← Unholy: Two Jews on the News
Unholy: Two Jews on the News
Reality bites: Trump, Bibi and the Mamdani Effect
00:45:19
The new reality of Washington’s relationship with Israel is slowly sinking in — and it’s not pretty. As JD Vance grows visibly chummier with Qatar and Pakistan than with Israeli officials, Yonit and Jonathan discuss the likely impact of the shift and whether Israel’s old assumption — that an American president will always have its back — has to be discarded for good. Then: as the Mamdani effect ripples through New York’s primaries, sweeping in a slate of politicians sharply critical of Israel, the two debate who’s really to blame. Plus: Keir Starmer’s resignation and likely successor, two former Israeli PMs along with a veritable platoon of former and current IDF commanders denounce settler violence in the West Bank - and a Jewish American comic genius reaches a milestone.
Loading summary
Transcript45 lines
- [00:03]
A
The new reality of Washington's relationship with Israel is sinking in the Mamdani effect as New York elects a slew of politicians sharply critical of Israel. And we will mark a milestone in the life of a comic legend. It's unholy. I'm Jonathan Friedland in London.
- [00:24]
B
And I'm Yunit Levi in Tel Aviv. Unholy. Two Jews on the news. One of these Jews cares a lot about the World cup and the other doesn't guess which is which.
- [00:49]
A
It's a quiz right from the start. Even though I am obviously I've become a proper football fan, the World cup doesn't always do it for me. I mean, just because, you know, it's hard to carry too many allegiances and I'm, you know, Arsenal command my main allegiance, but I have been. I mean, obviously it's a great World Cup. A lot of people are saying it, a lot of legends doing amazing things. Lionel Messi, Ronaldo, et cetera. I enjoy seeing Arsenal players play whoever they're playing for. But one thing has been a little side amusement, which I think even you can enjoy. You'll need as a non fan of the game. Is the site of the world's Jewish newspapers scrambling to find a Jewish to this tournament because the efforts have got increasingly desperate. And I just wanted to note this headline in the Jewish Chronicle in Britain, Cape Verde's Jewish striker takes to the pitch for historic draw with Uruguay. Gilson Benchimol's surname indicates heritage from the 19th century Jewish diaspora. In other words, they've spotted that a player for Cape Verde has a potentially Jewish surname from 200 years ago. That's how desperate the efforts have become to find a Jewish player in this tournament. There is also Matt Turner, who is the goalie for the United States team and spoke recently of discovering that his great grandmother on his father's side was Jewish. According to paper he found. That is enough to hail him as the Jewish player at this tournament. I'm not sure it would sort of pass muster with, you know, the rabbinic authorities, but for the sake of a Jewish connection to the World cup, it's good enough. Matt Turner and Gilson Ben Shimol. I may not be pronouncing that right. It's just a little sidebar of amusement at the effort involved.
- [02:49]
B
This is the famous American line. Beggars can't be choosers. We take what they give us right in this tournament. And I think you sent me this piece from Jewish Week with the headline meet Matt Turner, the only Jewish player on Team USA in The World cup, we should say just from the Israeli side, right? I mean, because Israel hasn't qualified for the World cup since 1970. This has to do with location, sir. It's just because Europe is, you know, a very talented body and if we had been part of Asia, for example, maybe we could have fared better. But that is our situation. So we have nothing to do but to watch the games of other nations or watch people who watch the games of other nations. That's what we Israelis can do in this until July 19th, I believe.
- [03:33]
A
Yeah. And it's not just geography, is it? It's politics. Because geographically Israel should be in one of the sort of Asia groups, which would give Israel a much greater chance of qualifying. But it is, as you say, because it has to compete for geopolitical reasons. It was pushed its soccer federation into the European zone for World cup qualification. It always falls short, just even though Israel is not short. I mean, this isn't one of those jokes about. I'm thinking of writing a. A very short book on, you know, it's called Jewish Sporting Heroes. You know, that mythology lives on. But we've talked about it before, it's not completely true. Sandy Kalfax and Mark Spitz the swimmer and so on. There are a lot of very, very distinguished Israeli players of the game. But Israel always seems to fall short in 1970. It's a long time to wait. In the meantime, Jewish fans have to console themselves with these really rather tangential links. Go Cape Verde. Unholy listeners know who to now, we mentioned lots of news going on and I mean, you know, will you tell me about this, this point about this new reality sinking in? Because this is not something that's just happened in the last 24 hours, but I think the sort of depth of it is really striking. Israelis now with force.
