The Temperature of the State of Israel as it Enters Rosh Hashanah, 5786

Disclaimer: This transcript is an edited version version of a transcript created using AI technology and may not reflect 100% accuracy.

The video can be found here.

Sarah:  Good afternoon, and welcome to yet another extremely topical and extremely timely EMET webinar. I’m very excited to introduce to all of you today a really, very talented and gifted writer, and a very special and kind person, Avi Mayer. Avi has had a number of very highly prominent positions. He was the immediate past editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post. He has been a spokesperson for the American Jewish Committee, a spokesperson for the IDF, and he is one of the highest-ranking people in terms of his Twitter feed. He has about 250 million people that follow him on Twitter.

Avi: Thousand.

Sarah: 250,000. I’m sorry. You are great, but I guess you’re not rockstar-great yet. 250,000 people, or tens and tens and tens of thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of people, that follow him. And Avi has been considered one of the most articulate and prominent millennial voices in Israel and for the Jewish world. I’m just really delighted that he has a phenomenal résumé, and we could go on and on. He also had worked for Natan Sharansky. He had worked for the U.S. House of Representatives, the Embassy of Israel in Washington, D.C., Tel Aviv International, AIPAC, and of course, the American Jewish Congress. I’m very delighted to have him on. I have to say, every time that I read something that Avi writes, I end up nodding my head and saying, “He makes sense here. He has a great point there.” So as we’re moving into Rosh Hashanah 5786, we are all in this period of deep contemplation of Cheshbon Ha’Nefesh, of looking at our souls or accounting for our souls, and we all feel extremely tied to and connected to the State of Israel, no one more so than Avi Mayer, who’s represented the IDF and the State of Israel on international television. But there are a lot of pushes and pulls on Israel right now, both domestically and internationally, and we’re seeing how this war is affecting these international pulls and strains. So, Avi, yesterday Prime Minister Netanyahu decided to escalate the ground troops in Gaza City. What does the internal domestic Israeli population feel about this, and how do you think this is affecting the growth of antisemitism that we’re all experiencing?

Avi: Well, Sarah, first of all, thank you for having me. Thank you to the EMET community for hosting me today. You left out the most important part of my bio, which, of course, is that you, Sarah, were my first boss. I was a high school intern back in the day, and it was Sarah Stern who set me on my way, and I’ve been privileged to consider you a friend and a mentor ever since. So thank you, Sarah, for everything you do on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people. The atmosphere in Israel right now is one of, I would say, confusion and trepidation. This ground offensive in Gaza is not highly popular, to the point where the heads of the army itself have been cautioning the government behind closed doors that this is not in Israel’s long-term interests, that they actually would like for us to go for whatever deal is currently on the table.
That sentiment is shared by somewhere between 60% and 80% of Israelis, depending on which polls you look at. The Israeli public, after nearly 2 years of war, is quite frankly sick of this war. We see at this point that it’s a case of diminishing returns. It has not been made entirely clear to the Israeli public what achievable military objectives are currently being pursued by this military campaign. The prime minister and others have spoken in general terms about the importance of eradicating Hamas, but Israelis wonder how much more damage can be done to this terrorist organization that hasn’t already happened.

I think most Israelis would say that at this point the number-one priority needs to be bringing the hostages home, as many as we can get, and bringing this war to a close. That sentiment, which I think is quite pervasive here in Israel, runs counter to, of course, what is happening on the ground; the decisions that have been made. I think there are many Israelis who feel somewhat frustrated by their seeming inability to prevent this ground offensive. You look at the number of Israeli reservists who have been called up, hundreds of thousands, many of whom have already spent hundreds of days in reserve duty since the start of this war. They’re exhausted. Their families are exhausted. Their spouses, their children, their businesses; many of them are struggling or have already collapsed. I think Israelis at this point would like there to be a breath of fresh air in the form of an end to this war. But what they see happening instead is a continuation of it, contrary to, again, the general will of the people and, of course, the international community, which has been escalating its rhetoric against Israel in recent weeks and days.

Sarah: Right. I am very saddened when I see all of the demonstrators who are camped out in front of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s house. If it were up to the Prime Minister, I’m sure he would have gotten the hostages immediately. The IDF has super teams. They have intelligence. They don’t want the hostages to be murdered, and it’s like dancing on the head of a pin. So how does one effect this kind of change? First of all, he’s in a coalition, and I know he does not want to upset the apple cart with the coalition. But number two, bringing home the hostages, was one goal of the war. Another goal was defeating Hamas. How do we know that Hamas will actually be defeated, or won’t just regroup in a couple of weeks and there’ll be a greater offensive?

