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

“In so many cases, as is the case of October 7, there are no direct victims who are able to speak – for the very grim reason that Hamas made sure to kill almost each and every one of them. The very few that did survive are too traumatized to speak . . . “ Shortly after the October 7 Hamas terror attacks on Israel, witness accounts emerged of women brutally raped and mutilated before they were murdered and silenced forever. For Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, Professor of Law at Bar-Ilan University, that silence was deafening. And the silence of the international community unwilling to hold Hamas accountable, disturbing.  ”Does that mean that [Hamas] can walk away without being prosecuted, without being charged, and without being pointed to as those who perpetrate sexual violence and use it as a weapon of war?” she asks. In this episode, Halperin-Kaddari explains how she and her colleagues have erased any doubt to make sure Hamas is held accountable.  Their initiative The Dinah Project, named for one of Jacob’s daughters, a victim of rape, just published A Quest for Justice, the most comprehensive assessment to date of the widespread and systematic sexual violence that occurred during and after the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas terrorists and their allies.  The report demonstrates that sexual violence was widespread and systematic during the October 7 attack, that there are clear patterns in the methods of sexual violence across geographic locations, and that sexual violence continued against hostages in captivity. It concludes that Hamas used sexual violence as a tactical weapon of war during and after the October 7 attack.  Resources: Read: The Dinah Project’s groundbreaking new report, A Quest for Justice Read: Hamas' Most Horrific Weapon of War: 5 Takeaways from UN Report on Sexual Violence Against Israelis Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  Journalist Matti Friedman Exposes Media Bias Against Israel John Spencer’s Key Takeaways After the 12-Day War: Air Supremacy, Intelligence, and Deterrence Iran's Secret Nuclear Program and What Comes Next in the Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [email protected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: Shortly after the October 7 Hamas terror attacks on Israel, witness accounts emerged of women brutally raped and mutilated before they were murdered and silenced forever. For Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, Professor of Law at Bar Ilan University, that silence was deafening. And the silence of the international community unwilling to hold Hamas accountable, disturbing.  In response, Ruth and colleagues, former military prosecutor Sharon Zagagi-Pinhas and retired judge Nava Ben-Or founded The Dinah Project, an effort to seek justice for the victims of sexual violence during conflicts, particularly in Israel, on October 7, 2023. This week, together with visual editor Nurit Jacobs-Yinon and linguistics editor Eetta Prince-Gibson, they released A Quest for Justice, the most comprehensive report yet on the sexual violence committed on October 7 and against hostages afterward. Ruth is with us now. Ruth, welcome to People of the Pod.  Ruth Halperin-Kaddari:   Thank you very much for having me on your podcast. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, it's really an honor to have you. I should note for our listeners that you are also the founding Academic Director of the Rackman Center for the Advancement of the Status of Women, and you've served on the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. So you're no newcomer to this subject matter.  You know, we've talked a lot about how Hamas sexually assaulted women and men during the October 7 terror attacks on Israel. Without getting too graphic, or at least getting graphic enough to make your point clear and not sanitize these crimes, what new information and evidence does this report offer?  Ruth Halperin-Kaddari:   The specific new finding in the report is to actually take all the already published and existing information and put it together and come down with the numbers that prove that sexual violence on October 7 was not sporadic. Was not isolated. It was systematic. It happened in at least six different locations, at the same time, with the same manner, the same patterns.  And the, I think, most significant finding is that there are at least 17 survivors who witnessed the sexual violence, and they reported on at least 15 different cases. So there were 17 people who either saw or heard, in real time, the rapes and the gang rapes, some of them involving mutilation, some ending, and the witnesses saw, the execution at the end of the assaults. And this is the first time that anybody came with the actual aggregation and the classification and the naming of all the various sexual assaults and all the various cases that occurred on October 7, and then also later on in captivity. What we did is to, as I said, take all the testimonies and the evidence and the reports that people had already given, and they published it, either on social media or regular media, in addition to some information that was available to us from from other sources, and grouped it into specific categories according to their evidentiary value.  So the first group is, of course, those who were victims or survivors of sexual violence themselves, mostly returned hostages, but also one survivor of an attempted rape victim, attempted rape, on October 7, who had actually not spoken before. So that's the first time that her testimony is being recorded or reported.  But then the returned hostages, who also report on repeated and similar patterns of sexual abuse and sexual assaults that they had been subjected to in captivity. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So the United Nations has acknowledged that women were raped, mutilated, murdered, executed, as you said, but did it attribute responsibility to Hamas? Ruth Halperin-Kaddari:   We have to differentiate between the first report of the Assistant Secretary General, Special Representative on sexual violence in conflict, Ms. Pramila Patten, who refrained from specifically attributing these atrocities to Hamas, saying that there needs to be more or follow up examination or investigation into the question of attribution.  But then in June of 2024, the Commission of Inquiry on Palestinian Authority, Gaza, Israel, and East Jerusalem, did attribute in their report, they did attribute the sexual violence to Hamas in at least two different places in their report. So in our view, this is already a settled issue. And the information that we gathered comes on top of these two reports. We have to bear in mind the issue of time that passes, first of all, with respect to those survivors, mostly of the Nova music festival, who themselves were victims of the terror attack. And as can be expected, took time before they could recount and speak in public about what they had seen, what they had witnessed, suffering also from trauma, being exposed to such unbelievable acts of human cruelty. And then the other group of the returned hostages, who, some of them, were freed only after 400 or 500 days. So obviously we could not hear their reports before they were finally freed. So all these pieces of information could not have been available to these two investigative exercises by the United Nations. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And when the UN Secretary General's annual report on the conflict related sexual violence, when it comes out in August, right, it's expected out next month, there is going to be more information. So do you have high hopes that they will hold Hamas accountable for using sexual violence as a tactical weapon of war, and that this will be included in that report? Ruth Halperin-Kaddari:   So this is, in fact, our first recommendation request, ask, if you want to put it that way. We call upon the Secretary General to blacklist Hamas, to include Hamas in the list of those notorious organizations, entities, states that condone or that actually make use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, side by side with ISIS, with Boko Haram, with other terrorist organizations and terrorist groups around the world.  And expose them, finally, for what they are, not freedom fighters and not resistance fighters, but rapists and terrorists that use the worst form of violence of human cruelty, of atrocities to inflict such terror and harm on the enemy. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You know, we talk about the dangers of nuclear warfare, especially lately, in the context of Iran, we talk about cyber attacks. What are the broader implications of sexual violence when it's used as a weapon of war? Ruth Halperin-Kaddari:   Perhaps this is where we should clarify the sense in which sexual violence as a weapon of war is different from the regular term of sexual violence, and from the phenomena of, for lack of a better word, everyday sexual violence. It’s really very important to bear this in mind when thinking about those broader implications and when seeking justice for victims of sexual violence when used as a weapon of war. It is directed not against the individual. It is directed against the community as a whole. Against the group of the enemy, the nation of the enemy. So the bodies of women, and sometimes also of men, are used as vessels, as symbols, symbolizing the body of the whole nation, and when the specific body is targeted and when the specific woman is invaded, conquered, violated, it is as if the whole body of the of the nation, of the enemy's nation, is being invaded and conquered.  So the target is the total dehumanization and destroying of the whole community, of the whole group of the enemy. And these are the ramifications of using sexual violence as a weapon of war. It inflicts such a degree of terror, and then also of shame and of stigma, so as to paralyze the whole community. And it goes on and on. And we know from sadly, from other cases of the usage of sexual violence as a tool of war that it is transmitted to generation after generation, this collective trauma. And it's important, not just in understanding and perhaps being prepared for treatment, for healing, etc. But it is also important in the sense of seeking justice. Of attempting to prosecute for these crimes of sexual violence in conflict or in war. We know that it is always a very difficult challenge for the legal system, for institutions, legal institutions, institutions of justice, to prosecute perpetrators of CRSV, of conflict related sexual violence, because of the of the unique aspects and the unique nature of this kind of crime, which are different from everyday sexual violence. In so many cases, as is the case of October 7, there are no direct victims who are able to speak for the very grim reason that Hamas made sure to kill almost each and every one of them so as to leave no traces, to silence them forever. And the very few that did survive, are too traumatized to speak, are unable to come up and say what they had been through.  But this is very often the case in CRSV. And then the next challenge is that it is almost always impossible to identify or to point to a specific perpetrator and it's almost impossible to know who did what, or to connect a specific perpetrator to a specific victim. In the case of October 7, the victims were buried with the evidence. The bodies were the evidence and they were buried immediately, or as soon as it was possible, according to Jewish tradition.  So does that mean that they can walk away without being prosecuted, without being charged, and without being pointed to as those who perpetrate sexual violence and use it as a weapon of war? That is why we, in our work at The Dinah Project and in the book that we had just published this week, on top of the evidentiary platform that I already described before, we also develop a legal thesis calling for the prosecution of all those who participated in that horrific attack, all those who entered Israel with the genocidal intent of total dehumanization and total destruction. And we argue that they all share responsibility. This is a concept of joint responsibility, or joint criminal enterprise, that we must make use of, and it is a known concept in jurisprudence, in criminal law, and it has to be employed in these cases. In addition to understanding that some of the usual evidence that is sought for prosecution of sexual violence, namely the evidence, the testimony, of the victim herself or himself is not available.  But then those eyewitnesses and ear witnesses in real time, 17 of them reporting 15 different cases, these are no less credible evidence and acceptable evidence in evidentiary, in evidence law. And these should be resorted to.  So there has to be a paradigm shift in the understanding of the prosecutorial authorities and the law in general. Justice systems, judicial systems in general. Because otherwise, perpetrators of these crimes have full impunity and there will never be accountability for these crimes. And any terrorist organization gets this message that you can do this and get away with it, as long as you don't leave the victims behind. This is a terrible message. It's unacceptable, and we must fight against it. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Ruth, can you explain to our audience the origins of The Dinah Project? How old is it? When did you found it, and why? Ruth Halperin-Kaddari:   The Dinah Project is really a very interesting case. Can be seen as a case study of the operation of civil society in Israel, from the bottom up, forming organically, without any plan, at first, without any structure. Each of us found ourselves working in parallel channels immediately after October 7. I was very much involved and invested in the international human rights arena.  My colleagues were more invested on the national front in seeking to, first of all, to raise awareness within the Israeli authorities themselves about what had took place, and then collecting the information and putting all the pieces of the puzzle together. And then we realized, as we realized that we are all working towards the same goal, we first of all formed a WhatsApp group. This is how things are being done in Israel, and we called it: Sexual Atrocities War Room.  And then we understood that we have to have some kind of a structure. And it was only natural that the Rackman Center that I established, and I'm still heading more than 25 years ago, would be the natural organization to host The Dinah Project.  As an organization that has always been leading justice for Israeli women, for women in Israel, gender justice, we realize that we are now facing a new front of where justice needs to be done for women in Israel. And we also can utilize the human power that we have in the academia, in the university, of course the organizational structure. So we expanded The Rackman Center, and for the past almost year and a half, The Dinah Project is part of the Rackman Center. And the book that we published now is really the culmination of a very, very careful and meticulous work, thousands of hours, as I said. I would like to add that we are, I'm trying to think of the proper words. It's actually a subject matter where you so often find yourself looking for the proper words. So I want to say we're pleased, but it's really not the right expression. But we see, we acknowledge that there is a huge amount of interest in our work since we launched the book this week and handed it over to the First Lady of Israel, Michal Herzog, at the presidential residence.  And I hesitate to say that perhaps this demonstrates that maybe there is more willingness in the international media and in the world at large to hear, maybe to accept, that the situation is more nuanced than previously they prefer to believe.  And maybe also because more time passed on. Of course, new information was gathered, but also when this is a work by an academic institution, coming from independent experts and a very solid piece of work, maybe this is also what was needed. I'm really, really hopeful that it will indeed generate the change that we're seeking. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In other words, that denial that we encountered in the very beginning, where people were not believing the Israeli women who said that they were sexually assaulted, you find that that is shifting, that is changing. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari:   I hope so. I hope that this media interest that we are experiencing now is a signal for some kind of change. It is our aim to refute the denialism. Manya Brachear Pashman:   There are some that point to Israeli Forces as well and say that they are also using sexual violence as a weapon of war. Does The Dinah Project address that, has it worked with the IDF to try to figure out . . . in other words, is it a broad application, this report? Ruth Halperin-Kaddari:   This is not our mission. Our mission is concerned with the victims of Hamas. We are aware of the allegations against Israeli soldiers, against IDF. We are aware, and we made some inquiries to know the facts that investigations are ongoing against those who are being accused of perpetrating sexual violence against Palestinian detainees.  But we must point out a major difference, at least in our understanding. Hamas entered Israel on October 7 under a genocidal indoctrination. Just reading the Hamas charter, going through those writings that were found in the vessels of Hamas terrorists here in Israel, or later on in Gaza, the indoctrination there is clear.  And they all entered civilian places. They attacked civilians purposefully, with the intent of total dehumanization and destruction. Whatever happened or not happened with respect to Palestinian detainees, and I do trust the Israeli authorities to conduct a thorough investigation and to hold those accountable, cannot be compared to a structured and planned and ordered attack against the civilian population. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And total lack of accountability as well. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari:   Obviously there is absolutely no accountability on the part of the Palestinian people, of Hamas leadership, or Palestinian Authority, if that's relevant. Obviously there are no investigations there and no accountability, no acceptance of responsibility on their part. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, Ruth, thank you so much for producing this report, for continuing to investigate, and keeping the fire lit under the feet of the United Nations and authorities who can hold people accountable for the crimes that were committed. Thank you so much. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari:   Thank you. Thank you very much. Manya Brachear Pashman:   If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for a replay of a conversation with award-winning journalist Matti Friedman at AJC Global Forum 2025. He breaks down the media bias, misinformation and double standards shaping global coverage of Israel.  

How has the media distorted Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas attacks? In this powerful conversation from AJC Global Forum 2025, award-winning journalist and former AP correspondent Matti Friedman breaks down the media bias, misinformation, and double standards shaping global coverage of Israel. Moderated by AJC Chief Communications and Strategy Officer Belle Etra Yoeli, this episode explores how skewed narratives have taken hold in the media, in a climate of activist journalism. A must-listen for anyone concerned with truth in journalism, Israel advocacy, and combating disinformation in today’s media landscape. Take Action: Take 15 seconds and urge your elected leaders to send a clear, united message: We stand with Israel. Take action now. Resources: Global Forum 2025 session with Matti Friedman:: Watch the full video. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  John Spencer’s Key Takeaways After the 12-Day War: Air Supremacy, Intelligence, and Deterrence Iran's Secret Nuclear Program and What Comes Next in the Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran’s Nuclear Program Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [email protected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: I’ve had the privilege of interviewing journalism colleague Matti Friedman: twice on this podcast. In 2022, Matti took listeners behind the scenes of Jerusalem’s AP bureau where he had worked between 2006 and 2011 and shared some insight on what happens when news outlets try to oversimplify the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then in 2023, I got to sit down with Matti in Jerusalem to talk about his latest book on Leonard Cohen and how the 1973 Yom Kippur War was a turning point both for the singer and for Israel.  Earlier this year, Matti came to New York for AJC Global Forum 2025, and sat down with Belle Yoeli, AJC Chief Strategy and Communications Officer. They rehashed some of what we discussed before, but against an entirely different backdrop: post-October 7. For this week’s episode, we bring you a portion of that conversation.  Belle Yoeli:   Hi, everyone. Great to see all of you. Thank you so much for being here. Matti, thank you for being here.  Matti Friedman:   Thanks for having me.  Belle Yoeli:   As you can tell by zero empty seats in this room, you have a lot of fans, and unless you want to open with anything, I'm going to jump right in. Okay, great.  So for those of you who don't know, in September 2024 Matti wrote a piece in The Free Press that is a really great foundation for today's discussion. In When We Started to Lie, Matti, you reflect on two pieces that you had written in 2015 about issues of media coverage of Israel during Operation Protective Edge in 2014. And this piece basically talked about the conclusions you drew and how they've evolved since October 7. We're gonna get to those conclusions, but first, I'm hoping you can describe for everyone what were the issues of media coverage of Israel that you first identified based on the experience in 2014? Matti Friedman:   First of all, thanks so much for having me here, and thanks for all of the amazing work that you guys are doing. So it's a real honor for me. I was a reporter for the AP, between 2006 and the very end of 2011, in Jerusalem. I was a reporter and editor. The AP, of course, as you know, is the American news agency. It's the world's largest news organization, according to the AP, according to Reuters, it's Reuters. One of them is probably right, but it's a big deal in the news world.  And I had an inside view inside one of the biggest AP bureaus. In fact, the AP's biggest International Bureau, which was in Jerusalem. So I can try to sketch the problems that I saw as a reporter there. It would take me seven or eight hours, and apparently we only have four or five hours for this lunch, so I have to keep it short. But I would say there are two main problems. We often get very involved. When we talk about problems with coverage of Israel. We get involved with very micro issues like, you call it a settlement. I call it a neighborhood. Rockets, you know, the Nakba, issues of terminology. But in fact, there are two major problems that are much bigger, and because they're bigger, they're often harder to see. One of the things that I noticed at the Bureau was the scale of coverage of Israel. So at the time that I was at the AP, again, between 2006 and the very end of 2011 we had about 40 full time staffers covering Israel. That's print reporters like me, stills photographers, TV crews. Israel, as most of you probably know, is a very small country. As a percentage of the world's surface, Israel is 1/100 of 1% of the surface of the world, and as a percentage of the land mass of the Arab world, Israel is 1/5 of 1%. 0.2%.  And we had 40 people covering it.  And just as a point of comparison, that was dramatically more people than we had at the time covering China. There are about 10 million people today in Israel proper, in China, there are 1.3 billion. We had more people in Israel than we had in China. We had more people in Israel than we had in India, which is another country of about 1.3 billion people. We had more people in Israel than we had in all of the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. That's 50 something countries. So we had more people in Israel than we had in all of those countries combined. And sometimes I say that to Jews, I say we covered Israel more than we covered China, and people just stare at me blankly, because it's Israel. So of course, that makes perfect sense.  I happen to think Israel is the most important country in the world because I live there. But if the news is meant to be a rational analysis of events on planet Earth, you cannot cover Israel more than you cover the continent of Africa. It just doesn't make any sense. So one of the things that first jumped out at me– actually, that's making me sound smarter than I am. It didn't jump out at me at first. It took a couple of years. And I just started realizing that it was very strange that the world's largest organization had its largest international bureau in the State of Israel, which is a very small country, very small conflict in numeric terms. And yet there was this intense global focus on it that made people think that it was the most important story in the world. And it definitely occupies a place in the American political imagination that is not comparable to any other international conflict.  So that's one part of the problem. That was the scope, the other part was the context. And it took me a while to figure this out, but the coverage of Israel is framed as an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conflict is defined in those terms, the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and everyone in this room has heard it discussed in those terms. Sometimes we discuss it in those terms, and that is because the news folks have framed the conflict in those terms. So at the AP bureau in Jerusalem, every single day, we had to write a story that was called, in the jargon of the Bureau, Is-Pals, Israelis, Palestinians. And it was the daily wrap of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. So what Netanyahu said, what Abbas said, rockets, settlers, Hamas, you know, whatever, the problem is that there isn't an Israeli=Palestinian conflict. And I know that sounds crazy, because everyone thinks there is.  And of course, we're seeing conflicts play out in the most tragic way right now in Gaza. But most of Israel's wars have not been fought against Palestinians. Israel has unfortunately fought wars against Egyptians and Jordanians and Lebanese and Iraqis. And Israel's most important enemy at the moment, is Iran, right? The Iranians are not Palestinian. The Iranians are not Arab. They're Muslim, but they're not Arab. So clearly, there is a broader regional conflict that's going on that is not an Israeli Palestinian conflict, and we've seen it in the past year. If we had a satellite in space looking down and just following the paths of ballistic missiles and rockets fired at Israel. Like a photograph of these red trails of rockets fired at Israel. You'd see rockets being fired from Iraq and from Yemen and from Lebanon and from Gaza and from Iran. You'd see the contours of a regional conflict.  And if you understand it's a regional conflict, then you understand the way Israelis see it. There are in the Arab world, 300 million people, almost all of them Muslim. And in one corner of that world, there are 7 million Jews, who are Israelis. And if we zoom out even farther to the level of the Islamic world, we'll see that there are 2 billion people in the Islamic world. There's some argument about the numbers, but it's roughly a quarter of the world's population. And in one corner of that world there, there are 7 million Israeli Jews. The entire Jewish population on planet Earth is a lot smaller than the population of Cairo.  