Call Me Back - with Dan Senor - The Oldest Hatred... Post-October 7 - with Ritchie Torres, Michal Cotler Wunsh & Ethan Missner

Episode Date: October 25, 2023

Among the questions we've been getting since October 7 are those about antisemitism. Does this time feel different? Why? Or, another question, when is it appropriate to be critical of Israeli Government policy, and when does it cross the line into antisemitism? What is the difference between antisemisitm and anti-zionism? Or is there a distinction at all? Is the latter simply a modern-day version of the former? These are some of the issues we discuss in this episode with our guests: Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and Michal Cotler Wunsh, who is the Israeli Government’s Special Envoy for Combating Global Antisemitism (she is also a former Member of Israel's Knesset). Before we move to these two interviews, we speak with Ethan Missner about the life of Israeli soldier Omer Balva, who fell last week.

You know, immediately following October 7, the DSA held a rally glorifying the terrorism of Hamas's resistance. But it was not surprising. Like, I've been sounding the alarm about the anti-Semitism of the DSA for years. Look, many elected officials either live in fear of the DSA or pander to the DSA, either out of genuine belief or fear. And so the mission of the DSA is to take over the Democratic Party from within, impose ideological litmus test on issues like Israel, and then cleanse the party of anyone who fails those litmus tests. That is my perception of what the DSA is

attempting to do in American politics. Among the questions I've been getting a lot since October 7th are those about anti-Semitism. Sure, there's been violence thrust on Israel by its neighbors in the past. And when Israel responds, it can surface discriminatory, if not outright hateful rhetoric against Jews in the United States or Canada or throughout Europe or anywhere in the world. But to many, to many listeners of this podcast, this time, this post-October 7th world feels different. Why? Or another question I've been getting is, when is it appropriate to be critical of Israeli government policy, and when does it cross the line to the danger zone of actually being anti-Semitism? What is the difference, we're often asked,

between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism? Or is there even a distinction at all? Is the latter simply a modern day version of the former? Three points I try to make when addressing the issue of anti-Semitism, especially the anti-Semitism we're seeing all around us today, include one, is Israel the only Jewish state on the planet being held to a different standard than any country in the world when it comes to defending its borders and defending its citizens. Two, when you look back at history and the history of anti-Semitism in almost every century in the history of the world, but especially at the Holocaust, the perpetrators of violence against Jews and discrimination against Jews actually tried to hide their grotesque often genocidal crimes what was different about October 7th is they weren't

hiding anything they filmed it all on iPhones in Facebook live videos with their GoPro cameras and they broadcast their barbarism to the Jewish people and to the world. The raping of women, the systematic raping of women, the beheading of babies, the burning of live people, the kidnapping of little children and elderly people. They weren't hiding anything. They were proud of it. They celebrated it. they reveled in it, and they wanted to tell the world about it. Which brings me to the third point. For some time after the Holocaust, there was a very fringe part of academia that trafficked in what was called Holocaust denialism, which didn't actually outright deny the Holocaust necessarily, it just challenged the facts,

challenged the well-established facts, quibbled with them, maybe chiseling away at what we all know to have been the Shoah. What we're seeing today is not denialism. Some people say that there are efforts in these anti-Semitic outbursts we're seeing in cities all over the place, on college campuses. It's being characterized as denialism, denying the violence, the barbarism that the Jews in Israel were subjected to on October 7th. It's actually not denialism. It's an attempt at legitimization. It's an attempt to say, yes, there was brutal violence, and of course we criticize it, but you need to understand the grievances that lie at the root causes of that violence.

So it's not an effort to deny or cleanse or sanitize. It's an attempt to actually rationalize and even justify. These are some of the issues we will discuss in this episode, trying to understand it all, both the origins of it and what's happening today with our guests, Congressman Richie Torres, who is a congressman representing the Bronx here in New York. Congressman Torres was formerly on the New York City Council. He was the youngest member of the City Council when serving on it. That's when I first got to know him. Today he serves in Congress. He's a member of the House Financial Services Committee, and he also serves on the House Select Committee

on the Chinese Communist Party. Following Congressman Torres, we'll talk to Michal Kotler-Wunsch, who is a former member of Israel's Knesset, Israel's parliament, and she's currently the Israeli government's special envoy for combating global anti-Semitism. Michal has four children, three of whom are in the army today. But before we move to these two interviews, I wanted to do something a little different today. There is a lot of talk and conversations we are all having about what Jews can do during this moment for the Jewish people, for the state of Israel, at a time where people feel very vulnerable. So I want to spend a few minutes talking about one young man's decision, Omer Balva. an Israeli who moved to the United States at a young age with his family and basically grew up here for most of his life after high school. Rather than heading to a top elite American university, which he could have attended, he chose to return to Israel. It was his choice

to enlist in the Israeli army. Omer's best friend since he was a child and who he was with just in recent days is a young man named Ethan Misner. Ethan's family is a friend of mine, and I wanted to spend some time with Ethan to hear more about Omer, his life choices, and how it can inform the conversations we're all having today. So first, my conversation with Ethan Misner. And I welcome to this conversation Ethan Misner, who was the closest friend of Omer Balva, who tragically passed in recent days in Israel's north, a fallen soldier defending Israel. His funeral was actually today. Something like 3,000, 4,000 people turned out for it in and around Herzliya at a military cemetery there. And as I said, we have Ethan with us. And I just want to spend a few minutes with you, Ethan, talking about Omer's life and his ultimate contribution and his ultimate sacrifice. But just to set the context here, Omer grew up and was from Israel, but his family moved to the United States, the Washington, D.C. area when he was young.

And that's where you met him, at Jewish Day School? Yeah, I met him when we were about six years old at JDS, Charles E. Smith Jewish day school in Rockville, Maryland, where we both live. And you were close friends from that point on until, I mean, your, your whole lives. Yeah. Our whole lives. We started in a math class together and immediately clicked and started doing

projects together and having some friendly competition on who's better at math. And it was a conversation we had on day one. And it was a conversation we had at the end of senior year. And even a joke, you know, we cracked a joke about it last Saturday. So I want to fast forward to graduating from high school. So you went off to Georgetown University. I assume many of your peers were applying to some of the most competitive colleges in the United States. Omer made a different decision on what he was going to do when he graduated high school. Can you talk a little bit about that? Yeah.

