Ori Nir  00:00

 Hello, everyone. Welcome to this APN webinar on the mental public health in the Gaza Strip. I'm Ori Nir and with me as my colleague Maxxe Albert-Deitch. Hi Maxxe! And, as we always do, before we start are a quick reminder of our housekeeping notes. We are recording this webinar, it will be posted. The video will be posted on our YouTube channel, the audio on our podcast, we'd like to encourage you to ask questions. So please do that using the q&a tool. It's at the bottom of your screen. And please make sure that your questions are short. We are, you know, reviewing them as we go along. And we want to make sure that there's not too much text for us to review as we do it. So children in the Gaza Strip went back to school this week, about half the population of Gaza is school age. The median age of the population is 18, and about 43% of the population is 14 years or younger. One of the Palestinian news sites which I watched yesterday, showed a video of the fifth grade classroom, in a girls school in Khan Yunis, in the southern part of Gaza. And in the first row was at a desk for two there was a girl. She was a student sitting next to a very large poster of Layan al-Shaer, the 10 year old girl who was killed earlier this month when Israel's Air Force bombed Gaza. And I examined the face of the girl who was sitting next to this large poster of her absent friend. And she was silent but but her expression really spoke volumes. About a million out of the Gaza strip's, 2 million residents are children, and recent reports by the organization Save the Children found that out of five children in Gaza four say that they live in depression, grief, fear and the burden of this distress is ever growing. Compared to the similar study in 2018, the number of children then who reported an emotional distress was 55%. So it increased from 55% to 80%. To discuss the emotional distress among Gazans, particularly children but not only were very grateful and fortunate to have with us two practitioners who are on the ground in Gaza. Dr. Suad Lubbad and Dr. Yasser Abu Jamei. Dr. Suad  is a project officer at the American Near East refugee aid (ANERA) in the Gaza Strip. The projects that she leads there mainly handle early childhood development, child health, nutrition, education, protection and hygiene. And she holds a PhD in human development and the asset of Bucha. Yassar Abu Jamei s the Director General of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program, a leading mental health service provider and the co founder of the Palestine global mail, global Mental Health Network. And his recent focus is an approach that integrates public health and human rights into mental health in the Gaza context. Suad, Yasser, thank you very much for joining us. So I would like to start by asking you what are the chief causes for the stress in the Gaza Strip, obviously, you know, war conditions are a major source of distress. But Gaza has now also been under siege for 15 years. Under blockade. How does that play? Day to day? Maybe, maybe Suad? Do you want to start?

Dr. Suad Lubbad  04:39

No, no, I will ask  Doctor Yasser to start. Yes.

Ori Nir  04:41

Yeah. Please go ahead, Doctor Yasser.

Dr. Yasser Abu Jamei  04:45

Thank you. So Adam, thank you orient, Max, the organizers and the audience. I just have noticed, one dear friend who seems to be there. Donald Millman so good. To see your name, Don, and I hope to see you in the near future, and many others. But that name just struck me immediately. Look, when we look at a place like Gaza strip, of course, it comes to the news every now and then. And unfortunately, in the last few years, it's coming more frequently into the news, and usually news for the hot stories, you know, and a hot story nowadays, unfortunately, it's about, you know, a flood or a storm or war, or let me say, something like that natural or human made disasters. You know, there are plenty of them at the moment. In Gaza, when we spoke, we speak about how things are, well, as you said, already, but I could just put it or divided into two kinds of factors, you know, something that are related to the chronic conditions of the population and Gaza Strip. And the chronicity of the conditions is not only does not only go back to let me say 15 years of blockade, no, it goes back more than that, for example, it goes back two decades of occupation. It goes back to the era that about 70% of the people who are living currently in Gaza are refugees. You know, our Israeli colleagues have proved many decades ago that there is a term that is called transgenerational trauma. And we as Palestinians also have brought so far, in some research studies, that also that happened to Palestinians. So imagine that you are born and you will carry with you the stories, even the stories that your parents talk about your grandparents talk about. So you speak about community, that's two thirds of it a little bit more than that are refugees. They grow up to know the stories, and at the same time, they are under blockade, you know, the kids. So these are a couple of chronic conditions that were exacerbated, again, by the long 15 years, blockade on Gaza Strip and with that blockade, we have more problems with electricity, we have more problems with a fuel crisis at large more problems with water supply, and all of these things that come with the fuel crisis. And it was also,let me say, complicated by the division within the Palestinian society, the de facto government that is all in Gaza at the moment, and the division between it and PA. We have two holding, let me say, but it's the government of the Palestinian people, because of chronic conditions.  And they are interesting because as it might happen, and everywhere, a lot of poverty and high unemployment rate. Now, this is something that we need all the time to keep in the background when we talk about Gaza Strip. That's the background of the picture we usually talk about. However, if you have to get to the news, again, the acute conditions that happen. Well, you know, we can speak clearly about for example, the fifth largest scale operation, if we could call it that happened in early August on the 22. It's the fifth in a series since 2008. When we speak about 17 or 18 year old boy or girl, they have certainly witnessed a lot of of things that happened during those attacks. And we say that these are large scale operations. Because you know, the Gaza Strip is a tiny place, I'm sure that you will know the geography of the area. And when we hear, for example, that just under three days attack in early August, about 150 strikes occurred by the Israeli army, you can imagine that these strikes were hard. Perhaps not perhaps not all of them, but definitely all the inhabitants of Gaza Strip have heard the bombardment. Some of them saw some bombing happened to their, let me say, neighborhoods, some of them lost their loved ones. Among the 50 people or so were killed,  17 were children. Children were killed. And most of the 50 are civilians. And this is not only the accurateness. But of course this acuteness, and within those, if I could say 12 or 13 years of attacks, we had also our own chances of COVID-19. The pandemic that exacerbated the poorness of the population made it more difficult for the social networking and social, let me say, support to help people overcome the difficulties. Those acute conditions, I think, the striking feeling that happened to adults and parents or caregivers, and then I leave the floor to Suad, I don't want to take a lot of time. But the very striking thing that happened is that certainly during the days of the attacks, you know, sometimes we count that it's 55 attacks, but sometimes we say how many days in general. The population were exposed to this extrem fear, extreme worry. Children are really terrified. They might have problems with sleep difficulties with sleeping. For parents, the feeling of being helpless, because you cannot, you know, you cannot offer your child any sense of safety during those attacks. And you have nothing in hand that you can offer that could help your family. We don't have the shelters. What what what is meant by shelter, you know, some international agencies try to prepare shelters for the Palestinian people doing those attacks. And guess what is meant by those shelters, It's just a place where you can stay far from the bombing, but it's still not a safe place. It's still a place that those people who are displaced from their areas, they will certainly just find a place that they could go to. So this chronicity and on top of it acuteness every now and then, as a summary of how people are going through. And again, the why is the wide title could be exposure, everyone during those attacks, hears the bombing, everyone exposed to the feeling of lack of safety, lack of security, in that you are helpless, you can't help your children, you cant help the people around you, you can't offer safety. And this perhaps explains the figures that came by the Save the Children report that was titled 'Trapped: 15 years of entrapment' and that is certainly a very short description of what we're going for. I want speak longer the moment so maybe Dr. Suad could explore what I am seeing.

Dr. Suad Lubbad  12:10

Thanks, Dr. Yasser. So just an addition, I want to just mention that living in Gaza is very difficult. You cannot imagine the life in Gaza unless you were there in Gaza. This is one point, people in Gaza used to face different types of problems. The occupation, I can tell you that they get used to it in the last period. But the other effect sof occupation are getting worse, like the unemployment is getting more and more and more. Poverty is getting more and more; people cannot get the basic needs for themselves. And stressors are always increasing and increasing every day. People cannot escape from their life stressor, and they cannot think of how the world can can help them. People in Gaza feel that they are ignored, even if the word is telling them that we're caring, but on the ground, nothing is done to help these people live their life. And this is the life of Gaza. In addition to what Dr. Yasser's speech about the causes.

Maxxe Albert-Deitch  13:21

So you've both sort of spoken to this a little bit already. But when you're dealing especially with children, what kinds of symptoms do you see among Gazan people in terms of stress and anxiety? Would you mind giving a few examples?

Dr. Suad Lubbad  13:37

Yeah, some children do, and escape, but they cannot deal with, they cannot do this social life. They cannot speak. Some of them has psychosocial psycho psychosomatic symptoms. Some of them have headaches, some of them had pains in their legs. Some that children are afraid to get out of their houses. Some of them don't speak at all. Some of them have very bad nightmares. Some of them only want to stay with their mothers or parents. They just want to get their hands in the hands of their parents. They do not want to see anybody outside. They are scared to go to the pre school or the school. They are scared to go to a nearby shop. They are facing also insomnia and bedwetting, and fear- fear and fear and fear of the slight noise around people or slight noise around them. When anybody just closes the door. This fear is consistent with the children adults. Yeah, Dr. Yasser, do you want to add?

Ori Nir  14:58

it seems like we We lost him. I know that there's always problems in the Gaza strip with electricity outages. So, he may be experiencing one of those. We'll hopefully have him join us soon. Maybe we'll continue talking with you Suad and talk a little bit about how you address these things. So when you when you talk to parents, what do you what do you advise them to do? How, what kind of tools do families have to address the stress and anxiety that the children experience? And what tools do they have at their disposal? I see the Dr. Yasser  joined us again, and, you know, maybe maybe we'll wait with that and just see if... yes, Yasser wants to talk a little more about the symptoms, because that's what we just, we just had Suad talk about? You want to go ahead?