- [04:47]
B
Yes. I mean, look, I don't think after the sort of first stage of the Switzerland talks between Iran and us are over. I really don't think it could have gone worse for Israel. And obviously we talked about this last week as well. But when you look, you know, even the issue of Lebanon, right. We are now at a point in time in which Iran is making decisions about Lebanon with the blessing of the United States. And just compare that to where we were in November 2024 after the Biden administration reached this agreement. Was Amos Hochstein at the time, the agreement between Israel and Lebanon. Compare both of them even on the level. Right. This deconfliction mechanism and the deal of 2024 now the monitoring mechanism is held by notice this the United States, Iran, Qatar and Pakistan. In the Biden deal, the monetary mechanism was held by Israel, the United States, Lebanon and France. Even that on the sort of level of these are the people who will be calling the shots. And now when you say, okay, the goal is just to prevent Israel and Hezbollah to have any sort of conflict, the goal in the 2024 deal was for Lebanon and Israel together to disarm Hezbollah. So that was a markedly better deal for and that is not just on the issue of Lebanon. We didn't even open up the sort of bigger trunk here, which is the story of Iran. But when you hear the even, you know, things that J.D. vance is saying, this vice president of the United States and saying about Israel and the way and how, you know, chummy he is on stage with the leader of Qatar and the field marshal of Pakistan and you're saying, wait a minute, something about this world is completely turned upside down. So something here, as you say, is sinking in. And it looks like a very, very dangerous world for Israel.
- [06:31]
A
And I'm sort of setting this up because I want to off my own thought on it. But before I do, how are the Israeli right in particular? Those people who were gagging to get Donald Trump in the White House couldn't wait to see the back of Joe Biden. And the Biden administration thought there'll never be a more anti Israel administration in their lifetimes, they thought, even though to everyone else it looked like Joe Biden was paying a massive political price for holding the line and staying with Israel. Mild criticism and no more. Really. How are they reacting to the fact that their guy, as it were, Donald Trump, has turned on them in this way. How are they taking that?
- [07:08]
B
I think you can summarize that with three words written on X by Netanyahu's staunchest supporter and star of Channel 14, a man named Inon Magal, who wrote in caps letters, one should say Biden, save us. Now, if you were on the sort of Israeli center or center left and being pretty supportive of the Biden administration, critical of the Trump administration, maybe you could have enjoyed a little bit of this irony. But you can't really enjoy it because all of these developments are really concerning. I mean, I had a friend from Washington talk to me this week and say, do you realize that not only is Qatar running the Middle east now, it is running America's policy in the Middle East. You have players that are much stronger now, not only Iran, but also, you know, Pakistan and Qatar and Turkey and Israel is significantly weaker. That's what it looks like at this point in time.
- [08:01]
A
Yeah, absolutely right. That you can't take and shouldn't take any pleasure in this. I think the right, though, have no shame. I mean, the likes of Yinon, Margal, St. Biden, save us. He would have been absolutely in the front line denouncing Biden, calling their administration, you know, anti Israel, even people saying they're anti Semitic. Trump is the main guy for us, they said. I'm afraid there were some of us saying at the time, no, Donald Trump is so transactional, he will do what favors him. So long as you your needs. Israel in this case suits him, he'll be fine. But the minute his interests diverge, he will sell you out in a heartbeat. Unlike Joe Biden, who was a conviction Zionist, the last of a very dying breed, as we're going to come on to talk about in the U.S. democratic Party. He felt it in the famous phrase, in his Kishkas, in his guts. He couldn't utter a sentence about the Middle east without mentioning that he had known Golda Meir. This is the category that he was in. But no, not just Magal, but a lot of Israel supporters in the United States wanted to see the back of him, thinking they would get a more staunch ally in Donald Trump. And I'm afraid they have got what they wished for. And you know, however bad from their point of view Trump is, Vance is going to be worse and is worse. You can see that there is a kind of gloating in the way Vance speaks about this, saying, you have no friends at all, no one likes you. We are the last country in the world who've got your back. He keeps saying in words to that effect to Israel.
- [09:31]
B
By the way, according to reports, Trump had said this to Netanyahu in their private conversations. But J.D. vance is saying this out loud and that's a big, very big difference.