So the idea that this is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where Israelis are the stronger side, where Israelis are the dominant actor, and where Israelis are, let's face it, the bad guy in the story, that's a fictional presentation of a story that actually works in a completely different way. So if you take a small story and make it seem big. If you take a complicated regional story and you make it seem like a very small local story involving only Israelis and Palestinians, then you get the highly simplified but very emotive narrative that everyone is being subjected to now. And you get this portrayal of a villainous country called Israel that really looms in the liberal imagination of the West as an embodiment of the worst possible qualities of the age. Belle Yoeli:   Wow. So already you were seeing these issues when you were reporter, earlier on. But like this, some of this was before and since, since productive edge. This is over 10 years ago, and here we are. So October 7 happens. You already know these issues exist. You've identified them. How would you describe because obviously we have a lot of feelings about this, but like, strictly as a journalist, how would you describe the coverage that you've seen since during October 7, in its aftermath? Is it just these issues? Have they? Have they expanded? Are there new issues in play? What's your analysis? Matti Friedman:   The coverage has been great. I really have very I have no criticism of it. I think it's very accurate. I think that I, in a way, I was lucky to have been through what I went through 10 or 15 years ago, and I wasn't blindsided on October 7, as many people were, many people, quite naturally, don't pay close attention to this. And even people who are sympathetic to Israel, I think, were not necessarily convinced that my argument about the press was right. And I think many people thought it was overstated.  And you can read those articles from 2014 one was in tablet and one was in the Atlantic, but it's basically the two chapters of the same argument. And unfortunately, I think that those the essays, they stand up. In fact, if you don't really look at the date of the essays, they kind of seem that they could have been written in the past year and a half. And I'm not happy about that. I think that's and I certainly wrote them in hopes that they would somehow make things better. But the issues that I saw in the press 15 years ago have only been exacerbated since then. And October seven didn't invent the wheel. The issues were pre existing, but it took everything that I saw and kind of supercharged it.  So if I talked about ideological conformity in the bureaus that has been that has become much more extreme. A guy like me, I was hired in 2006 at the AP. I'm an Israeli of center left political leanings. Hiring me was not a problem in 22,006 by the time I left the AP, at the end of 2011 I'm pretty sure someone like me would not have been hired because my views, which are again, very centrist Israeli views, were really beyond the pale by the time that I left the AP, and certainly, and certainly today, the thing has really moved what I saw happening at the AP. And I hate picking on the AP because they were just unfortunate enough to hire me. That was their only error, but what I'm saying about them is true of a whole new. Was heard. It's true of the Times and CNN and the BBC, the news industry really works kind of as a it has a herd mentality. What happened was that news decisions were increasingly being made by people who are not interested in explanatory journalism. They were activists. Activists had moved into the key positions in the Bureau, and they had a very different idea of what press coverage was supposed to do. I would say, and I tried to explain it in that article for the free press, when I approach a news story, when I approach the profession of journalism, the question that I'm asking is, what's going on? That's the question I think you're supposed to ask, what's going on? How can I explain it in a way that's as accurate as as possible? The question that was increasingly being asked was not what's going on. The question was, who does this serve? That's an activist question. So when you look at a story, you don't ask, is it true, or is it not true? You ask, who's it going to help? Is it going to help the good guys, or is it going to help the bad guys?  So if Israel in the story is the villain, then a story that makes Israel seem reasonable, reasonable or rational or sympathetic needs to be played down to the extent possible or made to disappear. And I can give you an example from my own experience.  At the very end of 2008 two reporters in my bureau, people who I know, learned of a very dramatic peace offer that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had made to the Palestinians. So Olmert, who was the prime minister at the time, had made a very far reaching offer that was supposed to see a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, most of the West Bank, with land swaps for territory that Israel was going to retain, and a very far reaching international consortium agreement to run the Old City of Jerusalem. Was a very dramatic. It was so far reaching, I think that Israelis probably wouldn't have supported it. But it was offered to the Palestinian side, and the Palestinians rejected it as insufficient. And two of our reporters knew about this, and they'd seen a map of the offer. And this was obviously a pretty big story for a bureau that had as the thrust of its coverage the peace process.  The two reporters who had the story were ordered to drop it, they were not allowed to cover the story. And there were different explanations. And they didn't, by the way, AP did not publish the story at the time, even though we were the first to have it. Eventually, it kind of came out and in other ways, through other news organizations. But we knew at first. Why were we not allowed to cover it? Because it would have made the Israelis who we were trying to villainize and demonize, it would have made Israel seem like it was trying to solve the conflict on kind of reasonable lines, which, of course, was true at that time. So that story would have upended the thrust of our news coverage. So it had to be made to go away, even though it was true, it would have helped the wrong people. And that question of who does this serve has destroyed, I want to say all, but much, of what used to be mainstream news coverage, and it's not just where Israel is concerned.  You can look at a story like the mental health of President Biden, right. Something's going on with Biden at the end of his term. It's a huge global news story, and the press, by and large, won't touch it, because why? I mean, it's true, right? We're all seeing that it's true, but why can't you touch it? Because it would help the wrong people. It would help the Republicans who in the press are the people who you are not supposed to help.  The origins of COVID, right? We heard one story about that. The true story seems to be a different story. And there are many other examples of stories that are reported because they help the right people, or not reported because they would help the wrong people. And I saw this thinking really come into action in Israel 10 or 15 years ago, and unfortunately, it's really spread to include the whole mainstream press scene and really kill it.  I mean, essentially, anyone interested in trying to get a solid sense of what's going on, we have very few options. There's not a lot, there's not a lot out there. So that's the broader conclusion that I drew from what I thought at the time was just a very small malfunction involving Israel coverage. But Israel coverage ends up being a symptom of something much bigger, as Jews often are the symptom of something much bigger that's going on.  So my problems in the AP bureau 15 years ago were really a kind of maybe a canary in the coal mine, or a whiff of something much bigger that we were all going to see happen, which is the transformation of the important liberal institutions of the west into kind of activist arms of a very radical ideology that has as its goal the transformation of the west into something else. And that's true of the press, and it's true of NGO world, places like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which were one thing 30 years ago and are something very different today. And it's also true of big parts of the academy. It's true of places like Columbia and places like Harvard, they still have the logo, they still have the name, but they serve a different purpose, and I just happen to be on the ground floor of it as a reporter. Belle Yoeli:   So obviously, this concept of who does this serve, and this activist journalism is deeply concerning, and you actually mentioned a couple other areas, academia, obviously we're in that a lot right now in terms of what's going on campus. So I guess a couple of questions on that. First of all, think about this very practically, tachlis, in the day to day.  I'm a journalist, and I go to write about what's happening in Gaza. What would you say is, if you had to throw out a percentage, are all of them aware of this activist journalist tendency? Or you think it's like, like intentional for many of them, or it's sort of they've been educated that way, and it's their worldview in such a way that they don't even know that they're not reporting the news in a very biased way. Does that make sense? Matti Friedman:   Totally. I think that many people in the journalism world today view their job as not as explaining a complicated situation, but as swaying people toward the correct political conclusion. Journalism is power, and the power has to be wielded in support of justice. Now, justice is very slippery, and, you know, choosing who's in the right is very, very slippery, and that's how journalism gets into a lot of trouble. Instead of just trying to explain what's going on and then leave, you're supposed to leave the politics and the activism to other people. Politics and activism are very important.  But unless everyone can agree on what is going on, it's impossible to choose the kind of act, the kind of activism that would be useful. So when the journalists become activists, then no one can understand what's what's going on, because the story itself is fake, and there are many, many examples of it. But you know, returning to what you asked about, about October 7, and reporting post October 7, you can really see it happen. The massacres of October 7 were very problematic for the ideological strain that now controls a lot of the press, because it's counterintuitive. You're not supposed to sympathize with Israelis.  And yet, there were a few weeks after October 7 when they were forced to because the nature of the atrocities were so heinous that they could not be ignored. So you had the press covering what happened on October 7, but you could feel it. As someone who knows that scene, you could feel there was a lot of discomfort. There was a lot of discomfort. It wasn't their comfort zone, and you knew that within a few weeks, maybe a month, it was gonna snap back at the first opportunity.  When did it snap back? In the story of the Al Ahli hospital strike. If you remember that a few weeks in, there's a massive global story that Israel has rocketed Hospital in Gaza and killed about 500 people and and then you can see the kind of the comfort the comfort zone return, because the story that the press is primed to cover is a story about villainous Israelis victimizing innocent Palestinians, and now, now we're back. Okay. Now Israel's rocketing hospital. The problem was that it hadn't happened, and it was that a lot of stories don't happen, and they're allowed to stand.  But this story was so far from the truth that even the people involved couldn't make it work, and it had to be retracted, but it was basically too late. And then as soon as the Israeli ground offensive got into swing in Gaza, then the story really becomes the same old story, which is a story of Israel victimizing Palestinians for no reason. And you'll never see Hamas militants in uniform in Gaza. You just see dead civilians, and you'll see the aftermath of a rocket strike when the, you know, when an Israeli F16 takes out the launcher, but you will never see the strike. Which is the way it's worked in Gaza since the very end of 2008 which is when the first really bad round of violence in Gaza happens, which is when I'm at the AP.  As far as I know, I was the first staffer to erase information from the story, because we were threatened by Hamas, which happened at the very end of 2008. We had a great reporter in Gaza, a Palestinian who had always been really an excellent reporter. We had a detail in a story. The detail was a crucial one. It was that Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and were being counted as civilians in the death toll, an important thing to know, that went out in an AP story. The reporter called me a few hours later. It was clear that someone had spoken to him, and he told me, I was on the desk in Jerusalem, so I was kind of writing the story from the main bureau in Jerusalem. And he said, Matti, you have to take that detail out of the story. And it was clear that someone had threatened him. I took the detail out of the story. I suggested to our editors that we note in an Editor's Note that we were now complying with Hamas censorship. I was overruled, and from that point in time, the AP, like all of its sister organizations, collaborates with Hamas censorship in Gaza.  What does that mean? You'll see a lot of dead civilians, and you won't see dead militants. You won't have a clear idea of what the Hamas military strategy is. And this is the kicker, the center of the coverage will be a number, a casualty number, that is provided to the press by something called the Gaza health ministry, which is Hamas. And we've been doing that since 2008, and it's a way of basically settling the story before you get into any other information. Because when you put, you know, when you say 50 Palestinians were killed, and one Israeli on a given day, it doesn't matter what else you say. The numbers kind of tell their own story, and it's a way of settling the story with something that sounds like a concrete statistic. And the statistic is being, you know, given to us by one of the combatant sides. But because the reporters sympathize with that side, they're happy to play along. So since 2008, certainly since 2014 when we had another serious war in Gaza, the press has not been covering Gaza, the press has been essentially an amplifier for one of the most poisonous ideologies on Earth. Hamas has figured out how to make the press amplify its messaging rather than covering Hamas. There are no Western reporters in Gaza. All of the reporters in Gaza are Palestinians, and those people fall into three categories. Some of them identify with Hamas. Some of them are intimidated by Hamas and won't cross Hamas, which makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't want to cross Hamas either. So either. And the third category is people who actually belong to Hamas. That's where the information from Gaza is coming from. And if you're credulous, then of course, you're going to get a story that makes Israel look pretty bad. Belle Yoeli:   So this is very depressing. That's okay. It's very helpful, very depressing. But on that note, I would ask you so whether, because you spoke about this problem in terms, of, of course, the coverage of Israel, but that it's it's also more widespread you talk, you spoke about President Biden in your article, you name other examples of how this sort of activist journalism is affecting everything we read. So what should everyone in this room be reading, truly, from your opinion. This is Matti’s opinion. But if you want to you want to get information from our news and not activist journalism, obviously The Free Press, perhaps. But are there other sites or outlets that you think are getting this more down the line, or at least better than some, some better than others?  Matti Friedman:   No, it's just The Free Press. No. I mean, it's a question that I also wrestle with. I haven't given up on everyone, and even in publications that have, I think, largely lost the plot, you'll still find good stuff on occasion. So I try to keep my eye on certain reporters whose name I know. I often ask not just on Israel, but on anything, does this reporter speak the language of the country that they're covering? You'd be shocked at how rare that is for Americans. A lot of the people covering Ukraine have no idea what language they speak in Ukraine, and just as someone who covers Israel, I'm aware of the low level of knowledge that many of the Western reporters have. You'll find really good stuff still in the Atlantic. The Atlantic has managed, against steep odds, to maintain its equilibrium amid all this. The New Yorker, unfortunately, less so, but you'll still see, on occasion, things that are good. And there are certain reporters who are, you know, you can trust. Isabel Kirchner, who writes for The New York Times, is an old colleague of mine from the Jerusalem report. She's excellent, and they're just people who are doing their job. But by and large, you have to be very, very suspicious of absolutely everything that you read and see. And I'm not saying that as someone who I'm not happy to say that, and I certainly don't identify with, you know, the term fake news, as it has been pushed by President Trump.  I think that fake news is, you know, for those guys, is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. They're trying to, you know, neuter the watchdog so that they can get away with whatever they want. I don't think that crowd is interested in good press coverage. Unfortunately, the term fake news sticks because it's true. That's why it has worked. And the press, instead of helping people navigate the blizzard of disinformation that we're all in, they've joined it. People who are confused about what's going on, should be able to open up the New York Times or go to the AP and figure out what's going on, but because, and I saw it happen, instead of covering the circus, the reporters became dancing bears in the circus. So no one can make heads or tails of anything. So we need to be very careful.  Most headlines that are out there are out there to generate outrage, because that's the most predictable generator of clicks, which is the, we're in a click economy. So I actually think that the less time you spend following headlines and daily news, the better off you'll be. Because you can follow the daily news for a year, and by the end of the year, you'll just be deranged. You'll just be crazy and very angry.  If you take that time and use it to read books about, you know, bitten by people who are knowledgeable, or read longer form essays that are, you know, that are obviously less likely to be very simplistic, although not, you know, it's not completely impossible that they will be. I think that's time, that's time better spent. Unfortunately, much of the industry is kind of gone. And we're in an interesting kind of interim moment where it's clear that the old news industry is basically dead and that something new has to happen. And those new things are happening. I mean, The Free Press is part of a new thing that's happening. It's not big enough to really move the needle in a dramatic way yet, but it might be, and I think we all have to hope that new institutions emerge to fill the vacuum.  The old institutions, and I say this with sorrow, and I think that this also might be true of a lot of the academic institutions. They can't be saved. They can't be saved. So if people think that writing an editor, a letter to the editor of the New York Times is going to help. It's not going to help. Sometimes people say, Why don't we just get the top people in the news industry and bring them to Israel and show them the truth? Doesn't help. It's not about knowing or not knowing. They define the profession differently.  So it's not about a lack of information. The institutions have changed, and it's kind of irrevocable at this point, and we need new institutions, and one of them is The Free Press, and it's a great model of what to do when faced with fading institutions. By the way, the greatest model of all time in that regard is Zionism. That's what Zionism is. There's a guy in Vienna in 1890 something, and his moment is incredibly contemporary. There's an amazing biography of Herzl called Herzl by Amos Elon. It's an amazing book. If you haven't read it, you should read it, because his moment in cosmopolitan Vienna sounds exactly like now. It's shockingly current. He's in this friendly city. He's a reporter for the New York Times, basically of the Austro Hungarian empire, and he's assimilated, and he's got a Christmas tree in his house, and his son isn't circumcised, and he thinks everything is basically great. And then the light changes.  He notices that something has changed in Vienna, and the discourse about Jews changes, and like in a Hollywood movie, the light changes. And he doesn't try to he doesn't start a campaign against antisemitism. He doesn't get on social media and kind of rail against unfair coverage. He sits down in a hotel room in Paris and he writes this pamphlet called the Jewish state, and I literally flew from that state yesterday. So there's a Zionist model where you look at a failing world and you think about radical solutions that involve creation. And I think we're there. And I think Herzl's model is a good one at a dark time you need real creativity. Belle Yoeli:   Thank God you found the inspiration there, because I was really, I was really starting to worry. No, in all seriousness, Matti, the saying that these institutions can't be saved. I mean the consequences of this, not just for us as pro-Israel, pro-Jewish advocates, but for our country, for the world, the countries that we come from are tremendous.  And the way we've been dealing with this issue and thinking about how, how can you change hearts and minds of individuals about Israel, about the Jewish people, if everything that they're reading is so damaging and most of what they're reading is so damaging and basically saying there's very little that we can do about that. So I am going to push you to dream big with us. We're an advocacy organization. AJC is an advocacy organization. So if you had unlimited resources, right, if you really wanted to make change in this area, to me, it sounds like you're saying we basically need 15 Free Presses or the new institutions to really take on this way. What would you do? What would you do to try to make it so that news media were more like the old days? Matti Friedman:   Anyone who wants unlimited resources should not go into journalism. I have found that my resources remain limited. I'll give you an answer that is probably not what you're expecting or not what you want here. I think that the fight can't be won. I think that antisemitism can't be defeated. And I think that resources that are poured into it are resources wasted. And of course, I think that people need legal protection, and they need, you know, lawyers who can protect people from discrimination and from defamation. That's very important. But I know that when people are presented with a problem like antisemitism, which is so disturbing and it's really rocking the world of everyone in this room, and certainly, you know, children and grandchildren, you have a problem and you want to address it, right? You have a really bad rash on your arm. You want the rash to go away, and you're willing to do almost anything to make it go away. This has always been with us. It's always been with us.  And you know, we recently celebrated the Seder, and we read in the Seder, in the Haggadah, l’chol dor vador, omdim aleinu l’chaloteinu. Which is, in every generation, they come at us to destroy us. And it's an incredibly depressing worldview. Okay, it's not the way I wanted to see the world when I grew up in Toronto in the 1990s. But in our tradition, we have this idea that this is always gonna be around. And the question is, what do you do? Do you let other people define you? Do you make your identity the fight against the people who hate you? And I think that's a dead end.  This crisis is hitting the Jewish people at a moment when many of us don't know who we are, and I think that's why it's hitting so hard. For my grandfather, who was a standard New York Jew, garment industry, Lower East Side, poor union guy. This would not have shaken him, because he just assumed that this was the world like this. The term Jewish identity was not one he ever heard, because it wasn't an issue or something that had to be taught. So if I had unlimited resources, what I would do is I would make sure that young Jewish people have access to the riches of Jewish civilization, I would, you know, institute a program that would allow any young Jewish person to be fluent in Hebrew by the time they finish college. Why is that so important? Why is that such an amazing key?  Because if you're fluent in Hebrew, you can open a Tanakh, or you can open a prayer book if you want. Or you can watch Fauda or you can get on a plane to Israel and hit on Israeli guys. Hebrew is the key to Jewish life, and if you have it, a whole world will open up. And it's not one that antisemites can interfere with. It does not depend on the goodwill of our neighbors. It's all about us and what we're doing with ourselves. And I think that if you're rooted in Jewish tradition, and I'm not saying becoming religious, I'm just saying, diving into the riches of Jewish tradition, whether it's history or gemara or Israel, or whatever, if you're if you're deep in there enough, then the other stuff doesn't go away, but it becomes less important.  It won't be solved because it can't be solved, but it will fade into the background. And if we make the center of identity the fight against antisemitism, they've won. Why should they be the center of our identity? For a young person who's looking for some way of living or some deep kind of guide to life, the fight against antisemitism is not going to do it, and philanthropy is not going to do it. We come from the wisest and one of the oldest civilizations in the world, and many of us don't know how to open the door to that civilization, and that's in our hands. And if we're not doing it, it's not the fault of the antisemites. It's our own fault. So if I had unlimited resources, which, again, it's not, it's not going to happen unless I make a career change, that's where I would be putting my effort. Internally and not externally.  Belle Yoeli:   You did find the inspiration, though, again, by pushing Jewish identity, and we appreciate that. It's come up a lot in this conversation, this question about how we fight antisemitism, investing in Jewish identity and who we are, and at the same time, what do we do about it? And I think all of you heard Ted in a different context last night, say, we can hold two things, two thoughts at the same time, right? Two things can be true at the same time. And I think for me, what I took out of this, in addition to your excellent insights, is that that's exactly what we have to be doing.  At AJC, we have to be engaging in this advocacy to stand up for the Jewish people and the State of Israel. But that's not the only piece of the puzzle. Of course, we have to be investing in Jewish identity. That's why we bring so many young people to this conference. Of course, we need to be investing in Jewish education. That's not necessarily what AJC is doing, the bulk of our work, but it's a lot of what the Jewish community is doing, and these pieces have to go together. And I want to thank you for raising that up for us, and again, for everything that you said. Thank you all so much for being here. Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week’s episode, be sure to tune in as John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, breaks down Israel’s high-stakes strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the U.S. decision to enter the fight. 