Avi: Well, look, I think you’re right in that the Prime Minister also wants to see the hostages brought home. I don’t think that he draws any pleasure from the knowledge that there are 48 people, some of them still alive, in Gaza. Their families wrought with anxiety over their fate and in acute fear about what might happen to them should this offensive continue. But he is, as you said, constrained by his coalition, some key partners in which do not want to see this war brought to a close. They’re talking openly about resettling Gaza. The finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, talked today about how Gaza could be a real estate bonanza. There are discussions with the Americans about who gets what percent of the land. Aside from being deeply unhelpful in making Israel’s case internationally, that is not where most Israelis are at. If you look at the polls, a majority of Israelis have no interest in returning to Gaza on any permanent basis. But they are, as you said, also concerned about the potential of Hamas regrouping. I had a conversation with a senior Israeli official at the start of this war, really in the first few weeks after October 7. The rhetoric then was similar to the rhetoric now: “We’re going to eradicate Hamas. We’re going to remove it as a threat.” I said to this official, “How can you eradicate Hamas? Hamas is an ideology. Of course, it’s going to regenerate. You can destroy as much of it as you want, but at the end of the day, as long as the ideology persists, it will continue to inspire more hate and violence.” And this official said, “We’re not looking to defeat an ideology. We’re here to defeat a fighting force. And we’re going to do that.”

Looking back at the past 2 years, I would say, and I think many Israeli officials would agree, that that mission has been largely accomplished. The Hamas of 2025 is not the Hamas of October 6, 2023. It has been largely decimated. Although they have regenerated their ranks, and we understand that there are numbers of Palestinian young people who are still joining, those are not battle-tested, battle-hardened terrorists like those who carried out the atrocities of October 7. It does not pose the same threat to Israel as it did on that day. That is, I think, plain to see. And so the question is: What measures can be put in place to prevent Hamas from regaining a foothold in Gaza, from seizing power once again, and controlling the entirety of the Strip? And how can Israel ensure that the safety of its citizens, particularly those who live along the Gaza border in those communities that were attacked on October 7, can be maintained? That will, of course, require a great deal of creativity. It will require some forward thinking, perhaps in ways that Israel had not engaged prior to October 7, which is why Israel was caught by surprise. But I think it’s within our capacity to do that. I don’t think that it’s beyond the capabilities of Israel’s extremely competent military and intelligence services to build that protective barrier between Gaza and Israel that would ensure the safety of its civilians. So at the end of the day, Hamas almost certainly will reconstitute in some form. It will be, and is, significantly weaker than it was on the eve of October 7.

Hopefully, there will be a coalition put in place to ensure the governance of the Gaza Strip, but Israel will do whatever it has to do to ensure that any threat that Gaza and Hamas pose will be significantly addressed by the IDF.

Sarah: Right. So I think last week we witnessed the bombing of an apartment in Doha, Qatar, where Hamas officials, allegedly the ones who had planned the October 7 attack, were supposed to be gathering. What do we know about this bombing? And how is it also affecting Israel’s standing in the international community?

Avi: Well, it appears as though that operation was unsuccessful. We have started seeing some of the senior Hamas officials who were said to have been in that meeting start to emerge, and there were some question marks in the immediate aftermath about whether some of them had been killed. It looks as though, at this point, those who had been killed were lower-level operatives of Hamas rather than the head honchos that were targeted. And there are differing views on the impact of this. There are some who say that, even if it was a failure, it sends the message to Hamas that they’re not immune anywhere. If they thought that they could enjoy this bifurcation, where they live in the lap of luxury in Doha, Qatar, or in Turkey, or elsewhere, while their co-movement members in Gaza are engaged in warfare and Palestinian civilians are suffering, that that is no longer the case: that Israel will target them and will pursue them wherever they may be, so long as they bear responsibility for October 7th, as all those individuals in fact did. And so that sent a powerful message, and that in itself was significant.
There are others, however, who say that this actually backfired spectacularly. Because what you saw happening in the days after this airstrike was an outpouring of support from other Middle Eastern countries that, up until that point, were actually quite hostile towards Qatar. They felt that they had to express some kind of Arab brotherly solidarity towards Qatar in light of this threat posed by Israel.

