That then bring that into that kind of language, which is clearly antisemitic in the way it's applied. How do you deal with that? 

Josh Shapiro:  

I must tell you, it did not upset me and it didn't affect me. What did upset me was the way those attacks against me made other people feel. As I was traveling across this commonwealth, across the country, folks would come over to me and tell me, you know, I saw what they said about you, and it was making them feel less safe in their communities. It was making them feel less safe in their schools or on their college campuses. That upset me. 

And on that I felt a responsibility to try and lift them up and strengthen them, and let them know that they should be proud of who they are. I'm proud of who I am, and sort of help them brush off the noise and recognizing and I think this is an important point, that while a lot of that noise did exist, and it is empirically true that antisemitism is on the rise, and thank God for groups like AJC doing this work. The vast, vast, vast majority of people that I come across every day, they're good people. They're not bigots, they're not spewing hate, they're actually looking to try and figure out ways in which we can bring people together. That is what I see. 

And so I'm comforted by that every day. I'm not offended or upset by the attacks that people make against me, even the antisemitic attacks against me. What I get upset about, what I worry about, is how it makes other people feel, and whether that causes them to retreat or causes them to maybe not do something they were going to do or not, go somewhere where they were going to go. That is upsetting to me, and I try and spend as much time as I can with the people who are affected by that, to try and make sure they have the strength to continue to go forward and lead by example in a way that gives them the strength that they need to move forward. 

Ted Deutch:  

And sometimes, while the overwhelming majority of people are good, I agree with you, and I think it's important for us to realize that the data tells us that the vast majority of Americans are supportive of Israel as well, and are overwhelmingly opposed to antisemitism. Small numbers can do real damage. And that's what we saw on a number of college campuses, where the the protests, some of them going back to October 8, which were not protests about, obviously, about the Israeli government, but just protests in support of Hamas, some of these protests in support of a terror group, really put people at risk. 

And you were very clear in the way that you approach that, right here in Philadelphia and around the state. How should, now that we're 15 months in, AJC has worked with universities around the country to try to ensure that they're doing what they need to to fight antisemitism. From your perspective, how are they doing, how are we doing, 15 months later? 

Josh Shapiro:  

I commend AJC for the important work they've done on college campuses. And I don't know if John Fry is still here, the president of Temple University, and an outstanding leader who was at Drexel University for some time and now is at Temple. He's an example of a strong leader dealing with these challenges on campus. And there are others to be sure. 

Look, I think it is critically important that we protect people's first amendment rights to be able to protest on campus, protest on our streets, they of course, have to follow the rules of the road, whether on campus or in a city, Commonwealth, you name it, but they should be able to express themselves. But that expression is not okay if you're violating the rules of the campus, the rules of the city or the community. It's also not okay if it puts other people at risk. Universities have a moral and a legal responsibility to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to this country to keep all students safe on campus.

And for some universities, I think they were willing to forgo that responsibility, or it got a little bit out of balance. Some universities were willing to accept a little bit of hate over here, but no hate over here, and that's not okay. Hate and bigotry in all forms, needs to be condemned. All students need to be safe on campus, and yes, there should be places where students can express themselves and have their views heard. So while I realize there's a lot of gray area when it comes to figuring out exactly where that line is, I do think it's important everybody adhere to those basic principles. 

And there are many colleges and universities here in Pennsylvania that are. I think, candidly, Penn lost its way. They are working to get back. I think Susanna Lachs-Adler and others. Susanna has done really wonderful work, and there's some important work there happening under their interim president. I think they are moving in the right direction there, and many other universities are as well. 

And so I hope, to get to the heart of your question, 15 months later, we're in a position where students feel safe, to be able to both go to class and to be able to protest within the bounds of the rules on campus, and that we continue to be balanced in our approach there. 

Ted Deutch:  

When there is messaging sent, whether from faculty or from student groups or from other places on campus that say you are not welcome in this group, or, frankly, in this classroom, simply because you are a Zionist, simply because you believe in the modern state of Israel, that that also can't be acceptable because of what it says, the message that it sends to students, and how it puts people at risk.

Josh Shapiro:  

Without question. I mean, if you're a student on one of these campuses, you literally have a legal right to be safe in these communities and on these campuses. And university leaders have to remember that. I gotta tell you, these students, they're scared. You know, Hanukkah last year was sort of right around the time that these protests were really kicking up and students were incredibly scared. I heard from a number of students at Penn who reached out to me, reached out to my wife, and we decided to forgo lighting our hanukkiah for the first night at the governor's residence. Got in the trucks, drove to Penn, and we lit the hanukkiot at Penn's Hillel with those students. We wanted to make sure that they knew their governor, their first lady, had their backs, and that they were going to be safe on campus. 

And that we were going to make sure that university leaders ensured their safety and their well being on campus. Again, I want to be really clear. Students have a right to protest. Their voices should be heard. I think students have helped usher in change in this country for generations. We want to hear their voices, but not at the expense of the safety and well being of any other student. That's where you got to draw a line.

Ted Deutch:  

You have, you've talked a lot about building a coalition to combat hatred, and you've invoked Rabbi Heschel, and you've invoked his work with Dr. King during the Civil Rights era. And it's, I think it's true for so many of us, that having invested so much time in those really important relationships, there was some disappointment with response after October 7, and yet, the only option, from our perspective, is to double down. One, because it's the right thing to do, and two, because the Jewish community represents .02% of the population in the world. We need allies.

And this has been really central to AJC. And I know Stephanie Sun is here, co-chair of Papaja, and I think Anthony Rosado, co-chair of the Latino Jewish Coalition is here. And I appreciate their being here and their leadership. This is a really important way to continue to combat antisemitism and simultaneously to make sure that Zionists, the people who believe in Israel, aren't excluded. 

Can you just talk about, I know this is important to you. Can you talk about how to build those kinds of coalitions that will help our community and and beyond?

Josh Shapiro:  

You have to build coalitions if you want to make any progress here in this Commonwealth and in the country. I'm actually the only governor in the entire country with a divided legislature, right? So I've got a State Senate led by Republicans, State House led by Democrats. I literally can't get a bill to my desk unless some number of Democrats and some number of Republicans support it. 

And so you're forced to have dialogue. You're forced to come together. That's naturally who I am, trying to bring people together. But I want you to know it is. It is required here in Pennsylvania if we want to make progress. We made a hell of a lot of progress, fixing an unconstitutional education system, cutting taxes six times, hiring over 1000 new state troopers and police officers in Pennsylvania, and passing some of the most sweeping criminal justice reforms ever in the history of Pennsylvania. At the same time, we've been able to invest $3 billion in private capital investment to create over 130,000 new jobs. I've only been governor two years. We're getting a lot of stuff done. 

I share this with you because we understand the critical importance of building coalitions. Now I'll tell you who else understood that, the person whose portrait hangs in my office right above my desk, William Penn. I share that with you because when William Penn helped build what is now the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, he built this as a place that would be warm and welcoming for all, where people of all different faiths would be forced together to actually work together to make progress in this commonwealth.

That was his vision, and I view it as my responsibility, as someone who's been handed the baton from William Penn, and actually a whole lot of people in between, of course, to pick up on the work that was done before I got here and to continue it, in the spirit that that Penn started. A spirit where we want to make sure we respect people, no matter what they look like, where they come from, who they love, who they pray to, and that those folks are represented around the table. 

And when they're around the table, and they feel like they have the freedom and the safety to be able to talk and to share their ideas and their views and their policies, that's what's going to allow us to build a coalition, to be able to get meaningful things done, to be able to make progress. You mentioned Heschel and King. I've had a lot of conversations about Heschel and King with Reverend Warnock, who I think is one of the great leaders in our country. 

He gave me the privilege of being able to speak at the pulpit at Ebenezer Baptist Church where Dr. King was, of course, the prayer leader there. We spoke about Heschel and King from Ebenezer, the need to be able to bring the black community and the Jewish community closer together, to be able to do this important work. My friend David's here. He's done work with Operation Understanding and other organizations like that, that bring people from different walks of life together. 

And if we can do that more, we can understand one another, we can reduce the amount of hate and bigotry in our community, and we can make progress in the spirit of William Penn, to fill in the work that Heschel and King started, and to be able to create a safer community for all of us.

Ted Deutch:  

I want to follow up on this note of bipartisanship. You talked about the division and the legislature in Harrisburg, and I want to just focus on Israel for a moment. We have, you have, sorry, it's been a long time since I lived in Pennsylvania.

Josh Shapiro:  

You're still one of us. You're a Birds fan. 

Ted Deutch: 

Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Josh Shapiro:  

And he went to Camp Ramah. This guy's got a whole pedigree.

Ted Deutch:  

Lehigh Valley, in my blood. Look, if you think about support for Israel in Pennsylvania, there were two pro Israel Democratic senators. There will now be a pro Israel Democratic senator in Senator Fetterman, whose support has been nothing short of spectacular. You have strong Republican support, including from my good friend, Congressman Fitzpatrick from the area as well. And in many ways, it's a good reminder of the importance of bipartisan support for Israel. 

As we look into the future, given the challenges that Israel faces, is that Pennsylvania model of bipartisan support from both senators and bipartisan support from House members and a Democratic governor, is that the model that we should continue to expect to see around the country and will both parties continue to be as strongly pro Israel as they could be?

Josh Shapiro:  

Look, I'm a proud Democrat, and I want to make sure that the Democratic Party continues to stand with Israel, and I'm going to continue to do my part to raise my voice, to ensure that it does. I lament the fact that in recent years, the issue of Israel, so to speak, has become weaponized in our political system. I think Israel is far safer and far stronger when the relationship that elected officials in America have is on a really bipartisan or nonpartisan basis. And I think there have been some organizations, quite candidly, that have tried to throw a monkey wrench in that idea, and instead have injected too much partisanship into that relationship.

In the long run that makes Israel less safe. Maybe in the short run, given the way the political dynamics are in the country today, it could work to Israel's advantage. But mark my words, in the long run, politicizing America's relationship with Israel is not in the best interest of Israel long term, from a safety and a security standpoint. 

And so I believe the Pennsylvania model is the right way, where we've got Republicans and Democrats alike standing up and speaking out in support of Israel, and by the way, challenging Israel, where Israel needs to be challenged, and also making sure that we are speaking with a unified bipartisan voice against antisemitism, and where antisemitism rears its ugly head, no matter what political party or affiliation or left leaning or right leaning person said it, or group said it, that we join together in standing up and speaking out against it. I think there's something to our Pennsylvania model, and I'd like to see it more across the country. 

Ted Deutch:  

I want to thank you really so much for this conversation, and I want to give you a chance to end with this, for all of the challenges that we're facing, it's kind of a heavy conversation. What is it that you're most hopeful about at this moment, thinking about our community and the future and your life and your world?

Josh Shapiro:  

You know, I get asked a lot like, how do you stay so optimistic and so upbeat, given all the challenges there are out in the world, and there are so many challenges, there's challenges like what we're talking about here tonight with antisemitism. There's other challenges that the world is confronting, and probably in another 40 days or so, we're going to confront even more challenges in this country. 

But what, what I think keeps me so up and so hopeful every day is the privilege I have to serve as your governor and travel around to different communities and different neighborhoods and just meet people who are doing remarkable things every day. It is a privilege I wish every Pennsylvanian had. To go and to see these nonprofits who are doing life saving and life changing work. To see the incredible work that's happening in some of our skyscrapers here in Philly and our farmlands out in rural communities across Pennsylvania. There are so many people who are literally changing the world, doing tikkun olam in their neighborhoods. 

And you know what? They're not down by the news cycle that I know really can bum a lot of people out. These people give me hope, and these people fuel my energy every day to go out and do this work as governor, and they make me optimistic and hopeful. And so while I leave you with this, while I understand the critically important role AJC plays to continue to combat hatred and bigotry and antisemitism, and you do a great job doing that work, while we're focused on those negative things that we've got to combat, I hope you'll also take a moment to appreciate the positive in our communities and understand that there is so much good out there and so many people doing so much good. And that is what fuels me. That's what keeps me up and excited. 

And that is what I think you know, really, in many ways, in the spirit of Penn, we get to see every day in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. So we need to continue to do this hard work that AJC calls us to do. But let's never lose sight of the positivity that's out there that fuels my optimism every day.

Ted Deutch:  

We're so grateful. Governor Shapiro, thank you very, very much. 

Josh Shapiro:  

Thank you. Thank you, Ted. 

 

As many Jews deepen their sense of Jewish identity, Dr. Mijal Bitton joins the podcast to explore the significance of our Jewish heritage, texts, and peoplehood and what it means as we enter the Hanukkah season. Bitton is a sociologist, storyteller, podcast host, and Jewish advocate who also serves as the spiritual leader of the Downtown Minyan in Manhattan. 

As one of the first Sacks Scholars, she helps young people reclaim and reimagine Jewish traditions. In this week’s episode, Dr. Bitton discusses  Sephardic Jewry, Jewish peoplehood, academia, the needs of young Jews, and the realities of intergroup and interfaith after October 7.

Resources:

• The Morality and Ethics of Global Jewish Advocacy: Lessons from Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks - AJC Advocacy Anywhere

• Jewish Unpacked - Wondering Jews podcast, with guest AJC CEO Ted Deutch

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

• The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

• People of the Pod: 

  • The Next Chapter in Catholic-Jewish Relations

  • What’s Next for the Abraham Accords Under President Trump?

  • Honoring Israel’s Lone Soldiers This Thanksgiving: Celebrating Service and Sacrifice Away from Home

  • The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know

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

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Mijal Bitton:

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Dr. Mijal Bitton is a sociologist, storyteller and Jewish advocate. As the spiritual leader of the Downtown Minyan in Manhattan and one of the first Sacks Scholars, she helps young people reclaim and reimagine Jewish traditions. 

Michal is no stranger to our AJC audiences. Earlier this month, she delivered a powerful Advocacy Anywhere to commemorate Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, for which the Sacks Scholars are, of course named. 

And as co-host of Jewish Unpacked’s podcast Wondering Jews, she and Jewish educator Noah Weisman explore questions we all ask about the Jewish experience, from the mundane to the miraculous. In fact, just recently, they interviewed AJC CEO Ted Deutch. The podcast has covered topics spanning from how summer camp shapes Jewish lives, how to constantly juggle joy and pain, the impact of the Jewish vote in the most recent election, and in turn, the impact of Trump's resulting victory on Jewish America.

Mijal is with us now in our Midtown Manhattan studio to rehash a little of that, but also to discuss what led her to take on her many roles, including her newest project. Mijal, welcome to People of the Pod.

Mijal Bitton: 

Thank you, thank you for having me.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

If you could please share with our listeners about your heritage, about your upbringing. You were born in Argentina, correct? 

Mijal Bitton:

I was born in Argentina. My father's family moved to Argentina from Morocco and Syria. My mother is from Spain. And part of what shaped my interest in Jews from the Middle East and North Africa, is that when we moved to America, we moved to a Persian Jewish community. So that was like my introduction to American Jews, this very tight knit Persian community in Long Island. 

Eventually, I met my husband, who is a Syrian Jew, with Egyptian and Iraqi background, and I wrote my PhD on the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn, which all just shows you a little bit my fascination. It's not just an identity, it's a tradition that I draw from and that I believe can actually give us very powerful tools right now.

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

Now, is this a Syrian Jewish community from Aleppo or Damascus? 

Mijal Bitton:

Historically, there is a big difference. I would say that a lot of these communities, you can think of them as pre-immigration and then new settlement in America. Right now in America, it's one community. The differences between Aleppo and Damascus are not that pronounced, maybe like when you cook a little bit the recipe that you use, or slightly different songs that you might have, depending where your family is from.

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

You are, in fact, a visiting researcher at NYU, and you are the director of the National Study of the Sephardic and Mizrahi in the United States. What is that study all about?

Mijal Bitton:

Yeah. So when I wanted to do a PhD at NYU, which I did, on Syrian Jews, and I wanted to study Sephardic Jews, what I realized very quickly, and you might have seen this from your other podcast, is that there is very little good scholarship, good literature to explain to us who these Jews are. This is a problem, both in terms of historical research, and for me, I'm really interested in contemporary Jewish life. 

There was a huge gap of not having resources to understand Sephardic Jews in the United States. So I had to do my PhD, kind of trying to reconstruct, you know, even, like the categories of study, how do we think about Jewish observance and really religiosity with Jews from the Middle East. So this study is an early attempt by early I mean, we hope it's the first of many studies to begin to tease out the main pillars of what we need to know to understand Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews roughly. 

And again, we'll go into this more in the actual report, which will come out in a couple of months, roughly 10% of American Jews are Sephardic or Mizrahi, very similar to, let's say, the Orthodox Jewish population, the Russian-speaking Jewish population, but much less understood, much less studied. So it's an important first attempt to begin to lay out the foundations of knowledge.

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

So would you say that study is overdue? 

Mijal Bitton:

Yes, very much overdue. I think it's overdue for many reasons. One of them is that in the American Jewish community we've had for many years now, conversations around diversity, around inclusion and the like. And Sephardic Jews have not really been part of this conversation. Or let me say this with more precision, they have not been part of this conversation in terms that they would want to be part of this conversation. Maybe I'll be a little bit more explicit as to what I mean. 

Many of the Jews that we've cited that I know tend to reflect more socially conservative, Middle Eastern forms of Jewish life, and these communities don't fit in very neatly in diversity efforts that tend to align with progressive understandings of diversity. So that means that there's been a real gap in how Sephardic Jews are included or not included in many spaces that are trying to be more inclusive. So we really believe that diversity is not easy, and that it begins with listening and understanding, who are the individuals and communities that we want to include. 

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

I mean, how does kind of a deeper and broader knowledge of one's Jewish identity, one's Jewish history, how does your deeper and broader knowledge of your identity and history help you be a better advocate? And how can it help others be better Jewish advocates?

Mijal Bitton:

That's a great question. So you know, you mentioned before that I started a weekly Jewish wisdom Substack. It's called Committed and I'll be grateful to share the link with everyone. The first piece that I wrote there on Genesis was actually about Jewish pride, and it was an idea that I had been thinking for a long time about, and it was that, especially since October 7, I have been in all of these spaces with people who are newly reawakened, energized, outraged about what's been happening. And they speak constantly about the need for Jewish pride, Jewish pride. We need more Jewish pride, more Jewish pride, more Jewish pride. 

And on the one hand, I love that. I love that awakening. It resonates with me strongly. On the other hand, I had like this little voice whispering to me, because, as a sociologist, I've actually done research that talks about pride as something, I want to try to say this carefully, as something that is sometimes the last thing a group holds on to before assimilating fully. 

So in very simplistic terms, if you think about Italian Americans or Irish Americans right over three or four generations in this country, they will slowly lose a lot of their communal elements. They will move away from their neighborhoods. They will stop only cooking Italian food. They will stop working in certain professions. But they will still have a little bit of that Irish pride in St Patrick's Day. 

So I have been concerned when we speak about Jewish pride, that Jewish pride can be seen as unsustainable if we don't know what we are proud of. There is a world of a difference between someone who says there's something here, that seems really good, and I think I'm proud. I'm proud. And it's different that if you're standing there and you say, I am proud of a heritage spanning 1000s of years, I stand on the shoulders of giants. I am continuing a legacy of Jews who have survived persecutions, who've survived assimilation, who've survived living in different countries and in different times, and I am holding all of this when I stand up as a Jew.

That, to me, is the kind of confident pride that can help us as advocates when we are facing challenges, because we are facing challenges and we're going to continue to face challenges. So we desperately need that sense of Jewish history, that sense of spiritual sustenance. We have to know what we are proud of, what we are fighting for.

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

You wrote a piece shortly after October 7, and it was titled, The Pain You're Feeling is Peoplehood. And it was incredibly powerful. It went viral. Because it so perfectly captured what so many Jews were feeling at that moment. And for those who haven't read it, can you share what led you to write it and kind of summarize it for our listeners.

Mijal Bitton:

I lead a community, I’m the spiritual leader of a community called the Downtown Minyan. And like many spiritual leaders and clergy on that Simchat Torah. I had to, you know, I'm not saying anything new. Here I was, I was heartbroken, reeling. I don't use a phone on Shabbat didn't always happening. My family in Israel, the reports that were coming in, I felt like my soul, my heart was being ripped. I think many of us felt this. And I had a Shul to run, and I had to figure out, like, what Jewish wisdom can I use right now? And it was very primal and instinctive. 

There was a teaching that I had taught before because I thought it was important, but at that moment, it felt essential, and it just like, came out. I stood in front of my community who were in pain, and I wanted to give them names to explain what was happening. And I described, I use a very famous teaching by Rav Soloveichik, who speaks about who asked the question, can we still speak of ourselves as Jewish people, even with all of our diversity and differences and disagreements? 

And it brings up a Talmudic question about, if you have a man of two heads, is this considered one person or two? And it's a complicated question, if you take it seriously, and he offers a gruesome test to figure this out. You pour boiling water on one head, and then you look at the other, and if it cries out in pain, it is one people. If it doesn't, it is two. The reason that this teaching was important for me to say, and I think the reason you said it went viral is because, you know. I haven't said this like this before, so I am expressing this now, thinking with you. I think for very long, for us Jews in America, we have been pushed and compelled to think of Judaism along Protestant religious terms. 

What I mean by this, it's a faith, it's a set of beliefs, it's a value system. It has to fit in like some universalistic framework, and that pain that we felt on October 7 was different. It was a reminder that to be a Jew is to be part of a family. That it doesn't matter how different we are from each other, how much we disagree. When your relative is in pain, you cry with them. And it's almost like that pain, to me was like a way of saying we are reminded that we're part of a family. And there's something. I don't have the right words here. There's something almost to treasure about the pain, because it reminds us that we are connected to each other, committed to each other, responsible for each other. 

And I think we all felt it, and it took away some of the layers of conditioning that many of us have had, to pretend like we aren’t a family. That's what I think was one of the things that were so powerful about the tragedy that we all experienced.

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

Yeah, because we're so trained to be individuals, right, especially here in America, right, that individual spirit, and that's, that's not part of peoplehood. Or is it? I don’t know. Maybe that’s not the point. 

Mijal Bitton:

Yeah, listen, I think our tradition is amazing and complex, and there's strands of faith that brings up individualism and agency, but there's powerful strengths that talk about us as a family, as a collective, as a tribe, and there's powerful elements in our culture that have been pushing against that. And in many parts of our community, I think we drank the Kool Aid and we said we are not like, you know, that's backwards. That's not who we are anymore. 

And then we were reminded that there's something there that we all felt was true. It existed before October 7, but I think October 7 kind of like woke it up. When I've shared this metaphor of the two headed men with people, many of them have offered an objection, and they've said, how awful is it for us to speak about who we are based on antisemitism? It shouldn't have to be like that. But, I mean, I would agree with that critique on theoretical terms. On sociological human terms, there is nothing that is more potent than having a shared enemy, a shared tragedy. Think about a family again, how tragedy brings us together. 

So I think that unfortunately, the fact that there is still antisemitism vibrant in our societies and our streets has served to continue to reinforce that initial sense that we had after October 7. Of course, there are rifts. We can talk about debates that are happening. We are not as united as right after the tragedy. But, you know, I wrote a piece for CNN basically saying that the virulent anti semitism in the anti-Zionist movement is creating more Zionists. It's creating more Jewish solidarity. And it hasn't gone away.

I am a religious woman. When I pray to God, I ask God that God should give us the challenge of having to remain connected in good times. I prefer that, but being that we don't have that right now, I do think that we have to double down on what our response is.

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

You wrote another piece for CNN that had to do with the anti-Israel protests on university campuses and the fear that it was inducing in so many Jewish young people, and the solidarity that was coming out of that.

So with that in mind, one thing that the Jewish communal world is experiencing, we're certainly seeing it here at AJC, is an influx in involvement. Not just solidarity, but activism and advocacy, people who want to be more involved. Have you given any thought to this influx, and whether or not the infrastructure is in place here in America especially, to kind of sustain that, that level of involvement and activism. 