I mean, it was always a thought in Omer's head. His older sister, Shachar, fought in the IDF and we were all very proud of her. And he ultimately decided to follow in her footsteps. And he was very passionate about joining the people that he loved, his cousins, other family members and friends that fought in the IDF. And he was very passionate and eager to help Jews around the world in any way he could before he joined the IDF, and especially once he joined. And yeah, so senior year he made the decision that he was going to go join. And he was a talented student, it sounds like, so he could have probably done what many of your peers did,

which is go to one of these great American elite colleges, right? He got into many great colleges. Oh, he applied? Yeah, he applied. I mean, I think he was leaning towards IDF the whole time, but he did apply. He went through the whole process. He got into really, really top great universities and still made the decision that he was going to go to the IDF and fight for Jews in Israel. So he moves back to Israel, he joins the IDF, and where did he serve in the IDF?

He served in a unit in Golani, in a combat unit, and he was a commander in the unit by the end of his time there. And he was stationed largely in the south. And then he finished his mandatory service. Obviously, he continued, as we know, to be part of the reserves, his millouim, but what they call in Hebrew, the reserve duty. So he finishes the army, and then – and how old was he when he finishes the army? He finished the army at 21. And then afterwards, he went to IDC. He just finished his first year.

So IDC is a university in the Tel Aviv, Herzliya area, right? Yep. Yep. And he was studying there. What was he studying to do? What did he want to do? He was studying business there. He just finished his first year. And during that entire year, he also had a part-time job working for the government as well.

Okay. So he finishes his first year in university. He's still doing work for the government. You guys make a plan to meet, right? To get together. I think you were planning to meet in New York. Yeah. And that was supposed to be the weekend last week. So, okay. So, when does he get to the US? He got to the US a couple weeks ago. He was in California for a wedding. So, before the war started? Before the war started, yeah. And then he went to Las Vegas.

He was with his girlfriend the whole time, his girlfriend of four to five years, who he was also planning to get engaged with. And he was in Vegas when the war broke out. And instead of coming to his next stop, which was New York, where we were going to spend some time together, we decided to, you know, he was going to go home, he knew he was going to be called up, and we're going to reconvene and spend time together in our hometown before he flew back. And how did he know he was going to get called up? Just all his peers were getting called up, his unit was getting called up, he knew it was inevitable. Yeah, I think as things were evolving, it was inevitable that he was a very well-respected commander in his unit, and they needed leaders to come and join, and he was in the reserves,

and he was in a combat unit within the reserves as well, so I think immediately he was in contact with people there. Now, turnout in the reserves, turnout from the reserves in this call-up is exceeded 100%, meaning they always call up more people than they need because some people are overseas, like Omer was, or they're, for whatever reason, they can't do it, or they're, both parents have little kids and both parents can't join, so one joins and the other one stays back for a period. So they often call over 100%. What's unique about this moment is turnout is something between 130 and 150% of reserves. He didn't have to go. And he was sitting here in the US. And I think some people were saying to him, well, why do you have

to rush back? They're covered. Am I right? I mean, is that accurate? Yeah, I mean, you know, aside from just, we're trying to convince him for his own safety, less so making the argument that Israel will be fine. It was more so, we want you to be safe and we want you to stay safe and we don't want you to go. There was a lot of uncertainty around him going back. And so, yeah, we all wanted him to stay, but he knew what he had to do. And when did he, what date knew what he had to do. And when did he, what date did he fly back to Israel? Saturday, a week ago. And he's deployed immediately? He spent Monday with his family, and then they gave him the extra day Tuesday to spend with his family, which came to a surprise. And he was very happy about that.

He called me and he said he was going to be able to spend an extra day with them and then went either Tuesday night or Wednesday morning to the base up north. Okay, so where was he stationed or deployed up north? Yeah, he was up north near the Lebanon border. And then what happened? He was there and can you describe the incident or at least what you know of it? He was up north. He was on a surveillance mission making sure that portions of the northern border were safe from Hezbollah. And he was in a compromised position, and he attempted to get back to safety to his base. And as he was coming back, he was spotted, and they sent a single anti-tank missile.

He was with a few other soldiers and the missile unfortunately landed right next to Omer and he was the only soldier feeling helpless, both full of fury and a sense of helplessness about this moment, this moment in the state of Israel, this moment in Jewish history, which seems like the worst demons of Jewish history or the Jewish experience in history returning. And they're kind of pulling their hair out and wanting to do something. What is the story and the message of Omer's life about doing something? Yeah. Omer was very intentional with his actions and he he was very clearly passionate about the jewish people in israel and he was never afraid to stand up for what he believed in and stand up for justice and he had the comfortability of america to stay here and not go fight

and he put that all aside to fight for what was right. And he made the ultimate sacrifice to do so. And I think that the message is that in any way you can, you also have to make some sort of a sacrifice to continue for fighting for whatever you think is right and just. And that's what Omer did. And he truly was the sweetest kid ever and put all of his relationships aside and was able to step into the battlegrounds to fight for the people he loved, for Jewish people around the entire world, for the safety of Jewish people and for the safety of Israel. And I think we should all try to find the courage that Omer had. And he did all of this with a smile on his face as well, which I will add, he was smiling and laughing until the last

second. And it was even a concern of his that we discussed that the people around him were not as um you know encouraged and kind of in in good spirits during everything that was going on and and that's very on par with omer he uh he wanted everyone around him you know to feel the light that he was bringing to the table and yeah okay uh we will um leave it there i'm um very sorry for your loss and i i uh pray that omer's memory be a blessing and even though I obviously didn't know him, it is, I think when I first read about his story, when I heard about it from your father, I thought to myself, people like Omer

are the people who the future of Jewish history and the future of the state of Israel are supposed to, it's what our future is supposed to be shaped by. The people who are, they're the people who our future is supposed to be shaped by. The people who are, they're the people who our future is supposed to be shaped by. And when a life is taken at that age with so much promise, it's just, yeah, it's just there's no words, but both gratitude and just a tremendous sense of loss. So just thank you for taking a few minutes with us.

Yeah, of loss. So, um, just thank you for taking a few minutes with us. Yeah, of course. If it's okay, could I do a 20 second on who Omer was just cause I, absolutely. Um, there are very few people that I think if any had what Omer had, which was a, a pure, a pure, genuine sweetness with everyone and anyone he interacted with. And he truly always had a smile on his face. And being around him, you could feel this sort of, this light and this happiness. And he made everybody feel so good. I've been best friends with him since we were six years old. I swear I have never once fought with him ever.

And I've spent endless time with him. And the people that have. And I've spent endless time with him. And the people that have been around him and spent endless time with him have also would agree. And I think that that's a nearly impossible thing to say. It almost makes me think there's a part of him that's truly an angel. And the fact that he can spend so much time with so many people and make everybody really brighten the room and brighten every single room he's in. And I just want Omer to be remembered as a hero before and after what he did.

I mean, far before he put on the uniform and got back on that flight, he was a hero to everybody for just being such an amazing human being. And especially now making the ultimate sacrifice, he will continue to be all of our heroes. Thank you. Thank you.