That is certainly not what Israel wants. Israel views many of these countries as either current or potential partners, and I think it’s quite alarming to see this outpouring of support for a regime that has been playing, at the very best, a double game, if not engaging quite hostilely with Israel behind the scenes. It remains to be seen what the long-term impact of this will be. We may not know for some weeks and months to come.

Sarah: [inaudible]. So you wrote a brilliant essay in August about the double game that many pseudo-journalists are playing. Some of them have positions with APM Reuters and very respectable news organizations, and they were somehow there on October 7th with their GoPro cameras ready to film everything. How much of this have you seen, and how much can we rely on the reporting that we get out of Gaza now?

Avi: Well, let me start with the second part of your question. We cannot rely on the reporting that comes out of Gaza at present, because those who are doing that reporting are operating essentially under the auspices of Hamas. You cannot operate as a media professional in Gaza without the approval of Hamas, and if you stray from that approval, there are often consequences. We’ve heard some stories, particularly in recent weeks, about Palestinian journalists who ran astray of Hamas directives and did bear certain consequences. There is a question to be asked about the wisdom of Israel’s policy not to allow foreign journalists into Gaza during this war, except when embedded with IDF units, which has happened on some occasions. You have seen some foreign correspondents go in, but as a general rule, foreign correspondents have not been allowed into Gaza. And there are arguments in favor of, and against, that policy. I tend not to favor it. I think it was a mistake, because ultimately you’re leaving the field open to these very hostile actors in Gaza, who are either heavily influenced by, or in fact members of, Hamas, which leads me to the first part of your question about the nature of journalism, and particularly that focus on Gaza. We’ve seen several different categories of journalists in Gaza, many of whom have been targeted by the IDF. Of course, there’s been an international outcry about this tendency by Israel to, in their words, suppress freedom of speech and ensure that the hardworking journalists of Gaza are not able to do their jobs.

So, first and foremost, there are the actual media professionals, the real journalists, who may in fact have a journalistic hat on, but at the same time engage in propaganda on behalf of terrorist organizations. We celebrated October 7th. There was a case that I highlighted in that piece of two Palestinian journalists who, while in Israel, or having just returned from Israel, did an Instagram live where they encouraged Palestinians to come and participate in this fantastic, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to massacre Jews in southern Israel. So that’s one category of journalists that exist in Gaza. Another are individuals who, although they carry the title journalists, are essentially propaganda operatives for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations, all of which operate their own media outlets, like Al-Aqsa Television and others. But they are not there in order to promote the public’s rights, but rather to promote the military aims of their respective terrorist groups. And quite a few of those so-called journalists who’ve been killed, at some estimates about half, have actually been terrorist operatives employed directly by these terrorist groups to engage in propaganda. Sorry, what’s that, Sarah?

Sarah: [inaudible]. Go ahead. No, go ahead, yeah.

Avi: The last category that I highlighted is that typified by Anas Al-Sharif and others. His case was highlighted by many journalist groups as being particularly egregious because he was clearly targeted by the IDF. But the reason he was targeted by the IDF is that there was documentation that emerged during the course of the IDF’s operations in Gaza that showed that he was, on the one hand, employed by Al-Jazeera, but on the other hand was also a squad commander for Hamas, that he engaged in targeting Israeli communities by rocket fire, and that he was a member of Hamas’ Nukhba force, which was the commando unit that led the October 7th massacre. He’s certainly not alone. There are other terrorists who are, again, actual terrorist operatives. We’re not talking about propagandists on behalf of these terrorist groups. We’re talking about individuals who engage in actual acts of violence while, at the same time, being employed by supposedly reputable news organizations, including Al-Jazeera and others. So I would take all coverage coming out of Gaza with a grain of salt. I’m hopeful that we’ll reach a point where international media organizations will, on the one hand, have the integrity not to employ these individuals and not to rely on their reporting, and on the other hand will, in fact, be able to get serious journalists into Gaza to do their important work.

Sarah: Right. So how does one respond, especially for this deluge of messaging on social media that is so negative towards Israel, that young people are very affected by? I see this on Capitol Hill almost every day when we’re there. A lot of the older people, more conservative people, are very pro-Israel, but even there, there’s an isolationist trend within the Republican Party. You’ve had so many wonderful positions, Avi, and so what vehicle, aside from the Jerusalem Journal, which you’re the wonderful writer and editor of, would you suggest that young people look at?

