← Unholy: Two Jews on the News
Unholy: Two Jews on the News
Bibi's secret visit, Israeli election timetable - and a veteran mensch
00:48:06
Yonit and Jonathan discuss a week brimming with unresolved questions. Did Benjamin Netanyahu really travel to the UAE during the war with Iran? Why would he leak it now, and what led the UAE to issue such a quick denial? After a trip to China, where is Donald Trump heading on Iran? And inside Israel, as the political drama intensified with United Torah Judaism threatening to break ranks with the coalition over the draft bill's failure, could elections be held in September? And what role could be played by a possible plea bargain for Netanyahu? Finally, there’s a crowded field for our mensch award this week – who will come out in front: a 100 year old international treasure or a newborn baby?
Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:00]
Jonathan Friedland
Benjamin Netanyahu visited the United Arab Emirates. Or did he? Donald Trump makes a visit to China. And there is talk again of early Israeli elections. It's unholy. I'm Jonathan Friedland in London.
- [00:13]
Yunit Levi
And I'm Yunit Levi in Tel Aviv. Unholy. Two Jews on the news. I liked your intro, Jonathan. It does signal that we have a lot to say to talk about in our episode today.
- [00:33]
Jonathan Friedland
Yes. Oh my word. So much going on. But I mean, before we get to the business in hand, some more immediate business for your many followers in Israel, because your book your Neat has been published in Hebrew in Israel. I mean, if I could make a fanfare noise, I would do that. I don't want to inflict that on on anyone listening or watching. Longtime viewers on YouTube and elsewhere will have seen the book strategically placed over your shoulder. And there has been a change because there it is, the hebr. So tell us all about it.
- [01:05]
Yunit Levi
Yeah, first of all, I mean, I think you felt this when your book was translated into Hebrew, the Escape Artist and the weight of it, of the story, you know, in Hebrew. And to me, this is my first book. It was written in English and to have it in Hebrew. And there are people who at the end of the day, it's a story about three kids dealing with anti Semitism in Chicago of 2022. And there have been people asking how is this relevant? Or is this relevant to young Israelis who have a lot to deal with anyway on their plat? And that is a question I've been getting and I think it relates a little bit to what we have been doing here on this podcast because we are all, I think definitely since October 7th, asking ourselves how to be a Jew in the world today. And those stories are interwoven. It's not a competition. It's two halves of the same story, really. Whatever happens in diaspora affects Israel and whatever happens in Israel affects diaspora. And so yes, it carries extra meaning when it's in Hebrew. And another layer of excitement is that my wonderful co writer and dear friend Bian Golodriga came to Israel for the launch. So that's extra special for me and I'm really curious to see how it does here. It would be nice if my author friend could have warned me that harder than writing a book is to promote a book. I am experiencing that head on. But it is really an interesting experience. And you know, that feeling which you know, well, you've written 14 books, but to know that what you wrote is out in the world and people will imbue it with whatever meaning they want to imbue it with. And it's so interesting. I met with managers of stores, and one of them asked me about the family that's in the center of the story, the Kaplan family. And he said, did you think about that when you wrote the book? And I didn't understand what they were asking me at first, but in Israel, the name Kaplan is, of course, the street in which all of the protests against the government in Tel Aviv have been happening for more than three years. And he asked me, is that significant? And I kind of. I was taken aback. I said, look, it's a common Jewish American name. And I. A world of no is the answer to your question. I didn't even think about it, but just to think about how these things, again, are imbued with a meaning that you didn't really intend for them to have.
- [03:16]
Jonathan Friedland
So I'm sure, yeah, no, I love that. Well, that is the thing that people do say that once you have a book, it then becomes the reader's property rather than your property. And so people will think that's a coded message. It is nice symbolically, meaning that it is not. And. And I'm sure you were, you know, at work on that before it had that meaning. Look, I really welcome it being there, the book being available in Hebrew, because I think one of the things, as you say, of the purposes of the podcast has been to open eyes on, you know, both sides of this divide. And I think it will be very good. Look, obviously Israelis know there's anti Semitism, but to kind of experience it through the characters in the book and to sort of know how it plays out and what it's like. I think a lot of Israelis will be sort of taken aback a bit by that, and just what. That's how, you know, how that feels for people going through it. So that's a good thing that it's available. One question I have to ask you is, did you translate it into Hebrew or did you have a translator do that for me? And I asked that because there are a lot of Israeli authors who are amazingly fluent in English who nevertheless get their books translated by other people. You know, all the big Israeli writers we can think of, the David Grossmans or Edgar Kerritz, very often a translator involved, even though you think you could have done it yourself. So what's the answer?
- [04:31]
Yunit Levi
No. I mean, I appreciate the question, but I really do think that translation is a profession. You have to be good at it. You have to know how to do it. It's nothing that an AI could actually do, I mean, in the real world, especially if it's. It's. Particularly if it's prose. So, no, an extremely talented translator in Balis Gavnak Dimon did it. I think that for her the experience. Usually when you translate English into Hebrew, you don't have the writer who wrote it in English able to read the translation in Hebrew and being the nudnik that I was commenting throughout the process. So, I mean, kudos to her for, you know, putting up with me. But yeah, she was the translator of the book.
