People of the Pod

• War and Poetry: Owen Lewis on Being a Jewish Poet in a Time of Crisis

  “The Jewish voice must be heard, not because it's more right or less right, but it's there. The suffering is there, the grief is there, and human grief is human grief.” As Jews around the world mark Tisha B’Av, we’re joined by Columbia University professor and award-winning poet Owen Lewis, whose new collection, “A Prayer of Six Wings,” offers a powerful reflection on grief in the aftermath of October 7th. In this conversation, Lewis explores the healing power of poetry in the face of trauma, what it means to be a Jewish professor in today’s campus climate, and how poetry can foster empathy, encourage dialogue, and resist the pull of division. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.   Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  An Orange Tie and A Grieving Crowd: Comedian Yohay Sponder on Jewish Resilience From Broadway to Jewish Advocacy: Jonah Platt on Identity, Antisemitism, and Israel Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War: The Dinah Project’s Quest to Hold Hamas Accountable 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:   Owen Lewis:   Overheard in a New York Restaurant.   I can't talk about Israel tonight.    I know.    I can't not talk about Israel tonight.    I know.    Can we talk about . . .   Here? Sure. Let's try to talk about here.   Manya Brachear Pashman:   On Saturday night, Jews around the world will commemorate Tisha B'av. Known as the saddest day on the Jewish calendar, the culmination of a three week period of mourning to commemorate several tragedies throughout early Jewish history.  As a list of tragedies throughout modern Jewish history has continued to grow, many people spend this day fasting, listening to the book of Lamentations in synagogue, or visiting the graves of loved ones. Some might spend the day reading poetry.  Owen Lewis is a Professor of Psychiatry in the Department of Medical Humanities and Ethics at Columbia University. But he's also the award-winning author of four poetry collections which have won accolades, including the EE Cummings Prize and the Rumi Prize for Poetry.  His most recent collection, A Prayer of Six Wings documents in verse his grief since the October 7 terror attacks. Owen is with us now to talk about the role of poetry in times of violence and war, what it's been like to be a Jewish professor on the Columbia campus, and a Jewish father with children and grandchildren in Israel. And also, how to keep writing amid a climate of rising antisemitism. Owen, welcome to People of the Pod. Owen Lewis:   Thank you so much, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So you opened with that short poem titled overheard in a New York restaurant. I asked you to read that because I wanted to ask whether it reflected how you felt about poetry after October 7.  Did you find yourself in a place where you couldn't write about Israel, but yet you couldn't not write about Israel? Owen Lewis:   Among the many difficult things of that First Year, not only the war, not only the flagrant attacks on the posters of the hostages one block from where I live, 79th and Broadway, every day, taken down every day, put back up again, defaced. It was as if the war were being fought right here on 79th and Broadway.  Another aspect that made this all so painful was watching the artistic and literary world turn against Israel. This past spring, 2000 writers and artists signed a petition, it was published, there was an oped about it in The Times, boycotting Israeli cultural institutions.  And I thought: artists don't have a right to shut their ears. We all need to listen to each other's grief, and if we poets and artists can't listen to one another, what do we expect of statesmen? Statesmen, yeah, they can create a ceasefire. That's not the same as creating peace. And peace can only come when we really listen to each other. To feel ostracized by the poetry community and the intellectual community was very painful. Fortunately, last summer, as well as this past summer, I was a fellow at the Yetzirah conference. Yetzirah is an organization of Jewish American poets, although we're starting to branch out. And this kind of in-gathering of like-minded people gave me so much strength.  So this dilemma, I can't talk about it, because we just can't take the trauma. We can't take hearing one more thing about it, but not talk about it…it's a compulsion to talk about it, and that's a way to process trauma. And that was the same with this poetry, this particular book.  I feel in many ways, it just kind of blew through me, and it was at the same time it blew through me, created this container in which I could express myself, and it actually held me together for that year. I mean, still, in many ways, the writing does that, but not as immediately and acutely as I felt that year.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   This book has been praised as not being for the ideological but for the intellectually and emotionally engaged. So it's not it's not something that ideologically minded readers will necessarily be able to connect to, or is it actually quite the opposite?  Owen Lewis:  Well, it's very much written from the gut, from the experience, from in a sense, being on the ground, both in Israel and here in New York and on campus, and trying to keep a presence in the world of poetry and writers. So what comes from emotion should speak to emotion. There are a few wisps of political statements, but it's not essentially a politically motivated piece of writing.  I feel that I have no problem keeping my sympathies with Israel and with Jews. I can still be critical of aspects of the government, and my sympathies can also be with the thousands of Palestinians, killed, hurt, displaced. I don't see a contradiction. I don't have to take sides.  But the first poem is called My Partisan Grief, and it begins on October 7. I was originally going to call the bookMy Partisan Grief, because I felt that American, Jewish, and Israeli grief was being silenced, was being marginalized. And I wanted to say, this is our grief. Listen to it. You must listen to this. It doesn't privilege this grief over another grief. Grief is grief. But I wanted ultimately to move past that title into something broader, more encompassing, more humanitarian. Manya Brachear Pashman:  And did that decision come as the death toll in Gaza rose and this war kept going and going and the hostages remained in captivity, did that kind of sway your thinking in terms of how to approach the book and frame it?  Owen Lewis:  Yes, but even more than those kind of headlines, which can be impersonal, the poetry of some remarkable Palestinian poets move me into a broader look. Abu Toha was first one who comes to mind Fady Joudah, who's also a physician, by the way. I mean his poetry, I mean many others, but it's gorgeous, moving poetry.  Some of it is a diatribe, and you know, some of it is ideological, and people can do that with poetry, but when poetry really drills down into human experience, that's what I find so compelling and moving. And that's what I think can move the peace process. I know it sounds quite idealistic, but I really think poetry has a role in the peace process here. Manya Brachear Pashman:  I want to I want to unpack that a little bit later. But first, I want to go back to the protests that were roiling Columbia's campus over the past year and a half, two years. What was it like to be, one, writing this book, but also, teaching on campus as a Jewish professor?  Owen Lewis:  Most of my teaching takes place up at the Medical Center at 168th Street. And there I have to say, I didn't feel battered in any way by what was happening. I had a very shocking experience. I had a meeting that I needed to attend on, or that had been scheduled, I hadn't been quite paying attention. I mean, I knew about the encampments, but I hadn't seen them, and I come face to face with a blocked campus. I couldn't get on the campus. And what I'm staring at are signs to the effect, send the Jews back to Poland. I'm thinking, Where am I? What is this? I mean, protest, sure. I mean we expect undergraduates, we expect humans, to protest when things really aren't fair. But what did this have to do…why invoke the Holocaust and re-invoke it, as if to imply the Jews should be punished? All Jews.  