Powered by RND
PodcastsNoticiasPeople of the Pod

People of the Pod

American Jewish Committee (AJC)
People of the Pod
Último episodio

Episodios disponibles

5 de 402
  • Zohran Mamdani and the 2025 Elections: What It Means for Jewish Communities
    From New York to California, the 2025 elections carry important implications for the Jewish community. AJC New York Director Josh Kramer addresses concerns over New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who has questioned Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and accused it of genocide. Kramer highlights fears over rising antisemitism in New York and outlines AJC's plan to engage the Mayor-elect on combating hate crimes while remaining vigilant against policies that could target Israel. Looking beyond New York, AJC's Director of National Political Outreach, Rebecca Klein, provides an overview of broader election results, including the victories of Democratic governors in New Jersey and Virginia, as well as the political impact of California's Proposition 50 on redistricting. She explains what these outcomes could mean for Jewish communities and national advocacy efforts. Key Resources: A Letter to Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani AJC's Efforts to Support the Hostages Listen – AJC Podcasts: Architects of Peace The Forgotten Exodus 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 the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman:  The first election season since last year's presidential elections is behind us, giving New York City a new mayor, New Jersey and Virginia new governors and California a green light to redraw its map of congressional districts.  We asked Rebecca Klein, AJC's Director of National Political Outreach, to explain what the 2025 election results mean for the American Jewish community.  But first we wanted to hear from Josh Kramer, regional director of AJC New York, about the election of Zohran Mamdani as the 111th mayor of New York City, the largest Jewish community outside the state of Israel.  Josh, if you could please tell us why that matters, why it matters that the largest Jewish community outside Israel is in New York City, and why the prospect of Mr. Mamdani at the helm of City Hall is a concern.  Josh Kramer:  So as you noted, New York has the largest Jewish population in the country and outside of Israel as well. Jews in New York City are scratching their heads today. They're asking themselves, how could it have come to be that a candidate has been elected to the highest office in the land who espouses views that are contrary to so much of the bulk of the mainstream Jewish population in New York City. Views that isolate and demonize and hold Israel to a double standard. This is a challenging day for many in the Jewish community. Manya Brachear Pashman:  If you could rewind, for listeners who have not been following the mayoral election in New York City, because it's sometimes hard for us here in the New York metropolitan area to remember we are not the center of the world. People are more concerned with issues in their own backyard. But if you could please just kind of fill those listeners in on why Mr. Mamdani was a concern and how he expressed those views that you just spoke of being contradictory to the mainstream Jewish community. Josh Kramer: Absolutely, but I will take issue with New York not being the center of the Jewish world, of course, as the director for the AJC New York Regional Office. So I'll say that we know a lot about mayor-elect Mamdani's views on Israel from his long track record, from his statements that he's made along the campaign trail, from bills that he had proposed as a member of the state legislature.  And mayor-elect Mamdani has espoused strong views in support of the BDS movement to isolate and dismantle Israel. He's called into question the Jewish nature of the world's only Jewish state, and he has had a very difficult time consistently calling out and labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization, condemning their actions of holding hostages and otherwise. So it has been a concern that these issues have been at issue during this election.  But of course, we know that this election wasn't about the issues that AJC cares most about. Most people who went to the polls were voting about affordability issues or about bread and butter issues or filling potholes. Some were voting in alignment with their views on Israel. Many in the Jewish community, many who supported the mayor elect were misaligned with the candidates views on Israel. But I think most people were going to the polls based on those affordability issues.  Manya Brachear Pashman: You answered my next question, which was, why did he win? And it sounds like you do not believe that it was necessarily a referendum on Israel.  Josh Kramer:  I think that there's been a lot of writing and a lot of discussion along the campaign trail about these issues. He has been, and other candidates have been asked about their support for the Jewish community and about what they would do to combat the rising tide of antisemitism, which has been a part of the campaign the entire time.  But his non-support of the State of Israel has been a major issue in the campaign. It's just not the issue that I think that people were going to the polls and making their decisions based on. I think that there certainly were people who are motivated either by or repulsed by the now mayor-elect's views on Israel, but I don't think that it was their top issue.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  So you actually penned a letter to the mayor elect after his victory was announced. What did you say in that letter? What did you tell him?  Josh Kramer:   So AJC will work with this new mayor where we can, and that's one of the two core messages, I think, of the letter. We will work with this mayor on his pledge to quadruple, or octuple, the funding to combat hate crimes in New York City. We want to make sure that that funding is spent wisely and appropriately in the city government.  We will work with him on a number of issues where we can align. Modeling, Muslim-Jewish dialog, if that is an area where we can work with the mayor elect. But the second message, and perhaps the more important message, is we will be there to speak out where we need to and understanding that this mayor elect has espoused BDS views for years now, since his days in college, and perhaps before. That we will speak out where we need to, should BDS principles be attempted by the city government as a result of those views.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  You mentioned the funds that he has pledged for combating hate crimes, and I imagine that will require some input from community organizations, especially Jewish organizations, since the Jewish population is often targeted by hate crimes, do you worry that weighing in as much as you did during campaign season will harm your chances of being able to work with and and negotiate and yeah, work in harmony with this mayor.  Josh Kramer:  AJC did feel the need to be on record for this election. And in fact, even prior to the election, we felt we needed to be on record given some of the rhetoric we've seen from this candidate. At the same time, we have engaged with representatives of the mayor's team of the now mayor elects team, and we hope to continue that dialog, to hope to continue to work together where we can. I hope that we haven't harmed our chances to provide input to where hate crimes funding should be spent or could be spent. You're right. Hate Crimes against Jews in New York City, they differ from national statistics in that in New York City, we are the victims of the majority of hate crimes, not just the victims of the religiously motivated or just religious, religiously based hate crimes.  And that means, on average, Jews in New York City are subject to hate crimes, on average, about once per day throughout the year, at least that was the case in 2024 and so we hope very much to be able to monitor and affect how this funding will be spent and make sure that it's spent appropriately in combating the majority of hate crimes, which comprise the Jewish hate crimes.  In fact, there was a hate crime that took place earlier today, one of our on average, one hate crimes per day that we experience against the Jewish community in New York City, and it was a swastika spray painted on a yeshiva in Brooklyn. And just earlier today, mayor elect Mamdani tweeted out, this is a disgusting and heartbreaking act of antiSemitism. It has no place in our beautiful city, and as mayor, he will stand steadfast with our Jewish neighbors to root out the scourge of antiSemitism from our city. So it's an area of interest for us to continue to engage and to see that kind of rhetoric from our leaders is very helpful. So that's, that's what we will continue to look for and also be vigilant at the same time.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  In fact, do you see that as being an entree into conversations and dialog that perhaps just did not, did not happen during the campaign season, for whatever reason, sometimes campaigns can get a little heated and the rhetoric can get a little fiery to fire up the base. Do you have hope? Are you optimistic that perhaps a more rational dialog will emerge during his tenure, and that perhaps this hate crime conversation will be part of it?  Josh Kramer: I do think that that can happen. It can be that strong relationships can be built out of open and very much public dialog, like the letter that was sent out, and it's happened before in New York, we've started very strong relationships with elected leaders in New York City by first starting with very public disagreements. Now that's not our typical way of advocating. Of course, our typical way is diplomatically and behind closed doors, holding very open and frank conversations, but in circumstances like these, perhaps this is the best way to start a conversation.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  Well, Josh, thank you so much for sharing your views on the mayoral election, and now we'll turn to Rebecca Klein to talk about some of the other election results from this week.  Rebecca, welcome to People of the Pod.  Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein: Thank you for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman: So now that was one major municipal election this week. We also had smaller municipal elections across the country. There was an election in a suburb of Boston where voters voted to divest from Israel. In this Boston suburb, were there other examples of that in elections across the country, and why did this happen?  Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein: So, you know, Boston has been sort of a challenge for us for some time now, and we as an organization have been addressing this. And I think this is a movement, the BDS movement, is one that we've been sort of countering for years now, and really had made a lot of progress, and it's coming back up again now you see sort of in the wake of 10/7 and in some of the concerns about the Israeli government.  But I see this too as sort of these more symbolic gestures, right? And I think there is a movement out there. The Jewish community is paying attention. We are doing everything we can to counter these measures. I do think they are few and far between, and I think largely again, really, to get their messaging out there. These are sort of messaging points, but please know that we are doing everything we can to sort of quiet that noise, that these are not city issues, and we need to be sort of supportive of the Jewish community, especially now in the wake of rising antisemitism everywhere.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  So we'll go up from municipal elections and look at some statewide elections, some gubernatorial votes. We had Mikie Sherril win in the state of New Jersey against Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli, and then we also had Abigail Spanberger in Virginia become governor. So two women as the head of states. What does this mean for the Jewish communities in those states and also across the country?  Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein:  So it's some good news, because I think both these candidates, these governors-elect have been really pro-Israel, pro-support of the Jewish community. Have loudly spoken out and shared their support. Have condemned antisemitism, and have really made it a part of their campaign, a part of their statements.  I'll also just note that I think the truth is, is that whoever had won both of these elections, we were going to have a friend in the Jewish community. And this is a really important thing to note, because it sometimes can feel like there's a partisan divide between support for the Jewish community right now on Israel and antisemitism.  And I'll say, when I see these races, where I look at it and I say, You know what, whoever wins, regardless of what else is going on in the background, I know that we can have lines in, we can have communication, and I feel we can have trusted partners. I'll also say that the interesting thing about, you know, we go right from the New York mayor's race to these two gubernatorial races, and you see a real shift from, you know, a very far side of the party to really moderate, centrist Democrats, both winning their primaries and now winning these elections, which I think says a lot.  It's something I'm going to be looking for absolutely going into these midterms. But I do think it's very loud, and I think it's a counterbalance. For people who are concerned about the extremes of the parties, and I am too as well. Of course, I'm concerned, especially as AJC, as a nonpartisan organization that strives to be bipartisan and bring people together, that we have these now very moderate, reasonable voices leading these two very important states. Manya Brachear Pashman:  And in fact, in New Jersey, AJC hosted a candidates forum, and all of the candidates had an opportunity to share their views about combating antisemitism. Correct?  Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein:  Absolutely, they did, and it really is a testament not to AJC and our influence, but also to the way that these candidates felt that they did need to address our issues, that they wanted to come to our forum in order to really go on the record. They felt that it was important to the population of the state of New Jersey that they had to be on the record for our issues. And absolutely, I think that's an important thing. And I'm glad to see that more and more candidates are taking these positions. They're not shying away from these positions, and they're creating important relationships within the Jewish community.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  And just speaking of these two candidates, Governor-elect Spanberger And Governor-elect Sherril, were they aware and alarmed by a rise of antisemitism in their states?  Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein:  Absolutely, and particularly some of the rhetoric so in the primary some of this antisemitism or anti-Israel rhetoric came up. And Abigail Spanberger really spoke to it. I think she spoke to it really nicely. She talked about, you know, it's okay to have differences of opinions, but ultimately, we can never cross the line into antisemitism. Mikie Sherril too really has been supportive of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Both really have addressed it. They understand that in a post 10/7 world, we really can't take these things for granted. And I know that both of these leaders, I think, will be good friends of the Jewish community and will absolutely be on the forefront of combating antisemitism in their states.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  So I'm going to move over to the west coast and talk about the election in California. I know we have some listeners in California who care about this, about Prop 50, but should people in other states across the nation be looking at California's Prop 50 and thinking about how it might affect them?  Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein:  Look, I think it's an important conversation. I think it's a difficult conversation, especially for us as we think about what democratic values really mean, when we talk about that as an ideal. Are these major redistricting efforts really the way we want to be thinking about our elections from now on? There are cases to be made on both sides. I think to some degree, if this is going to be the state of the future, you have to level the playing field.  I think that's what California's voters said. They said, We need a level playing field. We need those extra five seats. You know, again, my concern is, where are we going to see the ripple effects of this? Now some states are absolutely backing off these redistricting efforts immediately after this election, which I probably think is maybe the better or the safer way to go.  Because, again, one of the things to keep in mind is, when you create these new seats, you have to think about who are going to be the people running in these seats, whether we're talking about California or Texas. Are we now inviting people from the more extreme parts of the party to be running for these offices, and are we going to like what we get when those people win?  Manya Brachear Pashman:  Could you go back and explain to listeners what prop 50 is? Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein:  Absolutely. So basically, prop 50 was on the ballot and California voters got to vote for it yesterday in the election. Basically it allows California to now create a new map, and it'll be with five seats that likely, I should say, will heavily favor Democrats. It will change the map of California pretty drastically in the upcoming midterm elections. Manya Brachear Pashman:  And it's similar to the redistricting that happened in Texas, for example, although it wasn't as drastic a change, correct? I believe that's true, yes, but other states are redistricting as well, or at least discussing redrawing their maps.  Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein:  Yeah, other states are now talking about it. But like I said, I'm seeing some early sort of signs from some of these states that they may be backing off of that conversation. Again, you don't really know how it's going to play out when you do these efforts. I'll also say that it seems like the campaign to run this prop 50, it seemed a little disorganized all around and so again, if you're going to do this sort of thing, you really want to know that you're going to win it, because it can have really detrimental effects from cycle to cycle, election to election.  So we'll sort of see, when we look at them, at these elections, these off-year elections, they're signals. They're signals to the major parties, they're signals to state parties, they're signals to voters.  And so I think everyone's sort of now doing the analysis in just the hours after this election to see, okay, what does it mean? You know, should we be pivoting our messaging? Are we pivoting the way that we're doing things? And I think we're going to see some shuffling.  And you can, again, you can already sort of see it. You'll hear it in some commentary. You'll see it on Twitter. People are a little bit, there are nerves out there. There's a lot of spin. Every party is going to sort of present their case here. But again, I think there's a lot to learn from what happened yesterday, and we're going to see these effects in the days ahead, in the weeks ahead, and absolutely in the months ahead.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  So where else should we be talking about? We mentioned Virginia, we mentioned New York and New Jersey and California. Were there any other elections of note?  Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein:  Yeah, there were some local Supreme Court races in Pennsylvania that went democratic, that could have gone either way. There was something in Maine, an absentee ballot measure that was a Republican-led measure that was voted down, and many viewed that as a way to sort of bring voter participation down. So that was considered, I'd say, a win from a democratic perspective.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  Wonderful, well Rebecca, thank you so much for joining us and putting this week's election in perspective.  Rebecca Yoskowitz Klein:  Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with former White House speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz about her new book As a Jew: Reclaiming Our Story from Those Who Blame, Shame, and Try to Erase Us.