Mijal Bitton:

So one of the things that I've seen, and I'll be honest, that I'm still trying to understand it, but one of the things that I'm seeing is, there's, there's the thing called the organized Jewish community, okay? And it's a powerful ecosystem, you know, with lovers of power and influence. And I'm also privy, partially because of my work with young Jews, to a whole world of people who are wanting to be active, but who either don't have the access or the orientation to do so, you know, within the organized Jewish community

And for me, part of what's still missing are the bridges between these different ecosystems. There's all of these people who are active on social media, right? The world of influencers, there's these groups of young Jews who are creating pop up Shabbat dinners, like all over the place, and like creating new clubs to celebrate Shabbat with each other and Jewish identity. And there is a lot of energy there. And what I'm trying to figure out is, I'm thinking of this as almost two powerful ecosystems, and I think that they would both be more powerful if they're in better conversation with each other. 

So that, to me, again, it's a little bit abstract. I'm still thinking it through. I am a scholar in residence at the Maimonides Fund, and this is one of the questions that I have right now in this post-October 7 world: what would it mean to better bridge between these different ecosystems?

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

We just talked about the campus protests and the solidarity that they fuel, and we've also talked about the lack of research and scholarship out there about Jews in the Middle East and and North Africa and the diversity of the Jewish community. Do you think if young people had a better grasp of the thousands of years of history, of Jewish history in the Middle East, do you think that would shift the conversation at all, that education? And I don't mean obviously just within the Jewish community, I mean more broadly.

Mijal Bitton:

I mean, broadly speaking, yeah. So I would say two things I take to heart with my friend Haviv Retig Gur, who's a brilliant analyst. He speaks a lot about the fact that Jews, we don't know our own story. And I do think there is, like, huge lack of literacy in understanding that there were nearly 1 million Jews all across the Middle East and North Africa, and they left, fled, or were expelled in like massive Arab nationalist, anti-Zionist regimes that were propped up across the region. So I do think that for people to know these stories would be incredibly powerful. 

I do want to note something, though, as someone who has been active in academia, I still have one foot there. I think that in many places, and we need to not be naive. In many places, people have vested interest in certain narratives, and they are emotionally attached to this narrative, and they have no incentive to change them, no matter how many counterfactuals you provide to them. 

So there are definitely many parts in academia that want to think of the world as divided between the oppressors and the oppressed, and who want to think of Jews and Israel and Zionists as aligned with the oppressors, who they equate to Europeans and white and Westerners. And no matter how many counterfactuals you will give to them, they will find a way again, and I'm happy to explain this. They will find ways to make it fit into their narrative. 

So we need a multi-pronged approach. One approach is to give the literacy to those who are seeking it as a way to have greater strength and intellectual tools at their disposal. Also, there's like a huge middle to convince, you know that can be moved. And when it comes to those ideologues, we have to battle their narratives.

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

In other words, offering that literacy to the Jewish community first, to those who actually want it, who are curious enough to want it, that's step one. 

Mijal Bitton:

Yeah, Jewish community, friends of the Jewish community, people who are intellectually honest and want to have a better discourse around Israel, the Middle East and current reality.

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

So Mijal, I am curious how your conversations have changed and evolved since October 7. Initially I wanted to ask you about interfaith dialog, but maybe intercultural dialog is a better way to put it. But did you have more intercultural dialog before October 7 or after October 7, or is your work really immersed in the Jewish community and Jewish dialog?

Mijal Bitton:

Yeah, so I would say like this: I think before October 7, I had spent many years focused on interfaith work. I think that the interfaith work was often anchored in more liberal and progressive spaces, and many of those efforts really imploded. And I think that I represent, because I've heard this from so many people who basically said, we've invested years into showing up for others and into relationships. And then if I can’t get someone to say that–you don't need to like Israel, you don't need to like Netanyahu, but just that Hamas raping and murdering is wrong and evil–then what am I doing here? So I think that definitely, I have been affected by that, by seeing that. 

And right now, I think we're in a place a year out when there is new energy in trying to figure out, okay, like, who are those people that we can still talk to, and they exist. And also I think that, and this is like work that is ongoing, there is a real sense that we need to re-examine the work that we were doing. Perhaps we were investing in the wrong interfaith relationships and spaces. Which doesn't mean interfaith work is bad, but maybe we need to invest in other parts of interfaith work.

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

Can you expand on that a little bit?

Mijal Bitton:

I mean, yeah, this is like, personal. I am not going to be spending time in interfaith work with people who give Hamas a pass. I'll just say this, you know, like that. And I think there's a lot for me. I am much more interested right now in pursuing relationships with socially conservative leaders of other faiths, that perhaps in the past, we wouldn't have been in the same tables around interfaith work and who have spoken up with clarity when it comes to defending Jews and speaking up against antisemitism. 

This doesn't mean, again, I don't want to imply that we should walk away from spaces you said before, it's important to have people fighting in many different areas. I think the real question we have to ask ourselves is, what are the lines, that if they are crossed, we walk away? Because I think too many Jews, for too long, have stayed in spaces where our basic story, dignity and humanity, was trampled, and we accepted that price. And that is not something we can do anymore. 

So we have to figure out, how do we reconfigure relationships? How do we stand up for ourselves in different ways? How do we, and I’ll say this: in many places Jews showed up and agreed to, you know, like, pound their chest about, like, their white Jewish privilege as a price of entry into coalitions and relationships in ways that just were not honest. We need to fight all of this.

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

You recently hosted AJC CEO Ted Deutch on your podcast Wondering Jews, and I'm curious what you learned from that exchange with him, both on and off the air.

Mijal Bitton:

Yeah, it was wonderful. I co-host the podcast Wondering Jews with Noam  Weissman, and it was really nice. I mentioned this on that episode, but I have a very fond personal memory of my first encounter with Ted. It was the March in Washington. I was one of their earliest featured speakers at the March. You know, 300,000 people in person, many watching live. And I was very nervous. And I was like, pacing behind backstage. And I see Ted. 

I've never met him before, but I had read about him. And when I read about him, I was very curious. I'm like, who leaves sitting Congress to go and work for the Jews? So I was already, fascinated by like, who would make this career switch? And then I saw him, and I don't know why, I turned to him, and I asked him if I could practice with him. And he literally had me practice my speech. I memorized it, and I practiced, and he gave me some feedback, and I changed some of the words, and his wife lent me a hostage tag necklace because I wanted to have one on stage. And it was early days, I didn't have one. 

So my first encounter with him was that it felt like a very personal one, and that's what came across, I think, in the in the podcast, that Ted is this, you know, was a member of Congress, like runs AJC, but he just, he's so warm, and it is so obvious in everything that he says, that this is not like a job for him, but it is a passion and a life's mission. And the way that he spoke about just his love for the Jewish people, for spirituality, for what it means to stand up in the world, his hope and optimism. He speaks about relationships that you can insist on and make sure that you can have right now. It's very moving to find leaders who are running institutions and who themselves are able to embody a very powerful sense of conviction. We need more leaders like that.

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

So tell us about your newest project. 

Mijal Bitton:

Yeah, it’s called Committed. That's the name of the Substack. I started it on Simchat Torah. I'm still tinkering with it. Like you know, how long it should be, the tone, this, that. I'm very lucky to have a lot of readers and students who eagerly give me feedback as to what works and what doesn't, which is lovely, because I love learning Torah with them. But really, as many conversations that I've had with people about anti semitism and advocacy and Zionism on campus, as many conversations that I've been having around like antisemitism and Israel and politics, I have been having the same number of conversations about Judaism and spirituality and the soul and what it means to be part of this magnificent tradition. 

I have been taken aback that often in my my classes and lectures, it will end with people coming to me afterwards and wanting to speak about their Jewish journeys, what it means to raise Jewish children, what it means to learn Torah, if you didn't grow up learning Torah, and now you want to what it means to to know that we are souls with bodies, as opposed to bodies with souls, all of these things. 

I have felt that it's really important to try to to have weekly touch points that we can have to ask big questions and to be able to address them using Jewish tradition. So I've in my Substack so far, I've explored, like I mentioned before, Jewish pride, what it means to have Jewish pride. I've explored what it means to have, using the stories of Abraham and Rebecca, what it means to, when the world is burning, to know that we have multiple modes of responses. One of them is to provide justice, put out the flame. 

Another mode is to help those who have burn marks and to just show care to them and be with them in times of need. The one that I wrote that I think went the farthest. One was around sacrifice, the binding of Isaac, which I wrote about what it means to from America. Look at Israeli parents and know that they are raising children who are willing to sacrifice in a way that American children are just not being taught. 

I use the story of Jacob and Esau, and I did a beautiful thought experiment. What would have happened if a Chabad emissary would have met the bad twin of Jacob? And there's all of this text that actually allow us to imagine that Esau could have become a leader of the Jewish people if he would have been shown the kind of love that Chabad emissaries give. So I think there's amazing ways to approach Jewish tradition and to use those as and use Jewish tradition as a way to ask the most critical questions about what it means to live as a Jew today. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I imagine you’ll be lighting candles soon for Hanukkah. Any other special traditions?

Mijal Bitton

The one thing I would say that I love that we do in our Sephardic communities, we light a little bit differently. And this is a traditional way. There's some Sephardic Jews that have changed this a little bit, but traditionally we light one Hanukkiah (menorah) as a family. So in many Ashkenazic communities, each individual lights their own. Classically, in the Sephardic tradition, a family has one Hanukkiah, and we try to light it either by a window or, even better, outside. So my family, my parents, my siblings, they have a special Hanukkiah with glass panels, and we always light it outside the house, facing the streets in a very real way. 

And I think that's an important symbol for us, what it means to insist on our lights in public spaces, what it means to fight for public spaces, and what it means, I would say . . . you know, Hanukkah has become such a commercialized holiday in America that, like lives alongside Christmas, and that feels good. 

And it's become not just a watered down version of its original premise, but in many ways the opposite, because what the Maccabees did is they took on not just the Greek Empire in military terms. They took on the Greek Empire in cultural and spiritual terms, and they resisted assimilation with everything they had. So in a funny way, in America, to fit in, we've remade Hanukkah in terms that have been opposite in its original meaning. 

And I think this last year asked us to reconsider what Hanukkah should look like, and what would it mean, you know, we shouldn't, I'm not saying we should be like the Maccabees exactly. You know, they're a complicated story as well. But what would it mean to make sure that we're not only lighting a light outside, but that we are expressing our Judaism in Jewish terms, even when it's a little bit uncomfortable for others. 

Manya Brachear Pashman: 

Mijal, thank you so much for joining us. 

Mijal Bitton:

Thank you for having me. Really great to be here. 

Bishop Joseph Bambera marks the launch of a groundbreaking Catholic-Jewish initiative - Translate Hate: The Catholic Edition - with a wide-ranging interview with AJC’s People of the Pod. At a time when recent events have challenged Catholic-Jewish relations, Bambera, the Chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee (USCCB) on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, details why the church has made combating antisemitism a priority. 

Translate Hate: The Catholic Edition, a joint project of AJC and the USCCB, features Catholic commentary on various entries of AJC’s renowned Translate Hate glossary of antisemitic terms, themes, and memes. It comes as Catholic and Jewish communities prepare to mark six decades of trust-building and mutual learning beginning when the Catholic Church reached out to the Jewish people and the world with Nostra Aetate, the historic Second Vatican Council document disseminated on October 28, 1965, which dramatically and publicly decried antisemitism and transformed the Church’s approach to the Jewish people for the better.Resources: New Glossary Breaks Ground in Tackling Antisemitism Through a Catholic Lens Listen – AJC Podcasts:

• The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

• People of the Pod: 

  • Bernard-Henri Lévy and AJC CEO Ted Deutch on How to Build a Resilient Jewish Future Post-October 7

  • What’s Next for the Abraham Accords Under President Trump?

  • The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know

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

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Bishop Bambera:

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Nearly 60 years ago, the Roman Catholic Church issued a declaration called Nostra Aetate, a groundbreaking document that, among other things, aimed to heal the Church's strained relationship with the Jewish community at large. But over the past year, since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, there have been some tense moments: a call from Pope Francis to investigate whether Israel is committing genocide, a photograph of the Pope before a Nativity scene–featuring a keffiyeh.

Now AJC and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have unveiled Translate Hate: the Catholic edition, the glossary of antisemitic terms, tropes and memes, originally published in 2019, also features Catholic commentaries to explain why the church has made combating antisemitism a priority. Here to talk about this partnership is Bishop Joseph Bambera, Chairman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Ecumenical and interreligious affairs. Bishop, welcome.

Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:  

Thank you for the honor of being with you today.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Bishop Bambera, please walk us through the Catholic edition of Translate Hate and how the Catholic Church became involved in this initiative together with the Jewish community.

Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:  

I think the best way to walk us through the Translate Hate Catholic edition is to first take us back to 1965 and the Second Vatican Council and the declaration on the church's relationship with non-Christian religions, and particularly with the Jewish community.

There was this really milestone declaration Nostra Aetate that I think many of us would be familiar with, and that really speaks about our relationship as it stands today. A relationship that I would say. tragically prior to the Second Vatican Council was not what it should have been. And on the heels of the Council, for almost 60 years, an anniversary that we’ll celebrate next year, we have grown together in mutual respect and understanding. 

That particular declaration Nostra aetate speaks very, very clearly about the fact that Catholics and Jews really share a common patrimony. We Catholics, our roots are in Judaism. Jesus was Jewish. His family was. And so many members of the early church were as well. And we recognize and affirm in that document the fact that the Jewish people were the first to hear the Word of God and are a part of a covenant relationship that certainly has not been in any way broken, but has been maintained. And something that we affirm and that we teach in that document. A very important thing, from my perspective.

And as well, the document reminds all those who would be familiar with it, and certainly who should be, if they are not, of the importance of us coming to a deeper sense of mutual respect and understanding. Of decrying any sense of hatred, persecution, or antisemitic efforts on the part of individuals that really have been such a burden to the Jewish people. So that particular document really laid the groundwork, for the very simple fact that I am here today and a part of this initiative. 

But to fast forward a bit, the reality of antisemitism, as you know better than I, it has hardly diminished, and sadly, has intensified in recent years. And well before October 7 of 2023. So much so that the bishops of the United States, many of them, brought to the attention of the committee that I chair, the Bishops Committee for Humanism and Interreligious Affairs, have brought to our attention the fact that we need to begin to do something in a more concrete way. To walk more intimately and closely and lovingly with our Jewish brothers and sisters and to address the reality of antisemitism in a very real and concrete manner. 

And so in 2022 this committee that I just referenced, they issued a document that they shared with all of the bishops. It's called the Fruits of Dialogues: Catholics Confronting Antisemitism. And in many respects, I would say that that particular document was the impetus for this initiative that we are a part of today, the Translate Hate Catholic Edition, hopefully it's been the impetus for other efforts on the part of many bishops in their own particular dioceses and archdiocese to work with their Jewish partners, to help to eradicate this, or certainly to address it in a way that is hope filled. 

So this document has been in the works now for quite a while particularly with the leadership of the Bishop's Committee and the American Jewish Committee as well. What you will find is building upon the antisemitic themes and tropes that were placed in the document when the American Jewish Committee put it together; we have provided commentary on a number of them from a Catholic perspective.

So you know, if you look at the notion of deicide, the commentary that we provide there offers very clear Catholic theological teaching on the fact that that whole reality is certainly not something that we would ever intend to insinuate today is the responsibility of all of the Jewish people. In the midst of these commentaries, we offer current theological teaching. We offer teaching on human dignity, which is so much a part of our tradition and our hope and prayer for humankind, and we acknowledge, as well, in some of those commentaries, the fact that, you know, some members of the Church throughout history have been insensitive and inappropriately offered, and perhaps even negligently offered, words and actions that led to antisemitic efforts, sadly on the part of so many.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So what is the expectation? This document is going out. How are you expecting or wanting parishes and pastors to implement it?

Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:  

Given the fact that it the document that the Bishops Committee came out with in 2022 was really at the initiative of many bishops in the United States, I would like to believe and think that the vast majority of our bishops will embrace this and use it in whatever way speaks to the situation within their own territory, their own region, relative to the Jewish community there. So for example, once this is officially promulgated today, later on in the day, we will be releasing from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on our bishops-only website. 

We will be releasing a letter from me as the chair of this committee, and the document, and that will be followed up with a hard copy that will be sent to every bishop in the near future, following the online version that they'll receive today. We anticipate that this will be used by other committees that might have some relationship to the work that our committee does, and the hope that they would use them. We will be disseminating it to ecumenical officers who are appointed in every one of our dioceses to do the work of ecumenism and interreligious affairs folks. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You mentioned Nostra Atate. In 1965 you were just a child then. And I should also mention AJC played a leading role in those conversations, as well with Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. You were ordained 20 years later. And I'm just curious if this major turning point in Catholic Jewish relations, did it come up in your theology training, or 20 years later, was it just accepted as the norm?

Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:  

You know, I will be frank with you, the term that you used in asking the question was, did it come up? Yes, it did. It did. But given the scope of issues that would be necessary to prepare a man for ministry in the church as a priest in the seminary, it was one of many things that everything rose to the level of being absolutely vital, all right, to our preparation. So this was but it took its place in a whole line of other things that were just as vital. 

So maybe the best way to answer your question was, you know, a great deal of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council was integrated into many of the theology courses that I would have taken, all right, and the same would go for something like Nostra Atate. All right. We were, I was certainly familiar with it. All right. It was certainly something that was communicated as a very significant teaching, a milestone moment in our church, a clear refocusing of our relationship with the Jewish community. Prior to that, there were no relationships officially. So it was put before us as something that was vital to consider. But I would not be honest in wanting to suggest that in some way it was a major focus. It was one of many.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I do want to fast forward and talk about today. Of course, Catholic Jewish relations are quite complicated now, especially given the Israel Hamas war, I imagine educating inspiring your flock on the moral complexities of that war, while also rallying the faithful to combat the rise of antisemitism against Israel and the Jewish Diaspora at large is very complicated, and there have been some tense moments. Recently, a letter from Pope Francis, one year after the October 7 terror attacks, included a couple kind of eerily iconic phrases from John 8:44, a verse that's long been understood as a fundamental, eternal indictment of the entire Jewish people. He was even cited by the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter. A lot of Jews are irate that the Pope has called for an investigation into whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. And most recently, some people were upset that the nativity scene at the Vatican featured a baby Jesus resting in a manger draped with a keffiyeh, Palestinian national symbol, and I know that has since been removed from that scene. But how do you talk about all of these moments with your Jewish friends, friends like the Hollanders, when they arise?

Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:  

First of all, the concern that you share in that question, maybe the hurt or the confusion that some of these things have caused. It's rather palpable. I spoke about it just coming into the studio today with Rabbi Marans.

I would first say that the very fact that in this exchange that we are having here today, on a day that is a real positive step. I believe in Catholic Jewish relations with the promulgation of the Translate Hate Catholic Edition, I would say it's a testimony to the relationship that we have developed. And I want to thank you for that. I want to thank you for the question, you know, they're, not easy questions to address, but they are of great concern to you and so many others. And you, on behalf of your people, have a responsibility to ask me that question, and I need to say to you that my presence here today is meant to speak a word of encouragement regarding our relationship. It is one that is deeply valued. I treasure it. I'm grateful for it. I am honored to be here today. 

Now with that, let me, let me speak a little bit more directly to the question and how these types of things are addressed. I look at the work that I have done in ecumenism and interreligious affairs, and I've been privileged to be chairman of this committee for a term now, for three years. I was previously back in 2017 elected chairman of this very same committee. So I've been at the helm of it twice now, and I've learned so much, so much from Christian partners, so much from our Jewish partners. One of the things that I have learned in the midst of the work that I have done with ecumenism is that I can't create a false sense of unity and harmony. For us to journey together in a positive way, I need to hear what you have to say, and I need to receive it, and I can't say something that is contrary to where my church is. 

Now, another dimension of the dialogue work that I have learned relates to listening. How do we listen to what we hear about this relationship? What are we hearing when we read something about Pope Francis? How is that speaking to our hearts? What is it saying to this relationship? I hear from you hurt. I hear from you confusion. I said that a moment ago.

For me, and perhaps this is the best thing that I can say, and I would say it across all three areas or topics that you raised in your question, I would say this much. I can't speak for Pope Francis. But what I can do is reflect to you what I hear from him and what I have heard from him throughout his 11 years as Pope. I have heard from him very, very early on, and you're all familiar with this quote that he offered to a Jewish interreligious organization way back, I think, in 2013 or 14, shortly after he was elected Pope, that a true Christian cannot be an antisemite. That's something that I would affirm, and that's something that I have never heard him go back on. 

I have heard him embrace better than probably I have heard prior to his election, a deep commitment to the documents of Vatican Council, Vatican Two, and particularly, a deep commitment to the tenets of Nostra Aetate. The other thing that I've heard from Pope Francis, and perhaps this speaks to some of the struggle that you raise that in the face of terrorism and war and the loss of innocent lives, of Jewish lives that were lost in 2023 and of countless other lives that are lost throughout our world in the midst of war. I hear him speak over and over again about human dignity, the value of life and the reason for why we treasure life, and that's rooted in a common scripture that we both cherish, in the first book of the Torah, Genesis, the first chapter. In the image of God man was created, in the image and likeness of God. I think that that speaks for me to this moment. 

It does not take away, and I would not imagine that for a moment some of the struggle that you experience, but that's what I hear when I look at his papacy. I also look at some more personal dimensions of it. And I know that his experience as the archbishop of Buenos Aires was an experience that found him deeply connected to the Jewish community, particularly to a close friend of his, whom I've been privileged to meet, Rabbi Abraham Skorka. So I share these things with you in response to your observation. And by the same token, I would say to you that we have miles to go before we achieve the end for which we are about here today.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

In this moment, Bishop, do you believe that Translate Hate, specifically this new Catholic edition has particular value in this, in this moment that we talked about, where the relationship can get complicated?

Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:  

I think, in any moment in time when there is suffering because of hatred, because of an antisemitic perspective that so many people so horrifically bring to life, I think this particular initiative is vital, and I think today more than ever, we have recognized it in our church, the sufferings of our Jewish brothers and sisters. We have recognized it globally. We have recognized it in our country, and we experience it in in my community, Scranton, relatively, you know, small city of about 100,000 people, you know, we it's sadly, it's sadly everywhere.

I believe this moment is a bit of a clarion call for all of us to walk a little bit more authentically and closely with our Jewish brothers and sisters. It's one thing to have issued a document 60 years ago. You can forget the intensity and the significance that document was and meant 60 years ago, 50 years ago, maybe even 40 years ago. But as time goes on and generations pass, we sometimes need to refocus our attention, don't we? And we need to recognize the fact that as our society, becomes more secularized, we can't possibly circle the wagons to just preserve what we have.

Every one of our congregations, many of yours and many of mine, are diminishing in terms of numbers since the pandemic, but also before that as well. And I think sadly, what you see in many congregations is this sense of trying to preserve what one has and therefore excluding others. Not just, I certainly don't necessarily mean from being in a church or a synagogue or temple, but I mean excluding from life by one's attitudes and one's actions and one's words. And I think we are, at this moment, really at risk of losing a sense of what we learn and how we grow from dialogue. 

I'm here to tell you today that I am so much richer personally because of this opportunity that I have been given to be a part of this initiative, frankly, to even prepare for today. It's just been a wonderful experience for me that has really re-energized me. This wonderful mission. But it's also reminded me of how much people who are involved in in faith traditions, in a leadership position, can be somewhat academically connected to something. It's it's got to be translated to the heart, and I hope that that's what happens here.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I mentioned that you were just a child when Nostra Aetate came about. Can you tell us a little bit about your upbringing and when you heard the calling to seek ordination and become a priest?

Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:  

I grew up in a Catholic family. I didn't have a lot of Jewish friends. There weren't a lot of Jewish people living in our community, although I did develop friends as as I went off to college. Okay, when I when I got the call to be a become a priest. I was actually at the University of Pittsburgh with every intention of becoming a dentist. It was kind of the family business, okay? And and I got involved in an ecumenical Christian campus ministry program. But, you know, it was just an experience that really called me to develop a deeper sense of authenticity, I think, in my faith journey, and, and, and so that's what ultimately prompted me to go into the seminary and become a priest. Did you grow up in Pittsburgh? I grew up in Scranton, where I serve as bishop, which is very unusual. So I my mom, who, at 97 still lives nearby. We I've spent my entire ministry in the Diocese of Scranton, and 15 years ago was appointed Bishop.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Wow, wow. That that is indeed rare, and that is indeed rare. So you get to see the parish in which you you grew up.

Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:  

I do. I do, yeah. And I've journeyed with this community, there's, there's pluses and minuses to something like that. You know, sometimes people say, What's the best thing about being bishop in your home diocese? I say, you know people, and they know you and and what's the most challenging thing? You know people and they know you.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Well, Bishop, thank you so much for sharing what the church’s teaching now and how it's collaborating with AJC to build bridges and educate your flock. Thank you so much, and thank you for joining us.

Most Reverend Joseph C. Bambera:  

It's been a real pleasure.

What lessons can be drawn from the post-October 7 era? Amid growing isolation and antisemitism, where do opportunities for hope and resilience lie for the Jewish people?

In a compelling discussion, AJC CEO Ted Deutch and Bernard-Henri Lévy—renowned French philosopher, public intellectual, and author of Israel Alone—explore these critical questions. Guest-hosted by AJC Paris Director Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache, this conversation offers insight into the challenges Jewish communities face and the possibilities for a brighter future.

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

• The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

• People of the Pod: 

  • What’s Next for the Abraham Accords Under President Trump?

  • Honoring Israel’s Lone Soldiers This Thanksgiving: Celebrating Service and Sacrifice Away from Home

  • The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know

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

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Bernard-Henri Lévy and Ted Deutch:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

What lessons can be drawn from the post-October 7 era? Amid growing isolation and antisemitism, where do opportunities for hope and resilience lie for the Jewish people?

I’m throwing it off to AJC Paris Director Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache to explore these critical questions. Anne-Sophie?

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

Thank you, Manya. Welcome everyone to today's special episode of People of the Pod. I'm sitting here in our office near the Eiffel Tower for a special and unique conversation between Ted Deutch AJC CEO and Bernard-Henri Lévy, one of the most, if not the most prominent French philosopher and public intellectuals. Bonjour.

Bernard-Henri Lévy: 

Bonjour. Hello.

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

Today, we will speak about loneliness, the loneliness of the Jewish people in Israel, the explosion of antisemitism in Europe and the United States, the attacks on Israel from multiple fronts since October 7. We will also speak about the loneliness of Western democracies, more broadly, the consequences of the US elections and the future for Ukraine and the European continent. 

Bernard-Henri Lévy:, you've recently come back from a tour in the United States where you presented your latest book titled Israel Alone. Ted, you've just arrived in Europe to sound again the alarm on the situation of Jewish communities on this continent after the shocking assault on Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam. Israel alone, the diaspora alone, actually the Jewish people, or Am Yisrael alone. As if Israel and Jews all over the world have merged this year over a common sense of loneliness. 

So I ask the question to both of you, are we alone? Bernard, let's start with you.

Bernard-Henri Lévy: 

I am back from a campus tour in the United States of America. I went in USC, in UCLA, in Columbia, in Ohio, University in Michigan. I was in many places, and in these places, in the campuses, it's not even a question. The loneliness is terrible. You have Jewish students, brave, resilient, who have to face every day humiliation, provocations, attacks, sometimes physical attacks. And who feel that, for the first time, the country in the world, America, which was supposed to be immune to antisemitism. You know, we knew about antisemitism in Europe. We knew about antisemitism in the rest of the world. 

But in America, they discovered that when they are attacked, of course there is support. But not always from their teachers, not always from the boards of the universities, and not always from the public opinion. And what they are discovering today in America is that, they are protected, of course, but not as it was before unconditionally. Jews in America and in Europe are supposed to be protected unconditionally. 

This is minimum. Minimum in France, since French Revolution, in America, since the Mayflower. For the first time, there are conditions. If you are a right wing guy, you say, I protect you if you vote for me. If you don't vote, you will be guilty of my loss, and you will be, and the state will disappear in a few years. So you will be no longer protected. You are protected under the condition that you endorse me.

On the left. You have people on the left wing side, people who say you are protected under condition that you don't support Israel, under condition that you take your distance with Zionism, under condition that you pay tribute to the new dark side who say that Netanyahu is a genocide criminal and so on. So what I feel, and not only my feeling, is the feeling of most of the students and sometimes teachers whom I met in this new situation of conditional security and support, and this is what loneliness means in America. 

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

Thank you, Bernard. How about you, Ted?

Ted Deutch: 

Well, it's interesting. First of all, thank you Anne-Sophie, and Bernard, it's an honor to be in conversation with you. It's interesting to hear you talk about America. Your observations track very closely. The comments that I've heard since being in Europe from students in the UK, and from students here who, speaking about America, tell me that their conclusion is that whatever the challenges they face here and the challenges are real, that they feel fortunate to be in university in Europe rather than in the United States. 

But the point that you make that's so important everywhere, is this sense that it's not only the Jewish community that expects to have unconditional security. For the Jewish community now, it feels as if expecting that security, the freedom to be able on college campuses, the freedom to be able to pursue their studies and grow intellectually and have different experiences. 

That when that security is compromised, by those who wish to exclude Jews because they support Israel, for those who wish to tag every Jewish student as a genocidal baby killer, that when those positions are taken, it's the loneliness stems from the fact that they're not hearing from the broader community, how unacceptable that behavior is. That it's become too easy for others to, even if they're not joining in, to simply shrug their shoulders and look the other way, when what's happening to Jewish students is not just about Jewish students, but is fundamentally about democracy and values and the way of life in the U.S. and in Europe.

Bernard-Henri Lévy: 

Of course, except that the new thing in America, which is not bad, is that every minority has the right to be protected. Every community, every minority has the right to have a safe space and so on. There is one minority who does not have the same rights. The only minority who is not safe in America, whose safety is not granted, is the Jewish one. And this is a scandal. You know, we could live in a sort of general jungle. Okay, Jews would be like the others, but it is not the case. Since the political correctness and so on, every minority is safe except the Jewish one.

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

So if we are alone, if American Jewish students feel alone, as European Jewish students, we are probably not the only one to feel that way, right? I turn over to you, Mr. Levy, and go to another subject. 

Since day one of the Russian invasion, and even before that, you have been a forceful advocate for a steadfast European and American support for Ukraine. 

Is Ukraine alone today? And will it be even more during America's second Trump administration?

Bernard-Henri Lévy: 

I've been an advocate of Ukraine, absolutely and I really believe that the freedom for liberty, the battle for liberty, the battle for freedom today, is waged on two front lines. For the moment, it might be more, but Israel and Ukraine. I wish to make that very clear, it is the same battle. They are the same stakes, the same values, and the same enemy. 

I'm not sure that every Ukrainian, every Jew, knows that they have the same enemy. The axis between Iran, Putin, China, more and more, Turkey, and the same axis of authorisation countries. So it is the same battle. 

The Ukrainians have not been exactly alone. They have been supported in the last two years and half, but in a strange way, not enough. The chancellery, the West, spoke about an incremental support. Incremental support meant exactly what is not enough, what is necessary for them not to lose, but not to win. This is what I saw on the ground. 

I made three documentaries in Ukraine on the field, and I could elaborate on that a lot, precisely, concretely in every spot, every trench they have exactly what is needed for the line not to be broken, but not to win. Now we enter in a new in a new moment, a new moment of uncertainty in America and in Europe, with the rise of populism.

Which means the rise of parties who say: Who cares about Ukraine, who don't understand that the support of Ukraine, as the support of Israel, is a question of national interest, a question of national security for us, too. The Ukrainian ladies and gentlemen, who fight in Ukraine, they fight for the liberty. They fight for ours, French, yours, American. And we might enter in a new moment. It's not sure, because history has more imagination than the man, than mankind. So we can have surprises. But for the moment, I am really anxious on this front line too, yes.

Ted Deutch: 

There are additional connections too, between what's happening in Ukraine and what's happening in Israel, and clearly the fact that Iranian killer drones are being used by Russia to kill Europeans should be an alarming enough fact that jars all of us into action. But the point that you make, that I think is so important Bernard, is that Israel has in many ways, faced the same response, except with a much tighter window than Ukraine did. 

Israel was allowed to respond to the attacks of October 7, that for those few days after the World understood the horrific nature of the slaughter, the rape, and the babies burning, the terrible, terrible mayhem, and recognize that Israel had a right to respond, but as with Ukraine, only to a point

Bernard-Henri Lévy: 

Even to a point, I'm not sure.

Ted Deutch: 

But then that point ended. It was limited. They could take that response. But now we've moved to the point where, just like those students on campus and in so many places around the world, where only the Jews are excluded, that's a natural line from the geopolitical issues, where only Israel is the country that can't respond in self defense. Only Israel is the country that doesn't have the right to exist. Only a Jewish state is the one state that should be dismantled. That's another reason, how these are, another way they are all tied together.

Bernard-Henri Lévy: 

Don't forget that just a few days after Israel started to retaliate. We heard from everywhere in the West, and United Nations, calls for cease fire, call for negotiation, call for de-escalation. Hezbollah shell Israel for one year. We never heard one responsible of the UN called Hezbollah for not escalating. The day Israel started to reply and retaliate after one year of being bombed, immediately take care to escalation. Please keep down. Please keep cool, etc, etc. 

So situation of Israel is a unique case, and again, if you have a little memory, I remember the battle for Mosul. I made a film about that. I remember the battle against the Taliban in 2001 nobody asked the West to make compromise with ISIS and with al-Qaeda, which are the cousins of Hamas. Nobody asked the West not to enter here or there. No one outside the ground said, Okay, you can enter in Mazar-I-Sharif in Afghanistan, but you cannot enter in Kandahar. 

Or you can enter in the western part of Mosul. But be careful. Nobody had even this idea this happened only for Israel. And remember Joe by then asking the Prime Minister of Israel about Rafa? Don't, don't, don't. At the end of the day, he's not always right and he's often wrong, but the Prime Minister was right to enter into Rafa for obvious reasons, which we all know now.

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

Ted, let me come back to you more specifically on the US. At AJC, we support democracy. This is in our DNA. Since the organization was founded 1906 we've been strong supporters of the Transatlantic Partnership since day one. We believe in the alliance of democracies in the defense of our common values. And you know here, there's a lot of anxiety about Donald Trump's re-election. So what is your take on the U.S. elections’ consequences for Europe, for transatlantic relations?

Ted Deutch:

I've been coming to Europe for years, as I did as an elected official. Now in this capacity there is that our friends in Europe are always rightly focused on US policy and engaging the level of commitment the US makes to Europe. The election of Donald Trump, this isn't a new moment. There is history.

And for four years in the last administration, the focus that the President had on questioning the ties to Europe and questioning NATO and questioning the commitment that has been so central to the transatlantic relationship rightfully put much of Europe on edge. Now, as the President will come back into power, there is this question of Ukraine and the different opinions that the President is hearing.

In one side, in one ear, he's hearing from traditional conservative voices in the United States who are telling him that the US has a crucial role to play, that support for Ukraine is not just as we've been discussing, not just in the best interest of Ukraine, but that it relates directly back to the United States, to Europe.

It actually will, they tell him, rightly so, I submit, that US involvement and continued support for Ukraine will help to prevent further war across the continent. In the other ear, however, he's hearing from the America first crowd that thinks that America should recognize that the ocean protects us, and we should withdraw from the world. And the best place to start is Ukraine, and that means turning our back on the brave Ukrainians who have fought so nobly against Russia. That's what he's hearing.

It's imperative that, starting this weekend, when he is here at Notre Dame, that he hears and sees and is reminded of not just the importance of the transatlantic relationship, but why it's important, and why that relationship is impacted so directly by what's happening in Ukraine, and the need to continue to focus on Ukraine and to support NATO. And to recognize that with all of the challenges, when there is an opportunity for American leadership to bring together traditional allies, that should be the easiest form of leadership for the President to take. It's still an open question, however, as to whether that's the approach that you will take. 

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

Thank you, Ted.  Let me sum it up, our conversation for a minute. We said that the Jewish people feels alone, but we said that we are not the only ones. Didn't you feel that on that lonely road of this year, we've also never felt as strong as who we are, both our Jewishness. A French intellectual I know, Bernard Levy would say our Jewish being, être juif, and Jewish unity. Are they the best answers to overcome our loneliness? Let's start with our philosopher.

Bernard-Henri Lévy: 

I don't believe only in Jewish unity. I believe in Jewish strength. And in one of my previous books, the genius of religion, I spoke about about that Jewish strength, not military strength in Israel, but spiritual strength, and I think that this strength is not behaving so bad. I told you about the campuses. I told you the dark side. 

But there is also the bright side, the fact that the students stand firm. They stand by themselves, by their position. They are proud Jews in the campuses. In Israel, come on. Israel is facing the most difficult war and the most terrible war of its history. We know all the previous wars, and alas, I have the age to have known personally and directly, a lot of them since 1960s about this war with terrorists embedded in the civilians, with the most powerful terrorist army in the world on the north, with seven fronts open with Houthis sending missiles and so on. Israel never saw that. 

So the people of Israel, the young girls and young boys, the fathers, even the old men of Israel, who enlist, who are on the front, who fight bravely. They do a job that their grandfathers never had to do. So, resilience. Also in Israel. The most sophisticated, the most difficult, the most difficult to win war, they are winning it. And in Europe, I see, as I never saw, a movement of resistance and refusal to bow in front of the antisemite, which I never saw to this extent in my long life. You have groups today in France, for example, who really react every day, who post videos every day. 

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

Some are in this room. 

Bernard-Henri Lévy: 

Some are in this room. Pirrout is in this room, for example, every day about the so called unbound France. Mélenchon, who is a real antisemite as you know, they publish the truth. They don't let any infamy pass without reacting, and this again, is new, not completely new, but I never saw that to this extent. 

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

Thank you, Rene. How about you Ted, what do you think? 

Ted Deutch: 

more important than ever that as Jews, as Jewish community, As Zionists, that we don't allow our opponents to define what's happening, that the response is never to to feel defensive, that the response. Is to be bold, boldly Jewish, boldly Zionist, unapologetically Zionist. To to do exactly what those students are doing across the United States, that I've seen, the students here who have that I that I've met with that in Europe, a student in in London a few days ago, said to me, she said, when someone yells at me, when they when they scream at me and accuse me of genocide, she said it only makes me want to get a bigger Magen David.

The person that that stood up at a meeting in New York a few months ago who told me that, before announced in front of a big crowd that that for years, she's been involved in all of these different organizations in her community to to help feed the hungry and to help kids to read, and all these worthy causes. She said, since October 7, she said, I am all Jewish all the time, and I want everyone to know it the and Israel is perhaps the best example of this. It's impossible to imagine the kind of resilience that we see from Israelis. The taxi driver that I had in Israel. He said, This is so difficult for all of us. We've all known people. We've lost people. It's affected all of us, but we're just never going to give up, because our history doesn't allow it. We have prevailed as a people for 1000s of years and have gotten stronger every single time.

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

Thank you, Ted. I can keep thinking about this overwhelming challenge that we face as the Jewish people today, which seems to confine us to solitude. Anyway, Jews and Israel are attacked with alternative truths, false narratives. We've witnessed how international justice, our common, universal values, have been turned upside down in the Jewish tradition, we say that we have a mission to repair the world, Tikkun Olam. But how can we make sure to recreate the common world in the first place?

Bernard-Henri Lévy: 

It's on process number one, continue to try to repair the world, I remind you, and you know that, and Simone Rodan knows it also, in many occurrences, in many situations of the last 30 years when real genocides happened. Real genocide, not imaginary. Real one. In Rwanda, in Srebrenica, in Darfur, when I met with in Chad, with Simone, and so on. The first whistleblowers, the first to tell the world that something terrible was happening, were not exactly Jews, but were ladies and men who had in their hearts the memory of the Shoah. And the flame of Yad Vashem. That's a fact, and therefore they reacted and what could be repaired. They contributed to repair it. Number one. 

Second observation, about what Ted said, there is in Europe now, since many years, a tendency to step out, to give up to and to go to Israel. Not only by love of Zionism, but thinking that this is not a safe place any longer for them. I tell you, this tendency starts to be reversed now you have more and more Jews in Europe who say, no, no, no, no. We built this country. We are among the authors of the French social contract. 

For example, we will not leave it to those illiterate morons who try to push us away. And this is a new thing. This reaction, this no of the Jews in Europe is something relatively new. And third little remark. 10 years ago in the States, I met a lot of young people who were embarrassed with Israel, who said we are liberal and there is Israel, and the two don't match really well. 10-15, years ago, I met a lot. Less and less today. You have more and more students in America who understand that Israel should be supported, not in spite of their liberal values. But because of their liberal values. And come on, this for a liberal, is a treasure, and it is unprecedented, and there is no example.

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

How about you, Ted? How do you think we can overcome the challenge of those parallel realities we feel we live in?

Ted Deutch: 

Those students, and I think broadly the Jewish community, after October 7, came to realize that as Hamas terrorists rolled into southern Israel, they made no distinctions about the politics of the Israelis. That great irony, of course, is that the peaceniks, or the brunt of these attacks, living along the southern edge of Israel by Gaza, they didn't make determinations on who to kill based on how they practiced, what their politics were, how they felt about Bibi. 

And I think what the Jewish world, certainly it's true for young people that I talk to, came to realize is that connection between Israel and the Jewish people is not theoretical, that that ultimately, what's gone on for the past year is is an attack against Israel, Israel as the stand in for the Jewish people, and that defending Israel is really defending all of us. And I think they've come to understand that. 

But going forward, I think what you described, Bernard, is new, this is what it means now to be an Or Lagoyim. This is what it means to be a light unto the nations. That in the face of all of these attacks, that Israeli democracy continues to thrive. That the conversation by those, ironically, the conversation that has attempted to demonize Israel by demonizing Bibi, has highlighted the fact that these protests have continued during the time of war. As you point out that this is this is unlike anything you would see, that what's permitted, the way democracy is thrives and is and is vibrant in Israel, is different than every place else, that this is a message that the world will see, that that the that in the face of these ongoing challenges, that the Jewish community stands not just against against these attacks against the Jews, but stands against what's happening In the streets of so many places in America.

Where people march with Hezbollah flags, where they're openly supporting Hamas. It's going to take some time, but ultimately, because of the strong, because of the resilience, because of the strong, proud way that Jews are responding to this moment and to those protests, eventually, the world will realize that standing in support of Hamas terrorism is not just something that is dangerous to the Jews, but puts at risk the entire world.

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

Thank you. I'm a Sephardic Jew, so I cannot just end this conversation speaking about loneliness. How about hope? Can we find some?

Bernard-Henri Lévy: 

I compare the situation of the Jews today to the situation in the time of my dad, for example, there are some change, for example, the Christians and the Catholic Church. 50 years ago, a huge cultural revolution in the world. It is the change of position of the Catholic Church on anti semitism. It was the Vatican Two Council and the Nostra aetate. It seems tiny, but it is huge revolution, and it consisted in a single word, one word, the Catholic Council of Vatican Two said Jews are no longer the fathers of the Christians, as it was said before, in the best of the case, they are the brothers of the Christians. 

This is a huge revelation. Of course, Catholics are not always faithful to this commitment. And popes, and especially the pope of today do not remember well the message of his ancestor, but on the whole, we have among the Christians, among the Catholics in Europe and in. Real friends in America among the new evangelical I don't know if they are friends, but they are strong allies. Abraham agreements was again another big revolution which has been underestimated, and the fact that the Abraham agreements, alliance with Morocco, Emirates, Bahrain stands, in spite of the war on seven fronts. Is a proof. It is solid. It is an ironclad alliance, and it holds. 

And this is a new event, and we have in the not only in the top of the state, but in the public opinions of the Muslim world. We have a lot of people who who start to be who are more and more numerous, to believe that enough is enough. Too much war, too much misunderstandings, too much hatred, and who are really eager to make the real peace, which is the peace of hearts and the peace of souls with their other brothers, who are the Jews. So yes, there are some reasons to be optimistic. 

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

Thank you very much, Bernard. Ted?

Ted Deutch: 

I don't think that we can ever give up hope. And optimism is necessary, and I think justified. The things Bernard talks about, I mean, at AJC, our focus on on building democracy, our focus on interreligious work, the work we've done with the Catholic Church around Nostra aetate, now 60 years old and and continuing to build the relationship our Muslim Jewish Advisory Council always looking for opportunities to to find those voices that are tired of all of the war.

And in our office, in Abu Dhabi, we've, we've continued to go to the Gulf, to the Abraham Accord states, and beyond, even through this entire war, because there is the hope of of getting to a place where, where Israel is in a more normalized position in the region, which will then change the perception and push back against the lies that those who wish to to see a world without Israel continue to espouse. 

All of that is hopeful, and we work toward it. But for me, the most hopeful thing to come from this moment is, AJC works around the world and because the Jewish community now understands how connected we all are as a result of the threats that we face, the opportunity to strengthen diaspora Jewry, to help people realize that the connections between the Jewish community in Paris and the Jewish community in Mexico City and the Jewish community in Buenos Aires in Chicago, in Miami and New York, that they're interrelated and that we don't have the luxury of viewing our challenges as unique in our countries. 

By standing together, we're in a much, much stronger position, and we have to continue to build that. That's why AJC's Global Forum is always the most important part of the year for us, bringing together the Jewish community from around the world. That's why the antisemitism summit that we'll be doing here with the CRIF is going to be so critical to building those relationships. We have an opportunity coming out of this incredibly dark time to take the strength and the resolve that we feel and to and to channel it in ways that that will lead the Jewish community to places that a year ago seemed absolutely impossible to imagine.

Those 101 hostages need to return home. We stand together calling for them to return home. We stand together in our support of Israel as it wages the seven-front war, and ultimately, we stand together as Jewish people. That's what gives me hope every day.

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache: 

Thank you so much.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for the conversation between my colleague Benji Rogers, AJC's director for Middle East and North Africa initiatives, and Rob Greenway, director of the Allison center for national security at the Heritage Foundation, and former senior director for Middle Eastern and North African Affairs on the National Security Council, they discuss the opportunities and challenges President-elect Trump will face in the Middle East.

The Abraham Accords marked a significant foreign policy achievement for President Donald Trump at the end of his first term in 2020. What’s next for the Abraham Accords under a new Trump administration? 

Joining us is Rob Greenway, Director of the Allison Center for National Security at the Heritage Foundation and former senior director for Middle Eastern and North African Affairs on the National Security Council, to discuss the opportunities and challenges President Trump will face in the Middle East. Guest hosted by Benjy Rogers, AJC’s Director for Middle East and North Africa Initiatives, Greenway draws on his firsthand experience with the Abraham Accords to explore how these agreements can be expanded and how security and economic cooperation between Israel and its neighbors can be strengthened.

Resources:

• AJC Experts Assess the Global Impact of Trump’s Election

• What President-Elect Trump’s Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More

• The Abraham Accords, Explained

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

• The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

• People of the Pod: 

  • Honoring Israel’s Lone Soldiers This Thanksgiving: Celebrating Service and Sacrifice Away from Home

  • The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know

  • What President-Elect Trump’s Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More

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

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Rob Greenway:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

The landmark achievement of the first Trump Administration was President Trump’s ability to successfully broker peace treaties between Israel and the Arab countries of the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco. While much has changed since the September 2020 signing of the Abraham Accords, there are high hopes that a second Trump Administration will once again focus on brokering Arab-Israeli peace. This week, my colleague Benjy Rogers, AJC’s Director for Middle East and North Africa Initiatives, invited an expert from the first Trump administration to share his insights on what to expect. Benjy, the mic is yours.   

Benjamin Rogers:  

What can we expect from the incoming Trump administration, particularly when it comes to the committee's policy and the future of the Abraham Accords and regional integration? To help us break it all down, we're joined by someone who's been at the center of these historic developments, Rob Greenway. 

