Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 5/27/26: We Asked A Top Liberal Zionist How They Can Be Pro-Israel

Episode Date: May 27, 2026

Ryan and Krystal are joined by J street President Jeremy Ben-Ami.  Jeremy Ben-Ami: https://x.com/JeremyBenAmi?s=20  To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com    Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed human. Sending a spicy picture to your work chat instead of your significant other? That's so embarrassing. You know what's not? Debt? Consolidate your debt with a loan from FIG. No hassle, no judgment.

Borrow better with FIG. Visit fig.ca. Hey, guys, it's us. The Jonas Brothers. I'm Joe. I'm Kevin. And I'm Nick. And guess what? We created our own podcast called,

Hey, Jonas. We invented a podcast? Well, we didn't invent it. We just contributed to it. We're the first people to do podcasts. We get to ask other people questions because we're sick and tired of being asked questions. Well, sick and tired is a strong way to put it, but, you know, tired and sick. Tired and sick.

Listen to Hey Jonas on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Just listen. We don't care where you hear it. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman helped make You make you funnier. This week, my guest, S&L's Mikey Day and headwriter, Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform?

We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What I like about this show is that we have an audience of kind of Washington insiders that watches it pretty religiously, but we also have a ton of people outside of Washington who just kind of want the news but are interested in politics. And so I think the guest that we have today is somebody who kind of everybody in Washington is very familiar with.

Jeremy Ben-M-Me, who's the executive director of J-Street. But for people outside of Washington, probably not that familiar. So we wanted to have him on to talk about J-Streat's kind of place in the political firmament now. Because this was an organization that was founded in 2008 as both pro-Israeli, and pro peace. And right after it was launched, Netanyahu invades Gaza again. They came out hard against that invasion. And there was a massive amount of pushback. But it also, its mission at the time was to create space for Democrats to say, I don't think that Netanyahu should be, it actually wasn't Netanyahu, actually, in 2008, was it? Doesn't matter. I don't think Israel should be

attacking Gaza at this moment without being called, you know, Israel haters or anti-Semitic. It created this space for them. And Jeremy was kind of a perfect person to be able to do that because of a lot of different things. But one of them is his crazy family story. Maybe we can talk a little bit about that with him. But his great-grandfather, a great-great-grandfather left Russia under persecution in 1882. Wow. Comes to what was then Palestine, mandatory Palestine. And we can put up EX1, I think it is. His family's part of this iconic 1909 picture of an auction. They're auctioning off the land that becomes Tel Aviv.

His father, according to Family Law, born in 1911, then becomes the first baby born in Tel Aviv. His father then goes on to join Ergun, which is this paramilitary terror organization, that helps us. to found Israel. Afterwards, they move to back to the United States, or move to the United States. Jeremy is born in the United States. So that's the family legacy that he's got. And despite all of that, last week or maybe the week before, the Israeli ambassador to Washington called J Street a cancer on the Jewish community.

And basically called Jeremy and Bernie Sanders fake Jews. Fake Jews. Yes. Yes. And so Jeremy Benamy, executive director of Jay Street is joining us today. Jeremy, thanks so much for being here. Did I get any of the family lore wrong? That is the best intro that I've ever had on that show.

Ryan, you know, he goes deep on the background. I'll tell you a really funny story, which is that picture that you showed, right? It's about 60 families standing on the beach, wearing their Eastern European, you know, finest clothing in the heat, right? And there's a reunion a hundred years later in Tel Aviv of the descendants of those families. And it's really sort of neat. There were 2,000 people and under every flag for the name of a family, the families gathered. We had a big reunion.

And I make the rounds to the different families. And it turns out that every single family thinks that their grandparent was the first kid born in Tel Aviv. So, like, every family has this lore that turns out, and it couldn't possibly be true. but he was among the first kids born. Yeah. And I think the Jewish population in 1911 of Palestine at the time was between 5 and 10%. So there's not that many families there at the time. So this is like the heart of the birth of Israel.

So what was it like to be called by the Israeli ambassador a cancer just recently? And why do you think they said that and what's your response to it? Well, look, I mean, we're dealing with this ambassador, we're dealing with a prime minister, we're dealing with the government in Israel that is made up of the most loathsome people who have perverted the idea of what it should be to have a national homeland of the Jewish people. They have perverted the ideals of the country. They have perverted Jewish identity. As you said, they attack reform and conservative Jews as dogs. I mean, literally, that. happened in the Knesset last week. You know, so this is so much more about these people than it is about me, that it is about J Street. You know, the type of person that I represent in this country is really the mainstream of American Judaism, right?

Not Orthodox, not highly religious, connected to Israel, but really critical of Netanyahu doesn't think this government is representing at all what it means to put Jewish ideals into practice. So the problem isn't J. Street. The problem is a government that would send a man as a diplomat to Washington, D.C., who calls the Jewish critics of the state of Israel cancer. That's the problem. Cancer, and as I said before, effectively accused you and Bernie Sanders of being fake Jews for disagreeing. The sponsor is not a Jew said the Israeli ambassador. The Israeli government. They did make a point, though, that I wanted to ask you about, which is, you know, they said, you're actually not respecting the democratic will of the Israeli people. And, you know, Netanyahu, he's not a one-off. He's been. Prime Minister there for how many or what, like 18 out of the last 19 years or something like

that or 16 out of the last 17. If you look at polling of Israelis on Gaza, on Iran, you have a, you know, large majority of Israeli Jews who say, yes, we're down with complete ethnic cleansing. You have a majority who say that we should actually, we're good with killing every single man, woman, and child within Gaza. You have a majority that's in favor of expelling even the Palestinians who are living within Israel. So it doesn't seem to me like Netanyahu is an outlier in Israel at this point. It seems like he is reflective of the population there and what they want to see. Well, there's huge problems with where Israeli public opinion is today without question. And J Street organizationally and I personally obviously disagree vehemently with some of the things that

the majority of Israeli Jews at this moment would say to a pollster they believe in. But the idea that somehow you don't have the legitimacy and you're not allowed to argue with majority opinion, I mean, that is just a very quick road to hell, right? I mean, if the only thing that you're allowed to do is whatever it is the dear leader in the majority. Oh, of course. Yeah, I'm just pushing back on the idea that it's like Netanyahu in this government that solely the problem. given where a public opinion is and how mainstream that sentiment is at this point. Oh, it's much more nuanced than that. I mean, I do believe that there will be a different government of Israel after the elections that are coming up this fall.