    --------  
    19:00
  • Amid Blame and Shame, Reclaiming Jewish Identity with Sarah Hurwitz
    "To me, that ark is: engaging deeply with our traditions. It's reclaiming some of what we lost when we were assimilating and trying to fit in. We have thousands of years of text that have such wisdom about the human condition, about how to be a good person, and lead a worthy life . . . What we can really do is, we can be Jews. And to be a Jew has always been to be different." Sarah Hurwitz—former White House speechwriter and New York Times bestselling author of Here All Along—returns to People of the Pod to discuss her new book, As a Jew: Reclaiming Our Story from Those Who Blame, Shame, and Try to Erase Us. Hurwitz reflects on why antisemitism remains, in her words, "the least mysterious phenomenon," and how Jews can reclaim pride, wisdom, and purpose through Jewish text, practice, and community. Drawing from her work as a hospital chaplain and her conversations with Jewish students on campus, she makes a powerful case for reconnecting with the depth and resilience of Jewish tradition. Key Resources: AJC's Translate Hate Glossary AJC's Efforts to Support the Hostages Listen – AJC Podcasts: Architects of Peace The Forgotten Exodus 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 the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman:     During the Obama administration, Sarah Hurwitz served as senior speech writer for President Barack Obama and chief speech writer for First Lady Michelle Obama. But after she left the White House, she did a little bit of soul searching, and in her mid 30s, reconnected with her Judaism. She wrote about it in a book titled Here All Along, and joined us at the time to talk about it. Sarah has returned with us this week to talk about the book that followed, titled As a Jew: Reclaiming Our Story from Those Who Blame, Shame, and Try to Erase Us.  Sarah, welcome back to People of the Pod. Sarah Hurwitz:  Thank you so much. I'm thrilled to be here. Manya Brachear Pashman:     So your title has a very powerful accusation. So tell us who is blaming, shaming and trying to erase us? Sarah Hurwitz:   Yeah. So, you know, it's funny. My first book, as you know, was this love letter toJudaism. This, this journey of discovery of Jewish tradition, and I loved it so much, and I wanted to share it. You know, as I was writing it, I was thinking, Oh, where has this been all my life. Kind of a lovely, almost rhetorical question. But after it came out, a few things kind of happened that made me actually ask that question more seriously. Like, Wait, why did I not see any of the 4000 years of Jewish wisdom growing up?  The first thing was, I trained to be a volunteer hospital chaplain, and you know, chaplaincy is multifaith, open to chaplains of all backgrounds. But you know, the training was kind of weirdly Christian. You know, we would talk about our ministry and our theology. And I was told that prayer is God, please heal so and so who's right here in front of me, and I'm just making this prayer up spontaneously, and they can hear me, and that's prayer. And everyone prays that way, I was told. I said, You know that that's not really a common form of Jewish prayer. But I was told, No, no, as long as you don't say Jesus, it is universal. That's interesting.  And then something else that happened is I visited a college campus probably a year before October 7, and I was talking to students there at the Hillel, talking to a bunch of Jewish students. And one of them asked me, What did you do to respond to antisemitism when you were in college? And I was so stunned, I didn't even understand the question at first. And then I said, I didn't, not once, never. Not a single time did I deal with antisemitism.  And the kids just looked kind of shocked, like they didn't believe me. And they started sharing stories of the antisemitism they were facing on campus. And I thought, uh oh, something's going on here. And then I really began kind of taking a deep dive into my identity.  Of like, wait, so why did I spend my whole life being like, oh, I'm just a cultural Jew. I knew nothing about Jewish culture. Which is a beautiful way to be Jewish, being a cultural Jew, but I knew nothing about history, language, anything like that. When I said I'm an ethnic Jew, but Jews are of every ethnicity, so that's nonsense.  Or I'd say social justice is my Judaism, but I didn't know anything about what Judaism said about social justice. Unlike these wonderful Jews who do know about social justice and spend their lives acting out Jewish social justice.  And so I took a deep dive into history, and what I discovered was 2000 years of antisemitism and anti-Judaism and 200 years of Jews in Western Europe in a very understandable attempt to escape that persecution, kind of erasing many of our traditions. And I think that was kind of my answer to, where has this been all my life? And also my answer to, why did I have such an apologetic Jewish identity for so much of my life? Manya Brachear Pashman:     In my introduction, I left off half the title of your first book because it was very long, but I am curious, kind of, when did you realize . . . well, let me give the full title of your book, it's Here All Along: Finding Meaning, Spirituality, and a Deeper Connection to Life--in Judaism (After Finally Choosing to Look There).  So I guess, how was that delayed connection to Judaism, can you elaborate a little bit more about how it was tied to these forces that you just talked about? Sarah Hurwitz:  Yeah, so, you know, something that I didn't really fully understand, I had intimations of this, but didn't really understand this, is that, you know, 2000 years ago, early Christianity very much defined itself against Judaism. There was actually a name for this, the Aversos Judeos tradition, which means against the Jews in Latin.  And you know, early Church Fathers very much were defining Christianity against Judaism, because back then, both of these traditions had originated from Judaism. And you know they parted ways at some point, and the Church Fathers were really trying to distinguish Christianity from Judaism, and to get people to stop kind of practicing both traditions. This tradition really continues with Judaism defined as unspiritual, legalistic, depraved, dead, spiritually superseded. A lot of very, very ugly tropes that kind of have common themes that say that Jews are diabolically powerful, so supernaturally powerful, you can't even believe it. They are also profoundly depraved, evil, bloodthirsty, perverse, and they're in a conspiracy to hurt you. So there may be very few of them, but man, they are working together to really do harm.  And you see these three themes kind of making their way through history, unfortunately, all the way basically, until the Holocaust. And I based a lot of my writing on the work of a number of really distinguished Christian scholars who make this argument. It's actually a pretty common argument among Christian scholars.  And, you know, in recent decades, the church has very much disavowed its historic anti-Judaism and has worked very hard to, you know, fight antisemitism in the church. But, you know, these things really did kind of continue on through the 20th century. Manya Brachear Pashman:     So you do describe in your book moments when you got oddly defensive about your Judaism, or perhaps a bit revisionist about Jewish history and the origin of Jewish traditions, or the reason why they exist now in modern day. Can you elaborate on some of those moments for our listeners and explain how you've self-corrected thatdefense? Sarah Hurwitz:  You know, I think a lot of it took the form of, oh, I'm Jewish, but not that Jewish. It was just sort of this immediate, but I'm not one of those Jews. You know, those really Jewish Jews. Well, I'm sorry, would it be a problem if I were? What if social justice wasn't my Judaism, but Judaism was my Judaism? Would that be okay? You know, just beginning to notice, like, Why am I always kind of pushing it away, claiming that I'm not too Jewish? That's a very strange way to announce someone's identity. I think, you know, Dara Horn has actually a really, quite an amazing essay called The Cool Kids, and she talks about these two different types of antisemitism. And one is this kind of eliminationist antisemitism which says the Jews are bad, there's nothing they can do to be good. We must kill them. And you know, that is the Holocaust, pogroms. We learn about that kind of antisemitism in school. But there's another kind of antisemitism, which is conversionist, which says, yes, the Jews are bad, but there is something they can do to be okay and saved. And that is, they can disavow whatever we, the majority, find disgusting about Jewish civilization.  So you know, back in the day, it was, reject Jewish religion and convert to Christianity, and you'll be saved, maybe. For some amount of time, possibly. In my parents and grandparents generation, it was, you know, reject your last name, get a nose job. Stop being so "Jewy", be a little bit more "waspy," and then maybe we'll let you into our club. Then maybe we'll accept you.  And today, what you see is you have to reject your ancestral homeland, you know, reject Israel, and then you'll be okay. And, you know, I visited 27 college campuses, and I kind of saw how this sometimes takes on the format of almost like a Christian conversion narrative, where it goes something like, you know, growing up, my rabbi and my parents told me Israel was perfect and amazing and a utopia. And then I got to college, and I realized that actually it's a colonialist, Nazi, racist society, and I had an epiphany. I saw the light, and I took anti-Zionism and anti-colonialism into my heart, and now I'm saved. Now I'm a good Jew. And their classmates are like, now you're a good Jew.  And as Dara Horn puts it, this kind of antisemitism involves the weaponization of shame. It involves really trying to convince Jews that there is something fundamentally shameful about some aspect of themselves, their identity, their tradition. And today, that thing is Israel. This idea that there's something fundamentally . . . it's like the original sin of the world. Manya Brachear Pashman:     And you also talk about the tradition of circumcision, and how that came up, and you found yourself explaining this to someone. Can you elaborate on that for our listeners? Which I thought was really interesting.  Sarah Hurwitz:  This was during an encounter with a patient. I was doing a chaplaincy shift, and  usually I don't tell my patients my religious background, I'm very neutral, unless they're Jewish, in which case, I do tell them I'm Jewish. But, you know, I was finishing up a conversation with this very lovely lady. And she was very curious about my background. And so I told her, you know, I'm Jewish. And her eyes kind of lit up, and she said, Oh, you know, many of my neighbors are Jewish. I've actually been to two brisses in the past month.  And she just, you know, and she was so lovely, like, she actually seemed to be just really happy to be included in this tradition of her neighbors. And I got weirdly defensive, and was like, Oh, well, you know, just so, you know, medical professionals, they say whether you circumcise or don't circumcise, it's really, it's equally safe either way. And you know, we often, you know, when we do brisses, they're often done by a medical provider.  And I'm going on and on and like, this woman did not say the slightest negative thing about this tradition, but suddenly I am defensive. Suddenly it's like, Huh, interesting. You know, I think that it was an illustration to me of the way that we can sometimes really imbibe all of the kind of negative views about Jews and Jewish traditions that are around us, and become defensive, and sometimes we don't even realize that they're there. It's almost like they're the air that we breathe. Manya Brachear Pashman:     But let me challenge that and push back a little bit. I mean, is it okay to not agree with some of the traditions of the Jewish faith and be open about your disagreement with that? I certainly know a lot of Christians who don't like things that emerge from their tradition or from their community. Is that okay? Or is it not when Judaism is threatened? Sarah Hurwitz:  So I actually do think that's okay. You know, I have no problem with that, but I think the problem in this situation was that I have no problem with circumcision, but I'm suddenly getting defensive and trying to convince this woman that it's not weird. And I'm thinking, why am I doing this? It was very interesting to me that I felt so suddenly defensive and anxious. You know, it was very surprising to me. Manya Brachear Pashman:     And similarly, it's okay to criticize Israeli policy too, right? I mean, it's totally acceptable.  Sarah Hurwitz:  Absolutely. This is the thing that I'm so confused about. Where people are saying, well, you know, you're saying that it's not okay to criticize Israel. And I'm like, I'm sorry. Have you been to Israel? It's like the national pastime there to criticize the government. I criticize the Israeli government all the time, as do millions of American Jews.  This idea that this is somehow… that we're somehow reacting to criticism of Israel, that's ridiculous. I think what we're reacting to is not criticism of Israel, but it's something else. You know, when you have students on a college campus saying from water to water, Palestine should be Arab, or Israelis are Nazis. I just, with all due respect, I don't see that as criticism. Nor would I see it as criticism if, God forbid, a Jewish student ever said from water to water, Israel should be Jewish, or, Palestinians are terrorists. That is hateful, disgusting, racist, eliminationist language. And if I ever heard a Jewish student say that, I mean, let me tell you, I would have quite a talking to with that kid.  