Dr. Yasser Abu Jamei  15:58

Yeah, well, we can divide them into like, you know, during the attacks, after the attacks, and in the long run. For example, during the attacks, the thing is that 3am feeling of fear, being terrified, you know, this applies to children and for adults as well. Another thing that we start to see really frequently is somatic pains, you know, pains in the knees for the children and the ankles, and for the purposes more low back pain and some pain in the big joints, mainly knees, knees, actually. And then you have the problems of sleeping, actually, it's very difficult to see because of the hearing of the bombardment. But, what happens, which is that after the, let me see if we could say, ceasefire takes place and the bombardment is not anymore there.  We start to see children who are having problems like bedwetting, and sleep paralysis, if they are very young, or have nightmares.  If they are like adolescents or older adults, immediately, they are usually preoccupied with what happened and are shaking. If I mean, if they are among the people who were, you know, affected closely, they will be really busy with gathering themselves, you know, what happened, looking after their kids, you know, trying to find the place of living, but with time, then some symptoms appear. Now, we used see, these are symptoms of either acute stress disorder, or maybe PTSD, because it's on the long, the longer term. Children start to show some, you know, poor concentration, some difficulties with, you know, studying, academic achievement. Sometimes they become disobedient, they become violent. And these are all symptoms that children show in order to attract attention. You know, even the psychological explanation, the psychoanalytic explanation for Bedwetting, sometimes when it's after trauma, is that children are weeping through their bladder as we could say, which means that they are seeking the attention of their parents when they just are looking for someone to pay attention to their needs in the morning and down, the only way that they could attract the parents perhaps is when they are, I could say punished in the morning because the they have left the bed wet. For the adults in 2014, for example, after the huge and massive 51 day attacks, we should have just made up a fact sheet and we said that we are not going to deal only with the trauma itself, you know, disorder like post traumatic stress disorder. But however, we are going to deal also the losses of the people, the loss of the safe place that was of the beloved ones, the loss of property, the loss of of jobs, you know, these are all losses that cause usually depression that are the seeds for depression among people. As Suad d said during the last few years, things exacerbated. More unemployment, more poverty, poverty is about 53% 3% of the population are under severe or the poverty which means more than 700,000 people, which means more than 350,000 children under the poverty. So, for example, when it comes to our community centers, we speak about people who will come and they have a diagnosis. I'm not talking about the general population. For example, 55 to 40% of the people who visit us are diagnosed with depression. And then 25 to 30 people are with various anxiety disorders, not necessarily PTSD. In fact, PTSD is lesser and lesser, but you have more, even something like obsessive compulsive disorder. And then the remaining is different disorders. For Kids,  It's mainly things that are related to trauma could be bedwetting could be sleeping disorders, and then it could be PTSD, if there are a little bit older. One more thing, the research studies that looked into the population at large, you know, as you said, the 'Save The Children' reports, it puts it really clearly when we're talking about the children in one hand, and the parents in other hand. We looked into the society. Last November, we looked into the symptoms of the most affected people. And the percentage of depression and anxiety among adults was really high. The third thing was anger, anger, more than 75% of the population, reported anger, but we, at that time, we looked into the most affected people, we can understand their anger, of course. But when it comes to children, again, depression and anxiety, and then problems with consulted concentration and sleep, however, the Save the Children report, first of all, the fieldwork or data collection happened in March, April, which is like four months ago, five months ago. And then,they took a sample from the whole community, the whole society. And these are really, again, very staggering. I mean, eight out of nine children have some emotional,as they put, stress. And then, and then when we talk about parents, you know, 96%, feeling unhappy, and anxious constantly. And if I really try to look into what could be the possibility of this 96%, almost every father or mother will find that two thirds of the parents caregivers feel they are not useful. What does it mean, they are not useful? Of course, if you cannot afford to give your child when he or she goes to school, one or two shekels that they can at least afford the transportation, if you can't buy them new clothes, you know, we speak about one half of the population. We speak about families of more than 500,000 children. So so how would the parents feel and then days of attacks, when the bombardment continue to happen, and you hit the loud explosives, and you know, that when you say that it will go away the children will not believe yoy, and that you will feel that you are, again, helpless, that you are really useless. But unfortunately, that feeling remains. And this is something that I'm I mean, I am really concerned about that, between May, and March, that's more than nine months. And still people feel that they are useless. Parents feel that they are not useful to their children or their life at large. It's quite a mixture, quite a combination. There are there were many academic research studies on various things. And I think anyone can look into public, for example, and they can find some, plenty of research studies that can look more into the figures, but again, the figures with time are really getting staggering. The that could be attributed to the chronicity of the conditions, that high exposure to the traumatic events, the huge impact on the psychological aspects. And then the deteriorating coping and mediating factors, you know, like, we are getting poorer, families are getting more and more scattered. Resources are less and less, we are weaker and weaker. And that's why the impact is more and more.

Ori Nir  23:58

Before we before we talk about treatment, which which we'd like to do soon. Just a quick question since you you mentioned adults, you know, two things that we see among adults who are depressed and suffering from anxiety is substance abuse and, and suicide. So I wanted to ask you if you've experienced that among adults in the Gaza strip

Dr. Yasser Abu Jamei  24:26

Look, first suicide. The figures that are reported for suicide rate in Gaza are not that many. I mean, they are below the, if I could say, the international prevalence rates when it comes to suicide. But the whole idea of suicide in a place like Gaza Strip, it's a big taboo first of all, and then we have not heard about suicide for example. But before the years 2003 or 2004. So the issue is...

Ori Nir  25:04

Thats because of religious reasons, right?

Dr. Yasser Abu Jamei  25:07

Well, it could be because of religious reasons, but then we have never had so much lack of hope, you know? This is, I think, a very important, you know, we are mostly Muslim inhabitants in Gaza Strip. But I wouldn't contribute the that among 2 million people. Only 30 of 35 have committed suicide only for religious reasons. No, religion could be an important factor. But it's not the main, it's not only that, it's many other things, you know, why you give hope in life? And what's going to hit you in the afterlife? I mean, why you need to end your life one way or the other. So, but again, the prevalence is not high. But it's happening more frequently than ever, which is a big question why. Suicide attempts are like 20 to 25 times the number of success, the succeeded events, which is like the international community. So if we have 30 to 35, people who committed suicide, succeeded in ending their lives, we have 600 to 800 people who have tried. Which is in line with the international community, which is fine, you know, I understand that. But half of the people who attempt suicide are women don't have women. Globally, it's like one to four. One woman, to four men. So why we have so many women who are trying to commit suicide? You know, it's a big question. And that highlights the, perhaps the severe impact that is caused by the economic and living conditions and occupation and the  division, on the family, and on the mothers and on the girls. And one other thing, you know, many of the cases, the Ministry of Health did some look into the reasons I think about six years ago, in 2016, or 17, about 75% of those who commit internationally or globally, about 80% of people who commit suicide are people with mental disorders. In Gaza, that was only 50% were people with the disorders. So it's more like out of anger, out of frustration, out of a family dispute, for example, a problem within the family, you don't find the solution you are like on the edge, so why not to commit suicide at any moment. The other thing is with substance abuse, we had a big problem with substance abuse about 15 years ago, but the main cause was not the economic conditions then, or bad coping mechanism, then.  The main reason was, because of the tunnels with Egypt, they allowed a lot of Tramadol to come. And the tunnels were mainly digged by the young people, and they were given Tramadol to be able to feel the energy and continue doing it. And fortunately, then, I think it was 2000 miles, something like that tunnels were the only thing even to bring shoes for your children. The only way that you can bring clothes to yourself, you know, I remember very anecdotal things, you know, when you visit houses, and you go to drink tea or or juice and they bring you they usually bring five different cups, you know, you cannot find the house with the same five cups collection. Why? Because of the extensive blockade at that time, you know,  it's a lot with goods, it's a lot better. So that brought a lot of problem. The problem of addiction is limited because of the financial issues, I think. And then the other thing because of the way the society deals with people who are in substance abuse are facing response, a big taboo, again, it's like a suicide. But if I if you allow me to add a third part, which is, we spoke about or we speak or what we hear a lot of community engagement. Organizations talk about more violence, more domestic violence, violence against women, gender based violence. And we thought that, you know, it's so much frustration in the families that they try to how to say, get rid of that ventilation, and they do it in the wrong manner, you know, to be to be more aggressive. Perhaps the study that we conducted in November explains it better. When we find that 75% of being adults, if you're really angry. The question is always how can you overcome your anger? You know, how can you get around that?

Dr. Suad Lubbad  30:02

Just a little, little thing to add about the Tramadol, it was the oly marketed will among people. People didn't know at that time that they are going to be addicted to just taking it as a happiness pills. And after that they discovered that they were addicted and, it was put in there, and everybody was taking it at the ceremonies or gatherings or weddings parties.  So it was scattered among people, even women, They are not the people who get addicted quickly. But because it was the easily handled between people, it was the substance abuse that gets higher. Okay, are you going to ask the other question, or should I add about my own experience with my kid? As a parent?

Ori Nir  31:01

Yes. I mean, what we wanted to ask you is to talk about that. And specifically, you know, Dr. Yasser referred to the stresses, women specifically. So if you could talk about that, that'd be great. Please. Yeah.

Dr. Suad Lubbad  31:16

You know, in Gaza, when we talk about parents as caregivers for their children, we mainly mean women. They are the in charge of everything. In the past, when there was good employment and good work chances. Men used to go to their work. And women the wife, the wife, the keeper, they are the caregivers for the children. And that's it. Now, both are at home. But parents, men ,are like depressed. Like the feeling that are they are unqualified parents or unqualified fathers, they cannot give any, they don't have anything to give for their children, because they are young, trying to find ways to get money to feed their children, okay. And this, this will put more on the mother, she has to take care of their children, she has to find places or ways to get food for her families. Maybe she will go to  her neighbors or ask her that will people give their money or food. And she's supposed to be a person of honor  to get support and good for her family. If you imagine yourself in this position, you will feel that you are overwhelmed and stressed. And you cannot ask a person who is in need of care to provide care, am I right? In addition, these women are facing a lot of violence from their husbands, because the feeling of helplessness I mean the fathers or husbands, they turn it into violence against women who do whatever she can. Like aggression or progression of their inability to do other things for them to do. So everything is put on the burden of the woman, when we want to tell her please take care of your child, I think we are putting more pressure on her. But we have to do it because she's the adult and the child will pay the price for all his life. So what we do, do we try to give her awareness about how to take care of for herself before, so that she can care for others. In addition, we hold for social support, we give them chances to talk to get this pressure out, we tell we give them a chance to let them feel that we did hear you. Please get your feelings out. We can hear you and we want to help. And we try to help them as much as we can. Now, for what to do for the children also we give them awareness about their normal growth and development for children. We give them also awareness about the signs and symptoms of PTSD. We give them assurance, how to give, how to protect their children as much as they can. For example, their daily routine is a very good example for protection for children. We don't have it and Gaza, the adults and the children. We work every day just,  we don't know what we'll do tomorrow,there are no plans, anything can happen. Bad things are expected more than the good ones. So the feeling of insecurity is there in the household for the mother for the Father for the children. So we try to teach the women some skills to do any daily routines for her children to give him the feeling of security. We will also teach her some art, art exercises or art and play materials that she can play with their children. We asked her if she can get her children with her to, to go out walk around your home.  I want to add something else about Gaza in the past when I was a child, I have plenty of places to play around my home. Now, people are living in apartments, no front yards, no backyards, they have to be just get in this small prison, that represents the prison of Gaza. You know, growth and development for children, they need to move and play and just lack their their motor skills to improve their motor skills. This is inhibited in this such and such life of Gaza. So this is, I want to give you an example about me, I consider myself strong woman. And the last war on Gaza on May 21. We heard that a building near to us will be bombed soon. So I, me and my children, and I just moved to live safest place at our apartments. Now my daughter was so stressed, she was crying, she was seeking the feeling of security in my eyes. I try to give her as much as I can. But you know, then my adrenaline was high. So she couldn't get the security that she she wants, because she feels the stress in me. However, my voice was coming. My touches were calming. But they just felt this is it from you?