And now for a conversation about the practical implications of this antisemitism in the extreme that we are experiencing in the West today, these days, especially post-October 7th. I wanted to bring in my friend Congressman Richie Torres into this conversation. Congressman, thanks for being here. It's an honor to be here. I want to start, before we get into what you're seeing on the front lines of these political debates, I just, for our listeners who don't know you, I feel like many of them do know you, but for those who don't know you, can you just briefly tell us how you wound up in politics, and then we'll get to how you wound up becoming such a fierce advocate for Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship in your

politics? Well, I am both an improbable member of Congress and an improbable Zionist. I was born and raised in the Bronx. I spent almost all my life in poverty. I was raised by a single mother who had to raise three children on minimum wage, which in the 1990s was $4.25 an hour. And actually, when I won my primary in June of 2020, I publicly said that before I was a congressman or a councilman, I'm first and foremost the son of my mother, Deborah Bachelet. I would not be here were it not for my mother, who struggled and sacrificed and suffered so that I

could have a fighting chance at the American dream. The most formative experience of my life was growing up in public housing. New York City has the largest concentration of public housing, and it's been so chronically underfunded that it has a capital need of $80 billion and counting. And so I grew up in conditions of mold and mildew and leaks and lead without consistent heat and hot water in the winter. And my experience in public housing is what inspired me to get my start in politics as a housing organizer. And then eventually at the age of 24, I took the leap of faith and ran for public office.

I had no deep pockets, no ties to the party machine in Bronx politics. But I spent a whole year doing nothing but knocking on doors. I went into people's homes. I heard their stories. And in a race of nine candidates, I won my first campaign on the strength of door-to-door, face-to-face, grassroots campaigning, became the first openly gay elected official from the Bronx. What's unusual about my story is that seven years before then, I was at the lowest point in my life. I had dropped out of college. I found myself struggling with depression. There were moments when I thought of taking my own life because I felt as if the world around me had collapsed. There was a point when I was even hospitalized. And so I never imagined that seven years later, I would be the youngest elected official in America's largest city. And then seven years later, become a member of the United States Congress. And so I feel like my story is an American dream story. It's unusual.

It's unconventional, but it's deeply American. And somewhere along this extraordinary life story, you got involved with advocacy for Israel. In fact, you had a formative experience traveling to Israel. I know the first time we met when you were a member of the New York City Council, you had already had this experience. You didn't wait to get to Congress to be working on foreign policy. So you have traveled to Israel. Can you talk a little bit about your discovery, if you will, of Israel and how you found yourself really as one of the most, now at least, one of the most important national spokesmen on issues related to Israel and antisemitism in the US-Israel relationship.

I grew up in a neighborhood that was almost exclusively African-American and Latino. So there's a sense of which I'm an accidental or improbable Zionist. It almost feels providential. But when I entered the city council, I had no knowledge of or passion for Israel. And I was invited by UJA and JCRC of New York to go on a delegation to Israel. It was the first time I had an opportunity to travel abroad. And going to Israel was a life-changing experience. I mean, for me, the most formative moments were Yad Vashem, going to the Masada, going to Stay Rote. And I remember speaking to a mayor in Stay Rote who said that the majority of his children struggle with post-traumatic

stress. Because all of them live under the threat of relentless rocket fire. And I thought to myself, imagine the sheer trauma of a child seeking refuge in a bomb shelter while sirens are going off and while rockets are being

fired. I represent one of the poorest congressional districts in America, where my constituents live in fear of gun violence, a random gun bullet, but no one in the United States lives in fear of rockets. No one worries that Mexico or Canada are going to fire rockets into communities in the United States. And so I came to realize early on that Israel faces a level of volatility and insecurity that has no equivalence in the American experience. And before rushing to judge Israel, people should actually go to Israel and see the facts on the ground with their own eyes and speak to both Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews. And you will come out of that experience with greater empathy, not only for the plight of the Jewish people, but for the security situation confronting Israel. So I've been asked a lot in the last couple weeks, how does one distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from knee-jerk hatred of Jews?

That there's got to be space for there to be a difference. And of course there is. What I often say is where criticism of Israel becomes a form of anti-Semitism, it's a very simple test in my view, which is, do you hold Israel to a standard that you hold no other country? Do you hold the only Jewish state on the planet to a standard you do not hold any other country? And if you do, then that is a double standard. And a double standard is inherently, by definition, a form of discriminating. You're discriminating against the one Jewish state in the world in a way that you don't discriminate

against anyone else. And that manifests itself in many different ways, including the way Israel has to deal with its security challenges and defending its country and defending the Jewish people. So in that regard, and I know you and I've talked about this, like you've seen this double standard applied in a bunch of different ways over the years, and these conversations you've had with people where you kind of see this, either out of ignorance or maybe it's willful ignorance, this double standard is applied. Can you talk a little bit about some of those conversations you've had or experiences you've had over the years that led you to believe that Israel really is held to an absurdly different standard than just about anybody else.

Yeah, I have a few thoughts. And for me, the distinction between constructive criticism and anti-Semitism is more clear cut than people make it out to be. Every country, including Israel, is fair game for criticism, right? It is fair to be critical of a country's policies and practices and political personalities. So that is constructive criticism, right? There is a difference between constructive criticism and extremism, right? Questioning the right of a country to exist is not constructive criticism, it's extremism, right? Questioning the right of a country to defend itself is not constructive criticism, it's extremism. Like questioning the right of a country to defend itself is not constructive criticism, it's extremism.

And as far as I know, Israel is the only country on earth whose very existence, whose very legitimacy, whose very right to defend itself is the subject of a debate. And that to me is a manifestation of antisemitism. One need not be Jewish or Israeli to see clearly the antisemitic double standards and delegitimation campaigns against Israel. I often ask myself, why is Israel the only country on earth that is the subject of a BDS movement? There's no BDS movement against China, which is committing genocide against Uyghur Muslims, or against Russia, which had invaded a sovereign nation state like Ukraine, or against Iran, which is the leading sponsor of terrorism

in the world, or against North Korea, which is essentially a totalitarian state, or Myanmar, which ethnically clans Rohingya Muslims. if the exclusive delegitimation of Israel is not explained by anti-Semitism, then what explains it? And one of the best observations came from Brett Stevens. I heard Brett Stevens once observed that attempting to distinguish anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism is like attempting to distinguish racism from segregationism. It's a distinction that exists on paper, but it collapses in the real world. But the clearest example of anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism is October 7th. When you have institutions like the DSA hearing and celebrating.