Rob is the director of the Allison Center for National Security at the Heritage Foundation, where he formulates policy to defend American freedom and prosperity. Rob has first hand experience with the Abraham Accords, having served as Deputy Assistant to the President and senior director of the National Security Council's Middle Eastern and North African Affairs Directorate during the first Trump administration. 

Rob has more than 30 years in public service, including as President and Executive Director of the Abraham Accords Peace Institute, advocating for the expansion of the agreements he helped craft. Rob has also served as Senior Intelligence Officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and is a decorated combat veteran within the US Army Special Forces. 

Rob, welcome to People of the Pod. We are honored to have you here.

Rob Greenway:  

It's my great pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Benjamin Rogers:  

Let's jump right into it. Much has changed in the Middle East since the last Trump administration, while the hope of the Abraham Accords continued into the Biden administration, the horrors of October 7 in its aftermath have transformed the region. 

How do you think the next Trump administration will address the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, and do you see renewed hope for continuing to deepen and expand the Abraham Accords?

Rob Greenway:  

It's a great question. I'll start in reverse order, because that's the optimistic part, right? The hope in all of the relatively dark circumstances and the escalation of the conflict that’s really accelerated, but didn't begin in October the seventh, but it certainly accelerated dramatically. I certainly judge that there is hope. And there's hope because the shared interest between Israel and its neighboring countries is, in fact, very strong. 

And that the US fundamentally, and certainly under a Trump administration, I think, will reprioritize efforts to normalize Israel's relations with its neighbors, to confront shared adversaries, which obviously is Iran, its surrogates and proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah. But also because the economic potential has to be unlocked through integration of Israel and its neighbors and the countries within the region. 

They all know this, and they all recognize the intrinsic importance of it, so both for security purposes and for economic reasons, the normalization process will be resumed, certainly under a Trump administration as a matter of policy. It is, in many ways, the solution to the problems we're seeing in the region right now.

Benjamin Rogers:  

Say a little bit more about that, Rob, if you would, what particular solutions do you think can come as a result of expansion of Abraham Accords, regional integration?

Rob Greenway:  

Sure. On the one hand, the practical side of it is Israel's defense is better done working with and through with other partners, not just the United States, but its neighbors, so the extent to which cooperation could be expanded, they can jointly meet the threat from Iran, and will, in fact, have to do so. 

Iran, unfortunately, has been fed too long by appeasement the last four years. It's flush with cash. It's at nuclear threshold. The only way for Israel to effectively defend itself is more often than not, working with like-minded partners, and certainly the United States. Together, I think it's easier to provide a defense.

Remember the ballistic missile attacks against Israel, which now unfortunately, have happened twice. It took a regional neighborhood response to that in order to effectively detect and intercept the range of missiles and drones and cruise missiles coming from Iran. That's a picture of what the potential is and should be. 

It's also a strong deterrent. When Israel's standing with its partners and allies in the region, it discourages the escalation that Iran is responsible for. And again, the economic potential is also critical, and it's so important that they would protect and defend the relationship, because it's so vital to all of their future potential.

Benjamin Rogers:  

I appreciate what you said on defense, and I think that makes a lot of sense, but I want to drill into a little bit more on the economic side of things, because it's easiest to say, hey, look, there's greater ties, there's greater business. This is a region that, little over 10 years ago, went through the Arab Spring. This is a region that is not all the Gulf. This is a region where there's lots of poverty and there's lots of struggles. A region that is impacted by the daily changes throughout the globe. How does economic cooperation address some of those concerns? Address some of those issues? How does a more integrated Middle East, will it actually make your average person on the streets, life better? How do you get there?

Rob Greenway:  

So first, a couple of points. If you talk to countries in the region. They all share similar concerns. They look a little different, but they have similar concerns. One is the security environment. Again, each of them have a different focus, but they're all concerned about the security environment, largely again, the threat from Iran. 

Second is that they've got a domestic population that, in all too many cases, ultimately will have difficulty finding employment for its large youth population, growing population below the age of 25. They're all very cognizant of this, and they know that the solution is economic integration, regionally and perhaps globally. And so they know that they have a problem. They know that the solution is better integration. It's historically not been the case. Intra-GCC trade has always been less than 15% historically, Europe and Russia are probably still trading more than that now, even though they're at war essentially in Europe, but the GCC has not done so, but they know that they can't sustain it.

Second, how it helps average individuals. The employment opportunities. And look, it's not just integrating the country's economies. The reality is, the strongest economic potential is allowing market markets to be connected between Europe and Asia, through the Middle East. So to move goods and services between Asian and European markets, the Middle East has to be transited. 

If you integrate the countries from a transportation standpoint and from an economic standpoint, the potential becomes vast. That's the real economic promise. Integrating a company's bilateral trade with UAE, with Israel, is absolutely spectacular to watch, but that's the beginning. The end is to better integrate economies and markets globally through which the region is a critical transport link. It can happen. They want it to happen, and I think we can make it happen, and I hope we do. 

Benjamin Rogers:  

That's fascinating. I think it's just such a stark difference in the way we've been approaching the region recently, which is doom and gloom. This is cause for hope. This is a cause for a way forward. 

But October 7, we saw, and you've mentioned this country repeatedly, we saw how spoilers can completely upend this hope. You mentioned a little bit, but can you say a little bit more about how the Trump administration is thinking about countries like the Iranian regime, how the Trump administration will ensure that terror organizations like Hezbollah, like Hamas, will not ever be able to threaten this, this pretty remarkable vision that you're sharing today.

Rob Greenway:  

It's a great question. Maybe the central question. First, we didn't see this threat manifest itself, even though it was there, latent. It didn't just come into creation on October the seventh. Obviously, it existed during the first Trump term, but it never manifested itself this way because it had boundaries. The boundaries come in two ways. First is an absolute, demonstrable commitment to Israel's security, not question, not speculative, not changing or dynamic as it is now and unfortunately, wanting in too many cases, it was ironclad. Everyone in the region knew it, and everyone saw it, and that's an incredibly important part of deterrence. The second and perhaps even more important is denying resources to your adversaries. It sounds fundamental. You shouldn't pay your enemies to attack you, but that's what appeasement is, and that's what's happened in the last four years of the Biden administration. 

You can't give the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism $120 billion of excess revenue and not expect them to engage in terrorism. And so they did. The principal applied the first Trump term will absolutely come back in the second and that's denying them the resources.

And so for us, you know, I watched Hezbollah for decades, and to see them ask for members to donate their organs to raise funds at the end of the maximum economic pressure campaign, by the end of 2020, as a sign of success, in a sense that they were they were deprived and unable to conduct attacks and enter into that risk. I know that that will have a similar result. It's going to take a while to get back to it, but I strongly believe it has to happen, and I believe that it will happen.

Benjamin Rogers:  

Thanks Rob. I want to also dive into what's been front and center on a lot of people's rights now, which is Israeli-Palestinian relations. What do you think the Trump approach will be? And this, to me, is particularly interesting, because, you know, we saw early in the Trump administration, the focus on the deal of the century, focus on peace and prosperity. We saw an initial rejection by the Palestinian Authority, by the PLO to any sort of agreement. 

We know that many in the Israeli government have a range of views, quite strong views. And I would say the population as a whole, any mechanisms of peace while an ongoing war is happening, particularly in the aftermath of October 7 and something that is more challenging than ever to talk about. How do you see the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and how do you see a Trump administration approaching it?

Rob Greenway:  

I believe I've read somewhere. I'm sure you did too. There's nothing new under the sun. And in most cases, there are precedents and examples. Look, for over four decades, people pursued the Israel-Palestine conflict as the central issue in the region, and they made no progress on either front. The region didn't get better, and Israel's relationship with the Palestinians didn't improve, empirically and objectively. 

The approach in the Trump administration was, what are the most pressing threats to our interest in the region's interest, including Israel? The answer is Iran, its surrogates and proxies. And ISIS in 2017 as you recall. And so the premise is, start with the highest order of threat. If you get the sequence wrong, you know you're going to inevitably have adverse consequences. 

You can't paint the kitchen when your house is on fire. It's not a perfect analogy, but the idea is, we have to deal with the most primary threats first, and if you don't deal with Iran as the principal source of instability in the region, you can't make progress on anything else, including this issue. Second, as we heard from, John Kerry's famous remarks in 2016, deeply held belief then, and I fear still now, you cannot make progress on Israel-Arab relations without making progress on the Palestinian file. And he emphasized, you can't. And obviously you can. We proved it in the form of the Abraham Accords, and President Trump led the way. And I think that will come back again.

And that, I think, is the key to success. But everyone I talked to in Israel tells me the same thing, the two state solution is dead after October the seventh. At some point it may resurrect itself. I think at the end of the day, we focus on the primary threat, build a stronger relationship between Israel and its neighbors, and then we can also improve the lives of the Palestinian people in a variety of ways, which the Abraham Accords were designed to do and its members insisted on. 

And second, as you mentioned, the peace to prosperity plan, I think we'll end up leveraging the work done there, the fantastic work that Jared did, just he did with the Abraham Accords, and resurrect that for what needs to happen next in places like Gaza and South Lebanon. And I think that will improve the lives of the Palestinian people. So it's a reverse sequencing, essentially. I think that gets to a different outcome. But if you start with an impossible, intractable problem, everything else becomes difficult.

Benjamin Rogers:  

Fascinating. Saudi Arabia. What do you think can be done? What do you think relations are between the US and Saudi Arabia, between Israel and Saudi Arabia. I know there's been strong comments that have got a lot of attention as of late, but where do you see that relationship going?

Rob Greenway:  

I think the good news is that President Trump's relationship with the kingdom and with Saudi leadership like the region, was exceptional. His first visit as President of the United States on May 17, was to Riyadh and then to Jerusalem, and then to Rome, very deliberately and very intentionally. And the policies he set forth were what we carried as guidance for the four years that followed. And I think it bore fruit. 

That relationship is key, and I think it's going to be restored. It was deeply damaged on a number of fronts under the Biden-Harris administration, I think that damage is going to be undone by a different relationship and approach. And second, look, we've had decades, generations of cooperation with Saudi Arabia, as we have with Israel, and that puts President Trump in a unique position to be able to broker the inevitable peace between the two. 

But I think it's something that, like most negotiations, and certainly in the Middle East, we should give space for the new administration to do this privately and not have a public negotiation, because all that's going to do is complicated for all parties, and it'll make the end objective more difficult. I think it'll happen. I think it needs to happen. 

Last thing I'll say is, it isn't as much about security, although that's certainly a critical part of it. It's also, again, about managing global markets between the United States and Saudi Arabia, because this is what, obviously, for our purposes and for the region's purposes, we've got to be able to do. As long as China is dependent upon Middle Eastern oil and gas, we've got to be able to exercise some control over it. And we can't let Russia, as an exporter and our partners and allies in the region, manage global exports to China. 

So this isn't limited to the region itself. Our relationship with Riyadh is vital. It is strategic. It is necessary. It helped us prevail in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. It'll be absolutely vital in competition with China and with Russia. So it's critical on a number of fronts. President Trump instinctively understands this better than I think anyone, and I think he's in a unique position to close the real deal of the century.

Benjamin Rogers:  

Staying on this topic, for a little bit, where else, what other countries in the Middle East do you think are going to be of a particular focus to the incoming Trump administration?

Rob Greenway:  

So not surprisingly, Riyadh would unlikely be the only country to join the Accords, not followed by others. So I could think of most other countries in the Gulf would be good candidates. But I also think it's not limited to the region, right? There are a number of other Muslim majority countries that are not necessarily Arab, that reside outside the region that would be enormously beneficial from an economic standpoint and from a diplomatic standpoint. And we had a number of conversations with many countries that fall into this category. 

So there's, I think, a new vista that opens with the successful conclusion of getting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to establish normalized diplomatic relations. And again, I think if you confront Iran, this becomes possible. If you don't confront Iran, it's virtually impossible.

Benjamin Rogers:  

I want to zoom out, but before I do, you have, you have explained how you've explained in detail, where the Trump administration may go. You've expressed some criticism of the Biden administration. Is there anything related to Middle East policy that the Biden administration pursued? 

Things like the Negev Forum, things like the concept of I2U2, of IMEC, things where do you think those are actually helpful mechanisms that may continue into a Trump administration? Or do you think this is essentially going to be a return to priorities that were started in the first Trump administration?

Rob Greenway:  

I think it's going to be more of the latter than the former. Negev ultimately was taking the Abraham Accords and introducing it into a multilateral fora. But the attempt, I think, was ultimately not successful, not because of October the seventh, but because one they made it a diplomatic conference, which we deliberately didn't do with the Abraham Accords. We were more focused on getting the businessmen together and the parts of the government that dealt with trade and concrete relationships, because that's what they wanted. 

So we didn't try and impose a forum on them. We tried to allow it to grow organically in the areas where they were interested, and, frankly, where you could measure the progress. I mean, as you know, having a diplomatic conference is not a difficult thing to do. Having one with an outcome might be a bit of a challenge. So we were inclined to approach it from an economic perspective. Ultimately, we'd like to see it get to the security domain. I think there is a difference. But again, it's an extension of the Accords that were built during the Trump administration.

They also intended to insert the Palestinian issue into the equation, and they worked to get it introduced into the forum. I don't know the wisdom behind it, and ultimately, I think it became an impediment, but I will say that ultimately, they did come to the conclusion the Abraham Accords was a good thing. The Abraham Accords was beneficial to the region, and the region wanted to see the US invested in it. 

Unfortunately, I think it came too late, and it was overshadowed by the intrinsic policy contradiction of feeding Iran and attempting to deal with the consequences of it. So you can't feed the greatest threat to instability in the region and attempt to work together towards normalization at the same time, the two objectives are in complete opposition to one another. And so they were working across purposes, and the region saw it, and I think they were unable to get progress because of it. 

Sudan is probably the only accord member country that unfortunately has collapsed into virtual civil war, which was again a very tragic and unnecessary result of bad policy choice. And it can and it must be reversed. And I trust the Trump second Trump administration would make that a priority as well.

Benjamin Rogers:  

I'm happy to hear that, because that's an area that we have focused on, and I think absolutely heartbreaking to see what's unfolding in Sudan right now. 

I'd be remiss if I didn't make a plug for AJC Center for a New Middle East, which is something our CEO Ted Deutch announced in June, and essentially our concept is, let's take the decades of trust that AJC has cultivated over the last 70+ years. Let's take the network that we have in places like Europe, in the Middle East, with our office in Abu Dhabi and in Jerusalem. We have offices across Asia. We've got offices in Africa. 

How can we use that architecture to be a helpful model in bringing people together? So I wanted to ask you, as someone with so much experience on this, what role do you see for civil society organizations in being able to help cultivate, reinvigorate, bring together more hope to a region that is really reeling?

Rob Greenway:  

Having come from the Abraham Accords Peace Institute, where this was our purpose, and having worked with your offices and your organization and many others, I'm convinced that there is an absolute necessity for private organizations to help contribute to and to ensure that there's continuity and successes are sustained. Especially in the people to people contact, but areas like education, in sports and athletics, enormous potential. And it will require private organizations. This is one of many areas where government doesn't do it well. So I think government has opened a door. It can open others. 

Private organizations ultimately are going to determine success and failure, and that includes, of course, businesses. So I think it's absolutely essential, and I think that organizations like AJC and others are uniquely positioned to be able to translate the potential into concrete success in a number of different fronts that either government can't do or it's just not well equipped to do. 

So 100% agree, and in fact, again, this is too, where more people external to the region can really make a contribution, and small ways can have a massive impact. And we had the luxury of being able to work on a number. And we saw the fruits of that, and I think we'll continue to see. Some of them take decades to materialize, but it's worth it.

Benjamin Rogers:  

Amazing. Thanks, Rob. So I promised I would zoom out a little bit, because I know you're not only an expert in the Middle East, but look at the whole globe. Outside of the Middle East, where do you think when it comes to foreign affairs, the Trump administration will be focused?  How will it address issues like Russia, Ukraine? How will it address issues like China? 

Rob Greenway:  

So if you just consider the staggering array of security challenges that the new Trump administration is going to inherit and confront, it can be overwhelming. For two reasons. First, because it's happening on virtually every continent, right, in every cardinal direction you look, there’s not just a crisis, but in many cases, a conflict that is unprecedented or hasn't been seen at this level in a generation. First land war in Europe since the Second World War, a Middle East that hasn't been this unstable since, I think at least 1979, perhaps earlier. These are generational challenges. And I could add to that, of course, China in both the first second island chains and the potential threat against Taiwan. Massive challenges to the international order and the US vital national security interests. 

Number two, they're not just connected in a temporal space. Yes, unfortunately, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, are working together in unprecedented ways. The provision of ballistic missiles and drones from Iran, nuclear technology going in the other direction. All horrible. But the fact that they are connected in ways that are impossible to segregate, so you can't solve one problem while you're waiting to solve the other two. Because the solution to each is integrated to the problem in the other. 

And energy, as I mentioned already, is just one of those ways, and perhaps one of the most important. 

So if you want to restore maximum economic pressure against Iran–and we have to–you're going to be taking them gradually off the international market. Without disrupting prices in everyone's economies, including ours, you've got to compensate for it. There are ways to do it, but Russia is an exporter too, and China is a consumer. So you think about the sequencing behind how to confront these challenges, it is going to be absolutely one of the most complex I think any presidential administration has faced. And again, economic insecurity is integral. And I say that too, because the Trump administration thankfully at the top, with the President himself and many of his trusted advisors and cabinet officials come from a business background, and they understand the economics, because that's the world in which they grew up in. As well as the security domain. 

And I think they're uniquely configured to be able to solve this. And they have the experience of working in these regions. A daunting series of challenges. And I think all of us watching this progress need to give them time and patience, because the scope of these challenges are massive. And I didn't mention, you know, the interior crisis at the border and the millions of illegal immigrants, tens of thousands of which are terrorists or known criminals. And that just adds to the complexity, and also can't be addressed in isolation. So massive challenges, all of them connected, security and economic standpoint, and it's going to take time, but this team and the president, I think, are uniquely postured to be able to do it.

Benjamin Rogers:  

Rob, I really want to thank you for everything today. Before we conclude, any final thoughts?

Rob Greenway:  

So I'd like to end again on a positive note, because it's easy to get distracted with the crises. The solution to these problems are what make them possible. Seeing the potential is what gives you the drive, the resolve, to fix it, and it also makes it possible. So if there wasn't a good solution to these problems, they would persist. 

The reality is that integrating the Middle East and Israel and its neighbors and connecting global markets is key to solving these problems. It's also what's going to prevent it from happening again. If we can lean into it and do it successfully and follow through on what was started, we'll be able to see not only a cessation of these problems, we'll be able to see a real improvement in regional quality of life, and hopefully peace and prosperity will again dominate, rather than conflict and chaos. 

Benjamin Rogers:  

Alright Rob, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it.

Rob Greenway:  

My great pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Supporting lone soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)—those serving without immediate family in Israel—has never been more crucial. These soldiers face challenges such as language barriers, adjusting to a new culture, and coping with the emotional and physical demands of service, all while navigating feelings of loneliness, especially during holidays. 

This Thanksgiving, hear from lone soldiers Kerren Seidner and Nate LeRoy about their experiences and how they support fellow soldiers through Ach Gadol (Big Brother), an organization dedicated to helping those serving without family support.

Resources:

• Ach Gadol: Big Brother Organization for Lone Soldiers

• Be Kind As Omer Balva Instagram page

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

• The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

• People of the Pod: 

  • The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know

  • What President-Elect Trump’s Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More

  • What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People

  • The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know

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

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Nate LeRoy and Kerren Seidner:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Lone soldiers are members of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) who don't have immediate family to support them while they're serving. They face many challenges, including learning Hebrew, adapting to a new culture, and the physical and emotional demands of IDF service. And it may come as no surprise that lone soldiers also experience loneliness, especially on holidays celebrated back home.

For two decades, AJC Jerusalem has held a special Thanksgiving dinner for lone soldiers. But after the Hamas terror attacks on October 7, 2023 as many lone soldiers were dispatched across the country, AJC sent boxes of sweets and other Thanksgiving delicacies to 48 lone soldiers deployed at different bases. 

Here to talk about why they served as lone soldiers, and the unique way they have volunteered their services since October 7, are two former lone soldiers, Kerren Seidner and Nate LeRoy. 

Kerren, Nate, welcome to People of the Pod.

Nate LeRoy:  

Hi, thank you for having me.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Kerren, I'll start with you, if you wouldn't mind sharing with listeners your back story. You were born in China, and then an Israeli couple living in the United States adopted you.

Kerren Seidner:  

Correct. So I was adopted around 11 months old, both my parents, my Israeli Jewish family, my parents, they were living in Los Angeles, California at the time. They adopted me. They went to China to come adopt me, and I have an older brother who is biological to my parents. And then I grew up, my entire family, in a Jewish Israeli home.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And so had you ever been to Israel? What inspired you to go to Israel for the first time and then later to serve?

Kerren Seidner:  

For me, I always grew up in Israeli household. Growing up with the Israeli culture. I heard Hebrew every single day in my life. Although I did not learn Hebrew, my parents did not teach me. 

I think the first time I went to Israel was for my brother's Bar Mitzvah when I was six years old, and so ever since then, we would always go to Israel for the summer vacation. So I always grew up going to Israel. I've always been in touch with all my family and cousins, aunts and uncles that I have here in Israel. 

But I never thought I would ever come to Israel to serve until the age 18, where you grew up in American house, like in the American lifestyle, where at age 18, you need to decide if you want to go to college or university, or figure out what you want to do in life. So then I started thinking, You know what, maybe studying in Israel might be an option. 

But then my older brother, decided that he had just decided to draft to the army. So I thought maybe that might be a possibility for myself. And then overnight, it just kind of happened that I wanted to make Aliyah and draft to the army. My mom said, you know, you should be a combat soldier. It was very new at that time for girls to be in combat.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So why did she encourage you to do combat?

Kerren Seidner:  

Growing up, I've always done sports. I played soccer for 11 years. So I was always active. And I think my mom knew, coming from my dad, because most of the time I would spend with my dad, my mom in our household was different, where my mom was out working and my dad was a stay at home dad mostly. 

So I was always with him, and I always heard the stories of him being an officer in combat, and then right at age 16, my brother had just drafted to Said Golani. So hearing all these stories, my mom just knew it was very fitting for me to go to combat as well.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Nate, you grew up in Charleston, South Carolina, and did you first come to Israel on a gap year, or had you been before?

Nate LeRoy:  

So my first trip to Israel was actually with my Jewish day school. We have a small, strong Jewish day school in Charleston called Addelstone Hebrew Academy. Every eighth grade there does each year, does a trip. So that was my first experience in Israel. I came back with Young Judea on a summer program before senior year of high school, and then lived here on my gap year, Young Judea Year Course immediately after high school as well.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And then what drew you to serve as a lone soldier?

Nate LeRoy:  

I think a huge part of it, like Kerren was talking about, was growing up with, for me, it wasn't an Israeli family, but a really strong, close, tight knit community in Charleston. And I have to give a lot of credit to Young Judea as well, especially to Camp Judea, where I grew up in just an extremely Zionist, welcoming, loving environment. And we had dozens of Israelis working on our staff every summer. 

So having that kind of constant flood growing up of Israelis each summer, even if it wasn't in the house. Camp is really that home for a month each year, especially later on in high school, working there, and ultimately the gap year as well. Being here, living here for a year, being able to experience Israel, really feeling like you get kind of absorbed into society, was a huge part of it. 

And I kind of looked around at the time, at Israelis my age, and felt okay, I'm 18 years old. They're 18 years old. We hear all the time that Israel is the Jewish nation, the Jewish state. We never hear that it's the Israeli nation, the Israeli state. So why do only the people who are born here have to serve? 

And I kind of felt like, for me, the best way to do something and to serve the Jewish people and the Jewish state in Israel was through the army. And kind of like, my service for myself was also mandatory, and that was the path I chose, was to serve through that way.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And what year did you serve Nate?