- [05:07]
Jonathan Friedland
I can't imagine what you mean about being a nudnik. And I'm sure you weren't being a control.
- [05:13]
Yunit Levi
And the Oscar for acting in a podcast goes to Jonathan Friedland.
- [05:18]
Jonathan Friedland
Just cannot even imagine that. For my own part, the week was dominated by something that happened right at the start of the week, actually last weekend and then just at the very beginning, which is a very, very flying visit to Porto in Portugal, as it happens. The Escape Artist, which you mentioned, the Portuguese edition of that is now out in paperback there. But I went on a, you know, I mean, conforming to the stereotype absolutely. Of, of me, I went on a Jewish tour of Porto, of course.
- [05:52]
Yunit Levi
Of course.
- [05:54]
Jonathan Friedland
And what a, what an amazing experience that was, I have to say. I mean, if you know lots of detail there, there isn't a huge amount to see really anymore. The Jews of Portugal were expelled in 1496. Those who were kicked out, the rest were forcibly converted en masse to Christianity, to Catholicism. That story is what you're seeing there. There's a few streets that, where it says the street name, this used to be the avenue of the synagogue or this used to be the Jewish quarter. But you're seeing very little. The one bit of evidence, this is the main takeaway I had on various houses, you can see still the imprint of the mozuza, the sort of ritual scroll that is wrapped in a. In a case that Jews traditionally put on the doorpost. You could see that on, you know, the right hand doorpost of many houses. But in many, many cases there would be, if you really looked across a crucifix and so you think, well, that's obviously not a Jewish house. Wrong. The so called, you know, people know about Marano's Jews who are forcibly converted conversos, but they were often known as new Christians because they were converted to Christianity, had to live as Christians. Therefore they had to make an outward sign of, of their conversion to Catholicism. And the form that took was to put A cross on their house. Of course, old Christians, as it were, real Christians didn't have to do that. So it's one of the great ironies that if you're walking around Porto and you see a cross on a house, that means it was a Jewish house. That means Jews lived there. And there was something tremendously poignant to me about that, the idea that you still know who a Jew is, for one thing, even if the sign of the Jew is the cross. So messed up. But also these huge efforts, the people involved went to the bending over backwards. We learned there about the, you know, there's a very traditional Portuguese sausage that everyone would eat. Jews would make an outward sign of appearing to eat it instead of. They would make these vegetarian, you know, not vegetarian, but non pork alternatives. And they would sometimes be stopped. You know, let me have a look at that sausage you're eating to make sure it's pork, you know. And this went on. This is the last thing I'll say on it. This went on for much longer than I had appreciated that, really. They talk about the Inquisition there as running from 1496 to about 1800. We're talking, you know, 300 years of living this lie of the outward church of being a new Christian. And of course, new Christians married other new Christians and they would have two weddings, an outward Christian wedding and then quietly, privately, secretly, a Jewish wedding if they could. And this endured for centuries. So it was an eye opener. It's a beautiful city, Porto. I do recommend it, as I say, a bit of a flying visit, but revealing and in its own way, very,
- [08:52]
Yunit Levi
very poignant and fascinating. And of course, it is very you to just take the Jewish tour of Porto instead of, you know, people just go shopping, Jonathan. That's what some people do.
- [09:00]
Jonathan Friedland
Okay, well, you know, every bad reputation has to be lived up to. And I did my bit. We should get on with the news. Lots of it, including this mysterious visit that didn't happen now. But it's been revealed now of the Prime Minister.
- [09:18]
Yunit Levi
Yes, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I like that you teased it at the top of our show because the announcement came from the Prime Minister's office after it was leaked on Channel 13 that he indeed was in the UAE. And then the UAE denied it. We'll go into all of these details. But he was there, and he was there at the end of March during the war with Iran. Let's pause on this and take a sort of zoom out on this whole story. The Abraham accord signed in 2020. Prime Minister Netanyahu Trump in his term, a very big and historic shift in the Middle East. Ever since Netanyahu did not visit the uae, there were all kinds of attempts to coordinate this and a few cancellations, particularly from the Prime Minister's side, mostly due to coalition troubles. But now he came. And he came, I think historically we should say, during a war to this Arab country. And not only did he come, but he also, and this was already published, came with the Iron Dome system, which means Israel is giving its most significant strategic technology again to an Arab country. This is a big deal. And it also means that there are Israeli soldiers that are working with this system on the UAE's ground. I think that the interesting denial, first of all, Netanyahu, this leak coming from his office, I think that what they thought was that it would be okay to leak this at this time. What transpired was that the UAE came out with this denial. The UAE reaffirms its relations with Israel, are public and conducted within a framework of well known and officially declared Abraham Accords. But, says the Emirati Foreign Ministry, any claims regarding unannounced visit or undisclosed arrangements are entirely unfounded unless officially announced by the relevant parties, then this is a denial. But this meeting did happen. I think the fact that they're denying it means they're still watching very closely what happens with Iran. And if Iran does return, if the United States does return to a war with Iran, the first country that's going to be hit and might be hit, you know, more severely because of this visit being public is the uae. That is, I think, the reason that they're denying that it happened.