And what it fails to account for are the diversity of Jewish opinion. And you know, for some Jews, it's a black or white matter, but for most thinking Jews that I know, we all struggle very much with a loyalty to Israel, to the Jewish people, to the homeland and larger humanitarian values. So that was quite a shock. And I wrote a piece called “The Scars of Encampment,” in which I say, I can't unsee that. " And I go to campus, and, okay, it's a little bit more security to get onto campus. It's a beautiful campus. It's like an oasis there, but at the same time, I'm seeing what was as if it still is. And in a way, that's the nature of trauma that things from the past just roil and are present with almost as much emotion as when first encountered. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So did you need to tune out those voices, or did that fuel your work? Owen Lewis:  No, that fueled my work. I mean, if anything, it made me feel much more, a sense of mission with this book. And a commitment, despite criticism that I may receive, and no position I take is that outlandish, except to sympathize with the murdered on October 7th, to sympathize with their families, to resonate with what it must be like to have family members as hostages in brutal, brutal conditions. Not knowing whether they're dead or alive. So I really felt that the Jewish voice must be heard, not because it's more right or less right, but it's there. The suffering is there, the grief is there, and human grief is human grief. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Owen, if you wouldn't mind reading another poem from the collection. Of course, many of us remember the news out of Israel on Thanksgiving Day 2023, right after October 7th. And this poem is titled, “Waiting for the Next Release, Reported by the New York Times, November 23 2023”. Owen Lewis:  Waiting For the Next Release, Reported N.Y. Times, Nov. 23, 2023    Maybe tomorrow, if distrust  doesn't flare like a missile,  some families will be reunited.    How awful this lottery of choice; Solomon would not deliberate. Poster faces always before my eyes,   Among them, Emma & Yuli Cunio.  Twins age 3, Raz Katz-Asher, age 4, Ariel Bibas, another four year old.    What do their four year old minds make  of captivity? What will they say? What would my Noa say?    What will the other Noas say?  Remembering Noa Argamani, age 26,  thrown across the motorcycle    to laughter and Hamas joy.   I have almost forgotten this American day,  Thanks- giving,   With its cornucopian harvests,  I am thinking of the cornucopian  jails of human bounty.    (What matter now who is to blame?) Manya Brachear Pashman:  Really beautiful, and it really captures all of our emotions that day. You have children and grandchildren in Israel, as I mentioned and as you mentioned in that poem, your granddaughter, Noa. So your grief and your fear, it's not only a collective grief and fear that we all share, but also very personal, which you weave throughout the collection.  In another poem, “In a Van to JFK”, you talk about just wanting to spend one more hour with your family before they fly off to Israel. And it's very moving.  But in addition to many of the poems, like the one you just read, they are based on and somewhat named for newspaper headlines, you said that kind of establishes a timeline. But are there other reasons why you transformed those headlines into verse? Owen Lewis:  Yes, William Carlos Williams in his poem Asphodel, says, and I'm going to paraphrase it badly. You won't get news from poems yet, men die every day for wanting what is found there. And I think it's a very interesting juxtaposition of journalism and poetry. And I mean, I'm not writing news, I'm writing where my reflections, where my heart, goes in response to the news, and trying to bring another element to the news that, you know, we were confronted.  I mean, in any time of high stress, you swear off – I'm not watching any more TV. I'm not even gonna look at the newspaper. And then, of course, you do. I can't talk about Israel today. I can't not talk about it. I can't read the paper. I can't not read the paper. It's kind of that back and forth. But what is driving that? And so I'm trying to get at that next dimension of what's resonating behind each one of these headlines, or resonating for me. I mean, I'm not claiming this is an interpretation of news. It's my reaction, but people do react, and there's that other dimension to headlines. Manya Brachear Pashman:  That seems like it might be therapeutic, no? Owen Lewis:  Oh, totally, totally. You know, I'm very fortunate that having started a career in medicine, in psychiatry, and particularly in child and adolescent psychiatry. I always had one foot in the door academically. I spent, you know, my life as, I still teach, but I'm very fortunate to have, maybe 10+ years ago, been introduced to a basically a woman who created the field of Narrative Medicine, Rita Sharon. And now at Columbia in the medical school, we have a free-standing Department of Medical Humanities and Ethics, of which she's chairman.  So I've had the fortune of bringing psychiatry and medicine and writing together in a very integrated way. And yes, writing is therapeutic, especially, I could say in medicine, which has given itself over to electronic medical record keeping, but our whole society is moving towards the electronic. And what happens when you sit and write, and what happens when you then sit and read, you reflect. Your mind engages in a different way that is a bit slower than the fast pace of electronic communications and instant communications and instant thinking. And now with AI, instant analysis of any situation you want to feed data from.  So that's sorely lacking in the human experience. And the act of writing, the act of reading has huge therapeutic values, huge salutary benefits for humans in general, but particularly in times of stress. In a lot of work on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, finding an outlet, an artistic outlet, it doesn't have to be writing, but that's often a way of transcending the trauma.  And medicine is filled with trauma. People trying to come to terms with acute illnesses, chronic illnesses. Doctors and caregivers trying to come to terms with what they can and can't do. And you know, we're coming up against limitations. But how do you make peace with those limitations? And it's not that it's a magical panacea, but it's a process of engagement, not only with the subject, but with yourself in relation to the subject. Manya Brachear Pashman:  I mean, I imagine dialogue is really the healthiest way of conversation and speaking through and interacting with a topic. And so I would imagine poetry, or, as you said, any art form, responding to news reports, it makes that a two way conversation when you're able to process and it's not just the headlines shouting at you, you're actually interacting and processing it by writing and reaction, or painting and reaction, whatever you choose to do. Owen Lewis:  Exactly. Manya Brachear Pashman:  You have said that poetry can serve a purpose during times of war. Is this one of the purposes to to be therapeutic or are you talking more in terms of what statesmen could learn from it?  Owen Lewis:  Well, yes, of course, what statesmen could learn from it, but it's human nature to want to take sides. I mean, that's kind of just what we do. But I think we can always do better than that. So I'm really talking about the people. I mean, there are also many Jews who are so angry at Israel that they can't listen to the story of Jewish grief. They should be reading mine and others poetries from this era. I wish the Palestinian poets were. I wish the Palestinian people. I mean, of course, in their current situation, they don't have time when you're starving, when you're looking for your next glass of fresh water. You don't have time for anything beyond survival.  