Maxxe Albert-Deitch  37:00

Thank you for sharing that, first of all. Suad, you've talked a little bit about this. So I'm going to direct the next one to Yasser. When you're speaking with parents and working with families, I mean, what do you advise them to do? What are the tools that they have on hand to address the stress anxiety, the sort of constant mode of dealing with all of this, what are the tools that you and they have at your disposal?

Dr. Yasser Abu Jamei  37:29

Well, it's not that many tools, and unfortunately, this is because of the harsh economic conditions, you know, most of the patients who come to our community centers and our clients, you know, they can't even afford to, not only buy medication, but even the transportation, you know, sometimes is a problem for them to come to community centers.  Sometimes we just visit them, sometimes we go and work in their community and their neighborhoods, you know, the most affected areas. So, but, you know, we try to find hope in people's lives one way or the other, sometimes hope is because the child is healthy, that no one was really hurt. You know, sometimes you see people who have lost their homes, wellness, everything, and the only thing that they are happy about and you can talk about is that everyone is alive, that their house was like, you know,we are going to have to call, we can call it by mistake was ok or whatever we can call it. But anyway, that everyone is alive, that everyone is safe, that children can go back to schools and our children in a very different way, they give us a lot of strength. You know, as you said, a few days ago, it was actually Monday, just three, four days ago when when the new academic year began. And almost you can see all the children just walking in the streets going back to their schools, you know, and 2014 after the 51 day, lengthy attacks, that ended something like in late August, I was wondering how children are going to go back to schools. And I think almost everyone went back to schools, you know, so we you try to identify areas. And then you need to really work on the social network around that family. You need to strengthen the ties. You need to make them understand and you know family education is a big important tool. That what happens is really not your mistake. You know what happened is not your mistake, that you need to stick together. The mother when she just ran away from the room, because she heard the loud bombardment she left her baby in the room. That is something that is human. She's not a bad mother. The father when he jumped from the stairs and ran away. He is not a bad father. It's just very nature. very primitive response to a life threatening event. And then you tell the parents that the way they react to the things is felt with their children, they really can feel you immediately. And then you give very small tools about how to encourage, how to find feeling of safety within the place you live in. And finally, you try to restore the routine, the normal life routine. The one of the major issues that we struggled during COVID-19 was not only that tasks that happened during our them was not only the Blockade, but was the problem that children are not going back to school. It's you know, so that issue was making out problems for the parents. What can we do in hand, you know, you need to at least allow the children to go out, to go to school, the only place that children can have fun, or can change the mood that they live in, like in a small house with on average six people in their house, is just to go to the school, you know, to go out to see the friends, spend four or five hours and then go back to sleep, sorry, go back to home. So restoring normal life process is very important. Again, educating the population is very important making sometimes parents understand that their children misbehavior doesn't mean that the child is bad, doesn't mean that the parents are bad. It means perhaps that the child is looking for something else. So clarifying these things does a lot of magic. And they can give you another very strange example, you know, you know, in that was after May 2021. In the last few weeks, we have teams who that will visit homes, a man and a woman, both psychologists, they go in teams and visit the most affected areas. And the interesting thing is that they were talking about. Imeet them and ask them, how was your day, et cetera, et cetera. So they said that, you know, we visit that place. The family of five or six, including a boy and the girl, you know, the girl was 12. And she was referred to our community centers, I mean, the parents asked to bring her to our community centers. So after what what's the problem? They said she had bed wetting. So that cause of referral was bed wetting. So I asked about the living condition. They said, You know, they live in a small home not far from the fence separation fence. So the, during the attacks, the Israeli army fire, I think, a tank or something like that, that destroyed the one of the walls on the upper floor. It's not even on the floor, but in the same building, you know. So the children jump below the beds, and then they escaped the home. And since then, the girl is having bedwetting the daughter is having. So as to what about I mean, do they have some other children? This is a severe traumatic condition, I mean, exposure. Do they have another children, they said, Yes, they have more children. But it was two or three, including a boy who was seven, and the both, they said that we asked them to also refer the seven year old boy, to our community center, because their initial assessment is that the child this child needs also care. He looked scary, terrified, he was not that much communicating, you know, etc, etc. And the father refused. And when they asked him why you are not happy with bringing the child said, Look, my daughter having bed wetting , it's a big problem. She is 12 cannot allow that to continue. We all agree that she needs therapy, and thank you for your help. But about my son, you know, all the children in the neighborhood, they show the same thing that my child, my child, show, they all look scary, they  all went through the attack. So this was something really crazy to hear that, you know, parents think that despite all the children are having some problems. So this is again, something everyone has, you know, why to take them to treatment.

Ori Nir  44:46

Thank you. I'm looking at the clock here. And you know, we don't have much time left. So maybe I'll bench two questions, and you can address them as you wish, one that we have from the an attendee here, from the audience has to do with the impact of time, the impact of the, you know, the duration of stress. So the idea is do the symptoms that show themselves among children get worse, when those children become adolescents, when they become teens? Maybe I'll just say a couple of words from my own experience from a conversation that I had recently with a Gazan. Not teen, he's in his 20s. Now, but I asked him that question, and one of the things he said was, even when you try, as a teenager to get over the stress to use, you know, maybe the Internet to go to the beach to do activities that could help you overcome the stress, you're always reminded of it because there's always the hum, of the, you know, unmanned planes that fly above. There's always the drones, there's always the balloon that you can see up there, you know, the, the Israeli intelligence balloon. You know, that your phone calls are being, you know, listened to by the Israeli authorities. And you see the impact of wars that have punctuated your life, in terms of, you know, disabled people who've suffered injuries, Rubble, as in things of that sort. So that's one what questions that I thought you may want to to address;the cumulative impact. And then the other thing has to do with a question that has been asked here, and that is the the resources, or in other words, government resources versus nonprofit. I think both of you work for nonprofits. The question is whether the government has the means to invest in in mental public health.

Dr. Suad Lubbad  47:00

Okay, I want to talk about the first question, and the impact of these accumulated stress on the adolescents. The early childhood development, we know that the first 1000 days of children life is the most important period for their good growth and development. I mean, this starts from the conception side, until the year three, and we normally say the five years of age are the most important years in the human beings life. Now imagine that the mother when she's pregnant with a child, she's facing accumulated stress, in essence, there is what we call, we call that toxic stress, and the fetus will be facing distress, and we when he comes out, he will continue facing the same stress, in addition to the mother fearing of security, the mother nutrition is not good. And so the child will have these things over time. And when he gets out, he will start facing the life the bombing the problems, the family problems, the mother, the mother, which she is exposed to violence from her husband, or so on. So these children will never reach their full potential when they are adults, or when they are even adolescents. Now something else for the adolescents in the Gaza Strip, when they start the academic life in the university. You can hear it anywhere in the streets of Gaza, they just go to the university just to spend time, they don't believe that a certificate that they will take it one day will give them a chance to work and to be a productive people. So the despair is there. And the impact is very clear that they won't be living a good life in the future and will affect their resilience that affect their skills for problem solving. They will affect their living in a family like a husband and the wife, they would affect their social relations. It will affect also the mental health and I'm sorry to say most of it will be deteriorated.

Dr. Yasser Abu Jamei  49:32

For the second question, if I could say, you know we live in an area generally speaking that does not prioritize mental health. Okay. So, this is such a pity that place that is exposed to so many socio economic problems and traumas still, to find Methodists prioritize is not there that's one thing they Other thing is that the Ministry of Health itself is having big problems that are reported, by the way for WHO reports. So reports, for example, show on average, 45% of the drug stocks are not there on the Ministry of Health, do not speak about drugs that are likely psychotropic drugs like for mental health clinics, but also for  non communicable diseases like diabetes, you know, like hypertension, even medications for this kind of, of diseases is sometimes out of stock. So, unfortunately, on the when it comes to mental health, and what we call the MHP assessment that we can psychosocial interventions, the non governmental sector of the civil society sector is doing a huge work on that.

Ori Nir  51:04

Yeah, Maxxe do you want to go?

Maxxe Albert-Deitch  51:07

Yes, thanks. So I think a lot of the stories and reports that we see coming out of Gaza, there's this very strong central theme across all of them about resilience and about hope in the face of just so much. From your experiences and your work on the ground. I mean, what is your experience with that?

Dr. Suad Lubbad  51:37

Yeah, we are, we are living in Gaza, we are still living, because we have still hope. But it's decreasing. It's decreasing by time. Yeah. And we need we need the people of Gaza. They want to tell the whole world that we are good people. We want to live in peace like any other ones. We want to live in dignity. Dignity means that we don't want this bunch of donations, we want to work and get money in return and provide our basic needs. And maybe the complementary needs. We want to live a good life, because we are human beings. We don't want to be built like, you know, evil people in a movie. Our life is not a movie. We are human beings. So we want to be young, we want our issue to be solved out. And we want to live like others. We want to get out of this big prison. Maybe they will not want to travel from from to and from Gaza, but the feeling that our you are kept there in a prison is very bad. It's very bad.

