Can We Even Sit On a Panel Together?

at the Whitesman National Museum of American Jewish History.

“The idea was to celebrate a new book called Jewish Priorities by inviting a bunch of really”

smart Jews to tell us what we should focus on moving forward. What should our Jewish priorities be? Again, October 7th happened, and it seemed like our priorities are really our entire world completely changed, which only made the conference more urgent. So while back, we gathered at the beautiful Whitesman Museum in Philadelphia, and we did

what Jews do best, especially when times are tough. We talked. We talked about Israel and about Gaza, about Jewish storytelling and Jewish philanthropy, about the environment and religion, and everything else that matters right now.

The conversations weren't always easy.

Sometimes, hey, we're Jews, we disagreed, but the conversations were always provocative and interesting, and we're happy to share them here with you.

“If you like what you hear, you should check out Jewish priorities, edited by David Huzone,”

and you should also visit the Whitesman Museum in Philly and their truly amazing collection. But now, onto the conversation. I think the most pressing matter, the most urgent matter, is engaging young people and creating a cross-generational dialogue that young people are engaging with older folks, not only as teachers, but that there's a given take in every direction.

And that Judaism is not a burden, but that Judaism is, I don't want to use the word fun. But there's an excitement and a passion, and a high level thought that comes with it. We focus so much on externals and antisemitism that we forget that Jewish self-awareness, self-knowledge, education, are what ultimately sustains the Jews, not just fighting people who hate us.

This is Jewish priorities, life after October 7th, and these are some of the voices you'll hear in this panel, called "Can we even sit on a panel together?" Panelists include Rabbi Shlomo Elkin, Jodi Radoran, and Rabbi David Volpi, and was moderated by me, Stephanie Botnik, and my unorthodox co-host Leel Liebebitz. This discussion focused on the charge rhetoric we're seeing within the Jewish community

during the war in Israel.

I assume that as we approach this conversation, a lot of us approach it, as all of us always

do, with preconceived notions that we are rooted firmly in convictions of left and right, that we belong to Orthodox synagogues or conservative synagogues or reconstructionists synagogue or reform synagogues, that we come at the world from a particular historical viewpoint. One of the terrible, but immensely hopeful things that happened on October 7th is that all these preconceived notions have shattered.

“We were always looking forward to this year conference, we always believed it was important,”

and Saturday October 7th became essential, because unless we question everything that we thought we knew, and everything that we thought we believed, our chances that survival are not very high. So the conversations that you would hear here for the next several hours are going to be pointed and sometimes pointy.

The questions that will be asked will sometimes be provocative. The discussions that will ensue among people on stage will sometimes be heated.

We will always strive to keep things very civilized.

We will always strive to keep the conversation focused on ideas, and we will always always strive to keep the conversation pointed forward towards something constructive and hopeful that we could all leave here taking. But I ask you, as we welcome our first set of panelists as a stage, to try and put every emotion, every set of ideas, everything that you thought you are very firmly attached to,

aside for just one moment, for just six or seven hours, and join us in this conversation. Stephanie, do you want to introduce our panelists? Yes, we have an amazing day of programming for you today, and we are starting with an amazing panel called, "Can we even sit on a panel together?"

I'm going to introduce our three panelists, and then I'm going to invite them to come up.

Shlomo Elkin is the rabbi and co-director of Hobad at Oberlin College, and serves as a Jewish chaplain in prisons in the state of Ohio. David Wolpy is rabbi, a maridist of Sinai Temple, visiting scholar at Harvard Divinity School, and the author most recently of David, the divided heart. Woody Radoren is editor-in-chief of the forward, before coming to the forward, in 2019, she spent

21 years as a reporter and editor at the New York Times, including a St. as the Jerusalem Bureau Chief. I'd like to welcome our three wonderful panelists up to the stage. Gallauder. Rabbi Wolpy, I want to start with you, because your essay in this wonderful book Jewish

priorities is called "respect your opponent," and it's all about learning to argue better. Could you explain to us the two different types of arguments of disagreements that you run through in your book, and how they are relevant again in these past few weeks of what

“we've seen in the broader rhetoric in this country?”

Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Thank you. Okay.

First of all, it's wonderful to be back in my home town.

I know some of you were congregants of my fathers, and so it's wonderful to see you. Yeah, I'm going to begin in my favorite way, which is actually disagreeing with Leo. One of my top five, because I actually think that all those divisions exist, and the fact that we had a moment of unity, has nothing to do with the idea that one person will only dovend with a piece of, and the other person will only dovend in an e-gality, and nothing

is going to change that. We know from history that a common enemy creates unity. We saw it after 9/11. If tomorrow aliens came, all of Earth would be united, but after the aliens left, Russia and the Ukraine still wouldn't like each other. So I don't want us to over-exaggerate the unity that comes about from this, instead, unity is exactly what you said, which is believing that your opponent is a person you're opponent now, is a person with good intentions,

who sees the world differently than you do, and trying to understand and empathize, not agree, or necessarily even co-exist in the same small area. I'll give you just one example of this. I was very friendly, as many of you probably were, with Rabbi Sachs, I wrote a long article for the Jewish Republic about his work. I went and spoke at the Yorkside Conference at Barrelan about his life, but he would not step into my synagogue, and we had many conversations about that,

and I profoundly disagreed, and I didn't like the idea that he would not even on a panel ever. But I had to just agree to disagree with him while still thinking that he was a remarkable

“figure in Jewish life. And so that's what I'm asking for. I'm asking for people to be able”

to understand, empathize, and listen without demonizing the other, and still being able to profoundly disagree. It gives me no pleasure. Maybe a little bit of a little bit to come at you knowing, you know, the fullness and the goodness of your heart. But as you say, these words, and as you wrote, it's truly beautiful, I say, everyone, by the way, you should really read this entire book. It's extraordinarily great about the sort of possibility of real discussion, real disagreement, real kind of

conversation. About a mile and a half up the road, at a certain university that you'll not be mentioned, we had just a week, people walking around chanting, we want Jewish genocide. Now, my question for you is, Joe, do you seem like you do not believe that happened? The topic that's, I mean, I listen to the, I listen to the video. That was circulating on Instagram that was labeled, we want Jewish genocide. My nephew, who graduated from Penn a year and a half ago, sent it to me, and I listen to it,

and it says, we charge Jews with genocide. And that is offensive and really problematic,

“but it's not, we want Jewish genocide. I listen to it multiple times. Okay. And I think that”

we should, I mean, people are lying about us and about what we say and we should not lie about what other people say. I have a question about that in just a moment, but I want to return,

probably won't be to the hot seat if you don't mind for a second, and ask, when you hear this

heated rhetoric, do you still believe that discussion is possible or merited? So I would say,

"Oh, put down, come on, let's talk, okay? There are limits." But for example, when I go back to Harvard, I have already let students know if they want to come to my office, whatever side they represent,

“and talk to me, I want to listen to them. Because I think it is a much better thing with a 20-year-old”

who carries a Palestinian flag to engage them in conversation than it is to say, "You're out of bounds."

That's it. I'm never talking to you. I have nothing to say to you. I don't want to listen to you.

I don't want to reason with you. I mean, I don't know about you, but I really would not want to be held to account for everything I said when I was 20 years old. Really. But it wasn't on social media. And I said stupid things at the University of Pennsylvania, which was my alma mater, and did stupid things at the University of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, but I never put it on TikTok. Thank God. And so, I would say, of course, there are boundaries. But my boundaries are

much larger than others. And part of the reason they are is you don't have that luxury if you're a

“synagogue grab-by. You have to say to your member, "Who violently disagrees with you? Maybe even”

screams at you at a board meeting in ways you don't like? Let's talk." And it is infinitely more effective in creating good will than get the hell out of my synagogue. Rabbi will be the young years is totally a television show I would watch by the way. I was like, "That's a pan, that one's a happening upstairs later on." We have your friends from Penn here at the time.