Nate LeRoy:  

I drafted in 2020.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

In 2020, and then served until when?

Nate LeRoy:  

I served until the end of 2021, through the Machal program. Which allows you to draft before you make Aliyah, so you do a shortened service of 18 months.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And then, Kerren, when did you serve?

Kerren Seidner:  

I drafted December 2019.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And served for how long? 

Kerren Seidner:  

Until August 2022.

Manya Brachear Pashman 

And so you said, Kerren, that you wanted to be, you sought to be in combat. Did you see combat as an IDF soldier?

Kerren Seidner:  

Yes, I was in Ariot Ha’edan. It's a coed unit in Israel. It's a regular reconnaissance unit, like Golani, Tzanchanim, but coed, and we're just mostly on the border, so the main underneath the unit Kchi Gvulot, so that translates to Border Patrol. So there's other units like Caracal, which was very much known in the recent war, and Bardelas, they're on the borders, mostly with Egypt. I was on the Jordanian border within the West Bank.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And Nate, how did you serve? Or where did you serve?

Nate LeRoy:  

I served in Golani, in dud chamishim v’achat. So the 51st brigade. And we serve kind of all around. We did our training in the Merkaz Israel, the middle of Israel, in the north, and then served on various borders, on Gaza and up north and throughout the West Bank as well.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Now, are you both in reserves now?

Nate LeRoy:  

I currently serve in reserves. I'm not at this moment, I finished reserves in the summer. We were in Gaza for two months with my unit most recently. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And Kerren, how about you? Are you still a reservist? 

Kerren Seidner:  

Yes, from October 7. I served about two months, and then I got released for about half a year, and then I just did about two months in the summer as well.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

All right. And can you say where?

Kerren Seidner:  

They put me wherever they need. In the first part, I moved eight times in the span of two months. So wherever they put me.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

When you're not serving, when you're not fighting or seeing combat, you volunteer in a very unique way. Can you tell our listeners how you have continued to serve those who are in the IDF?

Kerren Seidner:  

For me, for us, we volunteer with Ach Gadol. It's a special program where people like us, who are post lone soldiers who, we have lone soldiers who are currently serving, and we mentor them throughout their entire service. I currently have three soldiers, and two of them are actually combat soldiers.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And Nate? 

Nate LeRoy:  

Yeah. So like Kerren said, it's a great summary. Ach Gadol, which means big brother, can translate it to big sister as well. We both volunteer with the organization. I have the privilege of being volunteering in a lone soldier house in Tel Aviv as well. So it's just a place where lone soldiers can stay on the weekends when they're off base, if they don't have a place to go, or some of them who might do kind of daily jobs where they go to and from their army service each day. If they're in intelligence, they can stay there as well if it's closer to base. So I volunteered there a little bit, and have a little brother. 

It's funny to say, because he's my age. We actually both overlapped at Tulane University in the States for a year, but didn't meet each other, and so we got here and got matched through the organization, so he's my one little brother right now, and it's been great. It's a great way to have a connection with someone. 

I personally received a lot of help from the generations before me. And I think most lone soldiers did because you really can't do this by yourself. As funny as that is being called a lone soldier, you really can't do it alone. And it's just great. It felt definitely like the right thing to do, to turn around and give it to the current generation and future generations.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

What do lone soldiers need now, that's different from when you served?

Nate LeRoy:  

I think a lot of the challenges stay the same. In terms of, you encounter adulthood all of a sudden, when you get here, in terms of finding an apartment, figuring out how to live your life by yourself, figuring out all that sort of adulthood stuff. And on top of it, you have the army, which is a massive thing to navigate, a massive language issue. 

And I think right now I'll speak personally with my own relationship with the person I volunteer with, with Josh, when you throw war on top of that, which by itself, is more than enough to deal with, you know, how can you figure out your apartment in your contract when you've been in Gaza for the last two months? How can you figure out, you know, you have to leave combat in a war zone and go back and do your own laundry? And it's those little things that really make a difference. Where someone who is Israeli and has a family here and has the support they need, you know, they go back and they're in that support circle. 

And no matter what you come back from, even if you come back from, you know, when I was serving just the most regular week in the army, when you come back and you just want to check out for the weekend and be with your friends, and you have this kind of list of errands piling up, it's difficult. 

And coming back from combat, from war, from fighting, from losing friends, you know, it just 100 times more difficult. I think it's super important to make sure people have the support they need in all of those things, and also know that they have the space to talk about stuff and to share things that are difficult for them, and to reach out to someone who's going through similar things.

Kerren Seidner:  

For me, it's a very deep question, but I think that, like how Nate said the whole thing about being a lone soldier, no matter times of war or normal times. We like to say normal times, but it's still hard. You need the support no matter what I think, especially just during the times of this war, and in any war, just the mental because I feel like, having to have been in miluim, I also struggled with it as well, going to miluim, being in the duty of being in the Army and that mindset as a soldier, and then coming home to civilian life, it's very different. 

Especially then you come to civilian life, and I'm here, like in Herzliya, and you also don't feel necessarily safe, because you have also rockets all the time, like I had one this morning as well. So it's really can be scary at times, but I think what's so special about Israel, we have the support from one another, not just from people like me, who was a lone soldier trying to help out with other lone soldiers, but just random civilians on the street, really just uplifting. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Can you kind of describe what you're talking about? What do you mean by that?

Kerren Seidner:  

I think for me, ever since I moved to Israel, I say, Israel is definitely home, the people here are very different. I grew up in the Los Angeles area, so I really feel like there was very materialistic. But I think there's so many people that just want to help one another. And I really seen that a lot throughout the war, even through my service, being a lone soldier, people would just hand me money left and right. People constantly are asking, Do you have a place for Shabbat to not feel alone on Shabbat, which means a lot.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And what about Thanksgiving and other holidays that you traditionally celebrated in Los Angeles or in Charleston. How have you been able to mark those occasions in Israel?

Nate LeRoy:  

I think for me, in going off of a big thing, Kerren spoke about. I also lived in Herzliya during my service, and there's a fantastic self made group of just moms and dads and everyday people from the community there of Israelis who, whenever we'd go home, especially on holidays, Rosh Hashanah and stuff, people would either volunteer to host us, or a lot of times we just receive Friday afternoon, someone would come by. They have a list of all of our addresses, if we're in this group chat, and they just drop off home cooked meals and say, you know, this Friday night, you and your roommates, have this Shabbat dinner. Enjoy. Don't worry about cooking. And having that home cooked meal, even if it's not my mom, you know, mom's cooking. It's a great feeling and a great experience. 

And another thing that I've had, and I’ve been super fortunate to and I know a lot of us do as well. A lot of lone soldiers. Is in the absence of your immediate family, your friends really become your family. And I'm still lucky to this day to have people who I met during my time in the army and I served with who, we’re still in touch. We still hang out together, and some of us, Thanksgiving specifically, you know people who can get home, and it works out with work, they go, and I'm jealous of them. I wish I could as well, but we do our best to cook a great Thanksgiving dinner. And turkeys are a little hard to come by here, but we get a couple of rotisserie chickens, and a bird's a bird, and we try to do the best we can to have this sort of family experiences and family holidays.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Kerren, how about you? Do you mark Thanksgiving in any particular way or other holidays?

Kerren Seidner:  

For me, Thanksgiving, honestly, I don't think I do, only because for me, every Friday night is like Thanksgiving to me. For me, yom shishi, the arcuchat shihi is super important for me. I because we are lone soldiers. I always try to make sure I spend it with friends who how, like Nate said, it's become like family. So living here in Herzliya, there is a big community of people, olim like myself. So we became like a little family of our own. So I would always do Shabbat together, or I am in touch with, when I moved here and did the army, I had a host family. So I am still in touch with my host family from the army. And I see them. They just live in the north in a moshav. So it's kind of hard for me to get there all the time, but I try to celebrate the Hebrew holidays, the Jewish holidays, mostly. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Do your families get to Israel throughout the year? Have they traveled there to see you, even if you aren't able to get to, back to Los Angeles or Charleston to see them?

Kerren Seidner:  

For me, my dad was really nervous when the war first broke out and Nefesh b’Nefesh opened up flights for one parent to come to Israel for lone soldiers. So he was able to get one of those flights and was able to see me during the war. And then my mom came not too long after that for a wedding, our cousin's wedding was canceled throughout the war, so it was postponed, and so she came for our cousin's wedding. But I haven't gone home in a year and a half, so I'm luckily going back in February to visit. 

Nate LeRoy:  

My family was able to come to visit at the end of my service, which was really important for me, for them to be able to see me. I guess we both, you drafted just a few months before me, but we both served during COVID.

Kerren Seidner:  

Yeah.

Nate LeRoy:  

Which is just also just, I mean, now, nothing compares to serving now, but it was a super weird, wild time of all sorts of closures and rules and different things. So for my family to be able to come after the kind of general lockdown and everything of COVID was really great for them, to be able to be here while I was in the army, and they haven't been able to come visit since then, but they still want to, and still will. I think sometime in this coming year, my parents may be able to come out to visit.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And when was the last time you went to Charleston? 

Nate LeRoy:  

I was lucky enough. I was able to go back a few months ago, when I finished my reserve service, over the summer, I went back for a little bit to see my family and see some friends.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

What did you gain from serving in the IDF?

Nate LeRoy:  

I think it's kind of immeasurable to an extent. I think that the person I was when I went in, it's still very much the person I am now. But you experienced so much, and you changed so much. And I drafted at 21 years of age, but growing so much over those kind of really formative years, but I think that I learned more about myself than I ever expected to. I learned about the importance of commitment to other people and the reaffirmment of committing to the greater good. 

And I think something I learned about people is just always, always to give people the benefit of the doubt and to know that people usually do try their best and they have their best intentions in mind, and to give them the space to be able to show that, improve that, you're in a lot of really just within your team and people you're shoulder to shoulder. You know, you never get a minute by yourself, and it gets very intense. A lot of situations with you or the people you serve with. 

But just learning to kind of give them that space and trust people and know that they want what's best for you and you want what's best for them, no matter how much each moment might get kind of chippy at certain points. It's something that you can only really experience through those tougher, tougher ordeals.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Kerren, what did you take away from your service in the IDF?

Kerren Seidner:  

I think for me, it was really hard. I was going through a lot. I also, when I first moved to Israel, I was 18, and I didn't necessarily want to leave LA at that moment, I was finally in a friend group where I felt like I belonged. So it was really hard for me to have just decided to move across the country or the world, not the country, and I didn't really know the language. 

So it was still hard, which is always going to be a little hard, but then getting put somewhere in the middle of nowhere, not knowing anything. I think I definitely change in a way that I've opened up a lot more. I was very closed off. And I tell people all the time, like my friends today, they didn't know me when I was 18, and I was very closed off. I don't even think I would be doing something like this even today. And in the army, you're just put with a bunch of girls, and you don't know the full language, but you just got to get to know them. And I even tell my friends today that the girls who are with me in the army, who are my best friends today, hang out with them all the time. 

And they will even say that the first year, I did not talk to them, and I think because we were stuck in quarantine for two weeks, we were forced to spend time. 

I had to just open up and actually get to know them. And I regretted not getting to know them earlier, and I'm so much happier that I open up and reach out. And that's something with Ach Gadol, where you just kind of maybe need to make that extra step, the first step, because there's new lone soldiers today who are just maybe scared to do that first step because they're in a new country, and we've been there before. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I asked you both what you gained from your time in the IDF, but it is a sacrifice. For which we are very grateful that you made. What did you lose by serving in the IDF? What did you sacrifice?

Nate LeRoy:  

I think, without the risk of being overly cheesy, I feel very lucky to have had a great service and to have experienced the army in a I got lucky, and I had a great service. And there are a lot of people around me who weren't so lucky, and kind of you know, things didn't fall their way, and they had a less good service or a bad service to a certain extent. So I'm very fortunate. That I can say I didn't lose anything that I wasn't willing to and I didn't know I was going to sacrifice beforehand. I did a year at Tulane before, and chose to leave that behind and come and do the army, and knew I had finished my studies at some point, which I'm doing now. 

And I guess I lost, you know, two or three more years of partying in college in the States and a lot of experiences with close friends, who I'm fortunate to still be close with. But that's a decision and choice that I made, and knew I was making when I came over here. And, you know, a couple of Mardi Gras would have been great. COVID softened the blow a little that it, you know, they were canceled or didn't happen to the full extent. But again, I'm just fortunate to have. You know, only missed the experiences that I thought I would be able to miss.

Kerren Seidner:  

Yeah, I honestly, I think I lucked out, that I really enjoyed my service, and I don't regret anything about it. And I always say that I'm, I'm going to stay here in Israel forever. This is home. I always say, like to my friends who are drafting now and to my soldiers now that: I'll support them no matter what. If they have any regrets, or if they went to combat and they regretted that decision, or any other decision. 

I really do believe God has a path for every single person, and I think that we make mistakes, we have to learn, and we may regret some things, but I think that doing the army was the path that I was meant to do, and I don't regret any of it.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

One more question for you both, and that is, I asked you, what you lost from serving in the IDF, but so many people lost loved ones and friends on October 7. Did you lose anyone, or know anyone who was killed or kidnapped on October 7?

Kerren Seidner:  

For me, not on October 7. I have a friend of mine. His name is Omer Balva. They actually have an Instagram page called Be Kind as Omer. And we did Garin Tzabar together. He was in the Moshav next to me. And he actually started university with me at the same time, so that was really hard for me. And I was able to go to his funeral. That was the first time I was out of miluim. 

And then throughout, after I got released in July, my mifached, unfortunately, was killed in a motorcycle accident, and he did miluim and everything. It was just very unfortunate to have lost him in such an unfortunate way. And then a far relative cousin on my dad's side is actually kidnapped still to this day.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I want to let listeners know you are referring to your cousin Tzachi Idan. Kerren, I hope you don’t mind me sharing that his 18-year-old daughter Ma’ayan was murdered in their home on October 7 before her father was taken into Gaza. In fact, she was helping her father hold the door to the safe room closed and she was shot through the door. It is a horrific story.  

Thank you, Kerren, for sharing that about your friend and your cousin. Nate?

Nate LeRoy:  

So I was fortunate to not have anyone that I was close with who passed away on the seventh. There were several people I served with kind of an extended, extended relationship with, or distant relationship with, who passed away fighting in the Kibbutzim in the south and about a month after the seventh, someone in my extended family, one of my cousins, a lone soldier from Atlanta, Rose Lubin, was killed in a terrorist attack in Jerusalem, and actually, this coming week is her the yard site for the first time. So a lot of the family, a lot of family on her side, live here in Israel. So everyone's kind of has a fantastic week of really meaningful, important events taking place. Everyone's coming over for it from the States as well, so it'll be a really meaningful, moving week to remember her.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Thank you both so very much for your service, for all you've done to and you're doing to support the soldiers, especially at this time. Thank you both for joining us.

Nate LeRoy:  

Thank you. And just one last thing, anyone who's interested in Ach Gadol wants to find us online. I'm sure there'll be a link somewhere with this podcast, but feel free to search us on Google or wherever Ach Gadol or in Hebrew, Ach Gadol L’Ma’an Chayalim Bodedim, and thank you so much for having me on the show. 

Kerren Seidner:  

What he said. Thank you.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

If you missed last week’s episode, tune in for my conversation with Belle Yoeli, AJC’s Chief Advocacy Officer, about the International Criminal Court’s charges against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. She explains why regardless of political views about this Israeli administration, the charges tied to Israel’s defense operations in Gaza are unjust.   

The International Criminal Court (ICC) announced arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of crimes tied to Israel’s defense operations in Gaza. Why should supporters of Israel—regardless of political views—reject these accusations? 

Belle Yoeli, AJC’s Chief Advocacy Officer, explains why the ICC's charges are not only baseless but also undermine justice, distort international law, and fuel harmful narratives following the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust.

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

• The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

• People of the Pod: 

  • What President-Elect Trump’s Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More

  • What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People

  • The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know

Go Deeper – AJC Analysis:

• Statement: American Jewish Committee Appalled by ICC’s Issuance of Arrest Warrants Against Israelis

• Explainer: What You Need to Know About the ICC and the Israel-Hamas War

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

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Belle Yoeli:

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

The International Criminal Court announced on Thursday that it issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister. You have Galant as well as Hamas terrorist Mohammed, if the Court said it had found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Galant quote, each bear criminal responsibility for starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity, end quote. All tied to Israel's military operations in Gaza focused on defeating Hamas terrorists, securing the return of the 101 remaining hostages and preventing more attacks. 

Here to talk about why the court is prosecuting Israel's leaders for its defense operation after the country suffered the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust, and why that's dangerous, is Belle Yoeli, AJC’s Chief advocacy officer. Belle, welcome to People of the Pod.

Belle Yoeli:  

Thanks so much, Manya.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Do Belle, why have warrants been issued for Netanyahu and Gallant.

Belle Yoeli:  

Right. So first and foremost, I just want to make it abundantly clear, and it really needs to be said, that this decision is absolutely outrageous. It's a gross distortion of international law and so many other things. It undermines the credibility of the court, and it fuels a lot of malicious lies about the state of Israel and its self defensive activities in Gaza since October 7.

I will share the Court's reasoning for the warrants, and you alluded to it, quote, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least the eighth of October, until at least the 20th of May 2024. The court claims they found reasonable grounds that Netanyahu and Gallant, again, quote, bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others. The war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. That's the direct quote, obviously very hard to read.

And of course, AJC fundamentally rejects these claims, as do the United States and many, many leading international law and warfare experts. This is just a total and complete failure of justice.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So why should supporters of Israel stand firmly against this accusation, no matter what their political views are? In other words, if they're not fans of Netanyahu, but they are ardent supporters of Israel, why should they stand firm against this? 

Belle Yoeli:  

Yeah, it's an important question, and we have to be clear. I mean, the court has politicized this by sort of taking this unprecedented action. But this is not about political issues, it’s not about Netanyahu or Gallant. This is about the truth. This is about right and wrong, and the claims that are being made here are so outrageous and malicious. I mean, Israel is not intentionally starving Palestinian civilians or committing crimes. It just doesn't make sense. 

If it were, it would not be facilitating tons and tons of aid into the Gaza Strip every day, not to mention polio vaccines. I mean, the list goes on and on. Israel, like any other country, is defending itself, and not just in Gaza against Hamas, but on seven fronts, including Hezbollah and Lebanon, against Iranian proxies. 

And look, we've said it from the beginning, since Israel responded in this self defensive way, and we'll say it again: civilians die in war, and that is a terrible, horrible thing. But Israel is fighting its war in Gaza in response to Hamas' actions on October 7. It's about bringing the hostages home and preventing the ability of Hamas to attack Israeli civilians.

And it's been said by many experts that Israel is conducting itself in this war in an unprecedented manner, in a positive way. And I know that's hard for people to grasp, because, again, people have died, Palestinians have died, and, yes, civilians have died, and that's terrible. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Israel is trying to prevent civilian death and why it's fighting this war, and none of that has to do with intentionally harming civilians.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So I want to back up here and talk about who is actually pressing these charges, who is actually issuing these warrants and making these accusations in this case. For people who may not be familiar or they may be confused between the International Criminal Court and another international court, the International Court of Justice, which has a separate case against Israel and is connected to the United Nations. So what is the International Criminal Court? How is it different than the ICJ?

Belle Yoeli:  

So you mean, not everybody is a legal scholar? It’s quite confusing, and I'm grateful for my colleagues who have really helped us try to explain this to everyone, and I'll try to break it down for you as simply as I can. So the ICC is an independent, international judicial tribunal. It's based in the Hague, and it was created in 2002 by the Rome Statute. 

And that's a treaty that essentially spells out what crimes this specific body, the ICC, should investigate and adjudicate when it can. And the ICC’s jurisdiction is essentially that it can prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression. That's four categories. 

And it's allowed to prosecute not just state actors, but also non-state actors. And when you think about the ICC, as colleagues have explained to me, you really are supposed to think about it as a court of last resort. So when you think about national legal systems, and respecting the right that sovereign states have their own courts and that should be respected, the ICC would step in when an important crime or a crime did not get prosecuted.

That's what this body is meant for, and again, trying to respect sovereign states. Now, by contrast, the ICJ is the judicial arm of the UN, the United Nations, and the ICJ is supposed to settle legal disputes between states, and it also can issue opinions upon requests by UN entities. So there are two different bodies, two very different purposes.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So is Israel a member of the ICC?

Belle Yoeli:  

So Israel is not a member of the ICC. And this is actually sort of interesting. Israel was involved in drafting the Rome Statute that I mentioned, that created the ICC, that treaty. But things got a little complicated, which is not so surprising when you hear why. Essentially, the ICC, as we discussed, was intended to focus on these most heinous crimes, right? 

But eventually the entity was urged by several Arab countries, and the majority of the countries that are party to the ICC agreed, to add as one of the categories of things that can be investigated and prosecuted, the transfer of civilians into occupied territory. And so if you hear that, I'm sure a ping goes off, obviously based on Israel and its situation and dynamics in the region. Israel took this as a sign that countries were aiming to distort the purpose of the body and really to try to just prosecute Israelis for actions in the West Bank, for example. So it ended up refraining from joining.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So now, countries cannot be prosecuted by the ICC, right? I mean, I understand that Israel as a country can't be prosecuted, but Israelis can be, and that's why the warrants issued named Netanyahu and Gallant.

Belle Yoeli:  

So technically, the body is supposed to go after individuals. But the question here, of the warrants is about jurisdiction, right? And clearly there's a disagreement. The Israelis, the United States and others have said that the ICC has no jurisdiction over, you know, for the warrants they've issued. And AJC agrees. 

The Palestinians and actually, the court itself have said that it's based on certain technicalities which are actually quite complicated, and you can read about in our explainer on our website about this subject, that there is jurisdiction. But for me, the thing that is most clear here is that as we reference, Israel has a strong, independent judiciary, and even when it comes to the conflict. Most recent conflicts is October 7, Israel's own military Advocate General has in fact, opened dozens of investigations into incidents. 

So when you consider the fact that Israel has a mechanism for investigating things that are happening in Gaza, that in itself, should tell everyone that the ICC has no jurisdiction here based on its own treaty. So yes, these warrants were issued, but from our perspective, there's really no jurisdiction.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Okay, so would you say the fog of war makes this almost impossible to adjudicate, or is this, in your eyes, an open and shut case? Is it abundantly clear that Israeli leaders have avoided committing these crimes they're accused of?

Belle Yoeli:  

So, I mean, to me, it's open and shut for a few reasons, right? We've mentioned them. One, the ICC has no jurisdiction. Two, the claims are, of the crimes are, are false and really offensive. And, you know, there is, of course, this phrase, the fog of war, and there's always fog in war. But this is really not what it's about. The travesty in all of this is that Israel does so much in an unprecedented environment that shows that the claims that are being made are untrue. 

So, yes, the technicalities, yes, there's no jurisdiction. The claims are offensive. But it's more than that. This is so clearly being politicized, because, yes, people are upset about what's happening and the conflict, and we understand that the entire world is reacting, but it's just not true. It's just about truth here, and what the court is suggesting is simply not true, and really targeting Israel in a way that is against justice and is really unheard of.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So here in America, we are amid a leadership transition. Has the response differed between the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration?

Belle Yoeli:  

So from what we've seen so far, I mean, the Biden administration and incoming administration officials from the Trump administration have both spoken out and both rejected the decision outright. You'll see, and I think we'll see in the coming days, there are differences of opinion also in Congress about how to deal with this action. And this been, this has been in conversation, you know, discussion for months when this was first raised, that this could possibly happen, questions around sanctions and different actions that can be taken. But I think we'll know a lot more about concrete potential proposals and next steps in the coming days.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And what about the international community?

Belle Yoeli:  

You know, it’s interesting, at this point, when we're as of this recording, the international response has actually been quite muted, and I think that's because countries are trying to balance upholding the respect for the court and the idea of the court and its jurisdiction with this really outrageous decision that I think many of them know is is false and wrong and has really bad implications for what the court is meant to do.