John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, joins guest host Casey Kustin, AJC’s Chief Impact and Operations Officer, to break down Israel’s high-stakes strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the U.S. decision to enter the fight. With Iran’s terror proxy network reportedly dismantled and its nuclear program set back by years, Spencer explains how Israel achieved total air superiority, why a wider regional war never materialized, and whether the fragile ceasefire will hold. He also critiques the international media’s coverage and warns of the global consequences if Iran’s ambitions are left unchecked. Take Action: Take 15 seconds and urge your elected leaders to send a clear, united message: We stand with Israel. Take action now. Resources and Analysis: Israel, Iran, and a Reshaped Middle East: AJC Global Experts on What Comes Next AJC Advocacy Anywhere - U.S. Strikes in Iran and What Comes Next  Iranian Regime’s War on America: Four Decades of Targeting U.S. Forces and Citizens AJC Global Forum 2025: John Spencer Breaks Down Israel’s War and Media Misinformation Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  Iran's Secret Nuclear Program and What Comes Next in the Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran’s Nuclear Program Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [email protected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Casey Kustin:   Hi, I'm Casey Kustin, AJC's Chief Impact and Operations Officer, and I have the pleasure of guest hosting this week's episode. As of the start of this recording on Wednesday, June 25, it's been 13 days since Israel launched precision airstrikes aimed at dismantling the Iranian regime's nuclear infrastructure and degrading its ballistic missile capabilities to help us understand what transpired and where we are now, I'm here with John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, co-director of the Urban Warfare Project and Executive Director of the Urban Warfare Institute.  John, welcome to People of the Pod. John Spencer:   Hey, Casey, it's good to see you again.  Casey Kustin:   Thanks so much for joining us. John, you described Israel's campaign as one of the most sophisticated preemptive strike campaigns in modern history, and certainly the scope and precision was impressive. What specific operational capabilities enabled Israel to dominate the Iranian airspace so completely? John Spencer:   Yeah, that's a great question, and I do believe it basically rewrote the book, much like after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, where Israel did the unthinkable, the United States military conducted 27 different studies, and it fundamentally changed the way we fight warfare. It's called Air-Land Battle. I think similarly with Operation Rising Lion, just the opening campaign rewrote what we would call, you know, Shock and Awe, Joint Forcible Entry, things like that. And the capabilities that enabled it, of course, were years of planning and preparation. Just the deep intelligence infiltration that Israel did before the first round was dropped. The Mossad agents texting the high command of the IRGC to have a meeting, all of them believing the texts. And it was a meeting about Israel. They all coming together. And then Israel blew up that meeting and killed, you know, in the opening 72 hours, killed over 25 senior commanders, nine nuclear scientists, all of that before the first bomb was dropped.  But even in the opening campaign, Israel put up over 200 aircrafts, almost the entire Israeli air force in the sky over Iran, dominating and immediately achieving what we call air supremacy. Again, through years of work, almost like a science fiction story, infiltrating drone parts and short range missiles into Iran, then having agents put those next to air defense radars and ballistic air defense missile systems. So that as soon as this was about to begin, those drones lost low cost drones and short range missiles attacked Iranian air defense capabilities to give the window for all of the Israeli F-35 Eyes that they've improved for the US military since October 7 and other aircraft.  Doing one of the longest operations, seconded only to one other mission that Israel has done in their history, to do this just paralyzing operation in the opening moment, and then they didn't stop. So it was a combination of the infiltration intelligence, the low-tech, like the drones, high-tech, advanced radar, missiles, things like that. And it was all put together and synchronized, right? So this is the really important thing that people kind of miss in military operations, is how hard it is to synchronize every bit of that, right? So the attack on the generals, the attack on the air defenses, all of that synchronized. Hundreds of assets in a matter of minutes, all working together. There's so much chance for error, but this was perfection. Casey Kustin:   So this wasn't just an operational success, it was really strategic dominance, and given that Iran failed to down a single Israeli Aircraft or cause any significant damage to any of Israel's assets. What does that tell us about the effectiveness of Iran's military capabilities, their Russian built air defenses that they have touted for so long? John Spencer:   Absolutely. And some people say, I over emphasize tactics. But of course, there's some famous sayings about this. At the strategic level, Israel, one, demonstrated their military superiority. A small nation going against a Goliath, a David against a Goliath. It penetrated the Iranian myth of invincibility. And I also failed to mention about how Israel, during this opening of the campaign, weakened Iran's ability to respond. So they targeted ballistic missile launchers and ballistic missile storages, so Iran was really weakened Iran’s ability to respond. But you're right, this sent a signal around the Middle East that this paper tiger could be, not just hit, it could be dominated. And from the opening moments of the operation until the ceasefire was agreed to, Israel eventually achieved air supremacy and could dominate the skies, like you said, without losing a single aircraft, with his really historic as well. And hit what they wanted with what they wanted, all the military infrastructure, all the senior leaders. I mean, eventually they assigned a new commander of the IRGC, and Israel found that guy, despite him running around in caves and things.  It definitely had a strategic impact on the signal to the world on Israel's capabilities. And this isn't just about aircraft and airstrikes. Israel's complete dominance of Iran and the weakness, like you said. Although Israel also taught the world back when they responded to Iran's attack in April of last year, and in October of last year, is that you probably shouldn't be buying Russian air defense systems like S-300s. But Iran still, that was the backbone of their air defense capabilities, and Israel showed that that's a really bad idea. Casey Kustin:   You mentioned the component of this that was not just about going after infrastructure sites, but targeting Iranian military leadership and over 20 senior military and nuclear figures, according to public reporting. This was really a central part of this campaign as well. How does this kind of decapitation strategy alter the regime's military capability now, both in this immediate short term, but also in the long term, when you take out that kind of leadership? John Spencer:   Yeah, absolutely. I mean, much like when the United States took out Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force, who had been decades of leadership of the Quds Force, the terror proxies, which I'm sure we'll talk about, overseeing those to include the ones in Iraq, killing my soldiers. It had a ripple effect that was, it's hard to measure, but that's decades of relationships and leadership, and people following them. So there is that aspect of all of these. Now we know over 25 senior IRGC and Iranian basically leadership, because they killed a police chief in Tehran and others. Yet that, of course, will ripple across.  It paralyzed the leadership in many ways during the operation, which is the psychological element of this, right? The psychological warfare, to do that on the opening day and then keep it up. That no general could trust, much like Hezbollah, like nobody's volunteering to be the next guy, because Israel finds him and kills him. On the nuclear though, right, which all wars the pursuit of political goals. We can never forget what Israel said the political goals were – to roll back Iran's imminent breakout of a nuclear weapon, which would not only serve to destroy Israel, because that's what they said they wanted to do with it, but it also gives a nuclear umbrella, which is what they want, to their exporting of terrorism, and the Ring of Fire, the proxy networks that have all been defanged thanks to Israel. That's the reason they wanted. So in taking out these scientists.So now it's up to 15 named nuclear scientists. On top of the nuclear infrastructure and all the weaponization components. So it's not just about the three nuclear enrichment sites that we all talked about in the news, you know, Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. It's about that complete, decades-long architecture of the scientists, the senior scientists at each of the factories and things like that, that does send about, and I know we're in right now, as we're talking, they’re debating about how far the program was set back. It holistically sets back that definitely the timeline.  Just like they destroyed the Tehran clock. I'm sure you've heard this, which was the doomsday clock that Iran had in Tehran, which is the countdown to the destruction of Israel. Israel stopped that clock, both literally and figuratively. Could they find another clock and restart it? Absolutely. But for now, that damage to all those personnel sets everything back. Of course, they'll find new commanders. I argue that you can't find those same level of you know, an Oppenheimer or the Kahn guy in Pakistan. Like some of those guys are irreplaceable. Casey Kustin:   So a hallmark of Israeli defense policy has always been that Israel will take care of itself by itself. It never asks the United States to get involved on its behalf. And before President Trump decided to undertake US strikes, there was considerable public discussion, debate as to whether the US should transfer B2s or 30,000 pound bunker busters to Israel. From purely a military perspective, can you help us understand the calculus that would go into why the US would decide to take the action itself, rather than, say, transfer these assets to Israel to take the action? John Spencer:   Sure. It's a complex political question, but actually, from the military perspective, it's very straightforward. The B2 stealth fire fighter, one of our most advanced, only long range bomber that can do this mission right, safely under radar, all this stuff. Nobody else has it. Nobody else has a pilot that could do it. So you couldn't just loan this to Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East, and let them do the operation. As well as the bomb. This is the only aircraft with the fuselage capable of carrying this side. Even the B-52 stratomaster doesn't have the ability to carry this one, although it can push big things out the back of it. So just from a logistics perspective, it wouldn't work.  And then there's the classification. And there's many issues with, like, the somebody thinking that would have been the easiest, and even if it was possible, there's no way to train an Israeli pilot, all the logistics to it, to do it. The Israel Begin Doctrine about, you know, taking into their own hands like they did in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, is still in full effect, and was shown to be literally, a part of Israel's survival is this ability to, look, I understand that allies are important. And I argue strongly that Israel can never go at it alone, and we should never want it to. The strength of any nation is its allies.  And the fact that even during this operation, you saw immense amounts of American military resources pushed into the Middle East to help defend Israel and US bases but Patriot systems on the ground before this operation, THAAD systems on the ground before the system. These are the advanced US army air defense systems that can take down ballistic missiles. You had Jordan knocking down drones. You had the new Assad replacement guy, it's complex, agreeing to shoot things down over their airspace. That is part of Israel's strength, is its allies.  I mean, the fact that you have, you know, all the Arab nations that have been helping and defending Israel is, I think, can't be underscored under Israel doesn't, shouldn't need to go it alone, and it will act. And that's the Begin Doctrine like this case. And I do believe that the United States had the only weapon, the only capability to deliver something that the entire world can get behind, which is nuclear proliferation, not, you know, stopping it.  So we don't want a terror regime like the Islamic regime, for so many different reasons, to have a nuclear weapon close to breakout. So United States, even the G7, the United Nations, all agree, like, you can't have a nuclear weapon. So the United States doing that limited strike and midnight hammer, I think, was more than just about capabilities. It was about leadership in saying, look, Iran's double play that the economic sanctions, or whatever, the JCPOA agreement, like all these things, have failed. Conclusively, not just the IAEA statement that they're 20 years that now they're in violation of enrichment to all the different intelligence sources. It was not working. So this operation was vital to Israel's survival, but also vital for the world and that too, really won in this operation. Casey Kustin:   Vital both in this operation, in the defense of Israel, back in April 2024 when Iran was firing missiles and we saw other countries in the region assist in shooting them down. How vital is Israel's integration into CENTCOM to making that all work? John Spencer:   Oh, I mean, it's life saving. And General Carrillo, the CENTCOM Commander, has visited Israel so much in. The last 20 months, you might as well have an apartment in Tel Aviv. It's vital, because, again, Israel is a small nation that does spend exponential amounts of its GDP in its defense. But Iran, you know this, 90 million much greater resources, just with the ballistic missile program. Why that, and why that was so critical to set that back, could overwhelm Israel's air defense systems. Could. There's so much to this, but that coordination. And from a military to military perspective, and this is where I come and get involved, like I know, it's decades long, it's very strong. It's apolitical on purpose. It's hidden. Most people don't know it, but it's vital to the survival of our greatest ally in the Middle East. So it meets American interest, and, of course, meets Israel's interest. Casey Kustin:   Can you help us understand the Iranian response targeting Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, because this seemed like a very deliberate way for the regime to save face and then de-escalate. But if the ceasefire falls apart, what are the vulnerabilities for us, troops and assets in the region. How well positioned are our bases in Qatar, Al Dhafra in the UAE, our naval assets in Bahrain, our bases in Iraq? How well positioned are we to absorb and deter a real retaliatory response? John Spencer:   Yeah, it's a great question. I mean, first and foremost, you know, there is a bit of active defense. So, of course, all of our US bases are heavily defended. A lot of times, you can see things are about to happen, and you can, just like they did, they moved to naval aircraft that would have been even vulnerable in some of these locations, out to sea, so they can't be touched. Heavily defended. But really, active defense is absolutely important, but really deterrence is the greatest protection. So that has to be demonstrated by the capability, right? So the capability to defend, but also the capability to attack and the willingness to use it.  This is why I think that supposedly symbolic to the 14 bunker busters that the United States dropped during Operation Midnight Hammer. Iran sent 14 missiles. President Trump says, thanks for the heads up. You know, all of it was evacuated, very symbolic, clearly, to save face and they had a parade, I guess, to say they won something. It's ludicrous, but sometimes you can't get inside the heads of irrational actors who are just doing things for their own population.  Our bases, the force protection is heavy. I mean, there's never 100% just like we saw with all the air defenses of Israel, still about 5% or if not less, of the ballistic missiles got through one one drone out of 1000 got through. You can never be 100% but it is the deterrence, and I think that's what people miss in this operation. It set a new doctrine for everyone, for the United States, that we will use force with limited objectives, to send an immense amount of strength.  And when somebody says there's a red line now that you should believe that, like if you would have injured a single American in the Middle East, Iran would have felt immense amount of American power against that, and they were very careful not to so clearly, they're deterred. This also sent a new red line for Israel, like Israel will act just like it did in other cases against even Iran, if they start to rebuild the program. War is the pursuit of political objectives, but you always have to look at the strategic on down. Casey Kustin:   On that last point, do you think we have entered a new phase in Israeli military doctrine, where, instead of sort of a more covert shadow war with Iran, we will now see open confrontation going forward, if necessary? John Spencer:   Well, you always hope that it will not be necessary, but absolutely this event will create, creates a new doctrine. You can see, see almost everything since October 7, and really there were just things that were unconceivable. Having studied and talked to Israeil senior leaders from the beginning of this. Everybody thought, if you attacked Hezbollah, Iran, was going to attack and cause immense amounts of destruction in Israel. Even when Israel started this operation, their estimates of what the damage they would incur was immense. And that it didn’t is a miracle, but it's a miracle built in alliances and friendships with the United States and capabilities built in Israel.  Of course, Israel has learned a lot since October 7 that will fundamentally change everything about not just the military doctrine, but also intelligence services and many aspects that are still happening as they're fighting, still to this day in Gaza to achieve the realistic, measurable goal there. Yes, it absolutely has set forth that the old ways of doing things are gone, the you know, having these terror armies, the ring of fire that Israel has defanged, if not for Hamas dismantled and destroyed.  It sets a new complete peace in the Middle East. But also a doctrine of, Israel is adapting. I mean, there's still some elements about the reserve forces, the reigning doctrine, that are evolving based on the magnitude of the war since October 7. But absolutely you're right about they will, which has been the doctrine, but now they've demonstrated the capability to do it to any threat, to include the great, you know, myth of Iran. Casey Kustin:   So when you talk about this defanging of the Iranian proxy network obviously, Israel undertook significant operations against Hezbollah. Over the last year, they've been in active conflict with the Houthis. How does this operation now alter the way that Iran interacts with those proxies and its capacity to wage war against Israel through these proxies? John Spencer:   Yeah, cripples it, right? So Iran's nuclear ambition and its terror campaign are literally in ruins right now, both literally and figuratively. Hezbollah was defanged, the leadership, even taking out Nasrallah was believed to have caused catastrophic consequences, and it didn't. So, absolutely for Iran, also during this operation, is sniffing because all of his proxies were silent. I think the Houthis launched two missiles because thanks to Israel and the United States, the Houthi capabilities that should never have been allowed to amass, you know, this pirate terror empire. They didn't make those greatest shore to sea arsenal out of falafels. It got it straight from Iran, and that pipeline has already been cut off, let alone the capabilities.  Same thing with Hezbollah, which relied heavily on pipelines and infrastructure of missiles and everything being fed to it by Iran. That's been cut. The Assad regime being the drug empire, support of Hezbollah to rule basically, in Lebanon, has been cut. Hezbollah couldn't come to the aid of Assad. All of these variables. And of course, Hamas will never be able to do anything again, period. It all causes Iran to have to rethink everything. From, you know, not only their own national defense, right air defense capabilities and all this, but their terror campaign, it isn't just in ruins. There's a new doctrine, like it's not acceptable.  Now, of course, that's going to be hard to fully reign in. You have Shia backed groups in Iraq, you have a lot of bad things going on, but the Quds Force, which is its job, it's all shattered. Of course, they'll try to rebuild it. But the fact that these terror proxies were already so weakened by Israel that they couldn't do anything and remain silent. Hezbollah just was silent basically during this, is very significant to the peace going forward. I mean, there, there's still a lot of war here, but Israel and the United States have rewritten the map of the Middle East. Casey Kustin:   in the hours days that followed the US deciding to engage here. A lot of the conversation focused on the possibility of triggering now broader regional escalation, but we didn't see that, and it sort of shattered that myth that if Israel or the US were to go after Iran, that it would spiral into a broader Middle East conflict. Why did we not see that happen? Why did this remain so controlled? John Spencer:   So many reasons that really go back a few months, if not years? Mean going back to the first the Abraham Accords, President Trump's recent tour of the Gulf states and his story. Turic financial deals Israel's like we talked about with the Arab nations that were part of protecting it, the fact that the so on, that very geopolitical aspect. And we saw Iran turn to Russia, because there's always geopolitical considerations. Iran turned to Russia. Said, you're going to help us out. We signed this security agreement last year. We've been helping you in Ukraine do the awful things you're doing there.  And Russia said, No, that's not what we said. And it called called President Trump. President Trump says, how about you worry about mediating a ceasefire in Ukraine? And well, so they turned to China and the fact that there was nobody again, and that all the work that had been done with all the people that also disagree, nation states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, all those others. Those are many of the contributing factors.  But war also, I wrote this piece about, this isn't Iraq, this isn't Afghanistan, this isn't Libya. I really hate the lazy comparisons. This was contained and not able to spill out by constant communication from day one of what the goals were. Limited objective to roll back a threat to the world nuclear program and the ballistic program as well. That prevents the ability for even the Islamic regime to say, you know, my survival is at risk, I need to escalate this, right? So, being clear, having strategic clarity from Israel, and when the United States assisted, from the United States. You know, war is a contest of wills, not just between the military is fighting it, but the political element and the population element. So, you know, being able to communicate to the population in Israel and like, what's the goal here? Like, how long are we gonna have to do this? And to the United States. Like, what are our interests? Keeping it the goal limited, which all parties did.  And even, in fact, you had the G7 meeting during this and they signed an agreement, we agree Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That is a big part of how you permit the spill out. But it does have many contextual elements of the broader, this isn't black and white between Israel and Iran. It's much bigger than that. And that, and we saw all that work that has been done to show strength through peace, or peace through strength, in all the forms of national power that have been rallied against what is chaos that the Islamic regime wants in the Middle East. Casey Kustin:   So now that we've had a few days to begin to assess the impact of both the US and the Israeli strikes based on what's publicly available. I think you wrote that the nuclear timeline has been pushed back years. We saw some reporting in the New York Times yesterday saying it's only set back months. It seems this morning, the US is concurring with the Israeli assessment that it's been set back years. A lot of talk about where certain Where did certain stockpiles of enriched uranium, and how confident can we be at this point in any of these assessments? John Spencer:   So yes, as we're talking, people are trying to make it political. This should be a non partisan, non political issue. I'm an objective analyst of war. If you just write down all the things that Israel destroyed, validated by satellite imagery. then the fact that somebody And even the spinning of words where like we saw with that leaked report, which was the preliminary thoughts about something, it isn't comprehensive, right?  So one, BDA has never come that fast. Two, we do know, and Iran has validated, like all these scientists dead, all these generals dead, all these components of the nuclear program, damaged or destroyed. The idea that somebody would say, well, you only set it back a couple months to me, it's just anti-intellectual. Look, Natanz, Esfahan, Fordo, we can debate about how much stuff is inside of that mountain that was destroyed, although 14 of the world's best bunker buster munitions, 30,000 pounds punching through.  I just think, it's not a silly argument, because this is very serious. And yes, there could be, you know, hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium up there, a certain percentage that got floated around. That's not the, the things that set the timeline of breakout. Breakout included all the components of the knowledge and capability to reach breakout and then weaponization of a nuclear bomb. There's nobody, I think, who can comprehensively, without nuancing the words say that Israel wasn’t very effective, and the United States assistance in only what the United States could do, at setting this program back and actually stopping the immediate danger. Of course, Iran is still a danger. The program is still a danger, but I just think it's so political that they're trying to say that, well, you only said it back a couple months. That's like, that's ridiculous. Casey Kustin:   So as an objective analyst of war, but also as someone who's really been a voice of moral clarity and has called out the international media over the last 18 months for a lot of this disinformation, misinformation, bias reporting. Before we go, John, what is one consequence of this operation that the international media is just missing? John Spencer:   One is that, I think the international media who are debating whether Iran was literally using an opposing opinion against global thought that Iran was close to a nuclear bomb, they missed that completely and tried to politicize it to where, just giving disinformation agents that tidbit of a headline that they need. I do believe in journalistic standards, fact checking, those elements and holding those people accountable. I live in the world of experts. People on the platform X who think they're experts.  But when you have national media running headlines for sensationalism, for clicks, for you know, struggling for opposition to just political administration, we should learn to really question a single report as valid when there's overwhelming opposition. I don't know how to put that succinctly, but you think we would learn over the last, you know, 20 months of this lies, disinformation, statistical warfare, the things like that that, yeah, it's just crazy that that somebody would think in any way this wasn't an overwhelming success for the world, that this program was set back and a new doctrine for treating the program was established. Casey Kustin:   Finally, John, before we wrap up here, the question on everyone's mind: can the ceasefire really hold? John Spencer:   So, you know, I don't do predictions, because I understand wars uncertainty. It's human. It's political. It looks by all signs, because of how Iran was dominated, and how the United States showed that if it isn't contained, then immense amounts of force and of course, Israel's superiority, I believe that the ceasefire will hold. It was normal. And I made some some posts about the historical examples of wars coming to an end, from the Korean War, to the Yom Kippur war, Bosnia War, where you had this transition period where you're rolling back forces and everything. But the by the fact that Iran has said, Yeah, we agreed. We have stopped our operation. All signs for me are saying that this ceasefire will hold, and now the world's in a better place. Casey Kustin:   John, thank you so much for the insight, for, as I said, your moral clarity that you bring to this conversation. We appreciate you joining us today on People of the Pod. John Spencer:   Thank you so much.   