- [09:39]
A
Exactly. No, the reports of the private conversations are exactly that. No daylight at all. In fact, that's probably why Trump Vance feels emboldened to speak like that. Cause he knows that that's what Trump thinks too, when he says, everyone hates you, I'm your only friend, and makes it very personal. But two reasons why I don't think beyond the sort of grim satisfaction of vindication. I don't think people who see these things the way I do can take any pleasure in it. One actually just struck me this week, which is, look, and I know this is absolutely on nobody's agenda. Nobody is talking about this for now. And Maybe not for many years, but if there was ever to be the two state solution, which still remains the preferred outcome of the international community for this conflict, there is no deal that can ever be done that does not include security guarantees for Israel underpinned by the US that has been the part of the formula of every peace negotiation, every peace framework, every imagined deal that the US Will provide assurance to Israel. Will Israelis ever again believe in a kind of US Guarantee of their security when they know that an American president, even one who is avowedly super pro Israel, as Donald Trump appeared to be, can sell you out? I don't think that was a live fear ever before, but now I think it would be rational for people to say if we, and I know this is hypothetical and not on the agenda now, but if they would say, well, why are those security guarantees worth anything? Why do we not know? How can we be sure an American president won't do what Trump did and just go running after Qatar and the others and sell us out? So I think he's changed fundamentally the geopolitics of the region, but even the psychology of the region with this change in which he has broken from Israel on a real security thing now and chummed up with, I'm talking about the fight against Hezboll and become big pals with, as you said, the country really calling the shots, which is Qatar and the others and even Iran. I mean, the notion of the American President saying, yeah, Iran has to defend itself, it needs these missiles, knock yourselves out. This is a huge change.
- [12:00]
B
Yeah. I mean, I think one of the things that kind of stayed with me from last week is the fact that the President said it's a bit unfair if other countries have them. Why can't Iran have some ballistic missiles? Now, this is not, not just something uttered by a person, this is the President of the United States. And this is now the official stance of the United States that Iran, Right. That threatens to eliminate Israel and threatens the United States is allowed to have some ballistic missile. So any sort of other Republican politician has to kind of follow suit on what the President is saying. By the way, everything that we're saying, I think was also part of a conversation that we had midweek, part of our unholy conversations with former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and the man hoping to be the next prime minister of Israel. And he talked about the fact that Israel just can't put all of its eggs basket and hope for the American president to like the country. They need more than that. Let's Perhaps hear a clip of that.
- [12:47]
C
Yes, we deeply appreciate President Trump, but even he will, at some point end his term. We can't build Israel's entire future on the fact that there's a president who really likes us. We have to have a much more robust and sustainable strategy, which means we have to change everything. We're going to have to tell a whole new story of Israel. It's not gonna be easy to fix the damage here. It might take a generation. But we have to start doing it. And we can do it. We have to get in the field and fight the war of hearts and minds. And not only the physical battle.
- [13:24]
A
You know, I go back to some of the early conversations when I hear that around this war. And I remember the argument being made, you know, right war, wrong leaders. In other words, joining a war against Iran was fine. The problem is a lack of trust for Netanyahu and a lack of trust for Donald Trump. I never could take up that position for two reasons. First, I always thought this was a wrong war. And I tell you the moment when I thought it was a moment on this podcast when we spoke to Suzanne Maloney, big expert on Iran at the Brookings Institution, and she said, this regime will just replace itself. And the minute I heard that, I thought, this is not gonna work by force. And sure enough, I think she's been vindicated. But the second reason is this. I learned 20 plus years ago with the Iraq war, flawed leaders means flawed wars. Because their decision making the way they will conduct a war, it doesn't matter if there's some abstract theoretical case you can make the fact that George W. Bush, the mindset he went into in that war, which I opposed anyway, by the way, just to be clear. But it was going to affect how the war was waged. And this is a classic example of it. Because you have someone like Donald Trump who does not hold to a clear set of strategic goals. You cannot rely on him. And that will affect the way the war is fought. And we have seen that played out. I think the same about Netanyahu and his motives. I'm afraid if the leaders running a war are flawed, you should run a mile from that war. It will not work out the way you might want it to. And I'm afraid that lesson has been taught this time.
- [14:55]
B
I will say this. I think it is still possible to say I objected to the war, but I also object to this deal being now arrived at with Iran. I mean, the deal itself and the way this war, and there are a few, by the way, People who are saying this in the United States, actually Democrats, and we mentioned Thomas Hochstein. So he was saying this this week. Look, I, I, I oppose the war from the beginning, but this deal is, is a, is a, a deal that should not have been signed by the United States because all the questions still are open, right? The questions of uranium, the question of the ballistic missile program, all of that is still open. You don't see the United States having any leverage on that. I think that is worrying not only for.