Avi: Look, the truth is that there are any number of serious journalists doing this critically important work. Even by the way, within some of these media organizations that have engaged in problematic reporting over the past 2 years, there are individuals and journalists who do get it right, and they should be applauded for doing that. I will say, by the way, I think The New York Times gets a lot of flak, and rightly so, for what we perceive as being skewed reporting. But it’s a tribute to them that there is any global conversation, for example, about the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas on October 7th. They were really the ones who broke that story back, whenever it was, over a year ago. It’s thanks to them that that’s even a part of the global conversation. So I don’t want to sort of paint the entirety of the media with a broad brush, but I think that there are some standouts that I would identify as well. I would say that Bari Weiss’s new publication, The Free Press, is doing an outstanding job digging into issues that other traditional media organizations are not. I think that they’ve been doing so laudably, and I would absolutely want to elevate that content. There is serious journalists in Israeli media organizations, including The Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, and others, that are digging into some of this information and trying to uncover the stories that are not traditionally covered by those media groups. One thing that I think is important to note is that these media organizations, when they get the story wrong, as, for example, they did in the aftermath of the Al-Ahli hospital explosion very early on in the war, where they bought this Hamas line that it was an Israeli airstrike that had killed 500 people, and then had to recant, some of them did issue corrections at that time and have since, saying that they got the story wrong and they’ll do better, but they don’t do better. That’s the problem.

The problem is that these organizations do not follow their own journalistic standards and do not hold themselves to the high level of professionalism that would be expected of serious media organizations. That, quite frankly, is where it falls to us to call them out, to hold their feet to the fire, to ensure that we are drawing attention to particularly skewed reporting, while at the same time elevating those pieces of reporting that are actually enlightening and representative of the highest standards of journalism.

Sarah: Right. Occasionally, we do see The New York Times correct themselves, but they claim that they reached 10 million people, and on Twitter, they reach a couple of hundred thousand. So, if you look at this picture of this child who’s dying of cerebral palsy, and they say it’s because Israel, the IDF, did something horrific to her. So they’re not really correcting their errors.

Avi: It reminds me of the story about a rabbi whose follower slandered him at some point. The follower came to him and said, “How can I repent for this?” He said, “You know what you should do? Take a pillow, cut it open, and scatter the feathers to the wind. And when you manage to gather them all back, then you’ll be forgiven.” You can’t do that. Once a story is out there, it doesn’t matter what you put out to try and correct it, to try and fix the record. It’s out there. The damage has been done. I can’t say for certain that that actually isn’t the goal here. I think there may be some media organizations that say, “Let’s smear Israel first and ask questions afterwards. If you have to correct the record, we’ll correct the record and we’ll bury it on page 26.” I think that ultimately, that is often what happens. And you’re right, it does the public tremendous disservice.

Sarah: Right. It’s sad, but some of the outlets that you mentioned, the Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, for example, really only a Jewish population reads that. How do we get our stories out to the general public?

Avi: Look, I think each of us can and should be a storyteller. I think those of us on this call who have a personal relationship with Israel, particularly those who’ve been to Israel either at all or particularly over the past 2 years, do have stories to tell. We each influence our own concentric circles of loved ones, family members, colleagues, neighbors, members of various associations that we might be a part of. That does make an impact. I would say it even makes more of an impact than seeing something on a page of a newspaper. If you’re able to touch the heart of someone and say, “I’ve been to southern Israel, I saw the impact of October 7th. I’ve been to Hostage Square, and I’ve seen the anxiety, the real pain of the families who are trying to figure out if their loved ones are alive or dead and whether they’ll ever see them again,” that carries tremendous weight. I would say that we can each be a vehicle for truth, EMET, and that that is absolutely a role that we should embrace and pursue with a great deal of vigor.

Sarah: So, Eurovision is set to convene on May 12, 2026, in Vienna. A growing number of countries, including Spain, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Slovenia, have all announced that they’ll boycott the event if Israel participates. How do we respond to these kinds of threats?