So that's not criticism. Criticism is, I am vehemently opposed and abhor, this policy, this ideology, this action, for these reasons. That's criticism. And I think you can use real strong language to do that kind of criticism. But there's a difference between a criticism and slurs and baseless accusations. And I think we need to be just clear about that. Manya Brachear Pashman:     All right, so you just use the term from water to water instead of from river to sea. Was that on purpose? Sarah Hurwitz:  Not necessarily. It's just a clearer illustration of what I think from the river to the sea really means, you know, I think  that is the Arabic that is used. Infrom the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free. It's like, you can kind of make an argument that this is about Palestinian Liberation. And okay, fair enough. But I think when you get the from water to water, it shall be Arab, that's when I think there's less of an argument that it's about freedom, and it seems a little bit more eliminationist to me. Manya Brachear Pashman:     Interesting. I've not heard that before. But I like that. So you call antisemitism the least mysterious phenomenon. Can you please explain what you mean by that? Sarah Hurwitz:  Yeah, you know, I think, like a lot of young people, my antisemitism education was mainly just Holocaust education. And I kind of walked away thinking like, huh, how wild that the civilized world just lost its mind in the mid-20th century and started killing Jews. That's so shocking and disturbing, you know, why is that? And the answer was kind of like, well, you know, the Germans lost World War I. They blamed the Jews. There was a depression. They blamed the Jews.  And when you ask why the Jews, it's like, well, because of prejudice and scapegoating. I'm like, Okay, right. But again, why the Jews? Prejudice and scapegoating, that's the answer. It's like, well, actually, the answer really is because of 2000 years of Christian anti-Judaism that preceded that. It wasn't mysterious why the Jews were targeted.  This was a 2000-year neural groove that had been worn into the Western world psyche. And this is not my argument. This is the argument of countless Christian scholars whose brilliant work I cite. And so I think that the unfortunate thing about some forms of Holocaust education is that it leaves you with the impression that, oh, this is so mysterious, it's just kind of eternal and kind of comes out of nowhere. Or even worse, you might even think maybe we did something to deserve this. But it's not mysterious. I can show you its path through history.  And I think it's very important that Jews understand this history. And look, I think this is very hard to teach in an average American public school. Because, you know, we live in a country where, you know, saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas is very upsetting for some people. They feel very threatened and triggered by that.  So for a teacher to say, like, Okay, kids today we're going to learn about how 2000 years of Christian anti-Judaism paved the way for the Holocaust . . . I don't think that's going to go well. Even if many mainstream Christian scholars would agree that that's true, this is a challenge that we face. Manya Brachear Pashman:     So you have continued, as you said, to visit college campuses where antisemitism has been an issue since October 7, more of an issue than it even was beforehand. And yet, when you were at Harvard and Harvard Law, you've said you could have walked through Harvard Yard wrapped in an Israeli flag and no one would have said a word or reacted negatively. So what has changed, and does it signal a more general shift on campuses of kind of uncensored, unbridled speech?  In other words, if black students support black lives matter, or gay students are marching for pride, do you feel like there's a sense that students who disagree with that from either the right or the left, have kind of claimed a license to criticize that too? Sarah Hurwitz:  No. I try to explain to college students when they say, Well, okay, my campus isn't that bad, you know, I can wear my Jewish star, and I won't get, you know, harassed or ostracized. And I say, like, okay, great, if it's not that bad, I'll just wear my Israel t-shirt and we'll see how it goes. They're like, No.  And then I have to go through this long litany of like, okay, if your black classmate said to you, well, this campus isn't so bad for black students, but I can't wear my Black Lives Matter t-shirt or else I'll be harassed and ostracized. I hope you would say that's not okay, that's racism, pretty clear. Or if your queer classmate said, Well, this campus is pretty good for queer people, but I can't wear my pride t-shirt, I hope you would say, That's not pretty good. That's homophobia.  You know, when the majority feels entitled to decide how the minority can embody and express their identity, I think we have a really serious problem. And  sometimes the kids will push back on me. Well, no, no, but the problem isn't being Jewish. It's Israel. I'm like, okay, but if your Chinese American classmate wore a t-shirt that said China, even if all your classmates knew that the Chinese government had been interning a million Muslim Uighurs in camps and subjecting them to horrific human rights violations, would they harass and ostracize her?  And they're like, Well, probably not. Right, because they would assume that she has a relationship to China that maybe involves having heritage there, or maybe she studied abroad there, or maybe she's studying Chinese, maybe she has family there. I think they would assume that she has some connection to the country that doesn't involve agreeing with the policies of the Chinese government, and Jewish students on campus really aren't afforded that courtesy.  And I'll tell you, most of the Jewish students I spoke with on campus, they, like me, are extremely critical of this current Israeli government. Extremely, extremely critical. They have all sorts of criticisms about what's happening in Gaza, of the occupation.  You know, their views are quite nuanced and complex, but there is no room given for that. You know, I think on some college campuses, Israel has been put into the same bucket as the KKK and the Nazi party. So I can't say to you, look, you know, I'm a Nazi, but I'm a liberal Nazi. Or, oh, you know, I'm in the KKK, but I'm not racist. It's like, come on, right?  These are vile entities with which no connection is acceptable, period. And I think once Israel ceases to be a country and instead becomes the representation of all evil in the world, there's really no relationship that you can have with it that's acceptable. And I think that is a pretty devastating place for it to be today.  And I'll tell you, I think it's a really challenging moment right now where I, like a lot of American Jews, I'm a Zionist. I believe that Jews have a right to a safe and secure home state in their ancestral homeland. I believe we have the right to national independence and self determination, like Japanese people have in Japan and Latvians have in Latvia, and on and on. And you know, we've run that experiment of Jewish powerlessness for 2000 years, and it didn't go well. Even as late as the 20th century. It wasn't just that two thirds of Jews in Europe got wiped out because of the Holocaust.  It's that nearly a million Jews who lived in Arab lands had to flee persecution, most of them to Israel. It's that 2 million Russian Jews had to flee persecution, half of them to Israel. It's that 10s of 1000s of Ethiopian Jews, I can go on and on. So we know, we've run that experiment of Jewish statelessness, and it doesn't go well.  And at the same time, we are looking at this current Israeli government, and we are appalled. We're appalled by the ideology, we're appalled by many of the policies. And you know, for me as an American, this feels very familiar, because I love this country. I'm a proud, patriotic American, and I happen to very much disagree with the current president. I happen to be very much appalled by the current president's policies and ideology. And so, I think many people are able to hold that, but somehow it's harder with Israel, because of what is in the air right now. Manya Brachear Pashman:     So, really you're saying that antisemitism has distorted history. Distorted people's understanding of Israel's history, their understanding of modern Israel's rebirth and existence. It spawned anti-Zionism. Correct?  Sarah Hurwitz:   Yes. Manya Brachear Pashman:     Did you encounter that during your time in the Obama administration? Do you see it now, in hindsight or or is it a more recent emergence? Sarah Hurwitz:   I think this is more recent. I mean, you know, probably in some spaces it was, you know, I was in the administration from 2009 to 2017. I never once saw any kind of anti-Zionism or antisemitism. I mean, it was one of the best places to be a proud, passionate Jew. I knew my colleagues could not have been more supportive of my Jewish exploration. They were so proud when I wrote my first book.  So I never saw any of this ever, once. And I think, you know, I think what is so confusing about this is that we often think about antisemitism as a kind of personal prejudice, like, oh, you know, Jews are fill in the blank, nasty thing. They are dirty, cheap, crass. I don't want my daughter to marry one. I don't want one in my country club.  You don't really see that kind of antisemitism in the circles where I travel anymore. What you see instead is more of political antisemitism, which is antisemitism as a kind of conspiracy theory that says that we, the majority, are engaged in a grand moral project, and the only thing stopping us are these Jews. We the majority are Christianizing the Roman Empire.  The only thing stopping us, these Jews who won't convert. We the majority are bringing about the brotherhood of man, the great communist revolution. The only thing stopping us, these capitalist Jews. We the Germans, are bringing about the great, racially pure Aryan fatherland. The only thing stopping us – these race-polluting Jews.  And today in America, you see it on the right and the left. On the right, it's, you know, we white Christian Americans are bringing back white Christian civilization to America. And the only thing stopping us are these Jews who are importing black and brown immigrants to replace white people. That is the extremely racist and antisemitic theory known as the Great Replacement theory. It is an ugly, disgusting lie.  On the left you have, you know, we this very moral group of people. we are bringing about the revolution of anti-colonialism, anti-Zionism. And the only thing stopping us are these colonialist Zionists, which is a polite way of saying Jews. And so, you know, I think it's very important to understand, as Yossi Klein Halevi, the journalist, puts it, you know, what you see again and again is whatever is the worst thing in a society, that is what the Jews are deemed to be. Whatever is the worst thing among a particular population, that is what the Jews are deemed to be. And I think we're kind of seeing that on both the right and the left today. Manya Brachear Pashman:     If antisemitism defines so much, or has defined so much of Jewish identity, how do we reclaim that? How have you reclaimed that? And how have you found joy in your Jewish identity, especially after doing this book and immersing yourself and all of this extremely depressing perspective? Sarah Hurwitz:   I hear this kind of line among many Jews that breaks my heart. It's this sort of self-flagellation, of like, if we just had the right PR campaign, if we just had the right tweet, then we would fight antisemitism. It's our fault, we're doing such a bad job fighting antisemitism. And, you know, I love the ambition there. I think that is so sweet.  But there are 16 million of us in the whole world. That's with an M, million, like the size of like, the fifth largest city in China. We are a Chinese city. There are billions of people who don't really love us out there. And the idea that we, this tiny group of people, is going to somehow change the minds of billions of people. I really respect the ambition, but I think that's a tough one.  I think it's sort of like trying to bail out a tsunami with buckets. You know, if enough of us do it, I'm sure we can make a difference. And I have such respect for the people who are doing that work. I think it's very important. But I also would just suggest that maybe we should put a little more of our energy into building an ark to weather the storm.  And you know, to me, that ark is, engaging deeply with our traditions. It's reclaiming, I think, some of what we lost when we were assimilating and trying to fit in. You know, we have thousands of years of text that have such wisdom about the human condition, about how to be a good person and lead a worthy life and find profound spiritual connection. We have just so many beautiful traditions. And so I think that what we can really do is, we can be Jews. And to be a Jew has always been to be different.  That was kind of our value proposition thousands of years ago when we came along and said, hey guys, monotheism. Totally different way of thinking. We said, hey, every human being is created in the image of God, which is an idea that every human being is infinitely worthy. Which, again, this is the idea that underlies things like liberalism, democracy, human rights. These are really Earth-shatteringly different counter cultural ideas, and we have so many more of those that I still think the world needs today.  So I think that rather than just being anti-anti-semites, that we can be proud Jews instead, and we can really focus on becoming more learned, more vibrant members of our communities, you know, engaging in more of our traditions and our rituals.  I also think, you know, Dara Horn has been doing a lot of great work about educating kids about Jewish civilization. Rather than having young people only know about the Jews via the Holocaust, she really wants to teach young people about Jewish civilization, ideas, and people. I think that is a very, very powerful and very helpful idea. Manya Brachear Pashman:     So how are you doing this? How do you spend each week? How do you reclaim some of these traditions and joy? Sarah Hurwitz:    For me, it's studying. That's really how I engage, you know, I have various chavrutas or I study Jewish texts. I love reading Jewish books, and I love participating in the Jewish community. You know, I love engaging with various Jewish organizations, you know, serving on various committees, and just trying to be part of this project of reclaiming Judaism, of making it more accessible to more Jews. This is what I love doing, and I'll be starting in January. I'm actually going to be starting a rabbinic program at the Hartman Institute. It's a part time program.  And I'm not not planning to be a congregational rabbi, but I do want to keep writing books, and I am really grateful for this opportunity to get a much deeper, more thorough Jewish education than the one I've kind of given to myself, and, you know, kind of cobbled together. I think this is going to be a really extraordinary opportunity. So I'm very excited about that.  Manya Brachear Pashman:     Oh, wow. Well, congratulations. I look forward to welcoming you back to the podcast and calling you Rabbi.  Sarah Hurwitz: Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman:     Thank you so much for joining us, Sarah. Sarah Hurwitz:  Such a pleasure. Thank you for having me.   