- [15:37]
A
The argument we heard made there earlier by Naftali Bennett saying that it's a mistake for Israel to put all its eggs in the Trump basket. You know, evidence of that or evidence of the kind of salience of that came in a very big way late Tuesday night into Wednesday with the result of a series of primary contests in New York City. In New York, beyond the city and across several other states, Democratic primaries in which progressives, people from the left of the party who ran as their position in these contests, as vocal critics of Israel, as defenders of the Palestinians, particularly as opponents of the war in Gaza, kind of swept the board. Three in New York City alone, which of course is the most Jewish city in the United States, one of the most Jewish cities in the world. It's so symbolic. You know, in New York, it was the case, we talked about this the other day when there was that Israel solidarity march parade. It used to be the case that you could not hope to win election office in New York City unless you were not just pro Israel, but pro really kind of a very hawkish position on Israel. Instead, Brad Lander, who is a big associate of Zoran Mamdani, the mayor, former city comptroller, he ousted Dan Goldman, who'd been a very down the line, straight ally of Israel. Lander is interesting because he's not, he would absolutely not call himself anti Israel. On the contrary, he calls himself a liberal Zionist, but he is sharply critical of the government and of the direction of the country. He opposed a Jewish congressman, Dan Goldman, and the contest became a sort of referendum on Israel. But that was not the only one. Another endorsee of the mayor, Mamdani, Democratic Socialist Darielisa Avila Chevalier, she also toppled an incumbent. And the issue there was about receiving donations from aipac, the pro Israel lobby. Another person from the same wing of the party winning the contest to succeed Nydia Velazquez, in all cases running hard on a platform that says Israel committed genocide in Gaza, attacking their opponents for being too close to Israel and to the Israel lobby and a Couple of other examples elsewhere, Pennsylvania and so on. All of these contests just underline, in a way, how polarized American politics is becoming on this issue. That in a way, Donald Trump and J.D. van saying, we are only friends. When you look at the political map, that is becoming true. And they're not even friends. So Israel's isolation politically becoming clearer and clearer in the United States.
- [18:20]
B
I want to focus on two of the races that you mentioned. One of them is the Brad Lander, Dan Goldman. Now, two Jews, right? One of them who ultimately won, saying, you know, harsh criticism of Israel, talking about genocide. Dan Goldman, on the other hand, Congressman, who, by the way, should have been a hero in the party, right? I mean, he's a former federal prosecutor. He's the lead majority counsel in the House Democrats. First, impeached Donald Trump. I mean, but two things. One, he was critical of Israel, but he did not use the word genocide. And second, critically, he was accused, right, of receiving money from aipac. Now, there was this incident, a really ugly incident, in which he walked into a cafe in Brooklyn with his daughter, one should say a cafe that prides itself in serving everyone. Said to him, they're not gonna serve him. And actually also shaming him and posting this on Instagram saying, we don't want your money. You probably get it from AIPAC anyway. I mean, this is unthinkable in New York of five or 10 years ago. So the other candidate that I wanna focus on, another person endorsed by another woman, endorsed by Mamdani Darialisa Avila Chevalier. She participated in an infamous RA rally in Times Square on October 8, 2023. You remember this largely seen as a celebration for Hamas protesters chanting, resistance is justified. Globalize the intifada. Smash the settler Zionists. They chanted the number 700. Because at the time, it was a day after the massacre of October 7th. And the official number of Israelis murdered was then 700. Sadly, of course, it topped 1200 in the days that followed. But she was. She was at this rally. She's photographed. She's standing next to a sign that says Zionism is genocide. She has never apologized for that. Walked that back. She said all of her life she's been a supporter of Palestinian rights. It just shows how progressives with harsh critique of Israel, that is not only a survivable thing, it is actually advantageous for all of these races. Now, the question on who to blame. You had Joe Scarborough saying it is Netanyahu's fault because of the images coming out of Gaza because of settler violence in the West Bank. Because of other things that are happening in the Middle east, thought he said Scarborough. Netanyahu thought he could go for a maximalist, extreme version what happens in the Middle East. He didn't understand that you can't run this war for such a long time with people seeing all these images. He is to blame for anti Semitism in New York. I just want to push back on that a little. We can definitely put a lot of the blame on Benjamin Netanyahu, but this is someone who participated in this rally on October 8th. That was before the war in Gaza started. And you could be as critical as you want about the war in Gaza, but what it says is this is a deeper rooted hatred of Israel. It's not going to be resolved if Netanyahu loses the election. And when you see this, I have to say, it's a heartbreaking thing when you listen to the mayor of New York City comparing AIPAC to monsters, saying they move millions in dark money to accomplish a single goal, to preserve their power so they can turn us against one another, end quote. Now, I'm not trying to be difficult. I try to look for anything that Mamdani said about Hamas being monsters. I couldn't find it. And I think that if you switch the word AIPAC into another word here, let's say Jews, for instance, that is a very troubling thing to say. Now, look, AIPAC dived into hot water when deciding to create a pack for itself in 2021. You can critique them all you want. There are 9,000 PACs in the United States. I don't remember Zoran Mamdani saying about any of them, that they are monsters, comparing them to monsters, talking about dark money. This is really, really concerning. And of course, it is this sort of mirror image of what is happening to Israel also in the Republican Party. When you look at this rhetoric, you know, I'm going long winded on this. I don't think it's only Israel's fault. And I don't think. I don't think it's only Benjamin Netanyahu's fault, which, by the way, yes, decidedly put all of his eggs in the Republican basket. But this is also a party that is, you know, moving away from, I think, think some things that should have been fundamentally true. And I'm not sure it has to do only with who the leader of Israel is at this point.