So the DSA, just for our listeners, so this is the Democratic Socialists of America. So what is the DSA, hearing and celebrating. So the DSA, just for our listeners, so this is the Democratic Socialists of America. So what is the DSA? I mean, our listeners may not be fully informed on what it is. What is the DSA? It's a political party, a political faction? It is a French political party, the New York City Democratic Socialists of America. It has had growing power since 2006 with the rise of Bernie Sanders and then took on even greater momentum in 2018. But the DSA has become an influential force in New York City politics. And so if you're an aspiring Democrat wanting to be active in democratic politics, want to run for office, at least in New York, and I assume maybe in other places too, you don't want to be on the other side of the DSA, meaning they're powerful, they're influential, they're sort of captured the

zeitgeist of at least some on the left these days. Look, many elected officials either live in fear of the DSA or pander to the DSA, either out of genuine belief or fear. My analysis is that the DSA is strategic enough to know that the two-party system in America is so entrenched, there's never going to be a viable third party. And so the mission of the DSA is to take over the Democratic Party from within, impose ideological litmus test on issues like Israel, and then cleanse the party of anyone who fails those litmus tests. That is my perception of what the DSA is attempting to do in American politics. And New York City is ground zero for democratic socialism in America. And so a few years ago, I remember you and I talked about this when you first were contemplating running for Congress, is when you were on the city council. A few years ago, didn't the DSA put out some dictate that any city council member, I think, or maybe any politician in the New York area that wanted support of the DSA couldn't travel to Israel?

There's something like that. So I would make a few points. When, you know, immediately following October 7, the DSA held a rally glorifying the terrorism of Hamas's resistance. And people were shocked. And I found it shocking. But it was not surprising. Like I've been sounding the alarm about the antisemitism of the DSA for years. In January of 2019, I publicly said that I would never, I was a congressional candidate at the time,

and I said I would not seek the endorsement of the DSA because it embraces BDS, which is an insidious form of antisemitism. Just like I would not seek the endorsement of the DSA because it embraces BDS, which is an insidious form of antisemitism, just like I would not seek the endorsement of an organization trafficking in homophobia or racism or any form of bigotry. So it was obvious to me in January of 2019 that the DSA had a deep rot of antisemitism. And to your question, it became undeniable in August of 2020. The DSA circulated a questionnaire to New York City Council candidates. It was about 15 pages, and the final page was a foreign policy section because the New York City Council famously plays a role in setting foreign policy. And there were two questions in the foreign policy section. Question number one, do you pledge never to travel to Israel if elected to the city council? And question number two, do you pledge to support

the BDS movement against Israel? So in the moral universe of the DSA, it is permissible to travel to China and Russia and North Korea and Iran, but travel to the world's only Jewish state is strictly forbidden. And if that is not definitive evidence of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, then I'm not sure what would be. And so the political establishment should have known at that time that the DSA was too anti-Semitic to be brought into the mainstream of American politics. I genuinely believe that the political establishment is complicit in mainstreaming the extreme and mainstreaming the DSA whose anti-Semitism was obvious even a few years ago.

Okay. So fast forwarding to now, there's the DSA, and then we're also seeing these protests all over the place. We're seeing them in major cities against Israel. We're seeing them on college campuses. We're seeing some pretty outlandish statements from colleagues of yours in Congress. What I've been most struck by, Richie, is when I listen to what's being said in these protests and in these proclamations and criticisms being made by leaders in certain corners, it's not an attempt at denialism. And I made a point about this at the opening of this episode. It's not about denialism. Denialism, you know, there was a period when Holocaust denialism was in vogue with certain fringe academics, which is where they tried to quibble

with, quote unquote, the facts of the Holocaust. Well, it wasn't six million, it was two million. Well, they weren't gas chambers. So it wasn't saying it didn't happen, but it just started to whittle away at, chip away at the facts. And that was horrific that that existed. I think it's been largely discredited, but it was still quite offensive and disorienting. What we're seeing now, you see a little bit of that now post-October 7th, where you see people making noise as, well, they didn't behead the babies. How many babies did they really behead? So you do see a little bit of the denialism. But I actually have been struck not by the denialism, because I think it's actually scant. I've been more jarred by the legitimization, not the denialism, is to say, is what I call the yes, but. Yes, Hamas did terrible things to the Israeli Jews on October 7th, but it's always the

yes, but. Yes, it was terrible. Oh, yeah, I don't condone that. But do you know what the Palestinians are living through? Do you understand they have legitimate grievances? Do you understand they have a territorial dispute? Do you understand they're living in an open-air prison? Do you understand? Do you understand? Do you understand? So it's not denialism.

It's people saying, oh, we abhor what was done and we feel for those who suffered. But you got to understand where it's coming from. You got to understand the root causes. And that, the pervasiveness of that argument is eerie. It's deeply troubling. You know, the democratic socialists have an ideology that divides the world into the oppressed versus the oppressor, right? And in the democratic socialist mind, Israel is the oppressor who can do no right.

And Hamas is the oppressed who can do no wrong. And that is the dangerously simplistic lens through which events like October 7th are seen. You know, you and I view it through the lens of moral common sense and human decency, but increasingly the next generation of Americans are indoctrinated with a hatred for Israel that is so hysterical and so fanatical that it renders them indifferent to the cold-blooded murder of Israeli civilians and children, to the butchering of Israeli babies. And my basic observation is that if we as a society cannot universally condemn the murder of innocent civilians, then what are we becoming?

And what does it reveal about the depth of anti-Semitism in the American soul? There is a deep rod of anti-Semitism pervading social media, corporate America, academia, the political arena, every dimension of American life. And there needs to be a serious reckoning. So you said when we were offline that you – on the one hand, the legitimization is – the trend in legitimization is worrisome on the one hand. On the other hand, you're seeing signs of at least people on your side of the political aisle who are of the political spectrum who are recognizing there's a real problem here. And people who, A, weren't dialed into it before or just believed it was kind of overstated and people were being overly sensitive and overly reactive. There was a pre-October 7th and a post-October 7th mindset among many, you know,

in the liberal left about how serious this problem of anti-Semitism is. I think within the Democratic Party, there are liberals and leftists. The overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party are liberals. And there might've been some, I was not one of them, but there might have been some liberals who felt, look, the DSA is misguided, but well-intentioned. Whereas I felt that the DSA is not misguided, that it's actually malevolent, that it came as no shock to me that the DSA was openly celebrating the murder of Jews in Israel. And so I do feel like there's been an awakening within the Jewish community, and there's been an awakening among liberals that enables them to see more clearly the connection between anti-Sinism and anti-Semitism. And are they, is this something that's being expressed in private, or are they

starting to speak publicly about it? Are they, like, how's it being, you know, is it sort of like they quietly will say to you, geez, Richie, you were onto something, you're right. Or is it, are people having the courage and the self-confidence to speak out and say, this is a real problem and we need to stamp it out in a very public way? Look, I would tell you to look no further than the response to the DSA. I mean, it's been so widely denounced for holding an anti-Zionist rally in the wake of October 7th that the DSA has become politically radioactive in New York City politics, and anyone who associates with the DSA does so at their own political peril.