But once we get beyond that, how long are these positions going to be hardened. I mean, I think when the people of all sides of the dilemma really listen to the others, I mean, they're, I mean, if, unless as Hamas has expressed, you know, wants to push Israel into the sea, if Israel is going to coexist with the Palestinian people, whether they're in a nation or not in a nation, each has to listen to the other.  And it's, you know, it's not one side is right, one side is wrong. It's far too complex a history to reduce it to that kind of simplicity. And I think poetry, everyone's poetry, gets at the complexity of experience, which includes wanting to take sides and questioning your wanting to take sides and moving towards something more humanitarian.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  You said earlier, you recommend Abu Toha, Fady Joudah, two Palestinian poets who have written some beautiful verse about– tragically beautiful verse–about what's happening. But there have been some really deep rifts in the literary world over this war. I mean, as you mentioned before, there was a letter written by authors and entertainers who pledged to boycott Israeli cultural institutions. Some authors have refused to sell rights to their books to publishers in Israel. So why not reciprocate? And I know the answer. I think you've already addressed it pretty well. What's wrong with that approach? Owen Lewis:  In any conflict, there are at least three sides to the conflict. I mean, claims to nationhood, claims to who shoved first, who. I mean, you don't entangle things by aggressively reacting. I mean, if we learned anything from Mahatma Gandhi, it's what happens when we don't retaliate, right? And what happens when we go the extra mile to create bridges and connections.  There are a host of people in Israel who continue to help Palestinians get to medical facilities, driving them back and forth, working for peace. I mean, there's a Palestinian on the Supreme Court of Israel, and well, he should be there. You know, that's the part of Israel that I am deeply proud of. So why not retaliate? I think it entrenches positions and never moves anything forward. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So have you gotten any negative feedback from your writing colleagues? Owen Lewis:  Some cold shoulders, yes. I mean not nothing overtly. I haven't been slammed in a review yet. Maybe that's coming. But when I publish pieces, I tend not to look at them. I had an oped in the LA Times. I've had some other pieces, you know, that precipitates blogs, and I started to read them.  And the first blog that came off of the the LA Times oped was, God, is he an opportunist, just taking advantage of having a daughter in Israel? And trying to make a name for himself or something. And I said, You know what, you can't put yourself out and take a position without getting some kind of flack. So occasionally, those things filter back, it's par for the course. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Right, not really worth reading some of those. You included Midrash in this book. You also spelled God in the traditional sense in the poems. Why did you choose to do that? Owen Lewis:  Well, I felt it honors a tradition of Jewish writing. It mean we have yud, hey, vav, hey, you know, which in English comes down as Yahweh, but it's unpronounceable. The name of God is unpronounceable. And, you know, yud, hey, vav, hey is just a representation. It isn't God's name. And there's a tradition that the name of God, when it's written down, can't be destroyed. And it's a way of honoring that tradition. Millennium of Jewish writers, you know, it's similar to say Elokim, instead of Elohim when the text is written. To sort of substitute. We know what we're talking about, but really to honor tradition, to pay respect and sort of to stay in the mind frame that, if there is a God, he, she, they, are unknowable. And somehow it creates, for me, a little bit of that mystery by leaving a letter out. It's like, G, O, D, seems more knowable than G-d. It's leaving that white space right for something bigger, grander, and mysterious, for the presence of that  right in the word itself. Manya Brachear Pashman:  And what about including Midrash? Owen Lewis: That’s a very interesting question. You know Midrash for me, when you steep yourself in traditional Midrash, there's stories that exemplify principles and they fill in gaps. I mean, some of the most important. I mean, we have this notion of Abraham breaking the idols of his father before he left. No. That's Midrash, thats not in the Torah. And yet, nine out of ten Jews will say that's in the Torah, right? So, it kind of expands our understanding of the traditional text. But it also very much allows a writer to creatively engage with the text and expand it. It's like a commentary, but it's a commentary in story, and it's a commentary in terms that evoke human responses, not necessarily intellectual responses. So frankly, I think it's every Jews’ responsibility to write Midrash. That reinvigorates the stories, the texts, and the meanings, and then we write midrashes upon midrashes. And you know, we get a whole community buzzing about a single story. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Which is very much what you've done with this collection, you know, writing poetry in response to news stories and engaging it in that way. It's very Jewish response, I would argue.  Do you observe Tisha B’av? Owen Lewis:  You know what I do. You're gonna laugh. My grandmother always warned us, don't go in the water on Tisha B’av, the sea will swallow you up. So I'm a big swimmer. I love swimming. I don't swim on Tisha B’av, because I hear my grandmother's voice, I'm going to be swallowed up. Manya Brachear Pashman:  If you could please wrap up this conversation by sharing a poem of your choice from your latest collection. Owen Lewis:  A poem I love to read again starts with a headline.   2000 Pound Bombs Drop, Reported N.Y. Times, Dec,, 22 2023.   In Khan Younis, the call to prayer  is the call of a dazed Palestinian child crying baba, standing at the brim of a cavernous pit of rubble   biting his knuckles–baba, baba . . .  It's so close to the abba of the dazed  Israeli children of Be’eri, Kfar Azza. There is no comfort. From his uncles   he's heard the calls for revenge– for his home and school, for his bed  of nighttime stories, for his nana’s  whisper-song of G-d's many names.   His Allah, his neighbor’s Adonai,  cry the same tears for death  and shun more blood. No miracle these waters turning red. Who called forth    the fleets of avenging angels? By viral post: Jewish Plagues on Gaza! A firstborn lost,  then a second, a third. What other plagues  pass over? Hail from the tepid sky?   From on high it falls and keeps falling.  Though we've “seen terrible things,” will you tell us, Adonai, Allah, tell us– do You remember the forgotten promise?   From the pile once home of rubble stone, a father's hand reaching out, baba, abba crushed by the load. We know the silence  of the lost child . . . G-d “has injured us   but will bind up our wounds . . .” Mothers  Look for us, called by the name yamma, calling  the name imma. Our father of mercy, not the god of sacrifice. Our many crying heads explode. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Owen Lewis, thank you so much for talking to us about how this book came about and for sharing some of these verses. Owen Lewis:   Thank you so much. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week’s episode, be sure to listen to my conversation with Israeli comedian Yohay Sponder on the sidelines of AJC Global Forum 2025. Hear how his Jewish identity shapes his work, how his comedy has evolved since the Hamas terror attacks, and what he says to those who try to silence him.