You know, some have been quite clear. Just to name a few, Argentina and Paraguay spoke out forcefully. Some responses have been a bit more murky. I think, trying to thread that needle that I mentioned, like the United Kingdom had a pretty murky response. And actually, the EU high representative who's thankfully on his way out, Joseph Burrell, really fully embraced the decision in a sort of grotesque way. But this isn't new for him. He's fairly problematic on these types of issues. So we'll see how other countries react. You know, more things are in play, and I'm sure Israel and the United States are having close conversations with allies. I think the US even alluded to that, and we'll have a better sense of what's to come soon.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And so what does this mean for Israel and for the ongoing Israel-Hamas war?

Belle Yoeli:  

I mean, I don't have a crystal ball. I can say, look, it remains to be seen what will happen next. I think countries who are party to the ICC need to do the right thing. They need to reject the jurisdiction and really refuse to enforce the warrants. That's the most important piece here. That's what we're hoping to see. 

I think we'll see that international pressure likely be applied by the United States and others. But the bigger picture here, I mean, again, it speaks to the travesty that I spoke about before. It's this larger attempt to delegitimize Israel and really discredit and slander Israel, I would even go so far to say, is just unjust, and it fuels all of the disinformation that we're seeing. 

And what does that lead to? It leads to hate. It leads to hate against Israelis, and let's be honest, it puts Jews around the world at risk at a time when there's already surging antisemitism. This isn't new. Look at what happened in Amsterdam. 

So more broadly, this just, this hits. This is an issue and so problematic in so many ways, and it just, it does so much harm and the ideals of democracy and the ideas of justice, it's really unprecedented and unforgivable.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Do you think it gets in the way of bringing the hostages home?

Belle Yoeli:  

Unfortunately, the reality is that it's been difficult enough as it is to bring the hostages home, and we just haven't seen movement in negotiations. And obviously we're praying for that every day. I couldn't tell you how this will impact that. I don't, I don't see an immediate connection. I think, look, we need to be clear that every action like this contributes to a feeling in Israel of already, sort of, as they say in conflict negotiation or resolution speak. like a siege mentality, right? Israelis feel under attack. The government likely feels under attack, and so it certainly doesn't help when Israel is trying to defend itself, to carry out war and to bring the hostages home, it certainly doesn't help, but how it will affect actual negotiations, I couldn’t say.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Belle, thank you so much for sharing your insights and trying to explain this to our listeners.

Belle Yoeli:  

Thank you so much for having me.

 

 

From Marco Rubio to Elise Stefanik: who are the nominations that President-elect Trump has announced, and what does their selection say about how the administration may take shape? Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs reviews the names announced thus far, how, if confirmed, they could impact efforts to counter antisemitism, support Israel, and uphold democratic values, and how AJC is advocating to advance these critical issues. 

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

• The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

• People of the Pod: 

  • What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People

  • The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know

  • Sinwar Eliminated: What Does This Mean for the 101 Hostages Still Held by Hamas?

Go Deeper – AJC Analysis:

• Explainer: What to Know About President-elect Trump on Antisemitism, Israel, and Iran Policy

• AJC Briefing — Post-Election Analysis: What to Expect Under the New U.S. Administration | Tuesday, November 19 | 1:30 p.m. Eastern | Register Here

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

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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

Transcript of Conversation with Julie Fishman Rayman:

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

President Elect Donald Trump has named and nominated eight of the 24 officials, including his chief of staff, most of whom would make up his cabinet. Returning to discuss the nominees so far and where they stand on AJC missions of fighting antisemitism, defending Israel and safeguarding democracy, is AJC Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, Julie Fishman Rayman. Julie, welcome back to People of the Pod.

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

Thanks for having me, Manya, glad to be here.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So you have worked with some of these nominees, and you know their track record on these issues. First of all, from a 30,000-40,000 foot view, what is your overall take on the slate so far?

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

I feel like if you had asked me that yesterday, I would have had a totally different answer. And so I imagine even by the time People of the {od airs, my answer maybe would have even changed, so I will answer, but I want everyone, including our listeners, to take it with a grain of salt that I am speaking from a very specific moment in tim while the clock is rapidly changing and the situation is rapidly changing. So I think the initial slate of potential nominees that were announced gave a lot of folks, especially in sort of the foreign policy world, a good deal of comfort, right? 

So people like Representative Mike Waltz, people like Senator Marco Rubio, those types of folks. Even Governor Huckabee, are sort of these, these names of traditional conservatives who we say, Oh, they have a record. They have governed. They have a voting record. We know exactly where they stand and what they believe, and that it's not vastly dissimilar from any other previous Republican administration. 

Then, of course, there was the news about the potential coming in of Matt Gaetz, representative, Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida and Tulsi Gabbard. And I think those names and what they represent put everyone in a bit of a tailspin. Not simply because of who they are, although they come with a lot of really interesting backstory that we can unpack, if you want to, but not just because of who they are, but because they represent a really different part of the Republican Party.

A really different part of the right wing world view that had not theretofore been represented in Trump's cabinet picks, definitely less of the traditional conservative mindset and much more in line with a, dare I say, like populist kind of perspective. And so there's tension now that people are trying to sort of understand and unravel.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So let's talk about each individual. And you mentioned Marco Rubio, who is Trump's nominee for Secretary of State, the Florida Senator. He currently serves on the Foreign Relations Committee. He's the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee. And I mean, he and the President Elect seem to agree on America's approach to Iran and Ukraine, but not NATO, right? I mean, where do he and Mr. Trump agree and disagree?

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

You're asking a question as though we have a full sense of what incoming president, former President Trump believes, which I think is a bit of an assumption. They're certainly deeply aligned on sort of big picture principles as they relate to support for Israel, no question. A tough, tough approach to whether it's an actor like Iran or China, you know, sort of these nefarious global players that seek to disrupt our world order, they're aligned there. There is a potential disconnect on Ukraine. Right? We've heard statements from Senator Rubio recently where you almost see him trying to channel the former president, the president-elect, and say, like, what would Trump say? What would Trump do? 

You can like, see the wheels spinning in his mind as he talks about how we have been funding a stalemate and how something needs to change. But I'm not sure that if you put them both in a room and ask them blindfolded, apart from each other, what to do about Ukraine, if you would get the same answer, I think there would probably be a good deal of daylight. 

And I think the same could be said about the future of NATO and others. But it all remains to be seen. And then, of course, also will have to be balanced with other forces that are coming into the administration, not least of which Senator JD Vance, colleague of Marco Rubio, who definitely comes with a different sort of world view.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And next on the list, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York, she has been nominated for the role of UN ambassador. We kind of know her as an outspoken supporter of Israel, given her high profile role in the congressional hearings about anti-Israel protests on college campuses after the Hamas terror attacks on October 7.

Those hearings actually led to the resignation of a couple of university presidents. How do you foresee that outspoken support playing out in the UN arena, or maybe even in the Trump administration's approach to higher education?

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

In terms of the UN and antisemitism, there will be a lot of very vocal, very strident affirmations that antisemitism is not something that the US will abide. That same sort of force that Congresswoman Stefanik brought to the Education Committee, she will bring to the UN and she won't take any bones about it, and she's not going to sit down to anybody. 

Of that we can be sure what that looks like, though, beyond pontification, beyond promulgations of support for the Jewish community across the globe, remains to be seen. Right? How will she engage in a UN that she certainly will perceive to be at least biased towards Israel and possibly antisemitic at its core. Right? We can make that assumption on her world view. 

How will she seek to engage with a system that she presumably views as fundamentally flawed? We know that a Republican House and Senate are already sort of gearing up towards cutting funding of major UN institutions, if not the UN across the board. So what does that mean for her role? What does that mean for the voice that the United States will have and the ability for her very strong voice, to even be at the table, and that's sort of where some of that tension arrives is also, do you get in the room? Do you get the seat at the table? Or are you on the menu? Right? The United States is never going to be on the menu, but are we going to, by virtue of our own sort of principles, going to push our seat back in and stand in the hallway. There's a lot of calculi that she's going to have to make there.

In terms of the Department of Education and Congress and how they're dealing with these really important issues that that Congresswoman Stefanik has put at the fore for so long, there's no question that the threat of pulling federal funding that we've heard from the Biden administration repeatedly will be more believed under a future Trump administration. I think there are universities all over the country that already are saying, oh, like, what do we have to do? We don't want to get caught in these crosshairs. What do we need to do to make sure that we are not either under fire with the light shining on us or on the chopping block for federal funding? 

So if you're an educational institution that really believes that there is a true threat that you're to your federal funding, you're reconsidering a lot of steps. And if in fact, federal funding is leveraged or cut, I think we have to be really mindful of three things. One, we have to make sure that it doesn't look as though the Jews are behind this crushing blow, because that's scapegoating.

And we have to make sure that shuttering these major academic institutions doesn't foreclose the creation, the necessary creation, of future American doctors and engineers and others. And finally, we have to make sure that we're not creating a void in funding that could really easily be filled by foreign actors that are already known to use university funding to advance a particular ideology, to advance their own interests.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I want to go back to another name you mentioned at the top, and that is the Florida congressman, Michael Waltz. He has been named as National Security Advisor to head up the National Security Council, and he has been a huge champion of the Abraham accords. So what can we expect to see from him if he indeed does take this post.

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

So one of the things that I think is really interesting about, you know, looking back on the last trump administration, while we sort of forecast for the next, is that the National Security Council, this body that Mike Waltz will lead, was always the brain trust for him in the previous administration.

Of course, there was the State Department. It was filled, it was supported. But generally, I think he thought of the State Department as a place of a foreign policy bureaucracy, where passports got stamped, that kind of, step by step, day by day, keeping the wheels turning, but not where real change happened. 

So if we're, you know, we're talking about Marco Rubio at State, we're talking about Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, I think we really need to sort of dig into what's Waltz gonna bring. And of course, like, as you said, Manya deeply supportive of Abraham Accords, very hawkish when it comes to China, and very, very embedded in the military establishment himself, right? He's not the DoD pick, but he's a Green Beret vet. He served in Afghanistan, he served in the Middle East. He served in Africa. In addition to being on the foreign affairs committee and Congress, he was on the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, if there are, if there's a trifecta of committees that someone could serve on to be as informed and at sort of the pinnacle of information about what's going on in this world, it's those three committees.

Ukraine is the big question mark here. He's criticized aid to Ukraine, and has talked about getting Putin to the negotiating table, getting a diplomatic solution, or some sort of settlement to this war. And that I think remains this major looming question for a lot of folks about, as we're looking at these various picks whose voice is going to win here. Or, you know, if we're channeling the last Trump administration again, who's going to be the last person in his ear before he goes and makes a major announcement.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You mentioned DoD. Let's talk about President Elect Trump's DoD pick. Fox News anchor Pete hegseth, he is a retired US Army Major. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a surprising pick to head the Department of Defense. 

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

It's interesting that you asked that question, because I think for folks who just think of him as a, you know, the guy on the Fox News couch, everyone who I've talked to who really knows Pete Hegseth and really is engaged with him for a long time, they they're not surprised, and they say, Oh, that does make sense. I don't know how much we can anticipate his fox views translating into a DoD cabinet pick. I don't really know how to manage that, right? He's talked about, like the Joint Chiefs, for example, in sort of a disparaging way. 

So, he's definitely one of these picks that you know shows the future President's desire to be at the vanguard, right? He wants to shake things up. He wants to keep people on their toes. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Okay, so now let's move on to some of the names you mentioned that are curious, curious choice. Other curious choices. Former Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, she has been nominated to serve as Trump's chief intelligence advisor, the Director of National Intelligence. That would mean she would be responsible for overseeing 18 spy agencies and keeping the President informed of the nation's international intelligence as anti semitism rises around the world, incidents like what we saw in Amsterdam this past weekend continue to flare up. Do you foresee her prioritizing that kind of news for the president elect?

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

This is a position that has to be confirmed by the Senate, and it's not, I think, a slam dunk in a lot of ways. She's not always been a Republican. She certainly hasn't always been a Trumpist Republican. She had a major leadership role in the Democratic Party for quite some time. She was the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, and not rank and file, she resigned from that position to endorse Bernie Sanders in 2016 she supported the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran deal that many Democrats broke with the administration to oppose that. AJC opposed, I think that there's a lot of baggage that she brings, and not personal baggage, but policy baggage that might make it very, very difficult for her to make the step through that confirmation process, and someone very smart said that'll be the test. Maybe I'll give him credit. Josh Kraushauer, the editor of Jewish insider, said this will be the test for how Senate leadership is going to respond to the calls from President Trump.

You know, if they're able to just sort of if Senator Thune, in this new role that he has just received is able to push through the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard, then we can expect a lot of confirmations legislation Trump desires to move through the Senate. If she gets a little bit held up. If it's not as easy, then we can anticipate just a little bit more gridlock, as much gridlock as one could expect from one party control of the House, Senate and the White House. But a little bit more of a pushback. It'll be a real test.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

She is nominated to be his chief intelligence advisor, and yet she has posted blatantly false propaganda on her social media channels. And people know that, people have called her out for that. Is that concerning?

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

I think it's deeply concerning whenever anyone puts out blatantly false propaganda, particularly that which emanates from Russia, that is problematic at any level of elected official, appointed official, period. We need to constantly, as a society and as a nation, be on fierce guard against that, because it is real and it is pervasive. I anticipate that, you know, when the confirmation hearings are up, there's going to be a lot of questions about, you know, what has she posted, where is she getting her information, and from whom does she rely on for real, authoritative information that is truthful?

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So another name that you mentioned at the top of the conversation, and that is Congressman, well now former Congressman Matt Gaetz from Florida, since he resigned immediately after his nomination for attorney general. He was one of, I think, 21 republicans who voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act in May, saying he couldn't support a definition of antisemitism that labeled claims of Jews killing Jesus as antisemitic. I think Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel might have had some choice words for him, if he is indeed, if he indeed progresses through this process toward Attorney General, what could we see from him? What can we see, period, of this whole process?

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

So first off, I just, I want to speak a little bit about it was sort of him in his record, because I think that it's important for our community to to be refreshed about exactly who Matt Gaetz is it there were a number of Republicans who voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act because they did not think that it was appropriate for there to be a law that says the Jews didn't kill Jesus. This is, of course, like a sort of gross mischaracterization of what the international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti semitism says and purports to do. But he wasn't alone. And it was, it was very interesting to see how this, this sort of trope that I think a lot of us thought was over about the Jews killing Jesus. You know, Nostra Aetate was in the 70s, right? So we thought that this was done and behind us. But to hear, particularly from the evangelical set, that, okay, like, maybe the Jews didn't kill Jesus, or maybe they did. 

He also invited a Holocaust denier and a white supremacist to be his guest at the State of the Union later, he said, like, Oh, I didn't really know. But either he got terrible staffing or he knew, and he just didn't want to get caught. He's deeply, deeply scandal ridden, without question. And he, you know, is constantly defending Marjorie Taylor Green, who, you know, compared the COVID mask laws to, you know, the Holocaust and things like that. He called the ADL racist. He is not representative of any stream, really, within the Republican Party. He is emblematic of the most populist of the populace, the most MAGA of the MAGA. So we should remember who he is, first and foremost. 

Beyond that, I cannot imagine an America that would confirm him as Attorney General. I’m a congressist by heart. I believe that Congress does the right things, if given enough time to do so, and I cannot believe that they'll let this one go through. So forgive my rant. I think it needs to be said about him. But in terms of, you know, who are we watching, and what do we think is going to happen in the long term? I don't think there's a long term there.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Let's talk about another pick, and that is his pick for Homeland Security, who I don't think is so outlandish, and that is South Dakota Governor Christie gnomes. She could play a really vital role in his immigration the proposal that he's made for the immigration system. She has been a strong ally of AJC in the past. 

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

Yes, she has. When she signed North South Dakota's bill, um on the international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, working definition of antisemitism, when she signed into law, AJC was there. She's been outspoken about anti semitism, and has consistently, sort of done, she's done the right things there. That being said, South Dakota has a very small Jewish population. So it's not, the same as if she were the governor of New York or Florida or even California that has major Jewish populations that are constantly calling with various, you know, security needs or something like that. So she's been there when she's needed to be there.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And I know South Dakota is not a border state, but didn't she send army reserves to the border to help Texas Governor Greg Abbott, at one point?

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

She has. A lot of Republican governors sort of backed Abbott in that way. I think that her crew in the governors, in the Republican Governors Association, etc, will be much aligned with the incoming administration. And of course, you know, that's why she's picked.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

We also have the choice of John Ratliff, who Trump has named as a potential CIA director. And you know, technically, CIA director is the person who's nominated as head of intelligence is the CIA director's boss, and so he was the former director or chief intelligence advisor. So in a way, it's kind of a demotion. However, what I've read is President elect Trump believes that the CIA director is actually more important. So what are we looking at here? Are we looking at a smoother confirmation process for the CIA director, perhaps, and are we looking at kind of an elevation of that job? 

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

I think we can probably assume it's an elevation, and in the same way that we talked about the previous Trump administration prioritizing the National Security Council almost above the State Department, I think we'll see that sort of shift in alignment, the CIA being sort of the new center of gravity, if it wasn't already within the the intelligence community. So I think that we probably will see him playing a much more dominant role. That being said, I think America has always held this deep fascination with CIA directors, FBI directors. They always, because of the really interesting and critical roles they play, they always sort of punch above their weight in terms of, you know, how much are they on TV? How much are people watching what they're saying and what they're doing? So I think that we can absolutely anticipate that. And you know, he has some skeletons in his closet, but I don't think that there's anything that will prohibit or impede his nomination for that role.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And as a religion reporter, I found the naming of former Governor Mike Huckabee as the ambassador, a potential ambassador to Israel, to be very interesting, given that he is an evangelical Christian, a Baptist pastor. Aren't too many non-Jewish ambassadors to Israel. There have been some, but not too many. And I thought that this was a really interesting selection. What can we see or expect to see from that choice?

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

You know, part of me kind of loves this for America. I think there's, Governor Huckabee has always been a stalwart supporter of Israel, without question, deeply, deeply supportive. There are questions about, what is he going to do with regard to like, the question of settlements or annexation and things like that. And and I think we're going to have to be watching that very, very closely. 

But if we're looking sort of at the macro level, the issue of Israel and America has become so polarized and in some ways so toxic, that this reminder that it's not just the Jews that care about Israel, I think, couldn't come at a better time. 

I do think that it's really interesting to now have someone going to sit at the embassy that President Trump moved to Jerusalem, who is not representing the Jewish community there, but representing the massive Evangelical community in the United States and even frankly, around the world.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Well, Julie, thank you so much for sharing your perspectives. As these names keep trickling out each day, many things are said, some important, some not so important. So I'm glad I appreciate you kind of focusing our audience on what matters to AJC, what matters to the Jewish community and for those who support Israel. So thank you so much. 

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

It's been my pleasure and many and if I can just say, as we conclude that the personalities take up a lot of space, they take up a lot of oxygen. But for AJC, we're always singularly focused on the policies, and we'll continue doing what we've been doing already for months, and that's reaching everyone who will have influence in this next administration, to advance our policy perspective, to share our agenda and to talk about what we think needs to form the policy priorities of the next administration. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Thank you so much, Julie.

Julie Fishman Rayman:  

Thank you.

 

Felice Gaer, esteemed Director of AJC’s Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, was an internationally respected human rights advocate who dedicated more than four decades to championing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enforcing international commitments to prevent severe human rights violations globally. On November 9, Felice passed away after a prolonged battle with metastatic breast cancer.

In honor of her legacy, we revisit her insightful conversation on People of the Pod, recorded last year during Women’s History Month and on International Women’s Day. As we remember and celebrate Felice's profound contributions, we share this interview once more. May her memory continue to be a blessing.

__

Music credits:

• Drops of Melting Snow (after Holst, Abroad as I was walking) by Axletree is licensed under a Attribution 4.0 International License.

Learn more about Felice Gaer:

• Felice Gaer, Legendary Human Rights Champion Who Inspired Generations of Global Advocates, Dies at 78

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

• The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

• People of the Pod: 

  • What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People

  • The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know

  • Sinwar Eliminated: What Does This Mean for the 101 Hostages Still Held by Hamas?

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

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Felice Gaer:

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

This past weekend, AJC lost a phenomenal colleague. Felice Gaer, the director of American Jewish Committee's Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, was an internationally renowned human rights expert who, for more than four decades, brought life and practical significance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international commitments, to prevent grave human rights abuses around the world. 

She died on November 9, following a lengthy battle with metastatic breast cancer. I had the honor of interviewing Felice last year during Women's History Month and on International Women's Day. 

We bring you that interview now, as we remember Felice. May her memory be for a blessing. 

_

Felice is with us now to discuss today's human rights challenges and the challenges she has faced as a woman in the Human Rights world. 

Felice, welcome to People of the Pod. 

Felice Gaer:  

Thank you, Manya.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So let’s start with the beginning. Can you share with our listeners a little about your upbringing, and how Jewish values shaped what you do today?

Felice Gaer:  

Well, I had a fairly ordinary upbringing in a suburb of New York City that had a fairly high percentage of Jews living in it–Teaneck, New Jersey. I was shaped by all the usual things in a Jewish home. First of all, the holidays. Secondly, the values, Jewish values, and awareness, a profound awareness of Jewish history, the history of annihilation, expulsion, discrimination, violence. But also the Jewish values of universality, respect for all human life, equality before the law, sense of realism, sense that you can change your life by what you do, and the choices that you make. These are all core Jewish values. And I guess I always have found the three part expression by Rabbi Hillel to sum up the approach I've always taken to human rights and most other things in life. He said, If I'm not for myself, who will be, and if I'm only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? So that's a sense of Jewish particularism, Jewish universalism, and realism, as well.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You went to Wellesley, class of 1968, it's an all-women's college. Was there a strong Jewish presence on campus there at a time? And did that part of your identity even play a role in your college experience? 

Felice Gaer : 

Well, I left, as I said, a town that had a fairly sizable Jewish population. And I went to Wellesley and I felt like I was in another world. And so even as long ago as 1964-65, that era, I actually reached out to Hillel and participated in very minor activities that took place, usually a Friday night dinner, or something like that. But it really didn't play a role except by making me recognize that I was a member of a very small minority.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Here on this podcast, we've talked a lot about the movement to free Soviet Jewry. As you pursued graduate work at Columbia, and also during your undergrad days at Wellesley, were you involved in that movement at all?

Felice Gaer:  

Well, I had great interest in Russian studies, and in my years at Wellesley, the Soviet Union movement was at a very nascent stage. And I remember arguments with the Soviet Ambassador coming to the campus and our specialist on Russian history, arguing about whether this concern about the treatment of Soviet Jews was a valid concern. 

The professor, who happened to have been Jewish, by the way, argued that Jews in the Soviet Union were treated badly, but so was everybody else in the Soviet Union. And it really wasn't something that one needed to focus on especially. As I left Wellesley and went to Columbia, where I studied political science and was at the Russian Institute, now the Harriman Institute, I found that the treatment of Soviet Jews was different in many ways, and the capacity to do something about it was serious. 

We knew people who had relatives, we knew people who wanted to leave. The whole Soviet Union movement was focused around the desire to leave the country–not to change it–that was an explicit decision of Jewish leaders around the world, and in the Soviet Union itself. And so the desire to leave was something you could realize, document the cases, bring the names forward, and engage American officials in a way that the Jewish community had never done before with cases and examples demanding that every place you went, every negotiation that took place, was accompanied by lists of names and cases, whose plight will be brought to the attention of the authorities. And that really mobilized people, including people like me. 