Since Israel launched Operation Rising Lion—a precise and defensive military campaign aimed at preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons—Iran has responded with a barrage of ballistic missiles and drones, indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians. Dr. Matthew Levitt, director of the Reinhard Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a leading expert on Iran’s global terror network, explains what’s at stake—and what could come next. Take Action: We must stop a regime that vows to murder millions of Israelis from gaining the weapons to do it. Urge your elected leaders to assure that Israel has all the necessary support to end Iran’s nuclear threat. Resources and Analysis: Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Explained: What You Should Know AJC Advocacy Anywhere: Israel and Iran: Latest Updates, Global Responses, and the Path Ahead 5 Key Reasons Behind Israel’s Defensive Strike on Iran’s Imminent Nuclear Threat Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod: Latest Episodes: Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran’s Nuclear Program What Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks’ State of the Jewish World Teaches Us Today Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [email protected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Israel's shadow war with the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, erupted into open conflict last week following a stunning report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that confirmed Iran was much closer to obtaining nuclear weapons than previously known. Since Israel launched a wave of attacks on nuclear sites and facilities, Iran has fired missiles toward Israel's most populated cities. Joining us to discuss what this all means is one of the foremost experts on Iran and its global threats, and a regular guest when trouble arises with Iran. Dr. Matthew Levitt, director of the Reinhard Counterterrorism Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  Matt, welcome back to People of the Pod. Matthew Levitt:   It's a pleasure to be back, but I need to come sometime when the world's okay.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   That would be nice. That'd be nice. But what will we talk about? Matthew Levitt:   Yeah, just call me one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, you are one of the foremost experts on the dangers posed by Iran, especially its terror proxies. And you've written the definitive book on Hezbollah, titled Hezbollah: the Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God. And I say that whole title, I want to get in there, because we are talking about global threats here.  Can you explain the scale of Iran's global threat and the critical role that its terror proxies, like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, play in advancing that strategy? Matthew Levitt:   So I really appreciate the question, because it's really important to remind listeners that the Israel Iran war did not start Thursday night US time, Friday morning, Israel time. In fact, it's just the latest salvo where the Israelis, after years and years and years of Iranian we call it malign activity, but that's too soft a term. We're talking about Iran sending weapons and funds to proxies like Hamas to carry out October 7, like Hezbollah to fire rockets at Israel almost daily for almost a year. Like the Houthis, who were much more than a thorn in the Saudi backside until the Iranians came and gave them more sophisticated capabilities.  We're talking about an Iran that a few years ago decided that instead of making sure that every gun that it sent to the West Bank had to go to Hamas or Islamic Jihad. They decided to just flood the West Bank with guns. Who cares who's shooting at the Israelis so long as somebody is. And an Iran that not only carries out human rights abuses of all kinds at home, but that threatens Israel and its neighbors with drones, low altitude cruise missiles, short range ballistic missiles, and medium and long range ballistic missiles.  And so the totality of this, much like the totality of Hezbollah's striking Israel for almost a year, ultimately led Israel to do what most people thought couldn't be done, and just tear Hezbollah apart, that the Israel war on Hezbollah is the prequel to what we've been seeing over the past few days in Iran. Similarly, for the Israelis, it got to be too much. It wasn't even really that President Trump's 60 days expired and Israel attacked on day 61. It wasn't only that the IAEA came out with a report saying that the Iranians have refused to explain certain activities that can only be explained as nuclear weaponization activities.  It was that the Israelis had information that two things were happening. One, that Iran was working very, very hard to rebuild its capability to manufacture medium, long range ballistic missiles that can hit Israel. After the Israeli reprisal attack last October took out a key component of that program, the mixers that are important for the solid propellant, without which you can't make ballistic missiles. And Iran is believed to have, at least the beginning of this recent round of the conflict –Thursday, Friday–about 2000 such missiles. Far fewer now, the Israelis say they've taken out about a third of them, plus launchers, plus radars, et cetera. But that Iran had a plan within just a few years to develop as many as 8000 of these. And that simply was not tolerable for the Israelis.  And the second is that the Israelis say that they compiled evidence that Iran had a secret, secret nuclear weapons program that had been going on predating October 7, but was fast tracked after October 7, that they were planning to maintain this program, even as they were negotiating over the more overt program with the Trump administration. President Trump has even taken issue with his own Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that the US intelligence committee does not assess that Iran is weaponizing. And President says, I don't care what she says, I think they were very close to weaponizing.  The Israelis say they have shared this information at least recently with their US counterparts and that was not tolerable. So the primary goals that Israel has set out for itself with this campaign is beyond the critically important shattering the glass ceiling. Think where people in particular, in Iran thought this would never happen, was two things, one, addressing and significantly degrading and setting back the Iranian ballistic missile production program, and second, doing the same to the nuclear program. They've already carried out strikes at Isfahan, Natanz, even at the upper parts of Fordow. And there is an expectation that the Israelis are going to do something more. The Israeli national security advisor said on Israeli television today, We are not going to stop without addressing the nuclear activities at Fordow. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You know, you called it a prequel, Israel's operations against Hezbollah last year. Did you know that it was a prequel at the time and to what extent did it weaken Iran and leave it more vulnerable in this particular war? Matthew Levitt:   I'm going to be the last person in Washington, D.C. who tells you when he doesn't know. And anybody who tells you they did know is lying to you. None of us saw what Israel did to Hezbollah coming. None of us saw that and said, Oh, they did it to a non-state actor right across their border. So they'll definitely be able to do it to Iran, 1000+ kilometers away, big nation state with massive arsenals and a nuclear program and lots of proxies. One plus one does not equal three in this.  In other words, the fact that Israel developed mind boggling capabilities and incredible intelligence, dominance and then special tools, pagers and walkie talkies, in the case of Hezbollah, did not mean that they were going to be able to do the same vis a vis Iran. And they did. The same type of intelligence dominance, the same type of intelligence, knowing where somebody was at a certain time, that the protocols would be that certain leaders would get in a certain secret bunker once hostilities started, and they'd be able to take them out in that bunker. As they did to a bunch of senior Hezbollah commanders just months ago. Drone operations from within Iran, Iran being hit with missiles that were fired at Iran from within Iran, all of it. One case did not necessarily translate into the other. It is exponentially impressive. And Israel's enemies have to be saying, you know, that the Israelis are just all capable. Now you're absolutely right. You hit the nail on the head on one critical issue. For a very long time, Israel was at least somewhat deterred, I would say very deterred, from targeting Iran. Because Iran had made very, very clear if Israel or the United States or anybody else targeted Iran or its nuclear program, one of the first things that would happen would be that Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel, Iran's first, most important proxy would rain hellfire in Israel in the form of 1000s upon 1000s of rockets. Until Israel addressed the problem, Hezbollah is believed to have had 150 to 200,000 different types of projectiles, up to and including precision guided munitions.  Not only have the overwhelming majority of those been destroyed, Hezbollah still has 1000s of rockets, but Hezbollah leadership has been decimated. There's a new sheriff in town in Lebanon. There's a new government that immediately, when hostility started with Iran's, went to Hezbollah and said, You're not doing this, not dragging Lebanon back into a war that nobody wanted again. We are finally coming out of this economic crisis. And so Iran was faced with a situation where it didn't have Hezbollah to deter Israel.  Israel, you know, paved the way for a highway in the air to Iran, taking out air defense systems. It was able to fly over and through Syria. The Syrians are not shedding any tears as they see the Quds Force and the IRGC getting beaten down after what Iran did in Syria. And the Israelis have air dominance now. President Trump said, We, using the we term, air dominance now, earlier today. And they're able to slowly and methodically continue to target the ballistic missile program. Primarily, the medium and long range missiles that target Israel, but sometimes it's the same production lines that produce the short range missiles that Iran uses to target U.S. Forces in the region, and our allies in the Gulf. So Israel is not just protecting itself, it's protecting the region. And then also taking out key military security intelligence personnel, sometimes taking out one person, then a couple days later, taking out the person who succeeded that person, and then also taking out key scientists who had the know-how to potentially rebuild all the things that Israel is now destroying. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But Israel is also not hearing from the Houthis, is not hearing from Hamas. It's not hearing from other terror proxies either. Very few attacks from Iran's terror proxies in the aftermath of this wave. Why? Why do you think that is? Matthew Levitt:   The crickets are loud. The crickets are loud. Look, we've discussed Hezbollah. Hezbollah understands that if it were to do something, the Israelis will come in even harder and destroy what's left. Hamas is still holding hostages. This is still an open wound, but it doesn't have the capabilities that it once had, and so there have been a couple of short range things that they tried to shoot, but it's not anything that's going to do huge damage, and the Israeli systems can deal with those.  The Houthis did fire something, and it hurt some Palestinians near Hebron. You know, the Houthis and the Iranians in particular, in this conflict have killed Palestinians, and in one case, Syrians. They're continuing to hurt people that are not Israelis. One of the things that I think people are hopeful for is that as Iran tries to sue for peace, and it already is, it's been reaching out to Cyprus to pass messages, etcetera. The hope is that Iran will recognize that it's in a position whereby A) there has to be zero enrichment and the facilities have to be destroyed, whatever's left of them. And B) there's a hope that Israel and the United States together will be able to use this diplomatic moment to truly end the conflict in Gaza and get the hostages home. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, that was what I was going to ask. I mean, if Israel achieves its objectives in this war, primarily eliminating Iran's nuclear threat, how significant a setback would that be for Hamas and Iran's other terror proxies, and could it indeed pave the way for an end of the war in Gaza and the return of the hostages? Matthew Levitt:   Like everybody else, I'm so scarred, I don't want to get my hopes up, but I do see this as a distinct possibility, and here's why. Not Hezbollah, not the Houthis, not Hamas, none of them, and plenty of other proxies that don't start in the letter H, none of them could have been anywhere as capable as they've proven to be, were it not for Iranian money and weapons. Also some training, some intelligence, but primarily money and weapons.  And so Hamas is already on its back foot in this regard. It can still get some money in. It's still being able to make money off of humanitarian aid. Iran is still sending money in through money exchange houses and hawaladars, but not weapons. Their ability to manufacture weapons, their military industrial complex within Gaza, this is destroyed. Hezbollah, we've discussed, discussed, and a lot of their capabilities have been destroyed. And those that remain are largely deterred. The Houthis did shoot up some rockets, and the Israelis did carry out one significant retaliatory attack. But I think people are beginning to see the writing on the wall. The Israelis are kicking the stuffing out of Iran with pinprick attacks that are targeting the worst of the bad guys, including people who have carried out some of the worst human rights transgressions against Iranians. Let's not pretend that this is not affecting the average Iranian. It is. The president says, Everybody get out of Tehran. That's just not possible. People, average Iranians, good people. It must be just an absolute terror.  But Israel's not bombing, you know, apartment buildings, as Iran is doing in Israel, or as Russia is doing in Ukraine. And so it really is a different type of thing. And when the Houthis, when Hamas, when Hezbollah, look at this, you don't you don't poke the tiger when it's angry. I think they also understand now's the time to get into survival mode. What you want is for the regime in Iran not to be destroyed. This is no longer a moment, as it's been since long before October 7, but certainly since then, of how Iran as proxies, export Iran's revolution. This is now a question of how they maintain and preserve the revolution at home. And it's extremely important to the proxies that Iran remain, so that even if it's knocked down over time, hopefully, theoretically, from their perspective, it can regain its footing. It will still have, they hope, its oil and gas, etcetera, and they will get back to a point where they can continue to fund and arm the proxies in. Maybe even prioritize them as it takes them longer to rebuild their ballistic missile, drone, and nuclear programs. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Which is a scary prospect as well to know that terror proxies could be spread throughout the world and empowered even a little bit more. President Trump left the G7 summit a day early to meet with security advisors, and just a few hours ago, prior to this interview, President Trump called for Iran's, quote, unconditional surrender, saying that the US knows where the Supreme Leader is, and some other threatening language. But I mean, this appears to be a kind of a clear commitment to Israel. So I'm curious how you assess his administration's actions before and during the war thus far, and do you see the United States edging toward direct involvement? Matthew Levitt:   All politics is local, and there is a tug of war within the MAGA movement over whether or not the US should be getting involved. Not only in supporting an important ally, but in removing a critical threat. The President is clearly frustrated that Iran was not being more forthcoming in the negotiations. He said many times, we'd offered you a great deal, you should have taken the deal. He's very aware that his deadline ended, and they didn't particularly seem to care. There's also the background that once upon a time, they tried to assassinate him, I think, after the Israelis did what they did, the President appreciates capabilities. He appreciates success. He likes backing the winning horse. And so the New York Times is reporting that after getting off the phone with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump reportedly turned to some aides and said, maybe we need to help him. Now it's not clear that's what's going to happen, and my understanding is that the Israelis have plans of their own for things like the heavily fortified facility at Fordow, which is the most important and highly fortified, protected of the nuclear installations. The Israeli National Security Advisor spoke today and said, you know, we're not going to be done until we do something with Fordow.  The United States can do multiple things only the United States has the MOP: the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, and the airplanes to deliver it, and they could end Fordow if they wanted. Short of that, they could do other things to support Israel. There's been defensive support for the State of Israel already, but there's other things they could do, refueling and other things if they wanted to. And at a minimum, I don't see the president restraining Israel at all. Now, I've heard some people say that so far, the President has fired nothing more than some social media postings, some of them even in all caps.  But the truth is, those do have an effect, and so long as Israel is not restrained. I think the Israelis went into this with a plan. That plan is not necessarily to entirely destroy the entire nuclear program, but if the ballistic missile program and the nuclear program are sufficiently degraded so that it will take them years and a tremendous amount of time and money to rebuild, knowing that Israel has broken the glass ceiling on this idea of targeting Iran, that if the Israelis feel they need to, they will come back. If the Iranians rebuild their air defense systems, the Israelis will address them and create a new highway going if they need to. I think the Israelis are making that clear. Knowing that it's going to be a little bit of a road for Iran, especially when it will have to deal with some domestic issues coming out of this.  Finally, the Israelis have started signaling there's other things they could do. The Israelis have not yet fully targeted oil and gas fields and facilities. For example, they had one set of attacks where they basically knocked at the front door of some of these facilities without walking in the house. That's signaling, and I think it's one of the reasons you're seeing Iran quietly trying to reach out for some type of a ceasefire. Other signaling, for example, is the Israelis deciding to fly all the way to Mashhad, which is in far eastern Iran, to take out an airplane. That airplane was not particularly important. It was the message. There is nowhere in Iran we can't go. It's not a question of distance, it's not a question of refueling, it's not a question of air defense systems. We can do what we need to do. And I think the Iranians understand that now. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So we talked about the commitment to Israel, and how clear, how important it is to clarify that commitment to Israel. How important is it to clarify the United States commitment to Arab partners in the Middle East to help defend them in other words, if this conflict escalates? Matthew Levitt:   This is critically important. You know, one of the individuals who was taken out, for example, was the person who was in charge of the drone attack on the Abqaiq oil facility in Saudi Arabia. If you look, for example, at the Saudi statement condemning the Israeli actions, it was issued by the Foreign Ministry without a single name attached to it. Wasn't issued by the Crown Prince, wasn't issued by the foreign minister. So I think you should expect a whole lot of public criticism. I imagine there's a different conversation going on behind closed doors. It's not necessarily, you know, pom-poming. This makes the Gulf states very, very nervous, in part because they understand that one way Iran could try and get out of this is to expand the conflict.  And that the reason they haven't is because, short of trying to prevent Iranians from taking to the streets and potentially doing something to maybe overthrow the regime, short of that, the number one thing that the Iranian regime is most desperate to avoid is getting the United States involved militarily. And I think the Iranians really understand and the messaging’s been clear. If you target US Forces in the region, if you target our allies in the region, we'll get involved. If you don't, then we might not.  Now the President now is talking about potentially doing that, and as a lot of maybe this, maybe that, nothing very clear. I think what is clear is that the Israelis are going to continue doing what they need to do for another one to two weeks. Even going so far as doing something, though they haven't made clear what to address the really complicated problem of the fortified facility at Fordow. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So how important is it for global security if Israel is successful in eliminating the nuclear threat in Iran? Matthew Levitt:   Look, Iran has been the single most destabilizing factor in the region for a long time now. Imagine a region without a destabilizing revolutionary regime in Iran without a regime that is supporting Shia militants in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries.  Imagine the Shia militias in Iraq suddenly without a funder and a patron, enabling the Shia government in Iraq to actually be able to take control of the country and establish a monopoly over the use of force. At a time when the Shia militias, because of Iran's backing, are becoming more dangerous and more powerful in Iraq.  Imagine the Lebanese government being able to be more forward leaning in their effort to establish a monopoly over the use of force in that country, reclaim bases that Hezbollah has used for all this time, and establish a new Lebanon that is not beholden to Iran and Hezbollah.  And imagine an Israeli-Palestinian situation where you didn't have Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as spoilers. Recall that October 7 happened in large part because Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran could not tolerate the prospect of Israeli-Saudi normalization. For most Palestinians, this was great news. The Saudis were demanding real dividends for the Palestinians from the Netanyahu government, which was likely going to do them. This was great for Palestinians, bad for Hamas.  Imagine Hamas no longer getting that support from Iran. Imagine Iran no longer able to send or being interested in sending millions upon millions of dollars to its proxies, and instead spending what money it has on helping its population, instead of cracking down on it with human rights violations. You could have a very, very different region, let alone imagine Iran no longer carrying out acts of terrorism, kidnapping plots, abduction plots of dissidents and Jews and Israelis and others around the world of the type that we've seen throughout Europe and throughout the Middle East and even in the United States over the past few years. Manya Brachear Pashman:   That’s quite an imagination you have. But I take your point. Let me ask you this then. Did you ever imagine that Israel would take this dramatic step?  Matthew Levitt:   What the Israelis have achieved, when you are so against the wall and you're forced to come up with solutions, because it's a matter of life or death – you make the impossible possible. And I think that perhaps the Iranians assumed that the Israeli post-October 7 doctrine applied to non-state actors only. And that doctrine is very simple. Israel will no longer allow adversaries who are openly committed to its destruction to build up weapons, arsenals that they can then use at some point to actually try and destroy Israel. They will not allow that to happen.  They allowed it to happen with Hamas. It was a mistake. They allowed it to happen with Hezbollah. It was a mistake that they corrected. And Iran is the biggest, arguably, really, the only existential threat as huge, as a tasking as that was, clearly they invested in doing it. And the question became, not, why can't it be done? What is it that has to be overcome? And I don't think sitting here with you right now, you know, what is it, 3:30 on Tuesday, the 17th, that we've seen the last of the tricks up Israel’s sleeve.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   I only have one last question for you, and that is about the United States. The importance of the United States getting directly involved. I mean, we've talked about previously undisclosed nuclear sites, and who knows how many there could be. We're talking about more than what, 600,000 square miles of Iran. If the goal is a non nuclear Iran, can Israel finish this war without the United States, or does it even matter? I mean, is this just a step to force Iran back to the negotiating table with virtually zero leverage? Matthew Levitt:   So look, I don't think the goal here is completely destroying the Iranian nuclear program, or even completely destroying the Iranian ballistic missile program. The goal is to so degrade it that it is set back many, many years, and break that ceiling. People now understand if Israelis need to come back, they're coming back. I think they would like to do as much damage to these destructive programs as possible, of course, and I don't think we've seen the end of it. I think there are more tricks up Israel's sleeve when it comes to some of these complicated problems.  Judged by this yardstick, by the way, the Israeli operation is a tremendous success, tremendous success, even though there have been some significant casualties back in Israel, and even though this has caused tremendous trauma for innocent Iranians who have no love for the regime. This is a situation that the Iranian regime has brought down on all of us.  I do think that the Israelis have made very, very clear that this doesn't end until something is done to further disrupt and dismantle Fordow, which is the most important and the most heavily fortified, underground, under a mountain facility. It's not clear what the Israelis have in mind. It seems they have something in mind of their own. It’s clear they would love for the United States to get involved, because the United States could do real damage to that facility and potentially end the Iranian nuclear program. But at the end of the day, if it can't be completely destroyed, I anticipate it's going to be damaged enough to significantly set it back. This phase of the Israel-Iran war, which didn't start last week, is not about pushing them back a week or a month or two months. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, Matt, thank you so much for your wise counsel and perspective on this matter, and yes, hopefully we can have you back another time to talk about peace and love and things that have nothing to do with war and conflict with Iran or its terror proxies. Matthew Levitt:   I would really look forward to prepping for that interview. In the meantime, I want to thank AJC for all the important work it does, and thank you guys for having me on the podcast. Manya Brachear Pashman:   If you missed last week’s episodes, be sure to tune in for our crossover episode with Books and Beyond: The Rabbi Sacks Podcast, a podcast of the Rabbi Sacks Legacy, and my conversation with AJC’s Jerusalem Director Avital Liebovich. During a special breaking news episode the day after Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, the latest in Israel’s ongoing war of self-defense against the Iranian regime.  