- [11:29]
Jonathan Friedland
So lots of things to say about it. Just before I give my own sort of thoughts on it, just the why now about Israel? Why would Netanyahu's office leak this now?
- [11:38]
Yunit Levi
Well, I think that again, there's an argument on who leaked it. And channel 14 as being, you know, kind of usually considered the Prime Minister's office being very adamant that it's the spokespeople that made the mistake to leak it. It wasn't Netanyahu that wanted to leak it. There are all kinds of questions. Some of them have to do with what we will get to later in our program. The coalition woes and Netanyahu's troubles, his internal politics, maybe trying to kind of change the narrative in saying, oh, this is a very successful thing that I did here. Let's look at the ball going over there instead of the ball, you know, in the, in the internal court.
- [12:10]
Jonathan Friedland
Yeah, I mean, first thing, this, these sorts of Visits have a long history. The secret visits of Israeli prime ministers. You know, it was known that, you know, Golda Meir would meet King Hussein of Jordan in London. They would have secret meetings. Even in Israel, King Hussein came in disguise and met various Israeli prime ministers. There is a. There's a history of these things and a kind of romance to them. And this actually added to that, I thought Netanyahu and the mbz, the Emirati president, reportedly meeting an ally in an oasis city near the border with Oman. You know, there is a kind of mystique still to an Israeli prime minister visiting Arab leaders, given the history. So that's interesting. The denial, I think, is very, very interesting. It suggests they still have to be very guarded, even though people know how close the two countries cooperate with each other, work together, this sharing of military technology. But in a way that both the fact of the visit and then the denial of it speaks to me, to the hedge that the UAE is making here, which is on the. And has been making throughout. On the one hand, obviously extremely close now to Israel and working hand in glove with it. On the other, there are voices around the region who are debating whether this was a good move or not for the Gulf states to have these ties to Israel and thereby, you know, antagonizing even more the big power in the region, namely Iran. And because when the war began, immediately the response of the Iranians was, yes, to whack Israel, but to whack their Gulf neighbors. And because of the unpredictability of Donald Trump, there are some who are saying, look, when this whole war is finished, there will have to be a rethink in the Gulf about where their interests best lie. Does it lie with this US Israel alliance, or do they want to look elsewhere? We'll come on to talk about this to China. And so it just seemed to me there was a sort of hedging of bets going on here. Yes, they meet Netanyahu, but they don't really want to talk about it afterwards, or at least they want to remain retain what in this case may be called implausible deniability. But, you know, it just suggests they're trying to sort of, you know, straddle quite a fine line, I think.
- [14:37]
Yunit Levi
Yeah, I think the analysis of UAE's intentions is pretty accurate. I mean, we are mentioning Iran and we're kind of dancing around the subject. We should probably say that, you know, as President Trump returns from his visit to China, all eyes on him, and if this war does, you know, is reignited, are we looking at A prolonged war at something that's even symbolic, just to prove the point of the Iranians and drag them back to the negotiation table, whatever it is, everyone here, by here, I mean Israel and the wider Middle east is kind of regrouping and planning or at least preparing for a renewal of this war.
- [15:15]
Jonathan Friedland
Yeah. My one thought about this visit to China of Donald Trump's was prompted a little bit by our conversation as one of our Tuesday unholy conversations with Dr. Suzanne Maloney, big expert on Iran and US Iran relations, as listeners will know. And we've turned to her a few times. She just made this, to me, a really interesting point, that the ultimate, I don't want to say decision, but a key move could be Beijing's, that if Beijing leans on Tehran and says, time to do the deal, time to swallow a big concession on the Strait of Hormuz, for example, then Iran will have to act and respond to that. And what a change that would mean to China's status in the Middle eas. You know, we haven't had a sort of clear smoke signal suggesting that yet, but I wouldn't rule it out. I think it's the sort of thing you could imagine happening after the summit rather than during. That would be, you know, significant if somehow China gets the credit for unblocking this and getting this thing over. As it is, it remains in this strange state of suspended animation and everyone waiting. I was going to mention just one other thing relates to both of the topics we've just talked about, and that is the lodging of a formal complaint against Iran at the United nations by the government of Lebanon, accusing Tehran of assorted violations of diplomatic and international sovereignty, really interfering in the country's internal affairs, dragging Lebanon into war, all, of course, through its proxy, Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, which the Lebanese government increasingly resents as a kind of cuckoo in the nest. Just take together the complaint by Lebanon against Iran at the UN with this secret meeting of the UAE leader with an Israeli prime minister in the territory of the uae. These things are pointing even at a moment of terrible darkness in the region of the Middle east. They are pointing to a potential and different future. You know, it's been mentioned a few times there are two paths really, that, that Israel could go down. One is this very isolated position, in a way, it's currently in fighting all comers. And on the other, there is just the shape, you can see it, of alliances in the region. We know about the UAE Abraham Accords. The Lebanese government clearly wants to have a better relationship with Israel. It too sees Hezbollah as an enemy even in Syria now under new management. You can imagine a very different configuration. The price, the sort of admission ticket, better way of putting it through, that Israel would have to get to this new Middle east that is just there in embryo at the moment, is that big diplomatic move which would be some kind of credible path to a Palestinian state. That's the formulation. It was there in the second Gaza ceasefire deal, in phase two of the Gaza ceasefire deal, rather. But you just see the outlines of it. And I think this move by Lebanon is just part of it. They're doing it for their own reasons. I don't want that to be misunderstood. They're doing it for their own reasons reasons. But you can just see the potential alliances that are there in embryo in the region. If, you know, should Israel itself be under new management and take a different direction.
