Following the Trump administration's decision to revoke $400 million in federal funding over Columbia University's failure to protect Jewish students, the university announced sweeping policy changes. Meanwhile, the U.S. moved to deport former Columbia student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, accusing him of concealing his ties to UNRWA and participating in antisemitic campus protests. Dr. Laura Shaw Frank, Director of AJC’s Center for Education Advocacy, joins People of the Pod to discuss the delicate balance between combating antisemitism, safeguarding free speech, and ensuring campuses remain safe for all students.

___

Resources:

Leaders for Tomorrow: AJC’s Flagship Leadership Development Initiative for High School Students

AJC Supports Action on Antisemitism, Warns Against Overly Broad Funding Cuts

Guidance and Programs for Higher Education Spaces

The State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report 

AJC Statement on ICE Proceeding Against Mahmoud Khalil

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

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

-People of the Pod: 

• Spat On and Silenced: 2 Jewish Students on Fighting Campus Hate

• Meet the MIT Scientists Fighting Academic Boycotts of Israel

• Will Ireland Finally Stop Paying Lip Service When it Comes to Combating Antisemitism?

• Held Hostage in Gaza: A Mother’s Fight for Freedom and Justice

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

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Laura Shaw Frank:

Aaron Bregman:

Hi, this is Aaron Bregman, AJC's Director of High School Affairs. If you're the parent of a Jewish high school student, you've probably asked yourself, "How can I help my teen feel proud and prepared to lead in today's world?"

Well, that's exactly what AJC's Leaders for Tomorrow program, or LFT, is all about. LFT gives Jewish teens the tools to navigate challenging conversations and advocAte about antisemitism and Israel—whether in the classroom, online, or in their community spaces. Our monthly deep-dive sessions into the issues faced by Jews - both historically and today - become the place where LFT students find community, build confidence, and strengthen their Jewish identity.

If your teen is ready to expand their understanding of what it means to be a Jewish leader — have them visit AJC.org/LFT to learn more. Let's give them the tools they need to step up, speak out, and lead with pride. Again, that's AJC.org/LFT. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Three federal agencies said this week that they welcomed the policy changes that Columbia University announced Friday, following the Trump administration's revocation of $400 million in federal funding. The government recalled the funding in response to the university’s failure to enforce its own rules to protect Jewish students after the terror attacks of October 7, 2023. Masked protesters of the Israel Hamas War spewed antisemitic rhetoric, built encampments that blocked students from attending classes and, in some cases, took over classes. 

Also this week, the government announced new charges against Mahmoud Khalil, an Algerian citizen and green card holder here in the United States, and a former Columbia University graduate student who was detained due to his activism on campus. International students on other campuses also have been detained in the weeks since.

As a community that values academic freedom, as well as freedom of expression, and democracy, how do we balance those values with the importance of fighting antisemitism and making sure our campuses are safe for Jewish students? 

With me to discuss this balancing act is Laura Shaw Frank, director of the AJC Center for Education Advocacy and director of AJC's Department of Contemporary Jewish Life. Laura, welcome to People of the Pod. 

Laura Shaw Frank:  

Thanks, Manya. Good to be with you. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So let's start with the issue of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student. He was detained due to his activism on campus. And we're learning from government this week that he reportedly did not disclose that he was a member of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNWRA) as a political officer. 

And he was also part of Colombia's Apartheid Divest movement when he applied to become a permanent resident in 2024. He was taken into custody, though, in a very troubling way. And frankly, he was one of the few who didn't conceal his identity during the protests and encampments. He negotiated with the University. What is AJC's stance on this?

Laura Shaw Frank:  

Great question Manya, and it deserves a very, very careful and nuanced answer. So I want to start by saying that AJC, as it has always done, is striving enormously to remain the very nuanced and careful voice that we always have about every issue, and particularly about the issues that we're talking about here, which are so so fraught in a moment that is so so fraught. AJC issued a statement that we published on X and on our website that talked about the fact that we deplore so many of Mahmoud Khalil's views and actions.

And at the same time, it is critically important that the government follow all rules of due process and protections of free expression that we have in our country. And I wanted to emphasize, while I am an attorney, my law degree is incredibly rusty, and I'm not going to pretend to know all the legal ins and outs here, but I do know this, that free speech does attach, even for non-citizens in this country. So we're trying to express a very careful position here. It is possible that Khalil needs to be deported. It is very possible. What has to happen, though, is a trial with due process that is open, transparent and legal.

And once those factual findings are determined, if it is the case that Khalil has violated United States law, and has provided material support for terror, and I know the government is actually no longer relying on that particular statute, or has endangered US interests, I don't remember exactly the language that the statute has, but endangered US interests, then he can be deported. 

But we want to make sure that even as we deplore so much of what he has stood for--he's been the spokesperson for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, which is sort of an umbrella organization for many, many other student organizations at Columbia, including Students for Justice in Palestine, which was banned from campus, and some other groups which have espoused terribly antisemitic and anti-Israel views and actions on campus. They have engaged in protest activity that has been at times violent and exclusionary of Jewish students. 

There's a lot to be horrified by there. And even as we abhor all of that, we love America, we love due process, we love democracy, and we feel very fiercely that those norms have to be upheld, and we hope that the government will uphold them. We expressed that concern because of the circumstances of his detention, and we're watching the case closely.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

We also have the government threatening to cancel about $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia. This is a separate matter, but those cuts could include funding for scholarship and research and law. Education and health care. You know, a number of students and scholars alike are very afraid that this could backfire, if indeed, this is done at other universities across the country, in the name of protecting Jewish students. That the backlash could actually hurt the Jewish community. 

Do you think that there is some credence to that? And if so, how do we prevent that?

Laura Shaw Frank:  

It's a great question, so I want to stop for a second before I answer the question, and talk a little bit about the position AJC has taken with respect to the $400 million. We issued a statement, a letter to the government, to the task force, about the $400 million. Where we, again, expressed our enormous gratitude to the administration for shining a light on antisemitism and for taking it seriously. Which it needs to be taken incredibly seriously in this moment. And we fear that it has not been taken seriously enough until this moment, so we're very grateful that the administration is taking it seriously. 

And at the same time, we expressed our concern about the $400 million dollars being withheld because of what that $400 million will fund. That $400 million is largely funding for research, scientific and medical research, and we know that in this moment, there is a great deal of research money that is being withheld in various places in this country from universities that is funding really critical research. Pediatric brain cancer, Parkinson's disease, COVID. Whatever it is, that research is incredibly important. 

So we want to make sure that even as the government is doing the good work of shining a light on antisemitism and ensuring that our higher education institutions are not harboring and fostering atmospheres of antisemitism. We want to make sure that they are simultaneously not using a hatchet rather than a scalpel in order to attack the problem. 

We are keenly aware that much of the most antisemitic discourse that occurs on campus among faculty is discourse that comes out of humanities departments and not generally out of science, research, medicine departments. And it feels wrong to perhaps be withholding the funds from those who are not the problem. Generally, humanities departments don't get hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the federal government. The research that they do is of a different scale. It's less expensive. Frankly, they don't have to run labs, so the funding is really mostly in that medical and science realm. 

So I wanted to just start by saying that, and would definitely encourage folks to take a look at the letter that AJC sent to the task force. With respect to your question about whether this is going to backfire against the Jewish community. It is definitely a concern that we've thought about at AJC. There have been many moments in Jewish history where Jews have become scapegoats for policies of governments, or policies in a society, or failures of a society. I'm thinking of two in this particular moment that are just popping into my head. 

One of them was the Khmelnytsky massacres in 1648 and 49. I know that sounds like a long time ago, but feels kind of relevant. When Jews, who were representing the nobles in exchanges with peasants, collecting taxes, things of that nature, were attacked and murdered in tens of thousands. And Jews were really, you know, was there antisemitism involved? Absolutely. Were Jews being scapegoated for rage against nobles? Also, absolutely. So I'm thinking about that. 

I'm also thinking about the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1920s and 30s, where this myth of the German population being stabbed in the back by the Jews who quote, unquote, made them lose World War I–which is, of course, obscene and ridiculous–led the way for Nazi ideology finding a foothold in German society. So I'm thinking of those moments when Jews became a scapegoat.

And I'm keenly aware of how much our universities rely on research dollars to do their work, and also the anger that so many who are working in that space must be feeling in this moment. It does make me fearful to think that those who are working in the research and those who need the research, you know, people who are struggling with health issues, people who are relying on cutting edge research to help them, could say, No, this is all the Jews’ fault. It's all because of them. They're causing the government to do this and that. You know, it feeds into that antisemitism trope of control. I do worry about the Jews becoming the target. 

What should we do about that? I think it's very important for us to have the open lines of communication that we're grateful to have with government officials, with elected officials and appointed officials in the Administration and across the aisle in Congress, with Democratic and Republican elected officials. I think it's important for them to understand, at least, you know, from AJC's perspective, that we hope that as they continue to shine that very important spotlight on antisemitism, and continue to ensure that we hold our institutions of higher education to the standard which they must be held to, taking antisemitism very seriously and combating it with all of their power and strength.

That at the same time, we want to make sure that the strategies that the government is using to address this issue are strategies that will truly address the problem. And we hope that our statements, our transparency about our stance, will help this country see the views of the Jewish community in this moment. That there are diverse views in the Jewish community, that we do care deeply about the success of higher education, about the success and the importance of research dollars, and that we also care deeply that the administration is taking antisemitism seriously. So really trying to hold that very special AJC nuance.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I know AJC offers an entire package of strategies to combat antisemitism in many different arenas, including university campuses. And I want to take a look at some of the changes that Columbia announced in response to the government's threats to cut funds, to restore those funds. They said that they would make it easier to report harassment and enable the provost to deal with disciplinary action against students who are involved in protests. These seem to reflect some of the strategies that AJC has shared, Yes?

Laura Shaw Frank:  

Yes, for sure. I want to say, before I respond, that there seems to be a bit of murkiness right now, as we are recording, regarding sort of where some of the some of the agreement stands. So I'm just going to just note that, that it could be that by the time we air this episode, things will be different. But AJC's strategy for higher education administrators, which could be found on our website, and you can probably link to that in the show notes too, calls for very clear codes of conduct. Calls for enforcement, clear enforcement of those codes of conduct. 

We don't specifically say where discipline should be situated, because every university has a different kind of plan for how, how that should be situated. And I know that's an issue that appears to be ongoingly unclear between the government and Columbia right now, so I'm not going to say where that's landing. It's not clear to me where it's landing, yet. 

But there's no question that the kinds of asks that the federal government or demands, really that the federal government has made of Columbia, are demands that are rooted in the same issues that we have highlighted on campus. So there's this issue of discipline. Not just codes of conduct, but also the enforcement of codes of conduct. We've seen very often, including at Columbia, that there are rules that are on the books, but they're not actually enforced in reality. And they're useless if they're not enforced in reality. So that's one thing that we have been very clear about in our plan. 

We also have encouraged universities to think about faculty, to think about the role that faculty plays on a campus, and that's also been a part of the Columbia agreement with the federal government. Again, this is a little bit murky, still, but the federal government had asked for the Middle East and African Studies Department, maybe Asian Studies. I'm not sure exactly what the title of the department is to be put in receivership. That is a very extreme thing that can be done. Universities do it if a department is completely failing in whatever way. They could put it in receivership, give it over to somebody else to head. 

And it seems, at least as of this moment, that what Columbia has done is appoint a new Vice President who is going to oversee studies in the Middle East and Jewish studies, but it's not really exactly receivership. So I'm not going to opine on what they've done, but what I will opine on is what AJC is asking campuses to do in this moment. We've alluded to it in our campus plan that we have up on the website, but we are going to shortly be issuing updated guidance specifically about how we think universities should be addressing the issue of faculty members who are creating an atmosphere that's making Jews feel harassed, or that they're advancing antisemitism. Our State of Antisemitism Report that was released about a month and a half ago showed that, I think it's 32% of students felt that their faculty members were advancing an antisemitic atmosphere or an atmosphere that was harassing of them. 

And I want to be clear that obviously this is a question of feel, right? We ask the students, do you feel that way? And we know that feelings are not empirical data. Every person has their own set of feelings. And what some students might feel is antisemitic. Other students might say, no, no, that's not antisemitic. That's simply a different viewpoint. That's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. 

So with that caveat, I want to say that we're very concerned about that statistic, and we do think that it reflects a reality on campus, specifically on campuses like Columbia. And what we are asking universities to do at this moment is to think really carefully about how they're talking to faculty. How are they professionalizing their faculty? 

Our Director of Academic Affairs, Dr. Sara Coodin, has been working a great deal on coming up with a plan of what we would like to ask universities to work on in this moment, to work on the summer when they have some downtime. How are they going to talk to their faculty, especially emerging faculty, TA's,graduate students and young, untenured faculty about what their responsibilities are. What are their responsibilities to have classrooms with multiple viewpoints? 

What are their responsibilities to not treat their classrooms as activist spaces for their own political ideologies? What are their responsibilities to not require students to take actions that are political in nature. Such as, we're going to hold class in the encampment today, or I'm canceling class in order for students to go to protest. Those are not appropriate. They are not responsible actions on the part of faculty. They do not fall under the category of academic freedom, they're not responsible. 

So academic freedom is a very wide ranging notion, and it's really important. I do want to emphasize very important. We do want faculty members to have academic freedom. They have to be able to pursue the research, the thinking that they do pursue without being curtailed, without being censored. And at the same time, faculty has that privilege, and they also do have responsibilities. And by the way, we're not the only ones who think that. There are national organizations, academic organizations, that have outlined the responsibilities of faculty. 

So as we kind of look at this issue with Columbia, the issue of those departments that are the government has asked for receivership, and Columbia has appointed this vice president, the issue that we would like to sort of home in on is this issue of: what are we doing to ensure that we are creating campuses where faculty understand their role in pedagogy, their role in teaching, their role in upholding University spaces that are places of vibrant dialog and discourse–and not activism for the professor's particular viewpoints.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I'm curious, there's been a lot of talk about Columbia failing its Jewish students, and these measures, these threats from the government are really the government's way of trying to repair that. Trying to motivate Columbia to to fix that and serve its Jewish students. But I'm curious if it's not just the Jewish students that Columbia is failing by not protecting Jewish students. In what ways are–and not just Columbia, but–universities in general failing students in this moment, maybe even students including Mahmoud Khalil?

Laura Shaw Frank:  

I'm so glad you asked that question. I think it's such an important question. We look at universities, at the Center for Education Advocacy, and I think that so many Americans look at universities this way, as places where we are growing the next generation of citizens. Not even the next, they are citizens, many of them, some of them are foreign students and green card holders, et cetera. But we're raising the next generation of Americans, American leadership in our university and college spaces. 

And we believe so firmly and so strongly that the ways that antisemitism plays out on campus are so intertwined with general notions of anti-democracy and anti-civics. And that solving antisemitism actually involves solving for these anti-democratic tendencies on certain campuses. And so we do firmly believe that the universities are failing all students in this moment. 

What we need as a society, as we become more and more polarized and more and more siloed, what we need universities to do is help us come together, is: help us think about, what are the facts that we can discuss together, debate together, even as we have different interpretations of those facts. Even if we have different opinions about where those facts should lead us. How do we discuss the issues that are so problematic in our society? How will we be able to solve them? 

And that, for antisemitism, plays out in a way about, you know, Jewish students are a tiny minority, right, even on campuses where there's a large Jewish population. What does large look like? 10, 15%? On some campuses it's more than that, but it's still quite small. And Jews are two and a half percent of American society. So Jews are a minority. It's very important for us to be in spaces where different views will be included, where different opinions are on the table. 

Additionally, of course, discourse about Israel is so important to Jews, and we know from the Pew study and from our AJC studies that four in five Jews, over 80% of Jews, see Israel as important to their Jewish identity. So discourse on campus about Israel that ends up being so one-sided, so ignoring of facts and realities, and so demonizing of Israel and of Zionists and of the Jewish people, that's not healthy for Jews and fosters enormous antisemitism, and it simultaneously is so detrimental, and dangerous for all of us. 

It's not solely discourse about Israel that is at issue. It is any time that a university is sending faculty members into the classroom who are all of the same mindset, who all have the same attitude, who are all teaching the same views and not preparing young people with the ability to debate and come up with their own views. Fact-based views, not imaginary views, fact-based views. That's incredibly, incredibly important. 

One other piece that I want to mention, that I think when campuses fail to enforce their rules, why they're damaging not just Jewish students, but all students. When you think about a campus that has their library taken over by protesters, or their classrooms taken over by protesters, or the dining hall being blocked by protesters. That's not just preventing Jewish students from accessing those university facilities. It's preventing all students. 

Students are on campus to learn, whether they're in a community college, a state university, a small liberal arts college, a private university, whatever it is, they are there to learn. They are paying tuition, in many cases, tens of thousands of dollars, close to $100,000 in tuition in some places, to learn and for these students to have the ability to take away other students' ability to learn is a way that the university is failing all of its students. That has to be stopped.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You talked about using classroom space, using library space, as you know, co-opting it for protest purposes or to express particular points of view. But what about the quad? What about the open space on campus? You know, there appears to be, again, it’s still murky, but there appears to be an outright ban now on protests on Columbia's campus. Is that a reasonable approach or should campuses have some sort of vehicle for demonstration and expression, somewhere on its property?

Laura Shaw Frank:  

Absolutely, campuses should allow for protest. Protest is a right in America. Now, private campuses do not have to give students the right to protest, because that's private space. The government isn't allowed to infringe on protests, so public universities would not be able to do that. But most private campuses have adopted the First Amendment and hold by it on their campuses, including Columbia. 

It is critically important that students, faculty members, anyone in American society, be permitted to peacefully protest. What can be done in order to keep campuses functional, and what many campuses have done, is employ time, place, and manner restrictions. That's a phrase that probably a lot of our listeners have heard before. 

You're not allowed to curtail speech–which, protest is, of course, a form of speech–you're not allowed to curtail speech based on a particular viewpoint. You can't say, these people are allowed to talk, but those people, because we don't like their opinion, they're not allowed to talk. But what you can do is have something that is viewpoint-neutral. So time, place and manner restrictions are viewpoint neutral. What does that mean? 

It means that you can say, on a campus, you're allowed to protest, but it's only between 12 and 1pm on the south quad with no megaphones, right? That's time, place, manner. I believe, and I think we all at AJC believe, that protests should be allowed to happen, and that good, solid time, place, and manner restrictions should be put into place to ensure that those protests are not going to prevent, as we just talked about, students from accessing the resources on campus they need to access, from learning in classrooms. There was a protest at Columbia that took place in a classroom, which was horrifying. I have to tell you that even the most left wing anti-Israel professors tweeted, posted on X against what those students did. 

So campuses can create those time, place and manner restrictions and enforce them. And that way, they're permitting free speech. And this is what the Supreme Court has held again and again. And at the same time, prevented protesters from kind of destroying campus, from tearing it all down. And I think that that's really the way to go. Some campuses, by the way, have created spaces, special spaces for protest, like, if you're going to protest, you have to do it in the protest quarter, whatever it is, and I think that's a really good idea. 

I'm an alum of Columbia, so I know how small Columbia's campus is. That might not work on Columbia's campus, but certainly time, place, and manner restrictions are critical, critical to campus safety and peace in this moment, and critical to protect the rights of all students, including Jewish students.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And on the topic of protests, as I was reading up on the latest developments, I saw a student quoted, she was quoted saying, ‘It's essentially going to ban any protest that it thinks is antisemitic slash pro-Palestine. I guess we're mixing up those words now.’  And I cringed, and I thought, No, we're not. And what are universities doing to educate their students on that difference? Or is that still missing from the equation?

Laura Shaw Frank:  

So I actually want to start, if I may, not in universities, but in K-12 schools. The Center for Education Advocacy works with people across the education spectrum, starting in kindergarten and going all the way through graduate school. And I think that's so important, because one of the things we hear from the many university presidents that we are working with in this moment is: we can't fix it. 

We are asking our K-12 schools to engage in responsible education about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and we have particular curricular providers that we recommend for them to use in this moment, I want to say that they are terrified to do that, and I understand why they're terrified to do that. Everyone is worried that the minute they open their mouth, they're going to be attacked by some person or another, some group or another. 

And I get that. And I also believe, as do the presidents of these universities believe, that we cannot send students to campus when this issue is such a front burner issue. We cannot send students to campus with no ability to deal with it, with no framework of understanding, with no understanding of the way social media is playing with all of us. That education has to take place in K-12 spaces. So I wanted to say that first. 

And now I'll talk about campus. Universities are not yet there at all, at all, at all, with talking about these issues in a nuanced and careful and intelligent way. We can never be in a position where we are conflating antisemitism and pro-Palestinian. That is simply ridiculous. One can be a very proud Zionist and be pro-Palestinian, in the sense of wanting Palestinians to have self determination, wanting them to be free, to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

AJC has long, long been on the books supporting a two-state solution, which I believe is pro-Palestinian in nature. Even as we have very few people who are also in the Middle East who are pro two-state solution in this moment. And I understand that. 

Education of students to be able to think and act and speak responsibly in this moment means helping students understand what the differences are between being pro-Palestinian and being antisemitic. I'm thinking about phrases like ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,’ which lands on Jewish ears, as we know from research that's been done at the University of Chicago, lands on the majority of Jewish ears as genocidal in nature. 

I'm thinking about phrases like 'globalize the Intifada,' which also lands on Jewish ears in a very particular way is targeting them, us, and education needs to take place to help students understand the way certain phrases the way certain language lands with Jews and why it lands that way, and how antisemitism plays out in society, and at the same time, education has to take place so students understand the conflict that's going on in the Middle East. 

They might think about having debates between different professors, faculty members, students, that are open to the public, open to all, students that present this nuanced and careful view, that help people think through this issue in a careful and educated way. I also think that universities should probably engage in perhaps requiring a class. And I know some universities have started to do this. Stanford University has started to do this, and others as well, requiring a class about responsible speech. 

And what I mean by that is: free speech is a right. You don't have to be responsible about it. You can be irresponsible. It's a right. What does it mean to understand the impact of your words?  How do we use speech to bring people together? How do we use speech to build bridges instead of tear people apart? So I think those are two ways that universities could look at this moment in terms of education.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Anything I haven't asked you, Laura, that you think needs to be addressed in this murky moment?

Laura Shaw Frank:  

I hope that our listeners and everyone who's following the stories on campus right now can take a breath and think carefully and in a nuanced way about what's going on and how they're going to speak about what's going on. I hope that people can see that we can hold two truths, that the government is shining a necessary light on antisemitism, at the same time as universities are very concerned, as are we about some of the ways that light is being shined, or some of the particular strategies the government is using. 

It is so important in this moment where polarization is the root of so many of our problems, for us not to further polarize the conversation, but instead to think about the ways to speak productively, to speak in a forward thinking way, to speak in a way that's going to bring people together toward the solution for our universities and not further tear us all apart.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Thank you so much for this conversation, Laura, it is one that I have been wanting to have for a while, and I think that you are exactly the right person to have it with. So thank you for just really breaking it down for us. 

Laura Shaw Frank:  

Thank you so much, Manya.

In late 2024, Israel closed its embassy in Dublin, accusing the Irish government of extreme anti-Israel policies, antisemitic rhetoric, and double standards. Meanwhile, the small Jewish community in Ireland, numbering nearly 3,000, has faced antisemitism in the streets.