Why did Israel launch defensive strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites — and what does this mean for regional security? AJC Jerusalem Director Lt. Col. (res.) Avital Leibovich joins from IDF reserve duty to explain Operation Rising Lion — Israel’s precision military strikes aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. Find out why Israel saw this defensive action as vital to protect millions of lives and prevent Iran’s nuclear breakout. Resources: 5 Key Reasons Behind Israel’s Defensive Strike on Iran’s Imminent Nuclear Threat Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  What Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks’ State of the Jewish World Teaches Us Today AJC’s CEO Ted Deutch: Messages That Moved Me After the D.C. Tragedy Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [email protected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman  Late Thursday night, Israel launched a series of preemptive strikes against Iran in a military offensive dubbed Operation Rising Lion. The wave of strikes comes after the International Atomic Energy Agency censured Iran for obstructing its inspections after the revelation of a secretive nuclear site. What is happening on the ground, what's next, and what are the implications for Israel, Iran, and the broader Middle East? AJC Jerusalem director, Avital Leibovich, who also serves as Lieutenant Colonel in the IDF reserves, joins us now from reserve duty as counterattacks from Iran have begun. Avital, thank you for joining us with pleasure. Avital, negotiations for a new nuclear deal with Iran have been underway since April. There have been five rounds, maybe six, and another was going to begin on Sunday. President Trump also asked Israel to hold off on this preemptive operation. So why did Israel choose to launch these strikes? At this particular time, Avital Leibovich  Israel took a decision already to prepare for a preemptive attack on Iran. Since November, what happened in November? In November, Hezbollah lost the majority of its capabilities, of its military capabilities, and also of its leadership. Actually, a lot of his leaders, military leaders, have been eliminated, starting with Nasrallah, Hassan, Nasrallah, and going on to all the major generals of the organization. And basically the Shiite axis, as we call it here in Israel, was broken. Add to this, what happened a month later in December, when Assad's regime crashed, collapsed and was replaced by an anti Iranian man, jihadist, which jihadist background, by the name of Ahmed al Shara. So Iran was actually by on its own, really, because instead of circling Israel from the north, both from Syria and from Lebanon. Now it was circling in a very one dimension way, only from the east. So in order to do that, Iran figured out it needed to really upscale its nuclear capabilities, and for that, they sped up a few processes, for example, uranium enrichment, but not only that, also the weaponization of a potential nuclear bomb. And all of these steps actually brought us to a point that we are today, the point of no return. Iran will not be able to return to 20 years ago, 30 years ago, when it did not have those capabilities as it has today. For us in Israel, this is an issue of existence, either we exist or we don't, and that is the sole reason why the preemptive strike actually began today. This is according to Israeli intelligence, we have all the indications and data showing us this really major leap. And look the IAEA, you know, they issue reports every couple of months. It's their kind of responsibility for us. It's a matter of life and death. We cannot, you know, comply only with reports. And the reports sit on some shelf somewhere and and there's a lot of dust which is piling up on these reports for us, we needed action. So based on this very accurate intelligence, and some of this intelligence that has been accumulated for many, many years, you can see in the attack in Iran, you can see the very accurate attacks, the pinpointed strikes, which actually are directed at specific terrorists and not causing damage to uninvolved civilians, just To the locals. Yeah, Manya Brachear Pashman And how do you evaluate the Trump administration's response so far, given the diplomatic efforts underway? Well, Avital Leibovich I think that he is using the attacks to leverage and put pressure on Iran to resume the negotiation table in a few days. And as you know, there were six rounds of talks, and the best of my knowledge, there were huge gaps between the two sides, the American side and the Iranian side. I'm not sure these gaps can be bridged. We heard over and over again, President Trump say that Iran will never be able to enrich uranium. And then we heard Iranian leaders like Hamina say, this is the basic right of the Iranian people to enrich uranium. So I'm not sure how you can get you can bridge such a deep gap overall, I think that the President. Uh, has been congratulating Israel on its excellent attacks until now. But again, we are in the beginning. We're in the beginning phase of the attacks, although they're spread all over Iran. This is still the first day. We need to keep this in mind. Manya Brachear Pashman  The targets included more than nuclear sites. It included ballistic missile sites as well, and we're receiving word that Iran has fired ballistic missiles toward Israel as we speak, they fired ballistic missiles on Israel in April. If this counterattack continues, do you expect the United States to step in to defend Israel, and do you expect some of your neighbors to step in and help as well as they did in April the United Arab Emirates or Bahrain Avital Leibovich So as for the neighbors, I think that if their aerial space will be violated and breached by Iran, then of course, they have the right, like any other country, they're sovereign, to protect their own airspace. First of all, they will be protecting themselves and their people, not Israel, as for the US. This really depends on what Iran chooses to do next. The retaliation that Iran had practiced until now was launching 100 plus drones, explosive drones, to Israel. Almost all of these drones have been intercepted. This happened in the morning today. Now if Iran will decide that the ballistic missiles or the cruise missiles that it will launch here, will attack not only Israel, but also US bases across the region. Then here, there's a question, how will the US respond? Will the US retaliate as well? If that would happen, we could have even a more significant strike together the US and Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman  These attacks killed two lead scientists, IRGC commanders, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leaders. Is there a long-term goal of prompting a regime change? Avital Leibovich  So first of all, there are few types of targets in Iran, and you mentioned some of them. Physics and nuclear scientists are, of course, a critical human resource to the Iranian regime, as they rely on their long term knowledge and expertise on producing the bomb as soon as possible, as quick as possible, and by eliminating them in a way, you are removing the immediate threat. Other options are economic options. For example, really Iran relies on oil and buys it from China and maybe other countries as well. So obviously, Israel could decide to target its oil reserves, and this will be, of course, a significant economic blow. The third option is to target the government, leadership, politicians. Now, Israel, up to this moment, did not choose an economic target or a political target, but this may change in the future. The military targets, of course, are the most immediate targets that Israel is attacking, and the idea is to eliminate the immediate threat on Israel for the long range? Well, in the Middle East, in this part of the world, unfortunately, long range is something we can only put as a vision which is not bad. I'm happy to dream. I'm dreaming often Iran, which is similar to the Iran we knew before 1979 before the revolution, a moderate country, a human, loving country with values that I can share and adopt just the same. I'm looking at a different Middle East, maybe in a few years, with an expansion of the Abraham Accords, and creating an axis of moderate countries and other Shiite countries. So all of these changes that we're witnessing right now in the region and may still witness in the future, may all have an impact also on the long range outcome of the current war, which is unprecedented. Manya Brachear Pashman   I know Israel calls this a preemptive attack, but what do you say to countries who have already expressed concern about what they call an unprovoked attack? Avital Leibovich Well, I think it's enough for them just to look at the many kind of materials, which Israel and the Israeli. Army released today, showing what they have done, what Iran has done on its own soil. Now, when you follow the targets we just spoke about, you can see that these are not civilian targets. In other words, Israel is not attacking a school or a building just in the middle of Tehran for nothing. It's attacking deliberate military related sites. Actually, I think that, if I'm daring to dream again, I think that the people of Israel and the people of Iran have a lot in common. They're both people with deep heritage, with beautiful cultures. So I do envision one day a different regime in Iran, such a regime that could really bring the two countries together, opening a new page. And I think it will do a better Middle East here for all of us. Manya Brachear Pashman  We have talked about how Hamas embeds itself among the Palestinian civilians in Gaza. So no matter how precise Israel's attacks are, civilians are killed. Does Iran do the same thing? Or, I should say, does the Iranian regime do the same thing in Iran? Avital Leibovich  Obviously, Iran is not a democracy, and there is a similarity here with Hamas. We are talking about almost a fanaticist religious kind of aspect, which is also very similar to Hamas. Actually, Hamas and Iran have been connected for decades, for many, many decades, so they do share a lot of similarities. But unfortunately, the freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of of culture, is not something which is of an ordinary situation in Iran. It's very unfortunate. You know, I'm sometimes following the social media in Iran, and I see how people speak about the regime. I see how they curse the regime. I see how they aspire for better lives. I see them organize parties in basements and so so the regime will not find out. I see them the women wearing jeans underneath hijabs long dresses, trying to conceal them for God forbid, so they would not be considered as not modest. So it's very unfortunate that the public is suffering in Iran, and we see that, not only in the general atmosphere, but also we see it with the standards of life, they have only electricity a couple of days of couple of hours a day. Water is scarce. The the prices of food, they are huge. Take, for example, today, one American dollar, it equals almost 1 million rials. For comparison, $1 equals three point 60 Israeli shekels. So yeah, they're suffering from many, many perspectives. Manya Brachear Pashman  Thank you so much for joining us stay safe.  Avital Leibovich   Thank you, Manya, and I'll just thank everybody for their support. I'm Israel. If Manya Brachear Pashman  you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for a special crossover episode between people of the pod and Books and Beyond, the podcast of the Rabbi Sacks legacy, Dr Tanya white, host of Books and Beyond, and Joanna benaroche, global, Chief Executive of the legacy, sit down with my colleague, Maggie wishegrad Fredman to discuss how the wisdom and perspective of the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks still endures today.  

In 2014, the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks stood on the AJC Global Forum stage and delivered a powerful call to action: “We have to celebrate our Judaism. We have to have less oy and more joy… We never defined ourselves as victims. We never lost our sense of humor. Our ancestors were sometimes hated by gentiles, but they defined themselves as the people loved by God.” Over a decade later, at AJC Global Forum 2025, AJC’s Director of Jewish Communal Partnerships, Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman, revisits that message in a special crossover episode between People of the Pod and Books and Beyond, the podcast of the Rabbi Sacks Legacy. She speaks with Dr. Tanya White, one of the inaugural Sacks Scholars and host of Books and Beyond, and Joanna Benarroch, Global Chief Executive of the Legacy, about Rabbi Sacks’s enduring wisdom and what it means for the Jewish future. Resources: The State of the Jewish World Address: Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks The Inaugural Sacks Conversation with Tony Blair Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  “They Were Bridge Builders”: Remembering Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky AJC’s CEO Ted Deutch: Messages That Moved Me After the D.C. Tragedy Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [email protected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: On this week 16 years ago, the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks published Future Tense, a powerful vision of the future of Judaism, Jewish life, and the state of Israel in the 21st Century. Five years later, he delivered a progress report on that future to AJC Global Forum.  On the sidelines of this year’s Global Forum, my colleague Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman spoke with two guests from the Rabbi Sacks Legacy, which was established after his death in 2020 to preserve and teach his timeless and universal wisdom. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:   In 2014, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks addressed our Global Forum stage to offer the state of the Jewish world. Modeled after the US President's State of the Union speech given every year before Congress and the American people, this address was intended to offer an overview of what the Jewish people were experiencing, and to look towards our future. The full video is available on AJC's website as well as the Sacks Legacy website. For today's episode, we are holding a crossover between AJC's People of the Pod podcast and Books and Beyond, the Rabbi Sacks podcast. On Books and Beyond, each episode features experts reflecting on particular works from Rabbi Sacks. Channeling that model, we’ll be reflecting on Rabbi Sacks’ State of the Jewish World here at AJC's 2025 Global Forum in New York. AJC has long taken inspiration from Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks and today, AJC and the Rabbi Sacks legacy have developed a close partnership. To help us understand his insights, I am joined by two esteemed guests. Dr. Tanya White is one of the inaugural Sacks Scholars and the founder and host of the podcast Books and Beyond, the Rabbi Sacks podcast. Joanna Benarroch is the Global Chief Executive of the Rabbi Sacks legacy. And prior to that, worked closely with Rabbi Sacks for over two decades in the Office of the Chief Rabbi.  Joanna, Tanya, thank you for being with us here at AJC's Global Forum.  Tanya White:   It's wonderful to be with you, Meggie. Joanna Benarroch:   Thank you so much, Meggie.  Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:   I want to get to the State of the Jewish World. I vividly remember that address. I was with thousands of people in the room, Jews from different walks of life, Jews from around the globe, as well as a number of non-Jewish leaders and dignitaries. And what was so special is that each of them held onto every single word.  He identifies these three areas of concern: a resurgence of antisemitism in Europe, delegitimization of Israel on the global stage, and the Iranian regime's use of terror and terror proxies towards Israel.  This was 2014, so with exception of, I would say today, needing to broaden, unfortunately, antisemitism far beyond Europe, to the skyrocketing rates we're living through today, it's really remarkable the foresight and the relevance that these areas he identified hold.  What do you think allowed Rabbi Sacks to see and understand these challenges so early, before many in the mainstream did? And how is his framing of antisemitism and its associated threats different from others? And I'll let  Tanya jump in and start. Tanya White:  So firstly, I think there was something very unique about Rabbi Sacks. You know, very often, since he passed, we keep asking the question, how was it that he managed to reach such a broad and diverse audience, from non Jews and even in the Jewish world, you will find Rabbi Sacks his books in a Chabad yeshiva, even a Haredi yeshiva, perhaps, and you will find them in a very left, liberal Jewish institution. There's something about his works, his writing, that somehow fills a space that many Jews of many denominations and many people, not just Jews, are searching for. And I think this unique synthesis of his knowledge, he was clearly a religious leader, but he wasn't just uniquely a religious leader.  He was a scholar of history, of philosophy, of political thought, and the ability to, I think, be able to not just read and have the knowledge, but to integrate the knowledge with what's going on at this moment is something that takes extreme prowess and a very deep sense of moral clarity that Rabbi Sacks had. And I would say more than moral clarity, is a moral imagination. I think it was actually Tony Blair. He spoke about the fact that Rabbi Sacks had this ability, this kind of, I think he even used the term moral imagination, that he was able to see something that other people just couldn't see.  Professor Berman from University of Bar Ilan, Joshua Berman, a brilliant Bible scholar. So he was very close to Rabbi Sacks, and he wrote an article in Israeli, actually, an Israeli newspaper, and he was very bold in calling Rabbi Sacks a modern day prophet.  What is a prophet? A prophet is someone who is able to see a big picture and is able to warn us when we're veering in the wrong direction. And that's what you see in the AJC address, and it's quite incredible, because it was 11 years ago, 2014. And he could have stood up today and said exactly the same thing. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:  But there is nonetheless a new antisemitism. Unlike the old it isn't hatred of Jews for being a religion. It isn't hatred of Jews as a race. It is hatred of Jews as a sovereign nation in their own land, but it has taken and recycled all the old myths. From the blood libel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  Though I have to confess, as I said to the young leaders this morning, I have a very soft spot for antisemites, because they say the nicest things about Jews. I just love the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Because, according to this, Jews control the banks, Jews control the media, Jews control the world. Little though they know, we can't even control a shul board meeting. Tanya White:  So what's fascinating is, if you look at his book Future Tense, which was penned in 2009.The book itself is actually a book about antisemitism, and you'll note its title is very optimistic, Future Tense, because Rabbi Sacks truly, deeply believed, even though he understood exactly what antisemitism was, he believed that antisemitism shouldn't define us. Because if antisemitism defines who we are, we'll become the victims of external circumstances, rather than the agents of change in the future.  But he was very precise in his description of antisemitism, and the way in which he describes it has actually become a prism through which many people use today. Some people don't even quote him. We were discussing it yesterday, Joanna, he called it a mutating virus, and he speaks about the idea that antisemitism is not new, and in every generation, it comes in different forms. But what it does is like a virus. It attacks the immune system by mutating according to how the system is at the time.  So for example, today, people say, I'm not antisemitic, I'm just anti-Zionist. But what Rabbi Sacks said is that throughout history, when people sought to justify their antisemitism, they did it by recourse to the highest source of authority within that culture. So for example, in the Middle Ages, the highest recourse of authority was religion. So obviously we know the Christian pogroms and things that happen were this recourse the fact, well, the Jews are not Christians, and therefore we're justified in killing them.  In the Enlightenment period, it was science. So we have the and the Scientific Study of Race, right and Social Darwinism, which was used to predicate the Nazi ideology. Today, the highest value is, as we all know, human rights.  And so the virus of antisemitism has mutated itself in order to look like a justification of human rights. If we don't challenge that, we are going to end up on the wrong side of history. And unfortunately, his prediction we are seeing come very much to light today. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  I want to turn to a different topic, and this actually transitioned well, because Tanya, you raised Prime Minister Tony Blair. Joanna, for our listeners who may have less familiarity with Rabbi Sacks, I would love for you to fill in a larger picture of Rabbi Sacks as one of the strongest global Jewish advocates of our time. He was a chief rabbi, his torah knowledge, his philosophical works make him truly a religious and intellectual leader of our generation.  