- [18:38]
Yunit Levi
It's interesting that what we reported on our network this week on Israeli television was conversations on Lebanese television about whether or not Israel is indeed an enemy anymore. And you know, those kinds of talking about, really about, you know, peace with Israel, these kinds of discussions on Lebanese tv, I don't know enough to know which channel it was. But just, you know, when you think about that, about those conversations happening in Lebanon and then reflected on Israeli television, it does give you some sort of, perhaps a glimmer of hope along the kind of alleyway that you were taking us on. I think it's been, I don't know, about 20 minutes. We did not discuss Israeli politics. What happened to us this week.
- [19:17]
Jonathan Friedland
Yeah.
- [19:18]
Yunit Levi
And there are things to talk about.
- [19:20]
Jonathan Friedland
So it's time for listeners to get their calendars out. They've already marked various dates on the calendar as the year has gone on. So let's have another look. So we, last time we talked, let's just do, you know, like previously on Unholy, it seemed as if that the parliamentary calendar would run its full course. And the smart no money was saying the election will be on the last day possible, which is October 27th of this year. So that's where previously previous episodes. But what's happened this week?
- [19:48]
Yunit Levi
I think we should start our episodes with you saying previously on Unholy Image. Just to recap.
- [19:52]
Jonathan Friedland
It could work, couldn't it?
- [19:54]
Yunit Levi
So where we are this week, what happened was that United Torah Judaism, one of the two main Orthodox parties that are part of Netanyahu's coalition, Rabbi Lando particularly one of their rabbis, said, we do not have any. We don't trust Netanyahu anymore and we are not tied to his block, end quote. Now, let's just take at least the latter part with a grain of salt. But what it means is this. Netanyahu essentially told the ultra orthodox parties that he cannot, by the end of this KN session, pass what they covet more than anything, the draft bill which exempts most of the ultra orthodox from military service. Just think of it from their perspective. They walked with Netanyahu in his block, you know, come rain or come shine. Even when he was in opposition, they didn't break for him. They wanted one thing, and that is this draft bill. Netanyahu told them, you're not going to get it. So what they reacted with was saying, you know what? You want elections. You, Netanyahu, want elections. They greatest date possible, which is when they're slated, October 27th. We're gonna. We want to go to elections earlier in September. I wanna pause on that for a moment because to anyone listening, they would say, what's the big difference? So it's a month or a month and a half. I think the fact that Netanyahu is clinging to October 27 as the date he wants to go to elections, and I said this to you, I think I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I said to you, if he thought he could have won these elections for sure, he would have called early elections. He has the most power to do that. They can do that, too, if they decide to break and go to this vote on early elections. The fact that he's holding onto this, I think we should very carefully, with all the disclaimers possible, ask the question which has been kind of murmured as a question already in Israel, which is. Drumroll. Which is, will Netanyahu run in these elections? And again, I wouldn't give this scenario a huge percentage at this point, but I think that if he indeed will be, be very worried that he might lose, he might take a deal on the table or a plea deal that says, I will leave political life and have all the accusations in my trial erased. We're not there yet. But all of this conduct, and some of it is just classic Netanyahu conduct, we're ready to just kick the can down the road, do it as late as possible. Maybe we'll find the uranium in Iran, maybe the regime will be toppled. There are all kinds of things that could happen in that month. But just notice that that is his conduct, and I think we should put a kind of an asterisk on it.