But I don't know. So I always, I will err on the side of dialogue. Are there limits? Of course,

there are limits. But I don't think we push ourselves nearly far enough to talk to people who disagree with us. And by the way, just as long as he's sitting here, I think Rabbi is a beautiful example of this. Right? Rabbi talks to people whose world view they completely disagree with. Thank you, Rabbi. It often works. Rabbi, I did want to ask you something because this thing happened that I've been thinking

about a lot. I was streaming young couple of services. No shame. I'm a streamer. I was watching Central synagogue, which is a huge reform synagogue from Temple in New York City. And one of the instruments was about Hobald. It was drawing this contrast between a poca-leptic messianism and redemptive messianism within Judaism. It went sort of a way I wasn't expecting. And basically, there really was this usverse them mentality that I felt like I was hearing. I was so thrown

by it that I went to the church. I don't even know if you know what I'm talking about. But I went back to the transcript a bunch of times and I was like, "What is this?" And so I guess I want to ask you were on this panel of, let's call it, "How can we even be on a panel?" And I know the

Rabbi always said, "What is it? There are no denominations, all Jews, we're all just Jews."

But I want to ask you and I hope I'm not putting you on the spot. What do you do when someone doesn't really want you to be on their panel, so to speak, metaphorically speaking? What do you

“say to that? Well, first things first in terms of just framing it, I think back to one of”

the foundational texts of Hobad philosophy and it talks about all the Jewish people being like various limbs of the body. So of course the mind cares about what's happening with the left toe, but also at times their intention with each other. The left toe has its own function as the mind and the heart and every other limb. So we have to be indelibly concerned with every part of the body, every part of the Jewish people. So in that sense there's no distinction, right?

And I think that's where the motivation, there will be mentioned of sitting, I mean if I only had people that thought like me around my Shabbos table, well my wife wouldn't be there for sure. Amongst anybody else, or nobody else I should say, and how does it feel when people don't

that's not what I meant. There was a panel discussion at Oberlin College around Jewish feminism

“and my wife actually called up the organizer and asked if she could be on the panel and was told”

you were not a feminist, which took my wife by surprise, albeit maybe certain different definitions of around what feminism is or should be or could be or so on and so forth. And it was interesting because Jewish was able to be interpreted in any way that any panelists wanted it to be, but feminism had a very specific definition. So what did we do? She wasn't invited on the panel. She went, she sat, she listened and then when it came to Q&A, her hand was the first one up, you know,

and always with a smile, always with kindness. People do have boundaries and we have to respect

that also. There are times when it's not appropriate to be on a panel together. It's appropriate to respect, again, within limits, right? You know, it's appropriate to respect people's various viewpoints and the table that they want to set. And there's a way to engage. And when there's relationships built and people care about each other, then these divisions, these philosophies,

“become a little bit less or a lot less important and we can engage together as an entirety”

of a Jewish community. We will get back to that in a bit and complicate that and push back. But, Jordi, since you, if you did something gracious now that inspired me to ask this question that I was thinking about reading the forward, you corrected this notion and I thank you for it. And I agree that particularly in times of war and in times where spirits are very heated, getting the facts just right is profoundly important. It's a tenet of journalism.

But I want to understand kind of a tutorial, sensibilities and how you think about this conflict. So on October 11th, which is four days into the war. And after the Israeli government has already officially said that some of the Hamas terrorists indeed raped some of the Israeli victims. And that forward ran a 2,000-word report that called this allegation into question and kind of took um, um, um, bridge with the notion that this was now perceived with, um,

walk me through this editorial decision. Well, I disagree with the characterization of what the

article said, um, the article was published the day after President Biden's first speech, um,

and in President Biden's speech, he referred to the rape of, that, that rape was among the atrocities committed by Hamas, which was something that had been circulating around social media and had been, um, mostly in social media had been excited by many celebrities and colonists both on social media and then the mainstream media. And that Netanyahu had mentioned in a speech the day before.