So that reflects a paradigm shift in New York City politics, which could be a predict of what is to come for the rest of the country. You have in the past told me stories about how you've talked to various minority groups within the liberal coalition about how convoluted their thinking was on what it means to be a member of a minority group in Israel versus what their characterization was. You've often talked about, you know, the LGBT community, and you told me some story about, you know, some leader or activist with the LGBT community who is sympathizing with Hamas or you can tell the story better than I can. Well, actually, why don't you tell that story? And then I'll ask you my question.

Yeah. So back in 2014, my first year at the city council, when I announced that I was going on a delegation to Israel, I became the target of hysterical hatred and vitriol. And even though it would be far more intense me, claiming that I'm a traitor to my race, claiming that I'm supporting genocide and ethnic cleansing and apartheid against the Palestinian people. And I remember seeing one activist who had a shirt that read Queers for Palestine, which caught my attention. And I approached the activist and I asked her, I'm just curious, what is your opinion of Hamas? I asked her this question in 2014. And I thought she was going to say, well, I support Palestinian statehood, but of course I support Hamas because it represents Palestinian liberation, Palestinian resistance. And at that moment, I was in a state of shock. Like I had the beginning of an epiphany. The fact that an LGBTQ activist could defend a terrorist organization that systematically and savagely murders LGBTQ people, that would murder her was to me as definitive a sign as any of the stupidity and moral bankruptcy and absurdity that BDS has inflicted increasingly on progressive politics. And so that moment was the beginning of my own awakening, which unfolded over the course of a decade.

Fascinating. You're like, it's like a canary in the coal mine. Like you saw this, you saw this early, which now so many people, including many in the Jewish community, as you and I were talking about offline, like some even people in the Jewish community. People thought I was overreacting. A comment, I have Jewish friends who said, Richie, you're overreacting to the DSA. Richie, you're too pro-Israel. And those same friends are reaching out to me and thanking me for my advocacy. Now. Now, yes. Because a common refrain in the Jewish community is we feel alone and we feel scared,

and you're making us feel less alone and less scared. But I saw this coming. Not the terror attack, but the cold-bloodedness of the the cruelty of the response to the territory. Before we let you go, Richie, not hold you accountable for the lack thereof. Well, can I make this point? Can I make a partisan point, which your audience might not appreciate? No, it's fine. We got a mixed crowd on the Call Me Back podcast, so bring it. Because there's a perception that the Democratic Party is anti-Israel and the Republican Party is the pro-Israel party. I mean, I would argue that President Biden, the leader of our party, has been unequivocally pro-Israel. Hakeem Jeffries is as pro-Israel as any leader in Congress. But the greatest stumbling block to aid for Israel is not the Democratic Party. It's the dysfunction of House Republicans. If Hakeem Jeffries had the speakership, if House Democrats had the majority,

we would have taken action to provide Israel with the funding that it needs to defend itself. So it is fair to observe that the dysfunction of House Republicans is a national security. Although it's dysfunction, it's not an ideological bias. But I think it's important to emphasize that dysfunction is no friend of the U.S.-Israel relationship. That's fair. That's fair. Yeah.

I mean, this overall issue, leaving the dysfunction piece aside, is a multi-decade problem. I mean, it's maybe we call anti-Semitism the oldest hatred. I want to come back to the question about what's going to happen in Congress in the weeks ahead, but before I do, I'd be remiss if I just didn't ask you this one question that came to mind. If anti-Semitism is the oldest hatred, and pre-October 7th, it had been something that had been percolating and churning on the left, you know, to varying degrees, quietly, quietly, and then loudly, loudly, loudly, and then kind of burst out in a very unavoidable way on October 7th. Do you think it's something that can be eradicated or

at least beaten back anytime soon? Or is it something that's been festering for so long, it's so ingrained in our institutions that, you know, I look at everyone pushing back on the college campuses, which is very encouraging. I look at what's happening in New York City at the private schools where they put out these ridiculous wishy-washy statements after October 7th, and there's pushback at these schools. You're seeing various efforts at pushing back. And I applaud them all and I encourage them all. And yet I worry that we're up against some pretty entrenched ingrained forces that have been in the works and been developing for a very long time before anyone was paying attention? Look, whether hatred is going to be eradicated, I don't know, but we all have a role to play in combating anti-Semitism and extremism.

And, you know, I have no choice to be optimistic. If I thought I was too powerless to combat ancient hatreds like anti-Semitism in the world, then there would be no, you, then there would be no point in fighting at all. So I'm optimistic that we can have an impact in radically reducing antisemitism in our society. You know, as a society, we have succeeded. And there's resurgence every so often, but at the cultural level,

we have succeeded in relegating classic anti-Semitism to the fringe. And the anti-Zionism needs to have that same fate. happening in Congress with regard to getting Israel what it needs from a funding and a defense capability standpoint, at least whatever Israel needs that it must get from the U.S.? Look, I am supremely confident that Israel is going to receive whatever support it needs. The priority should be the replenishment of Iron Dome, given the risk of a multi-front war, given the risk of relentless rocket fire from Hezbollah, whose capabilities are infinitely greater than those of Hamas. So my concern is not support within Congress. My concern is the information war, is the narrative is turning against Israel. And there are elected officials who might be presently supportive,

who might waver in their support, given the scrutiny of the day-to-day details of the war. What makes this war challenging is, unlike most wars in history, Israel's defensive war is unfolding under the microscope of 24-7 cable news and social media. And so those are challenging conditions under which to prosecute a defensive war. You know, everyone on Twitter and apparently everyone in Congress is an expert on the arcana of international law. That's right. Who knew there were all these credentialed experts?

OK, well, Richie, you said that some of your Jewish friends in the past have said, Richie, you're too pro-Israel. I assure you on the Call Me Back podcast, we will never accuse you of being too pro-Israel. It is welcome. It is a badge of honor. So keep up the good work and the good fight, and we would you know, would love to have you back anytime. Appreciate you making time. And, you know, like I said, from strength to strength, you're a very important voice out there. Thank you, Dan. Always a pleasure to be here.

And now our conversation with the State of Israel's Special Envoy for Combating Global Antisemitism, Michal Kotler-Wunsch. And I'm pleased to welcome to this podcast Michal Kotler-Wunsch, who's the Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism on behalf of the Israeli government, a former member of Knesset as well in Israel. Michal, thanks for being here during pretty awful times over in Israel and over here, but I appreciate you taking the time. Thank you for having me, Dan. I want to start, we've been trying to figure out a way to get into this topic, and you're the perfect person to get into it with, which is, since October 7th, there's been almost like a wake-up call, I think, to many Jews in the diaspora about anti-Semitism.