  --------  

  32:49

  --------

  32:49
• An Orange Tie and A Grieving Crowd: Comedian Yohay Sponder on Jewish Resilience

  What do you do when you’re an Israeli comedian set to perform in Paris on the very day the world learns the fate of the Bibas family? Yohay Sponder faced that moment in February 2025—and chose to take the stage. Wearing an orange tie in their honor, he brought laughter to a grieving crowd. Since October 7th, he has used comedy to carry pain, affirm his identity, and connect through resilience. Hear how his Jewish identity shapes his work, how his comedy has evolved since the Hamas attacks, and what he says to those who try to silence him. Recorded live at AJC Global Forum 2025. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  From Broadway to Jewish Advocacy: Jonah Platt on Identity, Antisemitism, and Israel Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War: The Dinah Project’s Quest to Hold Hamas Accountable Journalist Matti Friedman Exposes Media Bias Against Israel 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:   Israeli stand up comedian Yohay Sponder: first gained popularity for his funny Monday shows in Tel Aviv, which attracted a following on YouTube. A few years ago, Sponder made the decision to perform Israeli comedy in English to reach a wider audience and a wider audience it has reached. He has hundreds of thousands of followers on social media, and in May, launched the North American leg of his international tour in Baltimore.  Sponder is with us now on the sidelines of AJC Global Forum 2025. Sponder, welcome to People of the Pod.  Yohay Sponder:   Thank you so much for this eulogy. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I’m curious how you found your way to stand up comedy and tell us a little bit about your upbringing in general.  Yohay Sponder:   Doing comedy, I always been fascinated about the laughing reaction of humans. You know, it's fascinating, if you think about it, if you have the ability to improve the frequency in the room. As a kid, I was really intrigued by that. So you saying few things, and people go, haha. It's like designing a vibe.  So as a kid, I was attracted to that. So as a kid, you watch video cassettes, back in the day, I would watch all of the comedy stuff. I had all of them cassettes. I was very, very affected by it, impersonations, imitating them, doing jokes of my own, and always around that.  And in my show, I'm talking about comedy. I have a bit about comedy in my show that I'm saying that I was, I wasn't just the class clown in my school. I was the jokes technician. If you had a broken joke or a joke that didn't work, you would come to me. I would fix it for you, bring it back. Not using it as my own resume. I would bring it back, when it's fixed. Manya Brachear Pashman:   That’s great. So you helped others clown around as well. Yohay Sponder:   Yeah, I was a clown teacher.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Were you raised in a secular home, a particularly Jewish home? Yohay Sponder:   I was raised in a, let's say secular but Jewish, celebrated holidays, family Friday night family dinners. But we weren't like super Shabbat keepers. I think I became closer now, when, after my father passed away, I for the Kaddish and I put tefillin a little bit. And the war, you know, this war, activated a lot of Jews to the to this kind of level. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Right. You’re sitting across from me, and you're wearing a gigantic Star of David. On your chest. Yohay Sponder:   Yeah, you see what she did, you see what she did? You're sitting across and you're wearing a gigantic Star of David.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Have you always worn that or did you put it on after October 7? Yohay Sponder:   No, it's after the war kicked in. I don't know. I had a vision that that's what we should do right now. We need to be out there and show other Jews that we’re there. That's what I felt. And I imagine that, I need a big star of David. And the day I thought about it, I saw that. So there was a sign for me, like I had this vision, that I need a big star of David here. And less than 24 hours, that one find me. I didn't look for it. It came across my eyes. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Which I imagine you'll be wearing your Magen David on tour. The tour itself is called Self Loving Jew. What is the meaning of that title? Yohay Sponder:   So, basically, you know, this is so awesome, because before October 7, you could argue of other opinion. You could hear some people saying, Yeah, but maybe we should this. After October 7 that we know so all these monsters that came and attack us, the self hating Jews that they're doing now, super horrific, disgusting job of mocking us. And I find it really bad, and I think so I'm I'm bringing the other side. I'm just bringing the you know, it doesn't mean that I hate someone that is not Jewish. I'm just, I want to inspire other people to be to love themselves, even if they're not Jewish. But as Jews, we have to love us, because we're probably the last ones to love us, and if we won't love us, that's that's over for us.  And people, people saying that it's very harsh to compare the self hating Jews of now to the Kapos and and I'm saying, yes, it's it's not fair for the Kapos, because they didn't have a choice. You guys have a choice, and you did it just for likes and for other people from other cultures to like you. I really, I really believe.  I really deeply believe I'm coming from there. I'm coming from the war. I really believe that the people that don't, they don't give us the credit, people that not supporting Israel, they're uneducated. I really believe in that they don't know enough. They might be not bad people, but they might be stupid people.  Self hating Jews, like whatever Dave Smith, all these guys that try to be liked by, you know, others, and they they just out of their own idiocy. Listen, you don't know anything about what's going on. As Douglas Murray told them, ou've been there. You saw those things that you're talking about when you're saying, Israel, starving the Gazans you're never seeing the the trucks that going every day. You're You're an idiot. You're just an idiot. You listen to other people, and you listen to other lies.  And they will say, No, I just want peaceful. We all want peace. Just the fact that you're Jewish, it means that you want peace. We say Shalom when we see each other, when we say Shabbat Shalom. The holiest day of the week. We say telech bshalom, tachzor bshalom. Go in peace, come back in peace. You don't want peace more than I want. We all want peace, but we're willing to fight for peace because we have to make sure that no innocent people from both sides, by the way, will get hurt.  So yeah, it's really bad and shitty situation, war, but you blame us without checking it. So anyway, I don't want it to make it too much political. It's not political, by the way, Self Loving Jew. It's about loving yourself and being, you know, being in touch with what's going on right now.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So there is so much misinformation out there, you launched your you started doing English language comedy to reach a wider audience. Now you're doing an English language international tour. Do you have a message that you want to get out to the wider world to especially this region where there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding? Yohay Sponder:   Yeah, the message is that, we're living in a time that it's very hard to agree on something, and I really miss the days that we all agree that the world is round. You know, a little long ago, a few years ago. But yeah, the message is that you do your research and come to laugh with us.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   It’s an important message that gets forgotten. October 7, and its aftermath were so horrific. Did you press pause on your comedy career for a little while? At what point did you find it acceptable to make people laugh again in the aftermath? Yohay Sponder:   No, it took time. It took time. It took a day. Manya Brachear Pashman:   One day. Okay. Yohay Sponder: Because right after that, after the attack, they start to arrange people to go to volunteer in squads and families that got evacuated from their house and soldiers and hospitals, people got wounded. So I've been around. I did that. That was my duty service. And also I did regular reserves duty, stuff like that.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   And what did you do on reserve duty?  Yohay Sponder: I was in Ramat Gan patrol. So not super serious, but I did what I did.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   And at what point did you go back to the stage and so more standup? Yohay Sponder:   So I'm running the show Funny Monday, I think roughly a month after October 7, we get. Maybe two months, yeah, something like around that. January, maybe, I remember, like a little bit after that, the show went back and we did stand up in English. People really followed what's going on in Israel. No matter what you do from the country, they follow that. And we had strong they were saying, Wait, Shahar Hassan, my co-host, very good friend. Really funny man, serious comedian, like one of A-list, Top list. And people follow, people watching what we have to say. That was the main purpose of Funny Monday, when we launched it in 2016 nine years ago.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Did it shift? When you restarted it after October 7, was it different? How so?  Yohay Sponder:   Yeah. We always talked about current events, what's going on in the world? It's the international perspective of not just news, but Israel perspective and stuff like that. So in that case, you're talking about Iran's attack. What the news with Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu? Whatever is happening politically, or current events and yeah, people were more attached to the screen those days. And also in comedy. It's a great form of art to deliver, you know, your point of view, or your, yeah, your what you want to say. So it's, it was great to do that, and till this very day, that's what we do.