“And, uh, or the, the day of actually the same day, I think. And we, um, were like, like, other people”

were looking for, you know, documentation of it. And we asked the IDF and they said, we don't yet have any evidence confirming it. And we asked the White House, how did this get in Biden's speech? Like, where's this from? And they said that the Netanyahu had told him about it in a phone call. And I mean, this was a pretty early in the war. It was, you know, two years after a much smaller Israel Gaza configuration in which we saw the particular, um, trying to think of

what the right word is, uh, a fog is only the beginning. But the particular sort of horror of the manipulative misinformation, disinformation, rumor, mongering, et cetera, on social media, um, we were sort of in the midst of that. And we thought this was an interesting case study in, like, how stories go viral and how does something get into the president's speech when before the

IDF has confirmed it or find proof it? It never really occurred to me editing that story that there

wasn't rape that happened in this attack. I mean, it seemed fairly likely. It seemed more than likely, you know, just last night, um, the chief IDF spokesman confirmed it in his statement in, uh, national TV. We've seen over the last week, Zach of volunteers and other people who have, um, been dealing with forensic, uh, autopsies of the bodies or with dealing with the bodies for burial, finding sharing evidence of it. And, you know, we've written that story as well. But it's

travels to our kids on their phones, what they see. And I'm sure you, like me, are dealing with

what your teenagers or college students are telling you about what happened in the war, that they're seeing on their phones, how it travels into mainstream media. Um, we've now seen a whole, another set of this, uh, whole, another example of this with the hospital explosion in Gaza at the, um, when was that on last Tuesday? Um, and how it travels into politicians, speeches, and how those politicians and other people choose which facts or pieces of information,

they highlight, they elevate, and they are good. So for me, it was not a story saying, it's ever suggesting that there might not have been rape or that we knew anything about that there wasn't rape. That was not the, the value proposition of the story at all. It was simply how did Biden get to say this in his speech before the idea of had confirmation? I totally understand that. I know somebody has, you want to jump in a bit. I just, I just want to clarify, because again,

this is a question, we're, of tablet magazine. We, we have this thought processes all the time,

and it's always interesting, um, to, to ask this question, when you begin with something that

you're fairly certain is true. Indeed, happened. These rapes occurred. Uh, and used that as an example, four days into a very massive war to report a story, the greater context of which, as you just said, is the notion that doing the fog of war, a lot of misinformation gets handled. Is there not a moment when you said, look, they're, they're just other priorities. They're just other things that I want to do. Instead of putting it out there in a way that may leave some

well-meaning readers thinking, okay, well, they're calling it the question, the, the versity of this particular issue. It just, like, I mean, we, I take a yes and philosophy to have this. I mean, the other stories that we published on, I don't know about exactly that day, but I mean, we were at the same time breaking the story of what happened that's Stanford with the T.A. who called out the Jews in the class and called them colonizers and got suspended for it.

“We were, it's the same time. I think the day before we published my editorial about everything I knew”

about Israel and Gaza was wrong, we were publishing with in-day, I mean, I could, we published, I think as a Friday, we published 236 items on this. So, by Wednesday, October 11th, it was probably more like 50, but, you know, on that actual day. I was only doing a drink fight, by that Wednesday, you still needed a drink, by that Wednesday. I definitely was not drinking, but I was, I mean, I actually was, you know, I was in San Francisco,

doing a series of public events. I was, you know, editing it in my hotel room, and we did, I, I think I had just that morning also interviewed Michael Oran about the speech and published an article about why Michael Oran explained, walked us through exactly what, about what Biden said was so historic and remarkable about his support of Israel, and it was really, really revealing, and I think that was actually our top story that day.

So, it's not like we did this instead of doing a bunch of other things. We did this in addition to

“doing a bunch of other things, and that's how a good news organization works.”