- [22:28]
A
I think that's all absolutely right about those individuals and about the people who wouldn't serve down Goldman, about the people who were there at that hideous rally. You've described on October 8, 2023, about Darielisa Chevalier herself. I think all correct. The slight nuance I'd put on it, this may be a defense of Joe Scarborough, is that absolutely, you cannot put on Netanyahu the views of those people. Somebody like the people who turned up at that demonstration. But the voters who then three years later are going out to vote in these primaries for people endorsed by Mamdani, I think the needle for many, not all, but the needle for many of them will have been moved by the last three years. So, yes, if you are celebrating October 7, you are an anti Semite. I don't have any hesitation about that in saying that. But the fact that somebody with those hideous, repugnant positions can get elected three years later, that a majority in those districts can back them, I don't think that would have happened had not the events of the last three years happened. So it's a more nuanced position. It's not saying this is all on you. There would be no anti Semites if there was no Netanyahu. Not true. That would be wrong. But the fact that people with that kind of politics, that the door is open to people like them, because people have been, you know, horrified, repelled by what they've seen for three years and the war going on, quite. This is where Scarborough was saying the war going on as long as it has and so on. So I think that's where. Not that those people don't exist, but a constituency for that kind of politics did not exist, certainly in New York City beyond the margins. That constituency has grown and expanded. And I believe there are many factors for it, but one of them is what's happened these last three years. And that involves some amount of Israeli decision making. And it's why I would say there's no amount of hasbara that can fix this. Hasbara and the word that's often used for Jewish public diplomacy, some would say propaganda, whatever. Only a radical change in direction now that we've got here, even if the origins of it were something else, now that we're here for that younger generation of voters in New York City who revere Mamdani, who are lining up to vote for these three candidates, Israel will have to take a very different tack, I think, to win those people back to the kind of politics that Joe Biden embodied.
- [24:50]
B
I think we can agree on the fact that anti Semitism always existed, the fact that it has become somehow acceptable. And people can now say this out loud and not only does it not push them out of politics. It actually is, as we said, advantageous for them. I think that has to do with a few factors, not only with the Israeli view. And I think there are people who are behind the scenes making sure that this is the situation in the United States. Just to mention one more thing. There are reports coming out about Qatar, Qatar spending $400 billion in the United States according to not a small amount of Israeli officials. Some of that money is indeed, you know, focused on promoting these ideas of pro Hamas and anti Israel and anti Jewish sentiment. Just again, to give you the perspective, the most I've seen AIPAC spending money is 100 million. So again, not that I'm at all comparing AIPAC or Qatar. I'm just saying this is also none of this is happening by coincidence. This is not graphic grassroots. Some of this is really, really funded, funneled and controlled. That's what I'm trying to say.
- [25:53]
A
Yes, there was a good analysis in the forward this week on how AIPAC's success rate, as it were, with electing people is barely any different from all kinds of other single issue lobbies that nobody makes a huge noise about. I agree with you about Mamdani's choice of words, talking about monsters. Completely agree with you on that. There is clearly a interference election interference and worse going on by Qatar. You know, we talk about Russia in the 2016 election. It's very clear that Qatar is absolutely on the battlefield of public hearts and minds in the United States and around the world. All of those things. True. I'm just saying that the events since October 8, 2023, those three years, have given people whose intentions are ill a huge amount of material to work with because there are a lot of people who didn't really have a kind of stake in this conflic who just have been horrified by what they've seen. And that gives people of very bad intent ammunition to work with. But things are changing very fast in the US on left and on right. We've talked about the change on the right on the podcast. Before people can go back to that episode, I think Oliver Conroy talked to us about what's happening there and it's happening on the left as well. This is a changing political map in the US Foreign.
- [27:18]
B
So tis the season of Israeli elections. I would mark your calendar, Jonathan. Just two dates left, really, to be honest, it's either October 20th, which just seems to be the date that is forming up, or the official date that the elections are slated for, which is October 27th. Either way, this is very close and what you're seeing here now, and what is grabbing a lot of headlines is the sort of deal that Netanyahu is cutting with the ultra orthodox parties where he gives them their law, basic law that says that Torah studies is equal to military service. Essentially of course enraging many Israelis who actually do military service and risk their lives in combat unless units. The other thing that he will be giving them is some way to avoid the arrest of military, of draft dodgers, which is becoming more and more of an issue here in this country. They in turn will give him the most delayed election date possible, which is what he wants. And their acceptance of political commission instead of state's commission of inquiry into the events of October 7th. All this does have some sort of translation in the polls. It does seem like Netanyahu is losing a little bit of ground. Gadi Eisenkot emerging more and more as the leader of the anti Bibi bloc. And Naftali Bennett, who we talked to this week, losing ground in his attempt to be the sort of leader of that bloc. That is where we are as we are fast approaching the next elections.
