VP Picks, Media Bias, and Antisemitism: The 2024 U.S. Election and Its Impact on Israel and the Jewish People

People of the Pod

Listen to an in-depth conversation on all the latest in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, from the vice presidential picks –Tim Walz and JD Vance – to Israel and antisemitism. Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC’s Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, speaks with Ron Kampeas, the Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Kampeas also discussed the importance of accuracy and empathy in reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, highlighting the need for journalists to avoid biases and misrepresentations.

*The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.

Episode Lineup:

• (0:40) Ron Kampeas

Learn:

• AJC's Call to Action Against Antisemitism

• U.S. Party Platforms Must Take a Stand Against Antisemitism

• Here are 5 Jewish Issues Republicans and Democrats Must Address at their Conventions

Listen:

• What the Unprecedented Assassinations of Terror Leaders Means for Israel and the Middle East

• Aviva Klompas is Fighting the Normalization of Antisemitism on Social Media

• On the Ground at the Republican National Convention: What's at Stake for Israel and the Middle East?

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: [e-mail]

If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts.

Transcript of Interview with Ron Kampeas:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

This week, my colleague Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, spoke to Ron Kampeas, the Washington DC Bureau Chief of JTA, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. They broke down the latest in the 2024 US presidential election. Julie, the mic is yours.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

Ron, thank you so much for joining us. I'm so pleased to have this conversation with you, because we get to flip the tables and someone who's really a beloved and renowned journalist in the Jewish space, and finally, I get to ask you questions. So thank you for making this opportunity available to us.

Ron Kampeas:

Thank you.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

I want to start by talking a little bit about the conventions. You were in Milwaukee covering AJC’s event, alongside a number of other things. Thank you for being there with us. What were your biggest takeaways from the Republican Convention, particularly as they related to the issues of Israel and antisemitism?

Ron Kampeas:

I think Israel was front and center, and they made it front and center because it's an obvious advantage that they have over the Democrats right now. So, you know, I think the representative moment was, in a way, when Matt Brooks, the CEO of the Republican Jewish Coalition, he was invited for the first time to address the Republican Convention, and the first thing he said was, let's hear it for Israel, or something like that, or let's hear it for the hostages. And there were cheers, and then he says that couldn't happen in a month at the Democratic Convention. He might be right. And so that was a big plus for them. On antisemitism it's a little more opaque, but it's problematic, I think, because after Matt spoke, he called us Jewish media reporters together for a little gaggle, and we asked him, naturally, about the isolationism that the vice presidential or the running mate pick JD Vance represents. And it's interesting, the way that Matt put it. He said, yeah, it is a problem. He was candid. He said, it's a problem in the party, and we plan to fight it.

And, you know, nobody prompted him, but he said, we plan to take on the Tucker Carlson wing of the party. The interesting thing about that is that he said, prevent Tucker Carlson wing from getting a foothold. And Tucker Carlson had very much a foothold at the convention. He spoke on the last night, setting up Donald Trump's speech. He was up in the balcony with Donald Trump. And of course, you know, Matt's point is that Tucker Carlson is very much an isolationist, particularly as far as Ukraine goes, but he's given hints as far as Israel goes. But it's more than that. He's platformed antisemites, and he's kind of ventured into that territory himself – antisemites like Candace Owens, Kanye West – and I think that that is something that Jewish Republicans are going to have to grapple with.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

One of the things that was discussed at AJC’s event alongside the Republican National Convention was the policy positions of not just JD Vance, but others who sort of align with that faction of the Republican Party – I guess, the Tucker Carlson faction – and sort of reading the tea leaves on Ukraine and saying, you know, at what point does the hesitancy around support for Ukraine translate into hesitancy for support for Israel? And does it? What would you say to that question?

Ron Kampeas:

You know, it's interesting that at least as far as I could track, that played out an explicit sense only at your event, at the AJC event. There were people who were asking hard questions of the panelists, and two of the panelists were very much not stumping for Trump, they were defending Trump and the Trump policies. Kirsten Fontenrose, not so much. She was more critical, and even though she was part of the Trump NSC. And so the defense that they were saying is that simply, you know, whatever you may think of Trump's position, this is Rich Goldberg has particularly said this, but I think Ken Weinstein also said it, whatever you may think of Trump's positions on Ukraine, the strength he will project in the world. And this was right after the assassination, and Rich Goldberg kept on bringing up that Associated Press photo of Trump looking very defiant after being shot, that strength is going to deter the kind of actions that Putin has taken in Ukraine.