At the same time, he was also counsel to the royal family, to secular thought leaders, world leaders, and in his remarks here at Global Forum, he actually raised addressing leading governing bodies at the European Union at that time, including Chancellor Merkel. These are not the halls that rabbis usually find themselves in. So I would love for you to explain to our audience, help us understand this part of Rabbi Sacks’ life and what made him so effective in it.  Joanna Benarroch:  Thanks, Meggie. Over the last couple of weeks, I spent quite a bit of time with people who have been interested in learning more about Rabbi Sacks and looking at his archive, which we've just housed at the National Library in Israel. Then I spent quite a significant amount of time with one of our Sacks Scholars who's doing a project on exactly this.  How did he live that Judaism, engaged with the world that he wrote so eloquently about when he stepped down as chief rabbi. And a couple of days ago, I got an email, actually sent to the Sacks Scholar that I spent time with, from the gifted archivist who's working on cataloging Rabbi Sacks’ archive. She brought our attention to a video that's on our website.  Rabbi Sacks was asked by a young woman who was a student at Harvard doing a business leadership course, and she asked Rabbi Sacks for his help with her assignment. So he answered several questions, but the question that I wanted to bring to your attention was: what difference have you sought to make in the world?  The difference that he sought to make in the world, and this is what he said, “is to make Judaism speak to people who are in the world, because it's quite easy being religious in a house of worship, in a synagogue or church, or even actually at home or in the school. But when you're out there in the marketplace, how do you retain those strong values?  And secondly, the challenge came from University. I was studying philosophy at a time when there were virtually no philosophers who were religious believers, or at least, none who were prepared to publicly confess to that. So the intellectual challenges were real. So how do you make Judaism speak to people in those worlds, the world of academic life, the world of economy?  And in the end, I realized that to do that credibly, I actually had to go into the world myself, whether it was broadcasting for the BBC or writing for The Times, and getting a little street cred in the world itself, which actually then broadened the mission. And I found myself being asked by politicians and people like that to advise them on their issues, which forced me to widen my boundaries.” So from the very beginning, I was reminded that John–he wrote a piece. I don't know if you recall, but I think it was in 2005, maybe a little bit earlier. He wrote a piece for The Times about the two teenagers killed a young boy, Jamie Bulger, and he wrote a piece in The Times. And on the back of that, John Major, the prime minister at the time, called him in and asked him for his advice.  Following that, he realized that he had something to offer, and what he would do is he would host dinners at home where he would bring key members of either the parliament or others in high positions to meet with members of the Jewish community. He would have one on one meetings with the Prime Minister of the time and others who would actually come and seek his advice and guidance.  As Tanya reflected, he was extremely well read, but these were books that he read to help him gain a better understanding into the world that we're living in. He took his time around general elections to ring and make contact with those members of parliament that had got in to office, from across the spectrum. So he wasn't party political. He spoke to everybody, and he built up. He worked really hard on those relationships.  People would call him and say so and so had a baby or a life cycle event, and he would make a point of calling and making contact with them. And you and I have discussed the personal effect that he has on people, making those building those relationships. So he didn't just do that within the Jewish community, but he really built up those relationships and broaden the horizons, making him a sought after advisor to many.  And we came across letters from the current king, from Prince Charles at the time, asking his guidance on a speech, or asking Gordon Brown, inviting him to give him serious advice on how to craft a good speech, how long he should speak for? And Gordon Brown actually gave the inaugural annual lecture, Memorial Lecture for Rabbi Sacks last in 2023 and he said, I hope my mentor will be proud of me.  And that gave us, I mean, it's emotional talking about it, but he really, really worked on himself. He realized he had something to offer, but also worked on himself in making his ideas accessible to a broad audience. So many people could write and can speak. He had the ability to do both, but he worked on himself from quite a young age on making his speeches accessible. In the early days, they were academic and not accessible. Why have a good message if you can't share it with a broad audience? Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  What I also am thinking about, we're speaking, of course, here at an advocacy conference. And on the one hand, part of what you're describing are the foundations of being an excellent Jewish educator, having things be deeply accessible.  But the other part that feels very relevant is being an excellent global Jewish advocate is engaging with people on all sides and understanding that we need to engage with whomever is currently in power or may who may be in power in four years. And it again, speaks to his foresight.  Joanna Benarroch:  You know, to your point about being prophetic, he was always looking 10, 15, 20 years ahead. He was never looking at tomorrow or next week. He was always, what are we doing now that can affect our future? How do I need to work to protect our Jewish community? He was focused whilst he was chief rabbi, obviously on the UK, but he was thinking about the global issues that were going to impact the Jewish community worldwide. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  Yes. I want to turn to the antidote that Rabbi Sacks proposed when he spoke here at Global Forum. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:  I will tell you the single most important thing we have to do, more important than all the others. We have to celebrate our Judaism. We have to have less oy and more joy.  Do you know why Judaism survived? I'll tell you. Because we never defined ourselves as victims. Because we never lost our sense of humor. Because never in all the centuries did we internalize the disdain of the world. Yes, our ancestors were sometimes hated by gentiles, but they defined themselves as the people loved by God. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  So he highlights the need to proudly embrace the particularism of Judaism, which really in today's world, feels somewhat at odds with the very heavy reliance we have on universalism in Western society. And underpinning this, Rabbi Sacks calls on us to embrace the joy of Judaism, simchatah, Chaim, or, as he so fittingly puts it, less oy and more joy. How did both of these shape Rabbi Sacks's wider philosophy and advocacy, and what do they mean for us today? Tanya White:  Rabbi Sacks speaks about the idea of human beings having a first and second language. On a metaphorical level, a second language is our particularities. It's the people, it's the family we're born. We're born into. It's where we learn who we are. It's what we would call today in sociology, our thick identity. Okay, it's who, who I am, what I believe in, where I'm going to what my story is. But all of us as human beings also have a first language. And that first language can be, it can manifest itself in many different ways. First language can be a specific society, a specific nation, and it can also be a global my global humanity, my first language, though, has to, I have to be able to speak my first language, but to speak my first language, meaning my universal identity, what we will call today, thin identity. It won't work if I don't have a solid foundation in my thick identity, in my second language. I have nothing to offer my first language if I don't have a thick, particular identity.  And Rabbi Sacks says even more than that. As Jews, we are here to teach the world the dignity of difference. And this was one of Rabbi Sacks’ greatest messages. He has a book called The Dignity of Difference, which he wrote on the heels of 9/11. And he said that Judaism comes and you have the whole story of Babel in the Bible, where the people try to create a society that is homogenous, right? The narrative begins, they were of one people and one language, you know, and what, and a oneness of things. Everyone was the same. And Rabbi Sacks says that God imposes diversity on them. And then sees, can they still be unified, even in their diversity? And they can't.  So Rabbi Sacks answers that the kind of antidote to that is Abraham. Who is Abraham? Abraham the Ivri. Ivri is m’ever, the other. Abraham cut this legacy. The story of Abraham is to teach the world the dignity of difference.  And one of the reasons we see antisemitism when it rears its head is when there is no tolerance for the other in society. There is no tolerance for the particular story. For my second language. For the way in which I am different to other people. There's no real space for diversity, even when we may use hashtags, okay, or even when we may, you know, proclaim that we are a very diverse society. When there is no space for the Jew, that's not true dignifying of difference. And so I think for Rabbi Sacks, he told someone once that one of his greatest, he believed, that one of his greatest novelties he brought into the world was the idea of Torah and chochma, which is torah and wisdom, universal wisdom. And Rabbi Sacks says that we need both.  We need to have the particularity of our identity, of our language, of our literacy, of where we came from, of our belief system. But at the same time, we also need to have universal wisdom, and we have to constantly be oscillating and be kind of trying to navigate the space between these two things. And that's exactly what Rabbi Sacks did.  And so I would say, I’ll actually just finish with a beautiful story that he used to always tell. He would tell the story, and he heard this story from the late Lubavitcher, Menachem Schneerson, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, who was a very big influence on Rabbi Sacks and the leader of the Chabad movement.  So in the story, there's two people that are schlepping rocks up a mountain, two workers, and one of them just sees his bags that are full of rocks and just sees no meaning or purpose in his work. The other understands that he's carrying diamonds in his bag.  And one day they get a different bag, and in that bag there's rubies, and the person who carries the rocks sees the rubies as rocks, again, sees that as a burden. But the person who's carrying the rubies and understands their value, even though they may not be diamonds, understands the values of the stones, will see them in a different way.  The Lubavitcher Rebbe said, if we see our identity, our Judaism, as stones to carry as a burden that we have to just schlep up a mountain, then we won't see anyone else's particular religion or particular belief system or particularity as anything to be dignified or to be valued.  But if we see our religion as diamonds, we'll understand that other people's religions, though for me, they may be rubies, they're still of value. You have to understand that your religion is diamonds, and you have to know what your religion is, understand what it is. You have to embrace your particularity. You have to engage with it, value it, and then go out into the world and advocate for it. And that, to me, was exactly what Rabbi Sacks did. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  So much of what you're outlining is the underpinning of being a successful engager in interfaith and inter religious work. And Rabbi Sacks, of course, was such a leader there. At  AJC, we have taken inspiration from Rabbi Sacks and have long engaged in interfaith and inter-religious work, that's exactly a linchpin of it, of preaching one's own faith in order to engage with others. Tanya White:  That's the oy and the joy. For Rabbi Sacks, it's exactly that, if I see it as the oy, which is schlepping it up the mountain, well, I'm not going to be a very good advocate, but if I see it as the joy, then my advocacy, it's like it shines through. Joanna Benarroch:  It's very interesting, because he was interviewed by Christian Amanpour on CNN in 2014 just after he stepped down, as she she quoted the phrase “less oy and more joy” back to him, referring to his description of the Jewish community. When he came into office in 1991 he was worried about rising assimilation and out-marriage. And she said: How did you turn it around?  He said, “We've done the book of Lamentations for many centuries. There's been a lot of antisemitism and a lot of negativity to Jewish identity. And if you think of yourself, exactly as you're describing, as the people who get hated by others, or you've got something too heavy to carry, you're not going to want to hand that on to your children.  If you've got a very open society, the question is, why should I be anything in particular? Being Jewish is a very particular kind of Jewish identity, but I do feel that our great religious traditions in Judaism is the classic instance of this.  We have enormous gifts to offer in the 21st century, a very strong sense of community, very supportive families, a dedicated approach to education. And we do well with our children. We're a community that believes in giving. We are great givers, charitably and in other ways.  So I think when you stay firm in an identity, it helps you locate yourself in a world that sometimes otherwise can be seen to be changing very fast and make people very anxious. I think when you're rooted in a people that comes through everything that fate and history can throw at it, and has kept surviving and kept being strong and kept going, there’s a huge thing for young people to carry with them.” And then he adds, to finish this interview, he said, “I think that by being what we uniquely are, we contribute to humanity what only we can give.” What Rabbi Sacks had was a deep sense of hope. He wore a yellow tie to give people hope and to make them smile. That's why he wore a yellow tie on major occasions. You know, sunshine, bringing hope and a smile to people's faces. And he had hope in humanity and in the Jewish people.  And he was always looking to find good in people and things. And when we talk about less oy and more joy. He took pleasure in the simple things in life. Bringing music into the community as a way to uplift and bring the community together.  We just spent a lovely Shabbat together with AJC, at the AJC Shabbaton with the students. And he would have loved nothing more than being in shul, in synagogue with the community and joining in.  Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  Thank you Joanna, and that’s beautiful. I want to end our conversation by channeling how Rabbi Sacks concluded his 2014 address. He speaks about the need for Jewish unity at that time. Let’s take a listen.  Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:  We must learn to overcome our differences and our divisions as Jews and work together as a global people. Friends, consider this extraordinary historical fact: Jews in history have been attacked by some of the greatest empires the world has ever known, empires that bestrode the narrow world like a colossus. That seemed invulnerable in their time. Egypt of the pharaohs, Assyria, Babylonia, the Alexandrian Empire, the Roman Empire, the medieval empires of Christianity and Islam, all the way up to the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. Each one of those, seemingly invulnerable, has been consigned to history, while our tiny people can still stand and sing Am Yisrael Chai. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  In Rabbi Sacks' A Letter in the Scroll, he talks about the seminal moment in his life when he most deeply understood Jewish peoplehood and unity. And that was 1967, the Six Day War, when the Jewish people, of course, witnessed the State of Israel on the brink of existential threat. To our AJC audience, this may ring particularly familiar because it was evoked in a piece by Mijal Bitton, herself a Sacks Scholar, a guest on our podcast, a guest Tanya on your podcast, who wrote a piece about a month after 10/7 titled "That Pain You're Feeling is Peoplehood'.  And that piece went viral in the Jewish world. And she draws this parallel between the moment that Rabbi Sacks highlights in 1967 and 10, seven, I should note, Tanya, of course, is referenced in that article that Mijal wrote. For our audiences, help us understand the centrality of peoplehood and unity to Rabbi Sacks’ vision of Judaism. And as we now approach a year and a half past 10/7 and have seen the resurgence of certain communal fractures, what moral clarity can we take from Rabbi Sacks in this moment? Tanya White:  Okay, so it's interesting you talked about Mijal, because I remember straight after 7/10 we were in constant conversation–how it was impacting us, each of us in our own arenas, in different ways. And one of the things I said to her, which I found really comforting, was her constant ability to be in touch. And I think like this, you know, I like to call it after the name of a book that I read to my kid, The Invisible String. This idea that there are these invisible strings. In the book, the mother tells the child that all the people we love have invisible strings that connect us. And when we pull on the string, they feel it the other side.  1967 was the moment Rabbi Sacks felt that invisible pull on the string. They have a very similar trajectory. The seventh of October was the moment in which many, many Jews, who were perhaps disengaged, maybe a little bit ambivalent about their Jewish identity, they felt the tug of that invisible string. And then the question is, what do we do in order to maintain that connection? And I think for Rabbi Sacks, that was really the question. He speaks about 1967 being the moment in which he says, I realized at that moment every, you know, in Cambridge, and everything was about choice. And, you know, 1960s philosophy and enlightenment philosophy says, at that moment, I realized I hadn't chosen Judaism. Judaism had chosen me.  And from that moment forth, Rabbi Sacks feels as if he had been chosen. Judaism had chosen him for a reason. He was a Jew for a reason. And I think today, many, many Jews are coming back to that question. What does it mean that I felt that pull of the string on the seventh of October?  Rabbi Sacks’ answer to that question of, where do we go from here? I think very simply, would be to go back to the analogy. You need to work out why Judaism is a diamond. And once you understand why Judaism is a diamond and isn't a burden to carry on my back, everything else will fall into place.  Because you will want to advocate for that particularity and what that particularity brings to the world. In his book, Future Tense, which, again, was a book about antisemitism, there was a picture of a lighthouse at the front of the book. That's how Rabbi Sacks saw the antidote for antisemitism, right? Is that we need to be the lighthouse. Because that's our role, globally, to be able to be the light that directs the rest of the world when they don't know where they're going. And we are living in a time of dizziness at the moment, on every level, morally, sociologically, psychologically, people are dizzy. And Judaism has, and I believe this is exactly what Rabbi Sacks advocated for, Judaism has a way to take us out of that maze that we found ourselves in. And so I think today, more than ever, in response to you, yes, it is peoplehood that we feel. And then the question is, how do we take that feeling of peoplehood and use it towards really building what we need to do in this world. The advocacy that Judaism needs to bring into the world. Meggie Wyschogrod Fredman:  We all have a role, a reason, a purpose. When Rabbi Sacks spoke to us a decade ago, more than a decade ago, at this point, those who were in the room felt the moral imperative to stand up to advocate and why, as Jews, we had that unique role.  I am so honored that today, now with Rabbi Sacks not here, you continue to give us that inspiration of why we are a letter in the scroll, why we must stand up and advocate. So thank you, Tanya and Joanna, for joining us at Global Forum and for this enlightening conversation. Tanya White:  Thank you so much for having us. Thank you. Joanna Benarroch:  Thank you so much.  Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week’s episode, please be sure to listen as two AJC colleagues pay tribute to their friends Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky who were brutally murdered outside the Capital Jewish Museum in May.   