- [28:52]
A
Yeah, and I've noted this before, but it still absolutely is one for the historians to ponder that Israel, which almost always goes to early election where people governments very rarely serve a full term. They will be perplexed, those historians of the future, to see that it was the government on whose watch Oct. 7 happened that May well serve out its full term even to its expiration date of October 27th. If it's a week shy, the point still stands. I wanted to mention something that came after our time for our last episode. It was just at the end of last week. It emerged that a letter had been sent to Prime Minister, to the Defence Minister and so on from a group that reads like a roll call of Israel's political and security establishment. Two former prime ministers, Ehud Olmert, who people know has become quite a critic, but Ehud Barak as well, a whole lot of former heads of the Israeli military and intelligence, they had written to the Prime Minister, Defense Minister, et cetera, warning of the phenomenon of Jewish terrorism. This is extremist settlers on the west bank conducting what in the letter was described repeatedly as Jewish. The letter was framed as, quote, a wake up call and a final warning. We demand that you take all necessary measures to eliminate terror in the West Bank. And it describes in some detail what the authors of the letter. Many of them have seen themselves and heard themselves directly on tours of the West Bank. And so they describe the harassment of Palestinian population by settlers, beatings of Palestinian farmers and shepherds with clubs, stabbing them with knives, throwing stones. There's claims passed on reported of use of live fire, even sexual assault and other crimes. It says these criminals are not deterred from even attacking occasionally IDF soldiers. It's because, you know, we're used to hearing these things from human rights groups and so on. It's the fact that this is signed by and the names of those generals who toured the west bank and saw this for themselves include, you know, Matan Vilnaj and former head of the Mossad, Tamir Pardo and others. These are people who've given their lives or their working lives to defending Israel. Many observations that are in there, just one that leapt out at me. In particular, one of their many, many complaints. They object to the phrase hilltop youth as a way of sort of minimizing, playing down these extremist settlers who conduct these appalling attacks on Palestinian villages. In one case, actually famously called by an IDF commander a pogrom. They say it makes it sound like sort of a youth movement when we talk about hilltop youth. No, this is extremist violent terrorism. And they say that they've written to all the different authorities and they say, to date, you have not bothered to listen to these condemnations and have not taken the necessary measures to eliminate Jewish terrorism in the territories. So a very trenchant letter. The leaking of it is interesting. I don't know what impact it will have, but I think when you have the likes of Bugiyalan, former chief of staff, and several others writing this, these are not figures of the left. It's really something that has to be noted.
- [32:19]
B
Yeah, I mean, I would add to that. I wouldn't go as far as going even to people who are ex generals. A top general in the west bank today, Central Command Chief Avi Bluth, who was speaking very, very clearly, by the way, this is a man who comes from the religious national group, and he was saying very, very harsh things out loud. He said, you need to meet these people. They are causing unfathomable damage to the state of Israel and the Zion Zionist enterprise. He said, I know communities, the west bank where they say, I'm against violence, but the time has come for us to deter. They don't see that this is a slippery slope. And these are very harsh words from someone who is now in command. This is an issue that should be dealt with. There's a lot of questions why the Israeli authorities don't deal with it enough. Some of it has to do with politics because Parts of these areas are under the jurisdiction of the police and not the idf. And of course we know that the military minister in charge of the police is Itamar Bengville. This follows his philosophy in life, what is done there. So it's a more difficult thing to deal with at this point in time. Let's talk about politics where you are, sir, because can I just say, after trying to follow this for a few days, of course, the British Prime Minister having to resign. This happened on Tuesday. I was listening to a few podcasts and trying to figure out just one question and luckily I have my own co host who can explain this to me.
- [33:43]
A
Me.
- [33:43]
B
Why? I mean, why did Keir Starmer resign? What happened? What did he do? What was his big sin? I could not figure that out. Could you please explain this to me?