But the flip side of that actually came up a couple of weeks later at a Christians United for Israel conference here in DC, where isolationism was very much on the mind, and what they were articulating and what might have been articulated in an AIPAC conference, if AIPAC still had conferences – it doesn't – but what they were articulating is that it's holistic, that you can't just say, like, JD Vance says, ‘Oh, I'm all for assisting Israel, but we don't need to assist Ukraine, because Russia's bad actions in Ukraine are being supported by Iran. Iran is supplying arms to Russia in Ukraine that it then can, you know, see how those arms work in Ukraine, and they can use them theoretically against Israel.’

We're seeing now, as tensions build up in the Middle East, that Russia has Iran's back. And then, you know, there's also China, which is also problematic and is buying Iranian oil and helping to prop up the Iranian economy that way. So it's not simply a matter of whether one side projects strength better than the other side, and this is the argument coming out of the Christians United for Israel thing. It's a matter of constant engagement and awareness of how all these things can interlock.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

I think that's a really great point, and I'm glad you made that connection. I know one of the other issues that was present or discussed at the Christians United for Israel conference was the issue of the hostages, and what you said before about the sort of rallying result of Matt Brooks’ comments about, you know, let's hear it for Israel, let’s hear it for the hostage families. And a similar cry might solicit or elicit at the DNC. What do you think we could expect? You know, would you expect that a hostage family will take to the stage as Orna and Ronen Neutra did at the DNC, and if so, what might the result be?

Ron Kampeas:

So that's a good question. I know that they've asked. I know that the hostage families have asked to appear at the DNC. I know that there are people who have told me that the DNC, especially like with Kamala Harris, who has spoken out for the hostages. I don't see how Kamala Harris could not have the hostages or some sort of representation of the hostages at the conference. On the other hand, the Democrats are going to have to worry about, I don't think they're going to be booed, but I think that they're not going to get the same sort of enthusiastic reception that maybe that they got at the Republican conference, and simultaneously the uncommitted movement. The movement was founded in Michigan and spread to some other states that when Biden was the nominee, particularly, they were upset that Biden wasn't doing enough to stop the war in Gaza, wasn't doing enough to force Israel into a ceasefire, and they wanted to show that they didn't necessarily have to vote for him in November, so they didn't vote for him in the primaries.

And they had different effects in different states, but certainly in states like Michigan and Minnesota, I think that they had a pretty good turnout as far as that goes. And they want a doctor from Gaza to speak at the DNC. So you know which might be fine. It might be a legitimate enterprise in their part, but you know that the Democrats are going to be accused of “both sides-ing” it, that the Republicans wouldn't have somebody like that. So because of the Democrats of different constituencies, as much as the Republicans are now, at least the Trump campaign is now trying to reach out to Arab Americans. It's much more a constituency for the Democrats, as are the Jews. It's going to be like a tightrope for them to walk. And so I don't know how that's going to be a play out, but it's certainly something we're going to be tracking.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

Talking about that, that tightrope, and also, because you mentioned Michigan and Minnesota, let's talk for a moment about the selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for the vice presidential nominee. He has both spoken at AIPAC’s conferences, stood by Israel after the October 7 attacks, talked about Jewish students on campus dealing with encampments and anti-Israel protests and has really been outspoken about rising antisemitism in this country. On the flip side, he also speaks to the more progressive flank of the Democratic Party, and has urged the party to do more intentional kind of outreach to anti-Israel voters who aren't committed to voting the Harris-Walz ticket. What do you make of him in this moment, as both a campaigner and then presumably, if elected, what would you make of him as a vice president?

Ron Kampeas:

It's hard to say right now. Nobody was really aware of Tim Walz a lot outside of Minnesota until last week, but it's so funny because, you know, there was this whole push back against Shapiro from the far left because he was perceived as being – I'm talking about Josh Shapiro, the Pennsylvania Governor who was a front runner – because he was perceived as being too pro-Israel.