    --------  
    26:38
  • How the War with Hamas Has Impacted the Israeli Economy
    How did the Israeli economy react to the war against Hamas?  Hear from a major player on the ground – Dr. Eugene Kandel, former economic adviser and Chairman of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, discusses Israel's financial resilience after the war against Hamas. Having made aliyah from the Soviet Union in 1977 with his family, Dr. Kandel covers the stock market rebound, missed economic opportunities with Jordan and Egypt, and the success of the Abraham Accords.  *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Take Action: Elected Leaders: Demand Hamas Release the Hostages  Key Resources: AJC's Efforts to Support the Hostages Listen – AJC Podcasts: Architects of Peace The Forgotten Exodus 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 the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman:   Professor Eugene Kandel served as economic adviser to the Prime Minister of Israel from 2009 to 2015, and with Ron Sor is a co-founder of Israel's Strategic Futures Institute. He is also chairman of the Tel Aviv stock exchange, the only public stock exchange in Israel, known locally as the Bursa. He is with us now to talk about the impact of Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza on Israel's economy, the potential and impact so far of the Abraham Accords, and how history could one day view October 7 as a turning point for Israel's democracy.  Dr. Kandel, welcome to People of the Pod. Eugene Kandel:   Thank you. Thank you for having me.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Before we begin, your family came to Israel in 1977. Can you share your family's Aliyah story? Eugene Kandel:   Yeah, when I was 14, my family was living very comfortably in the Soviet Union. My father was a quite known writer, playwright, a script writer. And around him was a group of Jewish people of culture that were quite known in their domains, mostly Jewish. And so at some point in 67 he sort of had this vision and started studying Hebrew. But 1970 and then by '73 when I was 14 years old, he came to me and said, Look, your mom and I decided to immigrate to Israel. What do you think about it, and I said, I don't know what I think about it. Okay, you know, if we want to immigrate, let's immigrate. I never felt too much belonging there. So unfortunately, Soviet authorities had other ideas about that. So we spent four years as refuseniks. My father, together with Benjamin Fine, were the editors of the underground publication called Tarbut. And for people who did not live there, they put their names on it. So this was, these were typewritten copies of Jewish culture monthly. And there were two names on it. You could go to jail for this. My father was always pretty brave man for his petite size, because during the Second World War, he was very, very hungry, to say the least. So he didn't really grow very much. But he's very big inside.  And so the following four years were pretty tough on them, because he couldn't work anywhere. Just like in McCarty years in this country, people would give work to their friends and then publish it under their own name. That's what he did for his friends, and they would share the money with him, or give him most of the money. There were very, very brave people. And then, you know, there was an incident where they wanted to send a message to my father to be a little less publicly outspoken. And so two KGB agents beat me up.  And that started a whole interesting set of events, because there was an organization in Chicago called Chicago Action for Soviet Jewry. Pamela Cohen. And I actually met Pamela when I was studying at the University of Chicago. And thanked her. So they took upon themselves to harass Soviet cinema and theater and culture officials. And so they were so successful that at some point, the writers league from Hollywood said that nobody will go to Moscow Film Festival unless they release us because they do not want to associate with people who beat up children. I wasn't a child, I was 17 years old, but still. And that sort of helped. At least, that's how we think about it.  So it's worthwhile being beaten up once in a while, because if it lets you out, I would take it another time. And then we came to Israel in a very interesting time. We came to Israel four hours after Anwar Sadat left. So we came to a different Israel. On the brink of a peace agreement with Egypt. And so that was it.  We came to Mevaseret Zion, which was an absorption center. A small absorption center. Today I actually live probably 500 yards from where we stayed. Sort of full circle.  And today, it's a significant, it's about 25,000 people town. And that's the story, you know, in the middle, in between then and now, I served in the military, did two degrees at Hebrew University, did two degrees at the University of Chicago, served as professor at the University of Rochester, and then for 28 years, served as professor of economics and finance at the Hebrew University. So I keep doing these circles to places where I started. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You say you arrived four hours after Sadat's visit to Israel on the brink of a peace agreement with Egypt. Did that peace agreement live up to expectations? Eugene Kandel:   Well, it depends what are your expectations. If your expectation will continue in the war, it definitely did, because, you know, for the last, you know, whatever, 48 years, we didn't have any military activity between Israel and Egypt. And we even have security collaboration to some extent. But if you're thinking about real peace, that would translate into people to people peace, business to business peace, it did not generate that at all. Because there was a very, very strong opposition on the street level and on the intellectuals level.  It actually started to break a little bit, because today you can find analysts on Egyptian television that are saying that we are, we are stupid because we don't collaborate with Israel. It is allowed today, It's allowed to be said in, you know, 20-30, years [ago], that person would have been ostracized and would never be allowed to speak.  So there is some progress, but unfortunately, it's a huge loss for the Egyptian economy. For Israeli economy, it is probably also a loss, but Israeli economy has a lot of alternatives in other countries. But Egyptians don't seem to be able to implement all the things that Israelis implemented a long time ago. You know, whether it's water technologies, whether it's energy technologies. Lots of lots of stuff, and it's really, really unfortunate that we could have helped Egyptian people, the same people who rejected any relations with us. And that's a pity. Manya Brachear Pashman:   The next peace agreement that came was with Jordan in 1994, quite some time later. Did that peace agreement live up to expectations, and where were you in 1994? Eugene Kandel:   1994, I was a professor at the University of Rochester, so I wasn't involved at all. But again, it was a very, very similar story. It was the peace that was sort of forced from above. It was clearly imposed on the people despite their objections, and you saw demonstrations, and you still see. But it was clear to the leadership of Jordan that Israel is, in their case, is absolutely essential for the survival of the Hashemite Dynasty. In the end the Israeli intelligence saved that dynasty, many, many times.  But again, it wasn't translated into anything economic, almost anything economic, until in the early 2000s there were some plants in Jordan by Israeli businessmen that were providing jobs, etc. But I was privileged to be the first to go to Jordan together with American officials and negotiate the beginning of the gas agreement.  We were selling gas to Jordan, because Jordan was basically going bankrupt because of the high energy costs. Jordan doesn't have its own energy, apart from oil shale. Sorry, shale oil. And for some reason they weren't able to develop that. But Israeli gas that we are selling to them as a result of what we started in 2012 I believe. Actually very important for the Jordanian economy. And if we can continue that, then maybe connect our electrical grid, which is now in the works, between the water-energy system.  And now maybe there is a possibility to connect the Syrian grid. If we have an agreement with Syria, it will help tremendously these countries to get economic development much faster. And it will help Israel as well, to balance its energy needs and to maybe get energy, provide energy, you know, get electricity, provide gas. You know, there's all these things where we can do a lot of things together. If there is a will on the other side. There's definitely will on the Israeli side. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In addition to gas, there's also water desalination agreements, as well, right? Eugene Kandel:   Yeah, there was a Red to Dead project, which was to pump the water all the way from the Red Sea along the Arava Valley. And then there is a 400 meter, 500 meter drop. And so to generate electricity through that desalinate that water that you pump, and then send that water to Egypt, send the electricity that was generated and not needed to Israel and then dump this salt stuff into the Dead Sea. Frankly, I don't know where this project is. Nobody talks about it for the last seven, eight years. I haven't heard.  Now there are different projects where you would get energy generated in Jordan and sold to Israel in Eilat, for example, because it's difficult for us to bring electricity all the way South. And so if the Jordanians have large fields of photovoltaic energy they can sell, they can satisfy the needs of a lot, and then in return, we can desalinate water and send it to them. So there's all kinds of projects that are being discussed. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But Israel does provide water to Jordan, correct? Eugene Kandel:   There are two agreements. One agreement, according to our peace agreement, we are supposed to provide them with a certain amount of water. I don't remember the exact amount. But that's not enough, and so we also sell them water. So think about it. There is a sweet water reservoir called Tiberius, Kinneret, in the north, and we sending water from there into two directions according to the agreement. We're sending it to Amman, pumping it up to the mountains, and then we're sending it throughout the Jordan Valley, all the way along the Jordan River, to the Jordanian side. So it's quite striking when I used to go between Jerusalem and Amman, it's actually an hour and a half drive. That's it. You go down, you go up, and you're there.  And so when you're passing the Israeli side, you see the plantations of date palms that are irrigated with drip irrigation. So very, very economically, using the brackish salt water that is pumped out of the ground there. You cross two miles further, you see banana plantations that are flood irrigated at 50-centigrade weather, and the water that comes from them comes on an open canal. So basically, 50% of the water that we send this way evaporates. Growing bananas in that climate and using so much water, it's probably, if you take into account the true cost of water, it's probably money losing proposition, but they're getting the water. The people that are the settlements on that Bank of Jordan River, are getting it for free. They don't care. And if somebody would just internalize that, and instead of sending the water down in an open canal, would send the whole water up to Amman, where there is a shortage of water, enormous shortage of water. And then you would take the gravity and use that water to generate electricity, to clean that water, the sewage, clean it and drip irrigate plantations, everybody would make enormous amounts of money. Literally enormous amounts of money. And everybody's lives would be better, okay? And I'm not talking about Israelis. It's within Jordan. And you can't say that there's no technology for that, because the technology is two miles away. You can see it.  And it just puzzles me. Why wouldn't that be done by some entrepreneurs, Jordanian entrepreneurs. We could really help with that. We could even help by buying the water from them back. The water that we give them, we can buy it back. Because in Israel, the water is very expensive. So we could finance that whole thing just by sending the water back, but that would be probably politically unacceptable, I don't know. But it's really, really . . . for an economist, it's just a sad story. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Missed opportunities. Well, let's go back. I introduced you as the chair of the Tel Aviv stock exchange, the Bursa. And I am curious. Let's talk about the economy. Does Israel treat its stock market the same way we do? In other words, are there opening and closing bells at the beginning and end of every day? How does the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange work compared to the United States? Eugene Kandel:   Well, we do have the opening bell, but it's usually reserved for some events. We don't have the events every day. Usually, if there's a new listing, or there's somebody celebrating, like, 20 years of listing, we have all kinds. Recently, we had Mr. Bill Ackman came and gave a speech and opened the trading together with us.  