Ori Nir  52:48

Yeah, look, Dr. Yasser. So do you want to add to it? I mean, one would expect the population that lives under such stress to show maybe even more symptoms of you know, stress and anxiety and depression and so on. And yet it seems like the Gazan population is pretty, you know, rough and tough, I would say and resilient. Do you agree?

Dr. Yasser Abu Jamei  53:14

Thank you for saying the word rough and tough. Look, In one hand, we had an example of how the stress or when they were a kid, you know, when we had the right of return campaigns, and demonstrations, many people are thinking, well, those people who are just demonstrating, you know, in peace, and they were shot at. But despite that being shot at that they were coming back to the Friday demonstrations, some people will even shot when they were in a wheelchair. A person with twoamputated legs was shot and killed, you know, an ambulance health worker was was killed, you know. So I mean, despite those, let me say disastrous results,  people continue to go there because they want to change. They wanted a change. And they felt for a certain moment that now they can say something and that the world is listening to them because they were they're demonstrating. So this is one aspect of it. People are perhaps resilient, but they have all the time emotions, they have the right to speak up for their rights and to ask the international community to stand up for humanity, you know, for justice. So this is one aspect. The other very unfortunate aspect is that sometimes it's present as both people are really tough. You know, the next time you can hit harder because they were tough. We couldn't do anything. They are still a threat. Palestinians we are a threat, you know, to a state like Israel, which is one of the biggest armies in the world. We are considered a threat so they can hit the heart on and on. third issue, I think the word resilience make people somehow make their emotions. I mean, you might sleep well, if you hear that Palestinians are resilient, you know? Well, please, we are resilient. Yes, but we are human beings. Yes. And we have the right to have the same rights as everyone else. If we are more resilient, yes, we are happy for that. And we are doing our best, we will continue to be resilient. But this does not, let me say, excuse the international community from helping the ones who are under occupation from helping people get their justice and achieve their freedom.

Dr. Suad Lubbad  55:43

Maybe I want to add something that please, it's not my words, the people's words. Please don't compare us with the Israelis  who face psycho somatic problems or fear or anxiety. There is no way to compare, their life is better, their situation is better, their country is well developed, their mental health agencies are working well, their medical agencies are very advanced. So they have everything. But in Gaza, the situation is very much far. And the boom is big;its  over our heads. We don't have something on the ground to be hidden under. So there is no comparison. Please don't compare us with Israel.

Ori Nir  56:36

Fair enough. We have reached the end of this of this conversation. I always say that, you know, these webinars that we have show you how fast an hour can pass. I think at this this time around, it was particularly poignant. It was a really interesting and good conversation which I think should be should serve as a as a trigger, or as an invitation, perhaps as a word better word here for people to read more about this. And I would like to encourage all of the people who are listening to us or viewing us now to share the link to our podcast and to our YouTube video once it's posted with other people so that they can also listen to this and learn about the situation in Gaza. I want to thank you, Dr. Suad Lubbad and Dr. Yasser Abu Jamei very much too, for joining us on this on this podcast. And well, I hope that we'll have a chance to invite you, you know, again in the future to share some more of your of your experience. So thank you.

Dr. Yasser Abu Jamei  57:56

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you,

Ori Nir  57:58

and this brings our webinar to an end. Thank you everyone.

Dr. Suad Lubbad  58:03

Thank you- Bye.

Today, Americans for Peace Now sent a letter signed by over 400 activists to Secretary of State Antony Blinken demanding that the administration fulfill its duty and conduct an independent and transparent investigation into the killing of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu-Akleh, an American citizen covering the West Bank for Al-Jazeera TV. She was shot to death on May 11th in the town of Jenin during an Israeli military raid.

The letter reaffirms the need articulated by both President Biden and Secretary Blinken for a “full and transparent accounting” and an “independent, credible investigation” and urges the administration to fulfill its obligation by ensuring this occurs.

Dear Secretary Blinken, 

We write to you as American citizens who are deeply concerned about the lack of an  independent, credible and transparent US-led investigation into the May 11, 2022 killing of  Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. 

We share the conviction that both you and President Biden have expressed that there is a need  for a ‘full and transparent accounting’ and an ‘independent, credible investigation.’  Unfortunately, there has yet to be an investigation that meets these criteria. 

The United States Security Coordinator’s (USSC) involvement in an independent forensic  analysis of the bullet that killed Shireen Abu Akleh was an encouraging first step. However, it is  not a sufficient comprehensive investigation into her killing. 

Freedom of the press is of paramount importance, and it is vital to the safety of our foreign press  that other countries, particularly our allies, understand that the United States will not allow the  killing of our journalists to be brushed aside. 

The United States has an obligation to conduct a full independent, credible, and transparent  investigation into Abu Akleh’s killing. We urge this administration to do so immediately. 

Sincerely, 

APN

1. Bills, Resolutions, Letters
2. Hearings
3. On the Record

Yossi Alpher is an independent security analyst. He is the former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, a former senior official with the Mossad, and a former IDF intelligence officer. Views and positions expressed here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily represent APN's views and policy positions.

Hadar Susskind  00:04

Hello, everybody, and welcome to this APN webinar. As you all know, it takes a moment for everybody to log in. So this is the really fun part where I say hello. And I sort of talk a little bit without really saying a whole lot in Washington, we refer to it as a filibuster. Luckily for you, you know, it's not the old days where you have to read the phone book and stand there. So I'll just say again, hello, for those of you just signing in, and welcome to today's APN webinar. I'm Hadar Susskind. I'm the president and CEO of Americans for peace now, and I am thrilled to be here and to have two such wonderful guests with us, and to have so many of you logging in for this conversation. So again, for for the last time, I will say hello, welcome. I'm Hadar. Susskind, the President and CEO of Americans for peace. Now I'm really excited for this conversation today. There is as you as you all know, a lot going on as it relates to our issues. In the political world. Particularly we're seeing how the conversations and discussions around Israel, Palestine and relevant things are playing out in Democratic primaries. You know, it's always been an important political issue. But the way things have changed the way things have developed over the past few years has been significant. But specifically, in this last cycle, the news that's different and big, is, of course, the creation of the AIPAC super PAC, and the impact that that has having on our elections. I am thrilled today to welcome our two guests. I'm going to introduce them both and then hand it over to you. So first and foremost, I will start with Ruth Messinger. I'm sure all of you know Ruth, she is been a leading voice and a leading figure in progressive Jewish circles and social justice circles for many years now a wonderful friend and mentor. Thank you, Ruth, for being with us today. And of course, our second guest, the esteemed Mik Moore. Mik, of course, as you know, is the President and CEO of Moore and Associates. But my favorite thing about Mik is that he is of course, an APN board member. And Mik and Ruth have co authored a really important article, and we've just put it into the chat. So if you haven't had the chance to see it yet, you can see it there talking about talking about AIPAC, and democracy and talking about what's going on in our elections. What does this mean in the Jewish communal space? What does it mean in the political space? And you know, what does it mean for us as people who care about this, so I, as you all know, can go on and on on this topic, but I'm not going to do that, because we've got our two great guests here. So I'm going to hand it over to you, too. And, Mik, are you starting? Is that right?

 

Mik Moore  02:49

Yeah, I'll start us off. Thank you so much Hadar and APN, for the opportunity. We're excited to talk about this article. I'm just going to briefly summarize it. And then I'm going to turn it over to Ruth to dig in on a couple of points. And then I'll do the same and then Hadar, I think we'll come back to you and for some audience questions as well. So if you haven't read it yet, it's not that long. So be great if everyone could read it. But Ruth and I were feeling like it was important to call out something that we were seeing throughout this election cycle regarding several things that AIPAC and sort of AIPAC allies were doing, that we felt were damaging to democracy. And so the basic thesis of our article is that this was damaging democracy in three ways. The first is engaging in unlimited spending, in an effort to overwhelm what they consider to be unaligned candidates on the line about Israel. The second is supporting candidates who are opposed to democratic laws and norms. So this is widely reported that AIPAC has endorsed 109 of the sort of insurrectionists Republicans. And the third is seeking to what we describe as limiting free speech when that speech is critical of Israel. And this manifests itself in a couple of ways, which we'll get into. But that's the that's the thesis of the article. And we try to sort of explore each of those three. But Ruth, I want to start with you and maybe dig into one or two of those points, and then I'll circle back on the rest.

 

Ruth Messinger  04:28

Okay, for sure. So first of all, hello, everybody. And Hadar, thanks to you and APN. I want to start by saying that, you know, I spent 20 years in elected office and I spend a lot of additional time doing politics and dabbling in elections and I value democracy. I've worked overseas in a lot of different countries doing international human rights, that makes me value democracy more. And I think that our democracy is in general under threat. And I would add that democracy is if we're going to be tribal for a minute, I'm particularly important to Jews. If you look at a long history, we haven't had lots of trouble with authoritarian regimes. And we've done well in democracies. And we need democracies to protect our human rights along with that of other groups defined by faith or ethnicity or nationality or whatever. So having said that, I find the role that AIPAC has been playing particularly in these elections to be hugely troubling. I want to I want to take one other minute out and say, you know, let's be clear, they have a right to do what they want. They have a right to urge their members to support certain candidates, they have a right to endorse candidates, they have a right to put money into campaigns, but when they do it secretly, and when they do it on a particular issue, and most importantly, the issue I want to pick up on when they do it in ways that step all over democratic norms. It's deeply troubling. So the first thing that I think caught Mik's and my attention, he mentioned very briefly, but looking at the Republican incumbents whose one presumes whose position they like on Israel, AIPAC sends reelection money to 109 Republican senators who thought January 6 was a walk in the park, who saw no threat to our democracy from the assault on the capital, who were, you know, basically supporting insurrection. And that's deeply troubling, because if you can, as you know, and we see this going on, still, there's a core of people now in this country encouraged by the former president, who are trying to get elected and seek office in order to limit democracy if the if things don't go their way. So to support a large number of members of Congress, who seem to me to be not interested in democracy was was really deeply troubling. And then I'll just say one other thing, and then Mik will turn to you. And we'll keep going. The second thing that Mik and I saw that was troubling was in race after race. Around the country, AIPAC would pick a candidate. Basically, it appear that they would pick a candidate they wanted to defeat, and then they would put a large amount of money into the opponent of that candidate. And some of that was done secretly. And some of that was done without mentioning issues of a latest example of this. Just to mention, it was in one of the crazily contested Democratic primary elections that were held this week in New York, because somebody thought August 23 was a good day for a Democratic primary. But in one of those AIPAC announced after the race was over, that they were proud to have put several $100,000 in to defeat one of the progressive candidates who she did not win. But if that kind of ex after the fact and look what we did, and we're manipulating elections, in in terms of one issue that I find deeply troubling and has thrown some candidates that I thought that I'm quite sure would have won their races without  AIPACs interference, particularly Donna Edwards, out of Athens, and it just I find it troubling that last point I'll make, and then we'll go to Eric is where large sums of money, in this case, it's Jewish money, are put in through PACs, sometimes not public, to defeat a candidate. It is quite likely that the people who lost the race end up thinking less well of Jews, they end up thinking that Jews only care about the Middle East, and end up thinking that Jews are willing to put secret money into campaigns in order to defeat candidates. That's very definitely the not the reputation I want us to have across the United States or around the world.