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So you really though, have to read the room, right? I mean, different audiences, I imagine, receive your comedy in different ways, especially in different regions of the world. So I'm curious if there are differences in the kind of humor that resonates with an Israeli audience, and the kind of humor that resonates with an American audience or a European audience. Yohay Sponder:   So that's the thing, why I love my country so much, because you can just stand up in any form you want. You can go as dark as you want in Israel or as political as you want. We have some issues right now with people having fight with each other, of political issues, and we have a lot of demonstrations and stuff. So there's that. But beside that, you can get away with a lot of what people say here in America, woke culture, politically correct. In Israel, we don't have it. You don't stand up like in the 80s. If someone looks gay in the audience, you say, Hey, you look gay man. That's very gay. You’re fat. You these, you're old, you're very brown. We just say that, and that's fine. No one canceled. We don't even know what it means to cancel someone. No one get canceled in Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman: Holocaust humor, is that acceptable in Israel? Yohay Sponder: Yeah, it's not just it's acceptable. For example, from my wife's point of view, she was shocked when people came back to say, wow, mitlachot poh shoah—the shower was like, it's the Holocaust. Holocaust shower. They sang that. There's something that you say in the army and it's kind of fine. No one like, hey, how can you compare this? Because the water was cold, so they were called. So they say, but in the Holocaust, no water at all, was gas.  And also, when my wife told me, Don't honk like this, it's ghetto. You know, it's American thing to say, Don't honk. It's ghetto. It's like, I'm pretty sure that in Auschwitz, they didn't have cars.  Manya Brachear Pashman: She's talking about a different kind of gheto.  Yohay Sponder: And she said, like, you can't do these jokes. Yeah, you can't do this. She's like, she's from American perspective, you can't do these jokes. It's horrible. It's like, that's jokes we do here all the time. And in Israel, you use Nazi sometimes, like, as a, not only as a bad thing. It's like, accuracy. You say, like, Nazis coming on time. I need a Nazi plumber, not . . . someone that is a good commander. When I'm having the perspective of my wife and American people, I understand how horrible that is.  However, some Holocaust survivors testify that they had humor in the camps. They used humor, even dark humor, in the camps, and it helped them raise their frequency and raise their morality and maybe survive, maybe humor saved them. So when you saying too soon, sometimes it's, yeah, it's too soon for someone but it's okay for someone else.  I see black humor as spicy food. We all have our own scale for it. You can, you can eat spicy like a crazy mental person, and I can just taste it. And, you know, it's too harsh for me, and vice versa. So I did jokes about October 7, in November 7, and horrible ones, and it was also with the Holocaust. That's how horrible that was. So maybe it's too soon for the Holocaust. It's too soon for October 7. I said, the people that compare compared October 7 to the Holocaust. And I'm saying at least in the Holocaust, no one kidnapped Holocaust survivors. It's not even a funny, like, haha, funny. It's like, oh shit, yeah, yeah, that's the joke. It's not a joke of a punch line. It's a punch in your belly. Yeah. Manya Brachear Pashman:   What have been some of the most memorable moments from your shows, from your live shows, and I'm talking good and bad, have there been really positive responses and have there been really ugly? Yohay Sponder:   So let's just take this afternoon in Paris that I'm sitting in my hotel and Instagram and social media exploding from what's going on with the releasing of the Bibas babies. That we're getting back coffins, and I'm getting, I don't know, hundreds of messages from people that like we don't know if we're coming to the show. Two shows sold out in a huge theater in Paris. I'm not there every day. That's the show. That's it. One day since October 7, and no one knows when I'm going to come again. And my heart is broken, and people tell me we want to come but we can't. What do you think we should do?  Now, I responded to all of them, my wife and I responded to all of them, you do what you feel. I totally support your feelings. And the show is going to happen, and we get together tonight, and it's going to be a group hug, but if you can't make it, that's fine. I went on stage with an orange tie that I bought, and we talked it through. Arthur is the comedian and producer of those shows. He opened the show, he talked about the situation, and we did the shows. Now, that's the beauty of it, that's, that's the genome of the Jewish people. That's so in us to . . . . what we talked earlier about the Holocaust survivors that testify that they want to laugh, they want to have a good time. They don't want to let these terrorists decide for us what we gonna feel. Yeah, we feel bad. Yes, you're the worst people on the planet. I wish God will wipe you out, or IDF as fast as possible. You're a disgusting dirt of…but for us, for what we can do right now, we're gonna, we're gonna do our best to raise our morality and frequency. And I did the shows. I'm not gonna lie to you, I was very sad. But you know, the people that, that's what Bob Marley said after, he got shot, you know, and he did the show anyway, and he said, the people that want us to feel bad, they don't take a day off. So how could I? That's a very nice thing to say. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You had a show at City Winery where some people in the audience came with, maybe with intentions to protest, or at least they expected to disagree with you, and they met up with you after the show. And what happened? Yohay Sponder:   After my show, one of the presidents of the BDS organizations. She approached me and she said, we came to hassle the show. We came to ruin your show. So like, why you didn't do it? And she said we were waiting for the right moment, but the more the show went on, the more we liked what you said. You talk a lot about peace, you talk a lot about mutual values and how to solve problems, and you talk about the nice things of the Jewish tradition and the Jewish religion. We couldn't ruin that. We have conscience and we also liked you.  They liked the show. They wanted to ruin it, but they loved it, and they laughed. I told her, that's exactly what I do. In my stand up show, when you see that bit, it's with the whole structure of what happened there and how I almost made peace with these guys, but it didn't work out.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Maybe you need to do your stand up routine in Gaza and that would solve everything. Yohay Sponder:   I checked that. They don't have comedy clubs there. I said that when I hosted the show, we have an Arab comedian, a friend of ours. You know, people like they don't know that, but Arab-Israelis, are Palestinians. To their definition, to the Palestinians definition, it's the same thing, but they don't identify as Palestinians. It's like we're Muslims, we're Arabs. Anyway, they're with us. They're like siblings to us.  So when I introduced him, I also made fun of the situation. I said, When is going to be in Palestine? When it's going to be the Jewish comedian goes on stage like you going here and stuff like that, and there is no comedy clubs in Ramallah or in Gaza, but Inshallah, when there will I go and I do a spot. Manya Brachear Pashman:   How many of your shows, as you've been traveling around, have actually been canceled or moved or postponed. I read something about your Amsterdam show, for example, was moved to an undisclosed location because of security concerns. Has that happened elsewhere? Yohay Sponder:   Australia. And they tried to cancel my show in Brussels, didn't make it. They tried to cancel my show in Paris. They couldn't make it, but demonstrated outside. And every time that thing happened, I got a lot of press covers and interviews, and people get insane. And like, oh, we have to support and come to see the show. So every time it happens, I doubling or sometimes tripling the amount of people. Which is so weird, you know, because they're always the people they hate us. Always go, oh, Jews, money and you guys this, and you made me make more money. I didn't want to make that much money.  I want to make third of the amount of money. But because of your protesting. Your hate, that's how bad you are of what you do. And how amazing we are what we do. You know, I didn't want to make that much money, so now I hire them, the protesters. So they work for me.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   They do your marketing, generate publicity. So none of the shows have been successfully cancelled? Yohay Sponder:   No, the Amsterdam show canceled. The Boom Chicago, which also surprising. Your name is Boom Chicago. What's your security concerns. That's gonna be a boom. Let it be.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   But I thought it was moved.  Yohay Sponder:  We moved that like because they a week before the show, they said we're not doing the show. And was like, guys, let me respond. Let me say something. No, no. Police said that. We called the police. We have their numbers, you know, we call them. They say, No, we didn't talk to them. And then they wrote, we can help you find a Jewish venue. So I told him, we can help you find a Jewish lawyer. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So there was no show? Yohay Sponder:  Not in the Boom Chicago. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Got it. Yohay Sponder:  And I'll never go there. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And not in Amsterdam?  Yohay Sponder:  No, it was in Amsterville.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Got it, okay. Amsterville, is that next to Amsterdam? Yohay Sponder:   Turns out, yeah, they didn't know that too. Was was a very nice theater, I think, three times’ size of the Boom Chicago, and we had a great time. And I'll go there again. And it's not just the Boom Chicago, when we try to rebook it, a lot of other venues, more than 30 venues, didn't want to have me there.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So is there anything else that I haven't asked you that you really want to share with our audience? Yohay Sponder:   Yeah. I mean, listen, I'm not sure that the audience is going to be 100% Jewish, right? So the message is going to be split for both. So I'll talk to them. So if you guys are Jews, I wanted to know that everything's going to be fine, and we got this, and raise your head, and we're good. We're going to be good. This is probably the last one. It's the last one. I think Messiah is coming, right? We're going to be fine, all right?  And if you're a non Jewish person watching it, you're an ally. So I want to thank you. We don't take it for granted. It's very important that you're around. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Sponder, thank you.  Yohay Sponder:   Thank you so much.   