Avi: Look, I find myself very concerned about that. Eurovision is not terribly important in and of itself, but the removal of Israel from Eurovision could be significant as a sign of things to come.
We already see indications of Israel being excluded from arms expos, from sporting competitions. There was just an incident this past weekend where a major cycling competition that was to have ended in Madrid was significantly disrupted by protesters, who essentially caused the organizers to call off the medal ceremony because there was a team that carried Israel’s name, though it only had one actual Israeli participant. What was so striking about this incident is that it was actually egged on by the Prime Minister of Spain. Pedro Sánchez said that he stands with the protesters and he believes that they did the right thing, which is such a shocking and egregious thing for a national leader to say about a sporting competition. But that’s where, certainly, the Spanish government are at, as are other countries. And so, I am concerned about what this means. I think that we should make very clear that this is totally unacceptable. I have to say that it’s striking to me that this is a standard that is only applied to Israel. There are many countries in the world that are led by controversial leaders, by the way, the United States. And how many times have we heard other countries in the world say the United States should be excluded from this or that competition because of the actions or policies of its leadership? You would never hear of such a thing. Yet, somehow, people are all too eager to hold Israel[?] to that standard, and I find that to be completely unacceptable. We have to be saying that loudly and clearly.

Sarah: Right. One of our readers wrote in that one can’t defeat an ideology if there’s an information campaign and a hybrid war that’s victorious. What’s the distinction between World War II and how we executed that war, and how Israel’s executing the war in Gaza today?

Avi: Well, actually, I think World War II can be instructive because, in the aftermath of World War II, Germany underwent a process of denazification where, yes, it was under Allied occupation. But during that period, and for quite a few years after, anyone who held any public civil role in the Nazi administration was barred from any similar role, or any public role, really, in the emerging Germany. That ultimately contributed significantly to the eradication of Nazi ideology, which still exists in some pockets, but certainly not the dominant philosophy in Germany today. I think that Gaza would have to undergo a similar process, essentially, of de-jihadification after the end of this war, if there’s ever to be any hope of a peaceful future between the residents of Gaza and the people of Israel. So I actually do look at the aftermath of World War II as an important lesson. I hope that Israel’s leaders and other leaders in the region take that to heart.

Sarah: How does one achieve that? Right now, there are no UNRWA schools. There’s no school. We see the 2 million people, many of them are wanderers. 300,000 have left their home in Gaza City. How does one influence their hearts and minds?

Avi: Well, UNRWA certainly is not part of the solution. UNRWA is, and has only ever been, part of the problem. Look, I’m hopeful that once the dust settles and we’re able to engage in some process of reconstitution in Gaza, that whatever housing solutions are found will include educational institutions run, hopefully, by more moderate actors, perhaps under the direction of Gulf states or others in the region, that are able to institute a curriculum that is much more moderate, much more tolerant, that educates Palestinian children and young people for peace, just as I, as an Israeli, was educated for peace by the Israeli education system. And only once that happens can there be any hope of that peace actually coming about.

Sarah: Right. Well, next week, the 193 nations of the United Nations General Assembly is going to convene in New York. And I’m sure one of the issues that they’ll be considering is a resolution for Palestinian statehood. Of course, we all realize that we’ll probably be viewed in the Security Council where America has the United States has a overwhelmingly important vote. But when so many American Jews, and Jews around the globe, are feeling besieged by this tidal wave of anti-Semitism and pro-Palestinian sentiment, how do we stop the tidal wave?

Avi: Look, I think that there are several answers to this. Looking, for example, at that vote that’s set to take place next week, one of the most vocal advocates for this move has been the government of France. There are many people who scratch their heads and say, “But the French are actually quite competent diplomats. They know that this is absolutely ridiculous on a diplomatic level.” That it will be perceived, as it has been, by the way, by Hamas, as a victory and as a reaffirmation of the path of terror. But then, when you learn that it was actually the French Interior Ministry that commissioned a report that said that, in order to deal with rising Islamist extremism in France, one of the ways to stem the tide is to recognize a Palestinian state, it starts to make a little more sense. So this is actually domestic politics at play, not only, by the way, in France, but in Spain and elsewhere. There are many countries that are pursuing these deeply harmful policies strictly for domestic reasons, not because they see it as being virtuous on the international stage. Certainly not because they think that it’s going to bring a Palestinian state into being. I think that anyone, as we say in Hebrew, with eyes in their head, would see that there’s absolutely no chance of a UN resolution making a Palestinian state appear out of nowhere. But I think it’s very clear that that is what’s going on. In terms of what we as Jews can do, look, I think that we have, for many years, built alliances with other communities that are beautiful and important.