Can I take this in a slightly different direction for one second? I know, I'm not the moderator, but this is the most Jewish conference I've ever had, I love it. They call this collaborative

very reliable. It's not interrupting. The, you know, Joseph Epstein always says Jews don't listen,

they wait. So, um, barely. Before, right, barely. Before the war broke out, the key issue was, I had a congregation that was really divided between very enthusiastic Trump supporters and very not enthusiastic Trump, not supporters, not supporters, and the things that the American Jewish community used to say about each other, depending on where they were on the political spectrum, the rhetoric that was used was violent about each other. Now, we have

shifted. Now, we're not using that rhetoric, at least not for the moment. We'll get back to it, believe me. Now, we're using the rhetoric about the students who are supporting Palestine. What I, my larger point is, try not to use the rhetoric except in really the most, I mean, for a Hamas terrorist, God bless you. Use all the rhetoric you want. What I'm saying is we have something in us that immediately wants an opposition that we can demonize, and if we don't have

A, we're going to go for B, and, and it's unhealthy for the Jewish soul. That's my point. Right. So, we're doing the Jewish thing here. No, right. I mean, probably we'll be able to approach his essay about argument. Mine is about asking questions. They could have been the same, they're, they're the same, making the same point from two different perspectives. They're very different but they're very, very violent agreement about the way the conversation should unfold.

“But I also think it's super important to comment things from a position of curiosity. Why is”

this that way? Why do you think that can you explain to me with an openness to actually hearing

introduced this to say, we had all these fault lines before, and I think you said, you know,

everything, everything we thought before, we have to sort of let go of because the world is so new. But I do think that there are a lot of new fault lines emerging. And there are new people are saying, like, if this person says this thing, they are outside the tent. They are not part of this conversation. If this person does this thing, they are clearly outside the tent. And it's just, it's really hard in this moment to avoid that kind of characterization of in and out. I care about you. I don't care

about you. I respect you. I don't respect you. I mean, I'm rubbish on my just met you. I don't want to, but I, one of the things when we were at breakfast earlier, because Rabbi Schulman was on a college campus, which has been such a, I don't know, hot. I mean, I was thinking of, I mean,

there are delays and there's such difficult places to be. So the first thing I wanted to know

“was to hear what was happening at Oberlin. And the first thing you said was, I think you said,”

the administration did the right thing, something that did good or whatever. And I didn't say it at the breakfast table, but it's like, I want to know what the administration said, not that you've characterized it as right or wrong or good or bad. And I want to know about the complexity of what each of the players are saying and doing. And I know, again, I'm not trying to criticize you for saying that. But I mean, there is a lot of feeling of, did they do, were they for me are against me?

Did they do the right thing? And it's like, I want to just continue to urge us to come to this like horrible moment that is so difficult on college campuses in elsewhere and say, what do they say? What do they mean? Why did they say it? Who are they? And ask those questions and try to come with a real position of curiosity for what the answer might be. This moment does seem to be different, right? And told you, as the Jerusalem Bureau Chief,

for the times, had one of the most charged, you know, complicated jobs. And now, you're, of course, running a Jewish publication during this incredibly challenging time. Our two rabbis are on college campuses now. So I really would love to talk to you from the three of you about what feels different is it? The social media is it just the visceral usverse them within our own communities? What feels

“different about this moment? And how can we bridge those differences that we find ourselves facing?”

Okay. I get on the pretty good on campuses, but particularly, you know, sort of in your experiences, how do we get everyone on the panel together, at least? Yes, please. You're the worst interruptor on this panel. By whom? Oh, you're wife. Yeah. There would be a couple things that I would say around what

is it feel like on campus? And the first is actually an invitation. I think this room is a very

impressive and beautiful room, but, and I would love to see people under 30 here, engaging in these conversations. We got a fail. Yeah. Thank God. So. Fifteen. Two live ones. And hearing, hearing, from all of the various panelists here, not just this panel, but throughout the whole day, and engaging with these things around existential thought of what does it mean to be a Jewish person today, because they will be the Jewish people tomorrow. And that's really, really important

of engaging them. And on their terms, maybe a book, maybe David, we have to launch a Tik Tok