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

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

“This has been my favorite session of the three days. Thank you,” said one attendee following a powerful live conversation at AJC Global Forum 2025. This exclusive episode of AJC’s People of the Pod, presented by AJC’s Women’s Global Leadership Network, features a candid discussion on the critical impact of Jewish women leaders in global diplomacy and conflict resolution. Casey Kustin, AJC’s Chief Impact and Operations Officer, joins former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Mira Resnick and Dana Stroul, Research Director and Kassen Family Senior Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, to share how they’ve navigated the corridors of power, shaped international policy from the Middle East to Europe and beyond, and opened doors for the next generation of women in foreign affairs. ___ Resources– AJC Global Forum 2025 News and Video AJC Global Forum 2026 returns to Washington, D.C. Will you be in the room? Listen – AJC Podcasts: Most Recent Episodes: A United Front: U.S. Colleges and AJC Commit to Fighting Campus Antisemitism What is Pope Francis' Legacy with the Jewish People? Why TikTok is the Place to Talk about Antisemitism: With Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the PodFollow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [email protected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Interview Transcript: Manya Brachear Pashman:  Live from AJC Global Forum 2025, welcome to People of the Pod. For audience members who are not in this room, you are listening to a show that was recorded in front of a live studio audience on April 29 at AJC Global Forum 2025 in New York. I'm your host, Manya Brachear Pashman. Thank you all for being here. In countries around the world, women are working more than ever before. But compared to men, they are not earning as much or being afforded an equal voice – at work, at home, or in the community. In no country in the world do women have an equal role. Let me repeat that. In no country in the world, do women have an equal role–when it comes to setting policy agendas, allocating resources, or leading companies.  With us today are three modern-day Miriams who have raised their voices and earned unprecedented roles that recognize the intellect and compassion they bring to international diplomacy. To my left is AJC Chief Impact and Operations Officer, Casey Kustin. Casey served as the staff director of the Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee on the House Foreign Affairs Committee for 10 years. She has worked on political campaigns at the state and national level, including on Jewish outreach for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Welcome, Casey.  To Casey's left is Dana Strohl. She is the Director of Research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. She was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East. In this role, she led the development of U.S. Department of Defense policy and strategy for Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq–I'm not done–Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Prior to that, she also served on Capitol Hill as the senior professional staff member for the Middle East on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Welcome, Dana. And last but not least, Mira Resnick. Mira was the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs and Arabian Peninsula Affairs, in which she handled two crucial Middle East portfolios, usually helmed by two separate people. Previously, she oversaw the Department's Office of regional security and arms transfers, where she managed foreign arms sales and shepherded the Biden administration's military assistance to Ukraine and Israel after Russia's invasion and after the October 7 Hamas attacks. Like Casey, Mira has also served as a senior professional staff member with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, focusing on the Middle East and North Africa. Thank you for being here, Mira.  Welcome to all of you, to People of the Pod.  I think it's safe to say, this panel right here, and all the knowledge and experience it represents could solve the Middle East conflict in one day, if given the chance. Casey, you served for a decade as staff director for the Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee. A decade, wow. You witnessed a lot of transition, but what were the constants when it came to regional cooperation and security needs?  Casey Kustin: What’s the saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that's the world that we're all trying to build. So, you know, from an American perspective, which we all came from in our government work, it was trying to find those shared interests, and trying to cultivate, where we could, points of common interest. And even with the challenges of October 7 now, perhaps stalling some of those areas of progress, you still see that the Abraham Accords haven't fallen apart. You saw when Iran launched missiles at Israel. You saw other countries in the region come to, maybe they wouldn't say Israel's defense. It was their airspace defense. But you saw that still working. You see that still working now. And it's every day when we come to work at AJC, we're thinking about how to increase and strengthen Israel's place in the world. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So Mira, your role encompassed both Israel and the Gulf for the first time, right? Mira Resnick:   That was the first time at my level. Yes.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Okay, so whose idea was that, and did that put you or the US in a position to work for the good of the neighborhood, rather than just Israel, or just the Gulf States? Mira Resnick:   Yeah, this was an opportunity for the State Department to be able to see all of the different threads that were coming throughout the region. This is something that Dana did on a daily basis. This is something that our colleagues at the NSC did on a daily basis. The Secretary, of course, needs to be able to manage multiple threads at the same time. When I was overseeing arms sales, of course, I would have to consider Israel and the Gulf at the same time.  So this wasn't a new idea, that our interests can be aligned within one portfolio, but it was particularly important timing for the United States to be able to see and to talk to and to hear our Gulf partners and our Israeli partners at the same time within the same prism, to be able to truly understand what the trends were in the region at that particularly critical moment, post-October 7. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Dana, in your role as Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense, you met with military leaders in the Middle East, around the world, and you were often the only woman at the table. What do women contribute to international conflict resolution that's missing when they're not given a seat at the table? Dana Strohl:   Well, let me start out by stating the obvious, which is that women make up 50% of the global population of the world. So if 50% of the world is missing from the negotiating table, from the peacemaking table, from conflict prevention mechanisms, then you're missing 50% of the critical voices. There's evidence, clear evidence, that when women are part of peace processes, when they are part of negotiations, the outcomes on the other side are 35% more sustainable. So we have evidence and data to back up the contention that women must be at the table if we are going to have sustainable outcomes.  When I think about the necessity, the imperative, of women being included, I think about the full range of conflict. So there's preventing it, managing it, and then transitioning to peace and political processes in a post-war or post-conflict situation. In every part of that, there's a critical role for women. As examples, I always think about, when you make policy, when you have a memo, when there's a statement that's really nice, in the big capital of some country, or in a fancy, beautiful palace somewhere in the Middle East or in Europe.  But peace only happens if it's implemented at a local level. Everyone in the world wants the same things. They want a better life for their kids. They want safety. They want access to basic services, school, health, clean water and some sort of future which requires jobs. Confidence you can turn the light on. You can drive your car on a road without potholes. Those are details that often are not included in the big sweeping statements of peace, usually between men, that require really significant compromises.  But peace gets implemented at a very local level. And at the local level, at the family level, at the community level, at the school level, it's women. So how those big things get implemented requires women to champion them, to advance them. And I will also just say, you know, generally we should aspire to prevent conflict from happening. There's data to suggest that in countries with higher levels of gender equality, they are less likely to descend into conflict in the first place.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Can you recall a particularly consequential moment during your tenure, when you were at the table and it mattered? Dana Strohl:   So my view on this is that it was important for me to be at the table as a woman, just to make the point. That women can serve, just like men. Do the same job. And frankly, a lot of the times I felt like I was doing a better job. So what was really important to me, and I can also just say sitting up here with Mira and Casey, is that all of us have worked together now for more than a decade, at different stages of, getting married, thinking through having kids, getting pregnant, taking parental leave, and then transitioning back to work. And all of us have been able to manage our careers at the same time. That only happens in supportive communities, in ecosystems, and I don't just mean having a really supportive partner.  My friends up here know, I ask my mom for a lot of help. I do have a partner who really supported me, but it also means normalizing parenthood and being a woman, and having other obligations in the office space. I would make a point of talking about being a parent or talking about being a woman. To normalize that women can be there. And often there were women, really across the whole Middle East, there were always women in the room. They were just on the back wall, not at the table. And I could see them looking at me.  And so I thought it was really important to make the point that, one, a woman can be up here, but I don't have to be like the men at the table. I can actually talk about, well, I can't stay for an extra day because I have a kindergarten, you know, theater thing, and I have to run back and do that.  Or there were many times actually, I think Mira was Zooming for parent teacher conferences after we were having the official meeting. But I think it's important to actually say that, at the table, I'm going to leave now and go back to my hotel room because I'm making a parent teacher conference. Or, I have to be back by Friday because I'm taking a kid to a doctor's appointment.  So all the women that come after us can see that you can do both, and the men at the table can understand that women have a right to be here. Can do the jobs just as effectively and professionally as the men, and do this other absolutely critical thing. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But your point about, it requires a supportive network, a supportive work community. You told me a story before we got up here about just how supportive your colleagues were in the Department of Defense.  Dana Strohl:   I will give a shout out to Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense. So one of the things you do in our positions is travel with the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. And these are not the kind of things where they get on a plane and you land in whatever country. There's a tremendous amount of planning that goes into these. So on a particular trip, it was a four country trip, early in 2023. Secretary Austin was going to multiple countries. He had switched the day, not he, but his travel team, of his departure, which then caused us to switch the day of my son's birthday party. And then they switched the time of his departure from Andrews Air Force Base, and we could not change the birthday party.  So I called Secretary Austin's office and said, Listen, I want to be at my son's birthday party. So I've looked and it looks like I can take this commercial flight. So I won't be on the Secretary of Defense's plane, but I can largely land around the same time as you all and still do my job in the region. And to their credit, they said, okay, and then one of the things that you do in my position is you get on the airplane and you talk to the Secretary of Defense about the objectives and the goals and the meetings. So they said, Okay, we'll just change that to earlier. You can do it the day before we depart, so that he can hear from you. You're on the same page. You can make the birthday party. He can do the thing. So we were actually going to Jordan for the first stop. And it turns out, in his itinerary, the first thing we were doing when we landed in Jordan, was going to dinner with the King. And it was very unclear whether I was going to make it or not. And quite a high stakes negotiation.  But the bottom line is this, I finished the birthday party, had my mother come to the birthday party to help me clean up from the birthday party, changed my clothes, went to Dulles, got on the airplane, sort of took a nap, get off the airplane. And there is an entire delegation of people waiting for me as you exit the runway of the airplane, and they said, Well, you need to go to this bathroom right here and change your clothes.  I changed my clothes, put on my suit, ran a brush through my hair, get in a car, and they drove me to the King's palace, and I made the dinner with the king. It's an example of a team, and in particular Secretary Austin, who understood that for women to have the opportunities but also have other obligations, that there has to be an understanding and some flexibility, but we can do both, and it took understanding and accommodation from his team, but also a lot of people who are willing to work with me, to get me to the dinner. And I sat next to him, and it was a very, very good meal. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I find that so encouraging and empowering. Thank you so much. Casey, I want to turn to you. Mira and Dana worked under particular administrations. You worked with members of Congress from different parties. So how did the increasing polarization in politics affect your work, or did it? Casey Kustin:   It's funny, I was traveling last week for an AJC event, and I ended up at the same place with a member of Congress who was on my subcommittee, and I knew pretty well. And he looked at me and he said, the foreign affairs committee, as you know it, is no longer. And that was a really sad moment for me, because people always described our committee as the last bastion of bipartisanship. And the polarization that is seeping through every part of society is really impacting even the foreign policy space now. As you see our colleague, our Managing Director of [AJC] Europe, Simone Rodan[-Benzaquen], who many of you know, just wrote a piece this week talking about how, as Israel has become to the progressive, when Ukraine has become to the far right.  And I think about all the years I spent when Ted Deutch, our CEO, was the top Democrat on the Middle East subcommittee, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), a great friend of AJC, was the chair of the subcommittee. And Ted and Ileana would travel around together. And when she was the chair, she always made a point of kind of joking like Ted's, my co chair, and we did so many pieces–with Mira’s great support of legislation for the US, Israel relationship, for Syria, for Iran, that we worked on together, really together. Like at the table with my staff counterparts, trying to figure out, you know, what can your side swallow? What can your side swallow? And I hear from so many of our former colleagues that those conversations aren't really taking place anymore. And you know, the great thing about AJC is we are nonpartisan, and we try so hard to have both viewpoints at the table. But even that gets harder and harder. And Dana's story about the King of Jordan made me laugh, because I remember a very similar experience where I was on a congressional delegation and Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, and I was six months pregnant at the time, and I wanted to go on the trip, and the doctor said I could go on the trip. And we were seated around the table having the meeting.  And I, as you won't be able to hear on the podcast, but you in this room know, look very young, despite my age. And you're self conscious about that. And I remember Ileana just being so caring and supportive of me the entire trip. And I wasn't even her staffer, and I remember she announced to the King of Jordan that I was six months pregnant, and you could kind of see him go, okay. That's very like, thank you. That's very nice. But even just having that moment of having the chairwoman on the other side of the aisle. That whole trip. I think I've told some AJC people another funny story of on that same trip, we met with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Jerusalem, and she pulled me up to him, and she said to the patriarch, will you bless her unborn child? Knowing I'm Jewish, she leaned over and said to me: Can't hurt. So I hope that we return to a place like that on Capitol Hill. I think there are really good staffers like us who want that to happen, but it is just as hard a space now in foreign policy as you see in other parts of politics. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Mira, I want to ask you another policy related question. How did the Abraham Accords change the dynamics of your combined portfolio, and how could it shape the future? Mira Resnik:   My first, one of my first trips, certainly my first trip to the Middle East, when I was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security, overseeing security assistance and security cooperation, was to Dubai, as the State Department representative for the Dubai Airshow. And it is a huge event that showcases the world's technology. And I remember walking into the huge hangar, that every country that has a defense industry was showcasing their most important, their most important munitions, their most important aircraft. And I remember seeing the enormous Israeli pavilion when I was there. And I was staying at a hotel, and I get to the breakfast and they said, Would you like the kosher breakfast or the non-kosher breakfast. And I'm like, Am I in Israel?  And I was blown away by the very warm relationship–in the security space, in the humanitarian space. I agree with Casey that things have gotten a little tougher since October 7, and since the aftermath in Gaza. But what I would also point out is that April and October, during the time when when we witnessed Israel under cover, when we witnessed Iran's missiles and projectiles going toward Israel and going toward other regional airspace, our diplomats, our militaries, our intelligence officials, all had earlier warning because of the work of other Gulf governments, even those who have not joined the Abraham Accords. And that is a prime example of where this security cooperation really matters. It saves lives. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Casey, so much of what AJC does has to do with international diplomacy and maintaining that regional cooperation and security, and that sounds a lot like your previous role. So I'm really curious how much your job truly has changed since you came to AJC? Casey Kustin:   You’re absolutely right. There are so many similarities in what we do at AJC and what we did in the government. And the core of that is really those relationships that you build with partners and interlocutors in other countries and other governments, and the foundation, over decades that AJC has laid. Particularly in the Middle East, thanks to 30 years of quiet travel to the region.  It struck me when I first came here, the access that AJC has is nearly the same that we had traveling as members of Congress. And the meetings and the quality and the level of meetings that AJC is afforded in these other countries.  Our missions, which many of you have been on, often feel like congressional delegation trips to me, and the conversations and the candor with which partners speak to AJC is almost the same that was afforded to members of Congress. And that has been comforting, in a way, as you said Manya, Because there feels like there's continuity in the work that we're doing, and it has made me realize that organizations, non-governmental organizations, advocacy organizations, play such a crucial role in supporting the work of a government, of your country's government. And in reinforcing the values and the interests that we as AJC want to communicate that very much dovetail, with hopefully any US administration.  I think that the role that an organization like ours, like AJC, can play in a particular moment, like we're in, where, as we've discussed, there's hyperpartisanship, and we hear a lot, Dana mentioned this. We hear a lot from foreign partners that the way our democracy works with a change in administration every four years is unsettling to some of them, because they don't know if a particular policy or agreement is going to continue the role that we can play, providing some of that continuity and providing a nonpartisan and thoughtful place to have conversations. Because they know that we have that kind of nuanced and thoughtful and nonpartisan insight. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I really appreciate your insights on the roles that you've played, and I think the audience has as well. But I want to pivot back to your role as women. Dana, I mentioned that you were often the only woman at the table. Would you discover that when you arrived at meetings and events? Dana Strohl:   In Washington, DC, and in particular, I'm very proud to have served in the Biden administration, where there were always women at the table. And I will also say that there was a network of women, and it was the same on the Hill. On the hill, there was actually a box of maternity clothes that was kept in then-Senate Leader Harry Reid's office.  And his National Security Advisor called me when she heard I was pregnant the first time, which was during the 2015 JCPOA negotiations on the Hill, which meant that I was super tired and doing all of those congressional hearings and briefings, but there was a network of women who were supporting each other and giving me clothes as I got bigger and bigger. And it continued into the Pentagon and the State Department, where there were always women and when we saw each other at the White House Situation Room or in the different meetings, there was always the quiet pull aside. How are you doing? How are your kids? Are you managing? What's the trade off on your day to day basis? Can I do anything to help you?  And in particular, after October 7, that network of people really kicked into high gear, and we were all checking in with each other. Because it was the most intense, most devastating time to work in the government and try to both support Israel and prevent World War III from breaking out across the Middle East. So that was DC. In the Middle East, I largely assumed that I was going to be the only woman at the table, and so I decided to just own it. There are some great pictures of me always in a pink jacket, but the point you know, was that I expected it, and there were always women, again, against the back walls. I made an effort whenever possible to make sure everyone at the table, regardless of your gender, had an opportunity to speak and participate, but I was also not just the only woman.  A lot of times, I was the co-chair with whatever partner it was in the Middle East, so I had a speaking role, and I felt was incumbent upon me to present a model of leadership and inclusivity in how we engage with our partners, spoke to our partners, listened to our partners concerns, and that that was part of the job. And only once, I remember it very clearly. We were at a dinner after a big meeting, and somebody looks at me, it's a meeting with all, y7all men, all men for a dinner. And they said, Is this what it's like for you all the time? And I said, Yes, it is. And you know, it took two and a half years for somebody to notice, so. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Mira, what have you experienced? And have you ever worried as a woman that you weren't being taken seriously? Mira Resnick:   I think that every woman in one of these jobs has imposter syndrome every so often, and walking into the room and owning it, fake it till you make it right. That's the solution. I will. I agree with Dana wholeheartedly that in Washington, I was really proud to walk into the room and never fear that I was the only woman. And I even remember traveling where another delegation was all women, and our delegation was all women, and how surprising that was, and then how disappointing, how surprising that was, but to take notice of the moment, because they don't happen very often.  I think that in Washington and throughout diplomacy, the goal is to pay it forward to other women. And I wasn't the last person to pump in the Ramallah Coca Cola factory, and I wasn't the first person to pump in the Ramallah Coca Cola factory. But that is, that was, like, my moment where I was like, Oh, this is a strange place to be a woman, right?  But I do find that women really bring holistic views into our policy making, and whether it's meeting with civil society, even if your job is strictly security cooperation to understand the human impacts of your security decisions, or making sure that you are nurturing your people, that you are a good leader of people.  I remember post-October 7, I was looking for some way that I could nurture in the personal life. And I see Nadine Binstock here, who goes to my shul, and Stephanie also. Stephanie Guiloff is also in the audience. She's my neighbor, and also goes to my shul. And after October 7, I took on the Kiddush Committee Coordinator at my shul. So that every week, no matter what I was experiencing at the office and no matter where I was in the world, our community would be a little bit more nurtured. And it was a way for me to like to give back to the community, and at the same time be able to continue to do the hard power work of security cooperation. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Mira, Casey, Dana, thank you so much for joining us, sharing your modern-day Miriam experiences. I want to open it up for questions from the audience. Just raise your hand and someone will bring you a microphone. Audience Member: Hi, I'm Maddie Ingle. I'm a Leaders for Tomorrow alum. What is some advice that any of you have for young women like me in the advocacy space and in general. Casey Kustin:   First of all, thank you for taking the time to come to Global Forum and for joining LFT. You've already taken the first step to better arming yourself as an advocate. I think there is, I wish someone had said to me, probably before I met the two of them who did say it to me, that it was okay to take up space around the table. I remember sitting in secure facilities, getting classified briefings from ambassadors, male ambassadors who were 30 years my senior, and watching the two of you in particular i. Not be scared to challenge the back and forth when I as a probably still, you know, mid 20s, early 30s, did have fear of speaking up.  And I wish someone, when I was your age as a teenager, had, and obviously, I had supportive parents who told me I could do anything, but it's different. It's different than seeing it modeled by people who are in the same space as you, and who are maybe even just a couple years older than you. So I would just say to you not to ever be afraid to use your voice. This is a memory that has stuck with me for 15 years. I was in a meeting, sitting next to my congressman boss, with two men who were probably in their 60s, and a vote was called. And you never know on the Hill when a vote is going to be called. So it interrupts a meeting. And he had to go vote, and he said, Casey will finish the meeting with you. And they looked at him and said, Does she know what we're talking about?  Dana Strohl: We have all been there, Casey. Casey Kustin: We have all been there. So even if you're met with a response like that when you try to use your voice, don't let it deter you. Audience Member: Hi, guys. I'm Jenny. This has been my favorite session of the three days. Thank you guys. My mom is the first female, woman brakeman conductor on Amtrak. So you guys are just so empowering. As a long time Democrat, you guys talked about bipartisan issues. With how the Democratic Party is. I know you guys probably can't go fully into this. Do you have any inspiring words to give us hope when it feels very scary right now, as a Democrat, how divided our party is. Casey Kustin: I work for a nonpartisan organization now, so I’ll let them handle that one. Dana Strohl:   I, so were we all on the Hill during the first Trump administration? And there was still bipartisanship. And what I'm looking for right now is the green shoots of our democracy. And I see them. There is thinking through what does it mean to be in this country, to be an American, to live in a democracy? What does democracy do? I think, first of all, it is healthy and okay for Americans to go through times of challenge and questioning. Is this working for us? And you know, the relationship between the government, whether it's legislative, judicial, executive and the people, and it's okay to challenge and question, and I think it's okay for there to be healthy debates inside both the Republican and the Democratic Party about what what this stands for, and what is in the best interest of our country.  And you can see both in polling data and in certain areas where there actually are members of Congress coming together on certain issues, like economic policy, what's in the best interest of our constituents and voters. That there is thinking through what is the right balance between the different branches of our government.  I was talking to somebody the other day who was reminding me this actual, you know, we are, we are in a time of significant transition and debate in our society about the future of our country and the future role of the government and the relationship. But it's not the first time, and it won't be the last. And I found to be that part of my job was to make sure I understood the diversity of voices and views about what the role of the government should be, general views about American foreign policy, which was our job, was just such a humble reminder of democracy and the importance of this back and forth. Audience Member:  [My name is Allie.] My question for you is, what are your hopes and dreams for generation alpha, who will be able to vote in the next election?  Casey Kustin:   I think we all have, all our kids are still in elementary, or Mira, your one is going into middle school now– Mira Resnik: To middle school. Casey Kustin:   So the vast majority of our children are still elementary school age. And for me, I have a very interesting experience of moving my family out of a very diverse community in Washington, DC to Jacksonville, Florida. And it's a very different environment than I thought that my children were going to grow up in, because at the time, we didn't anticipate leaving DC anytime soon, and it's made me realize that I want them to live in a world where no matter what community They are growing up in, they are experiencing a world that gives them different perspectives on life, and I think it's very easy now that I have gone from a city environment to suburbia to live in a bubble, and I just, I hope that every child in this next generation doesn't have to wait until they're adults to learn these kinds of really important lessons. Dana Strohl:   I have two additional things to add. I'm very concerned at what the polling suggests, the apathy of young people toward voting, the power of voting, why it matters. And participation, that you need to be an active citizen in your governments. And you can't just vote every four years in the presidential election, there's actually a ton of voting, including, like the county boards of education, you got to vote all the way up and down you continuously. And that it's okay to have respectful debate, discourse, disagreements in a democracy. So I would like this generation to learn how to have respectful discourse and debate, to believe that their votes matter and just vote. And three, on the YouTube thing, which is terrifying to me, so I'm hoping the educators help me with this is, how to teach our kids to separate the disinformation, the misinformation, and the fiction that they are getting because of YouTube and online. So mine are all elementary schoolers, and I have lost positive control of the information they absorb.  And now I'm trying to teach them well, you know, that's not real. And do I cut off certain things? How do I engage them? How do I use books and when? So they need to not just be active participants in their society, all up and down the ballot, multiple times every year, but they need to know how to inform themselves. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And Mira? Mira Resnick:   I do hope that our children, as they approach voting age, that they see the value in cooperation with each other, that they see the value of face to face conversation. I think that honestly, this is the value of Shabbat in my household. That you take a break from the screens and you have a face to face conversation. My children understand how to have conversations with adults now. Which is, I think, a critical life skill, and that they will use those life skills toward the betterment of their communities, and more broadly, our Jewish community, and more broadly than that, our global community. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much. Thank you to everyone.