We have stood up for others in their struggles. We’ve stood up for the Latino community and the Asian-American community when they were under attack during COVID. We’ve stood up for women’s groups and LGBT groups. This has all been extremely important. Where have they been over the past 2 years? How much solidarity have we seen expressed with the Jewish community as they’ve been under attack, we’ve been under attack, over the past 2 years? And we have to, I think, start looking more carefully at the alliances we build. It shouldn’t be transactional. It shouldn’t be we support you only because you support us, but there should be some expectation of reciprocity, that we stand for you. Therefore, we ask that you stand with us in our time of need, that when Jewish students say that they are fearful to be on college campuses and express their Jewish identity or share their Jewish connection to the state of Israel for fear of attack, you will stand with us at that time. And all too often, we see the leaders of either these groups or national leaders bury their heads in the sand at best, and kowtow to the extremists at worst. We need to be raising the alarm. The fact that you have a likely next mayor of New York who is a proud and open anti-Zionist, and by the way, it’s important to note, anti-Zionism is viewed by the majority of Jews and by the majority of non-Jews. The notion that Israel has no right to exist is viewed by the majority of Jews and non-Jews in America as an expression of anti-Semitism. This guy holds that view. He’s very open about it. He doesn’t hide it.

I think we need to start saying that this is beyond the pale, that if he held these views about any other group, if he expressed the kind of prejudices about any other group that he does about Jews, that that would be viewed as a deal breaker, that no one would vote for this individual. We need to start holding him to the same standards and others to the same standards, as they would in those cases. And so I think that there are any number of things that we should be doing, but we can’t do them alone. We do need to be building these alliances, but they need to be alliances that strengthen and support both sides, rather than being one-directional, as they’ve often been up until this time.

Sarah: Right. I just came from a meeting on Capitol Hill with Speaker Mike Johnson, and there was a coalition of people. Of course, CUFI is incredibly pro-Israel, and they have hundreds of thousands of members, and there are some mighty forces that we can partner with.

Avi: Absolutely.

Sarah: Do you have any final words that you would like to leave the American Jewish community with? Many of us are feeling very besieged by the current tidal wave of anti-Semitism.

Avi: So I would say a few things. The first is that there was a survey that came out today by the Israel Democracy Institute. It does this survey, I think, before every Rosh Hashanah, every Jewish New Year, in which it tried to assess the feeling in Israel. I found that actually many Israelis are quite frustrated, quite pessimistic, are not feeling great about this moment in time.
What’s interesting is that they give that answer when they’re asked about the national mood. When they’re asked about their own mood, individual moods, they actually report feeling kind of okay, relatively okay, certainly compared to how they perceive the national mood to be. And when you ask them about how they think the new year is going to be, a plurality of Israelis say, “Actually, we think the new year is going to be better than last.” I think there’s something very hopeful and forward-looking about that. I have to say that, having looked back at the past 2 years, having lived through the pain and devastation of October 7th and everything that we have been through over this period, I find myself filled with hope and optimism looking at the young people who have stepped up to the plate, who have mobilized in defense of this country, who have, in fact, left their families for hundreds of days at a time to stand up for Israel’s defense, and sometimes put their lives on the line in order to ensure the security and safety of this country. I have to say that, at this point, I find myself more hopeful about the future of Israel since October 7th than I ever was before. I hope that that is a sentiment that you all can share and that you partner with us to ensure that we do indeed have that brighter future.

Sarah: Thank you, Avi. That’s very encouraging. I do also agree with you that the next generation, your generation, has tenacity, grit, perseverance to risk their very lives. I know a lot of people who have put their lives on the line for the state of Israel. We would be nowhere without the state of Israel. So it is a very hopeful, encouraging sign for the people of Hatikvah. Thank you. It is really a pleasure to talk to you, Avi. I can’t wait to read your next edition of the Jerusalem Journal. It’s incredible.

Avi: Thank you, Sarah. Thank you for having me.

Sarah: Thank you. And I should remind everybody, November 19th is our big dinner. We’re honoring John Fetterman, Ambassador Yechiel Leiter, Anila Ali, who is a wonderful Muslim who reaches out to Jews and is a huge Zionist herself, among others. So please be sure to register at emetonline.org. As I’m talking, part of my staff is on Capitol Hill right now, trying to fight the good fight for Israel and the Jewish people. Thank you so much, Avi. You are a blessing. Bye-bye.

[END]