- [22:18]
Jonathan Friedland
Yeah, I would agree with that. And very much relatedly, more reports this week Coming out of the President's office, President Isaac Herzog reportedly trying to move forward with a plea bargain deal that would involve a pardon and but the the exit from public life. So he is the other player in this drama. I think we both agree that Netanyahu wouldn't step away unless there was that kind of guarantee. And the person who can provide it is the President. So I think it's really right as you that's keep an eye on that. Meanwhile, the Knesset is still in business, still doing stuff and it's still this extremely right wing coalition and just something which will affect Diaspora Jews. This area was always a very neuralgic spot in Israel Diaspora relations. But a bill was rushed through the Knesset criminalizing non Orthodox practices at the Western Wall. Now whether this actually becomes law, there's several stages before the Supreme Court surely would want to have a certain but you know, again people who are not Jewish who listen to this podcast, there are, there is Orthodox Judaism, but there are a whole multiple strands of non Orthodox progressive Reform, confusingly so called Conservative Judaism. These are the majority strands taken together in the United States. And yet under this bill it would become criminal for example for Reform Jews to have have you know, a 13 year old kid bar or bat mitzvahed at the Kotel at the Western Wall, which a lot of visiting Diaspora families have liked doing over the years. This would make that a criminal offense because anything which isn't actually under the Orthodox rabbinate. So look, set against all the big geopolitics we talk about, this isn't the biggest thing in the world, but it's another example of that of where there is a rift between this particular Israeli government and the wider Jewish world. It was often those issues of religious practice identity. Most neuralgically actually the who is a Jew question whether Reform converts counted as Jews under the Law of Return in Israel. These were often wedges between particularly American Jewry and Israel. And this just I thought again worth putting a sort of pin in that to notice that going through this Knesset there will be lots of people who are not particularly on the left right spectrum who will be very glad to see the back of this Israeli government because of stuff like this as rushing through.
- [24:53]
Yunit Levi
Yeah, we should add there was a lot of legislation that this coalition is trying to rush through before the elections. This is one you mentioned. We talked a lot about the bill that is supposed to control the media and of course the bill that is to break apart and weaken the role of the Attorney General in Israel. And this goes on and on. It is a kind of, it feels like a sale of the end of the coalition, because indeed it is. This is the last session of the Knesset before we go to elections, whatever dates they may be. And by the way, just to close that discussion, if it is going, if we are going to a little bit earlier elections on September 1st, we will know this in the next two weeks because you remember that there has to be a process of three months, a 90 day period. Yes. So that we will know in the next two weeks. So leave your calendars on the table, we'll have an answer for you soon.
- [25:36]
Jonathan Friedland
Yes, people have got lots of sort of rubbed out yellow highlights all across their calendars thanks to us. But no, it's very funny you say that thing in British parliamentary language, it's called the wash up, where there's this last stage of closing out bills and things. This is more like a supermarket sweep, it seems to me, where the coalition is dashing around the supermarket before it closes with its trolley, grabbing more and more pieces of right wing legislation to rush through before time is up. Should we just say something about events again, sort of internationally, but about Gaza, about the West Bank? I thought this was an interesting development. The Board of Peace remember that Donald Trump's would be replacement of the United nations. The whole elaborate structure because it saw itself as almost a global body, but there was a very specific body that's tasked with, and actually under UN mandate, tasked with the implementation of the ceasefire terms that were brokered by Donald Trump and successfully in October 2025. The key official for Gaza is this Bulgarian former diplomat, Nicholas Mladnov. He gave a speech this week that I thought was interesting and on one level you could say uncontentious because he said essentially if Hamas were to change radically and become purely a political organization with no military component in it, in other words, if Hamas were no longer to be Hamas, then of course he said they could remain a player in Gaza. That's what he meant. But a fierce response from people because. Particularly in Israel, I think because he was saying Hamas can carry on being there on the stage in Gaza. It's just to me another sign that the war aims as defined by Ben Benjamin Netanyahu, which were the total eradication of Hamas, the Hamas will never exist, let alone be any kind of player in Gaza. Those war aims were not achieved its stated goals. Now, I and others could say they never were going to be that. You know, Hamas is an idea as well as an organization, etc. But that's not the point. The point was What Netanyahu said, he said it will be gone, eradicated totally. Italy. And it hasn't gone. And there is the Trump's own envoy, remember, not just some UN Envoy. That's very easy to say, well, they're anti Israel, et cetera. This is in effect Trump's guy and he's saying Hamas can continue to be a player. That seemed to me to be significant, incidentally, talking about the extent of the war aims and the war aim not being achieved. Also just the notion of the war being over and all the issues are related to the war in Gaza. Not quite. Humanitarian aid, huge issue that you and I talked about a lot at the time. It's going to be back on the Agenda Report this week that it is down 37% since the ceasefire was agreed in October. And I would just say that drop off of humanitarian aid, food, water, et cetera, getting into Gaza will return to the news agenda, especially as the focus shifts away from the war in Iran. So again, just note, you know, flight liking that up, because I think that's coming.