75% of Israelis disapprove of Bibi Netanyahu as prime minister. So, you know, you're going to see him unable to form a next government. The question is, will the opposition be able to come together because they are left, right, and center, Arab, Jewish, I mean, they're all over the map and will they be able to form an alternative government because it's a crazy parliamentary system. But I believe there will be a different government. I believe that government will reverse some of the really worst things that this government is doing. But this new government, even if it is led by somebody from the center right instead of the extreme right, is going to be nowhere near a J Street position. And we're still going

to have arguments with the Israeli government over occupation, over settlements, over treatment of Palestinians over human rights, all of these things that are core to the center of American Jewish opinion will not be central to Israeli Jewish opinion until there's really a change in leadership that takes us way to the other end of the spectrum. Last month, you guys came out in favor of ending American subsidies for weapons to Israel, both, quote unquote, offensive and quote, defensive. For many, many years of Jay Street's history, even conditioning aid was kind of, there was a big internal fight and I don't know when you first came around to the position of aid ought to be conditioned. You tell me when that was. What happened internally or what happened

personally or politically that got you from that point where you were pushing back hard against even conditioning aid to a place where, you know, now we shouldn't have any subsidies from weapons for Israel. So J Street is inherently a political organization, right? We are going to try to move the center of the political debate. We're not going to be the folks pulling at the edge of the Overton window. That's not our role. And I think, you know, we can talk about how change works on a whole variety of issues,

but there's always people who play a little bit more of an inside game and a little bit more of an outside game. And we're definitely, we are a D.C. lobby, right? And we're going to try to build support for the things that we stand for. In the late 2010s already, in our 2019 presidential candidate forum at our national convention, it was the fall of 2019. We had the POD save, the world guys, on our stage questioning the Democratic candidates for president about their willingness to start imposing restrictions on aid to Israel. So we have made it our point over the course of our entire existence to try to push the envelope on these debates. And the discussion of restrictions on arms in the 2019-2020 window, that was a first within the Democratic Party. We were, you know,

we were pushing the envelope there. And then over time, we got to start to have, let's say, you know, in the course of the Gaza war, discussions that began to be not about restrictions, but about conditioning aid and backing for the joint resolutions of disapproval, which really get the ire of the Israeli ambassador against Senator Sanders, supporting Senator Van Halen as he tried to insist that critical elements of the Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act and the Leahy Act, they need to be enforced against Israel because we have provided a blank check to Israel throughout the entirety of the U.S. Israel relationship. And to no one else in the world, do we provide a blank check?

The other thing that we do is we provide diplomatic immunity. We say to Israel, no matter what you do, even if you're violating international law and some international body wants to then censor you based on the international law, we will veto it at the U.N. Security Council, or we will defund UNESCO, you know, or we will do anything we can to provide diplomatic immunity. So for, you know, the entirety of J Street's existence, pretty much, we have said there shouldn't be a blank check and there shouldn't be diplomatic immunity. The specifics have changed as the debate has evolved over these last 20 years.

And we got to the point now where we can, you know, firmly say, Israel should just be treated like every other country. It's a wealthy first world country. It doesn't need our taxpayer subsidies. It's time to end that. And it's time to enforce our laws. That's the position that we take. and it's a natural evolution of everything we've stood for.

Jeremy, one of the reasons I really wanted to meet you and get your thoughts is because it seems to me from the outside that actually J.Streets' sort of position in the political firmament has shifted post-October 7th and I'll tell you what I mean by that. To your point, I do think J-Street has kind of pushed the envelope and created a lot of space for Democrats to have some critique of the Israeli government. And, you know, I say this as someone I ran for Congress unsuccessfully back in 2010. But J Street was important for me, as someone who was coming relatively fresh to understanding Israel and Palestine, looking at those positions and saying, oh, okay, this is a more moral lens that I can use to view this conflict because I'm figuring out who I am and where I am politically on this issue. Ryan, of course, has written a profile of you a number of years back where he got a great quote

from Ben Rhodes about the impact of J Street and helping to get the Iran deal passed, which I do not think would have passed successfully under the Obama administration without J. Streets' aid and assistance. We can put, this is EX2 up on the screen. Ben Rhodes said that J Street was one of the most effective organizations that supported the Iran deal because they had a large grassroots network, growing clout on the hill. In addition to their advocacy, their membership also stepped up to help several members of Congress who lost APEC support because of the deal. So I think politically very important there. And as you said, have been sort of pushing the envelope in what is acceptable in the Overton window with regard to critique of Israel. You also, I know, defended

Ryan from charges of baseless charges of anti-Semitism at one point. But now we're at a point where the Democratic base has really shifted and, you know, sort of across the board, whether you're a centrist, whether you're a moderate, whether you're a Jew, whether you're a Christian, you have an overwhelming majority that say this is a genocide. You have an overwhelming majority that say, not only should we not be providing aid, we shouldn't be selling these weapons at all. In fact, we think we should be sanctioning Israel. So now it seems that J Street's position vis-a-vis the Democratic base has become more aligned with the status quo on Israel than with pushing the vanguard.

And I wonder, you know, first of all, feel free to dispute any characterization of that. But I am curious how you're viewing that shift in the Democratic base and what it means in terms of J-Straits positioning in the political firmament? Well, I do think you're laying out exactly the dynamics that have evolved over these last three years with the war in Gaza in particular. And I think the level of anger at the Israeli government at the IDF over what was done in Gaza, the anger at what is being allowed, if not encouraged on the West Bank, the push by Netanyahu to get us into this awful war and then what's happening in Lebanon.