  --------  

  22:04

  --------

  22:04
• From Broadway to Jewish Advocacy: Jonah Platt on Identity, Antisemitism, and Israel

  Being Jewish podcast host Jonah Platt—best known for playing Fiyero in Broadway’s Wicked—joins People of the Pod to discuss his journey into Jewish advocacy after October 7. He reflects on his Jewish upbringing, challenges media misrepresentations of Israel, and shares how his podcast fosters inclusive and honest conversations about Jewish identity. Platt also previews The Mensch, an upcoming film he’s producing to tell Jewish stories with heart and nuance. Recorded live at AJC Global Forum 2025. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War: The Dinah Project’s Quest to Hold Hamas Accountable Journalist Matti Friedman Exposes Media Bias Against Israel John Spencer’s Key Takeaways After the 12-Day War: Air Supremacy, Intelligence, and Deterrence 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:   Jonah Platt: is an award winning director of theater and improv comedy, an accomplished musician, singer and award winning vocal arranger. He has been on the Broadway stage, including one year as the heartthrob Fiyero in Wicked and he's producing his first feature film, a comedy called The Mensch. He also hosts his own podcast, Being Jewish with Jonah Platt:, a series of candid conversations and reflections that explore the many facets of Jewish identity.  Jonah is with us now on the sidelines of AJC Global Forum 2025. Jonah, welcome to People of the Pod. Jonah Platt:   Thank you so much for having me, happy to be here.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So tell us about your podcast. How is being Jewish with Jonah Platt: different from Jewish with anyone else? Jonah Platt:   That's a great question. I think it's different for a number of ways. I think one key difference is that I'm really trying to appeal to everybody, not just Jews and not just one type of Jews. I really wanted it to be a very inclusive show and, thank God, the feedback I've gotten, my audience is very diverse. It appeals to, you know, I hear from the ultra orthodox. I hear from people who found out they were Jewish a month ago. I hear from Republicans, I hear from Democrats. I hear from non Jews, Muslims, Christians, people all over the world. So I think that's special and different, especially in these echo-chambery, polarized times online, I'm trying to really reach out of that and create a space where the one thing we all have in common, everybody who listens, is that we're all well-meaning, good-hearted, curious people who want to understand more about our fellow man and each other.  I also try to really call balls and strikes as I see them, regardless of where they're coming from. So if I see, let's call it bad behavior, on the left, I'll call it out. If I see bad behavior on the right, I'll call it out. If I see bad behavior from Israel, I'll call it out. In the same breath that I'll say, I love Israel, it's the greatest place.  I think that's really unfortunately rare. I think people have a very hard time remembering that we are very capable of holding two truths at once, and it doesn't diminish your position by acknowledging fault where you see it. In fact, I feel it strengthens your position, because it makes you more trustworthy. And it's sort of like an iron sharpens iron thing, where, because I'm considering things from all angles, either I'm going to change my mind because I found something I didn't consider. That's going to be better for me and put me on firmer ground.  Or it's going to reinforce what I thought, because now I have another thing I can even speak to about it and say, Well, I was right, because even this I checked out, and that was wrong. So either way, you're in a stronger position. And I feel that that level of sort of, you know, equanimity is sorely lacking online, for sure.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Our podcasts have had some guests in common. We've had Dara Horn, Sarah Hurwitz, you said you're getting ready to have Bruce Pearl. We've had Coach Pearl on our show. You’ve also had conversations with Stuart Weitzman, a legendary shoe designer, in an episode titled Jews and Shoes. I love that. Can you share some other memorable nuggets from the conversations you've had over the last six months? Jonah Platt:   I had my dad on the show, and I learned things about him that I had never heard about his childhood, growing up, the way his parents raised him. The way that social justice and understanding the conflict and sort of brokenness in the world was something that my grandparents really tried to teach them very actively, and some of it I had been aware of, but not every little specific story he told. And that was really special for me. And my siblings, after hearing it, were like, We're so glad you did this so that we could see Dad and learn about him in this way. So that was really special.  There have been so many. Isaac Saul is a guy I had early on. He runs a newsletter, a news newsletter called Tangle Media that shows what the left is saying about an issue with the right is saying about an issue, and then his take. And a nugget that I took away from him is that on Shabbat, his way of keeping Shabbat is that he doesn't go on social media or read the news on Shabbat. And I took that from him, so now I do that too.  I thought that was genius. It's hard for me. I'm trying to even start using my phone period less on Shabbat, but definitely I hold myself to it, except when I'm on the road, like I am right now. When I'm at home, no social media from Friday night to Saturday night, and it's fantastic.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   It sounds delightful. Jonah Platt:   It is delightful. I highly recommend it to everybody. It's an easy one.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So what about your upbringing? You said you learned a lot about your father's upbringing. What was your Jewish upbringing? Jonah Platt:   Yeah, I have been very blessed to have a really strong, warm, lovely, Jewish upbringing. It's something that was always intrinsic to my family. It's not something that I sort of learned at Hebrew school. And no knock on people whose experience that is, but it's, you know, I never remember a time not feeling Jewish. Because it was so important to my parents and important to their families. And you know, part of the reason they're a good match for each other is because their values are the same.  I went to Jewish Day School, the same one my kids now go to, which is pretty cool. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Oh, that’s lovely. Jonah Platt:   Yeah. And I went to Jewish sleepaway camp at Camp Ramah  in California. But for me, really, you know, when I get asked this question, like, my key Jewish word is family. And growing up, every holiday we spent with some part of my very large, amazing family. What's interesting is, in my city where I grew up, Los Angeles, I didn't have any grandparents, I didn't have any aunts or uncles or any first cousins. But I feel like I was with them all the time, because every holiday, someone was traveling to somebody, and we were being together. And all of my childhood memories of Jewish holidays are with my cousins and my aunts and my uncles and my grandparents. Because it was just so important to our family. And that's just an amazing foundation for being Jewish or anything else, if that's your foundation, that's really gonna stay with you. And my upbringing, like we kept kosher in my house, meat and milk plates. We would eat meat out but no pork, no shellfish, no milk and meat, any of that. And while I don't ascribe to all those things now, I'm grateful that I got sort of the literacy in that.  In my Jewish Day School we had to wrap tefillin every morning. And while I don't do that now, I'm glad that I know how to do that, and I know what that looks like, and I know what that means, even if I resisted it very strongly at the time as a 13 year old, being like what I gotta wrap this up every day. But I'm grateful now to have that literacy. And I've always been very surprised to see in my life that often when I'm in a room with people, I'm the most observant in the room or the most Jewish literate in the room, which was never the case in my life.  I have family members who are much more observant than me, orthodox. I know plenty of Orthodox people, whatever. But in today's world, I'm very grateful for the upbringing I had where, I'll be on an experience. I actually just got back from one in Poland. I went on a trip with all moderate Muslims from around the North Africa, Middle East, and Asia, with an organization called Sharaka. We had Shabbat dinner just this past Friday at the JCC in Krakow, and I did the Shabbat kiddush for everybody, which is so meaningful and, like, I'm so grateful that I know it, that I can play that role in that, in special situations like that.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So you've been doing a lot of traveling. Jonah Platt:  Yes. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I saw your reflection on your visit to Baku, Azerbaijan. The largest Jewish community in the Muslim world. And you went with the Jewish Federation's National Young leadership cabinet. Jonah Platt:   Shout out to my chevre. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And you posted this reflection based on your experience there, asking the question, how much freedom is too much? So can you walk our listeners through that and how you answered that question? Jonah Platt:   Yes. So to be fair, I make very clear I don't have the answer to that question definitively, I just wanted to give people food for thought, and what I hoped would happen has happened where I've been getting a lot of people who disagree with me and have other angles at which they want to look and answer this question, which I welcome and have given me a lot to think about.  But basically, what I observed in Azerbaijan was a place that's a little bit authoritative. You know, they don't have full freedom of the press. Political opposition is, you know, quieted, but there's no crime anywhere. They have a strong police presence on the streets. There are security cameras everywhere, and people like their lives there and don't want to mess with it.  And so it just got me thinking, you know, they're an extremely tolerant society. It's sort of something they pride themselves on, and always have. It's a Muslim majority country, but it is secular. They are not a Muslim official country. They're one of only really two countries in the world that are like that, the other being Albania. And they live together in beautiful peace and harmony with a sense of goodwill, with a sense of national pride, and it got me thinking, you know, look at any scenario in our lives. Look at the place you work, look at the preschool classroom that your kid is in.  There are certain rules and restrictions that allow for more freedom, in a sense, because you feel safe and taken care of and our worst instincts are not given space to be expressed. So that is what brought the question of, how much freedom is too much. And really, the other way of putting that is, how much freedom would you be willing to give up if it meant you lived in a place with no crime, where people get along with their neighbors, where there's a sense of being a part of something bigger than yourself. I think all three of which are heavily lacking in America right now that is so polarized, where hateful rhetoric is not only, pervasive, but almost welcomed, and gets more clicks and more likes and more watches. It's an interesting thing to think about.  