Because up until recently, I think many, many American Jews, and not just American Jews, many people in the West generally, have believed that anti-Semitism lived in a completely different sphere than being anti-Israel or being double-standardly critical of Israel. Meaning anti-Semitism was seen as this thing. It was like a white supremacy-based view of Jews, and it had no legitimacy among extremist groups, which the characterization would go mostly on the right. But while being anti-Israel is a politically legitimate view, according to this view of the world, and they're able to therefore make a distinction between being fiercely and unapologetically critical of Israel and even hating Israel, but that's separate from hating Jews. Now, I think more and more observers are saying, ooh, maybe that distinction isn't so clear. So why, first of all, is there a distinction from your perspective? And what are

people seeing now that are jostled by this moment? So I actually think, Dan, that the world before October 7th and the world after October 7th are completely different. So I think that the masks that have come off just so clearly, and as you've noted, for so many people, including Jews around the world, meaning there is no way to deny at this moment in time, post-October 7th, that anti-Zionism is the new, modern, mainstream form of anti-Semitism. Now, Jew hatred over time, over thousands of years, mutated according to the guiding social construct of the time, whether it was religion or science.

In this social construct that anti-Semitism was able to mutate, it actually co-opted and weaponized what we know of as human rights. We'll call it the secular religion of our times. Weaponizing human rights in that way, whether it be in international institutions that were mandated to uphold and promote and protect those human rights, or whether they be on university campuses, the understanding that what that enabled is actually that very mutation, this new strain, if you will, of anti-Semitism in the form of, we'll call it anti-Zionism or the delegitimization of the state of Israel to exist in any borders. And now we see it also in the form of the delegitimization of the state of Israel to protect its borders as any

country in the family of nations must. What has become very, very clear, and the masks are off in that sense, is that the same dehumanization, delegitimization, and double standards, what Natan Sharansky called the three Ds, that same mutation of anti-Semitism that in the past, let's say the traditional form, would have targeted the individual Jew barring him or her from an equal place in society, well, that same dehumanization, delegitimization, and double standards was replaced and pivoted to targeting the state of Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people, actually disenabling it or barring it from an equal place

in the family of nations to which it has presumably belonged for 75 years. That is one of the most important understandings that I believe that post-October 7th, we can never go back in time to understanding. And that is actually one of the most critical pieces of understanding, so that anti-Zionism is the modern mainstream strain of an ever-mutating hate that is anti-Semitism. The only way to be able to identify and combat this strain of anti-Semitism is by identifying anti-Zionism as a strain of it. And as we all know from COVID, if you just inoculate against one strain or the initial strain that spread a virus around the world and anti-Semitism mutates like a virus, you've done nothing in order to inoculate against the new mutation that is permeating and festering in our society. That is where I believe that October 7th has made abundantly clear, and I'll say not just to Jews, the attack of genocidal, barbaric terror

on Jews, on Shabbat, on Simchat Torah, where we were marking the celebration of our identity as a people, and the understanding that that very same anti-Semitism that in Hamas's charter calls for the annihilation of Israel, for the murder of Jews, that very same anti-Semitism that fueled these atrocities, these war crimes, these crimes against humanities, the murder, the burning, the pillaging, the rape, the abduction, that very same anti-Semitism, the same side of the coin, is what actually fuels the denial, the excusing,

the justification, the identification with this genocidal terror on the streets of New York City, of Melbourne, of Berlin, of Paris, that is targeting the individual Jew. And here we are, full circle back again. So Michal, let me put this in practical terms. So students on American college campuses that are signing petitions and joining protests, do they know that they're participating in trafficking in anti-Semitism? I know you're not in the head of every one of these kids, but I'm just, what's going on? Are they making the conscious decision to express their anti-Semitism, or are they saying, look, I'm critical of Israel, I'm critical of all quote-unquote colonial powers? I know that's an absurd characterization, but be that as it may, that's how they think

about it. And they're thinking, I'm just speaking out against a bad government and a bad policy. How's that anti-Semitic? Do you think these kids know what they're thinking, I'm just speaking out against a bad government and a bad policy. How's that anti-Semitic? Do you think these kids know what they're doing? So not only do I not think that they know what they're doing, I think that over decades of this mutation that began actually, if we really want to track it from the understanding that in war after conventional war, Israel could not be annihilated. And we can go through the history from 1948 to 1973. In 1975, the UN resolution, Zionism is racism, anti-Semitic propaganda of the worst Soviet kind.

Okay, so hold on, hold on, hold on. So just for our listeners who may not know the history. So 1975, which was viewed as a turning point or an inflection point in a bad way, the United Nations General Assembly passes a resolution equating, basically declaring, will you describe it? Actually, calling Zionism racism, equating Zionism with racism, actually overturned about 20 years later. This resolution was overturned by the UN, but it mattered not because the reality on every single campus in 2023 is that Zionism is by many considered synonymous to racism. And if we take it a few decades later to the 2001 Durban Conference against racism in Durban, South Africa, a conference against racism that turned into an anti-Semitic hate fest and that launched Israel Apartheid Weeks on every single campus.

So for 22 years, we've had Israel Apartheid Week, no questions asked. The understanding that that weaponization that I spoke about of international law, of terminology, of real world events, apartheid, genocide, and the application of false application, obviously, of historic context and events to a history of, let's be very honest, of completely irrelevant analogies to be drawn. Jews are not white. Jews are an indigenous people. Prototypical indigenous people speaking the same language, traversing the same land, reading the same book,

practicing the same rituals for thousands of years. That indigenous people has been dubbed some European colonialist project, which, as a result of the Holocaust, received a state. It is precisely the opposite. The travesty that suggests that the state of Israel exists because the Holocaust occurred when exactly the opposite is true. The Holocaust could not have occurred had Israel existed. And the evidence is right now in 2023, post-October 7th, as we speak. Why couldn't it have happened? Because at the very least, the existence of the State of Israel enables Jews to defend ourselves. When we say never again, it's never again will we not be

able to defend ourselves post-Holocaust in the single worst atrocity that has been perpetrated against Jews since the Holocaust. So that paradigm shift that really took root, including on university campuses, basically indoctrinating generations of students. I mean, there are graduates. We're talking about 22 years of Israel Apartheid Week, 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism. This is decades of students, essentially, I mean, no longer students, in very, very

critical junctions of our economies, of our decision makers, of our policymakers, that perceive Zionism as racism, that perceive the state of Israel as an apartheid state, that actually accuse in an Orwellian inversion the state of Israel of genocide and what happened on October 7th when all the masks were pulled off, where the war crimes and the crimes against humanity and the genocide perpetrated against Jews in their Jewish nation state that cannot be ignored any longer. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