“channel for this book, or something, but to engage with young people. And I think that leads to”

how it feels different. You know, we have an old adage that often gets repeated. You know, don't confuse me with the facts. I've already made up my mind, which might sum up the college experience in many ways. And I think that that comes at the cost of educators,

a customer today. I think it comes at the cost of a misdirected empowerment of young people that is also forgotten to teach how to craft one in one self into a student. Again, an old Hasidic adage is to turn one, make oneself into a vessel, which means we have to turn ourselves into a receptacle to learn. And then once one has filled up or is continuously being filled up with all kinds

“of things, then they're able, we are able to give out. I think that the college experience today”

is about edifying people's beliefs when they come into college already as 18 year olds. And as speaking with somebody else earlier, I am not a proponent of young and dumb. I don't think college people are young and dumb at all. I think they have autonomy. I think they have intellect. I think they can be very impressive. But the adults in the room have sometimes forgotten to be educators. And what feels different is we're constantly turning to the student. We in the biggest

collective sense, constantly turning to the student for what's acceptable, what's not going to cancel us so on and so forth as opposed to being bold enough, brave enough, smart enough to step

“into the weeds and really have difficult conversations and educate. I think that's number one.”

I could go on much longer, but I invite the disruption. I completely agree with everything you say. That's so fun. Yeah. That's a part of the reason that young people don't listen to us

is because we are the first generation in history where young people have essential life skills

that older people don't. And that gives a certain intellectual confidence. When my computer doesn't work, I ask my daughter and she comes over and goes, and that's it. And it's fixed. And when they live in a world that we don't live in and they have skills that we don't have, when we tell them we know what's best. It sounds hollow. And that allied with the anti-Zionist progressive left ideology included, by the way, as I was talking earlier, it's partly a function of immigration

of people from the Middle East who carry a certain anti-Semitic slash anti-Zionist ideology. Many of them coming together and college campuses with a progressive left ideology. And the question is what do you do about that? And the organized Jewish community has largely said what you do about that is you yell at them that they're bad and wrong. And crazily, that doesn't seem to be working. I don't know why. I mean, I don't know why 100 columns from persuasive pens.

And there are some of them are very, very good and I don't have to retail all the names to you. All of us feel good and we all send them to each other. And yet, for some crazy reason, even though you and I and everybody on the panel reads all these columns, the campus is the same. And of course,

the answer is, because in part, they're young. In part, I think they've been indoctrinated in

an ideology that I find both mistaken and pernicious. But also because we don't engage them in actual conversation. And it's very hard to change someone's mind by saying you're wrong just like it's hard

“to get somebody to calm down by saying calm down. Instead, you have to say, why do you think this?”

Let's talk about this. And that is a long and difficult process. It's not easy. And nobody wants to do it. And therefore, we don't do it. Instead, we get frustrated and say, you're wrong. I wish that would work. But it doesn't. And neither does, by the way, unfortunately, it may work to set up different universities. But just saying, we're going to withdraw our money from the university until these kids change their minds. Also doesn't change their minds. Rather, it reinforces their sense

that big, powerful forces oppose them and gives them a certain confidence that they're making

waves because people don't want to hear the truth that they're speaking. So I really, and I will just close by this. I believe in the next week or two, you will hear good stuff starting to come out of Harvard. And I hope long-term, you'll hear lots of good stuff coming out of Harvard. I can't talk about it yet, but soon. But this is a long process. And it will require the characteristics

we do have, but we say we do. So maybe we should try it more. Do you want to add to this briefly, because I want to ask one last question and open it up for a Q&A? Let's just quickly. I agree with I'm not going to add to the campus piece. But you asked very clearly what is different about this