AJC’s Director of International Jewish Affairs, Rabbi Andrew Baker, joins us to discuss his recent meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, examples of antisemitic activity in Ireland, including Holocaust inversion and the chilling impact of widespread anti-Israel sentiment on Irish Jews. He also shares insights on Ireland’s adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and the future of Holocaust remembrance in the country.

___

Resources:

AJC Directly Addresses Antisemitism and Vilification of Israel in Ireland with the Prime Minister

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

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

-People of the Pod: 

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

  • Why Germany’s Antisemitic Far-Right Party is Thriving Instead of Disappearing

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

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Andrew Baker:

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

In December, Israel closed its embassy in Dublin, accusing the Irish government of extreme anti-Israel policies, antisemitic rhetoric, and double standards. Meanwhile, the small Jewish community in Ireland, numbering nearly 3000 has faced antisemitism in the streets.

With us now to discuss the situation in Ireland, and his meeting with the Irish Prime Minister last week, is AJC's Director of International Jewish Affairs, Rabbi Andrew Baker, who also serves as the personal representative on combating antisemitism in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Andy, welcome to People of the Pod. 

Andrew Baker:  

Great to be here, Manya.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

This situation did not develop overnight. Can you take our listeners back to the first clues that the relationship between Israel and Ireland was deteriorating?

Andrew Baker:  

Ireland has a small Jewish community, perhaps about 3000 people. And a significant number of them, maybe upwards toward 1000, also people with Israeli citizenship who moved to Ireland to work there with a number of the social media tech companies based in Ireland. Over the years, and certainly even predating October 7, in Ireland there's been a fairly high degree of anti-Israel animus. It's not dissimilar to what we may find in a number of other northern European countries. They view the political scene in the Middle East through a certain prism that creates and maybe amplifies this form of animus. 

But that said, there have also been, I think, issues between this community and government policy, even as it's reflected in ceremonies marking Holocaust remembrance in Ireland. In many cases, the particular focus in that history of what happened to the Jewish people in Europe during World War II, the genocide of the Holocaust. While there may be commemoration events, in principle to market, they've really, in many ways, washed out the Jewish nature of that. 

In 2016 I was an invited speaker to the official Holocaust Commemoration Day in Ireland. Almost the entire focus was on the refugees, at the time coming in from North Africa and the Middle East. I was actually the only person who spoke the word antisemitism at that event. You also had an effort through legislation to really separate out Israel, the occupied territories, as they understood it, and the name of this bill that was passed by the legislature was called the Occupied Territories Bill.

Which sought to separate Israel, at least the territories commercially from Ireland, but it would have a very onerous impact, frankly, on any anyone, certainly members of the Jewish community, who would choose to visit Israel. If they purchased a kippa in The Old City of Jerusalem, brought it back with them to Ireland, under this law, if it were enacted, they could literally be arrested for that action. 

So I think also at the time I made a visit there in 2019 in my OSC role, Israel was preparing to host the Eurovision Song Contest in Tel Aviv, and there was a very public campaign in Ireland to boycott the Eurovision contest. Advertisements calling for this on the side of buses, people in the state media already indicating that they were going to refuse to attend. So you had this sort of environment in Ireland, again, a good number of years before what happened on October 7, which really changed everything throughout Europe.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And now there has been a more moderate government recently elected in Ireland. Prime Minister Micheál Martin was in the United States last week in Washington, DC, and you actually met with him when he was here, correct? 

Andrew Baker:  

That's correct. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Did you share some of these concerns? Did you address, for example, the Occupied Territories Bill with him?

Andrew Baker:  

Yes, we spent a bit over an hour together. I was joined also by Marina Rosenberg from the ADL. Our two organizations met. There were some initial plans that other organizations would also participate, but in the end, it was the two of us. One of the most significant issues that has arisen, it's partly why Israel closed its embassy, was the fact that Ireland has joined with South Africa in the charges brought before the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide. So our goal at this meeting was to raise a number of these issues, including that, including the status of the Occupied Territories bill. 

But also, really to impress on him that the community itself was feeling, sieged, if you will, by these developments. And so we wanted him to understand that the anti-Israel animus, which at times, crosses over to a form of antisemitism, has had a direct impact on the Jews in Ireland. 

It also was brought to the fore only this past January at this year's International Holocaust Remembrance event, Michael Higgins, the Irish president, spoke, even though the Jewish community had actually urged that he not be given a platform. He used the opportunity to focus on the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. And again, by that, drawing an analogy between Israel, between the Jewish experience during the Holocaust and somehow Israel's treatment of Palestinians today. So this, too, was an issue we brought up with the Prime Minister.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

But this prime minister has made some overtures to address antisemitism, right? I mean, his administration, for example, just announced it was adopting the working definition.

Andrew Baker:  

Yes, in fact, several weeks before coming to Washington, the prime minister did announce that Ireland would accept the international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. And we also have a set of global guidelines that some, I think, over over 30 countries now have adopted, that lay out measures that government should take. So we did, of course, discuss this with the prime minister. He indicated to us that he was in the process of appointing a national coordinator, someone who could sort of oversee the development of national strategy to combat anti semitism. This is a very important step, by the way, it's one that almost all, with only a couple of exceptions, EU Member States, have already done. So. It is good that Ireland is doing this. Of course, it comes quite late to the game in this the IHRA definition is very important, because it offers old and new examples of antisemitism, and to digress only for a moment, this IHRA definition began as the definition endorsed presented by the European monitoring center on racism and xenophobia, already 20 years ago.

And in my AJC role at that time, I worked closely with the EUMC in the drafting and the adoption of that definition. And notably, it speaks about antisemitism related to Israel. Frankly, if one had that definition in front of him or her, you would be able to look at some of the actions, even by members of government, and certainly the President's own remarks in January, and say, well, this could constitute a form of antisemitism itself.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And did he address the bill legislation that is so troublesome?

Andrew Baker:  

Yes, he did. He indicated to us that the Occupied Territories Bill as drafted is probably unconstitutional, since it really concerns international trade and economics. This is the purview of Brussels for all EU member states. So in that regard, they're really not expected or permitted to have their own economic international policy. He also said it was probably unenforceable. 

Now I asked him to simply dispel with this bill altogether. That was not something that he could agree to, but he did inform me that it would be, at least for now, off the legislative calendar. So we know there are others in Ireland who are pushing for that law to be redrafted and enacted. So this was somewhat reassuring to be told that no, at least this will not happen this year.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Though he adopted the IRA working definition, I know that he also received some pressure from activists to dispense of that, to not adopt it and to reject it. And he assured them that it was not legally binding. 

Was that discouraging to hear? Or did he seem to be willing to implement it in training of law enforcement and education of students? 

Andrew Baker:  

Look, these are the very elements that we speak of when we speak about employing the IHRA definition. And as you said, it's identified as a non legally binding definition, but it ought to be used to advise, to inform law enforcement, the judiciary, if and when they address incidents of antisemitism. Again, he made the decision to adopt the definition, to accept the global guidelines only, only a few weeks ago, really. So how it will be used to what extent remains to be seen. I have to say we, and my ADL colleague indicated we're certainly prepared to work with the government to offer advice on how these things can be employed. We hope that they'll consider and take up our offer, but at this point, we have to see what happens.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You mentioned that the small Jewish community there is largely Israeli expats doing business. And they were certainly uncomfortable at Holocaust Remembrance event. Are there other examples of harassment or antisemitic behavior, assaults, protests. What are they seeing on a day to day basis?

Andrew Baker:  

Yes, first, I mean, the majority of the community are not Israelis, but there's a significant number who are. And I think what they're finding is, it's not unique, but it's intensive for them, that in schools, in the workplace, there's a high level of discomfort. And a result of this, where people may have the choice they will try not to identify publicly in some way that would signal to others that they're Jewish. There are incidents. There haven't really been violent attacks but clearly kids in school have been harassed and made to feel uncomfortable. Because they're Jewish because of this sort of strong anti-Israel animus. 

There was, only shortly after we had our meeting, an incident in one of the resort towns in Ireland where Israeli tourists in a restaurant were harassed by other patrons. They were cursed. They were spit at. It was the sort of thing, and the local council did issue a kind of apology. But I think it illustrates that when you have such a high level of anti-Israel animus, which at times can be just a harshly critical view of Israel or Israel's government, but it can spill over and create a sense that there is, as we've termed it, a kind of ambient antisemitism. It is sort of in the atmosphere, and so it does have an impact on this small Jewish community.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Last year, Israel recalled its ambassador to Dublin. It closed its embassy in December, but in May, it actually recalled its ambassador, after Ireland announced, along with other countries, Norway, Spain, Slovenia, that it would recognize a Palestinian state. And I'm curious if there's something about Ireland's history that informs this approach?

Andrew Baker:  

I think that's partly true. Look, first of all, Ireland had a somewhat checkered role, even during the Holocaust. You know, the Irish Ambassador government signed a condolence book when Adolf Hitler died. And it accepted German refugees after the war, but it was really quite reluctant to accept even some small number of Jewish refugees. And I think over time, Ireland in its own fight for independence with Great Britain, maybe drew the same analogy to Palestinians. This notion of being a colonialist subject. Perhaps there are those connections that people make as well. 

But in the case with the Israeli ambassador first being withdrawn, and then the embassy closed, unfortunately, much of the normal diplomatic relations that an ambassador wants to do, is expected to do, were really precluded from Israeli Ambassador Erlich. Gatherings of political parties where diplomats as a kind of standard rule, invited to attend, she was not invited. Other events the same was true. So there was also a frustration to be ambassador in what ought to be a friendly country, a fellow democracy, a member of the European Union, and yet to be made a kind of de facto persona non grata was a quite troubling experience.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So whether there was an ambassador or an embassy there didn't seem to matter. They were still being excluded from diplomatic events already.

Andrew Baker:  

The Israeli government made the decision that they needed to do something dramatic to express the state of affairs and this discomfort, and that was first through recalling the ambassador, but ultimately, As you pointed out, essentially closing the embassy, that's a dramatic step, and some might disagree, particularly if you have Israeli citizens that would otherwise want the services of an embassy in that country, but they believe this was one way of sending a message, and I think it was a message that was received. 

I would point out that following our meeting with the Prime Minister, it drew significant attention in the Irish press. Perhaps one of the most prominent read newspapers in Ireland, The Independent, this past Sunday, had an editorial that spoke about our meeting with the Prime Minister and really called on the government to reassess its relationship with Israel. In other words, to try and repair that relationship. So if it leads to that, then I think we will feel it was well worth it.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Going back to the Holocaust Remembrance events that seem to be a continuing issue. Did you speak with the Prime Minister about the Jewish community perhaps having a role in organizing those commemorations from now on?

Andrew Baker:  

We did. The fact is, there has been a Holocaust Educational Trust [Ireland] organization that had some government support, but it's separate from the Jewish community that has been responsible for organizing these events. As I noted when I was invited in 2016, this was the organization that organized it, but it has sort of fallen out of favor with the Jewish community. There have been internal tensions, and again, as a result of this last event in January, the Jewish community has asked the government to really be given the authority to to organize these events. 

I have to point out that it does have, typically, the participation of senior figures in the government. When I was there, the prime minister at the time spoke, and members of the High Court participated, the Mayor of Dublin. So I think that level of participation is important and should continue. But I think the problem we're seeing is that even that history is being instrumentalized, so we need to be certain that doesn't continue.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Andy, a number of Jewish leaders declined to meet with Prime Minister Martin, given the tension and animosity Jews in Ireland have been facing. Why did you meet with him? 

Andrew Baker:  

AJC values, sees itself as playing an important diplomatic role, not simply with Ireland, but with various countries. And while some other organizations felt in the end, they should not participate, because by not talking to the Irish Prime Minister that was sending a message, our approach is rather quite the opposite. It's important to talk. I'm not sure that it's always the easiest conversations, and the results may not always be all that we would hope them to be, but I want to say we're in this for the long haul. We've been back and forth to Ireland, with other countries, of course, as well over the years. We hope that those visits and these meetings will continue. Frankly, it's only by this kind of ongoing engagement, I believe that we can really make a difference, and that's what we're all about.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Well Andy, thank you so much for joining us. 

Andrew Baker: 

You're welcome, Manya.

“He told me: ‘We are the same. We are the same.’ Meaning, me and the terrorists who penetrated the kibbutz are the same. They received the mission to murder and to burn, and I received the mission to hold you as bargaining chips for the release of the Palestinian prisoners. And this was a very cruel sentence, because while we were in captivity . . . they could do anything to us.”

Former Israeli hostage Shoshan Haran, abducted during the Hamas terror attack on October 7, 2023, shares her harrowing story of survival and resilience. Shoshan was abducted from her home in Kibbutz Be’eri alongside her family, including her son-in-law Tal Shoham, her daughter, and her young grandchildren. While she and the other women and children were released after 50 days in November 2023, Tal remained in Gaza for 505 days and was released in February 2025.

Now, as she welcomes Tal home, Shoshan opens up about the unbearable anguish of captivity, the emotional toll of waiting, and the devastating losses her family has endured. She sheds light on the humanity that persisted even in the darkest moments and issues a powerful call for continued global action to free the 59 hostages who are still being held.

Resources:

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

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

• People of the Pod: 

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

  • Why Germany’s Antisemitic Far-Right Party is Thriving Instead of Disappearing

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

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Shoshan Haran:

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

After 505 days as a hostage in Gaza, Tal Shoham returned to Israel to his wife and two young children and to an extended family whose lives have been on hold since the Hamas terror attacks on October 7, 2023. Tal had been taken hostage from his home in Kibbutz Be’eri with his wife, his children, his wife’s aunt, his 12-year-old niece, and his mother in law, Shoshan Haran. Shoshan returned home with the other women and children on November 26, 2023. She is with us now to talk about welcoming Tal home, the tremendous loss she and her family have suffered, and the endless fight to get the rest of the hostages home. 

Shoshan, welcome to People of the Pod. 

Shoshan Haran:  

Thank you. Nice being here. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Well, I'm glad that you are here to at least partially celebrate the return of your loved ones. It has been more than 500 days since that awful day in October. Can you take our listeners back a few days before the 7th, to October 4th: what were you doing that day?

Shoshan Haran:  

On October 4, we had a very big event of Women Making Peace in the Dead Sea, together with a sister movement, Women of the Sun. It's a Palestinian movement. Both women-led movements working for peace on both sides. And I went there with my sister Lilach and with the founder of this movement, Vivian Silver, who was my neighbor in Kibbutz Be’eri.

And it was such an optimistic event, and heartwarming, we were there with thousands of women, some men also, and we were talking about the power of women to bring peace and how we should stop the bloodshed and how we should find a new way to live together in peace. That was on October 4. 

Two days later, on October 6, we are getting ready for Simchat Torah, to celebrate with our family. We had the sukkah already since a week ago, and we invited my daughter, Adi, and her husband Tal and the little kids, Naveh, who was then eight years old, and Yahel (Yula), three years old, to join us for Simchat Torah. So we were cooking, getting ready for the holidays. It was a shabbat dinner, so cooking.

And then we got a call from Avshal, Avshalom, he’s my husband, his nickname is Avshal, and we got a call from his sister, Sharon, that wanted to join us for that evening with her daughter, Noam who was then 12 years old. And we celebrated together in the sukkah, having fun. The kids were playing all over. And then we went to sleep.

We had kind of a loft above our house for hosting our guests, and that's where Tal and Adi and the kids stayed overnight. Sharon and her daughter stayed with us on the ground level, and we went to sleep. And then at 6:29am, we heard the red . . . color red is the code for attack.

And we thought it is, I shouldn't say it, but the usual missile attack on us. So we went to the safe room. And then after a few minutes, we went out. My husband went up to the second floor to get Adi, Tal, and the kids down to be with us, and I started making hot chocolate for the grandkids. And then we got the warning on our–we have a community WhatsApp for alarms. And they told us that they suspect that some terrorists penetrated the kibbutz, and then we should go into the safe room. And a few minutes later, they confirmed that a terrorist attack was launched on the kibbutz.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Who was in that safe room with you?

Shoshan Haran:  

We were in the safe room, seven people. Tal, Adi, my daughter, the kids–my [2] grandkids, Sharon and Noam. Avshal stayed outside with a knife ready to protect his family, and also looking through the windows to understand what was going on. And then we started hearing shooting and grenades, and they got closer and closer to us. My cell phone was the only one that had reception inside the safe room.

And after one hour and a half of terror, Tal texted my husband to join us in the safe room, because he understood that a knife is not gonna protect us, so there was no way. And so Avshal joined us, and Tal and him–we had a very large dinner table when we have guests, and the extensions were in the safe room, so very heavy pieces of wood. And they used it to protect the handle of the safe room door because there was no lock, but they were just pushing it against the safe room door.

I heard them breaking into my neighbor's home. I heard a lot of glass and a lot of shooting and grenades. I didn't know what was happening there. And then they left. 

And then they penetrated our house. They just broke into it. It's easy. It was full of windows that you could easily break into. And they started shouting at us: open the door, open the door. We did not. And then they had steel penetrating bullets that went through the safe room’s iron door.

And I even saw one bullet passing very close to my head. The movement of the bullet was a little bit slowed, so I could see it. And my husband shouted at me, just lie down, you know, because my head was a little bit upwards, looking at the cell phone and trying to call for help. 

They couldn't break in the safe room door, and then they left, and we thought that maybe we were saved. But then after a few minutes, they brought a bulldozer, and they just cracked the safe room window. And the safe room window is composed of two steel parts that should be connected. But with the bulldozer, they were able to dismantle the window and create a crack. 

And then we had a few seconds to decide to surrender or not. And then my husband and Tal decided to surrender. We were under the bed, so we didn't see much, but they understood that the crack will allow the terrorists to throw grenades into the room. So they decided to surrender. 

And then the terrorist opened the window so we stopped resisting. They opened the window, and then my husband and Tal went out first, and that was the last glance that I had of my husband. And it took us a while, because we were under the bed, and we were three women and three little kids. So we went out of the room. They grabbed us through the window. And when my daughter was out, she saw her kids. They took her kids separately. And she just shouted at them, mother, kid, mother, kids. And she, she just kidnapped. She grabbed them from the terrorist. She's a real hero, my daughter. 

And then they pushed us with a gun pointed at us. And when we were out of the safe room, which I saw already, six or seven members of the kibbutz were already murdered and were lying near our home, and they were pushing us towards the fence around the kibbutz, which they already destroyed. 

And one of them that looks really lunatic, he handcuffed me with my hands behind my back, and they just pushed us into the car that they brought from Gaza and drove towards the Gaza Strip. We didn't see any IDF soldiers. The border was completely abolished. There was no border. We didn't see any Air Force. We saw nothing. It was just driving through the open fields into the Gaza Strip. 

We were sitting in the back seat of the car. I had Naveh, my grandson, on my lap. Adi was holding Yula, and Sharon was holding her daughter, Noam. And the two terrorists were sitting in front. And when we crossed the border into Gaza–the theoretical border, there was nothing there–one of the terrorists told us, welcome to Gaza. And I said, thank you. And then we just entered into Gaza. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You said that was your last glance of Avshal when he climbed out the window.

Shoshan Haran:  

So we were in captivity for 50 days, and during these horrible days, I was almost sure that both Tal and Avshal were hostages in Gaza, because they were kidnapped a few minutes before us, and I understood that the goal of the terrorists was to have hostages. And so I was very confident, I should say, that both of them are hostages in Gaza. And I knew, I knew by intuition, that Israel will demand to release women and children first. I just knew it. 

And I told Adi and Sharon all the time. I said, we need to survive. Every day that we survive will get us closer to our release, because I knew that the terrorists see us as bargain chips to get their prisoners released. So I said our mission is just to survive. I need to keep my family. I need to survive. 

And I thought that Tal and Avshal are also hostages, and I learned about the fact that they murdered my husband on October 7, only after I was released and I met my daughter and my son, and they had to tell me the horrible truth that he was murdered, but not only him. My sister was murdered, my little sister, my younger sister. Her husband, his caregiver. 

102 people from my kibbutz, from the little community that we know, every one were murdered on October 7.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

This was your sister, Lilach, who had been at the event on October 4 with you. Yes? 

Shoshan Haran:  

Yes, yes.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I am so sorry. May all of those memories be a blessing, every one of them in the kibbutz. 

Did you stay with your daughter and grandchildren in Gaza the entire time? Or were you separated? 

Shoshan Haran:  

No, we were together, luckily. We were handed over by the kidnappers to what I used to term as guards in Gaza. And I use the term guards because we wanted the children to live in the belief that these people are guarding us, so we didn't call them terrorists, not even between ourselves. We call them guards. 

We were moved from one house to another. So we were not in the tunnels. We were in top Hamas leaders' houses. What they did in all of these houses, they created a separate room for us, where we did not see the family of the Hamas leader, but we heard the voices. We heard the voices of the commander. We heard the voices of his wife and the children. So it was like a provisoric arrangement. And the guards were always in between us and the family. I mean, we didn't see the family, but we heard them. And the guards were the ones who brought us food and they were kind of in between. 

We had an event in the second house that we stayed. We had an event of knock on the roof. Knock on the roof is a term that the IDF is using when the Air Force is aiming to hit a specific house without harming the people who live inside the house. 

One time it was supposed to be two blocks away from us, so the terrorists, they know exactly the address, and they told us to get away, just to stay away from the window. So if the window is, if the glass is breaking, we will not be wounded. The second time, it was very close to where we stayed, maybe even the place we stayed, specifically so they evacuated us and the family of the Hamas terrorist who was holding us. We were evacuated to the street, and then we were taken to another house.

And eventually we were taken to a fourth house, where we stayed 43 days. And in that house, the Hamas person who joined us knew English. So I started to talk. Before that the guards or the captors, didn't speak any English. They knew some very basic words, like bomb, far, go, come. You know, simple words. But in the fourth house that we stayed 43 days, the Hamas terrorist knew quite good English. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Did you seize on that and try to have conversations with your captors?

We had lots of conversations and talks. I'm a very passionate reader, so I read a lot of books, including Holocaust survivors’ books. I used a lot of the wisdom on how to survive when I was in Gaza. So the first thing I knew: that I should not show any weakness. I looked in their eyes, I talked straight forward, I didn't show any panic or hysterical or crying or stuff like that. 

The other thing is, I knew I had to keep hope and be determined that we will be released. So that was very important, and that gave us strength. And also I counted the days. I knew the day of the week. And I knew the date. And to eat when you can. To sleep when you can. So to be very determined and very focused on the present.

You don't have the capacity to think about the past or the future, you just focus on survival every second, every minute, every hour, how to protect your family and how to create some kind of a relationship with your captors. So they will get to know us, and this will give some some layer of protection.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Did you feel like you successfully fostered a relationship?  

Shoshan Haran:  

Yeah, it's a very tricky situation. So on one hand, I used to thank–his mother was cooking, was providing the food. We never saw her, but we heard her voice. We heard the babies on the other side of the apartment, but there was no eye contact. But when I knew that she was the one who is preparing food for us and for the captors and for her family.

So every time that this guy, her son, brought us the food, I said, I want you to thank your mother. And I mentioned a few times that I appreciate the fact that they are guarding us and they are providing us the food, although it was very minimal, but still. And after a few days, we started to talk about life. I know about their salaries. I know their problems. I know how they get married or why they're not married yet. 