 

Hadar Susskind  09:06

Mik, before we go back to you, let me jump in with with something real quickly. Apologies. First of all, I haven't done this in a while. And I forgot the key part of my introduction, which is reminding everybody to please use the q&a function. A few of you have done so already. But if you have questions that you want us to discuss, you can type them in there, and we will get to as many of them as possible as we get to that part. I also just want to note and maybe Mik I'll actually throw this in as the first question to maybe you can clarify for people. The difference between the super PACs what we're seeing now, versus the more traditional PACs where somebody is giving directly publicly to a candidate and what that distinction is about.

 

Mik Moore  09:47

Sure. So So I'll start with a question, because it's a good one. And I've I didn't talk a lot about my background, but I've done work on on political campaigns for a lot of years, and when I first started raising and spending money was back in 2004. And the rules were extremely different back then, there were a lot more restrictions on how you could raise money and how you could spend money. And for the most part, if you were raising money, you were raising money within limitations that were set by law. And a case in 2010, called Citizens United, basically changed the law in a significant way, and created sort of a new category of pack called the super PAC. And basically, super PACs are allowed to raise unlimited money and spend unlimited money in almost unlimited ways. So what typically happens is, you'll get usually a handful of very wealthy donors who will put significant sums of money into a super PAC, that super PAC has a particular mission. And they can advocate for and against candidates that was is behavior that used to be limited to, to a much smaller number of folks. And they can spend as much money as they want, as long as they're technically not talking to the campaign that they're supporting. So what we tend to see is you'll have the campaign spending money that was raised within limitations directly from individuals. And then side by side, you'll have a super PAC, which will come in with $5 million. And put that largely into advertising mailers, other forms of, you know, communication. So. So that's the universe AIPAC. Despite the name, as most people know, it's not actually a PAC political action committee. But it was a lobby, it still is a lobby, and they decided only this past cycle that they were going to create both what's called a hard money PAC, a hard money PAC can give money directly to candidates. And those are under limitations. And those amounts tend to be fairly small. And to create a Super PAC, which they, I guess, tongue in cheek, I don't know, semi seriously called United democracy, project. And, and that can take literally million dollar checks from anyone at once, and then spend that money, actually, however it wants. So a lot of the money coming into AIPAC's SuperPAC comes from actually Republican donors. And this cycle, they have spent about $25 million, just out of their super PAC. And it has gone exclusively into Democratic primaries. So basically, what's happening is right, Republican, millionaires and billionaires are putting huge sums of money into a PAC created by AIPAC, that claims to be pro democracy in order to exclusively meddle in Democratic primary. So it's a way for Republicans to influence which Democrats end up in office, which we could spend time on why that's problematic. But that's, that's as a posit that that's problematic. It is problematic. And as Ruth said, at the top, which I do think is worth underscoring. All of this is legal. There are a lot of things that are legal and bad. Right, I would say this falls under that category. We've had a bunch of lawsuits from our not awesome Supreme Court that have made spending in politics, you know, sort of a free for all. And that decision was bad for democracy and the way in which that decision, and the super PACs that have come out of it have played in the political space has been bad for democracy. So I think that's our, one of our central contentions. The the last one, which I mentioned at the top, but we'll just come back to is specifically about how. And this one's a little trickier, I would say, but the ways in which both AIPAC and I would say other players in the Jewish world have essentially sought to limit the range of acceptable speech around Israel. And we've seen this both outside of the electoral process. So there's a series of attempts to legislate against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement, which maybe it's worth going into what that is, or maybe it isn't, but in any case, hopefully folks know what BDS is. It's gotten a lot of attention. But outside the electoral process has been an effort to legislate against it, basically. So that if you're a government contractor, you can be forced to state that you do not support BDS in order to get a government contract. And this has been happening in state after state. You also see it though in more sort of informal ways in the political space. And I'd say the first way that this has happened is our organizations and I would say the Jewish press has decided that any commentary on BDS or anyone's position on BDS is going to get a ton of attention. And so you see in race after race, if you have a candidate that makes any comment that could be seen as even sympathetic to BDS or partial BDS, where it's critical of Israel or that outright doesn't state exactly what the sort of acceptable communal position is. There's going to be a ton of negative press attention and attacks by Jewish communal leaders on on that candidate. And we've seen that and AIPAC is driving that, but it's not AIPAC alone.

 

Ruth Messinger  15:53

I would just I would just to underscore that, when Mik and I were picking one thing we picked up on particularly was a forum forums are always hard to get candidate views, especially when there are a lot of candidates, you have, you have six or eight candidates, and they're being questioned as their position on a range of issues. And if you watch the forum, you would learn something about the candidates never enough. But if you read about the forum in the Jewish press, you would only learn about their position on BDS. Now, it's not like that's an unimportant position for some voters. But this these this was a congressional forum. And where do people stand on legalizing same sex marriage? Where do people stand on the fight against the Supreme Court decision on Roe? And I would point out where do people stand on available funds for social service systems, we have a plethora and they're magnificent, have Jewish organizations around the country that serve Jews and non Jews that meet the needs of the elderly, that meet the needs of children in distress that provide foster care that provide meals on wheels, I could go on and on. And you could watch a whole congressional a forum in which neither the Jewish hosts of the forum nor particularly the Jewish press, covering the forum tells you where any of those candidates stand on any of those issues that we know are important in the Jewish community.

 

Mik Moore  17:16

Yeah, and the impact of this is to is to really shape the political conversation in in really harmful ways. So that's the first thing and the second thing that we've seen is the is the use of the label anti Semite, or anti semitism to refer to either individuals that are not even supportive of BDS, but even sympathetic to people who support BDS. And we've seen occasions where, you know, Jews are called self hating Jews, if this is a position they take, or if they express sympathy. And candidates for sure, are very quickly labeled as anti Semites. And this has a an effect of narrowing, right, the kind of acceptable speech that we see, and our community and again, AIPAC in the political space, but our community has a real hand in this as well. So I want to pause there, because I'm sure there are a lot of questions. But I think those are some of the key key issues that we tried to raise in the piece and key concerns that we have coming out of this election cycle.

 

Hadar Susskind  18:29

Great. Thank you both. So two quick things to note, one, you know, the two of you were just talking about how views around BDS get people called anti Semites. But again, looking at one of the key examples you guys wrote about in the article, the Andy LevinHaley Stevens race, Andy Levin, who is Jewish and a synagogue president, etc, and actually does not support BDS. But he does support, you know, reasonable policies, visa vie Israel and Palestine was widely called not only anti Israel, but an anti Semite. So I think that use of the, the frame of being anti Israel and anti semitic and having those two things be synonymous, extends broadly, unfortunately, in this space. And then one just quick detail that I want to note from the questions before we dig in. I think there was some misunderstanding about the 109 Republican representatives. So just to clarify, its representatives, non senators, all 109 of those are among the AIPAC endorses. So somebody had here asked if they were endorsed or just given money. The way this process works is AIPAC, like other organizations has the traditional PAC as Mik described it, and those candidates were endorsed and given money to them to their campaigns. The Super PAC work where we're talking about the unlimited funding coming in, again is mixed that has so far only come to play in the Democratic primaries. So those Republicans are endorsed those Republicans are getting money. There are there are others Beyond the 109, I don't remember exactly what the total number was 160 something maybe? Yeah. So we've got a lot of questions coming in. And I think one of the ones that is important, and you guys were just talking about this is both in terms of people in the community and the candidates themselves. You know, they're watching this happen, candidates are seeing, not only people like Donna Edwards, but also Andy Levin and others, you know, losing their races, and whether they're losing the race because of this or not, and how big an impact. You know, the the AIPAC money coming in has, I think, is another piece. But I guess the first question I want to start with is, you know, and Ruth, you alluded to this, there's the likelihood that people are going to look at this unhappily, both in terms of what they think about the Jewish community, but as candidates and as people in the political space, you know, do we have the fear that this is going to shut people down, that this is going to make people hesitant to speak out on Israel issues to stand up? And if so, what's our role on the progressive side of community and addressing that?

 

Ruth Messinger  21:14

I'll say something, and then maybe Mik will jump in, I will say something from the point of view of a candidate, you know, you spend your life good candidates and I want to say, spend their lives, trying to be clear where they stand on the issues, and trying to get elected. And there's a whole process which money PACs demonstrations in front of your house, things like that can can threaten the clarity of a candidate's position and sometimes can take away or sap energy from the GOP candidates moral courage and commitment to standing for what she or he believes in. So yeah, it's not fun to be out there. And I do think that, again, part of what the donors to this these two PACs, one is for candidates to tow a particular line on the Middle East that does not in many of our, in many of our judgments allow for a full look at the issues of the Middle East does not allow for people to say, you know, there's some other issue, there's some questions I have, or whatever. And yeah, I think candidates, I'm big on pushing candidates to do risk taking and moral courage, but I'm showing them moral courage, but I think this makes it harder.