So I think what you're saying is, among other things, the existence of a modern Jewish state serves many purposes, not the least of which is to defend against violent anti-Semitism in the world, that there's a Jewish state and a Jewish army that is the bulwark, if you will, against these very violent, sometimes genocidal anti-Semitism that has existed in basically every century as far as we can go back in history, and then to allow that state to exist, but then allow it to be attacked and weakened and unfairly criticized is to say,

the state can't really exist. And to say the state can't really exist is to say the Jewish people can't have a place and an army and a country to defend against antisemitism. So hey world, you're really not that worried about anti-Semitism. And never again doesn't really mean very much, does it? Okay. So you're one of those college students and you say, okay, I hear you. But just because I'm on board with everything you're saying doesn't mean I have to sign on the dotted line with every policy of the Israeli government. You yourself have been served in the Knesset, not as a member of the government, but in the opposition. So you've been critical of Israeli government policy, very critical of Israeli

government policy. How do you tell that college student, look, it's okay to be critical of Israeli government policy, but then you got to just be careful not to cross the line. And what is that line? And how is that college kid supposed to know what that line is? So here's the key, which I think is actually the most important, I'd say, action item following October 7th. We have the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. Let's start with the understanding, and it's not just because I'm a lawyer, if you don't define something, you can't very well identify or combat it. Anybody committed to identifying and combating anti-Semitism right now, post-October 7th, has to know that there is a resource. It's a working definition. It was actually launched into creation and is the result

of a long democratic process as a result of the Durbin Conference Against Racism. It is a comprehensive definition that enables to identify and address all forms of that ever-mutating hate which we discussed. So if you only identify one strain, let's say the Holocaust denial strain, well, the Holocaust denial strain is about identifying the past form, the past mutation of anti-Semitism. What the IRA, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, referred to as the IRA working definition, it's not a legally binding definition, which is actually critical, because many are a little bit afraid of a legally binding definition that says, well, there can be all kinds of, you know, actions, legal actions taken against anybody violating, not even knowing necessarily, as you've said, students on campus and others, not necessarily

knowing that they're violating the definition. But it is intentionally a working definition, a critical resource that clearly stipulates in that definition, which I implore everybody read, it's just one page long, clearly stipulating that criticism of the state of Israel, like criticism of any other country, and as you've said, Israelis are the first to criticize, and criticism like any other democratic country is not only legitimate, it's the way that democracy improves itself. But criticism is not delegitimization. I can criticize you, but I cannot question or doubt your very right to exist. There is no country in the world whose very right to exist, whose very legitimacy to exist is called into question. Not Iran, not Cuba, not the United States, not France, no country. If there is one single country

that it becomes legitimate to delegitimize after we've demonized it as an apartheid, genocidal, ethnic cleansing state, we've demonized it, we've delegitimized it, and now we apply double standards to it. There is only one country that it's legitimate to delegitimize. There's only one country that we can call the very existence of it into question. And that is not the same as criticism. And that is a foundational understanding of the IRA. And it is critical that people understand it. So criticizing the state of Israel, like the criticism of any other democracy, as I said, is not only legitimate, it's necessary. But we cannot conflate criticism with delegitimization, not of an individual, not of a community, and certainly not of a country. Okay.

So can you take us through from October 7th to the world's reaction to October 7th, because at first, Michal, maybe this was hopeful naivete by me, but at first, in the immediate days after October 7th, I thought more of the world was with us than usual, that the idea of the forces of barbarism in this world and their forces of civilization and the contrast between the two were on full display the weekend of October 7th in ways that are usually not so visceral and so visual. And everyone could see it. It seemed to be partly the design of the Hamas operation was to document all of this. I mean, it's unbelievable to me that, you know, the Nazis tried to shield and disguise their mass murder and genocide and hate crimes. Here, Hamas seemed to want to document it all and broadcast it to the world. So it was unavoidable. You couldn't, once you saw these images,

you couldn't erase them from your minds, from one's mind. So that's what we got in the media days. And social media was an incredible tool for this awful, barbaric, these awful, barbaric images to spread. And I think many people who would normally not be sympathetic to us were suddenly sympathetic or at least open-minded. And then it changed, like quickly, or it's changing. Maybe it hasn't fully changed.

Why is it changing? So it's heartbreaking to think about the change because the understanding that this attack of genocidal terror is not just an assault on Jews or an assault on Israel. It's an assault on our shared humanity. It's an assault on civilization. Hamas genocidal terror, which in its charter calls for the annihilation of the state of Israel and the murder of Jews, just like Mein Kampf, is a proxy of a genocidal regime in Iran, differentiated from the people of Iran, of course, alongside many other proxies with the very same ideology, dedicated openly to the annihilation of the State of Israel and to the murder of Jews, consistently and constantly. So in those first days, with those images, too terrible to believe, but not too terrible to have happened. And in a moment, maybe we'll talk about a digital reality and what we know as a post-truth era. So what I've just

said becomes very complicated, right? We had to prove that our babies were burned. We had to prove that our women were raped so badly that their legs couldn't be straightened out for burial. We had to prove that mothers were burned alive hugging their children, or that a pile of 20 children, one tied to the other, were burned. And the methods that were used, and actually just tonight, the president of Israel shared that there was a plan to use chemical weapons as well. So the Nazi sort of methods of annihilation were so brutal and so difficult to ignore. And then look what happened. It took decades for Holocaust deniers to begin peddling their denial. It took days for the atrocities, the worst atrocities perpetrated against Jews since the Holocaust,

to be denied, if not excused, if not justified, on the very same social media that enabled the world to see the atrocities. And if you would ask me to diagnose how that can be possible, if I had to share three words to explain it, it's false moral equivalency. False moral equivalency enables, through time, to place the state of Israel, the Jewish nation state to which an indigenous people returned after millennia of exile and persecution, committed to equality, that's just Israel's declaration of independence, over and over again to place Israel on the dock of the accused so that Israel has to explain in a way that no other country would have to explain not only its right but its duty to defend its civilians and false moral equivalency over and over again

compares that sovereign democratic nation-state to a genocidal terror organization. And that comes into focus when, for example, that genocidal terror organization, imagine if post 9-11 al-Qaeda gave the New York Times a bit of information, and if that was taken at face value and reported. Hamas genocidal terror, every statistic that's coming out of Gaza is controlled by that organization. And if global media, rather than showcasing journalistic likes of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Nazis, then we have a perfect storm in which what happened in the first, let's say, two days, the atrocities of people mourning dead Jews, and in some ways, and I, you know, paraphrased Arahorn's title, people love dead Jews. The moment that we intended or

showed our intent not to die, but to defend ourselves, that's the turning point. The moment that Israel grappled with a devastation and made very clear that the only way that we will be able to continue is the full elimination of that genocidal terror organization, a proxy of a genocidal terror regime, there was a turning point that was enabled by the false moral equivalency between that democratic country. Again, it's a double standard. I cannot imagine the United States being a second guest for the sad civilian casualties in its war against al-Qaeda, in its war against ISIS. I cannot imagine that the Allies would have been called into question when they were fighting the Nazis for the civilian casualties that I'm sure were incurred. But that is precisely what happened here. And that false moral equivalency was the turning point in which we began to see exactly what you've said, devastatingly fueled by the same genocidal hate that enabled the atrocities are the denial, the excuse, or the justification of their very occurrence.