I know about their mission. Their mission is very clear. They want to destroy Israel. It's a jihadistic mission. It's very clear. They talk about it very openly. And actually, they tried to convince us to leave Israel. He was saying, why don't you go back to Europe or go to Florida. I don't know for some reason, Florida is like, simple for them, for the Jewish community in the US. And he said, next time we're going to come harder on Israel, and I'm not sure that you'll have such a nice team to take care of you, so I advise you go, leave Israel. 

And at a certain point he said, he asked me, if you go back to Israel, will you go back to the kibbutz? So said to him, I don't want to hear the word if. When we go back to Israel. And regarding the kibbutz, I said, it's a very good question, but I never gave him an answer. I knew what he wanted to hear.

They were in a state of mind that, on one hand, you do create human interactions. And they played with the children. The children were so sweet, and they started to play. His family had the same age kids at the other side of the house, so there were human interactions, but it was very clear that their mission is to keep us as bargaining chips.

And at one point after I felt more, I don't know, relaxed with the interaction with him, because all my talks were with this specific guy, because he was the only one who talked English. I said, you know, I am very, I don't know which expression I said, but I'm very angry about the people I saw who penetrated the kibbutz and murdered my my friends. And I saw the house of my sister was on fire. It was already bombed. You know, with, I don't know what, with whatever.

Actually, I gave her and her husband like, 1% chances to be alive. What I saw in the house was, it would require a miracle for them to survive. So I told him that I'm angry at the people who penetrated the kibbutz and did these horrible things, but I do thank him and the guards and his family, to protect us and to feed us.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Did you get any glimmer of remorse or compassion or empathy from them at that point?

Shoshan Haran:

He told me: We are the same. We are the same, meaning me and the terrorists who penetrated the kibbutz are the same. They received the mission to murder and to burn, and I received the mission to hold you as bargaining chips for the release of the Palestinian prisoners. And this was a very cruel sentence, because while we were in captivity, we were fully dependent on every expression of their faces, they could do anything to us. 

So my mind couldn't handle this sentence, and I kind of buried it, I just put it aside. I didn't want to think about it, because it was so cruel. But I was sure that if anybody tried to rescue us, they will murder us. I was sure, I was not confused in that sense. I knew that they use us as assets. They see us as assets. And if they will feel that somebody is trying to rescue us by force, then they will kill us.

And going to the situation now, you know that Tal, my son in law, Tal Shoham, was released two weeks ago. And actually it's the first time I started to breathe after a year and some months of fighting for his life, and, you know, taking care of helping my daughter and the grandkids and everybody, but we need To remember there are 59 more hostages in Gaza. And when we must keep on the fight. We must not give up.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

A religion reporting colleague of mine, Dave Schechter in Atlanta, is a cousin of yours. When Tal was released, he wrote about how the extended family all around the world fought for and celebrated his release. Were you able to feel that love or sense that family energy?

Shoshan Haran:  

When I was a hostage in Gaza, I knew that my family and friends in Israel will not stay quiet, just because I know them. But as I said before, most of the time you don't think of anything else besides what's going on in your cell. Actually, I I looked at our situation as if we are astronauts in a hostile world, but unfortunately with terrorists pointing guns at our heads inside the satellite. 

So when I was in Gaza, I thought about the fact that my family and friends will not stay quiet and will fight, but only on the way to Gaza. Once I was there, the focus is survival, focus. You just don't have any capacity to think of the past or the future or on anything that is beyond here and now. After I returned, first of all, Yuval, my son, told me that he organized a march from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem with 50,000 people when we were in captivity. And Shaked, my daughter, she was then nine months pregnant, and she flew to the US with AJC, by the way. Without insurance. She was nine months pregnant, no insurance company would cover her flight, but she still went, and she was all over. And when they told me, I suddenly felt the connection. 

And of course, I mean, I got, while I was there, I got millions of emails and, well, WhatsApp I didn't have, because my phone was stolen, but emails from all over the world, including from Africa, the places that my my NGO is working with smaller farmers, Fair Planet, we call it. Now I think it's a bit naive name, but still. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And really the Jewish people as a collective have come together at this moment in history. Were you able to feel that sense of community in your circumstance? Or if not, can you feel it now that Tal is home and you can, as you just said, breathe?

Shoshan Haran:  

10 days after I was released on 26 of November, 50 days after we were taken, I came to the US and AJC people helped us get meetings with congressmen and Senate members. They took us all over. I was just in the meetings. But, you know, in the corridors of the Senate, at the corridors of the Congress and in and out with meetings. And I really, really, really appreciate not only this help, but this was my personal feeling. I mean, we just landed. I was still half in Gaza and half in my freedom.

And here I am in the US, talking to decision makers and influencers, and this was done with the help of you guys, so I think it's a nice opportunity to thank you. Thank you for all the help that you are doing since then. I know it started very early on. 

Actually, my daughter, my younger daughter, Shaked, came to the US to meet you guys and to meet Congressmen a few days after I was kidnapped. So, when I was in Gaza, actually. 

So I think, the way I see it, I always knew the importance of the Jewish people all over the world, and of course, the importance of Israel being an independent Jewish democratic country, the importance of Israel to the Jews in the world, and the importance of the Jews in the world for Israel. I knew it, but the strength of these connections was much more evident after this horrific October 7 attack.

So I felt that the Jewish world is is not only with us, but on a very practical level with us, and using all the network and all the professionals in Washington, in New York, I was invited to synagogues a few times, to big synagogues in Manhattan, what I felt is that a lot of Jewish people abroad that were not so much active in their connection to Israel understood the importance of Israel to them. And the urgency to work together on this crisis. And I think this will not go away. That's my feeling. 

But now we need to focus on the 59 hostages. I know the feeling I had until two weeks ago. I couldn't breathe. I couldn't smile. I mean, it's your you look at the news and you get heart attacks every single news piece, and you just cannot breathe, and the families of these 59 hostages are still in this situation, we are not allowed to forget and let go.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Thank you for expressing your gratitude. And I must echo that gratitude to you for sharing that story and reliving all of that trauma. I'm sorry that you had to remember some of those horrible moments, though I do think that they are illuminating for those who just simply can't grasp what your family went through. 

You did not see Tal again until he returned to Israel. Is that correct? 

Shoshan Haran:  

Yes. Well, about my husband, I heard only when I returned. But there were evidence from October 7 that Tal was taken alive. People saw him in Gaza. So we knew that he was taken. We were just hoping and praying that none of the horrible things that could happen while you are in captivity will not happen to him. He had a horrible time, but it was released, and my daughter, Adi, his wife, told me it's either zero or one. Either you get your husband, your loved ones back alive, and you can rebuild your future and unite your family, or it's a zero. 

And for the 59 hostages who are still in Gaza, we need to do anything that we can keep keep the pressure, keep the energy, keep the fight.

If you care about the civilian Palestinians in Gaza, like I do–that all my life, I was working for peace–the only thing you need to focus on is releasing the hostages. Because the hostages, the fact that the Hamas terrorists are still keeping them there, is a devastating fact for the Palestinians, because the Hamas, they don't care about their own people. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Is it too soon to ask, once all the hostages return and they will, what comes next? Is there a movement already afoot to make sure Israel and others never forget what happened on October 7? Or is it too soon to ask that question? 

Shoshan Haran:  

I think once all the hostages are back, there will be as we will need, and also the Jewish people in the world will need to cheshbon nefesh (accounting of the soul). I don't know how to say it in English. To rethink and reconsider our views and our actions looking forward. I think we cannot be naive anymore and say to ourselves, you know that just saying that they want to kill us all, but they don't really mean it, and they will not be, they will not dare to do it and so and so forth. I think now we need to look at the facts as they are and recalculate our stance, our thoughts. 

I think, first of all, we need to follow the money. Because one thing I can tell you, without funding, Hamas would never get to this stage, and neither Iran or the Houthis or Hezbollah, there are forces in the world who are supporting financially, the organizations or the countries who declare that they want to destroy and abolish Israel. We need to follow the money. We need to be smart. That's one.

The other, and that's a big question. I'm just putting it on the table, but it's a big question how to do it, but this, we must do it. And the other thing is, the key for mutual existence is education. And what I learned recently, for example, is that the Palestinian Authority, or the people in Gaza, they do not teach about the Holocaust. They do not know about the Holocaust. The people that my captors, they were 24, 25, and 31 and then the commander was 40. Looking at the dates of the decision not to teach about the Holocaust, I'm sure they had no understanding why we are here. They think that we just came here like a colonialist or, you know, and then, if they will give us enough trouble, we will go away. 

But we're not going to go away. We are staying, and until they change their mission to destroy us. We need to be stronger and smarter than them.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Shoshan, thank you so much for being with us, for sharing your story, and for giving us hope, sharing your hope, and then giving us hope that the hostages are all coming home, and that there is a future for Israel.

Shoshan Haran:  

There is a future for Israel. This, I'm sure, yes, but we need the Jewish people with us, and we need to work together.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Thank you so much.

Shoshan Haran:  

Thank you. Thank you. And regards to my friends at AJC.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

If you missed last week’s episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with two scientists at MIT who have created a foundation to ensure Israeli scholars and their American colleagues can collaborate freely, and foster research and innovation that benefits all of humanity.

The American Studies Association has boycotted Israeli academic institutions since 2013. The Association for the Advancement of Anthropology has refrained from formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions. And just this past summer, the American Association of University Professors opened the door to academic boycotts against Israel. 

Enter: two scientists at MIT who see firsthand the consequences of academic boycotts and the damage it can cause to scholarship and scientific progress. To ensure Israeli scholars and their American colleagues can collaborate freely, and foster research and innovation that benefits all of humanity, they formed The Kalaniyot Foundation (pronounced Ka-la-nee-yought), named after Israel's national flower. 

Hear from Drs. Or Hen and Ernest Fraenkel, co-founders of this initiative, on the impact of anti-Israel boycotts on academic collaboration with Israeli scholars, and what they’re doing to rehabilitate the reputation of Israeli researchers in the eyes of the world. 

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

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

• People of the Pod: 

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

  • Why Germany’s Antisemitic Far-Right Party is Thriving Instead of Disappearing

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

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Drs. Or Hen and Ernest Fraenkel:

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Since the Hamas terror attacks of October 7, 2023 many university campuses have been riven by anti-Israel protests, demonstrations, often unfortunately fueled by disinformation and rife with rhetoric that too often crosses the line into antisemitism. But even before October 7, Israeli scholarship had become a target of the boycott divestment sanctions movement. 

The American Studies Association has boycotted Israeli academic institutions since 2013. The Association for the Advancement of Anthropology has refrained from formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions. Even study abroad programs that give students an opportunity to live and study in Israel have come under scrutiny. Enter: two scientists at MIT who see firsthand the consequences of academic boycotts and the damage it can cause to scholarship and scientific progress. To ensure Israeli scholars and their American colleagues can collaborate freely, foster research and innovation that benefits all of humanity, they formed The Kalaniyot Foundation, named after Israel's national flower. Dr. Or Hen and Ernest Fraenkel are with us now to discuss this initiative. Dr. Hen, Dr. Fraenkel, welcome to People of the Pod. 

Ernest Fraenkel:  

Thank you very much. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So I want to work backward here a bit with a purpose. I want to start by sharing with our audience a little about your research. Dr Fraenkel, you work in health science, technology. What is the goal of your research and scholarship? Are there particular diseases you're trying to cure or treat?

Ernest Fraenkel:  

We are interested in the diseases that are the hardest to treat, ones like Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's, where we don't really know the root cause, and we believe that by gathering many different kinds of data about genes and molecules, about RNA and also about people's lived experience of these diseases, and using computational models, we can identify new targets for drugs and hopefully better therapies.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Have you collaborated with Israeli scientists on this? 

Ernest Fraenkel:  

Yes, we collaborate with quite a few scientists all over the world, including top researchers in Israel.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And Dr. Hen, you are a nuclear physicist, and you study the strongest force in nature, right? What is the goal of your research? 

Or Hen:  

So my research is very much on the fundamental curiosity driven science side of things, I am trying to understand how the fundamental building blocks of matter come about. We're building a new particle collider in the US called the electron hand collider. It's a $3 billion project funded by the Department of Energy, where we will try to understand why the proton and from that nucleus and all of us have mass. Trying to understand how we get the proton to a specific spin, which is the reason that we can go into an MRI machine and image ourselves. And I also try to understand things like, how do protons and neutrons interact with each other at extremely short distances, which tell us about exotic phenomena in the universe, like neutron stars. So trying to understand, really, the fundamental building blocks of matter and how they come about.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Wow. And is there promising scholarship in this realm in Israel?

Or Hen:  

Yes, there's quite a few groups working in this area. I did my own training in Israel. I am a graduate of the Hebrew University for undergrad and Tel Aviv University for grad school. And actually, ever since I came to MIT, I’ve still been collaborating with colleagues from Technion, Tel Aviv, Hebrew University, Weizmann, Ben Gurion. I've always had a strong collaboration with Israel, actually.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So after October 7, or maybe even leading up to it, what were you seeing when it came to support of Israeli scholarship and collaboration in your institutions, in your fields, in academia in general?

Ernest Fraenkel:  

I think before October 7, we were living in a bit of a bubble, because MIT is a special place which is very deeply immersed in science and technology. Where really, quite honestly, before October 7, I had no hint that there were biases against Israel, Israelis or Jews. I know that was not the experience in many other areas, especially in other fields.

But things really turned 180 degrees on October 7, and what we've seen since then has been deeply disturbing. That some of the boycotts that have been bubbling for years in the humanities suddenly burst forth into the sciences and the engineering fields in ways that are both global and also very local. Seeing bias against individual researchers inside laboratories, as well as these kind of blanket attempts to boycott Israel.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And Dr Hen, did you see the same? 

Or Hen:  

Yes, definitely. I work with a lot of international collaborations, actually, within collaborations, because there's structured bodies with bylaws and rules, It was very hard for anyone to object the presence of Israeli researchers. But what we have observed in many places is peer to peer collaborations dying down. We've seen a very significant social tax being applied to people who continue to collaborate with Israelis, and honestly, maybe in contrast a bit to what we know from academic boycotts in other areas, but are very much politically driven, within the STEM, within exact sciences, biosciences, etc, the social taxing is actually much stronger because we are people who usually instead, people keep a very clear separation between the politics and then, you know what they view from the work in the lab, which is very clear and data driven, and not a lot of room for opinions. It's very much exact. 

But on the other hand, the second that walking within Israel, and you know collaborating with Israel, is start costing other corporations, other people will now not work, then you get a problem. And that's what people really avoid and that's how an academic boycott within the STEM areas is progressing. It's a very deeply bound social tax that is just running in the air of the institutions.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So what is the Kalaniyot Foundation doing to promote these collaborations? Can you give us some specific examples, or projects or partnerships?

Or Hen:  

Yeah, so one of the things that we really believe in is that, at the end of the day, actually, what we see, also data shows, is, well, there is existing strong collaboration, that peer to peer, that person to person connection, is so strong that it's very hard to break that. You can go into my department and you can talk to people about Israel. And they know Or, and they know the person, right? And they might have a positive opinion about, you know, negative opinion about me. But whatever that opinion is, right, it's stronger than anything. 

They will try to protest and say, Okay, maybe there's a political issue. But you know, we know the researcher. We know the scientists. We know our colleagues. So the approach of Kalaniyot is to actually bring in more Israelis to campus, to bring in brilliant people who are excellent researchers that will come and enrich the academic environment, first and foremost, through this quality, and second, by the people that they are. Maybe Ernest, you want to continue with this?

Ernest Fraenkel:  

So it's really this dual mission. We think that if we bring more top notch Israeli scholars to us campuses, it will normalize interaction with Israelis, humanize the Israeli, but there's a problem, right? Because if you just bring Israelis into campus environments that are hostile, they won't thrive. Many of them won't want to come, right? And so the other piece of it that's necessary is to build community, and that's something that we've been doing since October 7 of last year, trying to figure out how to do that, and what we found is face to face interaction is really critical. 

And so at MIT, we've been having weekly lunches of the Israelis, Jews, allies, everybody who felt isolated and left out of society by all the protests that were taking place. And the beautiful thing is that that started as a reaction, right, a sort of a safe place to retreat to, and it's actually become a wonderful, positive place. And still, now, you know, so far into this crisis, people are coming, and actually the numbers are even growing.

And so on a typical week, we get more than 100 people in person. We, of course, feed them lunch, and it's just a wonderful place where you can make friendships, develop academic collaborations, and Israelis realize that there is a community here that appreciates them and welcomes them and it helps them thrive.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Because, of course, food is a vital currency, both on college campuses as well in Jewish as in Jewish life. Food heals all. But I am curious, do you? In addition to building these thriving communities, are you also so that people are surrounded and comfortable but are you also trying to build bridges with people who perhaps do tend to throw the word Israeli around in a negative capacity, but you need to actually have some face to face contact. Or is that really not the purpose of Kalaniyot.

Or Hen:  

I mean, it's a yes and a no. We certainly have done that, right. So if you think about how it all started very soon after October 7, basically after the first protest on campus at MIT. We went to talk to our president, three Jewish Israeli faculty, and we asked her. We said, Look, we hear from the students about what's happening in the dorms, what they're experiencing. It's really bad, and it's very hard to handle through the existing mechanisms. 

Please actually give us the budget. We'll get kosher food. I’m a Mizrahi, that's what I know how to do, feed people. Let's put everybody together, and let's make sure everybody feel welcome. And we also said, you know, we'll be your bridge. We'll help the students communicate with administration through our guidance, right? We'll be able to filter, to guide them, but also to pick up on the important things that you need to know. But then we said something else. We said, Look, this is going to become very tough, also for the students who are protesting out there right now. It was before Israel responded, but we knew exactly what happened in the kibbutzim, and we knew this is not going to be just another round with Gaza. This is going to be something different. 

So we actually suggested to the President that alongside starting our group, we will start a parallel group of peers who we might disagree with politically and have different perspectives on the Middle East, but we know that they are reasonable people that we can talk to, that we can collaborate with, that we can work with, despite or alongside disagreements. And so the idea was to start our lunch, to start a second lunch, and slowly, through the faculty leadership, bring the groups together. Some of it has worked. Some of it didn't work. 

We used to meet once a week as the faculty and say, students tell us that this and this is happening. Can you maybe walk with your students to tone that down, and they would tell us what's bothering them, etc. Getting the students to come together, that was a bigger lift, a challenging one. And there was another initiative that came about called the Third Space Lunch, that maybe Ernest can elaborate more on.

Ernest Fraenkel:  

So just to add a little bit to that. So the faculty leads from the other group came to speak to our students. Were very respectful to them. The faculty listened quietly to the concerns of the Jewish students. And I think we did see an attempt by many of the faculty to bridge the gaps. Obviously, faculty are an extremely, you know, diverse group. We have extremists, we've got centrists, we've got moderates. And not everybody was trying to help, but many, many were, and I think that was very encouraging, and I've seen that continue throughout this. There are hidden allies.

Probaby the average faculty member probably doesn't really want to know too much about Israel or Palestine. Doesn't want to have to understand the conflicts. They just want to go about their daily lives, teach what they love to teach, do the research they love to do, and they are natural allies in trying to bring order back to campus. And the more that we can engage them, the better off it is.

Or Hen:  

But I think in terms of the formal program for Kalaniyot - Kalaniyot is really meant to bring in researchers and make sure that they have a supporting environment. And if people want to take that extra step of building bridges and building, that's all great, but it's not kind of a mandatory part of the program.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I get it. You really just want to foster academic research and progress and innovation, right? Put political strife aside. You've named this foundation Kalaniyot after Israel's national flower. Can you describe for our listeners that flower and why you chose that name for this initiative?

Ernest Fraenkel:  

The Kalaniyah looks a lot like a poppy. It's a red poppy, and during good times, there actually was an annual festival where Israelis would flock to the south in the area right around Gaza to see the bloom of this flower that would cover the otherwise fairly barren, quite honestly, countryside. And it was called the South Red, Darom Adom, and people would rush there to see it. And it was a symbol, which actually takes place right around the time we're recording. People have been sending us photos from from Israel the last few weeks of these flowers, the more they hear about the program. 

And it's a sign that the winter is going to end and spring is going to come, and everything will be renewed. And so it was the South in red, in a sense, that was all positive. And we think the same sort of thing is possible here, that while Israel is right now a touch point for conflict on campus, we want to see a time when Israel, this is something like, Oh, of course. You know, everybody wants to have some connection to Israel. That's where the best researchers are in every field. 

I often tell the story, when I was first on the faculty here, one of my first assignees as an undergraduate advisee was somebody from Hawaii, and he told me, asked him what he was going to do this summer, and he said he's going to Israel. So no, really, what's, what's your connection to Israel? He said, Oh, I don't have any I thought, maybe he's a strong Christian. I asked him about that. Said, no, no, I don't have any particular faith. I just heard it's startup nation, and I want to go and experience it. 

And I just think, how many students today is their first association with Israel, startup nation? Probably not that many anymore, but we can get back to that and realize that it's more than startups, right? It's basic science, it's the arts, it's culture. And so there’s much that Israel has to offer the world, and we want to get back to the point where that's the first thing people think about Israel.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So this initiative did start at MIT, but it appears to be sprouting, to use a pun, it appears to be sprouting on other campuses. Dartmouth is developing a chapter and Penn, right, the University of Pennsylvania. Are they being led by fellow scientists who have seen the consequence of this scholastic snub, for lack of a better word?

Ernest Fraenkel:  

So at each university, and there are several others in the works that are still working their way through the administration at each university, and by the way, this is not a renegade effort. At each university, the faculty form a faculty board, we encourage them to find a diverse group. So it's not all the sciences on our board. And on those boards, there seem to be many members of humanities departments. Not all Jews, not all Israelis. 

And these diverse faculty boards are people who are allied with the goals, and we have bylaws. This is a program entirely about positivity. It's not attempting to suppress anybody else's speech. It's not attempting to make any political points. It's a purely academic program that will help restore the image of Israel as a place of academic excellence and help the United States maintain its academic edge through those collaborations.

Or Hen:  

And I think you're hitting on a very unique point, right? And that is that this is entirely faculty led program. When you think about the role of faculty in universities, especially faculty from STEM fields, right, we don't lead a lot of things in the academic world that are not our research, right? Honestly, that's kind of, why am I here and not in Google, right? I would probably make a much bigger salary for Google these days. 

I'm here because I really care about my research, those open questions I really want to explore, and that's what I'm doing. So I'm teaching my class, and I'm focusing on my research. And me is everybody else around me, that's what we do. So there is a very high activation energy to get the faculty to do something that is not their research, their own research, but once you do that, faculty is a force of nature at the university. That's kind of what we're here to stay, right? We'll tenure, we're going to be at the retirement. We run the place eventually. 

So it's both to activate the people who can really make an impact from within in a very strong way. That's number one, who have these decades of connections, right? Well before the challenge, you know, I've had my 10 years of collaborations here at MIT, and this has a lifetime of more than 10 years of collaborations here, right? And many of us and people remember those connections, right? Remember how we teach together, how I lent them something from my lab, and stuff like that, right? We have these personal connections. 

So it is really the first and uniquely faculty led program that is very helping to come back, see faculty do that. There's a lot of power, and that's also why it's such an academically focused program, because that's what we know how to do. There's many other who can combat antisemitism and can give antisemitism training and title six and all that. And we don't do it, not because it's not important, just because we are not the people who bring in unique expertise in those areas, but when it comes to research collaboration, connections with Israel around those things, we are the ones who can really promote it from within in a way that's unpowered and parallel to anyone else. And that's the, I think the strongest point of Kalaniyot, the faculty leadership. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

In other words, you're not activists, you're not advocates. That's not what you set out to do. You are researchers, scientists who just want to do research in science.