I mean, the anger is understandable. And it is going to be, as with most anger, focused mainly on how do we demonstrate our anger and how do we punish those who are doing things we don't like done. I think where J Street is going to probably just take a different path is, at the end of the day, our interest in all of this is in building a better future, right? We want to focus on solutions, not on sort of how do we demonstrate our anger. And the only way out of this war, this ongoing hundred-year conflict between Palestinians and Jews, is a political resolution of their underlying conflict. And so J Street's always going to center that. We're going to center. How do we

get these two peoples to stop killing each other? What is the way out of this? Because the seven million Palestinians who live between the river and the sea aren't going anywhere and the seven million plus Jews who live between the river and the sea aren't going anywhere, they're going to have to figure out a way to live together. We can discuss whether or not there's any hope of there ever being sort of one democratic state with equal rights for all. I don't see that as a realistic possibility. Others like Peter Beinart and others in my world think that that's the way out,

but I still believe that there's going to have to be a border drawn between a state that is a state for the Palestinian people, a state of Palestine, and a state that is the state of Israel that provides a national home for the Jewish people. So we will be focused, I think, as J Street, a little less on the sanctions and boycotts and divest and punishing to build the pressure on Israel and more on how can we lay out a pathway to actually resolve this underlying conflict so that both peoples can start to have a future their kids can live for rather than die for. And that's the tragedy of this conflict. But isn't that pressure exactly what's needed to come to some sort of an actual resolution? I mean, we have the model of South Africa. South Africa was also an ally.

It's very uncomfortable. Reagan resisted for a long time applying sanctions because of their apartheid regime. But ultimately, the sanctions and the boycotts are part of what helped to create that international pressure that forced South Africa to change. And Israel is also an apartheid state, but, you know, further than South Africa, committing genocide, committing ethnic cleansing. So shouldn't we apply international law and also use that pressure to help force a resolution, you know, so that both peoples can live peaceably and the region can be a lot more settled? Well, I do think, you know, part of bringing about change, I said this a little bit earlier, is there are going to be an array of different actors working in sync to try to bring about a better

future. And J Street doesn't necessarily have to do the exact same things that other people working in this space do. And we, because we have family and friends and a deep tie to the state and the people of Israel, for J Street types, it's going to be a little bit harder to get on board with allies and engage in all the same tactics with people who don't have that level of connection. You know, we just are going to come at this differently. It doesn't We will, for instance, defend in court and in legislators, in legislatures the right of people to boycott, right? We do not want to see laws passed that inhibit people's First Amendment right to engage in economic boycotts against Israel. But we're not going to necessarily support those boycotts.

So we'll be in a lane next to these folks, and we will be applying pressure, and we will be, a lot of it's going to be from within the Jewish community. And some of it is sort of moral pressure. and the pressure of our leaders of our community. But it doesn't mean that we all have to do the exact same tactics, and I don't have any disregard for the people who are pursuing other things, and I want to make sure that their First Amendment rights to do those things are protected, but J-Stry may not do all of those things. And a lot of people who follow this issue closely will argue now

that because of the settlement activity that has taken place, a two-state solution here is just simply impractical anymore, and what has to then be the focus is, you know, civil rights and dignity and voting rights and democracy for everybody who's there. Zoran Mamdani famously had this debate exchange. I'm curious how you reacted when you saw that and what your thoughts are on this. Let's roll EX5 for people who forget this debate moment. Mr. Mamdani, can I just jump in?

Would you visit Israel as mayor? I will be doing as the mayor. I'll be standing up for Jewish New Yorkers and I'll be meeting them wherever they are across the five boroughs, whether that's in their synagogues and temples or at their homes or at the subway platform, because ultimately we need to focus on delivering on their concerns. And just yes or no, do you believe in a Jewish state of Israel? I believe Israel has the right to exist.

As a Jewish state? Notice a state with equal rights. He won't say it has a right to exist. Does a Jewish state be very clear on that? And his answer was no, he won't visit Israel. That's what he was trying to say. No, no, no, unlike you, I answer questions very directly. And I want to be very clear.

I believe every state should be. be a state of equal rights. Okay, thank you. So what's your reaction to the position that Israel should exist as a state with equal rights for all? Well, I definitely think Israel should exist as a state with equal rights for all. I just also think there needs to be a state of Palestine next to it. You know, and right now, the state of Israel within the green line has about 10 million people who are citizens of Israel. There are 5 million Palestinians who live in the area that have no rights as citizens. And that's that's the occupation, this is the problem, and that needs to be resolved. But within Israel proper, there are 21 percent of Israeli citizens who are Arabs. They do have the right to vote. They do have

equal rights under the law in most cases. There is a lot wrong with Israeli democracy, much as there was a lot wrong with American democracy over our 250 years. That means that certain minority populations here have been fighting for their rights for the entirety of the existence of our country, and that fight will continue in Israel. But the state of Israel should treat all of its citizens, including the Palestinian citizens of Israel, 100% equally under the law. I would argue that the state of Israel should never use the word Jewish as the adjective defining the word state. Jewish for me is a peoplehood. There are 25% of the state. There are 25% of the word, of Jews who practice no religion. They are culturally and ethnically Jewish and have traditional families

that they draw on with Jewish background, but they're not religiously Jewish. When Israel is called a Jewish state, it implies no separation between religion and state. And that's one of the biggest problems that Jewish Israelis feel about their own state. They want a constitution. One of the things a new government may really try to do for the first time in 78 years is actually write a constitution that would cement that everybody who is a citizen of Israel would have equal rights, regardless of their religion, race, gender, et cetera. But there needs to be a state of Palestine where the Palestinian people have the exact same right

to create a state that is the national homeland of the Palestinian people. And where all Palestinians all over the world, millions and millions, can return home to the state of Palestine as of right, just as Jews all around the world can return to the state of Israel as of right. And the only way that this gets resolved is, if each of the two peoples have the exact same set of rights. But I would say they need to be nationally handled

in states next to each other or not in the same state. You have the desire to help a real difference? The College, LaCite, you offer the program Dependance and Scenta Mental. Acquare the competences essential

for accompany and support the people confronted to the health mental and of dependence. Construise a career enriching to service of the community francophone of all the country.