“moment. And so I'll just add a couple of things that I think are really different. First of all, we should”

start with what is different about this moment is that Hamas breached the fence and committed an unprecedented, completely unanticipated assault on Israelis, 1400 dead, 210 dead, 2012, I guess, many atrocities and massive intelligence failures and Israelis like opening question,

openly questioning response. So that's the first thing that's different and radically different from

the landscape that we were all thought we were talking about. And then the second thing that in a sense, the kids you guys are talking about, like their parents, I also want to talk a little bit about them and what they're experiencing. And I think that there's, you know, there's a crisis in the far Jewish left in the sort of borderline between the anti-zionist left and the radically propolistiny and pro-peace Jewish left. There's a real crisis happening there. And there is also

a real crisis happening among the liberal Zionist kind of mainstream of American Jewish thought, American Jews, where people are really feeling isolated and questioning their allies and their alliances. And we've published a number of wrenching pieces about this that really laid out. And it's also, it's all over my phone. It's like, my friends are, they don't know who exactly they can trust. You talk about how they feel. I live in the Republic of Montclair, the people's

Republic of Montclair, where, you know, and all the people, you know, the sort of a required long-time with these five principles and people are now wondering, like will there be a free Palestine long-time next to mine? Will there be a Israelist committing genocide long-time next to my

“house? And so I think people are feeling in this country isolated and alone in a way that that”

is completely new to them. So we really do want to leave some time for questions and answers. So we want to ask one more question. And it's a rapid-ish fire-ish type of one for all of you,

and it's obviously a two-parter because this is a Jewish event. So the first question is I want

you to start by reflecting in, and Julia appreciated the piece that you wrote, which everyone should go and read. I believe that the headline was everything I thought I knew, but it's really Gaza was wrong. So I want to start inspired by that piece by asking you to share if there's something in the last couple of weeks that you thought that made you sort of wake up and said, "Well, I got this completely wrong because every good process of the sugar begins with, you know, acknowledging what it is

that we, how it is that we sent." And then maybe leave us with one, one thing that you think we to make panels like this, fruitful. One thing that you think we could do as a sort of urgent priority, leave here and do this, and Julia will start with you. So I mean, the biggest thing that I got wrong was, you know, I did not think that fence was breachable, and there's some extensions to that. I thought that, I mean, I am deeply concerned about Israel's ability to survive as a Jewish

and democratic state without resolving the conflict, and I did not think that there was this kind of physical threat possible from Palestinians in Gaza or in the West Bank. So the recalculation of how to deal with this different kind of existential, potentially existential threat or specific,

I mean, deadly threat that we thought Israel had basically quashed while being able to preserve

its long-term ability to survive as a Jewish and democratic state in this neighborhood is a new kind of quandary, I think. The second part is, again, just one thing we think about. You kind of want to sort of take, for example, I'll provoke even further. So when you see these long signs, the hate has no home here, signs over. Is there a part of you, for example, it says, you know what I'm sorry, I was a good ally to you, and you did not come forth for me

come out of this game. Right. So, I think I'm not going to say that, I might say this.

“You should want to be like that's similar to the opposite of that. I mean, I guess what I really,”

I saw the people's Republic of Montclair, there are a number of Facebook groups as you can

There's still in Facebook in my demographic. Anyway, and there were a number of conversations

“around this, and I think there was an anonymous post on one of them that was like basically”

articulating the isolation I described, and there were 400 comments on it, and then in this other group,

there was a variety of conversations that I think that moderator ultimately felt was a little toxic.

They ended up hitting on the top of that group, a place where places you can give money to Israel, places you can give money to the Gaza, two different posts, and then they, and then a bunch me and a bunch of my friends got invitations to join a new Facebook group called The Montclair Schmooz, which was for Jews to talk about this. And I'm sure that's necessary in this moment, but I found it rather depressing. So I guess, in terms of the idea that we needed, we needed to take the conversation

into a side room because we couldn't have the conversation in the main room. And I think that's fine if it's in this morning period, it's in this difficult moment. But I guess I would hope that among the people around you who are saying or doing something that you find to be outside the tent, to be so confusing and offensive to you that you can't imagine if you could pick one of them and one of those comments and try to engage and say, "Can you explain to me like how you got there?"

And can we talk about how I can't handle that? Or that doesn't work for me, or that seems

“really wrong to me in the coming weeks. I think that that will be really important when we look”

back at this from the perspective of history.