Or Hen:  

And when I see everybody around us do the best research and science possible, which means engaging with the brightest minds anywhere in the world, and that includes Israel.  And we don't want to see that door shut down. There's no hiding it – Ernest and I are Zionists, we're not going to shy away from that. And we think that an academic boycott in the STEM is a risk to Israel. Israel doesn't have oil, right? What Israel has is the Jewish mind, and that mind is the thing that helps Israel, and that mind is the thing that helps the world. And we can go on and on about inventions and discoveries that came out of Israel and Israelis and Jews for the benefit of mankind. So both for the benefit of Israel and all of humanity, we don't want to see the Israeli Academy get isolated. It's going to be bad for all of us.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Now I know that there is a program at Indiana University called Olamot, focusing on the humanities. Does this only apply to STEM fields, or do you also have partnerships and collaborations developing across multiple disciplines?

Ernest Fraenkel:  

Yes, absolutely, this is a program that's open to all academic fields, and each university will craft a slightly different program, we're sure. At MIT, because we're STEM dominated, our Kalaniyot program is dominated by STEM, but it's not exclusively STEM here, either. We do have deep involvement with several of our board members in the humanities. Many of the people who come to our programming are in humanities. We're hoping that some of the scholars whom we will select in our first cohort of post doctoral and sabbatical visitors will be in the humanities, but that's going to be much a bigger component of it at other universities such as Dartmouth and Penn, where they have huge humanities programs.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And are you getting mostly support, or are you getting any pushback from faculty members? 

Ernest Fraenkel:  

So this is really fascinating. Early on, when we first started formulating this program, we wrote a memo explaining, a letter, explaining why we were doing this for something called the faculty newsletter, which is usually a place where people write fairly anti-Israel things, and we kind of braced ourselves for the pushback. And nothing came back. There was no pushback. Because if you believe in academic values in the United States, unless you're a hardcore BDS person, there's really nothing objectionable here. 

Our goal is to bring brilliant scholars to campus and encourage them to be able to work broadly, without regard to nationality, religion, anything else, any other protective category. And so we were very pleased. And initially, you know, the administration was curious. They were interested. They wanted to review exactly what we're doing. The MIT administration went through everything we're doing, and they gave us the thumbs up, and they've now been helping us make connections and behind the scenes, I believe, I understand that, you know, some provosts and presidents occasionally talk about this when they meet and they, you know, tell each other it's not a bad thing to have at your University.

Or Hen:  

I remember when we kind of got people to know the program, we met with a very high ranking individual at MIT. And that person said, Look, MIT stands on three legs: research, education, and entrepreneurship. Israel excels in all three. Of course, we want those connections. Of course we want those collaborations. And who in the right mind can say that this is anything political, right? Now I'm sure that some people will try at some point. But like Ernest said, we've worked very hard on the language and the messaging to make sure that the language and messaging reflects the way we really see it, as a very strong academic program.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So, Dr. Hen, I do want to ask you a personal question. I have read that as a child, you navigated some pretty significant learning disabilities stemming from dysgraphia. You have difficulty translating your thoughts into written form, but the assessment to determine those disabilities also determined that you had a unique gift for abstract comprehension, the ability to conceptually pare down complex ideas to their fundamental core. So I wanted to ask you, in your opinion, what is at the fundamental core of these academic boycotts?

Or Hen:  

Honestly, I do believe that the academic boycotts come from antisemitism. That's the core. I do believe that there are a lot of people who engage in that, not understanding that is what they're doing. I'd like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think that a lot of people do see a difference between anti-Zionism, anti-Israel, antisemitism, right, which I personally do not share. And that's a different point of view, which is allowed. But I think at the end of the day, trying to isolate Israel, eventually is from a top level, and attempt to bring down the country, because that's the core. Core of Israel is its academics. That's really where it all starts. And if we don't have academia, if we’re attacking the Israeli Academy, you're attacking Israel.

And any person who takes the time to learn about the Israeli Academy, who listens to speeches by the head of Tel Aviv University about the judicial reform in Israel. Who listens to the head of the Israeli National Academy about how he sees democracy and what he sees about the war, situation, you would learn that the Israeli Academy is really the hallmark of independent academia that stands by itself, as an independent body that really promotes research and good for the world.

And anyone who attacks that either doesn't know or doesn't care to know, and I'd like to hope that most people don't know, and once they'll know and appreciate the people, they will see different people. There is a core that doesn't want to know, and okay, we need to make sure that that call remains as small as possible.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Dr. Fraenkel, do you agree?

Ernest Fraenkel:  

I'm by nature, a centrist and not a political person, and I also have learned over time that it's very hard to understand other people's motivations. But I do think that one of the paths to it, to solving the problem, is to re-humanize Israel and Israelis in the minds of the people who are currently protesting. And I think we'll have good results if we do that.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I'm curious, we've been talking a lot about Israeli research and innovation. Can you kind of share a piece of Israeli innovation that you've heard about recently, that maybe our audience has not and should know about?

Ernest Fraenkel:  

I was just at a conference yesterday, and one of the best talks yesterday, this was at a conference on ALS, was given by a researcher from the Weitzman Institute, Eran Hornstein. And he spoke about an entirely new way to analyze what goes on inside cells in the course of disease. He calls it organellealomics, I think. It’s kind of a mouthful, but it was completely innovative. No one has anything similar. It allows you to get a wonderful view of all the different processes that are going on in the cell at a very high level, in a way that is experimentally very accessible. And I think it's really going to transform a lot of how we research diseases, and may lead to some rapid advances in some of these tough cases.

Or Hen:  

Yeah, I can add to that, you know, from the more industry side of things, right? We all have technology in our pockets, in our homes, in our offices, developed in Israel. The most advanced processors by Intel are built on architecture that was developed in Haifa. Apple has engineering centers in Israel. Facebook has engineering centers in Israel, Nvidia. All of us use Israeli technology day in and day out. We either know it or we don't. But there's not a single person in the western world that does not rely on Israeli technology sometime, someplace, some point in his day.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And when you were at that conference, Dr. Fraenkel, or Dr. Hen, consider that, when you pull out your phone and consider the many ways in which we use Israeli technology, does that further validate, does it affirm that what you are doing is the right thing to do, and that this will only benefit humanity at large?

Ernest Fraenkel:  

In biology, we often do these experiments where we delete a gene, we make it stop working, and we see what happens to the cell or to the animal that we're studying, right? And just do the thought experiment. What would happen to American science if it didn't have these strong collaborations with Israel? And be weaker in consumer electronics, and be weaker in AI, we would be weaker in all the underpinnings of all the technology that we're all walking around with every day. 

We'd be weaker in healthcare. Think about the contribution that Israel made to understanding what was going on during the COVID pandemic, right? It's just shocking how much we would lose from this small country not being there. 

And absolutely, when we think about that, it just drives us even more to try to get this program to spread across all the best universities in the United States, and hopefully we'll make inroads in Europe as well and really bring Israel back to the forefront in everybody's mind as a place where positive things are happening.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Well, thank you both for joining us so much and for sharing about this program. Really do appreciate it. It's fascinating and refreshing to learn that academics are supporting academics.

Ernest Fraenkel:  

Thank you very much. Real pleasure to speak with you.

AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson sits down with U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, for a live discussion in Washington, D.C., to introduce AJC’s Center for a New Middle East. They cover plans for rebuilding Gaza, the future of Israeli-Arab relations, and the evolving geopolitical landscape, including the impact of the Abraham Accords and shifting regional alliances. Tune in for insights on diplomacy, security, and what’s next for the Middle East.

The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.

Resources:

AJC Center for a New Middle East Initiatives and Policy Recommendations Listen – AJC Podcasts:

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

• People of the Pod: 

  • Why Germany’s Antisemitic Far-Right Party is Thriving Instead of Disappearing

  • Spat On and Silenced: 2 Jewish Students on Fighting Campus Hate

  • University of Michigan Regent Jordan Acker: When Antisemitism Hits Home

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

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Jason Isaacson and Steve Witkoff:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

This week, AJC's Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, Jason Isaacson, sat down for a live conversation with Steve Witkoff, the US Special Envoy to the Middle East. They discussed plans to rebuild Gaza, political upheaval in Syria and Lebanon and expansion of the Abraham Accords. For this week's episode, we bring you that live conversation to you.

Jason Isaacson:  

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for being here, and thank you Special Envoy Witkoff for participating in this evening's program, introducing AJC Center for New Middle East, and extension and refocusing of the work that we've been doing for decades to advance Arab Israeli understanding, cooperation and peace. Your presence here means a great deal to us. 

As you've heard from my colleagues, AJC looks forward to working with you and your team in any way that we can to help ensure the success of a secure Israel, fully integrated in the Middle East. Now let me begin by thanking you again, renewing our thanks and thanking President Trump for your relentless efforts, which began even before the President took office, to assure the liberation of the hostages still held by Hamas and Gaza now for 508 days, we know how dedicated you are and the President is, to gaining the release of Edan Alexander, the last living American hostage, and the remains of the four other Americans, Itai Chen, Gadi and Judy Weinstein-Haggai, and Omer Neutra, and all of the hostages living and dead, still held captive by the terrorists. 

So I want to point out that leaders of the Hostage Families Forum are with us here this evening. As is Emmet Tsurkov, whose sister Elizabeth Tsurkov was kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq two years ago. We are all counting on your and your colleagues' continued efforts to free them all. Thank you again, Steve. 

Now my first question to you, how does a successful real estate developer make the transition to Middle East diplomacy, as you certainly have. Clearly, there are profound territorial issues at play here, but there are also powerful and tangible factors, perhaps less easily negotiated, factors of historical narrative, of religion, of nationalism. How do you cut through all that? How do you achieve success given the very different career that you've pursued up to this point?

Steve Witkoff:  

Well, first of all, Jason, thank you for having me, and welcome everybody and to the hostage families, I just want to welcome you here. Some of the people I probably have talked to already, and just know that my heart is always with you. You know, President, I'm a very close friend of President Trump's, and I think he felt that, hopefully, that I could do a good job here.

And so I think the job had a lot to do with miscommunication and correcting that. It had a lot to do with getting over to the region and understand what was happening, and maybe most importantly, it had a lot to do with his election and peace through strength and the perception that he was not he was going to take a different path, that the old policy prescriptions that that had not worked in the Middle East were not going to be tolerated by him anymore. And I think that's in large part what allowed us to get a positive result. 

Adding to that, of course, was all of the good work that Prime Minister Netanyahu in his administration had achieved with Nasrallah Hezbollah in Lebanon, he had basically gutted Hamas. So many good things that happened. And you know, on top of that, the raids in Iran, and it created this perception that a lot of the a lot of what emanated out of October 7 was never going to be tolerated again. And that began the, you know, that began the pathway to achieving the result we achieved in the first phase. But that's just half of the problem. So we've got a lot more to go.

Jason Isaacson:  

I've got some questions about that, as well as you can imagine. Help us understand the President's priorities and therefore your focus in this very complicated region. There's the continued trauma of October 7, 2023 dozens of Israeli and other hostages still held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza, and the deep wounds inflicted on Israeli society in that attack. There's the need to rebuild Gaza and to assure it is no longer governed by Hamas. 

There's the prospect of advancing normalization between Israel and Arab states building on the Abraham Accords of the first Trump administration. There are also political upheavals and some hopeful signs, although the jury is still out in Lebanon and in Syria, and there's the ongoing threat to peace and stability posed by the Iranian regime. How do you prioritize? What are your expectations for success on these many tracks. It's an awful lot to deal with.

Steve Witkoff:  

That was, I think I counted like 14 questions.

Jason Isaacson:  

This is my specialty, by the way.

Steve Witkoff:  

I can see. I have to, now you're testing my memory on all of this.

Jason Isaacson:  

Priorities. 

Steve Witkoff:  

Yeah, I would say, How does the President think about it? Well, first and foremost, he wants something different for the region, yeah, and different in the sense that the old way of thinking we've they've rebuilt Gaza three or four times already. Like that's just an unacceptable use of resources. We need to do it in a much more in a much better way, a. B, we need to get rid of this crazy, ideological, psychopathic way of thinking that Hamas thinks. What they did, it can never be tolerated. I saw a film that many in this in this room did not see, made by Southern Command when I was in Gaza, and it's horrific. I mean, it is a horrific film. What happened in this film and what they did to people. 

So this is not, this is not the act of people who are going to war. This is the act of barbarians, and it can never be tolerated. Normalization is critical for the region. Saudi Arabia embraces it because they can't finance in their own markets today. And why? Because there's so much war risk. I actually saw Jamie Diamond today, and I discussed it with him, and I said to him, you know, think about an area like Saudi Arabia. They have tons of money, but they can't leverage their money. And they can't because the underwriting risk on war, it can't be underwritten. So you're not going to see typical senior financing. Go into those marketplaces they can finance if they do a deal in New York and they can't finance in their own country. Makes no sense. And that's going to lead to a lot of stability. 

In terms of the Iranian crescent, it's basically been decimated. Look at what's happened with Syria. No one ever thought that that was going to happen. We've got an epic election in Lebanon. And so tons of things happening. Lebanon, by the way, could actually normalize and come into the Abraham Peace Accords, as could even potentially Syria. So so many profound changes are happening there, and yet it's been a flash point of conflict, and I think that there's a possibility that we end it. Now, do we have to make sure that Egypt is stabilized? Yes, they've got some issues, economic and financial issues, and also on their streets. Same thing with Saudi Arabia, and we have to be cognizant about that. But all in all, I think there are some really good, good things that are happening. 

Jason Isaacson:  

Yeah, and I hope with your intervention and the president's power, more good things will happen in the coming months. 

Steve Witkoff:  

We're hopeful. 

Jason Isaacson:

So you've recently returned from your latest trip to the region with meetings at the highest levels in Israel, in Saudi Arabia, in the United Arab Emirates, next Tuesday in Cairo, will be a meeting of the Arab League to discuss the future of Gaza. What is your sense of, drills down on your last answer, what is your sense of the region's readiness to advance to the next phase of negotiations, to free the Israeli hostages, to shift to a new Israeli force posture in and around Gaza, and put a governing structure in place that excludes terrorists. Can we assure that Hamas no longer rules, no longer poses a threat, that its missiles, tunnels and other infrastructure in Gaza are destroyed?

Steve Witkoff:  

Well, you know, central to the May 27 protocol that was signed with the Biden administration and the Israelis. Central to that is that Hamas cannot have any part of  a governor governing structure in Gaza. And that's from that's a red line for the Israelis, but it's a red line for us, too. You see the film. And we have to thread that needle in phase two of the negotiations. 

Jason Isaacson:

How do we get there? 

Steve Witkoff:  

We're not entirely sure yet, but we are working. You know, we're making a lot of progress. There is, Israel is sending a team right now as we speak, it's either going to be to Doha or to Cairo, where negotiations will begin again with the Egyptians and with the Qataris, and I may if that negotiation goes positively enough. This is the initial phase of the negotiation where we've set, we've set some boundaries, some contours about what we want to talk about and what the outcomes we expect to happen. This is from the United States at the direction of President Trump. If it goes well, maybe I would be able to go on Sunday to execute and finish an arrangement. That's what we're hoping for.

Jason Isaacson:

Put phase two on track. 

Steve Witkoff:  

Put phase two on track and have some additional hostage release, and we think that that's a real possibility. We had a lot of conversation this morning about that, and with all of the parties I'm talking about, and people are responsive. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. That's a very chaotic place the Middle East.

Jason Isaacson:  

But you’ve got cooperation from the Quint, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar. 

Steve Witkoff:  

Yes. All of those countries in that region, they want to see, they want to see stability. There's new young leadership there. Everybody understands that it’s untenable to be at war all the time. It just doesn't work, and it's setting everybody back. Look at Israel, by the way, they're drafting, they're conscripting people at 50 years old to go to go to the fight. That’s, uh…

Jason Isaacson:  

And reservists are being called back to duty again and again.

Steve Witkoff:  

Correct. People can't work, by the way, economies are suffering throughout there. But on the other hand, Hamas can't be tolerated either, and yet, we need to get the hostages back to their families. Pardon me?

Jason Isaacson:  

Israel is still resilient.

Steve Witkoff:  

Of course it is. Of course it is. But we, you know, look, I don't want to talk about all these things and not acknowledge that the most that the primary objective has got to be to bring those hostages home. It has to be.

Jason Isaacson:  

I mentioned the Quint before: Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar. Egypt and Jordan, longtime peace partners with Israel, were proposed by the president as the possible place in which Palestinians evacuated from Gaza could be housed temporarily, or perhaps more than temporarily. What is your sense of the possibility of the dislocation of Palestinians from Gaza? Is that essential to the idea of rebuilding Gaza, or not essential?

Steve Witkoff:  

Well, first of all, let me acknowledge King Abdullah, and also the Egyptians, General Hassan, who runs their intelligence unit. President Sisi, their ambassador. They're dug in. They're focused on solutions. It's a complicated situation right now, but they've done a great job, and they've been available, and whenever I call them, they're responsive. 

The Jordanians have had a tough trip here, but, you know, they've managed through it. But let's just talk sort of about what the President talks about. Why is he talking about Gaza in the way he's talking about it? Because all the for the last four decades, the other ways of thinking have not worked. We sort of always get back to this place. 

First of all, it's a giant slum. It really is, by the way, and it's a slum that's been decimated. On top of that, I was the first American official to go there in 22 years. I was literally there in the tunnels, on the battlefield. It is completely destroyed. There's 30,000 shells that are laying all over that battlefield, in large part because the Biden administration held up munitions shipments to the Israelis, and they were firing 1973 vintage ammunition that didn't explode. Who would let their children wander around these places? 

In New York, there would be yellow tape around it. Nobody would be allowed to come in the they were digging tunnels. So everything underneath subterranean is swiss cheese, and then it got hit by 2000 pound bunker bombs. So you could have dust down there. It's so devastated. I just think that President Trump, is much more focused on, how do we make a better life for people? How do we change the educational frameworks? Right now, people are growing up there, in textbooks, in the first grade, they're seeing AK47’s, and how you fire them. That's, that's, this is just insanity. What's going on out there. 

So we have to directionally change how people are thinking there, how they're going to live together. People talk about two state we at the Trump administration, talk about, how do you get to a better life if you have a home in Gaza in the middle of a slum that hasn't been fixed up correctly, is that as good as aspirationally having a great job and being able to know that you can send your kids to college and they can become lawyers and doctors and so forth? That to me, is what we want to achieve. And when, when we began talking about Gaza, we were not talking about a giant eviction plan. 

What we were talking about was the fact, unlike the Biden administration, and this is not a knock on them, it's that they didn't do their work correctly, the Biden administration, that May 27 protocol is based on a five year redevelopment plan. You can't demolish everything there and clean it up in five years, let alone x-ray it on a subterranean level and figure out what foundations exist, or what, what conditions exist to hold foundations, and then what we should build. It's easily a 15 year plan, and it might be 20 or 25 years. 

And the Wall Street Journal, one of the most mainstream publications, two days ago, finally came out with a major article talking about that and basically validating what we've been talking about. Once you understand it from that perspective, you understand it's not about an eviction plan. It's about creating an environment there for whoever's going to live there that's better than it's ever been in the last 40 years.

Jason Isaacson:  

Steve, thank you. Before October 7, 2023 the betting in many foreign policy circles, as you know, was that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel were closing in on a deal to normalize relations, coupled with an enhanced security agreement between the US and Saudi governments and Saudi access to the full nuclear fuel cycle under US safeguards. Where would you say that formula stands today? Is that still the framework that you're expecting will describe the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia and between Saudi Arabia and Israel?

Steve Witkoff:  

Well, that's why I keep on going back to the May 27 protocol, because it's chock full of misinformation. And so the Saudis were operating, as were the Israelis, as if you could redevelop and reconstruct Gaza in five years. You can't. You can finish demolition, you can finish refuse removal, you can do all of that in five years. But for that, there's nothing else is going to get accomplished. 

So when the Saudis talked normalization with the Israelis and defense treaty, they were thinking about it on a five year time frame. Once you begin to think about it as a 15 or a 20 year deal, it almost begs the question, are Gazans going to wait? Do they even want to wait? 

I mean, if you're a mother and a father and you've got three kids, do you want to wait 20 years to maybe have a nice, safe home there? And this has nothing to do with relocation. Maybe we should be talking about relocation, or, excuse me, the ability to come back and, you know, later on. But right now, right here, right now, Gaza is a long term redevelopment plan, and I think once the Saudis begin to incorporate that into their thinking, and the Egyptians and UAE and everybody who has a vested interest in Gaza, I think you're going to see development plans that more mirror the way the President is thinking than what the May 27 protocol contemplated.

Jason Isaacson:  

Are you suggesting that the possibility of normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia will come after there is a fully formed Gaza redevelopment plan? 

Steve Witkoff:  

I think so. Because I believe that. I believe it's just sequentially logical, because that's when you begin to think about how Gazans are going to think about it. Right now, we're talking about it in the abstract. And there are many countries, by the way, out there, that from a humanitarian standpoint, we've talked to many of them, are actually extending themselves and saying, Hey, look, we'd, we'd love to be a part of some sort of permanent solution for the Gazan people. 

No one wants to see the Gazan people in some sort of diaspora, they're sort of disengaged, and that doesn't work. That only is going to fester and lead to more radicalism in the region. So we've got to get a solution for it, but we need to levelset the facts first. And the facts have not been levelset. They've been thinking about this from a perspective of facts that are inaccurate. Now we've level set those facts. We're going to conduct a summit pretty soon with probably the biggest developers in the Mideast region, many of the Arab developers, lots of master planners. I think when people see some of the ideas that come from this, they're going to be amazed.

Jason Isaacson:  

Steve, thank you. Final question, from AJC's many contacts and visits over many years across the Arab world, including regular exchanges over three decades in Gulf Cooperation Council countries, we've come to believe in the inevitability of Israel's full integration in the region, that the more the region's leaders and elites focus on the potential advantages to their societies, including their security of normal relations with Israel, the more likely it is that we'll achieve that goal. Is that the sense that you have as well, from where you sit?

Steve Witkoff:  

I do. I think, look, I think that the people of Israel want to live in peace with with the people of the Middle East. And it could be incredible.

Jason Isaacson:  

And vice versa. 

Steve Witkoff:  

And vice versa. I had a discussion with His Royal Highness, His MBs, his brother yesterday, the defense minister, an exceptional man, by the way, and we talked about how Saudi could become one of the best investable markets out there, when it can be financed. Think about this. The United States today has the greatest capital market system that the world knows. And when you have a great capital market system, when. You can borrow, when you can lease a car, when you can buy a home and mortgage it all those different things. It drives an economy. It propels it. 

Right now in the Middle East, it's very difficult to finance. The banks don't want to operate it. Why? Because tomorrow a Hootie missile could come in if you're building a data center, and puff it's gone. We don't have to. Banks don't have to underwrite that risk in New York City or Washington, DC or American cities. So I think as you get more stabilization there, I think the real estate values are going to go through the moon. And we talk about this, Israel is a bedrock of great technological innovation. I think you know, all of the Arab countries, UAE, Saudi, Qatar, they're into blockchain robotics. They're into hyperscale data centers. These are the things that interest Israel, and yet they're driving so much of the tech surge out there. Imagine all of them working together. It could be an incredible region, so we're hopeful for that prospect. That's that's the way the President thinks about it. We've we talk at length about this, and he gives us the direction, and we follow it, and that's his direction.