And I heard from people being like, I haven't been able to stop thinking about this question. I don't know the answer, but it's really interesting. I have people say, you're out of your mind. It's a slippery slope. The second you give an inch, like it's all going downhill. And there are arguments to be made there.  But I can't help but feel like, if we did the due diligence, I'm sure there is something, if we keep the focus really narrow, even if it's like, a specific sentence that can't be said, like, you can't say: the Holocaust was a great thing. Let's say we make that illegal to say, like, how does that hurt anybody? If that's you're not allowed to say those exact words in that exact sequence, you know. So I think if it's gonna be a slippery slope, to me, is not quite a good enough argument for Well, let's go down the road and see if we can come up with something. And then if we decide it's a slippery slope and we get there, maybe we don't do it, but maybe there is something we can come to that if we eliminate that one little thing you're not allowed to say, maybe that will benefit us. Maybe if we make certain things a little bit more restrictive, it'll benefit us. And I likened it to Shabbat saying, you know, on Shabbat, we have all these restrictions. If you're keeping Shabbat, that's what makes Shabbat special, is all the things you're not allowed to do, and because you're not given the quote, unquote, freedom to do those things, you actually give yourself more freedom to be as you are, and to enjoy what's really good about life, which is, you know, the people around you and and having gratitude. So it's just something interesting to think about.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   It’s an interesting perspective. I am a big fan of free speech. Jonah Platt:   As are most people. It's the hill many people will die on. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Educated free speech, though, right? That's where the tension is, right? And in a democracy you have to push for education and try to make sure that, you know, people are well informed, so that they don't say stupid things, but they are going to say stupid things and I like that freedom. Did you ever foresee becoming a Jewish advocate? Jonah Platt:   No. I . . . well, that's a little disingenuous. I would say, you know, in 2021 when there was violence between Israel and Gaza in the spring over this Sheik Jarrah neighborhood. That's when I first started using what little platform I had through my entertainment career to start speaking very, you know, small things, but about Israel and about Jewish life, just organically, because I am, at the time, certainly much more well educated, even now, than I was then.  But I was more tuned in than the average person, let's say, and I felt like I could provide some value. I could help bring some clarity to what was a really confusing situation at that time, like, very hard to decipher. And I could just sense what people were thinking and feeling. I'm well, tapped into the Jewish world. I speak to Jews all over the place. My, as I said, my family's everywhere. So already I know Jews all over the country, and I felt like I could bring some value. And so it started very slowly. It was a trickle, and then it started to turn up a little bit, a little bit more, a little bit more. I went on a trip to Israel in April of 2023. It's actually the two year anniversary today of that trip, with the Tel Aviv Institute, run by a guy named Hen Mazzig, who I'm sure, you know, well, I'm sure he's been on the show, yeah.  And that was, like, sort of the next step for me, where I was surrounded by other people speaking about things online, some about Jewish stuff, some not. Just seeing these young, diverse people using their platforms in whatever way, that was inspiring to me. I was like, I'm gonna go home, I'm gonna start using this more.  And then October 7 happened, and I couldn't pull myself away from it. It's just where I wanted to be. It's what I wanted to be spending my time and energy doing. It felt way too important. The stakes felt way too high, to be doing anything else. It's crazy to me that anybody could do anything else but be focusing on that. And now here we are. So I mean, in a way, could I have seen it? No. But have I sort of, looking back on it, been leaning this way? Kinda. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Do you think it would've you would've turned toward advocacy if people hadn't been misinformed or confused about Israel? Or do you think that you would've really been more focused on entertainment.  Jonah Platt:   Yeah, I think probably. I mean, if we lived in some upside down, amazing world where everybody was getting everything right, and, you know, there'd be not so much for me to do. The only hesitation is, like, as I said, a lot of my content tries to be, you know, celebratory about Jewish identity. I think actually, I would still be talking because I've observed, you know, divisions and misunderstandings within the Jewish community that have bothered me, and so some of the things I've talked about have been about that, about like, hey, Jews, cut it out. Like, be nice to each other. You're getting this wrong.  So I think that would still have been there, and something that I would have been passionate about speaking out on. Inclusivity is just so important to me, but definitely would be a lot lower stakes and a little more relaxed if everybody was on the same universe in regards to Israel. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You were relatively recently in Washington, DC. Jonah Platt:   Yeah. Manya Brachear Pashman:   For the White House Correspondents Dinner. I was confused, because he just said he was in Krakow, so maybe I was wrong. Jonah Platt:   I flew direct from Krakow to DC, got off the plane, went to the hotel where the dinner was, changed it to my tux, and went downstairs for the dinner.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Wow. Jonah Platt:   Yeah. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Are you tired? Jonah Platt:   No, actually, it's amazing. I'll give a shout out. There's a Jewish businessman, a guy named Andrew Herr, who I was in a program with through Federation called CLI in LA, has started a company called Fly Kit. This is a major shout out to Fly Kit that you download the app, you plug in your trip, they send you supplements, and the app tells you when to take them, when to eat, when to nap, when to have coffee, in an attempt to help orient yourself towards the time zone you need to be on. And I have found it very useful on my international trips, and I'm not going to travel without it again. Yeah. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Wow. White House Correspondents dinner. You posted some really thoughtful words about the work of journalists, which I truly appreciated. But what do American journalists get wrong about Israel and the Jewish connection to Israel?  Jonah Platt:   The same thing that everybody who gets things wrong are getting wrong. I mean, we're human beings, so we're fallible, and just because you're a journalist doesn't make you immune to propaganda, because propaganda is a powerful tool. If it didn't work, people wouldn't be using it. I mean, I was just looking at a post today from our friend Hen Mazzig about all the different ways the BBC is getting things horribly, horribly wrong. I think part of it is there's ill intent. I mean, there is malice. For certain people, where they have an agenda. And unfortunately, you know, however much integrity journalists have, there is a news media environment where we've made it okay to have agenda-driven news where it's just not objective. And somehow it's okay for these publications that we've long trusted to have a story they want to tell. I don't know why that's acceptable. It's a business, and I guess maybe if that, if the dollars are there, it's reinforcing itself. But reporters get wrong so much. I'd say the fundamental misunderstanding that journalists as human beings get wrong, that everybody gets wrong, is that Jews are not a group of rich, white Europeans with a common religion. That's like the number one misunderstanding about Jews. Because most people either don't know Jews at all on planet Earth. They've never met one. They know nothing about it except what they see on the news or in a film, or the Jews that they know happen to maybe be white, rich, European ancestry people, and so they assume that's everybody. When, of course, that's completely false, and erases the majority of Jews from planet Earth. So I think we're missing that, and then we're also missing what Israel means to the Jewish people is deeply misunderstood and very purposefully erased.  Part of what's tricky about all of this is that the people way behind the curtain, the terrorists, the real I hate Israel people agenda. They're the ones who plant these seeds. But they're like 5% of the noise. They're secret. They're in the back. And then everybody else, without realizing it, is picking up these things. And so the vast majority of people are, let's say, erasing Jewish connection to Israel without almost even realizing they're doing it because they have been fed this, because propaganda is a powerful tool, and they believe it to be true what they've been told.  And literally, don't realize what they're doing. And if they were in a calm environment and somebody was able to explain to them, Hey, here's what you're doing, here's what you're missing, I think, I don't know, 75% of people would be like, holy crap. I've been getting this wrong. I had no idea. Maybe even higher than 75% they really don't know. And that's super dangerous. And I think the media and journalism is playing a major role in that. Sometimes things get, you know, retracted and apologized for. But the damage is done, especially when it comes to social media. If you put out, Israel just bombed this hospital and killed a bunch of doctors, and then the next day you're like, Oops, sorry, that was wrong. Nobody cares. All they saw was Israel bombed a bunch of doctors and that seed’s already been planted. So it's been a major issue the info war, while you know, obviously not the same stakes as a real life and death physical war has been as important a piece of this overall war as anything. And I wouldn't say it's going great. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Did it come up at all at the Correspondent’s Dinner, or more of a celebration? Jonah Platt:   No, thank God. Yeah. It was more of a celebration. It was more of just sort of it was cool, because there was no host this year, there was no comedian, there was no president, he didn't come. So it was really like being in the clubhouse with the journalists, and you could sense they were sort of happy about it. Was like, just like a family reunion, kind of a vibe, like, it's just our people. We're all on the same page. We're the people who care about getting it right. We care about journalistic integrity. We're here to support each other. It was really nice. I mean, I liked being sort of a fly on the wall of this other group that I had not really been amongst before, and seeing them in their element in this like industry party, which was cool.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Okay, so we talked about journalists. What about your colleagues in the entertainment industry? Are you facing backlash from them, either out of malice or ignorance?  