 

Mik Moore  22:32

Yeah, and I'm that's obviously the intention, right? Like the the folks who are putting this money in and spending it they want, not only do they want to defeat the people that they're up against, but they want to make it much more difficult for people like that, to make the decision to run in the first place, or to get the kind of support they would need in the first place. And if you know that, if you run candidate X, they're going to attract a $5 million spend against them. Right, and then you have candidate Y is very similar, but it's not going to attract a $5 million spend against them. Well, that's a pretty, you know, significant political calculation. And that goes on all the time. The other thing that I think is important, we've only talked about congressional races, you know, what we seen, increasingly, is that, that these funds are moving into state races. And so you have a series of sort of state based PACs that are basically aligned, that are putting lots of money into races where the candidates have absolutely no influence whatsoever on, you know, on the Middle East, or Israel Palestine or any of these issues. And yet, you know, they are having to deal with hundreds of 1000s of dollars millions of dollars in spending against them. And, you know, it's, it's, it's made, like city council races become like about Israel, right, or a state assembly race become about Israel, when that's not why this person is running for office, it's not what they've done with their life. And the money has, you know, really perverted, you know, what that process is supposed to be about. And I think, to an earlier point, like people see this, right, voters see this. And it does, you know, I think have an impact on people and how they perceive the community.

 

Ruth Messinger  24:29

I just want to make one point. And, you know, again, I want to say I'm trying to make it really clear to people that, that we don't have enough laws about limiting campaign contributions, but nobody's breaking the law here. But you know, when take two examples when NRA or Planned Parenthood come out with a list of their candidates, well, this is who we've endorsed. I think I and I think the entire general public says well, okay, those are one issue organizations. They want to defend the right to bear arms. So on the one hand, and they want to defend a woman's right to choose on the other. And so if they endorse I know where the candidate stands on that one issue, and that's fine. And I want to suggest, although I think AIPAC would reject this, that AIPAC is quite different. It has, it has a Middle East position. But it also has come, And maybe this isn't fair. But it's simply a fact to represent a piece of what or who the Jewish community is. And so again, if you're in a black district, in Pittsburgh, and you're eager to get your state representative to win the Democratic primary, and you discover that, quote, unquote, the Jews are raising $3 million to defeat her when you come to see the Jews. If you're not Jewish as a kind of single issue. Organization. Again, not entirely, AIPACS fault, but is affecting the way people think and feel about the Jewish community. And that means we have more to do some of which APN is doing, some of which many people on this call are doing to make it clear that we are for sure a complicated set of communities. But we have we have key issues, a key positions on many, many issues. And then one I want to just keep enforcing is I want us to have strong positions on democracy and on fairness and on inclusion and these positions in these races. Keep going against that and on transparency, and that none of those are being respected.

 

Hadar Susskind  26:29

Yeah. And like you said, the transparency issue is not about AIPAC. That's a structural problem we have. I think, you know, one of the things and again, this is right, in the headline of the article, YouTube wrote, The issue here is not disagreement about Israel Palestine policy that's existed, and it's existed in our political standing before. The issue is the question of democracy. And what is making this different is, again, AIPAC, endorsing and supporting those 109 insurrectionists members who did not support the peaceful transfer of power that is at the very, very core of our democracy. And, you know, that issue of is one issue, whether the NRA or Planned Parenthood or AIPAC over everything else, including the literal existence of our democracy. And I think that's one of the core questions. You know, Ruth, I don't know, if you picked Pittsburgh as your example, just sort of off the top of your head. Of course, there, there was the Summer Lee race,

 

Ruth Messinger  27:24

she won, but she won my only 600 votes against $3 million of money that was put up to defeat her.

 

Hadar Susskind  27:31

Exactly. And so in this case, you know, she's one of the examples where she did come out and win. And there was, you know, I'm happy to say there was a lot of Jewish individual, but also organizational, you know, active support on on her behalf there. And so, you know, I know from being in touch with with her campaign, her people that, at least in their case, they understand the breadth of the community and our different views. So there's a question here from one of our participants that's come that's along these lines. So as to what extent do you think the broad Jewish social justice sector should really take on the Israel Palestine issue through that progressive lens and confront AIPAC stands? You know, as we take on other issues, and says here, gender, LGBTQ, etc? It doesn't. To what extent do you think the Jewish social justice sector should argue that we shouldn't let Israel dominate us electoral politics or something else? So are we doubling down and saying, Yes, this is the core fight we as Jews are having in our politics? Are we trying to frame a different argument? What do you got?

 

Mik Moore  28:33

Yeah, all right. That is a good question.

 

Ruth Messinger  28:35

It's asked by a former staff colleague of mine, so

 

Hadar Susskind  28:39

really, thank you, Alana.

 

Mik Moore  28:42

So look, I mean, I've been, you know, attempting to answer this question, in many of my roles that I've played in the Jewish community for many years, working on that question for a while, we have, I will say, here's where I'm at right now. So I think, like, what I've seen, and I mentioned this earlier, is that you have, like, if you're a Jewish social justice organization, or a Jew cares about social justice, on a wide range of issues, and you want to support candidates are aligned with you on health care, you know, climate and, you know, all these other issues. And then you back a candidate, and then that candidate ends up spending like 50% of their time responding to attacks over, you know, over the issue of Israel is not the issue that they are, you know, an expert in not the reason they're running and frankly not the reason you're necessarily backing right. This creates a dynamic where the most progressive, the boldest, you know, candidates on all these other issues become very difficult to elect because of this broader dynamic. So I think it's, it's impossible to avoid it entirely, and I think requires taking it on. I do also think it would be a mistake for us to create an ecosystem where if you're a Jew who's not particularly interested in Israel Palestine work or in the issue of Israel or just wants to be in a space where you can focus on the domestic issues or the international issues, whatever it is that you care about, that you also have those spaces to go to. So I think it's a it's a tricky dynamic. And I know organizations sort of are handling this, you know, in each in their own way, but I do think it is, we've gotten to a point in our politics where it's impossible to not recognize that this is a such an important force in, in undermining progressive candidates ability to get elected if they're facing this kind of, you know, spending. So I think it's something we have to deal with.

 

Hadar Susskind  30:51

Yeah, I mean, one of the things that, again, is different in this cycle, and the AIPAC AC and super PAC are part of the reason, but not well, probably the largest part is, is that, you know, again, Israel and spending around Israel has been there, there were the all of the local packs that you mentioned before their local races, but they also all work on congressional races. And obviously, you know, J Street and others. But the difference that I see now is that for almost every race, this is now an issue. So like you were saying, you know, there are the majority of candidates out there. Certainly the majority of voters not always, that's not their top issue, it's not on their top 10 issues, right. It's not why they're running for Congress, it's not what they've done before. It's not frankly, what they're really interested in when they get to Congress. And yet, it has become a hot button issue that is unavoidable for any candidate, it doesn't matter, you know, where you live, who your constituency is, you may literally not have a Jew in your district, and there are some districts like that in America. And yet, you know, you are still likely to be forced to choose between, you know, an AIPAC endorsement or a J Street endorsement, or whether that's literally or, you know, sort of figuratively and forced to, it's not just that you'd have to have an opinion on this, because, of course, if you're going to be in Congress, you should have an opinion on this, but forced to deal with it and forced to address this issue with a much larger percentage of your time and energy, then, you know, then probably, frankly, makes sense for a lot of candidates out there.

 

Mik Moore  32:23

 Can I say one more quick thing, which is the reason why AIPAC made this decision, which was a big decision for them to become to start to do direct candidate spending, is because they're losing, right? Like, this is really a coming from, I mean, it feels like, you know, those of us who work in these races, like we're being overwhelmed, like they have a lot of power, all of which is true. But it's coming from a position of real weakness and real fear, that they no longer have the kind of sway within the Democratic Party that they did traditionally, that there is increasingly a large constituency that thinks differently about this issue than they do. And, and so I think, you know, this was done, you know, in a sense, out of desperation to sort of maintain, right, the sort of level of, of influence that, you know, they've traditionally held, and I think those of us who organized around progressive issues should see that as a good sign, you know, for what we're doing, even if it means that we're now struggling with a new dynamic. 

 

Hadar Susskind  33:36

I think there are a lot of commentators that have discussed that as well, that, you know, we can argue about exactly how much impact is the AIPAC Pac and super PAC having there are those who, you know, have written things saying, Well, we're sort of giving them too much credit, right, that any of these races, whether it's Andy Levin's or Donna Edward's or Summer Lee or others, that, you know, there are much deeper dynamics that determined what happened and that this was, you know, one, one impact, but not the, but I think there are a lot of people that are looking at this strategy as ultimately, a mistake for AIPAC. Another question, yeah.

 

Ruth Messinger  34:16

Again, they're free to do a single issue. And I in response to that question, you asked about a couple of other questions that I see. Yes, it means that that there should be more support for people who care about progressive options. There should be more support for J Street. There should be more education about the range of social justice concerns that Jews have always taken on and that taking on and in a particularly dramatic way, in the last decade, or in the last couple of years, we had the burden is always on us to do a better job of educating. But this is an issue, the super PAC issue. The lack of transparency is a problem for the future of democracy. And it's going to show up on these issues. It's going to move Well, as each of you said a few minutes ago, these issues are moving into state races, and city council races, by the way, where, you know, we used to joke when I was in the New York City Council and only in New York, does the city council have a foreign policy, because occasionally people would ask us to pass resolutions on Zimbabwe or Palestinian human rights or whatever, but it can get, you know, your candidates who are really concerned or I'd say about the problem in their state assembly district, and yet they discover that some money is dependent on what they what they say about BDS, what they say about the future of the Middle East, what they say about two state solution. I mean, without naming names, I will tell you that someone I know to be a hugely responsible person engaged in Jewish and democratic politics, told me that Andy was not supported. Andy Levin was not supported. I just want to be really clear I'm about to state a non-fact told me that Andy Levin was not supported. Because he supported BDS, and he does not support BDS. So the and this is somebody who was in the know, this is not somebody who like ended, and I had to go on the website and say, look, there are a lot of reasons why he lost a lot of people. I have arguments about that, and a lot of reasons why some Jews didn't support him. But that's not one of that's not a legitimate one.