Jason Isaacson:  

I thought I heard applause about to begin, but I will, I will ask you to hold for a second, because I just want to thank you, Steve whitco, for sharing your vision and the President's vision for how to move forward to build a more stable and prosperous and peaceful Middle East and and you've laid it out for us, and we very much appreciate your Thank you. 

Steve Witkoff:  

Thank you. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:

If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with AJC Berlin director Remko Leemhuis about the victory of a centrist right government in Germany's recent election and its plans to build a coalition excluding the far-right, antisemitic political party, Alternative for Germany. Remko and I discussed why that party's unprecedented post war election returns are a cause for concern.

“In Germany after 1945 . . . it was always sort of an unwritten rule or law that the more radical these [right wing populist] parties become, the less votes they get, and at some point they just disappear. And what is troubling with the AfD is that the more radical they become, the more votes they get.”

Following Germany’s recent election results, the far-right party AfD, or Alternative for Germany, is now a more prominent force than ever, doubling its support. Director of AJC Berlin Lawrence and Lee Ramer Institute for German-Jewish Relations Remko Leemhuis breaks down the rise of AfD, the role of Christian Democrat’s Friedrich Merz—widely expected to be Germany’s next chancellor—and the challenges ahead for Germany’s relationship with Israel and the United States. Leemhuis also discusses the dangers of political polarization and its consequences for the Jewish community in Germany. As the Christian Democrats form a coalition and Merz takes the lead, how will Germany navigate the rise of populism while strengthening its alliances on the global stage?

Resources:

-What is the Alternative for Germany or AfD Party?

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

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

-People of the Pod: 

Unpacking Trump’s Gaza Plan

The Oldest Holocaust Survivor Siblings: A Tale of Family, Survival, and Hope

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

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

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Remko Leemhuis:

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

German citizens went to the polls on Sunday for the fourth snap election in that nation's postwar history. Public opinion surveys indicated that the far right party, AFD Alternative for Germany, was poised to play a larger political role than ever before. 

The party also has attracted significant attention from US political leaders of late, including US Vice President JD Vance, who, in addition to visiting a Holocaust concentration camp during a recent trip to Europe, also met with Alice Weidel, the head of Germany's AFD party.

Here to discuss the outcome of the election, its impact on Germany's relationship with Israel, and the German Jewish community is AJC Berlin director Remko Leemhuis. Remko, welcome to People of the Pod. 

Remko Leemhuis:  

Hello, and thanks for having me.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So if you could just brief our audience on who exactly AfD is- what their history is and their ideology?

Remko Leemhuis:  

So the party started out in 2013 and started out as a – I don't want to make it a joke, but they started out as a sort of party of professors who were in opposition to the European austerity policy during the financial crisis. Meaning, especially keeping Greece, who was in a deep financial crisis, and they advocated for expelling Greece, for example, from the European Union, because they were afraid that their debt will be then sort of distributed among all member states of the Europeans. So that was their starting point. 

But that was also their only issue. And I remember that in 2015 they were around 3-4%. But then the party changed. We had, as many of your listeners know, the influx of over a million refugees from mostly Syria, and the party sort of reinvented itself. And from then on, migration policy, illegal migration, all of the issues connected to these issues were at the center. And from there, they rose, and again, radicalized ever since. And right now, the migration issue is their central issue on which they are campaigning. 

And it doesn't matter what you ask. I've seen a lot of these debates that we have before elections with all the heads of the parties, and it is really astonishing how the party is always able to tie every single issue to migration, be it taxes, be it–you can come up with every issue. At the end, it's always about migration, illegal migration, and migrants. And that is something that is their central platform.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Well the Trump administration also made illegal immigration central to its platform, but I think what AJC here in America found so alarming about Vance’s meeting with Weidel, perhaps there was alarm there in Germany too, was the party’s clear record of antisemitism and hostility to America. Weidel herself has called Germany a “slave state” to America and Germany’s Holocaust remembrance culture a “guilt cult”. AJC pointed these things out after the vice president’s meeting.  

So did AfD do as well as expected, Remko? What are the election results so far? 

Remko Leemhuis:  

So we had the highest voter turnout since 1990. We were above 80%. 83-84% which is the highest turnout since 1990, so the elections after reunification. 

The AfD was able to double their result. In the last general election that around 10%, now they came in with 20%. And just for comparison, the Social Democrats came in with 15, close to 16%. So this is something that should concern us very much. 

The Christian Democratic Union, so the German conservative center right party won the election. Although not with that many votes as expected. So their aim was 30% plus X. They now have 28-29% but still they are the strongest party. And given German election tradition, the party with the most votes then forms the government and invites other parties to form a government.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And that means that Friedrich Merz is poised to be the next chancellor. Is that correct?

Remko Leemhuis:  

Yes, if he's able to form a government, yes. I mean, at this point, he still has to talk to one party, and this will be the Social Democrats, even though they lost almost 10% compared to previous elections. Together, they have a majority, and everything indicates that they will form the next government.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Is there a possibility that Alternative for Germany or AfD could be part of the coalition as well? 

Remko Leemhuis:  

No, that has been ruled out by Friedrich Merz, given that he was ahead on the polls for at least over a year, he has ruled this out on numerous occasions. He has ruled it out yesterday in interviews, so there's no chance that the AfD will be part of a federal government.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So is there any reason for concern, given the trajectory of this election, and given AfD’s results in this election? They came in second, correct?

Remko Leemhuis:  

There's a lot of reason for concern, because  we can say, of course, this is a broader trend in Europe and in the Western world, that you have the rise of these right wing populist parties. But in Germany, after 1945, it's not the first time that we have right wing extremist parties in Parliament, state or federal, but it was always sort of an unwritten rule or law that the more radical these parties become, the less votes they get, and at some point they just disappear. 

And what is troubling with the AfD is that the more radical they become, the more votes they get. And this is something that is pretty hard to grapple with, and where I very honestly, also don't have an answer why they are able to sort of break with this rule. But this is very, very troubling, especially in light of the fact, and that is something that is well known to the German public, that the German domestic security services are surveilling the AfD and classifying them as a case of suspected right wing extremism. 

So the whole party and three regional branches of this party are officially confirmed by German domestic security as far right. So which means that they are in opposition to liberal democracy. And this is something that, again, is very, very concerning.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Of course, AfD did not win. The Christian Democratic Union won. Could that victory have any impact on the special relationship between Germany and Israel? This is, of course, the return of the party of Angela Merkel, correct?

Remko Leemhuis:  

First of all, we have to get credit for the outgoing government coalition, because since October 7, this coalition has been a reliable ally of Israel. Of course, there were issues where there were differences, but in general, the outgoing coalition has stood by Israel's side, which was also recognized by Israel. And it is not just a talking point for Israel diplomats when they say that Germany is Israel's second most important ally. 

And they have done it despite the fact that they had a lot of pressure from their respective voter bases, especially the Greens and the Social Democrats. So this is something where we really have to credit these parties. Now, the Christian Democratic Union, as you have mentioned, is the party of Angela Merkel, and it's the party that and she came up with the term of the staatsräson (reason of state), and that Israel's security is essential to Germany's policy. 

I think there are areas where the relationship will even improve. And just to give you one example, we are talking, today on Monday, the day after the election. And it's really astonishing. Freidrich Merz gave a press conference today, the first after the election yesterday. And really the first question was about his call that he had with the Israeli Prime Minister yesterday. 

And he stated very clearly that he has invited the Israeli prime minister to Germany, and that he will find a way to make sure that the Israeli prime minister will be able to visit Germany without being arrested, given the ICC warrant, something that the outgoing coalition didn't say this clearly or said they will adhere to the ICC arrest warrant. So this is something that, from our perspective, is very positive. 

And also, I think that the military cooperation and the defense cooperation between Israel and Germany will again, first of all, all of that will not be, again openly debated, but again in the formats where they belong. And so in general, I would say the relations will improve. But this will not mean that also this government or the next government will only say, and do what Israel wants. But I think in general, the trend and the relationship will be more positive and even improve.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So what about relations with the United States? As I mentioned before, Vice President Vance met with one of the AfD leaders. Do you foresee that relationship changing significantly?

Remko Leemhuis:  

Well, first of all, I have to say Freidrich Merz is very committed to the transatlantic relationship. But yesterday, again, in a post-election interview, he said something that I thought I would have never hear from him. But he said that, We in Europe maybe have to grapple with the fact that the US will not be the sort of ally that it was before, and that we in Europe have to think about a situation where the US will only be very little or not present at all in Europe. Especially when it comes to war in Ukraine and the support for Ukraine. So even though he is very committed to the transatlantic relationship, given the recent developments he looks much more concerned to Washington and what is happening and what is coming out of Washington.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

In other words, he sees a bit of a destabilizing effect when it comes to transatlantic relations and security from the direction of the United States, not within Europe itself.

Remko Leemhuis:  

Yes, destabilizing is the right word. And that doesn't mean that he doesn't see the failures that Europe and Germany has made over the past years. And I think that's something we also, as AJC, try to highlight every time. That the Europeans, especially the Germans, for decades, haven't lived up to their commitments when it comes to defense spending. And 11 years ago now, after Russia annexed Ukraine and the NATO states agreed on the 2% goal, Germany hasn't met this. And a lot of other European countries that are member of NATO haven't met that 2% goal. 

And the discussion about this goes even, you know, way back longer. I think it was even started with President George W. Bush, who always highlighted this issue and that the Germans, the Europeans, have to do more. And especially the Germans as the third-largest economy in the world and the biggest economy in Europe, has to shoulder more responsibility, which means they have to spend more. So he's very aware of the fact of all these shortcomings, and he's very willing to fix that and to spend more money on defense if the US cuts its spending here, if the US withdraws troops from the European continent. 

And still being aware that even if you know, Europe does its best, we will not be able to fill these gaps, because we just don't have the resources or the infrastructure to do that. So we still need the US, no matter what. So he will need to find a line, sort of working with the US, and then looking at what can Europe do to become a bit more independent from the US in all of these questions.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So let's zoom in and talk about the impact of the rise of AFD on the German Jewish community. Has it given license to those who might otherwise keep antisemitic attitudes to themselves?

Remko Leemhuis:  

So in general, as I said at the beginning, nothing of this is a big surprise. The AfD in the polls over the past year or so, I would say, you know, fared around 20%. So the result yesterday wasn't a surprise, and it was also not a surprise because we have seen the AfD having even bigger successes in state elections. But of course, this is concerning. 

This is concerning because the AfD is also a symbol of polarization, and polarization that we see across the western world, in all democracies at this point, I think, and historically speaking, times of polarization have never been good times for the Jewish community. 

But I also have to say that the German Jewish community is also very aligned in how to deal with the AfD, and that means no Jewish organization speaks to the AfD. Every Jewish organization at some point in time has come out against the AfD. 

We as AJC have had numerous publication on highlighting the threat to democracy, and by that also to the Jewish community, by the AfD. And the AfD so far, hasn't been successful in using Jews, or, you know, Israel, or pretending to be Israel's biggest friend and the Jewish community’s biggest friends. No one, no one buys into that, and everyone can see through that, and everyone understands that this is performative at best.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Here in the United States, people of opposite political persuasions are honestly having a hard time facing each other. Those who voted for Kamala Harris, they see the speed with which Trump is enacting his campaign promises. They're having a hard time facing their neighbors who voted for him, or who had yard signs up for him. People are organizing boycotts of businesses and CEOs who are aligning themselves with Trump. 

Is the same dynamic playing out on the ground in Berlin or Munich, for example. Do you see that kind of, as you said, the polarization. Does it play out on the very personal level? Can neighbors face each other?

Remko Leemhuis:  

Yes. I'm not sure if we see it to the extent that we see it in the US. But of course, we see that and that political questions, political issues, have become a dividing line among friends, among families, and that people stop talking to each other. And that is a very worrying trend, that this happens. I mean, of course, there is a line, where I would say it is legitimate to say, I'm not going to discuss these issues. And I personally, and we as AJC, don't talk to AFD. For the reasons we have talked about there's nothing for us to discuss with them.

But yes, I have to say that, especially over the past weeks, we have seen even an increase in this polarization and in this lack of unity, at least in terms of, everyone agrees that it is okay to fight and to fight about the issues and to have even hard debates on issues. And this is part of democracy. 

And I guess we Germans also have to learn that, more that democracy means debating things and having hard debates about issues. But the last weeks have seen that it then ventures into contempt and denigration, and if you are not having this position, then you're automatically on the other side, not even to be talked to. And that you don't often run into people that have an opposing view, because we all live in a bubble, and that, I guess, the only place where you encounter people with different opinions is social media. And I guess we can all agree that social media is, for sure, not the best place to debate controversial issues.

We all have to come out of our bubbles, that we all have to you know, even if we have political differences with other people, still see that there's much more that aligns us with most of these people, and that if one person doesn't exactly hold the same view as you on any given policy, doesn't mean that it is an inherently bad person. But still, someone that isn't just inherently bad, but your neighbor, your co-worker. And I think that is the biggest challenge for all democratic societies in the West at this point.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Remko, thank you so very much for joining us and for explaining the outcome of this election and what it narrowly avoided.

Remko Leemhuis:  

Not narrowly but, one thing is clear, and I think that is that is much more what I'm thinking about is that certain issues aren't addressed in a way that people feel, you know, they are addressed and they are taken serious. I mean, we just have to look to our neighbor, Austria, where an openly right wing extremist party is now the strongest party. And we should do everything we can to avoid that scenario. But that means then even having difficult debates and making also difficult decisions. 

But, if we want the center to hold, there is no alternative. And that's why our appeal as AJC is. And a lot of people find this lame or undecided, that we have appealed on numerous occasions, also in this campaign cycle, on all democratic parties to find solutions for the pressing issues and to find a middle ground. And this is what we will continue to do. 

And also we'll try to continue to then bring together people from different parties to debate these issues and give, you know, these conversations a platform, and do what we can do in order to facilitate such discussions, and hopefully by that, have a healthier culture of debate and a healthier political culture.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Thank you so much, Remko. 

Remko Leemhuis:  

Thank you.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

If you missed last week’s episode, be sure to tune in for the second installment of our two-part series on the faces behind antisemitism as part of AJC’s State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report. I ask two Jewish college students about the report’s findings that nearly a third of Jewish students in the U.S. reported feeling uncomfortable or unsafe at a campus event because of their Jewish identity. Our guests shared their own experience.

Imagine being spat on as you walk across your college campus simply because you’re Jewish or being asked whether you’re a “good Jew” or a “bad Jew.”

As part of AJC’s State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report, AJC and Hillel International partnered to document the experiences of Jewish students on campus over the past year. The findings are deeply troubling: nearly a third of Jewish students in the U.S. reported feeling uncomfortable or unsafe at a campus event because of their Jewish identity, and 43% avoided expressing their views on Israel due to fears of antisemitism.

In the second installment of this two-part series, meet two students whose experiences reflect these alarming statistics: Evan Cohen, a senior computer science major at the University of Michigan and Vice Chair of Hillel International’s Israel Leadership Network, and Daniel Solomon, a junior studying political science and urban studies at Brown University who serves on AJC’s Campus Global Board.

Resources:

-AJC’s Center for Education Advocacy

-5 Takeaways from AJC’s State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report

-Go Behind the Numbers: Hear directly from American Jews about what it’s like to be Jewish in America 

Test Your Knowledge:

-How much do you really know about how antisemitism affects Americans? Take this one-minute quiz and put your knowledge to the test. Start now. Listen – AJC Podcasts:

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

-People of the Pod: 

• • Unpacking Trump’s Gaza Plan

  • The Oldest Holocaust Survivor Siblings: A Tale of Family, Survival, and Hope

  • Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What’s Next

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

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Evan Cohen and Daniel Solomon:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

As part of AJC's State of Antisemitism in America 2024 report, AJC and Hillel International partnered to document Jewish students' experiences during their time on campus. Last year, the report found that 43% of Jewish college students avoided expressing their views about Israel on campus or to classmates because of fears of antisemitism. 22% of Jewish students report feeling or being excluded from a group or an event on campus because they're Jewish, and 32% of American Jewish students said they have felt uncomfortable or unsafe at a campus event because of their Jewish identity. 

Here to share their perspective on the ground are two students who have become advocates for their Jewish peers. Evan Cohen, a senior computer science major at the University of Michigan, is the vice chair of Hillel International's Israel Leadership Network. And Daniel Solomon, a junior political science and urban studies major at Brown University who serves on AJC's Campus Global Board. Evan, Daniel, welcome to People of the Pod.

Evan Cohen:  

I wish it was under better circumstances, but, you know, it's a pleasure to be here.

Daniel Solomon:  

Thank you so much for having me.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So gentlemen, I just read a bunch of findings from the most recent report. Do they seem too high or too low based on your national vantage points? Evan?

Evan Cohen:  

So I think these findings are, sadly, not that surprising. We've seen and experienced an unprecedented amount of antisemitism over the past year and a half, give or take. Clearly, it's rising. Clearly students are experiencing this on their campuses, myself included. I definitely think that, you know, there's probably some cases where students are experiencing it more. In some cases it's less, but I think, you know, in general, it's way too high, like we should not be seeing as much antisemism on campuses.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And Daniel, what do you think? 

Daniel Solomon:  

You know, the numbers seem about right. I have the opportunity of helping lead AJC's Campus Global Board, which really has a very wide perspective across the world and also across the United State. And we recently just met as a board in Lisbon where we discussed at length new trends over the past year in college antisemitism and around the world. And this really holds. We really found that this data is reflective of what we find in our qualitative experiences.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

One finding I did not just share at the beginning is that roughly 35% of American Jewish college students or recent graduates report having personally experienced antisemitism at least once during their time on campus. Did either of you have a personal encounter of your own over the past year? 

Evan Cohen:  

So a number of months ago, I was walking through the center of campus with a rabbi and a friend of mine, and we were spat at. And the unfortunate reality is, not only were we spat at, but when I tried to report this, I was basically told that, without identifying the individual by name, there was nothing that the university could do. And this was extremely frustrating, because we were spat at. That was a deeply upsetting experience. 

It's something that no one should have to go through just for being Jewish, but the fact that there was almost nothing that could be done about it. Besides, you know, maybe you know, here's how we can support you, which was not something that I was particularly in need of. It was disappointing to see that there was no strong response to that.

Daniel Solomon:  

So shortly after October 7, my friends and I in our apartment, we held a small gathering, and you know, some friends brought mutual friends, and their friends brought mutual friends, which is totally fine. And so someone who I didn't know came up to me and looked at my door frame, and I have a mezuzah on my door frame. And she said, is that your Jew thing? 

Which, yes, it is, but it's called a mezuzah. And she said, Well, are you a good Jew or a bad Jew? And I said, What do you mean by that? And I knew exactly what she meant by that. She meant, are you a Zionist? Or are you an anti-Zionist Jew? And the conversation ended shortly thereafter, and we asked her if she would leave. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:

This report came after the protests and the encampments that roiled college campuses, mostly in the spring of 2024 of the Jewish students who witnessed anti-Israel demonstrations after the October 7 terrorist attacks, 51% said that these protests or encampments made them feel unsafe on campus. How did your universities handle the encampments that popped up on your campuses?

Evan Cohen:  

There was an encampment on our campus, it sprung up the morning of the first Passover Seder of last year. And I remember receiving a text at six in the morning or something. I woke up, the first message I saw was, Evan, Do you know what's going on? And I said, Oh my god, another thing to deal with. You know, it's about to be Passover like we're supposed to be preparing for the Seder. And, you know, I think that at our university was handled extremely poorly, you know? We were told the encampment is contained, yet it grew in size, you know. 

So at first it took over the main part of the center of the Diag, which is the main center of campus area at the University of Michigan, and slowly crept out into farther and farther areas of that center of campus Diag. And it was really disappointing, because at the end of the year, when it's finally warm, students are out there, they're hammocking, they're playing sports, even just reading and studying. And at that point, there was nobody besides those in the encampment. And so it really destroyed the end of year atmosphere that everyone always looks forward to. And again, like I said, I think it was handled very poorly. The university did not contain it. The university waited until after graduation. 

They were hoping, I believe they were hoping, that if they waited until after graduation, there wouldn't be disruptions at the graduation. While I personally did not graduate last spring, I  had friends who did, and there were disruptions at that graduation. So clearly, that strategy did not work, did not pay off. 

Sometime after graduation, they announced that the encampment was being removed because of fire hazards. Now these fire hazards were hazards the entire time the encampment was there, I saw students plugging in various electronic devices, keeping themselves warm with space heaters. 

That's not something that you're supposed to be able to do there, and I do have experience, because I've had to reserve that space for, you know, pro-Israel activities in the past, and so I very much understand, first, what the rules and regulations are and how that process works. Very clearly, these rules were violated. And not only that, there was clear antisemitic imaging and speech that was spewing out of this encampment. 

Daniel Solomon:  

So, you know, first and foremost, our campus is a very big advocate of free speech, just collectively. So, you know, when the encampment originally went up, you know, the university made sure to emphasize the fact that, you know, it is free speech. But free speech, you know, has, you know, consequences, in the sense that setting up an encampment is against the university policy. 

So, within those guidelines, you know, the encampment was up for probably a day or two, and then I remember one evening, the members of the encampment started yelling to globalize the Intifada. And this was sort of the call on the university's end to say this is actually not okay. This is when it teeters on free speech and free expression. And, you know, voicing your opinions, however different they might be than most, this is actually when it gets into hate speech. And so that's sort of the moment that our university leadership really, really took, took control of the encampment, and it ended shortly thereafter. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Of course, most antisemitic content and the anti-Israel vitriol is primarily spread online and on social media, and the data back that up, almost seven in 10 American Jews, 67% reported seeing or hearing anti semitism online or on social media in the past 12 months. The number jumps to 83% for young American Jews between the ages of 18 and 29 so your peers, how has social media, the digital landscape, shaped your encounters with antisemitism?

Daniel Solomon:  

Social media is a big part of of our generation, and a part of how we how we bond together. Similar to other universities, Brown has a platform called side chat. Other universities, they might be called Yik Yak or something else. But the only way to access this app, which is a private a private company, not, you know, affiliated with brown, but the only way to actually access the brown only channel in Sidechat is to use your Brown email. So it's sort of an anonymous message board where anyone can post whatever they feel, whatever they think. Sometimes it's funny memes. Sometimes it's satire. 

In the context of the post October 7 world on Brown's campus, it was nothing, but, you know, atrocious really. It was really just a cesspool and a hotbed of antisemitism. And anti-Israel rhetoric that absolutely veered into antisemitism, but also really just classic, flat out antisemitism, you know, pointing out Jews in in, in great positions of authority in the country, and on college campuses specifically, and sort of trying to connect dots that really aren't connectable. And so Side chat was really just a really terrible hotbed of antisemitism. 

And then also, you know, those who were more bold antiSemites would really just blatantly, you know, leave comments in Instagram posts, you know, with their profile name visible, so you knew exactly who they are. And so, you know, the digital, the digital landscape, was absolutely a pretty crucial part of what comprised, you know, the anti semitism happening. 