Jonah Platt:   I'm not facing any backlash from anybody of importance if I'm not getting an opportunity, or someone's written me off or something. I don't know that, you know, I have no idea if I'm now on somebody's list of I'm never gonna work with that guy. I don't know. I don't imagine I am. If I am, it says way more about that person than it does about me, because my approach, as we've discussed, is to try to be really inclusive and honest and, like, objective. And if I get something wrong, I'll delete it, or I'll say I got it wrong. I try to be very transparent and really open that, like I'm trying my best to get things right and to be fair.  And if you have a problem with that. You know, you've got a problem. I don't have a problem. So I wouldn't say any backlash. In fact, I mean, I get a lot of support, and a lot of, you know, appreciation from people in the industry who either are also speaking out or maybe too afraid to, and are glad that other people are doing it, which I have thoughts about too, but you know, when people are afraid to speak out about the stuff because of the things they're going to lose. Like, to a person, maybe you lose stuff, but like, you gain so many more other people and opportunities, people who were just sort of had no idea that you were on the same team and were waiting for you to say something, and they're like, Oh my God, you're in this with me too. Great, let’s do something together, or whatever it is. So I've gotten, it's been much more positive than negative in terms of people I actually care about. I mean, I've gotten fans of entertainment who have nasty things to say about me, but not colleagues or industry peers.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So you would declare yourself a proud Zionist. Jonah Platt:   Yes. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But you wrote a column in The Forward recently over Passover saying, let’s retire the word Zionist. Why?  Jonah Platt:   Yes. I recently wrote an op-ed and actually talked about on my pod as well about why I feel we should retire the word Zionism. Not that I think we actually are. It's pretty well in use. But my main reasoning was, that the way we all understand Zionism, those of us who actually know what it is, unlike a lot of people –is the belief that Jews should have self determination, sovereignty in some piece of the land to which they are indigenous. We have that. We've had it for almost 80 years. I don't know why we need to keep using a word that frames it as aspirational, that like, I believe we should have this thing. We already have it.  And I feel by sort of leaving that sentence without a period, we're sort of suggesting that non-existence is somehow on the table. Like, if I just protest enough, Israel's going to stop existing. I want to slam that door closed. I don't think we need to be the, I believe that Israel should exist people anymore. I think we should be the I love Israel people, or I support Israel people. I'm an Israel patriot. I'm a lover of Israel, whatever the phrase may be. To me, the idea that we should continue to sort of play by their framework of leaving that situation on the table, is it only hurts us, and I just don't think we need it. Manya Brachear Pashman:   It lets others define it, in their own terms.  Jonah Platt:   Yeah, we're playing, sort of by the rules of the other people's game. And I know, you know, I heard when I put that out, especially from Israelis, who it to them, it sort of means patriot, and they feel a lot of great pride with it, which I totally understand. But the sort of more universal understanding of what that word is, and certainly of what the Movement was, was about that aspirational creation of a land, that a land’s been created. Not only has it been created, it's, you know, survived through numerous wars, it's stronger than ever. You know, third-most NASDAQ companies in the world. We need to just start talking about it from like, yeah, we're here. We're not going anywhere, kind of a place. And not, a we should exist, kind of a place. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So it's funny, you said, we all know what Zionism is. And I grinned a little bit, because there are so many different definitions of Zionism. I mean, also, Zionism was a very inclusive progressive ideology packaged in there, right, that nobody talks about because it's just kind of not, we just don't talk about it anymore.  So what else about the conversation needs to change? How do we move forward in a productive, constructive way when it comes to teaching about Jewish identity and securing the existence of Israel? Jonah Platt:   In a way, those two things are related, and in a way they're not. You can have a conversation about Jewish identity without necessarily going deep down the Israel hole. But it is critical that people understand how central a connection to Israel is, to Jewish identity. And people are allowed to believe whatever they want. And you can be someone who says, Well, you know, Israel is not important to me, and that's okay, that's you, but you have to at least be clear eyed that that is an extreme and fringe position. That is not a mainstream thing. And you're going to be met with mistrust and confusion and anger and a sense of betrayal, if that's your position.  So I think we need to be clear eyed about that and be able to have that conversation. And I think if we can get to the place where we can acknowledge that in each other. Like, dude, have your belief. I don't agree with it. I think it's crazy. Like, you gotta at least know that we all think you're crazy having that idea. And if they can get to the base, we're like, yeah, I understand that, but I'm gonna believe what I'm gonna believe, then we can have conversations and, like, then we can talk. I think the, I need to change your mind conversation, it doesn't usually work. It has to be really gently done. And I'm speaking this as much from failure as I am from success. As much as we try, sometimes our emotions come to the fore of these conversations, and that's–it’s not gonna happen. You know, on my pod, I've talked about something called, I call the four C’s of difficult conversation. And I recently, like, tried to have a conversation. I did not adhere to my four C's, and it did not go well. And so I didn't take my own advice. You have to come, like, legitimately ready to be curious to the other person's point of view, wanting to hear what they have to say. You know, honoring their truth, even if it is something that hurts you deeply or that you abhor. You can say that, but you have to say it from a place of respect and honoring. If you want it to go somewhere. If you just want to like, let somebody have it, go ahead, let somebody have it, but you're definitely not going to be building towards anything that. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So before I let you go, can you tell us a little bit about The Mensch? Jonah Platt:   Yeah, sure. So the Mensch is one of a couple of Jewish entertainment projects I'm now involved with in the last year, which, you know, I went from sort of zero to now three. The Mensch is a really unique film that's in development now. We're gonna be shooting this summer that I'm a producer on. And it's the story of a 30 something female rabbi in New Mexico who, life just isn't where she thought it would be. She's not connecting with her congregation. She's not as far along as she thought things would be. Her synagogue is failing, and there's an antisemitic event at her synagogue, and the synagogue gets shut down. And she's at the center of it. Two weeks later, the synagogue's reopening. She's coming back to work, and as part of this reopening to try to bring some some life and some juzz to the proceedings, one of the congregants from the synagogue, the most eccentric one, who's sort of a pariah, who's being played by Jennifer Goodwin, who's a fantastic actress and Jewish advocate, donates her family's priceless Holocaust-era Torah to the synagogue, and the rabbi gets tasked with going to pick it up and bring it. As things often happen for this rabbi, like a bunch of stuff goes wrong. Long story short, she ends up on a bus with the Torah in a bag, like a sports duffel bag, and gets into an altercation with somebody who has the same tattoo as the perpetrator of the event at her synagogue, and unbeknownst to the two of them, they have the same sports duffel bag, and they accidentally swap them. So she shows up at the synagogue with Jennifer Goodwin, they’re opening it up, expecting to see a Torah, and it's full of bricks of cocaine. And the ceremony is the next day, and they have less than 24 hours to track down this torah through the seedy, drug-dealing, white nationalist underbelly of the city. And, you know, drama and hilarity ensue. And there's lots of sort of fun, a magic realism to some of the proceedings that give it like a biblical tableau, kind of sense. There's wandering in the desert and a burning cactus and things of that nature.  So it's just, it's really unique, and what drew me to it is what I'm looking for in any sort of Jewish project that I'm supporting, whether as a viewer or behind the scenes, is a contemporary story that's not about Jews dying in the Holocaust. That is a story of people just being people, and those people are Jewish. And so the things that they think about, the way they live, maybe their jobs, even in this case, are Jewish ones. But it's not like a story of the Jews in that sense. The only touch point the majority of the world has for Jews is the news and TV and film. And so if that's how people are gonna learn about us, we need to take that seriously and make sure they're learning who we really are, which is regular people, just like you, dealing with the same kind of problems, the same relationships, and just doing that through a little bit of a Jewish lens. So the movie is entertaining and unique and totally fun, but it also just happens to be about Jews and rabbis. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And so possible, spoiler alert, does the White Nationalist end up being the Mensch in the end? Jonah Platt:   No, no, the white nationalist is not the mensch. They're the villain.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   I thought maybe there was a conversion moment in this film. Jonah Platt:   No conversion. But sort of, one of the themes you take away is, anybody can be a mensch. You don't necessarily need to be the best rabbi in the world to be a mensch. We're all fallible, flawed human beings. And what's important is that we try to do good and we try to do the right thing, and usually that's enough. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, I thought that kind of twist would be… Jonah Platt:   I'll take it up with the writer.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, Jonah, you are truly a mensch for joining us on the sidelines here today. Jonah Platt:   Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Safe travels, wherever you're headed next.  Jonah Platt:   Thank you very much. Happy to be with you.   

  --------  

  30:42

  --------

  30:42
• Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War: The Dinah Project’s Quest to Hold Hamas Accountable

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

  --------  

  23:48

  --------

  23:48
• Journalist Matti Friedman Exposes Media Bias Against Israel

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

  --------  

  31:52

  --------

  31:52

Más podcasts de Noticias

Podcasts a la moda de Noticias

Acerca de People of the Pod

People of the Pod: Podcasts del grupo