But Yair Rosenberg did a really good job. I also did a little bit of reporting into this about how the other candidates, who other likelies that Kamala Harris were considering, are also pro-Israel, and Tim Walz has a long list of accomplishments, but you know, a measure of how fast this summer has gone, how crazy this political season has been, is this a week and a half ago, when Yair put up his story, he didn't even have Tim Walz in it. He was looking at Roy Cooper, he was looking at Mark Kelly from Arizona, and then, because nobody was even thinking about Tim Walz then, and now, he's the running mate.

But from what you can see about him, and like, we just, JTA just did a big story about his master's thesis on Holocaust education, he's somebody who really wants to listen. His recommendation to the Republican Party, you know, he's coined this whole weird thing. That's actually why the Harris campaign noticed him, because he was the first to call the Republicans weird. I mean, the Republican candidates, but he said don't direct that at the voters, direct that only at the nominees, because we have to listen to the voters. And so I think that you can look at what he says about listening to the protesters on campuses in that context. For somebody who was born in Nebraska and lived most of his life in a town of 400 people in Minnesota, he shows, like, remarkably nuanced understanding of things that are of Jewish concern regarding the Holocaust. He's talked about how, you know, one can look at the Holocaust legitimately as an anomaly in history, but also understand it as something that could be repeated, which is actually Yehuda Bauer, the famous Holocaust historian's point. The way he boiled it down was that the Holocaust happened only to the Jews, but it can happen to anybody. And so that's Waltz's outlook, and it shows somebody who's really sort of read up on this and considered it in depth.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

Because you mentioned that Josh Shapiro had been very much in the running there, I want to get your take on the sort of social media trends of calling him “Genocide Josh” because of his pro-Israel statements and record. Is that just blatant antisemitism that we need to be mindful of, was it specific? Do you think it's just, you know, savvy opposition researchers? What do you make of that?

Ron Kampeas:

You know, we often think of antisemitism as, you know, planning to be antisemitic and putting out a statement. There are people who are consciously antisemitic, but the much greater, the much more vexing problem is that, how, it just seeps into the discourse. We have a polarized society, and it's just very easy when you're opposing somebody to grab whatever is in the toolbox to harm them. And for anybody who's Jewish, I mean, you see this and we talk about it openly, you see it when we talk about women in politics, about how attacks on them can be gendered. And nobody, at least nobody on the left, complains about that. Actually, maybe they did a little bit. You know, the Bernie Bros made gendered attacks on Hillary Clinton, and they didn't denied it.

But anyways, so you can say that attacks can be gendered, but it's hard to explain how attacks can also be antisemitic, because that's a tool in the box. And then a lot of people on the left don't want to acknowledge that. They slip into that. And I think that's what happened with Josh Shapiro. I think that there is for some reason, I mean, I can speculate as to, not even speculate – people have said why, even though he was just as pro-Israel as Tim Walz. He's like he's not less pro-Israel. But Mark Kelly did things that I'm sure Josh Shapiro wouldn't have done. Josh Shapiro doesn't like Benjamin Netanyahu.

Mark Kelly, the senator from Arizona, went to the Netanyahu speech, shook his hand afterwards and applauded, and they didn't get attacked in the same way. And if you look at some of the reasons that Shapiro was attacked, they talked about his upbringing, his going to a Jewish Day School in the Philly area, and the things that he was exposed to, they talked about his going to Israel when he was a teenager. And those are things that are part and parcel of a lot of American Jewish upbringings. And so you can say those things are indicting, but there's a point, because you're an American Jew coming up in American Jewish communities, going to be exposed to a lot of pro-Israel. But at what point does that become antisemitic? Because that's just the natural part of Jewish life.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

I want to ask you another question related to the media. I want to sort of get your take. Last week, AJC and the Jewish Federations of North America published an open letter to media outlets generally, really identifying how so many of them got the Hezbollah attack on the soccer field in the Golan so, so, so wrong that, after a dozen Druze kids playing soccer were murdered in the middle of the afternoon, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, others, just totally misrepresented the facts. The Washington Post headlined a story “Hezbollah denies responsibility for the fatal rocket strike.” It wasn't true. Hezbollah celebrated the attack until they learned that children were killed and then walked it back. And then doubling down, a later Washington Post story showed an image of the funeral of one of the children who was killed, but the headline read, “Israel hits target in Lebanon.”