You know, as I mentioned before, the campus, the campus that we see now is really the one, is really the one that I that I remember, you know, in my freshman year, the one that I made some of my closest friends, on the one where I developed some of my, you know, some of my academic ambitions. The campus that I really fell in love with is the one that I'm seeing now, and much different than the situation that we were in last year.

Evan Cohen:  

I could talk about, you know, two specific examples. One example was the president of our SJP chapter. Sometime, I want to say, around last March, posted something to her personal public account that said something along the lines of death to everyone who supports the Zionist state, death and more, death and worse. And I believe that Regent Acker, who was on the podcast relatively recently, actually spoke about this, I think. 

And that was deeply disappointing to see, because, you know, studies have shown. I even read a study recently, I think it said that about 80% of American Jews support Israel, meaning they believe in Zionism, the right for Israel to exist safely and securely, for Jews to live there in our ancestral homeland. And so to say that, you know, that's basically calling for the death of Jews, the death of fellow classmates, fellow students. So that was, you know, extremely challenging to see and to deal with. 

And ultimately, there were effectively no consequences. The student graduated last, last spring. And you know, we saw, we saw nothing, no repercussions from this, this activity. Another example of online anti semitism. What I experienced was during a trip to Israel last May. As part of this trip, I was going to be bearing witness to the atrocities of October 7, and so we were sharing, me and another student from the University were sharing some of our experiences, and a screenshot was taken of us, and then over, over, on top of it were overlaid messages like settlers scum, and these students were celebrating genocide. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Evan, how have these encounters, both on campus with the encampments and on social media? How have they informed your time working with Hillel on an international level?

Evan Cohen:  

You know, it's very clear that antisemitism is extremely prevalent. It's clear that anti-Zionism, anti-Israel sentiment, is very prevalent, and that we need to be constantly working toward combating it and supporting students on different campuses, this manifests in different ways. So it requires different tactics, different strategies, depending on what school you're at, depending on what your individual needs are. 

But now being in this leadership position, it's amazing to be able to try to offer that support and use my experiences to then help other students on their campuses deal with the troubles that they are going through and what they are experiencing.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

I want to point out that a lot of this happened after the October 7 terrorist attack. A lot of what you're talking about, of course, the survey itself. But antisemitism doesn't just come from anti-Israel corners and Evan I know there were instances of demonstrators waving Nazi flags in Howell and Fowlerville outside a production of The Diary of Anne Frank. Those are small towns about 30 or 40 miles away from Ann Arbor. Have there been expressions of antisemitism from the far right on Michigan's campus? I think

Evan Cohen:  

I think it was like the 2022-2023, academic year, the students received hate mail specifically targeting Jews, saying that Jews run the media, that they're responsible for COVID messages similar to that. I want to say that was even around the High Holidays timeframe. And so this was found like, you know, passed out around off campus, student housing. And so a number of students received messages like that. You know, we also saw post October 7 swastikas on or near Jewish buildings, for example, at Hillel one time. And so, you know, we're definitely seeing anti semitism from both sides. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Daniel, your campus Antisemitism Task Force, for lack of a better term, it initially formed in response to hatred from the far right. Is that right or is that correct?

Daniel Solomon:  

Yeah. So when I was a when I was a freshman, in my freshman fall, a terrible anti semitic threat was sent to the campus rabbi and executive director of the Brown-RISD Hillel that serves both Brown University and the Rhode Island School of Design, and that's sort of where we sort of came together and started really having very proactive and very productive meetings with with Brown's administration. 

Partially, I, you know, I will plug just a little bit that. I think that part, you know, the reason why I was so zealous to get involved was the training I received with American Jewish Committee, with the LFT program, the Leaders for Tomorrow High School Program. 

So we really came together. Started having these conversations with Brown's administration, and created this really, really positive relationship, which I think is a pretty Hallmark component of being a Brown student, is this really, is this really great relationship that we formed? And I think that, you know, leading into October, 7, part of what made Brown's response so effective was that we had this really dynamic relationship with administrators already, and that, you know, there's really no gap in between Brown's institutional Jewish leaders and Brown's administration. 

We have, you know, an incredibly supportive administration. And I think that was something that we saw following the incident and fall of 2022, and something that we continue to see all throughout you know, the post October 7 world.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And Daniel, I'll ask you the same question I just asked Evan, how has that experience, that experience on Brown's campus, informed your time on AJC's Campus Global Board?

Daniel Solomon:  

To be honest, it's actually a little bit of the opposite. I feel as though my time on AJC's campus global board has really provided such an incredible opportunity to understand the global landscape of campus antisemitism. And also, of course, you know, we want to emphasize the global landscape of Jewish joy that's happening on college campuses, because that is definitely not in short supply.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

You know, I'm curious, do you get questions from your peers back home, your younger peers, questions about whether or not your campuses are the right choice, the right fit for them? 

Evan Cohen:  

I think it's really important to mention that the Jewish students on campus do absolutely have a home here. We're working extremely hard to ensure that there is Jewish joy on campus, and there are organizations here to support Jewish students. It's imperative that Jews come to campus, that we continue to build a supportive community and that, you know, we're not just hiding, we're not just shying away from this. We're actively working towards improving campus and campuses drastically improved in the 2024-2025 school year compared to the 23-24 school year. So, you know, we're standing strong. We're standing proud, and we're not going to back down. 

There is a thriving Jewish community, and we're here to support you. We want you to come here. The University of Michigan has such a large Jewish population in part because a long time ago, the Ivy League schools had quotas on the number of Jews who could attend, and so the University of Michigan did not as such. We have a very strong Jewish community here, and I highly recommend coming here as long as you can bear, as long as you can bear and withstand the cold.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Thank you both for joining us, and reflecting on the difficulties of 2024. May 2025 be more peaceful on your campuses. 

Evan Cohen:  

Thank you very much for having me. 

Daniel Solomon:  

Thank you for having me. 

What would you do if jars of urine were thrown through the windows of your house in the middle of the night? How would you feel if antisemitic messages were spray painted on your cars? How would you respond if you were targeted simply because you’re Jewish?

In the first installment of a 2-part series, meet a face behind the alarming findings of AJC's State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report, the first analysis of the impact of antisemitism on American Jews and the U.S. general public for the full-year following Hamas’ October 7, 2023 massacre of Israelis.

In this week’s episode, Jordan Acker, a lawyer and member of the University of Michigan's Board of Regents, shares what happened to him and his family in late 2024 when they were personally targeted by anti-Israel and antisemitic protesters. He criticizes the broader campus climate and faculty’s response, while emphasizing the need for productive dialogue and understanding as a way forward, all the while stressing the importance of standing up to antisemitism.

Resources:

-AJC’s Center for Education Advocacy

-5 Takeaways from AJC’s State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report

-Go Behind the Numbers: Hear directly from American Jews about what it’s like to be Jewish in America 

Test Your Knowledge:

-How much do you really know about how antisemitism affects Americans? Take this one-minute quiz and put your knowledge to the test. Start now. Listen – AJC Podcasts:

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

-People of the Pod: 

• • Unpacking Trump’s Gaza Plan

  • The Oldest Holocaust Survivor Siblings: A Tale of Family, Survival, and Hope

  • Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What’s Next

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

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Jordan Acker:

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

For six years now, AJC has published the State of Antisemitism in America Report, and each year the findings become more alarming and sad. This year's report found that 77% of American Jews say they feel less safe as a Jewish person in the United States because of the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023. A majority of American Jews, 56%, said they changed their behavior out of fear of antisemitism, opting not to wear a Star of David, or put up a mezuzah. 

And a third of American Jews say they have been the personal target of antisemitism, in person or virtually, at least once over the last year. While the numbers alone are telling, the encounters with antisemitism behind those numbers are even more powerful. 

Here to discuss these findings, and sadly, his own family's experience with antisemitism in 2024 is Jordan Acker, a member of the University of Michigan's Board of Regents. Mr. Acker, welcome to People of the Pod.

Jordan Acker:  

Thank you so much for having me. On such an unpleasant topic, but . . .

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Despite the circumstances, it's a pleasure to speak with you as well. 

So I want to tell our audience a little bit about what you experienced in the last year. Last May, the doorbell camera at your home showed a stranger, with their face covered, walking up to the front door, laying a list of demands, signed by the University of Michigan Gaza Solidarity Encampment. Laid those demands on your front porch. 

And then a month later, your law office in suburban Detroit was vandalized with anti-Israel phrases, profanity, directed at you personally. And then in December, you and your family awoke one morning to a pretty horrifying sight. 

So could you kind of walk through what you encountered last year? 

Jordan Acker:  

Yeah, absolutely. So you know, what's interesting about this is that as much as I oppose BDS, I was not the person on the board who was speaking about it, the people that were speaking about it were actually my non-Jewish colleagues. We’re an elected body, six Democrats, two Republicans, and universally, we oppose the idea of boycotts, divestment and sanctions, and we said so. We've affirmed this in 2018, we affirmed this in 2023. 

And at some point, while we had an encampment on our campus, it remained relatively peaceful to what other campuses have dealt with, until they started showing up at our homes. We had this happen, a list of demands. Ironically, including, defunding the police was one of the demands. And then, you know, it went to a different level, when it went from all of my colleagues to just me getting the treatment. 

My office is an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood. They went to my office in the middle of the night and spray painted messages all over it, including profanities. But they caused over $100,000 worth of damage. And I don't think that location was unintentional. I think that as people were waking up in the neighborhood, going to synagogue the next day, they wanted to make sure that people in that neighborhood saw what had been done. It was certainly on purpose. 

And what was so disturbing about it was that three student groups actually posted photos of it in the middle of the night on Instagram, before the police knew about it, before we knew about it, and then quickly took them down, obviously, because, you know, they realize this is a crime. And then things had remained relatively quiet through the fall. 

Experiences had been much different than prior semesters, until I was awoken about two in the morning to jars of urine being thrown through my window. And this had followed up several instances of similar incidents. On October 7, the president of our university, who's not Jewish, his personal home was vandalized. The Jewish Federation in Metro Detroit was also vandalized. The head of our endowment, a member of law enforcement, all of their homes were vandalized with pretty much the same messages. Ethnic related, calling them cowards, demanding divestment. Of course, the worst part for me was obviously the jars flying through my home. I have three small children, and having my oldest woken up to that was terrible.

But they spray painted my wife's car with messages to divest, but also upside down triangles, which I think most Jews now take to see as a direct threat. That is a Hamas symbol for a target. And as I've said before, I'm not in the Israeli military. I'm not a military target. I'm not a target at all. I'm a trustee of a public university in the Midwest. 

And this kind of behavior, frankly, is unacceptable. It's unacceptable from any members of our community, regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum. And frankly, it's deeply antisemitic. And the fact that there's some people that are questioning that, or wonder why, is part of the problem, part of why we've gotten here. It's a deeply troubling time, I think, for American Jews, for a lot of these reasons.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You said that you are the only Regent who has been targeted in this way any any sense of why.

Jordan Acker:  

It's a good question. You know, I think there's a few different layers to this. I think being Jewish is a big part of the layer, obviously. But also a part of it is that I have a public social media presence. It's something I've maintained since, frankly, when I was running for this office. This is an elected office, obviously, in Michigan. And I think that has something to do with it, for sure. But the degree in the manner is very, very different. And it's really hard to understand why it would happen in this particular way.

Again, except for, you know, an excuse to engage in violent behavior. You know what's so disturbing about this, and what is so heartbreaking to me is that, I understand, you know, for those who are on the other side of this issue, who care deeply about Palestinian rights and Palestinians having their own state? I care about that. I'm the only regent that actually met with SJP prior to October 7. Not because we agree on everything. We do not. But because there's some things that we do agree on. And by the way, the vast majority of American Jews agree on.

I think that's what's been so disturbing about everything that's happened since October the 7th in America, is that you probably have no group of Americans that's more empathetic or sympathetic to Palestinians than American Jews. And yet, there's obviously a large group of this protest movement, or the remains of it at this point, that are deeply antisemitic and are using Palestinians essentially as a weapon to go after and to isolate American Jews.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Are you the only Jewish regent?

Jordan Acker:  

I'm not. At the time, we had three actually, of our eight-member board, were Jewish. But our board is almost universally pro-Israel and almost universally opposed to BDS, and has been for a very long time. And there are lots of reasons for that, but this is, you know, perhaps the person who's been most outspoken about this, interestingly enough, is Denise Ilitch, who, you know, if they were looking to attack a pro Israel business. Well, there are two Little Caesars locations on campus. Right, again, this has nothing to do with being pro-Israel. Coming to my office has a very distinct, very specific message that they're trying to send.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You said there are a number of reasons why the Board of Regents is universally opposed to BDS. Can you explain those reasons? 

Jordan Acker:  

I think the first one, and I can only obviously speak for myself on this. The board speaks through its pronouncements and its decisions, but the biggest one actually is that, generally speaking, academic boycotts do not add anything to the conversation. They don't get people closer to resolving conflict. They don't even get people talking about conflict. And to me, that's antithetical to the purpose of the American University. 

One of the incidents that has most disturbed me over the last few months, other than obviously, the physical violence, but what's disturbed me is a group of mass protesters went to a lecture by a professor named Marc Dollinger, a guest professor on campus, and Marc Dollinger was teaching, as he does, about the relationship between the black community and the Jewish community during the Civil Rights Movement.

And a group of mass protesters came in and said, We don't engage with Zionists here. And what I've told people is actually the second part of that phrase is deeply offensive, but the first part of that phrase, “we don't engage with” is actually antithetical to the existence of the University of Michigan, and should be tossed aside. 

We do engage. We engage with everyone, and we especially engage with the people that we disagree with. And so, that kind of speech and behavior is, to me, the most problematic. Because, again, American universities are places where deeply unpopular ideas should be thrown around. That doesn't give it as an excuse for violence, but it certainly is a place for deeply unpopular ideas, or for popular ideas, or for anyone who's different than you. That's the purpose of this. 

And yet, this movement has again decided that Jews, or people who are affiliated with Israel are uniquely deserving of being tossed out. And it's unacceptable and it's un-American.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Is it just this movement, or has the campus climate been changing more and more in recent years, when it comes to a refusal to engage or the treatment of Jews on campus?

Jordan Acker:  

I think that. It's a great question. So what I think is that what has changed actually is not the values of the students. Because, look, college students protest lots of things. When I was a student, BDS was an issue 20 years ago. What's actually changed is the faculty. And that's actually what's most concerning to me, is the way that our faculty has behaved, not all of them, and certainly not even a majority or a minority, but a small group, has behaved since this happened. Throughout this process, throughout these protests, any criticism of the methods has been responded to by the faculty as criticizing everything about the movement. And so I think the faculty has actually, frankly, made the situation a lot worse. 

You know, one of the things that I that I learn in conversations with other regents and other trustees across the country, and I'll never forget the story, because it's so telling about where we are here, a person was who's a professor at Columbia now, was telling a story about how he protested the Vietnam War. His mentor at Columbia, who was also opposed to the war, after they invaded Hamilton Hall, came up to him and said, I agree with you on what you're thinking. I don't agree with what you're doing. 

And we've gotten to this place now for some reason that we can't do that anymore, that our faculty can't say this is bad behavior, period and deserves punishment, while we also may agree with the underlying politics. What has been most disturbing is, is that, for example, our faculty senate still hasn't condemned the attack on the academic freedom of Professor Dollinger, and only condemned the attack on what happened to my family after I called out the Faculty Senate Chair publicly because she feels the need to publicly defend open antisemitism.

And yet, when it comes to the safety of Jews, she's too busy. And it's really disturbing, quite frankly, and it's a disturbing reflection on our faculty. But I will say that since I pointed this out, I've had dozens of faculty members reach out to me and say, Thank you, thank you for speaking out about this. I don't feel comfortable either, but I can be fired. You know, these promotion decisions come from this group of faculty. 

So what I would say is, that there's real problems with the way faculty have been responding, and unlike students, they're grown ups, they're adults. And certainly, I don't want to infringe on academic freedom, but academic freedom does not include the freedom from criticism, and they deserve a lot of how we've gotten here.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

That's interesting that you heard from faculty who were grateful that you spoke up. And I’m curious, you said in an interview last year that since the October 7 attacks in 2023 many of us have been asked to distance ourselves from our Jewish identity. And I'm curious if you are hearing that from some faculty, if you're hearing that from students, can you explain what you meant by that?

Jordan Acker:  

I will admit that I stole this phrase from Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo, is ‘protest koshering,’ right? And that's a really interesting way, I think, of what has been asked of a lot of Jews, that Jews have to apologize for their heritage or for their love of the people of Israel, even if, like me, they don't like the government of the people of Israel, right? And that's, I think, been a big challenge. 

But what I've seen mostly is, on our campuses, it's not so overt. It shows up in students avoiding certain classes, students avoiding certain professors, or students simply not speaking up at all. And again, those are really disturbing breaches of student academic freedom to have to choose. Oh, well, I can't take this class or that professor, even if that professor might be good, because I might be judged differently, or I might have to listen to a completely unrelated lecture about the Middle East. 

Or even worse, we've had professors, and frankly, they're mostly graduate student instructors, canceling class and encouraging people to go to protests. It's an unacceptable place to be. And again, part of the issue here with the faculty is, knowing where the border of your own political activism is and your taxpayer funded job is, right? They're different, and we have to get back to a place where we respect both of those. We can't stop someone from going out, engaging politically, nor should we. But the person also has a responsibility to not bring that into the classroom, especially when it's not directly related to their class.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And so, what specific examples have you heard from students and faculty in terms of wanting to hide their Jewish identity? Are you hearing any examples of people who perhaps aren't wearing a Star of David necklace or aren't participating in Jewish events because they don't want to be identified as such?

Jordan Acker:  

I'm not seeing much of that, to be honest with you, and I think that's a great thing. You know, I was really worried about this myself. I attended the last Shabbat dinner at Hillel prior to the end of the previous school year, and there were hundreds of students there, and it felt like any other Friday night. What I've gotten most from students is that they've been annoyed by it, but they haven't necessarily been, they haven't been overwhelmed. It hasn't been like UCLA or Columbia. It's like I said, it's been less overt. 

But I do think that there's been some level of, people keep their heads down right. And that's, I think, a big challenge and a big problem here. But I think, again, I think it's worse among the faculty, far worse among the faculty than it is among our students. 

I mean, imagine being a Jewish or Israeli professor on campus right now and thinking that someone like this is going to be responsible for your promotion, for your tenure decisions. Those things are highly disturbing, and we see this all the time. Just last night, you know, we see an epidemiologist who people want to protest because he's Israeli. 

Well, at some point it says, Well, how is this person able to get a fair shake on their own academic research at our university, if this is what happens every time you know, they're singled out in a way that, frankly, no Chinese student, or Chinese professor would ever be singled out. Because you would know that that would be clearly anti-Chinese racism. Somehow, this seems to be acceptable when it comes to Israelis and to Jews generally. And it's not. And you know, it's a big problem in the academy, quite frankly.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You had also said in a previous interview that there has been an intense policing of Jews’ ability to determine for themselves what is antisemitic and what is not. Is that one example, are people actually willing to say, Oh, that's not antisemitic, that just because we protest him, because he's Israeli or Jewish, I would do people, is that what people argue or are there other examples that you can share?

Jordan Acker:  

Well, you know, I had professors come to me and say, How could you say what happened to your office is antisemitic? How could you say what happened to your house is antisemitic? And I think that, honestly, in a lot of places, it doesn't come from a bad place. I think it comes from a place of not knowing, right? And I think it comes from a blind spot. 

And I think that's really the big issue here, is that there's a real lack of education and interest on the far left with, engaging with us. And I think it's frankly, you know, to say, Oh, it's a failure, the far left is not actually doing the Jewish community generally, a service. I think the Jewish community has also, quite frankly, failed when it comes to helping people on the left who are not antisemitic, but have very real, legitimate criticisms of Israel, helping them do so and engage in a way so the conversations are productive, while pushing out actual antisemitism. And that's, I think, a big difference. 

I think that we know, and we're very clear, and I know this, having just come back from from Israel about a month ago, that the criticisms of the Israeli government are quite harsh among other Israelis. And I don't think that stopping the Israeli government from being criticized in America is helpful at all either. I think it, frankly, deserves a lot of criticism, just like any other democratically elected government does. But it's the how, it's the what, who's the messenger? How does the message come across, that I think things are really lacking, and people are are really not understanding why it veers so frequently into antisemitism and how to tell people, you know, that language is not acceptable.

The person who was the head of the coalition that did our encampment put out a bunch of posts on Instagram saying that anyone who believes in the Zionist entity should die and worse. The problem, obviously, is her own personal antisemitism, which is obvious. But more importantly, the problem here is that nobody says: that's not acceptable, you're gone. 

That, to me, is the biggest failure. Because it says we are not policing ourselves in our own behavior, and it discredits movements. But more importantly, it shows what a utter failure this movement has been in order to get anything for Palestinians without hurting American Jews, which has ultimately been the target of so much of this. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I want to share more findings from the antisemitism report. The survey found that 81% of American Jews are able to divorce their displeasure with the government from their spiritual connection to Israel. In other words, they say caring about Israel is important to what being Jewish means to them. I think this is perhaps, is what you mean, or maybe it isn't, by a blind spot. I mean, is part of the problem on college campuses, that lack of understanding about the American Jewish spiritual connection to Israel?

Jordan Acker:  

I think that's a big part of it. And I think that's I think that's a big thing that we're lacking when it comes to understanding the story of the Jewish people, but frankly, it's a story that could be told on the other side as well, about Palestinian connection to the land and to the region as well. You know when we talk about where Jews pray, what direction we pray, the importance of Jerusalem, the importance of so many places in Israel, and of that spiritual connection. I think that there is a lack of understanding of that. 

You know, one of the things that I got out of my own trip to Israel and meeting with Jewish and Palestinian students, was, they understand, and they believe, correctly, in my view, that the protest movement America has simply Americanized a non-American conflict. This is not settler colonialism or, or some, you know, academic theory. These are two peoples with very deep connections to this land who have a very, very difficult challenge in front of them, and it's different. 

And I think that, yeah, I think we have failed at that. I think the whole concept, you know, and I've had this conversation with my friends in the Arab American community, the whole concept of not knowing that, you know, they talk about the Nakba and this, you know, ejection of Palestinians in 1948 and, there is some truth to it, but what they don't know or speak about at all is the ejection of the Jewish communities that were also thousands of years old from the Arab world – at that exact same time. And so I bring this up not to say that one group has more of a claim than the other, or one group has more of a claim for having suffered than the other, but to say that we need to talk about both sides of this narrative, and we're not. 

And you know, too much of this movement has brought forward Jews who say things like, you know, as a Jew, I blah, blah, blah, and I have no connection to the Jewish community, or in Israel. But it misses out what the vast majority of American Jews say, and the vast majority of world Jewry says, which is, they do have a spiritual connection to Israel. And it's fine not to, by the way, that's your personal belief, but there's been this mistaken belief that that viewpoint is representative of all of the Jewish community, and while it's a small group certainly, it is not the majority at all. Most American Jews do have an understandable connection to the land of Israel.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Has the conversation on campus been a debate or discussion about the two people who have a connection to the land, or has it focused more on whether Jews have a right to self determination?

Jordan Acker:  

So I met with students at Tel Aviv University, Ben Gurion University, and Hebrew University, all three of which have very large Palestinian and Arab and Muslim populations. And they recognize the complexity of the conflict. And when I left there, my first, my big feeling about this was deep embarrassment for the way that our students had or so it's not all of our students, but a group of students had acted, you know, this whole concept of genocide and settler colonialism and and it is completely removed from the everyday experiences and understandings of both peoples. 