This week, groups representing more than 1,600 colleges and universities pledged reforms to fight campus antisemitism—a major breakthrough in the effort to end anti-Jewish hatred and create campuses where Jewish students feel safe. In collaboration with American Jewish Committee (AJC), the groups urged the Trump administration to continue making the eradication of antisemitism a priority, but without endangering the research grants, academic freedom and institutional autonomy of America's colleges and universities. Here to discuss this collaboration are Sara Coodin, Director of Academic Affairs for AJC, and Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Resources: Watch – Creating Safe Spaces for Jewish Students: Education Leaders Speak at AJC Global Forum 2025 Listen – AJC Podcasts: Most Recent Episodes: What is Pope Francis' Legacy with the Jewish People? Why TikTok is the Place to Talk about Antisemitism: With Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman Related Episodes: Higher Education in Turmoil: Balancing Academic Freedom and the Fight Against Antisemitism Meet the MIT Scientists Fighting Academic Boycotts of Israel Spat On and Silenced: 2 Jewish Students on Fighting Campus Hate University of Michigan Regent Jordan Acker: When Antisemitism Hits Home The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: [email protected] If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of Conversation with Ted Mitchell and Sara Coodin: Manya Brachear Pashman:   This week, groups representing more than 1,600 colleges and universities pledged reforms to fight campus antisemitism -- a major breakthrough in the effort to end anti-Jewish hatred and create campuses where Jewish students feel safe. In collaboration with American Jewish Committee, the groups urged the Trump administration to continue making the eradication of antisemitism a priority, but without endangering the research grants, academic freedom and institutional autonomy of America's colleges and universities.  Here to discuss this collaboration  is Sara Coodin, Director of Academic Affairs for AJC and Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. Ted, Sara, welcome to People of the Pod. Ted Mitchell:   Thanks, Manya, good to be here.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Ted, if you could please give our listeners an overview of who signed on to this. Who are the six organizations, and do they encompass all of the higher ed institutions in the country? Ted Mitchell:   We represent everybody. And so it's everybody, from the Community College Association to the land grant universities, to AAU, the big research universities, the state colleges and universities, and then ACE is an umbrella organization for everybody. So we've got built in suspenders, and we've got every institution in America on the side of eliminating antisemitism. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And then, I guess, the next question is, why? I mean, why was it necessary for American Council on Education and these other associations to join this effort? Ted Mitchell:   Well, a couple, a couple of things. I mean, first of all, we have partnered. AJC and Ace have partnered for a number of years to identify and try to address issues of antisemitism. So feel like we've been in partnership for some time on these issues. And unfortunately, the need has continued to grow. I think that last spring was a real wake up call to a lot of our institutions, that they might have been comfortable believing that there was no antisemitism on their campus, but boy, they got up. They got a notice in the mail.  So I think that we have, as a group, all six of us, we have worked with our institutions since last spring to create opportunities for institutions to do better. And so we had long conversations over the spring and summer about changes in disciplinary policy, everything from masks to how to make sure that every group that was seeking to have a voice make a protest was operating under the same rules, make sure that everybody understood those rules. And frankly, I think we've made great progress over the course of the summer.  There are still things that we can do better. There are always things we can do better. But I think the call for this letter was the conflation by the Trump administration of antisemitism and efforts to eradicate antisemitism with all of the other activities that go on on a university campus that are not really related to antisemitism. And case in point is the administration's willingness to hold research funds hostage to institutional changes and behaviors that have never been stipulated. So we're in this interesting spot where we want to do better. We're working on doing better, and the administration is saying, well, just do more. We can't tell you when you'll get there. Not only is that sort of fruitless, we also think it's illegal. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Sara, I know AJC published an action plan for university administrators last year, and that not only includes concrete steps to address antisemitic incidents when they happen immediately, but also ways to cultivate a healthier culture. Does AJC expect the member schools of these six associations to draw from that action plan? Sara Coodin:   So, we hope so. You know, we don't have the power to mandate that any university in particular, much less a range of universities representing all of higher ed the entire spectrum adopt our specific action plan, but our action plan is really, I think, quite thoughtful, and covers a lot of territory. So we're thinking about all of the citizens of campus. We're thinking about administrators.  We're thinking too about how administrators can create frameworks so that students can get the education that they're meant to receive on site, and for which they, you know, attend university in the first place, we're thinking too about the role of faculty, and specifically at this crucial moment, because so much attention has been paid to the experience of students and to what happens when you create clear expectations and convey them to students through codes of conduct and other kinds of regulatory initiatives.  We're thinking very seriously about what it would mean for administrators to convey those expectations to their faculty as well, and we think that there are lanes through which they can do this that have been under scrutinized and underutilized, and usually that falls into the bucket of professionalization.  What do you do with faculty who are showing up fresh out of grad school on your campus? How do you as an institutional leader or a provost, convey the expectations that you have about the rights and responsibilities of being a teacher, a research supervisor, someone who might be supervising student activities and clubs like the student newspaper. How do you convey your institutional expectations and your expectations of these folks who are in positions of leadership for a generation or more? So it's it's an area that we think is really ripe for conversation and for folks to be convening in meaningful discussions about what the next steps consist of. Ted Mitchell:   Manya, if I can, if I can interject, I really applaud the framework. I think is a great place for us to start. And I know that one of the things that was important and beginning to get support from my members and other people's members was the convening that we that we held a while ago in Washington that drew 85 college presidents together, and that was a solutions focused meeting. And I think it really suggests to me that there is quite an opening for us to work together on creating a framework that could be adopted either formally or informally by many institutions.  As you say, none of us can mandate what's going to happen. That's also true for the government, frankly. But I think the more and the sooner we can build a common common consensus around this, the better. And to your point about faculty responsibilities. We hear a lot about academic freedom. We hear a lot about faculty rights. We often forget that there is a responsibility for faculty to be the adults in the room and to expand the dialog and raise the level of discussion, and we need, we need to promote that.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   You know, I'm curious, are there any examples of institutions that have made a change have drawn from that action plan, and it created positive results. Sara? Sara Coodin:   So I think we're seeing the effects of time, place and manner restrictions, and we first saw those being articulated through the task force at Columbia. And we know Columbia is not, not exactly an ideal institution right now for for a lot of different reasons, but that's not to disparage the efforts of the folks who sat on that antisemitism Task Force who came up with very specific and extremely thoughtful recommendations for their school.  And I pride myself on having worked with a team that took those ideas and made sure that other schools were aware of them, so that they weren't trying to reinvent the wheel. And I think that's often the function that we've served, and particularly in the last year, because schools can and do operate in silos, whether they're geographical silos or silos within their own particular brand of school, big research institutions, Ivy League institutions, sometimes they're in conversation, but it can be very useful to serve, for us to serve as a convening function. We're not also not reinventing the wheel necessarily, but we're working in partnership to try to bring a solutions focused kind of perspective to this, because we think there are solutions in view? Obviously, leadership plays a key role in any institutional context. Are people emboldened enough to actually feel like they can convey those solutions to their communities and stand by them? And that's something that we have seen happen. I wish it were pervasive. I wish it were happening in every case. It's not, but there are certainly institutions that have taken the lead on this, whether quietly or very loudly, and I think it's important to bring our solutions to the attention of other institutions as well.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Ted, I'm curious, can you shed light on the conversations that have unfolded since October 7, 2023 I mean, as students were setting up encampments and staging sit ins. Was there hand wringing, or was it considered, well, at least at first, typical college activism part of university life, Ted Mitchell:   I think it started off as I certainly would never say ho hum. It started off with a sense that there has been a horrific event in the world. And of course, our campuses are going to be places where students need to respond to that and reflect on it. So I think in the early days, there was a sense that this was a right thing for campuses to be engaged in. I think the surprise came in the following weeks. 90s when the pro Palestinian, anti Israel and antisemitic counter protests began to happen and and that was something that we really didn't expect, certainly not in the volume and intensity that took place.  And I think I've said this from from the beginning, I think that we were taken by surprise and on our back foot, and so I can't, I don't know a college president who would say, stand up and say we did everything right after October 7. And you could see this in, you know, presidents making a statement on a Tuesday that they had to either retract or revise on a Thursday, and then by Monday, everything was up in the air. Again, I think that there was a lack of a sense of what the framework is looking for.  There's a there was a lack of a sense of, here's where we stand as an institution. Here's what's permissible, here's what's not permissible, and we're going to be even handed in the way we deal with students who are protesting and expressing expressing their beliefs. We need them to be able to express their beliefs, but under no circumstances can those expressions be violent. Under no circumstances can they discriminate against other groups or prevent other groups from access to the education that they came for. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Is some of what you're saying informed by 2020, hindsight, or is it informed by education? In other words, have you? Have you yourself and have have college presidents learned as as this year has progressed, Ted Mitchell:   Well, this goes to Sara's really good point. I think that there have been two kinds of learning that have taken place. One is sort of informal communication back and forth between Presidents who sort of recognize themselves in other circumstances. And I think that that's been very powerful. We for a while, in the spring, had informal Friday discussion discussions where any president who wanted to come and talk would come and talk, and they were avidly taking notes and trying to learn from each other in real time.  I think the second kind of learning was after students went home, and there really was a broad agreement that institutions needed to tackle their policies. We ran into presidents in the spring who had not read their student conduct policies, and from from there to people who had very elaborate Student Conduct policies but weren't actually following them very well, or had a lot of exceptions, or, you know, just crazy stuff.  So summer was an incredible time of calculated learning, where people were sharing drafts of things. Sara was deeply involved in, in making sure that institutions were learning from each other, and that Sara and her colleagues were pulling these together in the framework, in the framework that we have, you know it's still happening. I talk often with with presidents, and they're still exchanging notes and tactics about things that are going on, going on this fall, but they're doing so from a position of much more stability, Manya Brachear Pashman:   Having taken that breath over the summer and prepared. Ted Mitchell:   Having taken that breath, having sort of been through the fire, having taken that breath and having really regrouped. And one of the things that has been most essential in that regrouping is to make sure that all parties on campus understand what the rules and regulations are. From faculty to staff to Student Affairs personnel, to make sure that when a campus takes an action that it's understood to be the appropriate response to whatever the event might have been. Sara Coodin:   And just to add to that point, about how, many institutions were caught flat footed. And I won't attest to whether I experienced this first personally, but thinking back to the history, the days of, you know when, when protests were either about apartheid in South Africa or it, it seemed like there was a very clear position and a clear kind of moral line there when it came to protests. So that's one example where it seems like there was a right side to be on.  And I think that that is much, obviously we look at the protests from last year as being far more out of line with any sense of a moral right, they were in some cases host to horrific antisemitism and directly responsible for making Jewish students feel unsafe on campus. So the other example of protest, which is before my time, were the Vietnam protests on college campuses. Were really directed against the government. And last year and two years ago, we saw protests where one group of students was effectively protesting against another student group, another student population. And that is something that university administrators haven't seen before. If they were caught flat footed, it's because this was a novel set of circumstances and a really challenging one, because if you have students being activists about a geopolitical event, the focus is somewhere out there, not a population that has to live and learn on your campus. And so we're seeing the kind of directed impact of those protests on a particular group of students that feel like they no longer have a home on campus or on particular campuses, and that is a uniquely challenging set of circumstances.  Of course, we would have loved it if everyone had a playbook that worked, that could have really caught this stuff from the get go and had a very clear plan for how to deal with it, but that simply wasn't the case. And I think there are good reasons to understand why that was the case. Those codes of conduct hadn't been updated, in some cases, in 70 years.  Ted Mitchell:   Your insight is really powerful, that this was one group of students against another group of students, and that's very different. But taking it back, not historically, but just sociologically, one of the things that we also learned is that this generation of students comes to our campuses with almost zero muscle and no muscle memory of how to deal with difference. And so this generation of students is growing up in the most segregated neighborhoods since the Civil Rights Act. They're growing up in the most segregated schools since Brown. And they are parts of these social media ecosystems that are self consciously siloing. And so they come to our campuses and they confront an issue that is as divisive as this one was last spring, and they really don't know how to deal with it. So that's the other learning that we've taken. Is that we need to get very serious about civic education, about how to have conversations between left and right, Jewish students and non-Jewish students, Muslim students and others, and white and black. And we need to get better at that, which, again, comes into the where's the faculty in this? And if they're not a part of that kind of engagement, especially if they take sides, then we've really lost a lot of our power to create a kind of contentious but productive democratic citizenship.  Sara Coodin:   What we have been privy to, and in the conversations that we've had with, I think leading university presidents and chancellors who really have have done the right thing, I think in the last year, they're, they're affirming a lot of what you're saying, Ted, about this inability to engage in in civil discourse. And in some ways, it's an admissions problem. It's admitting students who are, you know, they're writing to an audience that is looking for world-changing activism. And when you do that, you're going to get a lot of really inflamed activists on your campus.  I think the faculty piece is more complicated. I think that speaks to a couple of generations’ worth of lack of framing, of what academic freedom even is, and a kind of entry into the conversation through all kinds of back channels, that the most powerful thing you can be as a teacher is a world changer. And that means gravitating towards the extremes. It doesn't mean cultivating civil discourse, because that's boring. Why would you want to do that? That's, that's not the way to make a splash. It's disappointing to see that kind of ethos take hold. But I think there are ways in which it can be more actively discouraged. Whether it's through admissions, through looking to hire on the basis of different criteria when you're looking for faculty. And it's also a K-12 problem, and we affirm that, and that's something our Center for Educational Advocacy looks at very seriously in the work that we do in the K-12 space.  How do we work with instructors and heads of school in that space to better prepare students who arrive on a college campus, knowing how to engage in civil discourse, knowing how to disagree in a way that doesn't have to result in everyone holding hands at the end and singing Kumbaya. But it shouldn't produce the culture that we saw last year. It shouldn’t. It's incredibly damaging. And I think we've seen how ineffective that model is and how turbulent it is.  Ted Mitchell:   It’s interesting that you raise the admissions question, because I think that, Manya, to your question about what have people done? A lot of this gets really granular, like, what essay questions do you ask? And a lot of them are, what have you done to advance something you believe in?  And I was talking with a president who came in right before the springtime, who changed the essay question to be a question about bridging. Tell the committee of a time when you helped, you know, bridge an issue, a group, whatever. And I think that the attention on antisemitism in particular is really that is driving us to think about those micro-elements of our processes that actually foster, in some ways, this kind of segregation and combat that we saw in such grotesque detail last spring. Sara Coodin:   Yeah, it's interesting. I know you work with faith-based colleges as well, and that notion of service, which is not part of the infrastructure for most schools, seems like a productive part of, maybe, a future conversation about a different model for being in the world.  Ted Mitchell:   I think that that's right, and I love all of our members, but the faith based institution, because this has always been front and center for so many of them, who will you be in the world as a question to ask every single student, who are you in the world, to ask every faculty member that those are natural questions in many of our many of our faith based institutions. And I really admire them. Admire them for it.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   And of course, that's the purpose of going to a college or university, is to figure that out, right? Who you are going to be in this world.  I want to ask both of you, what is the next step? Will there be an effort to reverse some of the measures that have been taken by the federal government to get universities to comply, or is this more about proactive measures? Sara Coodin:   I mean, I can say, for our part, we have no leverage over the federal government. We're not in a position to tell them to do anything. We can appeal to them to be more measured, as we have, and we've appealed to them to be part of a larger conversation about what's going on right now and we make those efforts routinely. I think the path forward is for universities to really think carefully about who their partners are in this work.  And that's, I think part of the effect of this statement is that we are, we, AJC, are there to work towards constructive solutions, and that has always been our basic mission in terms of our advocacy, but we now have it in a very public form. And we're not there to simply hold accountable. I mean, we all hold one another accountable perpetually. We are actually there to do the work and to engage in constructive solution seeking. And I think we're at a moment now where we've seen enough, we've kind of seen enough of this film, that we can come up with some better solutions going forward. It's not catching us kind of flat footed in the same way, because we've had some time to reflect.  And I think that's where the future of this leads to. It leads to constructive solutions. It leads to coming up with really effective strategies to migrate knowledge and approaches, and tailor them to the specifics of campuses that you know are very unique, are very distinctive, and are broad in this country. As you know, Ted, this is a country with so many types of educational institutions, so many. Ted Mitchell:   So the statement is important from a number of different perspectives. One is that it's great that we have come together to ask the federal government to separate the important issue of antisemitism from the other interventions that the federal government is attempting. But the other really important thing that we want the letter to signal is our helping institutions develop the right way to combat antisemitism and, more importantly, prevent it, and through its work on antisemitism, really develop this kind of more inclusive civic culture on our campuses. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You know, AJC does a state of antisemitism in America report every year, and the most recent report found that roughly a third of current American Jewish college students or graduates had experienced antisemitism personally at least once in the past year, and about little over 20% reported being excluded from a group because they were Jewish. And I'm curious if university administrators pay attention to these kinds of statistics, or maybe, did they pay attention before October 7, and are they paying attention?  Ted Mitchell:   Now, I think, with some embarrassment, I'll say that before October 7, antisemitism was a back burner issue, and in many cases, was seen as yesterday's problem or even a historical problem. History has that nasty way of never quite going away. And you know, we see it again here. You know I remember. Was it three years ago that we co hosted a symposium in New York on antisemitism on campus, and it was it was striking. It was well attended, and people really heard a lot.  But the the most striking thing that we all heard was testimony from Jewish students, not only about the frequency of antisemitic activity, but their exclusion from what we used to be able to call DEI initiatives, and that somehow whatever was happening to Jewish students wasn't the same thing. And I went away heart's sake about that. And I think that we, you know, we let two years pass without doing much about it. And we were called, we were called to account for that. So I think that, now that antisemitism has the attention of colleges and universities, we can't squander it.  But instead, we really need to move forward and say, what is it that institutions need? Can I take one more second about data and statistics? When I read that report the first thing that I noted was that those numbers are almost precisely the same numbers that women on American colleges have experienced assault, sexual assault, 30% of women on college campuses have felt that they were assaulted in one way or another verbal and 20% feel like they were physically endangered. And so it's not a good thing, but it speaks to the scope of the problem. And in our little world, there really was a lot of attention placed on safety and security for female students, prevention sexual assault prevention, identification of the places where sexual assault was more prevalent, fraternities, alcohol as a as a fixture of that and I hope that we're going to have the same data driven conversations about antisemitism that we did about women's women's safety issues on our on our campuses. Manya Brachear Pashman:   That is such an interesting observation.  Sara Coodin:   Just to latch on to that point, about data and about how, how. I mean, we too, were surprised by some of the returns this year. We knew it had been a tough year, but we didn't exactly know what students were going to report. We asked specific questions about specific aspects of their experience. But I think you know, one of the things that stands out about the data, for me is, is the framing that we had for students when we asked about their experiences, we asked about their subjective experience, something that's occasionally used to discount our data. Hey, you're asking about people's feelings, but actually, we want to know about the experience, the subjective experience. This is a key component of what the college experience actually amounts to for students going through it.  And of course, we want a solid record of the number of incidents that students are exposed to, whether it's violence or, you know, whether it's coming through the form of words. There's a range of different options, but I think when you look at things like numbers of Jews on college campuses, you get a particular story about the presence of a fractionally tiny minority at elite institutions. Particularly, the numbers are fairly good, although they've dropped in the last number of years.  But I think that that doesn't tell the full story. And I think you need that subjective aspect to find out how Jewish students are feeling in those roles in those institutions. And I kind of want to use this just as an opportunity to double down on the importance of that, the feeling that student have about their experience in college, which is an experience they've worked terribly hard to arrive at, and that they tend to take extraordinarily seriously once they've arrived it is It is unthinkable to allow that experience to continue to be shaped by antisemitism. It's flatly unacceptable. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, Sara, Ted, thank you so much to you both for elaborating and explaining what this means, and I wish you both luck in carrying out the mission. Ted Mitchell:   Thank you so much. Sara Coodin: Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman:  If you missed last week’s special episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman and Lisa Marlowe, director of the Holocaust Awareness Museum and Education Center outside Philadelphia – a conversation that was recorded live at the Weizmann National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia. Be sure to listen.