So if you only look at the picture and you only read the headline, you think it's a Lebanese kid that has been killed by a strike in Israel, not that an Israeli Druze kid was killed by a Hezbollah attack. CNN, AP, they all sort of downplayed Hezbollah's role in these really horrific murders. Is this ignorance? Is it bias? Is it both? And regardless, if we're sort of operating under this principle of journalist integrity, is this OK?

Ron Kampeas:

No, it's not OK. I don't know what went on at the Washington Post. I was witness, kind of, to one of the most foundational episodes in bad media takes, which happened right after the Second Intifada began, and the AP put out a photo of a policeman helping up a Haredi Jewish kid who had just been knocked down or even beaten by Palestinian writers in Jerusalem. And the AP captioned the photo saying that the policeman was attacking a Palestinian on the Temple Mount, which is so funny because there's a gas station in the back of the picture and there's no gas stations on the Temple Mount. I mean, if you know Jerusalem, you know the Temple Mount, you know how crazy that is. And so, like, what had happened was that I knew the guy who was handling photo editing at the AP that night when he got this picture. And at the time – this is in the early days of the Internet and computers – the picture came across at the AP’s, Israeli photo agency affiliate, and Hebrew couldn't work on that machine, so, like, the Hebrew was scrambled. They captioned it in Hebrew. It was scrambled.

So the guy calls up the other guy who's also tired, and he said, was this like some cop beating up a Palestinian on the Temple Mount? He said, yeah, sure, and that's how the thing goes out. So it's just, like, journalists can screw up in ways that speak to a certain underlying bias about the conflict. They expect to see certain things, but it's also can be stupidity and laziness and just screw ups at the last minute. I mean, I imagine that's what happened with the Washington Post front page, but it's awful, and it needs to be remedied, and people need to be more educated, and they need to pay more attention. I think you're right.

I think the way that the media has been treating the Hezbollah-Israel conflict in the north, in a way, differently than it treated, at least at the beginning, it treated Israel-Hamas. Hamas is clearly defined as a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is an organization that's holding Lebanon hostage. Historically, people now think it was a big mistake to invade Lebanon in 1982. Hezbollah was partly an outgrowth of resentment of the Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon. But Israel withdrew to UN. They went to the UN and they said, you decide where the lines are. We're not going to decide where the lines are.

You decide where the lines are, and we will withdraw that to that point. In 2000 Israel did that. Hezbollah continued to attack. Hezbollah launched a war in 2006 that Israel did not want, and conflict with Israel helps uphold Hezbollah within Lebanon. And so I think that because Hezbollah is a very proficient and weathered militia, they fought a war in Syria. They fought a terrible, genocidal war in Syria. They were on the wrong side of that, but they fought a war in Syria. They're good at what they're doing. So maybe there's a reflex to see this as a conflict between two militaries, but it's not.

It's a conflict between Israel and a terrorist organization that unprovoked launched missiles inside Israel on October the eighth, even before Israel was striking back in Gaza as a means of solidarity with Hamas. And so I think that needs to be front, just as I think a lot of media, obviously JTA, but even a lot of like, you know, non-Jewish media always put out there that Hamas started this war. It needs to be reminded that Hezbollah also started its version of the war, and that Hezbollah, it's not an army that's accountable to any kind of civilian infrastructure, never mind a democratic one, like the Israeli army is accountable to elected officials. It's its own militia with a stranglehold on Lebanon.

So yeah, I think that should be evident in everything that's written about that conflict, and maybe that's what helped distort at least the initial reporting from what happened in Majdal Shams, which is just horrible.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

One of the things that AJC is always trying to call on media outlets to do is to know who to call. Right, if there is an incident related to Israel that they don't fully understand, if there's an antisemitic attack and they need more context, to understand that there are Jewish individuals and organizations who can help to provide insight and texture and understanding so that their reporting can be more accurate. That's one of the recommendations in our Call to Action Against Antisemitism in America, recommendations for media. I wonder if, you know, journalist to journalist, if folks call you and say, “Ron, this is what we're writing, is this right?” Knowing that you are just such a font of knowledge, they should, this is what I'm saying. They should call you.