I think the conversation on campus has been wildly counterproductive. I think it has done no good for anyone over there and has only served to hurt people here. You know, I think there's a lot of folks on the other side who genuinely believe that protesting is helpful for the Palestinian people, and do not understand why these specific attacks are so harmful to American Jews. And I don't think, you know, again, I don't think the American Jewish community has done a great job in helping to educate and to push people into places that are not anti semitic, but I think generally, the conversations have been particularly unproductive that they just put people into camps, and people are not able to listen and talk to each other because they use extremely loaded language, and have are looking for social media points. They're not looking for discussions and understanding.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Well, I will say that the State of Antisemitism in America report found that a majority of Americans, 85% the same number of American Jews, agree that the statement Israel has no right to exist, that foundational core of anti Zionism, that that statement is antisemitic. So I'm curious, does that give you hope that meaningful dialog is still possible? It still could be on the horizon, or has that ship sailed? 

Jordan Acker:  

No. I think that. I think no ship has ever sailed permanently. I think we're in a far worse place off than we were before October 7. I think everyone is actually in a far worse place off. It gives me hope and understanding that Jews are an accepted mainstream part of American life, and I think that's for a lot of Jews myself included. There was a feeling that we were being intentionally isolated, that our allies weren't standing up and talking for us at the times when we needed them the most. But I think that it's pretty clear at this point that positions like that are a minority that harassing my family. And engaging in violent behavior. Those are a minority. 

You know, the group that has been most that called me first, the leadership of the community called me first when this happened to me, was the Arab American community in Metro Detroit, community that I have long relationships with, good relationships with. 

You know, I've had the mayor of Dearborn over for Shabbat dinner, and I appreciate and love those and cherish those relationships, but I think that it is totally separate from the question of Israel in whether Jews have a right to exist in America as full citizens, right that we don't have to take we're only citizens if we take certain positions, right? I think that's what, to me, that is most hopeful about, is it shows that that particular position is rejected by the vast majority of Americans. And I think that's a really good thing for American Jews at a time when world Jewry is in a pretty precarious state.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You mentioned that you have three young daughters who awoke to that vandalism in your home that morning. How are they processing all of this?

Jordan Acker:  

It's been really hard. You know, I think trying to explain to a nine and a seven year old why someone would do this to your family is really difficult. My seven year old said to one of her friends that there are people who are trying to bully daddy. And I guess that's true, and in the technical sense of the word, I think that that's right, but I think that it's really a challenging thing. 

You know, my girls are fortunate to go to great public schools with Jews and non-Jews. They're fortunate they do gymnastics in a very diverse community on the east side, which we love. So they get to see and know people of all races, colors, religions, you name it. I mean, Detroit is a remarkable and diverse place, and to think that they were being singled out, I think, is something that they can't quite put their heads around, because it doesn't exist to them. You know, for them, you know, the black girls that they do gymnastics with are the same as the Lebanese girls who they do gymnastics with, same as the Jewish girls they do gymnastics with.

It’s just, can you complete your round off, right? And that’s where I'd like them back to being again. But it's really, really challenging when you've had something like this happen to you. So because the sound is so visceral and it's just so violative of your family, and frankly, of the way America should work, it's, it's, that's why I said at the beginning of this pod, it's un-American to engage in this kind of violence. It's the kind of violence that the Klan would engage in. And you know, that's why we have laws like here we do in Michigan to prevent people from masking in public like this. It's for this exact reason, because that's what the Klan did. And we have to toss it out because it has no place in our society, period.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Jordan, thank you so much for joining us and for kind of explaining the situation on University of Michigan's campus, but also your own family's encounter.

Jordan Acker:  

Thank you so much for having me, and for your wonderful CEO, I have to end this with a Go Blue, and thanks again.

During a White House press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Donald Trump made a stunning proposal: that the United States take control of Gaza. His remark sparked intense global debate.

This week, we break down the implications with Jason Isaacson, AJC’s Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer. Jason examines the proposal and shares AJC’s perspective on what it means for the future of the region.

Resources:

• AJC Welcomes Trump Affirmation of U.S.-Israel Alliance; Expresses Concern over Proposal for Gaza

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

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

• People of the Pod: 

  • The Oldest Holocaust Survivor Siblings: A Tale of Family, Survival, and Hope

  • Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What’s Next

  • Bring Them Home: Understanding the Israel-Hamas Hostage Deal and Its Impact

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

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Jason Isaacson:

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

During a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House this week, US President Donald Trump proposed that the United States “take over and own the Gaza Strip”, suggesting long term control and suggesting the Israel Hamas war would soon come to an end. 

Whether one considers the proposal innovative or absurd, the surprising declaration underscored the need for a new approach to Gaza's future. With us now to discuss the impact of the President's words is Jason Isaacson, AJC's Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer. Jason, thank you for joining us.

Jason Isaacson:  

Thank you, Manya. It's good to be back.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So Jason, I'll just ask you straight up, is this proposal innovative or absurd?

Jason Isaacson:  

Well, of course, there are people who will say it's both. From my sense of the conversations I've been having in the Middle East over the last several days, last couple of days. First of all, it caught everybody by surprise. It does seem to be a little bit half baked, because there are many questions that arise when one starts digging into some of the details, which have been lacking. 

And it's also very important to point out that the day after the President presented this very surprising, innovative, out of the box proposal, there were comments from various White House officials that suggested, you know, don't take it quite so literally as the way it was laid out by the President.

Even Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor, suggested that it really, in many ways, is an attempt to kind of change everyone's thinking in the region, and force, urge, somehow move the Arab states to put forward their own innovative proposals. Because clearly, we're stuck, and we've been in a rut for decades, certainly since the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip almost two decades ago. 

And over the last year and a half of terrible conflict, the last 16 months of war, it's clear that no reasonable plan has been put forward that will really nail down not only the release of the hostages right away–which is insane that you've had hostages held for 16 months–but not even achieving the objectives that had been laid out at the very beginning of this conflict by the Israeli government, which was the necessity of Hamas no longer ruling Gaza.

Because with Hamas ruling Gaza, you will never have a two state solution. You'll never have Palestinian rights. You'll never have peace in that region. You won't have 10s of 1000s of Israelis moving back to their homes in southern Israel, you will not be able to make the kind of progress toward regional peace that is necessary. Hamas is an extremist terrorist organization that wants to kill Jews. Wants to destroy the State of Israel. They don't want a 2-state solution. They want the end of Israel. 

So they can no longer be in charge. They can no longer threaten the Palestinian people with their aspirations for political change, and they can no longer threaten the people of Israel. They can no longer govern Gaza. And no one has come up yet with the definitive path forward to eliminate that continued Hamas threat. 

So there is a ceasefire agreement, ceasefire hostage release deal, that is in progress right now. Ultimately, the third stage of all of that, after we get through the second stage, which is yet to dawn, would be a new governing structure, but that is still in the future, and it's still not clear that we're going to get there anytime soon. 

So the idea of putting forward something bold and new and totally different has a certain logic to it, even if elements of what the President was saying the other night seem to be wanting certain degrees of logic. But we're still trying to figure out whether it was a genuine proposal, or just a slap in the face of the region saying, Okay, let's do something different and bold. Let's move forward.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Even if we aren't supposed to take this proposal quite that literally, can you explain the proposal and what led to it?

Jason Isaacson:  

Well, the proposal, basically says, if I understand it correctly, that the United States would kind of take charge and would conduct demining and clearing of the rubble and coordinating the reconstruction of Gaza. Which would require, according to the President's formulation, the removal of the Palestinian population. Some 1.7, 1.8 billion Palestinians who live there and are living in terrible conditions right now because so much of the infrastructure and the homes have been either badly damaged or destroyed. 

And so there's a certain logic, certainly, if you're a real estate man and you know how to redevelop property, if you're knocking down lots of buildings and you're trying to put up something new, you've got to get the people out of the way. So I can understand that reason, that reasoning. But this is a population that doesn't necessarily want to leave. 

Obviously, maybe some do, but it's very clear that there is a long embedded national movement among the Palestinians, which clings to that land, as miserable as the conditions may be there. And so therefore, if you are going to follow the President's plan, which would require the removal of people, they will be removed against their will, many of them, at least, and where would they be moved to? Unclear. The President originally said several days ago that he thought that they should go to Egypt and Jordan. 

Both countries have said clearly, as clear as day, no thank you, we do not want them. Palestinians belong in Palestine, which doesn't yet exist. They don't belong in our countries. This was a long standing position of both the Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt. 

And then where else would they go? There is no market internationally for accepting hundreds of thousands, let alone more than a million Palestinian temporary dislocated persons. Not clear that they would be away for very long, although I think the way the President was describing this project, we could be talking about a 10 or 15-year redevelopment plan in which he envisions a Riviera on the Mediterranean, another Riviera on the eastern Mediterranean, which is, you know, a wonderful vision, but how we actually get from here to there with so many complications in the way is totally unclear. 

There will be so much resistance. There already is. Within hours, there were immediate statements of pushback from the region. So what I hope this will mean is people across the region, and AJC is staying in the region. We've been in Israel for the last several days, we had an AJC Board of Governors solidarity mission to Israel earlier this week, and then a number of us are staying on and talking to people across the region. 

We'll get a sense for how the region is responding and whether this plan to prod the region to come up with something decisive that will actually help resolve this problem in Gaza, end the terrorist scourge that makes it impossible to move forward on peace, makes it impossible for Israelis to live in peace alongside their Palestinian neighbors. We'll get a sense of that.

Right at this point, really, the ball is in both courts. The American court, because clearly the president wants ownership of some kind of a solution to this problem. Israel obviously has a huge stake in this, a security stake, especially. And the region also wants to move forward, and wants to see a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and frankly, relief for the Palestinians who have suffered through this terrible war over the last 16 months, brought about by Hamas' attacks on Israel of October 7, 2023.

So it's a period in which the people in the region cannot tolerate the continued misery in Gaza, the continued threat that Hamas poses to Israel, the continued holding of hostages, dozens of hostages who have not yet been released. We need to see an end to all of this. 

The President has put forward a dramatic proposal. It may or may not make sense. It's up for the region to actually step forward and see what else, what else could be put down that will allow us to move forward.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So you are on the ground there. What has been the reaction to it so far on the ground?

Jason Isaacson:  

Well, I mean, so far, there have been statements issued by regional governments. Some quite detailed. Others, just commentary. Making it very clear that they have no interest in the dislocation of the Palestinian population. And some have really been quite harsh in how they have phrased that. But I think there is also a realization, and I expect to dig into this further in the coming days, that something bold, something that we haven't tried before, is necessary.

Because what we have tried before simply hasn't worked. And you even have, 16 months into this terrible war Hamas, still, as the basically the governing authority in Gaza. Even with the Palestinian population there, I think clearly understanding that this misery that they have faced for the last 16 months has been brought about by Hamas, by their cynical policy of placing their entire military infrastructure embedded in a civilian population, so that when they made this brutal series of attacks on October 7 and killed 1,200 people and captured 251 and kidnapped them and been holding them for months, knowing that there would be a massive Israeli retaliation, a massive Israeli effort to bring back these hostages and to punish those who came across the border and killed and raped and pillaged southern Israel. 

They knew that that was going to bring about enormous destruction. Palestinians in Gaza recognize that it was Hamas that did this. But still, they're stuck in this terrible cycle of being governed by the very people who have brought about this terrible misery to the people of the Gaza Strip. So we all know that we have to move forward into something different. The ceasefire and hostage release deal allows us in stages, to get to a better place to release all of the hostages. Some 18 were released as of yesterday. I think we're on track to release several more in the coming days and we hope all of them and the conclusion of the second phase. 

But we have to get through the second phase, and then we have to get to someplace else. So Hamas can no longer govern. We have to see a way forward to a resolution that allows us to envision peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the well being of the Palestinian population, the return of Israelis to the southern cities and towns and clearly, the release immediately, as quickly as possible, of the hostages who have been suffering for 16 months.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Why do you think the White House has tried to walk back his comments?

Jason Isaacson:  

Well, President Trump is famous for big ideas and bold statements and also sometimes saying things that kind of upset the norms of discourse. He's known for doing this in lots of different contexts, domestic policy, foreign policy. And it was very clear, the reaction from the region was so sharp, so immediate, that they had to find some way of explaining what the President intended. And the way they have framed it is that basically, this wasn't about the United States owning Gaza. It wasn't necessarily about the United States building luxury resorts and condominiums on the shores of the Mediterranean and Gaza, because there was also a statement that made it clear that there weren't going to be US troops involved, and maybe not even US investment involved. 

So it was just clear that there were holes in this plan. It was a kind of a big, dreamy vision, intended as we are hearing from the White House in the days after the President spoke to kind of shake up the establishment, the establishment in the region, the establishment in the sort of the foreign policy community and and force people to come up with a better idea, a clear path forward that would rebuild Gaza without Hamas, and allow the Palestinian people some relief from all of this, and obviously assuring the security, the release of the hostages, and the security of the people of Israel.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You've mentioned the hostages coming home in the days to come. But do you think this declaration could derail the hostage agreement the first stage of it, especially given second stage negotiations have not even begun yet?

Jason Isaacson:  

Well, there is that danger, and that is one of the points that that AJC made in the statement that we issued immediately after, the day after the President spoke. While also recognizing that what he did say about the alliance between the United States and Israel was hugely important. The fact that he received Prime Minister Netanyahu as the first foreign visitor to the White House in this second Trump administration sends a powerful signal to the region. Certainly to our community, but to the region, that Israel's security is vital to the United States’ national interest. He was very clear about that, and also very clear about the threat posed by Iran and the necessity of pushing back against the Iranian nuclear threat, but also its support for proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, of course, in Lebanon and others in Yemen and Iraq. And other changes that will have to be made to this ring of resistance, of fire that the Iranians tried to strangle Israel with. 

The President's been very clear about all of that, and it's really welcome, and we welcome that. But we had to express concerns about the policy, the proposal that was put forward on Gaza, because it clearly rattled the region, and it could–if the signal to Hamas which is in negotiations with Israel through Qatar and Egypt and the United States, if Hamas, which continues to hold hostages, sees that there is some alternate universe that the administration is proposing in which they would just clear out the whole area–how does that affect their thinking about their hopes that they can still have some kind of a presence in Gaza, which we don't want. Israel can't stand. Frankly, the region doesn't want either.

But it could be that if Hamas is negotiating with a sense that they have some future in which they will still have some role to play in the conduct of affairs in Gaza. This remaking of the entire map could force them to retreat and to say, You know what? Maybe we're not going to go ahead with these negotiations right now. We're going to rethink our position, and that would be terrible. 

It is imperative that the process that was set in place on January 19, the last full day of the Biden administration, with very strong support from the incoming Trump administration, move forward. It is essential that we move forward on the hostage release deal. And Israel will continue to protect itself, will continue to have a security presence in the region. 

But will end the war at least while this is going forward, assuming that Hamas abides by the agreement, and Hamas, then, in the next stage, no longer governs Gaza.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

We've talked about the impact of this proposal on the hostage negotiations. What about expansion of the Abraham Accords, which was certainly one of the major milestone achievements of the first Trump administration. 

You are in the region now, that is something that you have worked very hard for for decades. How could this derail the expansion of the Abraham Accords?

Jason Isaacson:  

Well, the Abraham Accords, the whole idea of expanding Arab-Israeli peace, of Israel's integration into the region, is so abundantly clearly in the interest of the region. We have seen again and again instances in which it's been proven, demonstrated of the advantage that accrues to the region by having Israel as part of the region, instead of pretending that it's somehow separate from the region. What happened last April, what happened last October, when Iran fired missiles and drones to Israel and the region joined Israel a couple of countries, not the entire region, couple of countries in the Arabian Gulf, joined with Israel and with Israel, but also with the United States and with the UK and other navies and air forces to combat this incursion.

You have the creation, the emergence, of a regional security architecture in which Israel plays a significant role. The benefit of that is so clear to wise leaders across the region that I am completely confident that that progress will continue. Even if this weird statement was made by the White House the other day. 

I want to read that, and I'm hoping that I will hear from contacts across the region that they want to hear that as just simply a clarion call for something new and bold and different that can break us out of the. Paralysis that we are suffering in Gaza without having any effect on the natural course of progress in Arab Israeli peace and cooperation, security infrastructure, exchange programs of various kinds, medical technology, the public health, education, water resources, environmental issues. There are so many things that are happening at a lower level right now that when the cover is removed and it's allowed to kind of move forward, is extremely exciting to people across the region.

Which is why, by the way, last June, at the AJC Global Forum in Washington, AJC CEO Ted Deutsch announced the creation, launch of the AJC Center for a New Middle East, which builds on the work that we've been doing for decades to introduce people to each other across the Arab world, with Israel, with our community to talk about the benefits that will accrue to the people of the region from Israel's integration in the region, the contributions that Israel continues to make and will make in a much amplified way if it is accepted and normally interacting with its neighbors, as It does with now, in the last four years, with the UAE and Bahrain and Morocco.

And of course, has had long standing peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, with which, even though there are many disagreements and dissatisfaction with these agreements, they have been enormous contributors to regional peace and stability, and frankly, the welfare of both of those countries as well. 

So the advantages are clear. We've been part of this process for a long time. We will continue to be part of this process. Whatever is said in the way of unusual statements from the White House about new ways forward that don't fit into the normal pattern of diplomacy. The leaders of the region understand that this is the direction that they should be pursuing, and we will continue to encourage that process.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Jason, thank you so much for joining us. 

Jason Isaacson:  

Happy to be here, Manya.

“To be a Jew is to know that because of who we are, because of our historical experience, we care for the other. This is really one of the great tensions of our moment. Of how to be eyes wide open to Israel's need for self-defense, and at the same time recognize the real suffering that's going on in Gaza and to know that we need to find a way to hold both of those together.”

Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, spiritual leader of Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, explores the complexities of Jewish identity in a post-October 7th world in his new book, For Such a Time As This: On Being Jewish Today. In this conversation, he unpacks the tension between Israel’s need for self-defense and the suffering experienced by Gazans and Israelis and the challenge of balancing empathy with vigilance. He also shares his personal journey to the rabbinate and what it means to live as a Jew in this pivotal moment.

*The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. 

Sign up for AJC Global Forum:

• Register at AJC.org/GlobalForum2025 for the premier global Jewish advocacy conference of the year, in New York City, April 27-29 2025

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

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

• People of the Pod: 

  • The Oldest Holocaust Survivor Siblings: A Tale of Family, Survival, and Hope

  • Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What’s Next

  • Bring Them Home: Understanding the Israel-Hamas Hostage Deal and Its Impact

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

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

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove: 

Josh Kramer:

AJC Global Forum is returning to New York City, April 27 to 29th 2025. I'm Josh Kramer. AJC New York Regional Director, and I hope to see you there. You won't want to miss this opportunity to join with more than 2000 other activists and engage in thought provoking discussions on the future of the Jewish people, Israel, America, and the world. 

Our program will feature large plenary sessions with headline speakers, smaller breakout sessions designed to explore the key political, strategic and social concerns affecting the global Jewish community, and exclusive opportunities to engage with diplomats, decision makers, interfaith partners, community leaders and more. 

Will you be in the room? Register today at AJC.org/GlobalForum2025 to take part in the premier global Jewish advocacy conference of the year. Now is the time to join AJC in shaping a new future. Head to AJC.org/GlobalForum2025.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I've done quite a bit of soul searching in the 15 months since October 7. How do I grapple with the tragedy in Israel and Gaza and the hatred Jews face on American soil without scaring my children away from Judaism? 

Then came our Temple's Purim spiel last spring. That story of Queen Esther's bravery, in some ways, helped. It was about that same time that Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, the spiritual leader at Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, picked up his pen and began to write his latest book, named for a line in Queen Esther's tale – For Such a Time As This: On Being Jewish Today.

Rabbi Cosgrove is with us now. Rabbi, welcome to People of the Pod.

Elliot Cosgrove:  

Thank you. It's great to be here. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So I have to tell you, rehearsals began for this year's Purim spiel as I was reading this book, which made it all the more powerful. What inspired you to write this?

Elliot Cosgrove:  

Well, for me, I draw wisdom from text, and I was trying to think of what would be an analogous moment for what we were going through as American Jews from the ancient text. 

And for me, as you say, this is now on the cusp of Purim 2025, it was the story of Esther that we read. And in many of our synagogues, we have Purim spiels, where we act out the story, which is basically the story of a Jewish community of ancient Shushan who believed themselves to have it good, that they were comfortable in the diaspora. And the wicked decree of Haman came down and Esther, whose name actually means to hide, she hid herself, her Jewish identity in the king's palace, and believed that she was comfortable there. 

When the decree came down, Mordechai, her uncle, by way of an emissary, sent a message to her. “Don't think yourself to be safe from Haman's decree. Who knows, if it was not for such a time as this that you've arrived at your station.”

And I saw this as really the calling card of our moment that we all felt ourselves in the wake of October 7, Esther-like called to action. The trauma of October 7, but also the call to action, to step up to the moment, the needs of our people.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Tell us about your writing process.

Elliot Cosgrove:  

I buried myself in my writing from before dawn until mid-morning, and then I would hit a wall. And I didn't take a sabbatical. I actually went into my day job as a congregational rabbi. It was a very intense writing process and then in the course of about three to four months sent the manuscript off to the publisher. Manya, the thing about the book is it was very disorienting to write as the events were playing out, both in Israel and in the States.

And one of the worries that I had that I spoke to the publisher about was, well, what if this becomes dated? You know, it was not journalism, but I was writing as the news was happening, and the good news and the bad news is that the themes that I pick up on: the trauma of Israel, the blurred line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, how we balance empathy and vigilance, the question of the hostages, of thinking about a day after for Israel and the Palestinians, these questions are not only still relevant, but they're actually more pressing than ever. So unfortunately, the themes that I hit on in the book, very much present right now.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

How did that writing process help you personally process what you were witnessing and experiencing as a Jew in America?

Elliot Cosgrove:  

I'll say this, that as a rabbi, I often see my job–someone calls, they've just gotten bad news in the hospital, a loved one has passed away. Or a happy thing, that their child has just gotten engaged, or they themselves have just become new parents. And people turn to clergy to get the first line of constructing the narrative of what it is they are experiencing. 

And for me, there is something deeply personal and deeply pastoral about this book, because I feel like it's seeking, hopefully, to give the language to American Jews as to how to construct this new reality of a post October 7 existence, the jumble of emotions, of trauma, but also the emergence of Jewish identity, the likes of which we've never seen before, the argument for continued defense of Israel's right to self determination, as well as an assurance that the traumas of October 7 never happen again. And in the same breath to think actively about what does the day after look like. I think we're all searching for language for these and other tensions of our moment, and I'm hoping that the book is sort of a vocabulary builder for our time.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

One word that you used many times in the book, and it stuck with me, just because maybe it's one of my favorite words, and that is empathy. And you used it in different chapters, different contexts. And I'm curious if you could share with the audience the role of empathy and how it is a guiding force, how it has been a guiding force since October 7.

Elliot Cosgrove:  

Empathy, both its presence and its absence, has been a subplot of this moment, because I think empathy is ingrained into the Jewish DNA. You open up the Passover Haggadah, and on the one hand, we know that we are vigilant against every generation a pharaoh arises to destroy us. We are guards up. We are a people who knows the importance of ancient hatreds, of being vigilant against them, and also the ring of fire that Israel sits in by way of Iran and its proxies. 