I also worked to focus on the agenda of internal change in the Soviet Union. And that meant also looking at other human rights issues. Why and how freedom of religion or belief was suppressed in this militantly atheist state, why and how freedom of expression, freedom of association, and just about every other right, was really severely limited. And what the international standards were at that time. After I left Columbia, that was around the time that the famous manifesto from Andrei Sakharov, the world famous physicist, Nobel Prize winner, was made public. It was around the time that other kinds of dissident materials were becoming better known about life inside the Soviet Union post-Khrushchev.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So you left Colombia with a master's degree, the Cold War ends, and you take a job at the Ford Foundation that has you traveling all around Eastern Europe, looking to end human rights abuses, assessing the challenges that face that region. I want to ask you about the treatment of women, and what you witnessed about the mistreatment of women in these regions. And does that tend to be a common denominator around the world when you assess human rights abuses?

Felice Gaer:  

Well, there's no question that the treatment of women is different than the treatment of men. And it's true all over the world. But when I traveled in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the height of those years, height of the Cold War, and so forth, the issues of women's rights actually weren't one of the top issues on the agenda because the Soviet Union and East European countries appeared to be doing more for women than the Western countries. 

They had them in governance. They had them in the parliament. They purported to support equality for women. It took some years for Soviet feminists, dissidents, to find a voice and to begin to point out all the ways in which they were treated in the same condescending, patriarchal style as elsewhere. But in those years, that was not a big issue in the air. 

It was unusual for me, a 20-something year old woman from the United States to be traveling around Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, meeting with high officials and others, and on behalf of the Ford Foundation, trying to develop programming that would involve people to people contacts, that would involve developing programs where there was common expertise, like management training, and things of that sort. And I was really an odd, odd duck in that situation, and I felt it.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I mentioned in my introduction, the Beijing World Conference on Women, can you reflect a little on what had a lasting impact there?

Felice Gaer:  

Well, the Beijing World Conference on Women was the largest, and remains the largest conference that the United Nations has ever organized. There were over 35,000 women there, about 17,000 at the intergovernmental conference. I was on the US delegation there. 

The simple statement that women's rights are human rights may seem hackneyed today. But when that was affirmed in the 1995 Beijing Outcome Document, it was a major political and conceptual breakthrough. It was largely focused on getting the UN to accept that the rights of women were actually international human rights and that they weren't something different. They weren't private, or outside the reach of investigators and human rights bodies. It was an inclusive statement, and it was a mind altering statement in the women's rights movement. 

It not only reaffirmed that women's rights are human rights, but it went further in addressing the problems facing women in the language of human rights. 

The earlier world conferences on women talked about equality, but they didn't identify violations of those rights. They didn't demand accountability of those rights. And they said absolutely nothing about creating mechanisms by which you could monitor, review, and hold people accountable, which is the rights paradigm. Beijing changed all that. It was a violations approach that was quite different from anything that existed before that.

Manya Brachear Pashman : 

Did anything get forgotten? We talked about what had a lasting impact, but what seems to have been forgotten or have fallen to the wayside?

Felice Gaer:  

Oh, I think it's just the opposite. I think the things that were in the Beijing conference have become Fuller and addressed in greater detail and are more commonly part of what goes on in the international discourse on women's rights and the status of women in public life. And certainly at the international level that's the case. 

I'll give you just one example, the Convention Against Torture. I mean, when I became a member of the committee, the 10 person committee, I was the only woman. The committee really had, in 11 years, it had maybe said, four or five things about the treatment of women. And the way that torture, ill treatment, inhuman, degrading treatment may affect women. 

It looked at the world through the eyes of male prisoners in detention. And it didn't look at the world through the eyes of women who suffer private violence, gender based violence, that is that the state looks away from and ignores and therefore sanctions, and to a certain extent endorses. 

And it didn't identify the kinds of things that affect women, including women who are imprisoned, and why and where in many parts of the world. What one does in terms of education or dress or behavior may lead you into a situation where you're being abused, either in a prison or outside of prison. These are issues that are now part of the regular review, for example, at the Committee Against Torture, issues of of trafficking, issues of gender based violence, the Sharia law, the hudud punishments of whipping and stoning, are part of the concern of the committee, which they weren't before.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

In other words, having that woman's perspective, having your perspective on that committee was really important and really changed and broadened the discussion.

Felice Gaer:  

Absolutely. When I first joined the committee, the first session I was at, we had a review of China. And so I very politely asked a question about the violence and coercion associated with the population policy in China, as you know, forced abortions and things of that sort. This was a question that had come up before the women's convention, the CEDAW, and I thought it was only appropriate that it also come up in the Committee Against Torture. 

In our discussion afterwards, the very stern chairman of the committee, a former constable, said to me, ‘You know, this might be of interest to you, Ms. Gaer, but this has nothing to do with the mandate of this committee.’

I explained to him why it did, in some detail. And when I finished pointing out all of those elements–including the fact that the people carried out these practices on the basis of state policy–when I finished, there was a silence. 

And the most senior person in the room, who had been involved in these issues for decades, said, ‘I'm quite certain we can accommodate Ms. Gaer’s concerns in the conclusions,’ and they did. 

That's the kind of thing that happens when you look at issues from a different perspective and raise them.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You talked about being an odd duck in your 20s, as a woman traveling around Eastern Europe, trying to address these challenges. I'm curious if that woman in her 20s would have been able to stand up to this committee like that, and give that thorough an explanation? Or did it take some years of experience, of witnessing these issues, perhaps being ignored? 

Felice Gaer: 

Well, I think as we go through life, you learn new things. And I learned new things along the way. I learned about the universal norms, I learned about how to apply them, how they had been applied, and how they hadn't been applied. And in that process, developed what I would say is a sharper way of looking at these issues. 

But the Bosnian conflict in particular, made the issue of gender based violence against women, especially in war, but not only in war, into a mainstream issue, and helped propel these issues, both inside the United Nations and outside, the awareness changed. 

I remember asking the International Red Cross representatives in Croatia, just across the border from Bosnia, if they had encountered any victims of gender based violence or rape, and they said, ‘No.’ And I said, ‘Did you ask them about these concerns?’ And they sort of looked down and looked embarrassed, looked at each other and looked back at me and said, ‘Oh.’ There were no words. There were no understandings of looking at the world this way.

And that has changed. That has changed dramatically today. I mean, if you look at the situation in Ukraine, the amount of gender based violence that has been documented is horrifying, just horrifying, but it's been documented.

Manya Brachear Pashman  

So is the world of human rights advocacy male-dominated, female-dominated, is it fairly balanced these days? And has that balance made the difference in what you're talking about?

Felice Gaer:  

You know, I wrote an article in 1988, the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, about why women's rights weren't being addressed. And one of the points I drew attention to was the fact that the heads of almost all the major organizations at the time were all male. And that it wasn't seen as a concern. A lot of that has changed. There's really a real variety of perspectives now that are brought to bear.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So we've talked a lot about the importance of [a] woman's perspective. Does a Jewish perspective matter as well?

Felice Gaer:  

Oh, on every issue on every issue and, you know, I worked a great deal on freedom of religion and belief, as an issue. That's a core issue of AJC, and it's a fundamental rights issue. And it struck me as surprising that with all the attention to freedom of religion, the concern about antisemitic acts was not being documented by mainstream human rights organizations. And it wasn't being documented by the UN experts on freedom of religion or belief either.

I drew this to the attention of Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, who was recently ending his term as Special Rapporteur on Freedom of religion or belief. And he was really very struck by this. And he went, and he did a little bit of research. And he found out that since computerized records had been prepared at the United Nations, that there had been no attention, no attention at all, to cases of alleged antisemitic incidents. And he began a project to record the kinds of problems that existed and to identify what could be done about it. We helped him in the sense that we organized a couple of colloquia, we brought people from all over the world together to talk about the dimensions of the problem and the documentation that they did, and the proposals that they had for addressing it. And he, as you may recall, wrote a brilliant report in 2019, setting out the problems of global antisemitism. And he followed that up in 2022, before leaving his position with what he called an action plan for combating anti semitism, which has concrete specific suggestions for all countries around the world as to what they can do to help combat antisemitism and antisemitic acts, including and to some extent, starting with adopting the working definition on antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, but also activities in in the area of education, training, training of law enforcement officials, documentation and public action. It’s a real contribution to the international discourse and to understanding that freedom of religion or belief belongs to everyone.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And do you believe that Dr. Shaheed’s report is being absorbed, comprehended by those that need to hear it that need to understand it?

Felice Gaer  

I've been delighted to see the way that the European Union has engaged with Dr. Shaheed and his report has developed standards and expectations for all 27 member states, and that other countries and other parts of the world have done the same. So yeah, I do think they're engaging with it. I hope there'll be a lot more because the problem has only grown.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

On the one year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, JBI issued a report that sounded the alarm on the widespread violations committed against Ukrainians, you mentioned the amount of gender based violence Since that has taken place, and the other just catastrophic consequences of this war. Felice, you've been on the front row of Eastern European affairs and human rights advocacy in that region. From your perspective, and I know this is a big question: How did this war happen?

Felice Gaer:  

I'll just start by saying: it didn't start in 2022. And if you have to look at what happened, the events of 2014, to understand the events of 2022. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, or even during the breakup, there was a period where the 15th constituent Union republics of the Soviet Union developed a greater national awareness, really, and some of them had been independent as some of them hadn't been, but they developed a much greater awareness. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the 15 countries, including Russia, as one of the 15, became independent entities. And aside from having more members in the United Nations and the Council of Europe and places like that, it led to much more robust activity, in terms of respecting human rights and other areas of endeavor in each of those countries. 

The situation in Russia, with a head of state who has been there, with one exception, a couple of years, for 20 years, has seen an angry desire to reestablish an empire. That's the only thing you can say really about it. 

If they can't dominate by having a pro-Russian group in charge in the country, then there have been invasions, there have been Russian forces, Russia-aligned forces sent to the different countries. So whether it's Georgia, or Moldova, or Ukraine, we've seen this pattern. 

And unfortunately, what happened in 2022, is the most egregious and I would say, blatant such example. In 2014, the Russians argued that it was local Russian speaking, little green men who were conducting hostilities in these places, or it was local people who wanted to realign with Russia, who were demanding changes, and so forth. But in the 2022 events, Russia's forces invaded, wearing Russian insignia and making it quite clear that this was a matter of state policy that they were pursuing, and that they weren't going to give up. 

And it's led to the tragic developments that we've all seen inside the country, and the horrific violence, the terrible, widespread human rights violations. And in war, we know that human rights violations are usually the worst. 

And so the one good spot on the horizon: the degree to which these abuses have been documented, it's unprecedented to have so much documentation so early in a conflict like this, which someday may lead to redress and accountability for those who perpetrated it. But right now, in the middle of these events, it's just a horror.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

What other human rights situations do we need to be taking more seriously now? And where has there been significant progress?

Felice Gaer:  

Well, I'll talk about the problem spots if I may for a minute. Everyone points to North Korea as the situation without parallel, that's what a UN Commission of Inquiry said, without parallel in the world. The situation in Iran? Well, you just need to watch what's happened to the protesters, the women and others who have protested over 500 people in the streets have died because of this. 15,000 people imprisoned, and Iran's prisons are known for ill treatment and torture. 

The situation in Afghanistan is atrocious. The activities of the Taliban, which they were known for in the 1990s are being brought back. They are normalizing discrimination, they are engaged in probably the most hardline gender discrimination we've seen anywhere where women can't work outside the home, girls can't be educated, political participation is denied. The constitution has been thrown out. All kinds of things. The latest is women can't go to parks, they can't go to university, and they can't work for NGOs. This continues. It's a major crisis. 

Well, there are other countries, from Belarus, to Sudan to Uzbekistan, and China, that we could also talk about at great length, lots of problems in the world, and not enough effort to expose them, address them and try to ameliorate them.

Manya Brachear Pashman  

So what do we do about that? What can our listeners do about that, when we hear this kind of grim report?

Felice Gaer:  

Work harder. Pay attention when you hear about rights issues. Support rights organizations. Take up cases. Seek redress. Be concerned about the victims. All these things need to be done.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I don't know how you maintain your composure and your cool, Felice, because you have faced so much in terms of challenges and push back. So thank you so much for all you have done for women, for the Jewish people, and for the world at large. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Felice Gaer:  

Thank you, Manya.

What do the results of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, a sweeping victory for President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, mean for the U.S. Jewish community and Israel? How did the Jewish community vote? What are the top takeaways from the Senate and the House elections? Get caught up on all the latest election data points and analysis in this week’s episode, featuring Ron Kampeas, JTA's Washington Bureau Chief and guest hosted by Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC’s Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs.

AJC is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization. AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.

AJC’s Policy Priorities:

• AJC Congratulates President-Elect Donald J. Trump

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

• The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

• People of the Pod: 

  • The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know

  • Sinwar Eliminated: What Does This Mean for the 101 Hostages Still Held by Hamas?

  • From Doña Gracia to Deborah Lipstadt: What Iconic Jewish Women Can Teach Us Today

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

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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

Transcript:

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

Hello, I'm Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC’s Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs. Today, I have the pleasure of guest hosting People of the Pod and speaking with Ron Kampeas, JTA’s Washington Bureau Chief, to discuss the results and the implications of the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

As the nonpartisan global advocacy organization for the Jewish people, AJC congratulates Donald J. Trump on his election as the 47th President of the United States, and Senator JD Vance as Vice President. AJC looks forward to working with the President-elect and his administration on the domestic and foreign policy concerns that are AJC advocacy priorities to learn more about our policy priorities for the incoming administration. Head to the link in our show notes.

As a reminder, AJC is a 501(c)3 non-partisan, not for profit organization. AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elected office. 

Ron, welcome to People of the Pod. Thank you for being here.

Ron Kampeas: 

Of course.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

Well, I'd like to start asking you if you have a sense about the Jewish vote, because there have been a number of different exit polls, which, I guess, not surprisingly, because exit polls are what they are, say vastly different things. There are some that say it's the biggest Jewish vote in support for a Democratic candidate ever, and then also the highest percentage ever for a Republican candidate. 

What do we know to be true? And what would you sort of be looking at in terms of, you know, as we're examining this moving forward, what are we looking for?

Ron Kampeas: 

So first of all, I know I've seen those very extreme assessments as well, and I know what they're based on, and even based on what they're based on, and we, I'll talk about that too, that's just not correct. So they're talking about a 79% turnout, according to a poll, the consortium of a number of organizations like CNN and the New York Times. And that poll is not reliable yet. 

It does show 79% and think 21%, in other words, an even split. Nobody seemed to have voted for, at least among the Jews, for third party candidates. And I'm not sure what number of Jews who were included in that poll were. I mean, it's a vast, vast poll. They do talk to a lot of people, but even they will say, and I think they put it on their things, that it's just preliminary.

The more reliable analysis is considered to be the one that came out of the Fox-AP analysis that showed 66%-67% for Harris, 32%-31% for Trump. And I think that's what the Trump people are talking about in terms of the highest for Republicans. It's just not the highest for a Republican. I think if you count in the margin of error, that's not even like recently the highest for a Republican. 

Nothing's changed in the last four years. I think what it is showing is that whereas Republicans, when I started at JTA in 2004 they were happy to get 25%. They've gone up from 19% with George W. Bush in 2020 to 25% with John Kerry a few years later. Now they can comfortably say they're getting about 30% of the Jewish community. People love to attach everything that happens to the very current politics of the day. So however you count it, nothing seems to have changed.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

So interesting, because for I think a lot of Jews around America, we feel as though so much has changed. But when you go to the voting booth, Jews consistently aren't necessarily thinking just about either Israel or antisemitism.

AJC does a survey looking at American Jewish opinion, not every year, but almost every year. And we did it in June, and asked questions about political affiliation. Who are you going to vote for? And one of the things that we asked was, what drives your vote? And foreign policy is always low down on the list.

On election night, CNN asked that same question, of course, to all Americans, and I think 4% said that their vote was driven by foreign policy. Has there been a moment where the American Jewish vote is more focused on issues that feel perhaps a bit more parochial?

Ron Kampeas: 

No. Certainly within the Orthodox subset, and it's always difficult to tell, because the smaller the subset, the bigger the margin of error. But when there's consistency over time and survey after survey after survey, I think you can conclude that, yes, Orthodox Jews do attach more importance to the U.S.-Israel relationship and how it's manifesting, how they're perceiving it. 

The only time that a Democrat, at least since FDR, I think, a Democrat, didn't receive a majority of the Jewish vote was Jimmy Carter, who, in 1980 got a plurality of the Jewish vote, I think, about 45%.

People sort of conflate things in their head. In his post-presidency, Carter became very identified with being very critical of Israel. And it's true, in 1980 he'd had difficult relationships with Menachem Begin, but he brokered the most important peace treaty in Israeli history. He saved a lot of lives. So I don't think people were feeling bad about Carter in 1980 because of Israel. 

I like to tell people, Jews are like everybody else. You know it's true that a majority of us vote for Democrats, and there are other subsets where, a majority vote for Republican more majority for Democrats. But we vote for the same reasons as everybody else. Our votes will get more enthusiastic for a Democrat on one circumstance, just like everybody else's will, or might get less enthusiastic just like everybody else's will. We're susceptible to the same things.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

It's really interesting. So at this moment, there's so much Monday morning quarterbacking happening, and I don't want to look too far in the rear view, but I do want to ask you for your take on this question of, would the result have been different had the Vice President selected Shapiro, Governor Shapiro from Pennsylvania, as her running mate?

Ron Kampeas: 

Maybe, it's hard to say. Vice presidents have had such a little impact on nominations. But on the other hand, Pennsylvania was close enough, and Shapiro is popular enough there that perhaps it might have made the difference. She might have had Pennsylvania, and then if she had Pennsylvania, I don't know, she would have gotten to 270. But you know, Nevada and Arizona are still being counted. They might still go in her column. 

If they do go in her column, although I don't think they will, I think it looks like they're going to go into Trump's column. If Nevada and Arizona go into her column and she missed out on Pennsylvania, you could say that her decision to go with Tim Walz instead of Josh Shapiro was fateful.

On the other hand, everybody's a cynic. Nobody actually believes anything anybody says. But I try to get away from that. I try not to be too much of a cynic. And when Josh Shapiro said afterwards that he had second thoughts about taking on VP, because he's like a hugely successful governor so far in Pennsylvania is this is two years into his first term. You know, if I'm Josh Shapiro, I'm thinking about my legacy, and I'm thinking about running for president in the future and two years, just, yeah, I'm not going to make an impact in Pennsylvania in just two years. 

If I'm the 60% governor who can get Republicans to vote for me in the middle of the state, I'm thinking two terms will make me like, well, you know, get me a statue in some building at one point. There's this whole narrative that there was an antisemitic pushback. It was an antisemitic pushback against Shapiro. It was anti-Israel at times. I really believe it did cross over antisemitism.

I'm not sure that that had the effect on the Harris campaign in terms of its decision making. She clicked with Tim Walz. Shapiro wasn't so eager. Shapiro was going to be a co-president. Walz wanted to be a vice president. He made that very clear. He had no intentions of ever running for the presidency. So if you're a Harris, do you want to have a Dan Quayle, or do you want to have a Dick Cheney kind of thing? You know as somebody who's prone to take over, or somebody who's prone to do what needs to be done to be vice president. And obviously she preferred the latter.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

It's a great analogy. Can we talk for a minute about sort of Jewish representation in Congress where Israel was on the ballot? What are your perceptions there?

Ron Kampeas: 

I think that it might have made a difference in NY-17th, where Mike Lawler defeated Mondair Jones. Mondair Jones was perceived when he first ran into 2020, and he was elected. He was perceived initially as somebody who would be very different from Nita Lowey, who he was replacing because she's a very solid, long time pro-Israel.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

And an AJC board member.

Ron Kampeas: 

And an AJC board member. He actually declared before she retired, so he was a little bit confrontational with her, which happens, obviously. I don't know if Israel came up in that equation, though. Young progressive people thought he'd be a squadder, but he wasn't. In his two years in Congress, he wasn't a member of the squad, and he went out of his way to align with the pro-Israel community, and this because it was so important in his district. 

But Lawler, he's been, he's a freshman, but he's been out front. He's been very good at cultivating the Jewish people in his district. And he's not just led on a number of Israel issues, but he's always made sure to do it in a bipartisan way, partnering with Jared Moskowitz in Florida, or Josh got him or in New Jersey, and you know, that might have helped him in the district. It was a close race. He won by a close margin. So I think maybe that was definitely a factor there. 

I think that one of the group's decision desk that declares winners just declared for Jackie Rosen in Nevada. She's been reelected, according to them, but we'll wait. We'll see if and when AP calls it. But again, a state with a substantial Jewish population, she is, like, one of the premier Democrats. She's Jewish, but she also is very, very upfront about Israel. She co-chairs an Antisemitism Task Force. She has a bill that would designate a domestic antisemitism coordinator. 

So in such a close race or such close margins with the Jewish community, that's actually much larger than the margin that might have helped put her over the top. On the other side, you know, you have Michigan, which might have also, like we looked at Pennsylvania and Josh Shapiro. 

Michigan also might have cost Kamala Harris the presidency because of her support for Israel, because, you know, President Trump managed to peel away Muslim American and Arab American voters in in Michigan, in a kind of a weird slight of hand, because he said that he would be more pro their issue than Kamala Harris was, even though he's more pro-Netanyahu, definitely than Kamala Harris is. But also, there were third party voters, people who voted for Jill Stein.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

Pretty significant numbers for Jill Stein, from Michigan.

Ron Kampeas: 

Pretty significant numbers for Jill Stein. But Elissa Slotkin got over the top. Very pro-Israel, centrist Democrat, Jewish. Very much a foreign policy, you know, specialist. She came out of the CIA and the Defense Department. Also very partisan. She was meeting with red constituents, like veterans, and she was doing a good job of it. She had that appeal. And I think that's why she ran for Senate. I think that's where Democrats are excited to have her run for Senate. And then October 7 happened, and she had to navigate a very difficult situation in her state, which has a substantial Jewish community, has an even bigger Muslim American and Arab American community. She had meetings with both leaders. She put out sensitive statements after the meetings.

I think one of the most interesting sort of developments with her is that Rashida Tlaib, the Palestinian American Congresswoman attacked Dana Nessel for prosecuting people who were violent, were allegedly violent at protests. She put out a statement that, without saying it was because Dana Nessel was Jewish, she was said that Dana Nessel had other sort of considerations when she brought these prosecutions. Dana Nessel outright accused her of antisemitism, and then Rashida Tlaib was the subject of a lot of Islamophobic, anti-Palestinian vitriol.

And it was interesting because there were two letters that went out at the time from Congress members. One condemning anything that insinuated that Dana Nessel had dual loyalties, or anything like that, and one condemning the anti-Islamic rhetoric that Rashida Tlaib faced, and the only person who signed both letters was Alyssa Slotkin. I thought that was interesting.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

I want to turn a little bit if we can, to the expectations for the next administration, even for the next Congress. When we last spoke, right after the Republican National Convention, JD Vance had been selected as the running mate, and you and I, we talked about what that means for a Trump foreign policy in the next administration. Will it go in a more isolationist direction, more aligning with JD Vance's worldview? What do you think now and what might we expect?

Ron Kampeas: 

That’s still a potential for sure, there are names being rooted about for Secretary of State. One of them is Rick Grinnell, who's completely a Trumpist, who will do what he wants, his former Acting CIA director. And the other is Marco Rubio, gave one of the best speeches at the convention, I thought, and who is very close to the pro-Israel community, who's an internationalist, but who has tailored his rhetoric to be more, to make sure he doesn't antagonize Donald Trump. He was, you know, he came close to being the vice presidential pick himself. 

I mean, if Marco Rubio becomes Secretary of State, I think that's a good sign for internationalists. I mean, you know, Israel has kind of a buffer, because the Republican Party is very pro-Israel. And there are people like JD Vance who say, you know, Israel is the exception when it comes to what I think about pulling the United States back from the world, even though he says it's not so much the exception. 

And then there are people like Marco Rubio who are internationalists. Does Marco Rubio get to run an independent foreign policy? That would be very good news, I think, for internationalists, if Donald Trump doesn't get in his way. But I don't know if that that happens.