- [28:58]
Yunit Levi
I would say that I don't think the problem here or the issue here is what Netanyahu promised or didn't promise. I think the one main issue is that the agreement said that Hamas needs to disarm. And if Hamas isn't disarming, that is of course dangerous for Israel and I would add, dangerous for the Palestinians as well in Gaza. So this is the agreement, this is what Hamas agreed to, this is what Israel agreed to, and this is what should happen. And the fact that it isn't happening is the worrying part in this whole story. Hamas is obviously weaker militarily than it was on October 6th of 2023, but it still holds the Gaza Strip in this chokehold. And so as long as that isn't resolved, I think that that is the main issue that needs to be dealt with. You mentioned the issue of aid. We should say not only the Israeli government, the Israeli military is saying there are 600 trucks going in. This is also what the US is talking about. Again, this is the assessment of the military in Israel. They say this is too much and the surplus is going into Hamas and thus we have the same vicious circle that we had throughout the war. I think what's interesting as well is that if Netanyahu and there are these kinds of rumblings of do we need to go into another operation in Gaza? Because Hamas is not disarming, we are now in a position in which if the Israeli government wants to do this and if the Israeli prime minister wants to do this, he needs to wait for a green line from the American president. That is a very different situation than we were, I think, in most of Israel's history. But that is where we are now.
- [30:32]
Jonathan Friedland
Yeah, no, we did make that point, didn't we, a few weeks back about in the context of Iran, that there's a sovereignty issue about Israel. Now, in the sense that Donald Trump does seem to be the one who says yes or no, just on the point about the Hamas disarmament plan, that's in the so called sort of second phase. The immediate phase was the one that went, that happened last autumn, the return of hostages, living and dead. It was in the second phase. Israelis are often a bit selective about the second phase because the second phase also has the bit where Israel is committed to the credible pathway to a Palestinian state. And I remember Amit Segal, very close, the journalist, Channel 12 commentator, and others very close to Netanyahu saying there is no phase two. Right? We all know that. Everyone accepts that. We all agree. And yet the bit in phase two that, you know, he, Segal and others really like, which is Hamas disarming suddenly, that is in there. You either go with phase two in which Hamas will disarm and Israel starts moves towards a Palestinian state, or you don't. And I've always thought the Hamas disarmament thing is as remote in a way as Israeli commitment to Palestinian statehood. It's there, it's in the agreement, but it only happens if everything else happens. And I'm not really seeing that happening and therefore I'm not holding my breath for it. I think it's quite a natur analogous to the situation in Northern Ireland where the Irish Republican army did in the end decommission weapons, but only when everything else happened and the full agreement was implemented. So I think people are a bit selective about which bits of phase two are urgent and immediate and which bits are sort of hypothetical.
- [32:06]
Yunit Levi
And in the future, Israel still holds about 50% of the Gaza Strip. And actually on the ground, the agreement was that it will withdraw as Hamas disarms. That is the actual agreement. And again, this is not moving because there is no disarmament.
- [32:23]
Jonathan Friedland
Meanwhile, since we are talking about Gaza and the west bank, we're not going to dive into the detail of this because this is being litigated across tens of thousands of words and we don't have the space here to, to get into it. But we should note that there has been huge debate, I think, around a very long piece by Nick Kristof. Longtime opinion columnist for the New York Times, headlined the Silence that Meets the Rape of Palestinians. Sub headline, male and Female Palestinians Describe Brutal Sexual Abuse at the hands of Israel's Prison guards, soldiers, settlers and interrogators. It ran as an opinion piece in the New York Times, but thousands of words of length. So it's, it's a reported piece quoting multiple sources. Nick Kristoff speaks to victims. They don't give their names. He says that's partly because they fear retribution from Israel, but partly because they fear being shamed in their own communities. He cites various NGOs, including a couple of Israeli groups talking about this. Different points suggests it could be individuals who are acting with impunity rather than a state policy. There's, there's shifting claims on that. But the response to it has been fierce, alleging, you know, journalistic malpractice, in the words of one media monitoring group, saying that the NGOs that Christophe relies on are discredited groups who have a long history of being, you know, vehemently anti Israel, but also publishing claims about Israel that have turned out to be false, citing even some of the individuals and saying there are flaws in their story, that their accounts, some of the couple of named individuals have given shifting testimony that have social media posts appearing to glorify October 7th. So this is a huge controversy around Christophe's peace. And I know, I think, in fact, Yoni, you mentioned that I think some of the Israelis who have quoted have since said they were perhaps misquoted in what appears.