Don't do some quality in French. It's possible With LaCite.com, visit CollegeslaC.a.com, an initiative of the consortium national of formation in health

supported by Santee Canada. Hey, it's us, the Jonas Brothers and guess what, we have some big news. What's the news, huge news? We created our own podcast called, Hey Jonas.

We invented a podcast? Well, we didn't invent it. We just contributed to a... We're the first people to do podcasts. A pretty, yeah, pretty wide range of podcasts throughout there. But this one's extra special. So how do we actually

come up with a name, Hey Jonas, guys? I honestly don't remember. I think it was on a call about what we should call it. We were thinking I'm originally calling it one of the early names of our band before Jonas Brothers. This is how you guys remember it going down? Yes. I have a very different memory of this. We were talking about a thing, a bit for the podcast, where people could call in and say, hey, Jonas.

And then I wrote down on my little notepad, Hey Jonas, and offered it up as a potential title for the podcast. But thanks for remembering that, guys. Listen to Hey Jonas on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Just listen. We don't care where you hear it. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter.

Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Jeremy, let's dig into that a little bit more and what you mean when you say that you support a Jewish homeland. Because this really gets to the rub of why, in my view, it's very dissonant to hear the term liberal Zionists. Because liberal would indicate you support equal rights for all. you support, you know, civil rights, equality, human rights, et cetera. And the expression of,

you know, a Jewish homeland or a Jewish state is a sort of ethno-supremicist expression, where the moment that there are too many Palestinians, you have a demographic problem because we can't possibly have, you know, a Palestinian or a Muslim or an Arab majority here because that will destroy our whole state. And so what I, I'm wondering how you square the circle of being, you know, a progressive who does support equality on, you know, matters here domestically, but also supports this ethno-supremicist state of Israel. So the word that I try to push back on would be ethno-supremicist. You know, the concept of Israel when it was founded was to be a place where Jews around the world

who had been living stateless for 1,800 years, and it suffered through, you know, whether it the pogroms in Russia or the Inquisition in Spain or the Holocaust in Germany, I mean, just a litany of a history. The idea that there should be one place on the planet where the Jewish people can claim citizenship because of who they are. That is what the state of Israel was founded on. The people who founded the state of Israel, of course, were by and large socialist, right? It was a very left-of-center place and the ideals of socialism and the ideals of creating a Jewish home coexisted in the state. And it was, you know, really the dominant ideology. It is not per se that right-wing ethno-nationalists like Libby Netanyahu Ittemar Ben-Vier, Betsalos Motritch,

the ambassador here in the U.S. Yehiel lighter. It is not a given that that is the kind of people that will govern the state of Israel. And so I do believe. But doesn't that become a sort of inevitability once the core of your project is we must maintain a Jewish majority. I mean, Israel de facto has control of, you know, from the river to the sea, as you would say, over the West Bank. I mean, if you live, if you're Palestinian living in the West Bank, your day-to-day life is structured by what Israel, the Israeli government is going to allow you to do and what it's not. Israel is taken over 60% of the Gaza Strip and Netanyahu is threatening to take over the rest of it. And once again, if you live in the Gaza Strip, even in that part that hasn't been taken over,

day to day life is structured by what the Israeli government says you can do and where you can go and how you can live. So there is de facto control from the river to the sea. But the suppression and the apartheid and the demographic engineering that occurs through mass murder and ethnic cleansing is necessitated by the idea that we must have a Jewish majority. And so doesn't it end up being inevitable that you have this sort of, you know, genocidal, right-wing, ethnic supremacist government, if that's the core ideal at the center of the state? I don't agree. We probably just won't see eye to eye on that. The problem for Israel is that if it

insists on keeping all the land, which the right wing is insisting, right, to be from the river to the sea and to annex and take over all of the land, then you have 15 million people that live in that land and a little bit less than half of them are just. Jewish. So you actually cause a bigger problem for those who want to have a national homeland of the Jewish people if you keep all the land. The only way actually for there to be a state that is Jewish in nature and democratic and provides rights to all of its citizens and to have Palestinian people have their rights is for there to be a division of the land, for there to be some of that land. and, you know, the numbers are 78, 22 as the split between Israel and Palestine that's been, you know, on the table since 1967.

That's the only way for Israel to be both Jewish and democratic because if the state of Palestine provides the self-determination and the national rights and the individual rights and the future and the hope for the five million Palestinians who live in Gaza and the West Bank and two million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel out of a population. of 10 million are given full and equal rights like any minority in a democracy, this actually is a resolvable problem. It is not by definition that having a national homeland of the Jewish people, you know, there are so many countries around the world that have a national identity, a people who feel strongly as a people that gives their country a national identity, doesn't make them all ethno-nationalist states. Sure. But like what in your view would have, Let's say we get the two-state solution, right? And there's a division of the land as, you know, as laid out by the U.N.

What happens if the Palestinian citizens of Israel start having too many kids? And now they're threatening to become a demographic majority within Israel. You know, what happened to that? Ironically, the biggest problem that Israel has demographically is that the ultra-Orthodox are having too many kids. Yeah, that's true. No, that is an issue. But I mean, you see what I'm getting at here because I suspect, you know, we have a big Christian nationalist movement in this country, led by Pete Hegseth and others who are in government right now. And I suspect you don't support that.