 

There's a view of pro-Israelism that says internationalism is necessary. I always like to say when a AIPAC used to have its policy conferences, and it's a shame it doesn't any more, they would have a little brief talk before on Tuesday morning, before going up to the Hill, they would have, like, some prominent Senator come out and give a rah rah speech. And then like, three officials would come out on the stage, Howard Core, the late Richard Fishman, and Esther Kurz. And Esther Kurz had handled congressional relations, and they would talk about the three items they were bringing up the Hill, usually two laws in a letter or a resolution or something like that. 

And she would always say, and this was like the one moment like they would sort of reveal this. They'd be very candid about this. You have to push not for assistance for Israel, but foreign assistance generally, because there is no such thing as sort of singling out Israel and saying, Okay, we're going to take care of Israel, but nobody else in the world. That it's all interconnected.

And it's such a true thing now, because you can say, you know, let's just cut off Ukraine. But if you're cut off Ukraine, you're bolstering Putin. If you're bolstering Putin, you're bolstering somebody who has a substantial and military alliance with Iran. If you're bolstering Iran, that is not good for Israel. And it's kind of circuitous to get there, but it's also a very substantive point. I think those are the things the pro-Israel community is going to be looking at with genuine concern.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

Indeed, it's all about sort of the strength of the American global leadership regime. And when you start to whittle away at one, the overall package ends up being weaker. Speaking of Israel, I can't speak to you this week and not ask you about the news out of Israel, about Netanyahu firing the Defense Secretary Gallant and what that means. 

And also, if we can extrapolate, if we can prognosticate what might happen vis a vis Israel in this lame duck session, while we still have Biden as president, but moving through the transition towards a future Trump administration.

Ron Kampeas: 

Yeah, you know, there a lot of Israelis are actually worried about that. Like, Oh, Biden's gonna take his frustrations out on Bibi in the lame duck. Doesn't have anything stopping him. I don't think that's going to happen. 

I think what's interesting is, like, you had a couple of instances in American history where a lame duck president used the fact that he didn't care, you know, what anybody thought of him, to push something through. In 1988 Ronald Reagan recognized the PLO because it's something George H. W. Bush wanted him to do. George H. W. Bush wanted to push like more Israel Palestinian peace. 

He did with the Madrid Conference, but he didn't want to be the one to invite the PLO into the room, so he got Ronald Reagan to do it in his last two months in office. In 2016 Barack Obama allowed through a Security Council resolution that condemned the settlements. The United States didn't vote for it, but it also didn't veto it. That really kind of shook Israel up. But what was interesting. I've done the reporting on this. When he was taking advice, Should I, should we vote for the resolution? Should we veto it, or should we just allow it through? There were people voicing opinions on all sides. 

Joe Biden and Jack Lew, who was then the Treasury Secretary, is now the ambassador to Israel, both said, veto it. Don't let it through. Don't let it through because, partly because it's going to really upset our Jewish supporters, if you let it through. You're not going to be president anymore, but somebody in the room is going to probably try and be president. I think that Joe Biden still has that sense of responsibility. I could be wrong. 

You know, four years or a year of like, from his perspective, being very strongly supportive of Israel and not getting anything back from Bibi, from his perspective, might have changed his mind. Something might occur now. 

But the question is, like, you can tell Israel if they hit anything, but if they hit anything, if they elevate it at all, they're going to need US assistance. And Trump hasn't said he's going to give that. Biden has. Biden's proven he's going to give it. So you've got two months of a president who will, who will back up Israel with American might, and then you have a president who has isolationist tendencies and who doesn't want to get involved with wars for another four years.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

Is there anything else that you're hearing, perhaps, from the Israeli perspective, about Gallant’s departure, and what that signals?

Ron Kampeas: 

I think that Netanyahu, you know, he's just trying to keep his government intact. Gallant is very vocal in opposing or in supporting drafting the ultra orthodox, the Haredi orthodox. Netanyahu’s government relies on Haredi orthodox parties. So there's that. 

He's also facing a kind of spy scandal from his own circle. Just a weird, weird story. Somebody who's in his circle is alleged to have tried to help Netanyahu politically by leaking highly classified documents and altering them as well to foreign news outlets. The allegation is that whatever the guy's motivation was, he's actually put Israel at risk.

So Netanyahu is suddenly in a position of facing allegations that he put Israel at risk. Now, he's faced a lot of scandals in his time. Israelis have a high level of tolerance for people who are alleged to have skimmed off the top, alleged to have helped themselves, and that's what the scandals are about. 

They have no tolerance for anybody who puts Israel's security at risk. So if this comes back to Netanyahu, that could be more damage than than any other scandal that he's endured so far. And so notably, I think, you know, when he was firing Gallant, he said he accused Gallant of leaking information. Although, I mean, what he seemed to be referring to was Gallant didn't leak anything. Gallant openly said that he disagreed with Netanyahu on certain tactics, and that, you know Netanyahu is casting is putting Israel at risk.

Which is not to say that Netanyahu is necessarily going to be implicated by the scandal, but it's certainly not of a piece with leaking, actually classified documents that reveal methods and sources that can put Israel's intelligence gathering methods at risk.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

As always, there's so much more to the story, right?

Ron Kampeas: 

Yeah, yeah. There always is.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

Ron, we could probably talk for a very long time about the American elections and what's going on in Israel and the degrees of various scandals and how populations will take them, and what the future of our country in the region looks like. 

But I know that you're very busy, especially this week, and I just want to say how grateful we are that you always make time for AJC and for People of the Pod.

Ron Kampeas: 

Of course.

As election day nears, Republican nominee and former President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, are zeroing in on Pennsylvania, which has the largest Jewish community among the battleground states. Aaron Troodler, editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, breaks down what’s influencing Jewish voter sentiment in Pennsylvania, from economic and social issues to the U.S.-Israel relationship amid rising antisemitism and Israel’s defensive war against Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah. 

AJC is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization. AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

• The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

• People of the Pod: 

  • Sinwar Eliminated: What Does This Mean for the 101 Hostages Still Held by Hamas?

  • From Doña Gracia to Deborah Lipstadt: What Iconic Jewish Women Can Teach Us Today

  • The Nova Music Festival Survivor Saved by an 88-Year-Old Holocaust Survivor

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

You can reach us at: [email protected]

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Aaron Troodler:

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

It's the home stretch leading up to election day for the presidential campaigns of Republican nominee and former President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris. And both campaigns see Jewish voters in seven swing states as key to a potential victory. These seven swing states are swarming with canvassers, knocking on doors, handing out literature and engaging undecided voters in critical conversations. 

Joining us for a critical conversation about the Jewish vote in one of those swing states is Aaron Troodler, editor of The Philadelphia Exponent and The Washington Jewish Week. 

Aaron, welcome to People of the Pod.

Aaron Troodler:  

Thank you, Manya, it's a pleasure to be here.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Aaron, you live in the Philadelphia area and have your finger on the political pulse there. Everyone's talking about the impact of Pennsylvania's voters. What makes Pennsylvania so key? 

Aaron Troodler:  

So I think they're going to have a very significant influence. There are a lot of people saying these days that the path to the presidency runs through Pennsylvania, and I do think that there's a degree of truth to that. 

But in fact, I believe that the path to the presidency may very well run through the Jewish community, not just in Pennsylvania, but more specifically, in the greater Philadelphia area.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

How much of an influence are they going to have in this election?

Aaron Troodler:  

Ballpark, the Jewish population in Pennsylvania is estimated somewhere between 400,000, a little bit north of that figure. Of that 400,000 and change, it's estimated that approximately 300,000 or so are of voting age. And when you take into account that in 2020, Joe Biden beat then-President Donald Trump only by about 80,000 votes cast in Pennsylvania. 

And then, if you look back to 2016, Donald Trump won by only about 44,000 votes. We're talking about very slim margins here, and the outsized influence of the greater Jewish community is really going to shine through in this election.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Now, are you talking about Philadelphia city proper, or suburban Philadelphia? Is there a difference in how the two vote? 

Aaron Troodler:  

Great question, Manya, focusing primarily on suburban Pennsylvania. You have, for example, in 2019, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia–and I know this goes back five years, but it's the most recent data we have–did a population study, a community profile. And they looked at basically five counties, give or take, including Philadelphia County, which includes the city, but also 4 suburban counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery. 

And approximately at that point– again, dating back five years–but there are approximately 195,000 Jewish households at the time. And that number has grown over the past several years. I won't be able to really quantify it, because we don't have the actual data, but it's a significant number. 

And you know, when you take into account that Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District, which is represented by Madeleine Dean, it's mostly Montgomery County, which is suburban Philadelphia County. It's got the largest Jewish population in the state, in terms of congressional districts. It's very significant. 

And then the second largest is Pennsylvania's first congressional district, which is represented by Brian Fitzpatrick. And again, there are about 40,000 Jewish adults in that district. 54,000 or so, give or take, in the Montgomery County area. We're talking about big numbers. 

And I think what's happening now is just by virtue of where we are as a Jewish community, whether it be antisemitism, and being very cognizant of the frightening rise of antisemitism, whether it be on college campuses, city streets, social media platforms. People are very mindful of that, and rightfully so. 

And then when you throw into the equation the current situation involving Israel and the reverberations felt around the world just resulting from the Israel-Hamas war post-October 7, the Jewish community, I think, is mobilized now, perhaps even more than ever, to make their voices heard. And to do that, they would be going and voting and making their voices heard through their choices in the election.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You just mentioned the rise of antisemitism. What issues are guiding the Jewish vote? Because I know in years past, concerns about the economy have really steered the Jewish vote. Is that still true in the 2024 election?

Aaron Troodler:  

It's an interesting point you raise Manya, because I think historically, the Jewish community, and I'm over-generalizing by saying the Jewish community. Obviously, it’s comprised of several denominations who historically have had potentially different political leanings. But I think a lot of the domestic issues, whether it be the economy, reproductive rights, taxes, immigration, I mean, I think all these things are on people's radar screens. 

However, I think there is a particular emphasis now on Israel. I think that is front and center. I know historically in the Orthodox community, that has been the case. I think that has carried over to the conservative community, the reform community, other communities. And I think the survival of the Jewish state and the health and strength of the US-Israel relationship is paramount to Jewish voters. Not to the exclusion of the other issues that we're talking about on the domestic front. 

But I think people are viewing this election through a different lens, just by virtue of the circumstances that we're discussing, that our brethren in Israel are facing. And I think that is really informing people's votes, whether it be for Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. And that's a whole other conversation we could have, but I think that that really is front and center, maybe not the sole factor, but most certainly a primary factor. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So how does that translate? I mean, many believe that the Biden administration has been quite supportive of Israel. Others believe it has not been supportive enough.

Aaron Troodler:  

Right. Well, I think the answer depends on who you ask. I think there is a very strong case to be made that the Biden administration and Kamala Harris was obviously a pivotal part of that administration, has been supportive of Israel, and I think there's a lot of conversation that centers around President Biden's response and reaction to October 7, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attacks, and how he handled it at that time. I think on the other side of the equation you have people pointing to Donald Trump's presidency and saying, Hey, he perhaps might be the best president that the Jewish community, slash Israel, has ever had, just by virtue of some of the things he did while he was in office. 

I think this is all leading to a very spirited debate, a very robust conversation about people who feel very passionate, you know, A or B. And I don't know that there's all that much consensus. I think people that are supportive of Kamala Harris are adamant and positive that she will be best for Israel. And conversely, people who are on the other side of the coin and feel that Donald Trump is their chosen candidate are making the same choice for Donald Trump. 

So I don't know that there's a particular answer to that question, but I do firmly believe that that has become a defining issue for the Jewish community. And it's just remarkable to me that people, perhaps I'm over generalizing, you know, 50% of the population is saying, you know, she is absolutely, unquestionably, the best friend that we've had and will have, and then you have the same people saying similar things about Donald Trump. 

So it's hard to quantify, but I do think that it has really, really become pervasive, meaning the notion of Israel and the central role that is playing this election, it's absolutely pivotal. And people are, I think, are really making their choices on who to support based on their assessment of those issues. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Just to clarify, you said the same people are saying that about Trump. You meant the same percentage of people, right?

Aaron Troddler:  

Correct, give or take. The Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) has done a poll, and they found, you know, over 70% of the Jewish community is supporting Kamala Harris, as opposed to 20-25% for Donald Trump. You have polls, you have data from the Republican Jewish Coalition that shows that half the voters are supporting Donald Trump. These figures are bouncing around. I mean, obviously we've seen in the past polls definitely have value to them, but I think the real test, the real result, won't be really known until election day.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You mentioned denominational differences, but what about generational differences? Are younger Jewish voters leaning toward a particular candidate, or toward particular issues that are different than the ones that concern older voters?

Aaron Troodler:  

Great question. I'm personally not seeing it. I have young adult children, let's call them, who are invested in terms of who they're voting for. You have people that I encounter that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, perhaps in their golden years, who are very opinionated in terms of who they want to vote for. 

I think what's, you know, an interesting thing here, and again, it’s not really, I don't know if it's quantifiable by denomination. But I think another thing that is important to mention, Manya, is, you still have, I know we're only several days prior to election day. There's still a healthy amount of people that are, I think, truly undecided. I think a lot of people, particularly in the Jewish community, that I've spoken with and encountered, are really torn. 

In Pennsylvania we are getting an absolute barrage of campaign mail, TV ads, canvassers knocking on doors. There's a lot of that, particularly in the Philadelphia suburbs, and a good amount of those, again, I know they're targeting the Jewish community, focus on Israel and antisemitism. And you look at a piece of mail for one particular candidate, and it makes it sound like the other one is the devil.

And then flip the coin and it's the opposite for the other candidate. I think people are really trying to cut through the noise and get to the heart of the matter and make their own assessment. You can't really focus on the demographics in terms of age and whatnot. 

I think it's an across the board issue that people are focusing on. The people who are pro-Trump are pro-Trump, the people who are pro-Harris are pro-Harris, and then you have this whole sliver in the middle that I think are truly undecided. Even with the election looming large.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Is that just because they're getting conflicting messages, and they're just easily swayed one way or the other, and therefore they're torn, or are they waiting for something? Are they waiting for some deciding factor to reveal itself?

Aaron Troodler:  

I'm actually not sure if it's either. I don't know that they're waiting for something per se, because if they are, that quote, unquote thing may never come and they have to make a determination. I do feel that there are some in the Jewish community, and I think the Harris campaign has acknowledged this in events that they've had featuring the Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, who obviously is Jewish, who would become the first Jewish first spouse. 

But there's been an acknowledgement by renowned and well known surrogates of the Harris campaign that there are some reservations in the Jewish community. They're not giving credence to those hesitations that people might have, in terms of Kamala Harris and her position on Israel, or what that might look like. They're just acknowledging that it's there, and they recognize that they have to speak to that issue. 

I think on the flip side of the coin, you have people who are looking at Donald Trump, and say, oh he moved the embassy to Jerusalem, and he recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and he said that the settlements in the West Bank are not illegal, you know, per se under international law. And people are looking at those and they say, Wow, he did some great stuff. 

And then those same people may look at Donald Trump as a candidate and say, Is he the best person for our country? And that's a determination that they're trying to make, and I think are having a lot of trouble doing so just because of the different packed factors that are kind of pulling and tugging at them in different directions. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I want to go back to the Israel-Hamas war. What about that war are people thinking about when it comes to supporting a candidate? In other words, are they looking at the 101 hostages that are still in captivity, and what the candidates are saying, or how they're treating that situation? Or are they looking at humanitarian aid issues when it comes to Gaza? What are they looking at?

Aaron Troodler:  

Manya, I think they're looking at all of that, and I think that's all factoring into the equation and the decision making process. And this is where I believe the vice president might be at a little bit of a disadvantage, because she's a prominent member of the current administration, whereas Donald Trump is no longer the president at the moment.

And so they're looking at actions of the administration and parsing each move and each statement. And whether or not that moves the needle, I don't know. But I do think that she has a harder hurdle to overcome vis a vis those issues, because people are really looking at statements that she's made, whether it be about the humanitarian aid that you referred to reaching Gaza and the need for that to happen. People are looking to statements that the President, perhaps, has made relative to Israel and their response.

And on and off over the past year, there have been a number of times when, reportedly, the US has cautioned Israel or advised Israel not to proceed down a certain path. There's been talk about weapon shipments and delays and stuff of that nature. And I think all of those are issues that Kamala Harris has to contend with, just by virtue of association. 

And I think there's a lot of folks in the community saying, you know, what would a Harris presidency look like? You know, we know what a Trump presidency looks like vis a vis Israel. What would the Harris presidency look like? 

I will say, you know, the President, the Vice President, has seemingly been very supportive of Israel on the issue of antisemitism. Obviously, the National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism that was unveiled by this current administration was heralded by people as a very necessary move. And I know, obviously the Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, was intimately involved in that as well. 

All those things, I think, are factoring into people's decision making process. It's a very complicated decision for many people. And I think that's really something that the Vice President is, I think trying to work through. How does she carve out her own path, and what does that path look like?

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

How influential is Pennsylvania's Jewish Governor Josh Shapiro in this race?

Aaron Troodler:  

So the saga of Josh Shapiro is obviously well known at this point. He's a governor who wears his Judaism on his sleeve, very proud of it. Will often quote passages relating to Jewish thought. He talks openly about his Shabbat observances and celebrations with his family. And obviously he was seemingly, reportedly, on the cusp of the vice presidency. 

I think what's interesting about Josh Shapiro, aside from his religion, is that he's universally well liked, let's call it. I think his appeal throughout Pennsylvania, it does transcend party lines in many places, just by virtue of his approach to government, his commitment to bipartisanship, and how he's been as a governor. I think there's a lot of appeal.

I think the fact that he's become a primary surrogate for the Harris campaign across the country, quite frankly, but more particularly in Pennsylvania. I think people look at that, I think there's certainly a segment of the population that was definitely holding out hope that he might end up as the Vice President of the United States. But I think that you know his willingness to go out on the trail and to and to stump for Kamala Harris and to try and speak about her bona fides as a candidate, and her strengths and what she could do for the country and her vision.

I think people are taking note of that, particularly the Jewish community. Whether that will sway everybody to a particular candidate, I don't know. But I definitely do know that people are taking notice of it because people are speaking about it in a favorable way.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

What is he saying when he stumps for her? What is he saying to get out all those voters? 

Aaron Troodler:  

Well, he's trying to paint her as basically, not just the best choice, but the only choice. Obviously, he, I guess it's no secret. I don't think he's really a fan of Donald Trump, and I don't think he pulls any punches when it comes to that regard. But I think in Josh Shapiro's mind, the governor really firmly believes that the Vice President is the best person to lead this country forward. 

And I think when you when you factor in all the issues, for example, we talked about domestic issues at the outset of the conversation, when you look at all those issues, and you don't only make it about Israel, there's a thought that perhaps Kamala Harris is that person, and that's the message that Josh Shapiro’s trying to convey. 

You know, obviously Trump supporters look at that and shake their heads, because they don't buy into that. But I think in terms of the case that he's trying to make to the voters, particularly to Jewish voters, it is a compelling case, because he's a compelling messenger.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You talked about canvassers being all over Pennsylvania, especially the greater Philadelphia area. Can you paint a scene for our listeners? I mean, do you see teams of people walking the streets? Have people knocked on your doors, rung your doorbell? Tell me what kind of things you're seeing. What you see day to day in Greater Philadelphia.

Aaron Troodler:  

I think I can probably measure the amount of canvassers by the number of door hangers that have been left on my front door over the past several months. There's a huge effort. You have people coming from different states. All descending on Pennsylvania. And there is a particular emphasis on the Jewish community, particularly in suburban Philadelphia. 

I was covering an event for the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent a number of weeks ago, where Doug Emhoff came and was the featured speaker at a Get Out The Jewish [Vote] event in a Philadelphia suburb. Ben Stiller was there, the well known actor. Senator Ben Cardin, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, came up from Maryland. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the congresswoman from Florida, was there. 

It's a full blown effort on the part of both campaigns to try and cultivate the Jewish vote, try to generate more Jewish support. Both sides of the coin. I think you know, the Republican Jewish Coalition has put a very significant emphasis on this election, whether it be through ads, whether it be through surrogates, whether it be through the canvassers, they're everywhere. 

And I think I think it's good. I think it's not only does it underscore the importance of Philadelphia's Jewish community in in an election that literally has national implications, but it enables people. When somebody knocks on your door, if you answer the door, you can engage in a dialogue. Obviously they are slanted to a particular candidate, whether it be Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, and that's fine, but it gives voters who perhaps are still undecided at this point the opportunity to have a conversation with the folks who are knocking on their doors about the issues that are important to them. 

But I think just by virtue of the sheer number of canvassers who have been kind of traversing our neighborhoods over the past several weeks, I think it's indicative of the outsized role that Philadelphia's Jewish community’s playing in the presidential election.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You mentioned Governor Shapiro is kind of a surrogate for the Harris-Walz campaign. Does the Trump campaign have a surrogate in Pennsylvania or in the Philadelphia area?

Aaron Troodler:  

So they have people who are coming around. There's Peter Deutsch, who's a former congressman from Florida, who's a democratic congressman from Florida, came up to not just Pennsylvania, but the greater Philadelphia area, in particular, to spend several weeks. I know he was here over the Sukkot holiday. You know, they are bringing folks in because they're trying to make the case to people that look, you know, when it comes to the issues that you, the Jewish community, cares about, Donald Trump's your man. 

And they are doing that, and they're trying to do it in a way that will resonate with people. And we mentioned some high profile people on the Democratic side. You know there are people on the Republican side, whether it's Congressman Deutsch, other people are coming in. The RJC has been very active in the community recently. 

And in addition to official campaign surrogates, you know you have conversations happening in synagogues, you know, community institutions, where regular folks are conversing with one another. So each campaign, in addition to the, let's call them the official surrogates, you have these armies of unofficial surrogates who are talking with one another and trying to convince their peers to vote for a particular candidate.

And with all the holidays that we just had on the Jewish calendar, spent a lot of time in shul, in the synagogue, and there’s a lot of folks talking about the presidential election. And I'll tell you, quite frankly, there's no consensus. There are people that are absolutely pro-Trump, and they're people that are absolutely pro-Harris. And I think those folks are trying to impart to what's called the undecided people, their feelings about the campaign and their particular candidates. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I do want to clarify for listeners, Peter Deutsch should not be confused with Ted Deutch, AJC CEO, who has not been in Pennsylvania canvassing as a surrogate for either candidate. It's a different Deutsch.

But what about rabbis? How involved are rabbis getting into this campaign? How involved have they been in these conversations?

Aaron Troodler:  

So it's interesting. Whenever you broach the topic of politics from the pulpit, it becomes very tricky. Obviously, there’s 501(c)(3) status considerations and stuff of that nature that I think rabbis are always mindful of. So what they talk about from the pulpit and how they talk about it is usually done very carefully and deliberately. That all being said, there's no question that maybe, behind the scenes, let's call it, rabbis, have very distinct opinions about this. 

How that will sway congregants in their respective congregations, it's hard to know. But I do think, I think because rabbis have spent so much time over the past year, post-October 7, talking about these issues of Israel's security and survival and the things that we need to do to help Israel, this is just another step in that process. Obviously, the next President of the United States is going to play a pivotal role in Israel's future and Israel's security. 

The relationship between the US and Israel is paramount, and Israel depends heavily on the United States, whether it be for the military aid, strategic aid and cooperation. And on the other side of the coin, the United States relies on Israel for many national and security considerations. 

But I think because rabbis have spent so much time talking about that stuff, it's top of mind for everybody. It's at the forefront of all of our minds. And whether or not they get up from the pulpit and endorse a particular candidate, I’m not sure that's going to happen in most situations, but there's no question that rabbis are trying to convey to their congregants the importance of ensuring that Israel has a strong friend and ally in the White House.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Aaron, thank you so much for joining us and shedding a little light on what's going on in your neck of the woods. 

Aaron Troodler:  

Of course Manya, thank you so much for having me. It was a pleasure chatting with you. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for a conversation with AJC Jerusalem Director Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, and AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, Jason Isaacson, about the Israeli Defense Force’s elimination of Yahya Sinwar, the architect of the October 7 terror attacks.