- [34:28]
Yunit Levi
I think it's, I would say it's beyond the kind of media monitoring groups that have kind of stood up against this piece. You have seen the Wall Street Journal. We should also include very serious journalists like David Fromm and others that have stood up against this piece. They mentioned not only what you mentioned, that some of the NGOs have been pointed at as being, let's say, delicately, un untrustworthy, but also that much of this story is not well sourced. It says something, I think, about a story if the American Kennel Club needs to drop its opinion on whether or not some of the things described in this piece, and I really don't want to go into the details because this is a Friday show, are not possible. But I think, again, trying to zoom out from this. And you mentioned the Israeli Ehud Olmert, who's a former prime minister in Israel and a favorite among Samiri outlaws around the world ever since he talked about war crimes that Israel is conducting in Gaza. He indeed is saying that what he said in the piece was misquoted when he talked about sexual violence. And the New York Times refused to publish what he was saying. Trying to correct this, but again, I'm zooming out from this argument that indeed has been raging this week. And I would say two things. One, I think we are in a situation and a tragic one, that, that Israel would be vilified to this extent. Now, unfortunately, there have been incidents like these. I think there are very few. I come from a network that reported or published the footage of what happened in sdeiman. These things have to be looked at, they have to be investigated and have to be punished. But the point in which then the whole country is turned into this evil league of evil and you would believe anything, anything, even the most vile things about it, is what is concerning to me now. Whether it's a coincidence or not, many think it isn't a coincidence. The report of the civil commission on October 7, the most comprehensive report, 400 witnesses and experts finding this week the report was published talking about Hamas and its deliberately systematic sexual and gender based violence on October 7th. And I think there is an attempt here to equal the playing field and to say, oh, this is actually the same. This happened here and this happened there, that's dangerous because it isn't the same, because this is a completely different world, a completely different reality. And I think that is an important thing to notice in all of this.
- [37:09]
Jonathan Friedland
One of the charges against Christoph in the New York Times was indeed the timing that this piece appeared just as this report was coming. And the allegation is that New York Times it did very little on the report of the Civil Commission about Hama sexual violence on October 7 and then gave so much space to this report. I think another area of where the battle will be is the question of individuals as, as you've just mentioned that, you know, you said you don't doubt that there is, there are cases of mistreatment of detainees, whether the move from that to some notion of it being systemic, of being a policy of a
- [37:50]
Yunit Levi
sort of state man and this I doubt, I heavily doubt policy, I understand,
- [37:54]
Jonathan Friedland
I'm saying, but I think that's where the argument, you can see, some of the denials are worded very much about saying there's no policy here. He hasn't proved that as opposed to these individual cases. And I wonder if that's where, you know, the gap between the two sort of versions resides there. You know that there is a sort of. That admits there are a few bad apples, whereas what Nick Kristof in this piece is saying essentially is the whole barrel has been ruined. So that's, I think, part of. But it's not the only part. Part of the disagreement and the timing, certainly, and appearing to take attention away from these extremely searing accounts that appeared about what happened on October 7th. That's all part of the excision. Like we say, this isn't the space to go absolutely line by line through the claim and counterclaim. Some of the details, as you mentioned, Yonit, are just unbearably graphic. And so we're not doing that here. But people can read Christophe's piece and they can read these very detailed replies and responses to it. Should we get into our awards?
- [39:06]
Yunit Levi
Yes, please. What would you want to do for.
- [39:10]
Jonathan Friedland
Well, why do we, I think we always start with a little bit of chutzpah, don't we? Just because it's nicer to close out with our Mensch's crowded field for Mensch this week. But why did you I think you've got a choice chutzpah example from your neck of the woods.
- [39:23]
Yunit Levi
I do. And I think, you know, it's hard not to give the chutzpah. Word of the week to Minister Mickey Zor, who is part of Netanyahu's coalition, of course, part of the Likud. And he said that October 7 happened because because of the weakness of the Bennett Lapid government that ruled before the Netanyahu government. Now, this is all part of what we are seeing, and I think you named it a few weeks ago, it's the October 7th denial. And this government, and again, if we are going into elections very soon, this government knows that if the elections will be about October 7th, it might lose. And that is why you are seeing all kinds of things being said. We talked about Smotrich last week, which was called 10-7-A tactical fail. You see other things like this coalition calling the war after October 7th the war of revival and others. So Mickizor is blaming October 7th for the one year and four months government that held power before that. Maybe perhaps we should mention that Netanyahu was prime minister almost consecutively from 2009 till 2021. But it is another prime minister's fault, according to Micky Zoar. There is no proof, maybe we should say in any intellig reports saying that that is why Hamas attacked. But that doesn't prevent, of course, from this. And he doubled down on that, including in a radio interview with our friend Ilana Dayan this morning, saying that that is what you know, this government thinks so it's an attempt again to kind of whitewash the record of this government, which this event, the most catastrophic in the history of Israel happened under their watch.
- [41:01]
Jonathan Friedland
Yes, indeed. In fact, it is like a pattern. I've noticed our chutzpah nominees very often congregate around, they cluster around these various attempts, some to rewrite the history of or downplay extraordinarily, to downplay what happened on October 7th or to blame people who weren't involved at the time. It's becoming a bit of a recurring pattern. In terms of our Mensch Award, we certainly wanted to give a shout out to recent unholy guest Tom Holland, the very eminent historian, for a tweet he did here after the spate of attacks there have been on Jewish targets in London. He was responding and I just think it's a very neat line of argument. He was responding to that cliche. Now among politicians and commentators, when they say this is not who we are, it's become a line when there's a horrible racist attack, people go, this is not who we are. And he says it's all too clear that the country in which Jews are attacked on the streets simply because they are Jewish, synagogues need to employ security and anti Semitic slogans and images are paraded through city centers or exhibited in art galleries is exactly what we've become. Says Tom Holland. I just thought was an excellent rebuttal of the we are this is not who we are cliche. Staying with, perhaps staying with Britain when it comes to a Mensch award. How can we not mention Sir David Attenborough is. I mean, he's a national treasure. Here he comes, top of the list. Actually, they recently did a poll of who counts as national treasures. He was emphatically at the top of the list. I think he counts as an international treasure, the veteran TV broadcaster and particularly a sort of his, you know, natural historian. He broadcasts about natural history, you know, and there are, there's wonderful archive going back right to the 50s and 60s of him with animals and just unlocking a love of animals for generations of children. If people haven't seen it, maybe we can put a link in the show notes this week to this fantastic video that was done to celebrate his 100th birthday in which the King writes a greet, a birthday card to Sir David and you'll see the video instead of it being delivered by normal fashion, the couriers are of course, animals. It's a beautiful thing. So it's a belated happy birthday to David Atten. Returning 100 as he did since our last episode. And I think he counts as a worthy mensch of the world.