 

Hadar Susskind  36:19

Right. And maybe one of the reasons it's not true, but yeah, yeah. Yeah, just little anecdote where that may have been once true that it was only in New York. But you know, I live in Montgomery County, Maryland, and our county council is dealing with what is purportedly an anti semitism resolution, but it's really all about Israel. And we're, you know, APN is working on this, and others here and in Maryland, are working on this. So it's not only in New York anymore, that's for sure. One question I want to put out to the two of you, because I think it's, you know, it's sort of a more 30,000 foot, but it's important, it says, How do we approach speaking to liberal Democratic members of Congress who accept money from AIPAC but are not willing to denounce them? Which makes sense if they're accepting the money? And then it does ask and I'll just answer this part. So So these candidates have to agree to advocate against a two state solution. So just a little note for everybody here, at least the first round of AIPAC endorsements that came out of Democrats. And AIPAC did not say this, but they have since admitted it is true. They endorsed a whole range of people without asking them without any process. And you know, Ruth, and Mik, and I have all been involved in this work before and know that that is, you know, that's not how it works. If you're going to you're an organization and you're going to endorse a candidate, you talk to their staff, you talk to their campaign, you sit down with the candidate, you have a questionnaire you go over, you know, are you aligned, you ask the questions, are there any specific things that they have to commit to in order to earn your endorsement? There's usually a deep, long process to that. And AIPAC came out and endorsed a range of candidates, including, you know, speaker, Nancy Pelosi, for example, who found out she had been endorsed by AIPAC on Twitter. And it is not alone. And there were a lot of Democratic members who found out, you know, in the press release that they had been endorsed by AIPAC. So again, that goes to offend a lot of discussions as to why they did that, whether they didn't think, you know, the normal process applied to them. To be perfectly honest. I think it shows tremendous hubris that they just figured everybody would be happy and excited to get an AIPAC endorsement. And I will say this, none of them denounced them. And there were members of Congress who were not happy about it, because they are those, you know, Liberal Democratic members, as described in the question. But they were not willing to publicly come out and say, no, no, I don't want your endorsement. So if it was hubris, they weren't necessarily wrong. So anyway, either you want to speak to the question

 

Mik Moore  38:46

there. Yeah, the question was, what sort of what do you say to liberal Democratic members of Congress that are still taking AIPAC endorsement? I mean, you know, it's, uh, I mean, I'm sure somebody's tracking this, I think the, you know, there ever since J Street was founded back in 2008. You know, there has been a sort of push and pull in terms of, you know, who whose endorsement would you take and whose endorsement, you know, like, those have been sort of the two poles, you know, in terms of federal, you know, races, congressional races, and you've seen a steady shift of increasing numbers of Democratic candidates that are taking J Street's endorsement, and then ones that are not being endorsed or not taking an AIPAC endorsement. So I think there are, you know, trends that are moving in the right direction. I think there are some things that have happened. I would point to I think the two maybe most important ones are the fight over the, the the Iran deal. And the way in which that was politicized. And the break that sort of happened there. And you saw I think some Democrats sort of move away from AIPAC because of that. And then I think the decision to endorse the 109 insurrectionists is the second one, which, you know, is helping Democrats see more clearly, exactly what a pack stands for. And, you know, it's it's visceral, right? Like, the way democratic, you know, Liberal Democratic members of Congress feel about the insurrection is really visceral. And I, my sense is and Hadar you would know, this better, since you're in record communication on the hill, but that felt like, you know, a real betrayal. And I know, folks that identify as AIPAC supporters that have been openly critical of that move, because they really do fear for our democracy. And it's like, you know, like, if we, if we lose our democracy, like this stuff doesn't matter. Right, like, you know, that sort of gradations of one's position on this thing like, that has to be the most important issue. And if an organization is willing to say, basically, like, it's not that important, or where we're willing to overlook it, then it's, I think, makes people reconsider what the priorities are of that organization, whether they want to be aligned with it,

 

Ruth Messinger  41:20

I'm going to add, I would only add to that just to pour, pour more fuel on that argument. These insurrection is not one person, not any one person I could name but keeping in power, people who decided to ignore what I think legitimately history books will see as an unbelievable threat to the future of our democracy. Any one of those people is more likely than not to support the news, people are being run for secretaries of state around the country, who are saying that they're prepared to put in their own set of electors in 2024. If they don't like where their state goes. And so like 109 is a big number I'm sorry, I didn't say congress people, before, but but AIPAC is helping to leave in power. Not just people who took a position on January 6, that some of us find appalling. But people who by having taken that position seemed to me to be more inclined to substitute their own will for the will of the people.

 

Hadar Susskind  42:21

Yeah, if you go down that list, you see, to be fair, not all but some of the very worst members of Congress. And I say very worst in the frame of democracy in the frame of their, you know, some of their their act of support, and of what happened on January 6, and denial about it. Some of them, you know, all of them obviously, not supporting the certification of the election and continuing with, you know, with those state and local races. Yeah, you know, if there's an interesting, I mean, we're talking a little bit about about the state and local, you know, again, the AIPAC PACs, at least for the time being are, are focused on federal races, but we are seeing, you know, we're seeing this become, again, like a an issue that plays in every race, it plays in every congressional race, no matter what your district is, and it does play in gubernatorial races and State House races and, and all of these others, in a way, where it is, because of what we're seeing with the the support of the insurrectionists. It is superseding other issues, and they're, they're putting it out there. And, you know, Mik to what you were saying before about, folks, you know, who are AIPAC supporters? I think this has been even more than the Iran deal, a breaking point for a lot of people because people who I know who were AIPAC supporters up to last year, for many of them, some of them are just, you know, very far right. And that's their views. But for many of them, they still held on to what I think are frankly, very antiquated views of, you know, AIPAC is the center. It's the true bipartisan voice that works with Democrats and Republicans and we need we need somebody to hold that center. That's not, you know, they, I think, and I think that view is long not been true, but there are people who still held it. And this, I think, shattered that for many, many people. So, I mean, the next question I think I want to throw out there is again, what do you think? We and it's a big picture we included including APN. But but all of us, you know, what do you think we should be doing in the community? I'm not talking about different political spending now, although, get into that, to address this issue. I mean, what do we do now?

 

Ruth Messinger  44:40

Well, so you know, I was gonna quote a few minutes ago, to pursue my argument on democracy. I was gonna say that God bless the Washington Post, which about the time that that former President got elected, adopted a new masthead slogan, democracy dies in darkness. And I think that that's part of What we're saying here And it's an answer to your question, Hadar, with respect to APN, and J Street and many other organizations, we have a constant ongoing educational job to do. Let's forget state and local races for a minute, but including them, of candidates who variety of reasons. Don't know, don't know, the Jewish community don't know where the Jewish community stands. And, again, with respect to AIPAC, they heard from AIPAC for a long time as like we're bipartisan. This is the position we want you to hold. And they don't have I mean, to many of your questions of questioners, I'm saying that there are significant number of members of Congress, despite the efforts of some of you whom I love, who have not had much exposure to the complexity with how, how many Jews see the Mideast situation? See it, it's quite questions of human rights on both sides theater question and questions, settlement expansion see it as, I mean, these are the things that probably everybody on this call, knows and lives with and has some range of opinions on and the Jewish community has a broader range of opinions on but I will tell you from the many years of lobbying and advocacy I did with American Jewish World Service, that there are lots and lots of members of Congress, who, because of the demography of their districts don't have that many Jews in their districts know that they have some Jews, and don't know the range of things that Jews care about broadly, and don't know that there's a serious range of views on the Middle East. That's when you ask, What should we do? That's a pretty big challenge.

 

Mik Moore  46:42

I would encourage folks, I've been doing a lot, a lot of my recent political work has been in New York, locally, through the Jewish vote and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, which are both locally focused organizations. And, you know, one of the things that we've been doing is organizing, right and talking, you know, to Jews who don't have millions of dollars to spend on PACs, but are in districts, you know, where these elections are taking place. And, you know, while the sort of headline story coming out of out of New York on this was was the congressional district 10 where, you know, AIPAC secretly spent about $400,000 against the leading progressive candidate who seems to have narrowly lost by 1000 votes, 1300 votes. The fact is that the there were many other races where there was an effort to demonize candidate progressive candidates around their views on Israel, Palestine, were those candidates won, including in Riverdale, which, you know, we've sort of go go back a couple of cycles and Jamaal Bowman, you know, took that seat from Eliot Engel, there's a lot of conversation and there was a lot of money, including from Democratic majority for Israel, which is sort of another organization that plays in this space as well. Opposing Jamaal, he won, he just won reelection by a huge amount. You know, despite a lot of concern that, you know, he might be in trouble. You had a state Senate candidate in the Riverdale district who won his seat against formidable opposition, including doing quite well in Jewish areas. So I think organizing at the local level is still really key in demonstrating to these candidates that like, it's not fatal, right, to take progressive positions on these issues. If you're being forced to speak to them, you can still win, and we can still elect, you know, really good candidates, despite, you know, the money coming in. So it's, you know, I advocate against, you know, for a new system of campaign finance, like, it'd be great to get a constitutional amendment and, you know, overturn Citizens United and, you know, some of the other problematic laws that we have. But in the meantime, I think there's still a lot of work at the grassroots level that Jewish groups can do to make a real difference.

 

Hadar Susskind  49:17

Yeah, I mean, there's no question and we stated, you know, at the beginning, there's a much larger, systematic American political problem that has nothing to do with AIPAC. Nothing to do with Israel, and, you know, desperately needs to be addressed. But within that context, we also have have a lot of work to do. You know, one piece that we sort of touched on a little bit, you know, that the issue of anti semitism. So for a long time, folks in the right, you know, on the right in our community, have used accusations of anti semitism. And over the past few years, we all know there have been these very concerted efforts to conflate criticism of Israeli actions and policies and certainly anti Zionism with anti Semitism, and AIPAC, frankly, has been at the forefront of that they're they're not alone, but they certainly have done so. And so, you know, we see, on the one hand questions of well, gee, is this action going to sort of as Ruth was saying, perhaps spur anti semitism by people who see, you know, Jews influencing races to, you know, as they have been doing consistently opposed women of color, for example. On the other hand, you get things like, yesterday, yesterday, two days ago, AIPAC tweeting out something about, you know, J Street's PAC and J Street has a super PAC also, which is new, this cycle just got their largest donation ever, which was a million dollars from George Soros. And AIPAC immediately tweeted out, you know, George Soros is well known for his support of anti Israel organizations. And, you know, it is widely widely viewed right now that, you know, just literally the use of George Soros. His name, right is basically an anti semitic dog whistle at this point. And so you've got AIPAC, on the one hand accusing people of being anti semitic anti Semites for maybe supporting BDS or supporting conditioning aid, for example, as a peon does. On the other hand, you've got them using George Soros as a boogeyman out there. How do how do you think this elevation of the super PACs in Israel as a political issue is going to impact the question of anti semitism in this country? Just a small question.