There are events around Jeffries Conference. But it's much more, you know, ceremony, I mean, it's not really connected to anything. Trading starts whether you press the button or don't. But Israeli stock exchange is unique in the following sense: it is an open limit book. What means that there is, you know, buyers meet sellers directly, and it works like that, not only in stocks, which is similar to what it is everywhere, but it's also in bonds, government bonds, corporate bonds, and in derivatives.  So in that sense, we do have our ceremonies, but the interesting thing is, what is happening with the exchange in the last two years. Accidentally, I joined two years ago as the chairman, and over the last two years, the stock exchange, the indices of Israeli Stock Exchange were the best performing out of all developed countries, by far. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Did that have something to do with the war? Eugene Kandel:   Well, it should have been, you know, in the opposite direction, but, the war is, not this length of war, not this intensity of war . . . but if you look back over at least 25 years, the Israeli economy responds very robustly to military conflict. Usually they're much shorter. If you look at even quarterly returns of the stock exchange, you would not know that there was a war in the middle, definitely not annual. If you look over the last 25 years, and you look at this stock, annual returns of the indices, you would not know that there was anything wrong, apart from our 2003 crisis, and Corona. Even the great financial crisis, you would not see it. I mean it was basically past us, because we didn't have a financial crisis in Israel. We had repercussions from, you know, the rest of the world's financial crisis, but we didn't get our own. And so we do have resilience built in, because we're just so used to it. However, having said that, it's the first time that we have such a long and intensive war on seven, whatever fronts. So it is quite surprising that just like any other time, it took about three months for the stock market to rebound after October 8. It was a big question whether to open the market on October 8. We struggled with it, and we decided that we do not want to give anybody the right to disrupt the Israeli economy.  I mean, it was a really tough decision, because there was certain people were saying, Well, how can you do that? It's a national tragedy. And of course, it was a national tragedy. But closing the market would have meant two things.  First of all, it would have shown the world that our economy can be interrupted. It would have given the benefit to those people that did these atrocities, that they managed to do more damage than they already did. And we didn't want to do that. And it didn't collapse. It went down, of course, but it rebounded within less than three months. By the end of that year, it was back on the same level. And then it did this comeback, which was quite phenomenal. And it's an interesting question, how come? Because during that time, we had some cases where Israel was boycotted by investors, very few, by the way, but we also saw many, many new investors coming in.  You could look at the war from the negative side. Of course, huge costs. But with all that, it was about 10% of annual GDP, because we are, you know, we're a big economy, and we borrowed that very easily because we had a very strong macro position before that. So we now 76% debt to GDP ratio. It's much lower than majority of developed countries. But we still had to borrow that. It was a lot of money, and then the defense budget is going to go up. So there is this cost.  But vis a vis that, A, Israeli technology has been proven to be unmatched, apart from maybe us technology in certain cases, but in some cases, even there, we have something to share. And so we have huge amounts of back orders for our defense industries. During the war, and they were going up when some of the countries that are making these purchases were criticizing us. They were learning from what we did, and buying, buying our equipment and software, etc.  And the second thing, we removed the huge security threat. If you look before October 7, we were quite concerned about 150,000 missiles, some of them precise missiles in Hezbollah's hands, an uninterrupted path from Iran through Syria to Hezbollah, constantly replenishing. We would bomb them sometimes in Syria, but we didn't catch all of them. We had Hamas, we had Hezbollah, we had Syrians, we had Iranians. We had, you know, not, you know, Iraqi militia. So, Hezbollah doesn't exist. Well, it exists, but it's nowhere near where it where was at. And the Lebanese Government is seriously attempting to disarm it. Syria, we all know what happened in Syria. We didn't lift a finger to do that. But indirectly, from what happened in Hezbollah, the rebels in Syria became emboldened and did what they did. We know what happened with Hamas. We know what happened with Iran. Okay, Iran, even Europeans reimposed the sanctions. So that's the side effect.  So if you look at the Israeli geopolitical and security situation, it's much, much better. And in that situation, once the war is over and the hostages are returned, and hopefully, we will not let this happen again, ever, to work hard so we remember that and not become complacent. It's an enormous, enormous boost to Israeli economy, because this security premium was quite big.  So that is on the positive side, and if we play smart, and we play strategically, and we regain sort of good relations with some of the countries which are currently very critical of us, and somehow make them immune to this anti Israeli antisemitism propaganda, we can really get going. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You mentioned investors. There were more investors after the war. Where were those investors coming from, internally or from other countries?  Eugene Kandel:   It's interesting that you asked this question, because in 2020, early 2024 a lot of Israeli institutions and individuals moved to S&P 500, and they got really hammered. Twice. Because A, S&P 500 was lagging behind the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. So there was some other players coming in, because otherwise, when you move money, usually, you should see a drop, but you saw an increase. That meant that there are others came in. But the more interesting thing is that shekel was very weak when they bought dollars, and now shekel is about 15% stronger, so they lost 15% just on the exchange rate. And so a lot of money that went to S&P came back in the last six, eight months. So the internal money came back.  But on top of internal money, we looked at the behavior of foreign investors right after October 7. They didn't flee the country. Some of them sold stocks, bought bonds. And then so Israeli institutions made money on that, because Israeli institutions bought stocks from them at about 10%, 15% discount, and then when it rebounded, they made money. But that money didn't leave, it stayed in Israel, and it was very costly to repatriate it, because the shekel was very weak. And so buying dollars back was expensive. And the money slowly went into stocks. And then people made quite a lot of money on this. Manya Brachear Pashman:   The last topic I want to cover with you is external relations. You mentioned Syria, the potential of collaborating with Syria for water, gas. Eugene Kandel:   Electricity. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Electricity. And I presume that you're referring to the possibility of Syria being one of the next members to join the Abraham Accords. That has been mentioned as a possibility. Eugene Kandel:   Maybe. But we can, we can do something much less. Manya Brachear Pashman: Outside of the Accords. Eugene Kandel:   Outside of the Accords, or pre-Accord, or we can, we can just create some kind of collaboration, just we had, like as we had with UAE for for 15 years before the Accord was signed. Was a clear understanding.  Maybe. But we can, we can do something much less outside of the Accord, or pre-Accord, or we can, we can just create some kind of collaboration, just we had, like as we had with UAE for for 15 years before the Accord was signed. Was a clear understanding.  You know, I was in UAE, in Dubai on the day of signing of the Accord. I landed in Dubai when they were signing on the on the green loan, on the White House lawn. And we landed. It was amazing. It was the degree of warmth that we received from everybody, from ministers in the economy to ministers that came to speak to us, by the dozen to people in the hotel that were just meeting us. They issued, for example, before signing the Accord, there was a regulation passed by by UAE that every hotel has to have kosher food. We don't have that in Israel. I mean, hotels mostly have kosher food, but not all of them, and, and it's not by law.  This was, like, clear, we want these people to feel comfortable. It was truly amazing. I've never, I could never imagine that I would come to a country where we didn't have any relations until today, and suddenly feel very, very welcome. On every level, on the street, in restaurants. And that was quite amazing, and that was the result of us collaborating below the surface for many, many years. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Parity of esteem, yes? Suddenly. Eugene Kandel:   Yeah, they didn't feel they did exactly the important part when the UAE businessman or or Ambassador order you feel completely no chip on the shoulder whatsoever. They feel very proud of their heritage. They feel very proud of their achievements. They feel and you feel at the same level. They feel at the same level, just like you would with the Europeans. We always felt that there was something like when, when, Arab delegations, always tension. I don't know whether it was superiority or inferiority. I don't know. It doesn't matter, but it was always tension in here. I didn't feel any tension. Was like, want to do business, we want to learn from you, and you'll to learn from us. And it was just wow. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Same in Bahrain and Morocco? Eugene Kandel:   I haven't been to Bahrain and Morocco. I think Bahrain wants to do business. They were very even, sort of some of, we sent the delegation to Bahrain to talk about sort of Israeli technology and how to build an ecosystem in the same with Morocco. I think it's a bit different. I think it's a bit different because we didn't see much going on from from these two countries. Although Morocco is more advancing much faster than Bahrain. There are a lot of interesting proposals coming out of it.  There's a genuine desire there. In the last two years, of course, it was difficult for for anybody to do anything in those but interestingly, when almost no European airlines or American airlines were flying to us, Etihad and Emirates were flying to Israel. They were flying. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Past two years? Eugene Kandel:   Yeah, they would not stop. And you're just like, wow. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So would you say the Abraham Accords have had a significant impact on Israel's economy at all? Eugene Kandel:   I do not know. I mean, I don't have data on that by the sheer number. I mean, the the number of Israeli tourists Sue UAE, it's probably 10 or 20 to one to the vice versa. So we've been Israelis flooding UAE. In terms of investments, there are some technology investments. There's some, some more infrastructural investors, like they bought 20% of our gas field. There are collaborations between universities and research centers. So it's hard to measure, but you have to remember that there was a huge amount of trade and collaboration under the surface. So it surfaced. But that doesn't mean that there was an effect on the economy, just people suddenly saw it. So you don't know what the Delta was. If the same amount of business was suddenly coming out of Jordan, we would have seen, you know, big surge. So I'm not sure how much . . . I don't mean to say that there was no impact. I'm just saying that the impact was much more gradual, because there was so much already, right? But I'm sure that it is continuing, and the fact that these airlines were continuing to fly, indicates that there is a demand, and there's a business. Initially a lot of Israelis thought that there was, this was a money bag, and they would go there and try to raise money and not understanding culture, not understanding. That period is over. I mean, the Emiratis conveyed pretty clearly that they not. They're very sophisticated investors. They know how to evaluate so they do when they make investments, these investments make sense, rather than just because you wanted to get some money from somebody. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, thank you so much.  Eugene Kandel:   Thank you.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   If you missed our last episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with AJC's Director of Congressional Affairs Jessica Bernton. We spoke shortly after receiving the news that a deal had been reached and the hostages from the October 7 Hamas terror attack might finally come home after two years in captivity. That dream was partially realized last week when all the living hostages returned and the wait began for those who were murdered.  