- [43:42]
Yunit Levi
So if I can add two of my favorite David Attenborough scenes, one is when he speaks on a late night talk show in the United States and he's asked, is there an animal he doesn't like? And he says, yes, rats. And to me, that is a perfect. That's a perfect moment of candor because. Because, yes, he's for all animals and saved the planet, but he doesn't like red so much. But there's another video of him meeting Lonesome George, which is, you know, this kind of ancient. Was this kind of ancient tortoise in the Galapagos. He goes to see him and it's this beautiful scene. I mean, lonesome George is 80, I think at that point, Sir David was also in his 80s. And of course he leans into this and he says, you know, of course he's creaking at the joints, so am I. And you look at them and. And this man who basically tries, still is trying to save the planet with the power of his knowledge and his charisma. And you say, maybe he is Lonesome George. I mean, maybe he's the last of his kind trying to do this. There are, of course, others and, you know, doing important work, but it's just that magic of this man. So, yes, indeed, Mensch of the week. Another mensch, which sadly is not with us, but has passed away. And I think that we need to honor this man, Abe Foxman, the legendary longtime ADL director. You know, we have to reveal to our listeners that every once in a while, when Jonathan and I disagree, there's always a line he says to me that kind of assuages our differences. He says, whatever our arguments are, we're on the same team. We all want what's best for the Jewish people. And if one person embodied that, that, you know, wanting the best for the Jewish people, it is Abe Foxman who spoke for, I think, all Jews. And that is becoming a more complicated thing to do. And of course, fighting against anti Semitism, that was his life project. Just this remarkable man. One of the pieces, I think it was Times of Israel. The title was. Was Abe Foxman the Last Jewish Pope. I don't know if he would like that title, but that was, you know, he was a real leader for a community that has always embattled and more so in the last couple of years where his voice is more needed than ever. And it's, you know, it's sad that he's not with us.
- [45:49]
Jonathan Friedland
Certainly. Definitely a different era actually, where that kind of consensus or more of a consensus was at least more possible. When you said one more mensch, I thought you were going to mention our very happy news that we received in unholy HQ this week. I'm going to leave it to you to say that. But a new mention, a new mensch has arrived on the scene.
- [46:11]
Yunit Levi
Indeed. After five years, we have our first unholy baby. This is a very exciting moment for all of us here. We should say our inimitable producer Michal Porat and her partner that gave birth, Ephrat, have a first child. His name is Aviv. He is glorious and we're very, very happy. And we should say that I think that, you know, Michael is the youngest of the three of us, but definitely the adult in the room. And she had to deal with some, you know, unruly behavior from her two co hosts. So we gave her some training before dealing with a toddler, I think. Oh yeah, you're welcome, Michal.
- [46:48]
Jonathan Friedland
Yes, I think dealing with a crying baby having a temper tantrum will be a piece of cake.
- [46:54]
Yunit Levi
I think so.
- [46:54]
Jonathan Friedland
Michal Porat after she's been dealing with us for Michal and Ephrat, huge. Mazal Tov and congratulations. We welcome baby Aviv into the world. You know, a hard bitten news people though we are meant to be, you and me, we suddenly just completely melted as photos appeared on the WhatsApp group chat of little Aviv. We are so thrilled to have him on the scene. So Mazaltov to Michal Efrat and Aviv and of course, thank you as always to her and to Nir Leist, our producer this week. And we will, I mean we should say, of course there's the Tuesday conversation if you, if you haven't yet heard it. That was wonderful. Very moving. With Maoz and Aziz, authors of the Future is Peace. That's a hopeful message.
- [47:41]
Yunit Levi
And just to remind our listeners it's still Jewish Heritage Month, we have beginning been getting a lot of responses. We're collecting all of them and we'll go back to your suggestions very soon on, you know, American Jewish heritage though.
- [47:53]
Jonathan Friedland
That's the rule of American Jesus.
- [47:56]
Yunit Levi
I noticed that, Jonathan. We shall meet next week.
- [47:59]
Jonathan Friedland
See you then.