- [33:52]
A
Well, it's a mystery. No, it's not a mystery, but it's a puzzle even for people. Here I was just thinking, the amusement I was having was that Israel is a country where you never change prime ministers. It's basically Netanyahu since 1996 on and off. And Britain now will have had seven in 10 years, which is an extraordinary thought. The new one will be in place by early or middle of next month. One thing people point to obviously is Brexit. That introduce huge sort of volatility into the British political system. That marked its 10th anniversary this week, actually. And in those 10 years you've had the. It will be seven prime ministers. The way I think of it is that Brexit was both cause and symptom. Cause in the sense of, yes, injected, all this instability and volatility, but symptom in the sense that why do people vote for Brexit? It's because people were hugely dissatisfied with an economy that's been stagnant. As one former advisor to Tony Blair put it this week, the country hasn't had a pay rise in nearly 20 years. And when you have that, there's constant disappointment. So people turn to Brexit thinking, well, if we pull that lever and leave the European Union, maybe that will make things better. It didn't. It actually made things worse. So you've now got the same appetite for some kind of improvement, but things are even harder. So they pull another lever. Well, Boris Johnson, but that didn't work. And then another one and that didn't. It's a sense of dissatisfaction that has led to this kind of sullen mood politically. On top of that, Keir Starmer himself, yes, he won a huge thumping majority two years ago for Labour, but it was always the people. You say the sport was very wide, but it was very thin. It was a centimeter deep in the sense that he was really a vote about rejecting the previous lot. Goes back to what I was saying about frustration. It was about kicking out the Conservatives. It wasn't a kind of warm endorsement of him. So as soon as he's in charge, people give him five minutes. There's a kind of impatience accelerated by social media which thinks, why haven't you made it better yet? The old days where you could. People might be given three, four, five years to turn things around. We're not in that era now. And so people think, let's try something else. Very poor communicator. Couldn't communicate a plan. Didn't really have a plan. And local election results, Scottish, Welsh election results were so bad for him last month that the clock has been ticking. Multiple other factors.
- [36:23]
B
And the party pushed him out.
- [36:24]
C
Right.
- [36:24]
B
That's basically what happens.
- [36:26]
A
Yes. In a parliamentary system, you only lose your job as Prime Minister if your own MPs turn on you. And Labour MPs looked at the poll numbers, they were staring down the barrel of. They still are. Of an election defeat next time and thinking, we are gonna have to do something if we're gonna survive. Labor doesn't normally do that. The Conservatives normally do that. Labor usually stick with their leaders to the bitter end. It shows you something is changing in the politics here, that now they are doing that too. They've turned to someone who they think is a more proven winner. He's now the ex mayor of the city of Manchester, popular figure in the north of England. Andy Burnham, former minister under Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. No real profile on foreign affairs to speak of. But he is, because he won a special election to get back into the House of Commons. He's seen as somebody who is that rare thing in the current mood, which is a fairly popular popular politician.
- [37:23]
B
Let's say something about Keir Starmer's record on Israel, on the Jewish community.
- [37:28]
A
Yeah. I mean, I think people regard him as a great friend of the Jewish community here, chiefly because. And he was the first thing he mentioned in his resignation speech that he had to change the Labour Party and he tore out the poison of antisemitism. It was one of the very first things he mentioned. People remember labor under Jeremy Corbyn was even institutionally faulted by a statutory body for discrimination against Jews. He came in and turned that situation around to the point where it even. He sort of moderated the Party's position even on Israel. And that got him in trouble too, because he did say early on in the war in Gaza that Israel had the right. He sort of chose his words carelessly in some ways, but it sounded like he was saying Israel had the right to withhold humanitarian aid in a way that lit the fugitive on this hugely strong feeling. We were talking about it in the U.S. democratic Party. It's similar in the Labour Party of anger at the leadership for not being strong enough in their denunciation of Israel, in their support for Palestinians. That was building a lot of votes, defected to the Green Party, which is much more trenchantly anti Israel, and Starmer was seen to have misjudged that. And did it partly come out of his desire to put the Labour Party on a new footing with the British Jewish community? Maybe. But he got himself on the wrong side in terms of his party act activists of that issue. So there's obviously an assumption now that his successor, Andy Burnham, will not make that mistake and will go the other way. There are very few sort of straws or evidence base to go on. But I would just say this. He's a member of the Labour Friends of Israel, that group. He ran for leader before. He's been a candidate twice. In 2015, he stood to be leader of the Labour Party and he condemned bds, boycott, divestment and sanctions, said it was spiteful. And he even said at that time that if elected, his first fore foreign visit would be to Israel. Now, the politics have changed a huge amount in the last year, but I think it's noticeable that he is a politician who has, so far as I understand it, refused to describe Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide, which we've just heard again in New York, is now almost a requirement of progressive politicians. He has not done that. He said, I can't judge things of that enormity as the mayor of Greater Manchester, but he had concerns about proportionality and so on. So so far I think he will somebody who people will think has got a sort of open stance on this and let's face it, it's not going to be his top priority. He would be very grateful indeed if he barely has to touch this issue, which in the end proved actually quite damaging and difficult for Keir Starmer.