I mean, Israel's in a very tight spot, and American Jewry is in a very tight spot. And at the same time, empathy is who we are. You were once a stranger in a strange land. Therefore you should know the heart of a stranger. To be a Jew is to know that because of who we are, because of our historical experience, we care for the other. And I think that this is really one of the great tensions of our moment of how to, you know, be eyes wide open to Israel's need to self defense, and at the same time recognize the real suffering that's going on in Gaza and and to know that we need to find a way to hold both of those together.

That Israel needs to fight this war as if there's no tomorrow, and Israel has to fight this war with an eye to tomorrow, with the same ferocity that it prosecutes this war, it has to pursue a day after plan. And I think that somewhere along the way, it's the voices on the extremes who are speaking with the loudest megaphones. And the goal of this moment is to realize that we need to find a way to embrace both. 

I think it was Fitzgerald who said the test of a great mind is the ability to hold two opposing ideas and retain the ability to function. I think the test of the Jewish community right now is the ability to hold both vigilance and empathy at the same time and retain the ability to move forward with hope.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

And how can empathy help here on American soil, where we're facing protesters, we're facing all kinds of opposition and questions and hatred because of what's happening overseas. How do we use empathy here on American soil?

Elliot Cosgrove:  

First of all, it's hard. It's hard. When you are under attack, the last thing anyone wants to do is feel someone else's pain. When someone is calling me a colonialist oppressor, when someone is calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, something which is part and parcel to my identity, core to my very being – my initial instinct is not to inquire into how they feel and have empathy. My initial instinct is to have shields of self-defense, prioritize the needs of my people over anyone else's. I think that's a human thing to do. 

And as long as the hostages are hostages, as long as Israel stands in a vulnerable position, I think we need to be eyes wide open to that, and then we need to breathe, and we need to remember what it means to be a Jew. 

And we need to remember that it takes two to tango, and that if we are going to create a future whereby Jews and Palestinians can live side by side in safety and self determination, then we need to realize that there are two peoples worthy of realizing that dream, and that requires empathy, Manya.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You were not always that religious or observant of your religious tradition. Can you tell our audience how you became a rabbi?

Elliot Cosgrove:  

How long do we have? This is a big question, but, look as with any way we construct our realities and tell our origin stories, there are a million ways to tell it. The truth of the matter is, I am the grandson of a congregational rabbi, an orthodox rabbi. So to say that I had somehow strayed from the path is a little bit of an overstatement. But I will say that I grew up in a traditional Jewish background. I'm very proud of the home I grew up in, but when I went off to college, it was very much something I did, Judaism was something I did at home. And I can't say that my first few years at my alma mater at University of Michigan were known by way of my religious affiliations and commitments.

And then I got a phone call my junior year of college, that a figure from my youth, a grandfather figure I never really knew. My grandparents had passed away, and he was a guy who used to sit next to us in synagogue and slip me up peppermint candy as the rabbi was about to start the sermon or come over for Passover Seders or Shabbat dinner, Mr. Gendun, and he had passed away. And I got the phone call. I said, What would Mr. Gendun want me to do? And I thought, maybe I'll say Kaddish. 

So I called one of my Jewishy friends. I had never been inside the Hillel building up until that moment. And I called up one of my Jewishy friends and I said, What's, where's the Hillel? And they said, you're an idiot, Elliot. It's this huge building right on campus at Michigan. And I went in and I said my Kaddish, and I was getting up like it was the end of an airplane ride just to run back out to whatever my evening plans were. 

And a man stood between me and the door, boxing me out, and I was trying to shimmy one way and the other. And he said, I notice you've never been here before. And he said, Well, I'm wondering if you'd like to come to Shabbat dinner. And I lied, truth be told, because I figure he didn't want to know about dollar pitcher night. And I said, I already have Shabbat plans. And he said, Well, do you have Shabbat plans next week? And I was caught in my tracks, and I said, No, and before I could say another word, he said, Good, then you'll come over for Shabbat dinner. 

And that man was Michael Brooks, who was the Hillel Director of the Michigan Hillel. I went over to Shabbat dinner. I got involved in the Israel group. I was an editor of the student journal. I sat on the Hillel governing board. One thing led to the other, and I became a rabbi.

But important [as] that story is obviously in my own religious formation and choice of vocation, is how it informs my own life and my own rabbinate. It's that ability to look around the room when you're in a class, a Jewish event, a service, and who's the person who looks a little out of place like they might have been there for the very first time, and just do that small human act of reaching out to them, and whether you're going to invite them to Shabbat dinner or not, but just to acknowledge their humanity, that has been the north star of my rabbinate ever since. We're all just human beings looking for a place to hang our hats.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You talk about empathy. I think empathy caught my attention every time you mentioned it in the book, because I think it's so key to journalism. It's such an important component of it. And then I think hospitality is such an important component to Judaism and to congregational life,

Elliot Cosgrove:  

Absolutely. Hospitality is something that is key to our text at the beginning of the Passover Seder. But hospitality is also a spiritual demeanor that we welcome people into our souls, into our presence, into our life. Hachnasat Orchim in Hebrew, this idea that there's always space within our souls, within our hearts. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Having had such an important turning point on a university campus, how did you interact with, council, university students during this time, as they were facing such pressures and such opposition, crushing opposition during this past year and a half?

Elliot Cosgrove:  

So there's a chapter about that in the book. It's really the part of the book that I think has struck a nerve, and appropriately so, because I'm the father of four college age or thereabouts children.  And that story I tell about Maya, and Maya is a young woman who, I joke, shares half a brain with my own college age daughter. She's grown up in my household, and she is what you or I might identify as a non Zionist Gen zer, and she approached me and perhaps reproached me for having a Israeli flag on the pulpit, for doing the prayer for the State of Israel in the midst of the service, and said, you know, and she grew up in the Jewish Day School. She grew up going to Jewish summer camp. She did gap year programs in Israel. 

Not a small amount of money has been invested in the Mayas of the world, and she herself is asking whether or not her liberal, American Jewish self can be simpatico with the policies of this or that Israeli government, because they don't speak for her sensibility. And to this question of empathy, I think the first move one makes in any such situation is to try to understand where the other person is coming from. 

And I think a 21, 22, 23 year old is coming of age in a moment of time where the only Prime Minister they know of is Bibi Netanyahu, who either is or is beholden to the most right-wing elements of Israeli society. The only policies they know of the Israeli government are an expansionist policy in the West Bank, which has precluded the possibility of a two state solution. The only paradigm they have is an Israel which is a Goliath to the Palestinian David, this is their reality. 

You can't blame someone for the time into which they are born. I can pick apart and engage in a dialog on what's true and what's not true. But to tell someone that their reality is not, their reality is is not, you know, a move that one can make. And by the way, if they're during the time of the judicial reform, and to this day, there are 1000s of Israelis marching on the streets on a Saturday night protesting the Israeli government as an expression of their love of country. 

To tell the Mayas of the world, a college age student today, that they are treif, they are beyond the bounds of Jewish discourse, for doing the exact same thing is just an argument that doesn't hold water anymore. And so the the the goal here, Manya, is to engage with their questions, to listen intently, to prompt that young mind to come up with their own answers for the defense and the well being of the Jewish people, given the harsh realities that Israel faces, and also to make room for their very real question. So I look long on the Maya generation. It's actually a controversial moment within the organized Jewish community –do we write them off, do we not write them off? I think they're our future, and I think we do terrible damage to ourselves if we write them off.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Because it is such a time as this. We have to pay attention to the context, right, and to where we are in history, without losing sight of history.

Elliot Cosgrove:  

Look, it's very easy to take pot shots from the left and from the right. You know where this brave space is. The brave space is standing in the middle and dignifying the claims and counterclaims of both sides, and knowing that real leadership is trying to keep our people together.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Your book does such a beautiful job of inspiring that sense, sparking those, those right emotions in my head. So thank you so much for writing it. And I encourage all of our listeners to pick up a copy of Rabbi Cosgrove's book–For Such a Time as This: On Being Jewish Today. It is full of challenges, and I think that the challenge is worth facing and taking on. Thank you.

Elliot Cosgrove:  

Thank you so much, Manya.

When the USC Shoah Foundation named three sisters and their brother from Sanok, Poland the oldest surviving siblings of the Holocaust, Canadian Jewish filmmaker Allan Novak, the son of one of those shvesters (sisters in Yiddish), realized it was time to use the footage he'd been collecting for years to tell their story. 

The result? Crossing the River: From Poland to Paradise – a heartwarming short documentary about how members of one family miraculously survived the Holocaust by staying together with each other and their parents. Listen to this conversation with Novak on his family’s dream of moving to Israel, unwavering resilience, and positive outlook, despite losing 80 family members to the horrors of Nazism. 

*The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. 

Resources:

• Watch the film: Crossing the River

• Artist Zoya Cherkassky print created in the spirit of the film: 250 signed and numbered prints will be sold with 100% of proceeds going towards Holocaust education through a series of initiatives developed and implemented in collaboration with AJC. The cost of the prints is $250. 

  • They can be purchased by credit card by calling 212-891-1454 or by emailing contribute@ajc.org. Or, you can send a check made out to AJC to the address below. In all instances, please be sure to mention that this is for a Zoya print. 

    • American Jewish Committee - 165 E. 56th St., New York, NY 10022

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

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

• People of the Pod: 

  • Israeli Hostages Freed: Inside the Emotional Reunions, High-Stakes Negotiations, and What’s Next

  • Bring Them Home: Understanding the Israel-Hamas Hostage Deal and Its Impact

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

  • Gov. Josh Shapiro and AJC CEO Ted Deutch on Combating Antisemitism

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

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

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

__

Transcript of Conversation with Allan Novak:

Trailer:

Ruth Zimmer: 

That's a camera.

Allan Novak: 

No, this records sound.

Sally Singer:

[in Yiddish: It's so small.]

Ruth Zimmer: 

Ok, Sally.

Allan Novak:

Meet the shvesters: Auntie Ruthie, Auntie Sally, and my mum, Anne.

Anne Novak:

I'm the quiet one.

Ruth Zimmer: 

And I'm the pisk (loudmouth).

Allan Novak:

Along with my uncle Saul, they've been together since the 1920s. As they began to hit 100 the media started to take notice, and when the USC Shoah Foundation named them the oldest Holocaust survivor siblings in the world, I knew I needed to tell their story now.

Ruth Zimmer:

What do you want us to . . you want to ask questions? Okay, that's easier. 

Allan Novak:

I want to talk about the war.

____

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

When the Shoah Foundation named three sisters and their brother from Sanok, Poland the oldest surviving siblings of the Holocaust, filmmaker Allan Novak, the son of one of those sisters, realized it was time to use the footage he'd been collecting for years to tell their story. The result? Crossing the River: From Poland to Paradise – a heartwarming short documentary about how members of one family miraculously survived the Holocaust by staying together with each other and their parents. Allan is with us now to talk about his extraordinary aunts, uncle and mom and this equally extraordinary Holocaust story. 

Allan, welcome to People of the Pod.

Allan Novak:  

Thank you, Manya, great to be here.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So you had been recording interviews and kind of a life with your family for decades, right, while kind of working on various other projects. But what finally moved you to make this a project?

Allan Novak:  

Sure, well, I've been filming them since I got my Bar Mitzvah Super Eight camera a while ago, in the 70s, actually. And, yeah, I've been collecting footage, you know, at different times. Was inspired to interview, to capture their story, but really, more is just kind of a personal archivist kind of project. But then when the Shoah Foundation identified them as the oldest Holocaust survivor siblings in the world, as you mentioned, I kind of posted that in my social media. And then there was a huge reaction. 

People just loved this idea that these people survived all this, and we're still together and survived, and we're thriving, in fact. And actually had a producer friend of mine inquire about where the rights available to their story. So I had to laugh, because, you know, I'm a filmmaker, so I immediately realized that somehow, you know, my little family story had kind of broken in a way, and it didn't deserve to be told and shared with the world.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

So without giving too much away, can you tell our listeners a little bit about these extraordinary family members and what your relationship with them was like growing up? When did you realize they had such an extraordinary backstory?

Allan Novak:  

Well, you know, they often talked about, you know, Siberia, which is where they survived the war. And they were, they were kind of small little stories. And I understood they were hungry and it was cold and that kind of a thing, but it was always kind of light hearted, and there was laughter. You know, my auntie Ruthie, who is prominent in the film, she was an actress in the Yiddish theater, and she's really a natural comedian, and so she would always, they would make it funny. And my uncle, Saul, I call him the most positive person in the world. He actually also would look on the bright side of things. 

So although they went through, you know, really tremendous trauma, somehow the way they processed it was with a positive outlook. And that kind of rubbed off on me. So I never felt, you know, unlike the people whose parents were unfortunate enough to have been in places like Auschwitz and under the Germans, I didn't have that sort of really, really dark sense of a traumatic story, but rather kind of this sort of triumphant survivalist story. So survival is kind of the key word and positivity together. So that's how I saw them growing up, as sort of somewhat fun old country of uncles and aunts.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Now one of the reasons your mother and most of her siblings survived is because the river that ran through Sanok also divided it into German and Russian territory, and your family fled to your great grandparents home on the Russian side, but about 80 of your family members stayed on the Nazi occupied side of Sanok and were murdered. One of them was your uncle Eli?

Allan Novak:  

Yeah, yeah. Eli.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Eli, yeah. Who did not stay with the siblings and parents. He had a bad feeling about where the Russians might take them. Did you ever get a sense of why the rest of the family stayed on the west side of the river in Nazi occupied Sanok?

Allan Novak:  

You know, it's a sad thing, but part of it was economic. You know, my grandfather had a relatively prosperous butcher shop. It was unusual because he supplied meats to the Polish military regiment there, but also to Jews. So he sort of had a half kosher, half not kosher shop, which was, I didn't even realize that could exist, but it did. He was quite Orthodox, and so they were sort of comfortable, but they shared a house, for instance, with my grandfather's brother, and he had like nine kids, and he wasn't so successful. 

And so when I asked them, like, Why didn't everybody go over to the other side? It's like they didn't have the money to hire a driver, horseman, get across the river. And so it was just unfortunate. And as well, it was my mother's grandmother that had the property, so on the father's side, they didn't really have that option to sort of show up on the other side of the family. So it was kind of cruel twists of family and economics and also nobody knew, like they didn't know that that would be the right side. Nobody knew what would happen. You know, the week the Germans marched into Poland in September. So, you know, they went with their instinct, stay with the grandmother. But nobody knew what would happen. And of course, Eli, the brother, thought he was making the clever choice. He thought he was going to survive because he didn't want to get on the train.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

How old were these people when they made these decisions to stay together or stay in Sanok?

Allan Novak:  

So there were five siblings. Sally, the oldest, would have been 19. So they were like 1917--15, 13, and 11. So Eli was 11, so they stuck together. They were young, you know, it probably seemed like a bit of an adventure, you know, to a 13 year old Auntie Ruthie, they didn't know, nobody knew what was to come. But Eli was 11, and he was, by all accounts, a stubborn child and a willful kid. A tough cookie, as my uncle Saul says. And so there's a point in the story where everybody was told you have to get on this train by the Russians, and the family huddled together.

And this 11 year old boy who thought he was smarter than everyone and was more willful, said, I'm not getting on that train. I'm going to stay with my grandparents, who were not being sent out. The others were deported because they were Polish citizens, and on the other side, they weren't. So that's what happened. So he was 11, strong willed, and he made a choice. And then in the end, obviously, like one of those sort of lessons of the story is families that stay together do better than not.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

As you mentioned, your family ends up in Siberia. That's where this Russian train takes them. I'll let listeners kind of watch the film to find out exactly how that unfolds. There is a story that did not make it into the film, but I read about the spilled milk, and I'm hoping that you can share that story as I think it's so sweet, but it also just gives listeners an idea of the conditions that your aunts, uncle and mom survived. 

Allan Novak:  

I mean, they were living essentially in a small wooden room inside of a long wooden barrack, and every family didn't matter how many people you got this, this wooden room. There were no beds. There were just sort of boards that came down from the wall. And there was like a bucket where they would put wood in and that sort of all they had to kind of keep them warm. But sometimes they could do things like they could trade. 

There were Siberian peasants around. And if you had an earring or something, you could get some milk, right, from a farmer nearby. And so, yeah, I think my Aunt Sally, she was able to kind of get this milk for the family. And it was this huge, huge treasure to have this small little pail of milk. And she put it under the bed for safekeeping until she could share it the next morning, and then she knocked it over in the night, and this precious, precious milk spilled on the floor, and she really like, for her whole life, she just had this deep sense of regret and shame for spilling this milk, because it was just so precious to have anything to eat other than the few grams of bread they were given.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

She literally cried over spilled milk for decades. 

Allan Novak:  

Yes.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Did her siblings know about this? And I'm just curious, what was the dynamic? You actually asked this very question in the film. You asked them, what is the dynamic between all of you? And they interpreted that as the difference. But I'm curious, just from your perspective, what was the dynamic of these siblings through the years? 

Allan Novak:  

Well, you know, they came from a traditional family. The father was Orthodox, you know, Shomer Shabbos, kosher, as probably were most of the Jews in Poland at that time, in the 20s and 30s. So they had a great deal of respect for the mother and father, would be nothing like today. It was just pure respect and love. And so between them, Sally, who's in the film, they called her the smart one. She was the most educated one. So she kind of ruled the roost, in a way. But Ruth, the youngest, she was a troublemaker. She's my auntie Ruthie, the comedian. And so she would make trouble. 

She would follow them. If somebody had a date, like if Sally had a date with a boy, you know, Ruthie would be sneaking up behind and, like, harassing them and not going home, or chasing after them. She was kind of wild and incorrigible. My mother was always the middle child, so she was the peacemaker, which you see in the film, always trying to bridge between Sally and the younger Ruth. And Saul was kind of, he was the boy, the only boy, and they really just cherished him. He was good with his hands. He could fix anything. 

There's a story in the film of how he had to kind of steal little parts, pieces of wood and things to end up building a cart that he could sell to get milk, that kind of thing. So they really appreciated each other, and they each had their positions, you know, judging by birth order, in a way.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

You also talk in the film about how Saul and your aunt Ruthie, they were determined to fulfill their dream of going to Israel and going to a kibbutz in Israel. Spoiler alert, they did not make it, because, again, they put family first. Was this family first theme, a through line of your upbringing? And also, did they ever make it to Israel as just tourists? 

Allan Novak:  

Yeah, family first, certainly. Yeah. I grew up with a lot of cousins, the uncles and aunts, and they all lived very close to each other for their entire adult lives. You know, every night, one of the uncles and aunts would be walking over down the street and sitting there, so yeah, and we would hang with my cousins during the summer. So yeah, family first, definitely. We were all very close with our cousins, and we still continue to be. With respect to Israel, I mean, it was really something. They really wanted to be in Israel. You know, they were part of Zionist groups called Akiba growing up. My father, this story isn't in the film, was actually the head of, like, a whole group of Kibbutzim in Poland, and he ran the organization getting people over to Israel, you know, in 1947-48 and it was actually a great embarrassment to him that he ended up going with his new wife to Canada versus Israel.

And he was very embarrassed because, you know, Oscar, you know, she and Novak, the organizer, ended up going to Canada. So it was a bit awkward. But, you know, they went where they got their immigration, and there was already family there. And just a very quick sidebar, so my father had one sister. My father lost like nine siblings, but he had one sister who emigrated to Palestine at the time in the 20s, and she had one son. And so my only living relative in Israel was the greatest living soccer star of his era. It's the equivalent of like having Pele as your cousin. His name is Nahum Stelmach. They called him Rosh Zahav, the golden head, because he won a famous match against Russia in the 60s. And this small country beat Russia, and he won. Sidebar. 

So they did get to Israel. It took until the mid 60s to get there to visit his, you know, Nahum, and then they went subsequently a few more times, but, you know, it was expensive, particularly, you know, in the 50s, and you know, until the 60s. So it took until the 60s, till they got there. But, yeah, it was a lifelong regret, but it was just kind of the twists of fate. Well, it's in the film. They might have ended up in Israel. They were on the Exodus. They were booked on the boat the Exodus, and then my grandfather had a stroke just before. So part of the themes of the film is kind of the random twists of fate and the choices that we make, and what happens is unknowable.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

The film includes footage of your mother turning 100, the birthday party, and she would always say that the best revenge against Hitler was to live long lives. What do you think has kept your family members alive for so long, what has kept them alive?

Allan Novak:  

Coincidentally, Uncle Saul just had his 100th birthday party three days ago. Now, three of them hit 100 and over, and Ruthie just is gonna have her 90th birthday next week. One of the things I say is they live with intense moderation. Everything they did was moderate. They didn't eat too much, they didn't tan too much, they didn't smoke, they didn't travel, just everything was just kind of this moderate lifestyle and exercise, right? So I believe that's part of it. They really were well preserved, physically and mentally like, right to the end. 

And then, of course, you know the closeness, I think, the social cohesion that the fact that they, three of them, moved in together to assisted living facilities, you know, in their late 90s together. You know, as they lived in a condo. They all had three apartments next to each other for 20 years as well, with Saul close by. So I think that family cohesion and closeness and they didn't fight. They never fought, never saw a feuding moment. So, you know, we know things like stress and all of that contribute to long lives. So I think they sort of had this mild and loving long life. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

I'm sure their experience gave them some perspective. There's nothing really worth fighting about when you've survived what you did together. 

Allan Novak:  

Yes, absolutely right. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

What has kept them so young, not so old? What lessons can we take away from the shvesters story today?

Allan Novak:  

Certainly take care of your siblings. Stay close. Keep them close, keep relations good. Choose togetherness over isolation when the chips are down. Positive spirit, Uncle Saul's positive spirit and their positive outlook. Again, never wallowing in what had happened to them and the things that were lost, even the family members that were lost, moving forward and cherishing what they have. And you know, loving your children, if you have them, and their caring family gave them a lot of meaning. 

They did everything for us, everything for the kinder, even to the point of when the film initially premiered, actually at Lincoln Center last January, and my mother was in the hospital at 100 and a half, and she stayed alive and alert until we had this premiere. We flew back, and then it was kind of like three days later, she let herself go with us there and said proper goodbyes. And I firmly believe that she just held on for the kinder, as they would say, for the children. So I think that's part of what kept them vital and youthful and alive. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Thank you so much. Allan, thank you for making this documentary and sharing it with the world. 

Allan Novak:  

My complete and utter pleasure, and I hope people take as much joy and uplifting positive and laughter, which is ironic for a film dealing with that time period, but they won. Hitler lost, and they won. 

And so it's kind of a triumphant story. And there's a final image which people would see of them on their balcony, you know, all around 100. In the snow in Winnipeg, holding hands, just persistent and alive. And they're together, immortalized now in the film.

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

Thank you so much, Allan. 

Allan Novak:  

My pleasure. 

Manya Brachear Pashman:  

To watch the short film, head to the link in our show notes. 

And a special thank you to Debi Wisch, AJC Board of Governors member and the producer of Crossing the River, for her work to further Holocaust education through the arts.

If you missed our last two episodes, be sure to tune in for my conversations with AJC Jerusalem Director Avital Leibovich and AJC Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs Julie Fishman Rayman about the high stakes negotiations to bring the October 7 hostages home.