So how do you support, you know, a Jewish nationalist ideology when you would oppose that here, you know, domestically because you understand the way that that would infringe on the rights of others who didn't meet the definition here in the U.S.? Well, if that is the way that it's going to be implemented, I'd oppose it. But what I'm arguing, and we may not agree, but I believe, you know, that the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel and the values on which it was found in the basic laws that were established, the idea of it was that all 10 million Israeli citizens, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Druze, Jewish, Russian immigrants, Circassian, whoever they are, that they all have equal rights. It is the demographic fact that 75, 76% of the citizens of the state of Israel right now are Jewish. And the other 25%, 21% are Arab, 4% or various other ethnic groups. This is the way

other countries work too. I mean, you can run through a list of the 193 countries that are member states of the UN, and many of them have a population that has an ethnic identity that is 75, 80%, and and at the same time have 20, 25, 30% of other peoples who live within their land. And some states do better than others at providing those people with rights. And I would fight and be at the front line to ensure that the Arab citizens of Israel, the Palestinian citizens of Israel, have the exact same rights and the same opportunities as the Jewish citizens. And so I don't agree that having a state that has an ethnic identity as it's, identity is by per se going to lead you to Itamar Ben-Gvier and Betzalos Motr. In fact, you know,

90% of Israeli Jews vehemently oppose Betzalos Motrich and Itimar Benvier. And as I said, 75% oppose Netanyahu. And when they tried to take apart Israel's democracy and the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, millions and millions of Israelis took to the streets in order to ensure that the functioning liberal democracy that they were brought up in would be maintained. So, you know, I'm willing to fight for that. I'm willing to continue to be out there making the case that is a possibility. And I hope that the state of Palestine that's created next to Israel will also set up a structure that provides opportunity for all of its people to have equal rights and protect those rights and has the rule of law, independent judiciary, et cetera.

And so to pick up on a point that Crystal was making about putting pressure, on Israel. On, I would make two points here. One, on a moral level, you know, you have, you have said that you think that, you know, legal, legal analysts will, will in the future conclude, or have already reasonably concluded that Israel is carrying out a genocide in Gaza. So to me, on a moral level, a country that is doing that needs to be sanctioned by a country if it has a moral, if it has any moral compass left. But just practically speaking, pragmatically, over the last several decades, if you had an Israeli politician going to the public in an election year saying, we need to pursue coexistence with Palestinians and we need to make compromises to reach a deal, we need to respect the dignity of all the people who live here,

and you had a different politician who was saying, no, we don't, because the United States is going to back us to the hilt militarily and diplomatically. and what we need to do is smash them. We need to do ethnic cleansing. We need to pursue a project that expands the territory under our control. Each time the person arguing, no, we don't have to make compromises, is validated by the United States unwillingness to create any consequences for any Israeli action, even if it's killing, you know, Christian, Palestinian, American citizen journalist. for instance. And so each time the country lurches further to the right. So just pragmatically, it feels like if there were any politicians left saying we need to make some compromises for

coexistence because, oh, look, they've figured out these drones and like maybe we can't just occupy and destroy Lebanon forever, those politicians are undercut by America's, you know, endless willingness to tolerate that activity and actually just to support it. So just from a pragmatic perspective, why not sanction Israel? Well, I do think that we agree 100% on this, actually. It is absolutely true that one of the reasons why Israel has done what it's done and being able to do what it's done is because of the broken American policy and the broken American political system. And it does bring us back to American politics. And one of the reasons why these laws are in effect the way they are,

and one of the reasons they are not enforced has been because of the political pressures that groups like APEC and others from within not only the Jewish community, but I would also argue the Christians United for Israel, the evangelical community, the political pressures that are put on federal legislators and ultimately on presidents to adopt an Israel right or wrong policy. And so the politics have been broken, the policy has been broken, and it's led to the horrors that we see on the ground,

not only in Gaza and the West Bank, but Lebanon and beyond. So just to be clear, so you do support at this point in arms embargo on Israel? We support ending financial assistance, phasing out the billions of dollars a year rapidly, right, to end that. Our taxpayer dollars shouldn't be subsidizing this. You also said we shouldn't even be selling them weapons if they're breaking American law. Right, exactly. They are breaking American law. Right, but that is selling them weapons under the exact same rules that you sell them to everybody else, right?

If another country is buying the weapons and they're violating our laws, we shouldn't sell those weapons. And it's the same for Israel. Israel should have no exception. There should be no longer exceptional treatment of the state of Israel under American law. But that's not a complete arms embargo. I mean, I will say that those are two different things. and if there is behavior that Israel is engaged. How are they different things?

So if you were, just to be totally clear, if you were in government right now today, given that Israel has been deemed to be committing genocide, given the ethnic cleansing that's happening now in Lebanon, given the policies in the West Bank, you would not sell, you would not green light selling any weapons, offensive or defensive to Israel today.

The distinction that I would draw is I would draw, draw a distinction for defensive systems. And that's based on the argument that obviously you know well. That's, you know, surging all around us. I believe that fewer people will die if Israel has the missile defense systems to prevent Hezbollah or Hamas or other Houthi rockets, Iranian rockets, from hitting Israeli civilians. I think that everybody will face an even deeper cycle of violence if those kinds of rockets get through. So I personally, and I would urge for government policy to be,

to continue to sell missile defense systems, Iron Dome being one of several systems. But offensive weapons, as long as Israel is violating the ceasefire, as long as it is violating our laws, as long as it violating international laws or now, and until such time as it's not violating all of those things, the United States should withhold. And that's why we supported the joint resolutions of disapproval, should withhold offensive weapons from Israel while it is violating American law and international law.

So I would view it quite the contrary in terms of, you said that the defensive weapons, if we didn't sell those, that would deepen the cycle of violence. First of all, it's hard to imagine a deeper cycle of violence than what we're in right now. But currently we're in, you know, the Iran war, which Israel certainly wanted. Trump's a big boy. He made his own decisions here. But Israel obviously was influential in making the case that we should get ourselves into this disastrous war. There have been talks going on some level of negotiations that are occurring that appear to be bearing some fruit.

How close they are not, it's anybody's guess. But it's very clear that Israel right now is trying to undercut any even. theoretical possibility of a resolution by escalating their bombing in Lebanon. And I would submit to you that the reason that they're able to not only bomb Lebanon, not only commit genocide in Gaza, they've bombed seven of their neighbors over the past several years is because they feel that they are immune. And part of that immunity from any sort of real repercussions is the iron dents. is that defensive capability and also our government's, you know,

complicity and willingness to carry water for them all the time. So in my view, those defensive weapons, quote unquote, defensive weapons, have been instrumental in allowing Israel to operate in this, you know, in this rogue manner. And to, you know, which has grave implications for the globe. It certainly has grave implications for our own foreign policy. Yeah, I mean, you and I probably just won't agree on this, but that's fine. I mean, I think, you know, that it's important that there be, you know, gradation of different opinions on this. We're sort of aligned behind the notion that there has to be a change in the U.S. Israel relationship and that the blank check has to end and there has to be pressure placed and we need to change Israeli policy and the U.S. can't be complicit in what's going on anymore.