    --------  
    29:59
  • Inside the Advocacy Effort to Bring the Hostages Home
    "Since before he was President, he [Trump] has made it clear that this is a priority, and he has instructed his team to work on this issue day in and day out . . . " More than two years after the October 7 massacre, Hamas has agreed to return the 48 hostages still in Gaza under the U.S.-brokered peace deal. Jessica Bernton, AJC's Director of Congressional Affairs, shares details of AJC's joint advocacy with the hostage families of returned hostages—how personal stories, bipartisan meetings with Congress and the White House, and coordinated delegations kept the issue at the forefront. She reflects on the emotional weight of this work, its impact on the U.S. administration, and the ongoing need to press policymakers to ensure that all hostages are safely returned. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Take Action: Elected Leaders: Demand Hamas Release the Hostages Key Resources: AJC's Efforts to Support the Hostages Listen – AJC Podcasts: Architects of Peace The Forgotten Exodus 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 the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman:  More than two years after the October 7 massacre, the Hamas terror group has reportedly agreed at long last, to return the 48 hostages that remain in Gaza. With us now is Jessica Bernton, AJC's director of Congressional Affairs, who has been working with the families of hostages since day one to bring them all home. Jessica, welcome to People of the Pod. Jessica Bernton:  Thanks so much, Manya, it's a pleasure to be here.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  So you must be so relieved. I know you've been so immersed in all of this. When can we celebrate though? Is now too soon? Jessica Bernton:  Oh, what a great question. I would say, I have this cautious optimism at the moment. There have been many ups and downs. There have been starts and stops throughout these long months and now two years, but this one does feel different. I would say, you know, this is the most progress we've seen since the spring, and we have to continue to have hope.  We also cannot afford to let up the pressure until every single hostage is returned home. And so I would say we cannot exhale until everyone is returned. And once everybody is walking across the border, or the deceased are returned home for burial, that is when we can truly celebrate. Once every single person is returned. Manya Brachear Pashman:  You said it feels different? How? How does it feel different? Jessica Bernton:  You know, there's been a lot of pressure exerted in recent weeks. I'd say the US administration has stepped up their efforts as well, working with other countries, including partners across the world here. And a deal was signed.  And so I think a lot can happen, though, between this announcement and actually, again, when hostages are returned, or when the first phase begins, and both sides need to continue to adhere to each side of the agreement. But this really is the most progress that there has been in some time. Manya Brachear Pashman:  As I said in the introduction, you've been working since day one, bringing delegations to Washington to meet with members of Congress, meet with White House staff, including both President Biden and President Trump. What has happened most recently that might have made a difference here? Jessica Bernton:  I think the most important thing here is that the families as well as the returned hostages, because we've been so far down in this process that we were advocating for the release of certain hostages, and now those individuals have come to DC and have been traveling across the world to make sure that their voice is heard. And they're speaking up for those that they were held in captivity with, who don't have a voice at the moment.  And so it's been really incredible and emotional to have advocated, let's say, for somebody like the return of Keith Siegel or Doron Steinbrecher. And now we have joined them in going to the Hill, into these meetings, advocating for the return of every single hostage, and that's been really incredible.  But I think the most important thing here is that these conversations have continued. And keeping this issue at the forefront of everybody's minds. The American public, government officials, foreign officials, community leaders, ensuring that the hostages have not been forgotten has been our top priority here, and ensuring that this remains a foreign policy priority for the US government in particular.  And clearly it has paid off, because these hostages have been able to continue to tell their story, and we are where we are today, and hopefully this progress will continue. But it's been really incredible to see this, especially in the past couple months, as those who have been returned or released have now come to Washington, DC as well and are able to do this type of advocacy.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  You mentioned Keith Siegel, one of the American-Israeli hostages, who was released earlier this year. They've been able to talk about their experiences, former hostages have been able to talk about their experiences in captivity and share that with President Trump in a way that their loved ones who were advocating for their release could not. What have they revealed about their experience that their loved ones could not possibly have known? Jessica Bernton:  You know, I think it's one thing to read articles or, you know, hear about what happened to them, and then it's another thing to hear it firsthand. And I think hearing about the brutality and the heartbreak and everything that they suffered, as well as what they've shared publicly about who they were held with and the information that they've been able to also offer to families and hope that they've been able to give to the families who don't know the status of their loved one.  Again, it's one thing to read an article and it's another to be sitting in a room listening to these incredibly powerful, emotional, and moving stories. And I think, you know, having them be able to share this has been incredibly important, and I think very impactful. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Is there a particular story or experience that stands out in your mind, that perhaps someone shared with you first intimately, before they shared it publicly? One that really stands out. Jessica Bernton:  I think I'll share a little bit about Ilana Gritzewsky, because we've hosted her for delegations, and our CEO, Ted Deutch joined with her at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, on the second anniversary of the October 7 attacks. And she was also on Capitol Hill earlier this year, testifying at the House Foreign Affairs Committee at a bipartisan round table there. And she was brutally kidnapped alongside her partner, Matan Zangauker, who's still being held captive.  And the words that have stuck with me about Ilana, and also sort of you know the story with her partner, Matan, is that she said she cannot heal until everyone has returned home, and the rest of the hostages who have come home also cannot heal until every single person has been returned. And I think that is something that we've heard time and time again, this process, you know, in order for them to grieve, to heal, to process. I don't think there will ever be getting back to a normal life, but as much as they can, it will begin once everybody is returned home. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Former hostages, families of hostages have met with President Trump. He's welcomed them into the Oval Office. It seems like President Trump has made this a personal mission of his to get the hostages home. Perhaps that's why we've finally seen success and a deal made. Why do you think that might be the case? What moved the needle finally? Jessica Bernton:  Yeah, I mean, I think since before he was President, he has made it clear that this is a priority, and he has instructed his team to work on this issue day in and day out, and to have this access to a president like this is very notable. And we've seen these incredibly powerful images of released hostages, returned hostages, and also family members of those who are still captive meeting in the Oval Office.  And one can only assume that this has to be a priority for the President here, he's shown his seriousness. And again, we've now ended up with this current deal, which hopefully can be seen to fruition and can be implemented all the way. But it does seem like this has taken on greater importance as the months have gone on this past year, and it's truly incredible. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Any final thoughts, Jessica, as we wait to see the hostages actually return and the various components of this deal come to fruition? Jessica Bernton:  Yeah, I think you know, again, going back to this cautious optimism, I saw a video posted online where there's several returned hostages and released hostages, as well as family members who are in town this week, they've been in town for the second anniversary, and have been doing different meetings and events this week in Washington, DC. And they were on the phone with the President last night, you know, expressing their gratitude. And I think again, that's a powerful symbol here.  But going back to your initial question, and, is it too early to celebrate? We need to be cautiously optimistic and keep the pressure on, and hopefully we really can be celebrating on Monday, if that's when everyone is returned. But AJC will not stop until everybody, every single hostage, has been returned, and that's when we will truly celebrate here. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Thank you so much, Jessica. Really appreciate you joining us, and may we see all of this materialize in the days to come.  Jessica Bernton:  Absolutely thank you, Manya.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  Prior to the High Holidays, we brought you five episodes of our limited podcast series, architects of peace, the story of the Abraham accords. Our final episode deals with the challenges presented by the Israel-Hamas war.  As we approach a potential end to that war, we are pressing pause on that episode to make sure we include any significant developments. Until then, People of the Pod will resume its regular weekly interviews. Stay tuned for the final episode of Architects of Peace.
    --------  
    11:15
  • Architects of Peace: Episode 5 - Accords of Tomorrow
    On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, AJC hosted a conversation with Jason Greenblatt, a key architect of the Abraham Accords, and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro. They discussed the challenges threatening regional stability, from unilateral moves on Palestinian statehood to political pressures within Israel, and underscored what's at stake—and what it will take—to expand the Abraham Accords and advance peace. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.  Episode lineup: Dan Shapiro (1:00) Jason Greenblatt (18:05) Full transcript: https://www.ajc.org/news/podcast/accords-of-tomorrow-architects-of-peace-episode-5 Resources: AJC.org/ArchitectsofPeace - Tune in weekly for new episodes. AJC.org/AbrahamAccords - The Abraham Accords, Explained AJC.org/CNME - Find more on AJC's Center for a New Middle East Listen – AJC Podcasts: AJC.org/ForgottenExodus AJC.org/PeopleofthePod Follow Architects of Peace on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/ArchitectsofPeace 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: Manya Brachear Pashman: In September 2020, the world saw what had been years – decades – in the making: landmark peace agreements dubbed the Abraham Accords – normalizing relations between Israel and two Arabian Gulf states, the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Bahrain. Later, in December, they were joined by the Kingdom of Morocco. Five years later, AJC is pulling back the curtain to meet key individuals who built the trust that led to these breakthroughs and turning the spotlight on some of the results. Introducing the Architects of Peace. On the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in September, American Jewish Committee hosted conversations with former Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt, a key architect of the Abraham Accords, and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro:. Both diplomats discussed the dangers threatening peace in the region, including some countries' unilateral calls for Palestinian statehood. They shared what's at stake and what it will take to expand the Abraham Accords and make progress toward peace in the region. We're including those conversations as part of our series.  AJC's Chief Strategy and Communications Officer Belle Yoeli starts us off with Ambassador Shapiro. Belle Yoeli:  Ambassador Shapiro, thank you so much for being with us. We're going to speak primarily about unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood, but I, of course, want to ask you a couple of questions, because you have so much to share with us before we dive in.  First and foremost, as we've said, It's been almost two years, and at AJC, we're all about optimism and playing the long game, as you know, but it does feel like the challenges for the Jewish community and the state of Israel continue to build. And of course, the war looms very large. What is your analysis of the geopolitical horizon for the war in Gaza. Dan Shapiro:  First, thanks for having me. Thank you to American Jewish Committee and to Ted and everybody for all you do. Thank you, Ruby [Chen], and the families, for the fellowship that we can share with you in this goal. I'll just say it very simply, this war needs to end. The hostages need to come home. Hamas needs to be removed from power. And aid needs to surge into Gaza and move forward with a reconstruction of Gaza for Palestinians who prepare to live in peace with Israel. This is something that is overdue and needs to happen. I think there have been a number of missed opportunities along the way. I don't say this in a partisan way. I think President Trump has missed opportunities at the end of the first ceasefire, when the first ceasefire was allowed to expire after the Iran strike, something I strongly supported and felt was exactly the right thing to do. There was an opening to create a narrative to end the war. I think there have been other missed opportunities. And I don't say in a partisan way, because the administration I served in, the Biden administration, we made mistakes and we missed opportunities. So it can be shared. that responsibility.  But what I do think is that there is a new opportunity right now, and we saw it in President Trump's meeting with Arab leaders. It's going to take very significant, deft, and sustained diplomatic effort. He's got a good team, and they need to do the follow through now to hold the Arabs to their commitments on ensuring Hamas is removed from power, on ensuring that there's a security arrangement in Gaza that does not leave Israel vulnerable to any possibility of a renewal of hostilities against it. And of course, to get the hostages released. That's pressure on the Arabs. And of course, he's got a meeting coming up with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I do think he's going to need to lean on Prime Minister Netanyahu to overcome the resistance that he has to deal with in his cabinet, from those who want to continue the war or who those who rule out any role of any kind for the Palestinian Authority in something that will follow in the day after in Gaza.  So there is a real opportunity here. Once the war is over, then we have an opportunity to get back on the road that we were on. Two years ago at this UN General Assembly, I was serving as the Biden administration's Senior Advisor on regional integration, the first State Department position to hold that, trying to follow through on the excellent work that Jason Greenblatt and Jared Kushner and, of course, President Trump did in the first term in achieving the Abraham Accords. And we were building out the Negev Forum. And in fact, at that UNGA meeting, we had planned the next ministerial meeting of the Negev Forum. It was to take place October 19 in Marrakesh. Obviously, no one ever heard about that summit. It didn't happen. But getting back on the road to strengthening and expanding the Abraham Accords, to getting Saudi Arabia to the table as a country that will normalize relations with Israel, to expanding regional forums like the Negev Forum. Those are all still within reach, but none of them are possible until the war ends, till the hostages are home, till Hamas is removed from power.  