 

Mik Moore  51:29

I mean, it's, look, I mean, I think there's a few questions that are embedded within this, right. I mean, we didn't name any names earlier, but like one of the people that think we list this in the article that AIPAC endorses Scott Perry, right, and Scott Perry, I would say is like, said openly anti semitic things and bought into right, a sort of broader right wing and conspiracies that implicate Jews and globalists, and you know, all the code words for Jews, and, you know, and the the, you know, the Republican Party has, has a significant narrative that draws on anti semitic scuffs, like it's become central to, say, sort of Republican narratives. And, you know, the more aligned AIPAC becomes with the Republican Party, the more it embraces those tropes. So it feels like the decision to, you know, talk about George Soros in this way, in an environment where this has become for conservatives, and that sense in the Republican Party, a way to signal, right, that sort of Jews are controlling, you know, our politics. It feels like a just a more another example of an explicit embrace of this sort of right wing tropes. And, you know, and maybe that will help people see more clearly, like, what's going on that, like you said earlier that AIPAC's perception as a bipartisan organization that sort of sits in the middle is, if it were once true, it's definitely no longer the case. And, you know, I, I, maybe there's a silver lining to that, right, like, you know, it's not AIPAC doesn't have to be one thing, right? Like, it can be this new thing that it wants to be, but I think if it, if it is going to be that and folks need to see it clearly, and should align themselves, you know, which means that I think increasingly Democrats shouldn't take their endorsement. And, you know, and they and the community should stop pretending that this is, you know, an organization that's broadly representative of the community.

 

Ruth Messinger  54:01

No, I'm I mean, I looked again, I would agree that but I'm in the morphing of AIPAC is which Mik described right up top is worth repeating, because they did a brave thing many years ago, they said, here we are, we're concerned about Israel status in America. And we're gonna lobby Republicans and Democrats and we're interested in educating them in one position, and then it usually it was taking a position that supported us in exchange for our endorsement. So now, they've gone sloppy about that. They don't ask you permission that your positions, that's pretty weird. But also they went about becoming as Mik described earlier, all of a sudden a PAC and then a Super PAC. I'm going to have a different not much of a different substantive agenda except to sort of dig down, but a fierce difference in style and approach. We're simply trying to educate people about that, and as you said before, Hadar educate members of Congress about that. And because, you know, it was not. Anyway, I think it's I want to iterate that has couple people asked about this, it does not allow members of Congress or state legislatures or city councils to understand the complex dynamics of the Middle East. And I just want to say that Jews, you know, there's some Jews who would admit that they don't understand or like the dynamics of the Middle East, but by and large Jews have some notion of what's going on there. That is very often way advanced of what members of Congress think. I mean, I know this from having talked to members of Congress, when I was not there to lobby on Jewish issues, per se, when I was there. I mean, well, just when I was there for American Jewish World Service, and I would say, bringing a bunch of rabbis into the Congress person's office to talk about the farm bill, and they would say, Oh, yes, the foreign aid bill, come out and say, no, no, the Farm Bill, we're working overseas, we're interested in the breadbasket of Ukraine or whatever. And they couldn't even make us couldn't fathom, that an organization with Jewish in the name and rabbis in their office had an interest in anything other than the Mideast. Narrowly defined by AIPAC and I wanted to say, as I've said a few times, you know, in some ways, that's AIPAC's early credit, but what they're doing now, which again, they have a legal right to do, but but it's very sad to me that they're doing it in ways that are dramatically non transparent and dramatically anti democratic.

 

Hadar Susskind  56:28

Mik you want to add to that, or?

 

Mik Moore  56:31

No, no That was good. I know, we're close to at a time. So do you have a last question for us. Close this out?

 

Hadar Susskind  56:39

Well, you know, there's, I mean, we've talked about so many different elements of this. I think, ultimately, you know, the last, the last question for all of us, again, is what are we going to do about it? And what are we going to do about it organizationally, and individually in educating our constituencies, and working within the community to perhaps try to shift those those balances of power? I guess, I'm going to ask the two of you and Mik it a little bit of a trick question for you, since you're on the board. But for so I'm gonna I'm gonna start with with Ruth. But, you know, Ruth, you have been someone who's just who's demonstrated tremendous impact throughout your your career on different levels. So I'll take the opportunity and ask you, if there's one thing you think APN should be doing in this space, you know, relevant to this? What is it? What can we do?

 

Ruth Messinger  57:28

I'm not sure, but I think it's I think it's sort of more of what you're doing. And you know, if somebody gets to somebody who isn't the CEO or board member gets to say, obviously, you need more money to do this. But I think I think that the narrative story of the Middle East, and some of the current issues is, is much less known than we tend to think it is not well enough known or clear, and on the border of everyone in the Jewish community, even less well known on the part of legislators if you are a candidate for it doesn't matter. I'm gonna say non Jewish, but it's not even but if you're a non Jewish candidate, as Mik was saying, for state senator state assembly in Riverdale, it's like all of a sudden, a little odd that you're expected to have a nuanced understanding of what people mean, when they say are you for BDS? Are you against BDS? Are you for a two state solution? You know, and we all know, our I'll say, I know candidates, and sometimes it's just an inclination to get a half sentence phrase on it, you know, oh, here's my answer on that question, without going even without being encouraged to go deep. And so, you know, we have we have ongoing educational jobs. And oh, by the way, we've seen this, if I just switch for a minute, we've seen this on the choice question, right? I don't know, 10 years ago was like you were either pro choice or anti choice. And now we've spent six years arguing from various perspectives as when does When does life begin? And how strict the law should be? And if you're a legislator here, I'm not saying they're doing this, I'm disappointed that they're not. But theoretically, if you're a legislator, you need to dig down into this issue. Who's saying what, what are the issues? If not, it's no longer can be cast as a simple issue. Because if you're not going to be able to get a majority to support a woman's right to choose, which is clearly what I support, then you need to understand the nuances of the bills in the end and proposals that are kind of come across your desk, that are increasingly complicated. You know, there's all this legislation now around the country that is like, you don't have to do anything about pro choice, because adoption is the answer. And the people who are doing it are telling, like these little loving stories about adoption, and it's such a much more complicated issue in every regard. And so the burden is on legislators, but here on you asked at APN the burden is sort of narratives that helps people understand some of what's going on, you know, some of the Mik refer to JFREJ before some of the stuff that JFREJ put out in the last couple of years, explaining anti semitism and its connection to white nationalism. And, and its therefore its connection to racism. I think moved some people in our community to say, oh is a complicated issue, not a simple one. And that's really important. And we need to keep doing that on every issue. And since we're near the end, I just want to say again, not that there is a Jewish position on any of these issues. But there's a vast universe of human we're pro human rights, pro social justice, Jews who care tremendously about Israel, and about the future of Israel and the future of Middle East politics, but they care about other things as well. And I want to know what how hard they're going to push to support Biden on forgiving student loans and how hard they're going to push on getting the child tax credit back. And when we have forums that don't ask those questions, we're doing our community and the candidates both a disservice.

 

Hadar Susskind  1:01:00

Thank you both Mik closing words?

 

Mik Moore  1:01:03

Yeah, just something we wrote in the piece that I think is appropriate here. Towards the end of the article, we said, even more important than winning every fight is maintaining a fair system where people who disagree can contest for power, again, and again, on a reasonably level playing field. And I think, like, like we said, like, we people are gonna have different opinions, like, you know, there's always going to be a range of politics in the Jewish community, that's totally fine. I would like to think that an area of agreement is that like, you know, thriving democracy is good for our community, and that we can broadly see the value in that, again, this sort of reasonable, loving, level playing field, so we can contest for power. And, you know, that's for APN, I'd say, that's true here in the United States. It's true in Israel, too, right. And there's a common thread, you know, this is not just a, you know, a problem in the US, this has been a global problem. And you look at, you know, folks who monitor democracy around the world, you know, we'll tell you, like, over the last, you know, five to 10 years, we've seen, you know, very poor trend lines, in lots and lots of countries, you know, for how democratic they are. And there was a piece, I think, in the time, it's just yesterday, about another one of these figures where the US is just it has dropped from like 17th to 29th, or something like that, and, you know, sort of how robust our democracy is. So, I feel like that's a, an issue that we can, we should be able to agree on is definitely something to organize around, and a principle that can be applied, you know, broadly to, to, you know, Jews here in the US and around the world.

 

Hadar Susskind  1:02:43

Excellent. Well, Mick, Thank you, Ruth. Thank you. I greatly appreciate both of you in joining us and writing that article and doing this work. reminder for everyone. this has been recorded. We will share the recording, we will share the transcript. I greatly appreciate everybody for joining us and look forward to seeing you also. Thanks.

 

Together with seven fellow progressive American Jewish organizations, Americans for Peace Now (APN) today sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, urging the Department of State to take a clear, proactive position regarding Israel's designation of six Palestinian human rights groups as "terrorists organizations."

August 23, 2022

Honorable Antony Blinken

Secretary of State

US Department of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20230

 

Dear Secretary Blinken,

We are writing to express our deep concern with the latest escalation of the Israeli government’s campaign of suppression against Al Haq; Addameer; Defense For Children International-Palestine; Bisan; the Union of Agricultural Work Committees; and the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees –six Palestinian nongovernmental organizations engaged in human rights and civil society work that the Defense Ministry designated as “terrorist organizations” in October of last year.

 Produced by the Foundation for Middle East Peace in cooperation with Americans for Peace Now, where the Legislative Round-Up was conceived.