So we agree on, you know, a lot of it, what we don't agree on. And, you know, I just will maintain this to the end. And, you know, I believe that it is a very high purpose to ensure that randomly fired Houthi, Hezbollah, Hamas, you know, militia rockets coming out of Syria or Iraq, and even Iranian missiles, to prevent them from hitting civilians and killing more people is something of value. And if some of these rockets got through, you say it couldn't get worse. I think it could get worse. And I hate to say that. But, you know, the level of destruction is, you know, here. But I tell you, they could go here. And I think it has at least somewhat held back the cycle of violence from going to the absolute seventh circle of hell.

What if we grant that protecting civilians is actually, you know, a price should actually be a priority for the united states far more civilians have been killed in lebanon yemen and in uh the occupied Palestinian territories should we sell defensive weapons there well i also think one thing to bear in mind when it comes if something gets lost in the iron dome is that israel developed iron dome uh and then the united states entered into a contract with uh Israel and they said you know if you produce the systems then we'll produce the interceptors here on American soil and Israel agreed to that. So it's a slightly different situation. I just want, you know, this gets into the weeds of all of this, but we are not developing weapon systems

with al-Qaeda or with ISIS or with, you know, the Hamas or the Houthis. Houthis have some pretty good rocket scientists, clearly. Right, clearly. As to as do many of these. Maybe we should be. But, you know, the, I do think that these are two apples and oranges, and I do think the United States should be working with the Lebanese government and providing it with capacity to take on Hezbollah. And I think that the United States should be with its allies working to develop the international stabilization force that ultimately will bring a little bit more security into Gaza and transition over to a Palestinian-led force. And the United States should be supporting Palestine and Palestinians and Palestinians and Palestinians.

Palestinian Authority Security Forces. You know, we trained the Palestinian Authority security forces, the United States. And so I do think there's an American role if we really want to bring security and stability to the region to help the new government of Syria, to help the new government in Lebanon, to help the government of Palestine so that it can establish some stability and security for its people and for the region. Renno mishap? That's embarrassing. You know what's not embarrassing?

using FIG for Home Improvement loan. A quick, simple and transparent offer in minutes. Borrow Better with FIG. Visit fig.ca. Hey, it's us to Jonas Brothers, and guess what? We have some big news. What's the news, Nick? Huge news. We created our own podcast called, Hey Jonas.

We invented a podcast? Well, we didn't invent it. We just contributed to our first people to do podcasts. Pretty, yeah, pretty wide range of podcasts throughout there. But this one's extra special. So how do we actually come up with this? the name Hey Jonas, guys. I honestly don't remember.

I think it was on a call about what we should call it. Well, we were thinking I'm originally calling it one of the early names of our band. Before Jonas Brothers was... This is how you guys remember it going down? Yes. I have a very different memory of this. We were talking about a thing, a bit for the podcast, where people could call in and say, hey, Jonas.

And then I wrote down on my little notepad, Hey Jonas, and offered it up as a potential title for the podcast. But thanks for remembering that, guys. Listen to Hey Jonas on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Just listen. We don't care where you hear it. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy,

not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement.

homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Just to drill down, and this really gets to kind of like the rub of things, Israel gets treated differently because Israel is an ally, right? That's the reason we won't sell defensive weapons or really do anything to protect Palestinians or Iranian civilians as we're bombing their little girls' schools or Lebanese civilians. You know, Israel is this key ally, which, as you pointed out through APEC and also through your own group, has, you know, influence within the United States government, quite a lot of influence, it seems, at times. And I guess one of the questions that I think the American people

are asking is, what are we getting out of this relationship? You know, I'm, I view this more through a moral lens. I think Israel is committing a genocide. I think Israel is, you know, is an apartheid state. I think it should be sanctioned the way South Africa was. I think that level of pressure should be applied to compel moral behavior. I think we should have international law. I think our willingness to observe the, you know, and support the barbarism of Israel and Gaza has effectively destroyed international law globally and has created a law of the jungle. So I view it through a more moral lens. But for my sort of realist friends out there who look at this just, from a cost-benefit perspective, what do we get out of Israel being this key ally?

Why should we have PACs like J Street in the U.S. that describe themselves as being, quote-unquote, pro-Israel, given the fact that, you know, Israel has helped persuade the president to enter into this disastrous war, given the fact that Israel has helped to destroy international law, which is something that I think we should all care about if we want to live in a stable globe. given the fact Israel is routinely considered by our own intel agencies to be one of the greatest surveillance threats against American citizens. So why are we holding so tight to this alliance with an actor that is not only immoral, but has helped to foment a massive strategic disaster for the United States of America in the globe?

Well, I think that what you're hearing me say is that the U.S. shouldn't be having that kind of a relationship with an Israel that is doing the things that you're outlining. You know, this Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu, the things that it has done over these last 20 years, by and large, they have hurt American national interests so that you won't get an argument that under this government and in the direction that Israel has traveled over these recent decades, that this is a positive. But it can and it should be. You know, what we want to see is a Middle East that ends these conflicts, right,

that provides Palestinians with an actual route to self-determination that begins to tap into the incredible opportunity that Israel provides to the region to be a technological and economic engine of growth. And that vision, we call it a 23-state solution. Because when you say two-state solution at this point, people's eyes lays over. But the issue is, can Israel become a functioning member of the region and work with all of its neighbors? There are 22 Arab states in the Arab League, and one of them is Palestine. So let's actually form a 23-state peace agreement, a comprehensive regional agreement that agrees on borders, that agrees on rights, that agrees on things like how to resolve the refugee.