Belle Yoeli:  Absolutely. And we look forward to talking more about the day after, in our next segment, in a segment coming up. Ambassador, you just got back from Israel. Can you tell us about your experience, the mood, what's the climate like in Israel? And any insights from your meetings and time that you think should be top of mind for us? Dan Shapiro:  I think what was top of mind for almost every Israeli I spoke to was the hostages. I spent time in the hostage square in Tel Aviv, spent time with Ruby, spent time with other hostage families, and everywhere you go as everybody who spin their nose, you see the signs, you hear the anxiety. And it's getting deeper because of the time that people are worried is slipping away for, especially for those who are still alive, but for all of those hostages to be returned to their families, so deep, deep anxiety about it, and candidly, some anger, I think we just heard a little bit of it toward a government that they're not sure shares that as the highest priority. There's a lot of exhaustion. People are tired of multiple rounds of reserve duty, hundreds of days. Families stressed by that as well the concern that this could drag on with the new operation well into next year. It's allowed to continue. It's a lot of worry about Israel's increased isolation, and of course, that's part of the subject. We'll discuss how countries who have been friends of Israel, whether in the region or in Europe or elsewhere, are responding in more and more negative ways, and Israel, and all Israelis, even in their personal lives, are feeling that pinch. But there's also some, I guess, expectant hope that President Trump, who is popular in Israel, of course, will use his influence and his regional standing, which is quite significant, to put these pieces together. Maybe we're seeing that happening this week. And of course, there's some expectant hope, or at least expectant mood, about an election next year, which will bring about some kind of political change in Israel. No one knows exactly what that will look like, but people are getting ready for that. So Israelis are relentlessly forward, looking even in the depths of some degree of anxiety and despair, and so I was able to feel those glimmers as well. Belle Yoeli:  And relentlessly resilient, absolutely resilient. And we know that inspires us. Moving back to the piece on diplomatic isolation and the main piece of our conversation, obviously, at AJC, we've been intensely focused on many of the aspects that are concerning us, in terms of unfair treatment of countries towards Israel, but unilateral recognition of Palestinian state is probably the most concerning issue that we've been dealing with this week, and obviously has gotten a lot of attention in the media. So from your perspective, what is this really all about? Obviously, this, this has been on the table for a while. It's not the first time that countries have threatened to do this, but I think it is the first time we're time we're seeing France and other major countries now pushing this forward in this moment. Is this all about political pressure on Israel? Dan Shapiro:  Well, first, I'll say that I think it's a mistake. I think it's an ill advised set of initiatives by France, by Canada, Australia, UK and others. It will change almost it will change nothing on the ground. And so to that sense, it's a purely rhetorical step that changes nothing, and probably does little, if anything, to advance toward the stated goal of some sort of resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. And in many ways, it may actually set it back in part because of the way it appears to and certainly many Israelis understand it too. And I'm sorry to say, many Arabs understand it to reward Hamas. Hamas is celebrating it as an achievement of October 7, and that October 7 will find its place in the pantheon of the Palestinian Liberation story that should never be allowed to happen. So doing it this way, doing it without conditioning it on the release of hostages, on the disarming and removal of Hamas from Gaza, is a mistake. And of course, it tells Israelis that their very legitimate concerns about obviously the hostages, but also that some future Palestinian state, wherever and whatever form it might take, could become a threat to them from other parts, from parts of the West Bank, as it was from Gaza on October 7. And you cannot get to that goal unless you're willing to engage the Israeli public on those concerns, very legitimate concerns, and address them in a very forthright way.  So I think it's a mistake. I'm sure, to some degree, others have made this observation. It is motivated by some of the domestic political pressures that these leaders feel from their different constituencies, maybe their left, left wing constituencies, some right wing constituencies, and some immigrant constituencies. And so maybe they're responding to that. And I think that's, you know, leaders deal with those types of things. I think sometimes they make bad decisions in dealing with those types of pressures. I think that's the case here, but I it's also the case. I think it's just fair to say that in the absence of any Israeli Government articulated viable day after, plan for Gaza, something we were urged Israel to work with us on all the time. I was serving in the Biden administration, and I think the Trump administration has as well, but it's remained blurry. What does what is that vision of the day after? Not only when does it start, but what does it look like afterwards? And is it something that Arab States and European states can buy into and get behind and and put their influence to work to get Hamas out and to do a rebuild that meets the needs of both Israelis and Palestinians. There hasn't been that. And so that could have been a way of satisfying some of those domestic pressures, but it wasn't really available. And so I think some of the leaders turn to this ill advised move instead. Belle Yoeli:  So perhaps catering to domestic political concerns and wanting to take some sort of moral high ground on keeping peace alive, but beyond that, no real, practical or helpful outcomes, aside from setting back the cause of peace? Dan Shapiro:  I think it has limited practical effects. Fact, I think it does tell Israelis that much of the world has not internalized their legitimate concerns, and that they will be, you know, cautious at best for this. Everybody knows that there are many Israelis who have been long standing supporters of some kind of two state resolution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. And post October 7, they've, they don't still hold that position, or at least they say, if it can happen, it's going to take a long time, it's going to look very different. And I think that actually is some a real practical takeaway, that if we are going to talk about some future establishment of a Palestinian state and some two state arrangement, certainly separation between Israelis and Palestinians, so they don't try to live intermixed in a way that they govern each other. I think that is that is desirable, but it's not necessarily going to look like two state outcomes that were envisioned in the Oslo period, in the 90s and the 2000s it's going to look different. It's going to take longer. And so that is something that I think we have to make sure is understood as people raise this initiative, that their goal is not the goal of 1993 it's going to have to look different, and it's going to have to take longer. Belle Yoeli:  So as more and more countries have sort of joined this, this move that we find to be unhelpful, obviously, a concern that we all have who are engaged in this work is that we've heard response, perhaps, from the Israelis, that there could be potential annexation of the West Bank, and that leads to this sort of very, very, even more concerning scenario that all of the work that you were discussing before, around the Abraham Accords, could freeze, or, perhaps even worse, collapse. What's your analysis on that scenario? How concerned should we be based on everything that you know now and if not that scenario? What else should we be thinking about? Dan Shapiro:  We should be concerned. I was actually in Israel, when the UAE issued their announcement about four weeks ago that annexation in the West Wing could be a red line, and I talked to a very senior UAE official and tried to understand what that means, and they aren't, weren't prepared to or say precisely what it means. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to break off relations or end the Abraham Accords, but that they would have to respond, and there's a limited range of options for how one could respond, with moving ambassadors or limiting flights or reducing certain kinds of trade or other visits. Nothing good, nothing that would help propel forward the Abraham accords and that particular critical bilateral relationship in a way that we wanted to so I think there's risk. I think if the UAE would take that step, others would probably take similar steps. Egypt and Jordan have suggested there would be steps. So I think there's real risk there, and I think it's something that we should be concerned about, and we should counsel our Israeli friends not to go that route. There are other ways that they may respond. In fact, I think we've already seen the Trump administration, maybe as a proxy, make some kind of moves that try to balance the scales of these unilateral recognitions. But that particular one, with all of the weight that it carries about what how it limits options for future endpoints, I think would be very, very damaging. And I don't think I'm the only one. Just in the last hour and a half or so, President Trump, sitting in the Oval Office, said very publicly that he, I think you said, would not allow Netanyahu to do the Analyze annexation of the West Bank. I think previously, it was said by various people in the administration that it's really an Israeli decision, and that the United States is not going to tell them what to do. And that's perfectly fine as a public position, and maybe privately, you can say very clearly what you think is the right course, he's now said it very publicly. We'll see if he holds to that position. But he said it, and I think given the conversations he was having with Arab leaders earlier this week, given the meeting, he will have his fourth meeting. So it's obviously a very rich relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu on Monday, I think it's clear what he believes is necessary to get to the end of this war and not leave us in a worse position for trying to get back on the road to his goals. His goals of expanding the Abraham accords his great achievement from the first term, getting Saudi Arabia to normalize relations, of course, getting hostages released and getting Arabs involved in the reconstruction of Gaza in a way that Gaza can never become the threat it was again on October 7, those are his goals. They'll be well served by the end of the war that I described earlier, and by avoiding this cycle that you're referencing. Belle Yoeli:  Putting aside the issue of unilateral recognition, I think we've seen in our work with our Israeli counterparts, sort of differences in the political establish. Around how important it is in thinking about the day after and seeing movement on the Palestinian issue. And we've seen from some that they perhaps make it out that it's not as important that the Palestinian having movement towards a political path. It's not necessarily a have to be front and center, while others seem to prioritize it. And I think in our work with Arab countries, it's very clear that there does have to be some tangible movement towards the political aspirations for the Palestinian for there to really be any future progress beyond the Abraham accords. What's your take? Dan Shapiro:  My take is that the Arab states have often had a kind of schizophrenic view about the Palestinian issue. It's not always been, maybe rarely been their highest priority. They've certainly had a lot of disagreements with and maybe negative assessments of Palestinian leaders, of course, Hamas, but even Palestinian Authority leaders. And so, you know, it's possible to ask the question, or it has been over time, you know, how high do they prioritize? It? Certainly those countries that stepped forward to join the Abraham accords said they were not going to let that issue prevent them from advancing their own interests by establishing these productive bilateral relations with Israel, having said that there's no question that Arab publics have been deeply, deeply affected by the war in Gaza, by the coverage they see they unfortunately, know very little about what happened on October 7, and they know a lot about Israeli strikes in Gaza, civilian casualties, humanitarian aid challenges, and so that affects public moods. Even in non democratic countries, leaders are attentive to the views of their publics, and so I think this is important to them. And every conversation that I took part in, and I know my colleagues in the Biden administration with Arab states about those day after arrangements that we wanted them to participate in, Arab security forces, trainers of Palestinian civil servants, reconstruction funding and so forth. They made very clear there were two things they were looking for. They were looking for a role for the Palestinian Authority, certainly with room to negotiate exactly what that role would be, but some foothold for the Palestinian Authority and improving and reforming Palestinian Authority, but to have them be connected to that day after arrangement in Gaza and a declared goal of some kind of Palestinian state in the future.  I think there was a lot of room in my experience, and I think it's probably still the case for flexibility on the timing, on the dimensions, on some of the characteristics of that outcome. And I think a lot of realism among some of these Arab leaders that we're not talking about tomorrow, and we're not talking about something that might have been imagined 20 or 30 years ago, but they still hold very clearly to those two positions as essentially conditions for their involvement in getting to getting this in. So I think we have to take it seriously. It sounds like President Trump heard that in his meeting with the Arab leaders on Tuesday. It sounds like he's taking it very seriously. Belle Yoeli:  I could ask many more questions, but I would get in trouble, and you've given us a lot to think about in a very short amount of time. Ambassador Shapiro, thank you so much for being with us. Dan Shapiro:  Thank you. Thank you everybody.  Manya Brachear Pashman: As you heard, Ambassador Shapiro served under President Obama. Now AJC's Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson speaks with Jason Greenblatt, who served under President Trump. But don't expect a counterpoint. Despite their political differences, these two men see eye to eye on quite a bit. Jason Isaacson: Jason first, thank you for the Abraham Accords. The work that you did changed the history of the Middle East. We are so full of admiration for the work of you and your team. Jared Kushner. Of course, President Trump, in changing the realities for Israel's relationship across the region and opening the door to the full integration of Israel across the region.  It's an unfinished work, but the work that you pioneered with the President, with Jared, with the whole team, has changed the perspective that Israel can now enjoy as it looks beyond the immediate borders, Jordan and Egypt, which has had relations with a quarter a century or more, to full integration in the region. And it's thanks to you that we actually are at this point today, even with all the challenges. So first, let me just begin this conversation by just thanking you for what you've done.  