- [40:14]
B
The one final thought I had is listening to him resign to Keir Starmer and this man who, you know, you yourself say, and many say is not entirely correct, charismatic, not showing emotion, but, you know, kind of his voice cracking when he speaks about his wife and about his family. I mean, that was a moment. We have to give out our awards, sir. So.
- [40:33]
A
We do. We do. Why don't. I think the chutzpah nomination might be. We might have a competition, but I'll go with my one. This is Danny Danone, who is Israel's ambassador to the United nations, who was at a hearing where there was a report into children in war. And he, from his seat, absolutely laid in to the author of the report, one Pramila Patton, accusing her of bias against Israel because her report had mentioned Israel in the context of those countries accused. You caved into the Secretary General's obsession with targeting Israel. He raged. Now, the name Premillah Patton may ring a bell with some listeners because it was that same UN official who in March 2025, produced a report that. That the likes of Danny Danone could not get enough of and were very, very grateful for, which exposed and rightly accused Hamas of grotesque crimes of sexual violence on October 7th. Then Pramila Patton was a perfectly careful and fair UN official, and as I said, pro Israel. People were very happy with her then now because she, perhaps applying the same lens into her work, has said that Israel has a case to answer in a different area, suddenly is accusing her of bias. To me, that's chutz. If you think the judge was okay in March 25, I don't think you can say in June 26, you know, your words don't count. It seems to me to be a chutzpah to abuse the ref when you don't like the decision when you were quite happy to take it a year earlier. So that would be my chutzpah nominee.
- [42:10]
B
Okay, we're not. We have no arguments about the mensch of the week this week.
- [42:14]
A
None.
- [42:15]
B
Which is a mensch to win all Mensches, the top of the list, who could be on our Mensch Award list every week. But this week, Mel Brooks is 100. I mean, just let's pause on that. This genius of comedy, this immense talent, this, you know, every time, since I'm the one who, you know, famously, you wanted to call this unholy. I wanted to call two Jews on the news. And every time I say two Jews on the news, I think of Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner just going through the newspapers and saying, did you hear what this guy did? You know, sadly, Carl Reiner is not with us anymore. But Mel Brooks, as we may have a long and healthy life, I mean, what a genius this man is.
- [42:53]
A
Yeah, I think he's had a pretty long and healthy life already. But on he goes. I think we may have made him. We want more. At least 20 years more. I think we may have made him our mention of the week when he turned 99. And I'm hoping this can be a mini unholy tradition. We'll do this every year. You stay with us. You know, not just a Jewish comedian, but a Jewish comedian. I mean, such Jewish comedy. The 2,000-year-old, you know, of course, one of the great comedy classics, of course, the voices of an old Brooklyn Jew. Because anyone who'd seen the world for the last 2,000 years, of course, would be Jewish and, you know, retreat, retreat. Think with your feet. His Hitler caricature in the Producers. All I want is peace. Peace. A little piece of Poland, a little piece of France. How can you not love Mel Brooks? Comic genius? He is, as you say, absolutely our mensch of the week. And for time immemorial, this can be a repeating award. We bow down to him.
- [43:50]
B
I remember this beautiful interview with Mike Wallace in 60 Minutes and he said that the best way to get even with Hitler is to mock him. And he did that twice, actually, in the Producers, his genius film. And also in To Be or Not to Be. That happens as well. Favorite Mel Brooks film, sir.
- [44:07]
A
Oh, I think it is.
- [44:08]
B
You had to ask you, like, I mean, how can you.
- [44:10]
A
Yeah, no, I didn't see the coming. I think it has to be the protection, really, for me. Yeah. And the show. I think the show is unsurpassable. So, yes, for me, it's the Producers. Where were you gonna go? Blazing Saddles.
- [44:20]
B
No, Fiddles is obviously. I don't think we can. Number one. I have a very warm place in my heart for Blazing Saddles and for History of the World, Part one, of course. And for Spaceballs with a beautiful line, a Druish princess. Funny, she doesn't look Druish, but, you know, it's just. They are great. They're great films. It's just. I mean, we love him. Please come on our show, Mel. We'll be nice. Jonathan will be nice.
- [44:45]
A
We'll be very friendly. We'll be very warm. We'll love it. And his Sinatra impersonation in High Anxiety, that's a classic. Terrific. Okay. Well, I think we should find a way to talk about Mel Brooks week after week. But we have sent you, I think, to our unholy conversation, Naftali Bennett. Do go back to that if you missed it.
- [45:05]
B
And we will say our thank yous to Nirleist and to Michal Porat and we will indeed meet next week.