issue, how to deal with religious freedom for all religions. These are the things that Israel can and should be a part of. That's the type of Israel that can be an asset. The type of Israel under Netanyahu Ben-Gvir and Smotrich that does what it is in Gaza that is burning down the West Bank, that is fomenting religious warfare, whether it's on the temple mound or other religious sites that's convincing Donald Trump to go to war, that is not an asset to the United States. That is not an asset to the United States. But it can be. And when I'm pro-Israel, when I say J Street is pro-Israel, we are advocating for a different future. You know, we are doing this because what is happening today is so negative, but it doesn't have to be. And we want to return to some of the original

concept of what the country was. You showed the, you know, picture of my grandparents, and we talked about my dad, and we talked about the founding of the country. This is not the Israel that those people had in mind. You know, and by fighting for it to try to change the direction. That's what we mean by pro-Israel. We have nothing to do with being in favor of what this government is doing and nothing to say positive about what it has done over the past 20 years that J Street's been around. It just seems to me to require a sort of suspension of reality to imagine the Israel that you're talking about. For example, you've said, you know, you expect there'll be a new government in place that isn't as extreme as this

government. But, you know, Nftali Bennett, I mean, the, The critique he's had of Netanyahu with regard to the Iran war is that he wasn't brutal enough. He's made plenty of his own racist incendiary comments, whether it's with regard to Gaza or with regard to Arabs more broadly. So if that's the moderate in Israel, it's just very hard to imagine without applying the kind of pressure like we applied and the globe applied to South Africa and without using international sanctions and compelling different, different behavior. If you're relying on the Democratic vote of Israeli Jews, 82% of whom support the expulsion of residents of the Gaza Strip entirely, we're never close to the universe that you would like to see. I, you know, don't necessarily agree. It is also a fact that, for instance, in 1977, Manachem Begin came to power in Israel. he was the leader of the terrorist group that my father was a part of called the Irgun, right? And he was about as far right as anybody had ever been in Israeli politics.

And he came to power four years after the Yom Kippur War. And Israel in 1967 had seized the Sinai. And then they fought another war in 73 over it. And so he comes to power in 77. And everybody says, oh, my God, you know, this is not the person who can make peace with Egypt. And he specifically said, I will never under any circumstances give back the Sinai. And 80% of Israeli Jews agreed with him, don't give back the Sinai. Because we've just fought four wars and 30 years against Egypt that keeps invading us through the Sinai.

And then, you know, two years later, he's sitting on the South on of the White House signing the peace deal with Egypt. And, you know, sometimes this sort of nix into China moment happens in history. I don't think history is preordained and pre-written. it is in Israel's long-term interests. And this is the case that J-SER will continue to make, you know, as long as we are around, we will make the case that Israel can only have a future that is worth it for the Jewish people

if it compromises and allows there to be a Palestinian state. And what it gets out of that is normalization of its relations with Saudi Arabia and the whole Gulf and the extension of the normalization of Israel as a country in the region. That's what Israelis can get for this. And that can shift that 82% opposition quickly. And it needs political leadership. And I will fight for it. I believe it's possible. I know there are examples in history of this happening. And that's why we do the work that we do. If we could put up EX7, I wanted to ask you about this was one passage from the profile I did back in,

back in 2019 for The Intercept. The group officially launched Jason April 2008. Ben and me told early staffers that he wanted to make quick work of the conflict as there were other big issues that needed attention. Quote, I want to try this theory of change, he would say, according to multiple people who heard his refrain at the time. And if it doesn't work, I'll close down the shop and we'll work on climate change. First of all, I wanted to get, like, do you remember saying that?

And what would you think of people who, you know, used to work at J Street and are now saying, It had a reasonable theory of change for its moment. It no longer does. And it's time to go on climate change. Definitely a classic J Street moment. Definitely said it. When I actually, you know, my real line was much more frequently that I hope we'd succeed and then we'd shut down and go work on climate change.

That was, you know, I hope we would succeed now that we wouldn't succeed. Yeah. We need help on AI too, Jeremy. We could use it there as well. I didn't know that in 2008. But, you know, I'd much rather see us working on a lot of of other things. I do think that the theory of change of J Street, which is that the politics of this issue are the root problem, that the policy is constrained and almost dictated by the politics.

And so you needed a political intervention in order to shift American politics so that our policy could change. I really still believe that that theory of change is correct. And I think, as Crystal was saying at the beginning, we're seeing a very rapid shift. Part of that change is, shift is people way to the left of J Street. You know, that's a natural development as a result of what Israel has done. And again, the things that Crystal's describing, you know, it leads you, Crystal, and it leads other people to take the positions you're taking, which are way to the left of J Street.

And I don't disparage that at all. I understand it. You have to understand where many of us in the Jewish community come from who have a deep relationship with Israel. We still want to try to change Israel. You know, we still want to change the trajectory. We don't want to see it become a pariah state. We don't want to see it become an outcast state among the nations, which is where it's

headed if it continues down the path that it's on. And so our theory of change, which is change American politics, so American policy can be more balanced and more rational and help push for a resolution of this conflict, you know, solve this problem, not just punish, not just call out the bad guys, but actually solve this problem. And the solution to this problem ends in. a border. There has to be a border for the state of Palestine, the state of Israel, an integration of both of those states into a successful and stable region. I, first of all, very much appreciate the dialogue

and your willingness to engage. And I know these are very difficult conversations. And this will be a difficult question as well. You know, you say you have this personal family connection to Israel. And I get that. Like, I'm an American. I think America does horrible things in the world. I'm so committed to trying to change it, right? Even when that seems to be long on. But the question is, why do that through an American organization? Wouldn't the way to change Israel be through Israel? And what do you say to people who say to have a quote-unquote pro-Israel pack in America today is the moral equivalent of having a pro-South Africa pack at the height of apartheid?

Right. I mean, you would hope that the pro-South Africa, the people from South Africa who lived here who hated apartheid and wanted a different South Africa would be pretty happy when Nelson Mandela came to power, and their view of pro-South African would have been Mandela's victory, right? And so for me, I am pro-Israel, but I'm anti-occupation. I am anti-the-moral abomination of what happened in Gaza. I am anti-the-settler terrorism that is happening on the West Bank. Because I'm anti those things, that's how I define my pro-Israel, right? I am standing up for the idea that the state that represents the Jewish people should not behave this way.