Jason Greenblatt: Thank you. Thank you, and Shana Tova to everybody, thank you for all that you do. Jason Isaacson: Thank you. So you were intimately involved in negotiations to reach normalization agreements between Israel and the Kingdom of Morocco, the Kingdom of Bahrain, of course, the United Arab Emirates. Can you take us behind the scenes of these negotiations? At what point during the first term of President Trump did this become a priority for the administration, and when did it seem that it might actually be a real possibility? Jason Greenblatt: So I have the benefit, of course, of looking backward, right? We didn't start out to create the Abraham Accords. We started out to create peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which, as Dan knows, and so many people here know, including you Jason, seems to be an impossible task. But I would say that if I follow the breadcrumbs, my first meeting with Yousef Al Otaiba was a lunch, where it was the first time I actually ever met an Emirati, the first time I understood the psychology of the Emiratis. And others. I realized that the world had changed tremendously.  Everything that you heard about anti-Israel wasn't part of the conversation. I'll go so far as to say, when I went to the Arab League Summit that took place in Jordan in March of 2017 where I met every foreign minister. And I'm not going to tell you that I loved many of those meetings, or 85% of the conversation, where it wasn't exactly excited about Israel and what Israel stood for. There were so many things in those conversations that were said that gave me hope.  So it was multiple years of being in the White House and constantly trying to work toward that. But I want to go backwards for a second, and you touched on this in your speech, there are many parents and grandparents of the Abraham Accords, and AJC is one of those parents or grandparents. There are many people who work behind the scenes, Israeli diplomats and so many others. And I'm sure the Kingdom of Morocco, where the architecture was built for something like the Abraham Accords, everybody wanted regional peace and talked about Middle East peace. But we were fortunate, unfortunately for the Palestinians who left the table, which was a big mistake, I think, on their part, we're very fortunate to take all of that energy and all of that hard work and through a unique president, President Trump, actually create that architecture.  On a sad note, I wouldn't say that when I left the White House, I thought I'd be sitting here thinking, you know, five years out, I thought there'd be lots of countries that would already have signed and all the trips that I take to the Middle East, I thought would be much. Now they're easy for me, but we're in a very, very different place right now. I don't think I ever would have envisioned that. Jason Isaacson: Thank you. The administration has talked a great deal about expanding the Abraham Accords, of course, and as have we. Indeed, at an AJC program that we had in Washington in February with Special Envoy Steven Witkoff, he talked publicly for the first time about Lebanon and Syria joining the Accords. Obviously, with both of those countries, their new political situation presents new possibilities.  However, the ongoing war in Gaza, as we've been discussing with Ambassador Shapiro, and Israel's actions, including most recently striking Hamas in Doha, have further isolated Israel in the region and made an expansion of the accords harder to envision. At least, that's the way it seems. Given the current situation in the Middle East. Do you think the Trump administration can be successful in trying to broker new agreements, or do the current politics render that impossible in the short term? How hopeful are you? Jason Greenblatt: So I remain hopeful. First of all, I think that President Trump is a unique president because he's extremely close to the Israeli side, and he's very close to the Arab side. And he happens to have grandchildren who are both, right. I think, despite this terrible time that we're facing, despite hostage families, I mean, the terrible things that they have to live through and their loved ones are living it through right now, I still have hope. There's no conversation that I have in the Arab world that still doesn't want to see how those Abraham Accords can be expanded. Dan, you mentioned the Arab media. It's true, the Arab world has completely lost it when it comes to Israel, they don't see what I see, what I'm sure all of you see.  I'm no fan of Al Jazeera, but I will say that there are newspapers that I write for, like Arab News. And when I leave the breakfast room in a hotel in Riyadh and I look at the headlines of, not Al Jazeera, but even Arab News, I would say, Wow, what these people are listening to and reading, what they must think of us. And we're seeing it now play out on the world stage. But despite all that, and I take my kids to the Middle East all the time, we have dear friends in all of those countries, including very high level people. I've gotten some great Shana Tovas from very high level people. They want the future that was created by the Abraham Accords. How we get there at this particular moment is a big question mark. Jason Isaacson: So we touched on this a little bit in the earlier conversation with Dan Shapiro:. Your team during the first Trump administration was able to defer an Israeli proposal to annex a portion of the West Bank, thanks to obviously, the oped written by Ambassador Al Otaiba, and the very clear position that that government took, that Israel basically had a choice, normalization with the UAE or annexation. Once again, there is discussion now in Israel about annexation. Now the President, as Ambassador Shapiro just said, made a very dramatic statement just a couple of hours ago. How do you see this playing out? Do you think that annexation is really off the table now? And if it were not off the table, would it prevent the continuation of the agreements that were reached in 2020 and the expansion of those agreements to a wider integration of Israel in the region? Jason Greenblatt: To answer that, I think for those of you who are in the room, who don't know me well, you should understand my answer is coming from somebody who is on the right of politics, both in Israel and here. In fact, some of my Palestinian friends would say that sometimes I was Bibi's mouthpiece. But I agree with President Trump and what he said earlier today that Dan had pointed out, I don't think this is the time. I don't think it's the place. And I was part of the team that wrote the paperwork that would have allowed Israel to . . . you use the word annexation. I'll say, apply Israeli sovereignty. You'll use the word West Bank, I'll use Judea, Samaria.  Whatever the label is, it really doesn't matter. I don't think this is the time to do it. I think Israel has so many challenges right now, militarily, hostages, there's a million things going on, and the world has turned against Israel. I don't agree with those that are pushing Bibi. I don't know if it's Bibi himself, but I hope that Bibi could figure out a way to get out of that political space that he's in. And I think President Trump is making the right call. Jason Isaacson: So, I was speaking with Emirati diplomats a couple of days ago, who were giving me the sense that Israel hasn't gotten the message that the Palestinian issue is really important to Arab leaders. And we talked about this with Ambassador Shapiro earlier, that it's not just a rhetorical position adopted by Arab leaders. It actually is the genuine view of these Arab governments. Is that your sense as well that there needs to be something on the Palestinian front in order to advance the Abraham Accords, beyond the countries that we've established five years ago? Jason Greenblatt: You know, when I listened to Dan speak, and I told him this after his remarks, I'm always reminded that even though we disagree around the edges on certain things, if you did a Venn diagram, there would be a lot of overlap. I agree with how he sees the world. But I want to take it even back to when I was in the White House.  There are many times people said, Oh, the Arabs don't care about the Palestinians. They don't care. We could just do whatever we want. It's not true. They may care more about their own countries, right? They all have their visions, and it's important to them to advance their own visions. The Palestinian cause may not have been as important, but there is no way that they were going to abandon the Palestinians back then, and I don't think the UAE or the Kingdom of Morocco or others having entered into the Abraham Accords, abandoned the Palestinians. I think that was the wrong way to look at it, but they are certainly not going to abandon the Palestinians now. And I think that how Dan described it, which is there has to be some sort of game plan going forward. Whether you want to call it a state, which, I don't like that word, but we can't continue to live like this. I'm a grandfather now of three. I don't want my grandchildren fighting this fight. I really don't. Is there a solution?  Okay, there's a lot of space between what I said and reality, and I recognize that, but it's incumbent on all of us to keep trying to figure out, is there that solution? And it's going to include the Palestinians. I just want to close my answer with one thing that might seem odd to everybody. I'm not prone to quoting Saeb Erekat, who I disagreed with, the late Saeb Erekat, who I disagreed with just about on everything, but he used to tell me, Jason, the answer isn't in the Koran, it's not in the Torah, it's not in the Christian Bible, and the Israelis and the Palestinians are not leaving the space. So let's figure out a solution that we could all live with. So that's how I see it. Jason Isaacson: Thank you for that. One last question. I also heard in another conversation with other em righty diplomats the other day that the conflict isn't between Arabs and Israelis or Arabs and Jews, it's between moderates and extremists, and that the UAE is on the side of the moderates, and Morocco is on the side of the moderates, and the Kingdom of Bahrain is on the side of the moderates, and Israel is on the side of the moderates. And that's what we have to keep in our minds.   But let me also ask you something that we've been saying for 30 years across the region, which is, if you believe in the Palestinian cause, believe in rights for the Palestinians, you will advance that cause by engaging Israel, not by isolating Israel. Is that also part of the argument that your administration used five years ago? Jason Greenblatt: 100%. I think, I mean, I kept pushing for it and eventually they did it, for the Israelis and the Arabs to engage directly. Yes, the US plays a role, and they could play a moderating role. They could play somewhat of a coercive role. Nobody's going to force the Israelis, or frankly, even the Palestinians, to do anything they don't want to do, but getting them in the room so there are no missed signals, no missed expectations, I think, is the key part of this solution. I'm still hopeful, just to go back to your prior question, that they could get the right people in the room and somebody like President Trump, together with Emirati diplomats, Moroccan diplomats and others. They could talk rationally, and sanely, and appropriately, and we'll get somewhere good. Jason Isaacson: Ok, look ahead. We just marked the fifth anniversary of the Abraham Accords. Will there be a 10th Anniversary of the Abraham Accords, and will it look the same that it is now? Jason Greenblatt: No, I think it's going to be better. Yes, I think there's going to be a 10th Anniversary. I think there will be challenges. But maybe the best way I could answer this is, when the, I'll call it, the beeper incident in Lebanon happened. Okay, quite, quite a feat. I was in a conference room at a client of mine in the Middle East. Most of the room was filled with Lebanese Arabs, Christians and Muslims and some Druze. And it was unusual for everybody's phone to buzz at once, because I'm usually following the Israeli and American news. They're following Arab news. All the phones buzz. So somebody stopped talking, and we all picked up our phone to look at it. And I'm looking at the headlines thinking, oh, boy, am I in the wrong room, right?  And after a minute or so of people kind of catching their breath, understanding what happened, two or three of them said, wow, Jason. Like, that's incredible. Like, you know, I wasn't in the White House anymore, but they also want a different future, right? They are sick and tired of Lebanon being a failed state. Their kids are like my kids, and they're just . . . they're everything that they're building is for a different future, and I see that time and time again. So to go back to the UAE diplomats comment, which I hear all the time as well. It really is a fight of moderates against extremists. The extremists are loud and they're very bad. We know that, but we are so much better. So working together, I think we're going to get to somewhere great. Jason Isaacson: Very good. Okay. Final question. You can applaud, it's okay. Thank you for that. Out of the Abraham Accords have grown some regional cooperation agreements. I too, you too, IMEC, the India, Middle East, Europe, Economic corridor. Do you see that also, as part of the future, the creation of these other regional agreements, perhaps bringing in Japan and Korea and and other parts of the world into kind of expanding the Abraham Accords? In ways that are beneficial to many countries and also, at the same time, deepening the notion of Israelis, Israel's integration in the region. Jason Greenblatt: 100% and I know I think AJC has been very active on the IMEC front. People used to say, Oh, this is not an economic peace. It isn't an economic peace, but nor is economics not a very important part of peace. So all of these agreements, I encourage you to keep working toward them, because they will be needed. In fact, one of the fights that I used to have with Saeb Erekat and President Abbas all the time is, I know you're not an economic issue, but let's say we manage to make peace. What's going to happen the next day? You need an economic plan. Let's work on the economic plan. So whether it's IMEC or something else, just keep working at it. Go, you know, ignore the bad noise. The bad noise is here for a little while, unfortunately, but there will be a day after, and those economic agreements are what's going to be the glue that propels it forward. Jason Isaacson: Jason Greenblatt, really an honor to be with you again. Thank you.  Manya Brachear Pashman: In our next episode of the series, we will explore more of the opportunities and challenges presented by the Abraham Accords and who might be the next country to sign the landmark peace agreement.  Atara Lakritz is our producer. T.K. Broderick is our sound engineer. Special thanks to Jason Isaacson, Sean Savage, and the entire AJC team for making this series possible.  You can subscribe to Architects of Peace on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and you can learn more at AJC.org/ArchitectsofPeace. The views and opinions of our guests don't necessarily reflect the positions of AJC. You can reach us at [email protected]. If you've enjoyed this episode, please be sure to spread the word, and hop onto Apple Podcasts or Spotify to rate us and write a review to help more listeners find us. Music Credits: Middle East : ID: 279780040; Composer: Eric Sutherland Inspired Middle East: ID: 241884108; Composer: iCENTURY Mystical Middle East: ID: 212471911; Composer: Vicher
    --------  
    33:47

Más podcasts de Noticias

Acerca de People of the Pod

People of the Pod is an award-winning weekly podcast analyzing global affairs through a Jewish lens, brought to you by American Jewish Committee. Host Manya Brachear Pashman examines current events, the people driving them, and what it all means for America, Israel, and the Jewish people.
Sitio web del podcast

Escucha People of the Pod, Es la Mañana de Federico y muchos más podcasts de todo el mundo con la aplicación de radio.es

Descarga la app gratuita: radio.es

  • Añadir radios y podcasts a favoritos
  • Transmisión por Wi-Fi y Bluetooth
  • Carplay & Android Auto compatible
  • Muchas otras funciones de la app

People of the Pod: Podcasts del grupo

Aplicaciones
Redes sociales
v7.23.11 | © 2007-2025 radio.de GmbH
Generated: 11/7/2025 - 10:07:13 AM