Since I got the same thing wrong that Jodie did, I'm going to say, first of all, I've been doing

these videos of like a minute or two of his silk of strengthening and of comfort and of talking to the Jewish community and of talking about our love for Israel and so on for the last couple of weeks. And they've been sent around many, many, many, many, many, many thousands of times, which is really wonderful and I just want to tell you the one I did last night that's going to be this morning or tomorrow. So last night I did a wedding and I took a night flight here at David's insistence, but I'm

not going to brag about that because some of you came from Israel. So, but I would, I had intended to. At the wedding, the couple said to me before the wedding, it's our Simcha, but we don't want

it to go unmentioned what's going on in Israel. So you always say, "Imish Khashireh, you Shalayam,

Tish Khashiminiya, I forget Jerusalem, I forgot my right hand." So right before you broke the glass, I said, "How beautiful that their love is not only for each other, but embraces all of Israel because they wanted this even at the moment, if they're great destroy, they wanted this catastrophe mentioned.

“And one of the things that I think we can do is to share with each other the pain”

that we all feel. And it doesn't have to be oppositional. It just has to be like this is really a time to love Jews because we're all in pain and it's exactly, you know, we're all part of the same body broadly speaking. And for a moment, here to circle back and agree with Leo, I disagree with him, it is a moment to forget the divisions and not worry whether you were right or left or upper down, but just to say to the Jewish people, "I put my arms around you and I love you and

God knows we've been through an enormous amount together and we have a common destiny and a common history and we should take care of each other." What did I get wrong? What did I get right? I don't mean this, I hope it doesn't come across the wrong way. I feel like in some ways at Oberlin and on campuses in general, especially at Oberlin, I feel like this war has been going on for a long time in a really serious way. I also have an odd luxury. I have my finger in a lot

of different communities. Maybe you can relate to this in certain ways. My wife's railing, I keep mentioning her, she should have been here, she's smarter than I am anyway, but my wife's railing, all of her brothers have been called up basically for reserve duty right now. My WhatsApp groups are filled with Israelis, then I have other WhatsApp groups, I have Hassidic Jews all over the world,abad rabbis all over the world, and then I have social media feeds filled with current

college students and alumni spanning the past decade and a half. I really see so much.

answers, I wouldn't be the railway in Oberlin. I can guarantee you that. I have some other some other positions somewhere else. So, I don't know to say what I got wrong exactly, but other than that it's simple, that it could be simple. There's a lot of layers and people come from all different kinds of backgrounds and perspectives and educations and there has to be, there has to

“be a way to bring those things together to bring us to a better place. That's what I would say on that.”

Let's say again, your second part, Leo. Sorry. Just one, leave us with one thing that we could take

away. One thing we have to take away is, I think it's unquestionable that Jews have to be Jewish. Jews have to be very proud in their Judaism. We can't be an organization, a movement, a people of statements. We have to be a people of action. We have to get out. We have to do mitzvahs. We have to

“help each other. The thing that has inspired me the most is seeing reports, videos, tiktoks, whatever”

of Jews, of all different types and stripes and streams and beliefs, singing together, dancing together.

There was an amazing video of a flight attendant on an LL flight bringing Israelis back to Israel.

Raphson and Israeli flag, just singing, Ani, Mami, and other, classic Israeli army, rallying cries and it's hard not to be emotional. It has to be more than that. We all have to, us doing mitzvahs, us lighting, Shabbahs, candles, us putting on to fill in, us giving to DACA and all of the places that need to DACA is helping the Jews in the land of Israel right now.

Look at Shep. It's beautiful. Amazing. Thank you so much for being on our panel for starting

this day off. We're going to get some announcements. We've been amazing day ahead of us and we're excited to keep the conversations going. This has been Jewish priorities, life after October 7th, a podcast produced by the Whitesman National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia,

“in conjunction with unorthodox and tablet studios. If you like the show, you should check out”

the book Jewish priorities, 65 proposals for the future of our people. The panels were moderated by me, Stephanie Botnik, along with my unorthodox co-host Liel Liebebitz. The podcast was edited by Quinn Waller. Thank you so much for listening.