This is not what it means to be Jewish. This is not our values. And so why do I do it here? I'm an American, right? I am not a citizen of the state of Israel. I'm an American. My family is here. My kids are here. This is where my life is. And we in this country are responsible for our foreign policy. We're responsible for our politics. And as American Jews, we're responsible for the American Jewish community. And I think in all three, we're responsible for our foreign policy. And I think in all three of those arenas in policy, politics, and the Jewish community, we are misrepresented by the mainstream organizations of the American Jewish community, that lobby for things that are not in the long run good for Israel, that are interfering in American politics in ways that are bad

for American democracy, and that are blowing up the American Jewish community and driving young people away from their communities rather than bringing them in. So all the work that we do is here. Well, here's, I guess what I'm trying to get at is, and what the quote Ryan read really sort of points to is you're a very talented person. You're a very smart person. I think you, you know, have really done your best to act ethically. And I'm sure this has been a very difficult period for you getting pulled in all sorts of directions being called a cancer and a fake chew and all of all of the rest. But there are a lot of things to work on in the world. And it's hard for me to understand why we as a Americans should prioritize the needs of Israel over, for example, you know, as lefties as

humanitarian here, over prevention of genocide, over, you know, many other issues that we could be working on. It's hard for me to understand how that would be the priority. And to be honest with you, at a time when you've had tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, we don't really know, of Palestinian civilians who have been killed, it's almost offensive to me to center the, you know, the safety of a Jewish homeland when it's that state that has been committing those horrific acts in the world. So I think all things must be balanced. I'm 100% agree with you. It's offensive to me, too. And what has happened, it's morally offensive to me as a Jew. It is morally offensive to me as an American who enabled what happened. And put aside the morals,

I also think this is an unbelievably self-defeating and self-destructive path that the state of Israel is on. And I think it's ultimately going to hurt Jewish people around the world. So I have a stake in it even if I don't live there because the things that are happening there are coming back to my community and biting people that I know and hurting people that I know. So I think it is absolutely, deeply, deeply respect the pro-Palestinian movement. I think that the Palestinian Americans, Arab Americans, Muslim Americans who are working for Palestine, it's a very important part of the discourse. And similarly, a pro-Israel Jewish organization is an important part of the discourse

because we represent several million American citizens and we have a say in how these policies are conducted and the way we act in American politics is going to have an impact on how, whether or not we can defeat MAGA and whether or not we can save our own democracy. These issues interject themselves into the center of American politics,

and they may be doing that to the detriment of our future as Americans. And so for all of those reasons, I think it's really important for me and for J Street with our identity front and center, you know, right next to those who are pro-Palestinian and, you know, next to the Lebanese American community who's devastated and the Iranian American community that's devastated. I mean, there's just a lot of people that are citizens of this country

who have a deep connection to, and care for what happens there and understand how what happens there also comes back and impacts us here. And last question from me, because I know you've got to run in a second. I think some of the remaining support that Israel has here in the United States from liberal Zionists comes from this idealistic notion that you presented about what Israel could be. similar to how a lot of communists will say, well, true communism has never been tried. But at this point, when the reality of what Israel is doing on the ground is so different from what the liberal kind of vision for it is,

is propping up that liberal vision of it actively harmful and kind of fueling a delusional level of support for the reality on the ground? Only if one is not calling out that delusion. You know, I do not spare any words, right, in terms of describing just how awful these people are and what they're doing, how it violates every shred of my, you know, Jewish moral identity, everything that I've taught my kids about what it means to be a good person and follow the ethics and the morals of our people. I write about this every week. I have a substack called Word on the Street, and I almost every single week I'm writing about the you know, the horror and the pain that this causes to believe very deeply in your tradition and in the ethics that were handed down from generation to generation and watch the state

that's purporting to act in the name of your people violate every single one of those things. I mean, this is very, very painful. But I think it's very important that over the course of 250 years in this country, you know, as we fought for slavery, as we fought for suffrage, as we fought for civil rights and voting rights, and we know, you know, these things go back and forth and we take steps forward and we've seen, you know, the steps backwards that we're going, no one's giving up on the vision of what an America can and should be, you know, the idea that underlies America that started 250 years ago. These are still some very powerful ideas that have been terribly executed for 250 years and we're still really working on them. I won't give up on the idea

that a state that is the national homeland of the Jewish people can also treat the other people live there well and can live at peace with its neighbors, including a state for the Palestinian people. That I think is not out of the question. And the horrors of this last few years is actually a moment for Israelis to take a look and say, well, maybe it actually is time to try a non-netonialopath, rather than living by the sword, rather than by creating a Super Sparta, you know, that only knows how to bomb things and kill things. You know, maybe it is time for us. to try a different path. And I believe that this is a really important argument to make to people both in this country

and that country. Well, Jeremy, once again, thank you so much for your engagement. I really genuinely appreciate you fielding some difficult and challenging questions. And it's great to meet you and get to speak with you today. Absolutely. Thank you so much to both of you. And I really appreciate the respectful dialogue. It's a real model of how to talk through these things.

And now you'll get trashed even for coming on the program. Coming on the program. From every side. All right. Thank you, Jeremy. We'll see you soon. Thanks, guys. Hey, guys, it's us.

The Jonas Brothers. I'm Joe. I'm Kevin. And I'm Nick. And guess what? We created our own podcast called, Hey, Jonas. Nice. We invented a podcast?

Well, we didn't invent it. We just contributed to it. We get to ask other people to do podcasts. We get to ask other people questions because we're sick and tired of being asked questions. Well, sick and tired is a strong way to put it. But, you know, tired and sick. Tired and sick. app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Just listen. We don't care where you hear it.

Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smyl and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Remember me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This week on Crimless, Rory and I welcome a very special guest. When I did podcasts, I wear my sleep masks. I like where this is going.

So if you guys will indulge me. That's right, the incredibly talented and hilarious Will Ferrell on an episode dedicated to crimes committed by people named Will Ferrell. You're good for 300 crimes? Yeah. We got two. I'm ready to go right up to present day. Listen to Crimless on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. This is an IHeart podcast.

Guaranteed human.