Michal, it's like that. I'm reminded of that book by Dara Horn, People Love Dead Jews, and she basically argues that as long as we're being slaughtered, we can have their sympathies. But the moment we fight back, then suddenly it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Not so quick. Yeah. And actually, the subtitle is Reports from a Haunted Present. And I can't shake that title. Since October 7th, it really speaks volumes. So in terms of the, to the extent this is a movement, because you're seeing it spring up all over the place, on college campuses, in many major cities in the U.S., in Canada, and throughout Europe.

We've seen these protests over the last few days. To what extent is this an actual movement with real organizational infrastructure, or it's just a, it's like a contagiously bad idea that's organically attracting people who are uninformed or are actually anti-Semitic or both. So in many, many ways, I think that that's the mask pulled off or the alarm bells ringing for the rest of the world. Until now, we've sort of focused on what this means for Jews around the world. I think that what you've just asked actually places a huge weight on the understanding that what we saw that happened on October 7th is an assault on our shared humanity, on civilization as we know it. We have to understand that the ideology that's fueling this and holding up signs that say we are Hamas and the inability to unequivocally condemn the atrocities of October 7th is basically drawing a line in the quicksand for the war of our times between all those that

are committed to our shared foundational principles of life and of liberty, of civilization as we know it. And by the way, not just Western countries, in countries of the Abraham Accords, that this is absolutely a war to turn the clock back on, the Abraham Accords. We can talk about that in a second. But the war that is raging is not just about Jews or their Jewish nation state, the canary in the mine shaft, if you will, that may die first. But it is in fact on civilization as we know it, by barbaric genocidal terror that has a much larger ideology that is being actually not only espoused but committed to by the genocidal regime of Iran of building a caliphate on the rubble of our civilization. I mean, this is a wake-up call for all of those in our societies that understand

that the differences of yesterday between right and left and religious and secular and Jew and non-Jew and Republican and Democrat, all of those differences that we hold on to for dear life because they give us a semblance of normalcy, they're irrelevant. The line in the quicksand has been drawn between radical extremism and moderation that seeks to continue living in the civilizations that we have built, that seeks to uphold, promote, and protect those foundational principles of life and of liberty. And in that sense, they are also as

challenging as they are an opportunity. I think that it is a time to transcend and reach across real or perceived differences and to align ourselves. And I can share anecdotally that I have ridden in taxis and I've had makeup put on ever since I arrived in North America, leaving my own family behind to make the urgency of this war accessible. I have had people who reach out from every religion and faith and demography that I have met over the last week in my time in the United States has been an understanding of the person on the street that says, this is insane. This is our war.

This is scary. This is on our streets. I have had meetings with people that said to me, I took off my burqa when I walked by the demonstration, holding up signs, this is, I am Hamas. So we have a very, very clear call to action to reach across difference and to empower the voices of other faiths, of other ethnic origin that understand that this is not just about Jews,

whether they be in Israel or in the rest of the world targeted for their identity, ancestry, heritage, history. I think that masks have been pulled off for a lot of people. And that, as I said, maybe that's the hope in me, as it was the hope in you. Maybe that's the hopeful person in me. But you know, I think over and over again of the teaching of the late Rabbi Sachs, that taught that hope requires action and courage. And this is a call to action with courage to all of those boots on the ground. So Israel is boots on the ground fighting off this genocidal terror, but it's just the line of first defense. There are boots on the ground all around the world as we know it, the Western world, certainly in the United States, the boots

on the ground that are going to have to fight this war with action and with courage. In the couple minutes we have left, you've got this extremely important role, this special envoy role. This environment is toxic. It is 24-7 and it is relentless. How do you view as priority one or priority one and two in this role that you have? Which you're doing really not only on behalf of the state of Israel, but also on behalf of the Jewish people. So first of all, thank you. That's priority one, is to make this very, very clear. I am not only the state of Israel's special envoy for combating anti-Semitism, because Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people around the world, whether they live there or not. And so I am the Jewish people's special envoy for combating anti-Semitism. And in that role and in my capacity, I am not only committed and obligated, but I have no doubt that the first order of business in every exchange that I have, whether it be with university chancellors, with mayors of cities, with a task force to combat antisemitism in the White House, anybody, and I believe that there are many people

that are very concerned with what they've seen, anybody committing to combat anti-Semitism can only do so utilizing the critical resource of the IHRA working definition. If you do not identify this hate comprehensively, ensure that we can identify all strains of it, including, most importantly, its most modern mainstream form that is running rampant online, on campuses, on the streets, in Congress. If you do not identify that anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism right now, then you cannot combat antisemitism. You can't. And that is probably the most important conversation that I've had across sectors, across the institutions and the

platforms and the spaces in which antisemitism has been allowed to fester, to permeate, and to undermine, as it has in history, all of the places and spaces that have allowed it to fester, to permeate, and to undermine, as it has in history, all of the places and spaces that have allowed it to fester and permeate in this way. And we are at a critical junction, at a critical intersection of continued conversation, and as I said, reaching across difference, across difference of faiths, and across differences of geography and of politics, because none of those are relevant to the identification and the combating of anti-Semitism that not only fuel the atrocities of October 7th, but fuels the responses to them that deny, excuse, or justify them.

Michal, that was beautifully and powerfully said. Thank you for doing this. I hope you will return. I know you're traveling like crazy right now with this important work that you're doing. So I do appreciate you taking a little bit of time to be with us. And to say we're rooting for you is an understatement. So just be safe wherever you are and keep up the fight. Thank you very much, Dan. Thank you for giving me a chance. That's our show for today. Our next episode will be with Dr. Matthew Levitt from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. We're going to be talking to Matt about the history of Hezbollah and the possibility of a Northern Front opening as Israel deals with potentially a multi-front war. So look out for that episode in the next couple of days.

Call Me Back is produced by Ilan Benatar. Until next time, I'm your host, Dan Senor.