Ron Kampeas:

My son asks me, I mean, very occasionally, I do get calls more having to do with my alleged knowledge of the American Jewish community and how it works and how it functions. I get calls about that. I think on Israel, less so because everybody's an expert. Everybody considers themselves an expert. Everybody flies in. I think what was an unfortunate standard. 20 years ago, it wasn't just the AP, it was all mainstream media, that you get your best takes from a foreign correspondent between three and six months into the assignment, because it takes them three months to learn it, but it takes them six months to go native, which is to sort of really understand the nuances. I think that's unfortunate, because I think going native, really understanding the nuances, sort of delving into a story, becoming familiar with it, becoming sympathetic in ways, with all sides to the story, actually enriches a story.

And I think that that's something that maybe you know, I've been doing JTA for 21 years. I've been in journalism for 35 years. I think it's great to have fresh outlooks. It's good. I think it's also good to sometimes rely on institutional knowledge and to listen to people who have been here before. It was weird at AP. I was in a position at AP when I wasn't allowed to use my institute for bizarre reasons. Institutional knowledge, you know. But it was funny, because at the outset of the Iraq War, the first day, the major Iraq war in 2002, 2003, I knew things that signal that it was going to go wrong, because I'd lived in the Middle East, and I wasn't the only one. By far, by far, there were a lot of people who knew those things institutionally. It means literally saying, like what the Israelis said in 1982, the Shiites are throwing rice and you had actual examples in 1982 of Shiites throwing rice at Israelis, and in 2003 of Shiites throwing rice at Americans. They want this. And it never works out that way. It goes awry.

But nobody was listening, because people were too invested in a particular outcome to listen to the institutionalists. And I think that that's a problem. There's a reflex sometimes to say, oh, the institutionalists got it wrong in the past, because the world is still a mess, but that's not their value. The value of the institutionalists, and a great institutionalist just passed away, Martin Indyk, the value of the institutionalists is that sometimes they can actually say, this is where I went wrong, and this is what we misunderstood, and this is how we misunderstood it, and this is how we were deep in the weeds and we misunderstood it. And that's the kind of knowledge that I think shouldn't go wasted.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

Thanks so much for that perspective. I was going to ask you as a final question, if there was anything that you wanted to raise that we haven't discussed yet. But I would also add to that question, feel free to answer that question. Or is there something that we're getting wrong now institutionally?

Ron Kampeas:

Yeah, I think that, you know, there's a lot that we're getting wrong now institutionally. I think that people are, and every side of the Israel-Hamas conflict are they retreating into sort of easy, reflexive understandings of what could go right and what could go wrong. I think that there is a value in understanding how toxic Hamas ideology is, that was, I think, grasped at the beginning after October the seventh, but has slipped away as this seems to be just a conflict, and people are retreating into Israel's bashing Gaza. We have to get it to stop bashing Gaza, which is fine, it's an outlook. It's a legitimate outlook, but it's one that's not going to register at all with any Israeli, unless you take into account how Hamas is perceived among Israelis as a genocidal organization. If it wasn't before October 7, it is now.

On the other hand, I think that sort of reflexive, we can never have a two state solution. I'm not saying, advocating, for two state solution. We never have a two state solution. We're just going to go on as we've gone with the Palestinians. I think that also reflects this kind of like a reflexive blindness that you have to account for the Palestinians, somehow. Nothing is going to be imposed on them. They have to be agents and actors and whatever happens, and it might not happen in my generation, it might not happen in my lifetime, but that has to be back of mind. And I think for a lot of people, particularly in parts of the Israeli establishment, it is not back of mind.

So those are things that I think that people can maybe, you know, if, if these competing, they're not actually enemies, I'm talking about people who are on the same side. They can be on the same side in Israel, they can be on the same side in America, but they're rivals, and they don't like to listen to each other. But if they did talk to each other and listen to each other, maybe they would find nuances that could get everybody to a better place.

Julie Fishman Rayman:

If we could do a word cloud of some of the themes that have come out of this conversation, listening is definitely one of the words that would be prominent. And I think it's not only a good aspiration, but I also want to highlight that our listening to you on these really important issues is revelatory, truthfully, and we're grateful for all the work that you're doing with JTA every day, but also for being here on People of the Pod with us and for all the wisdom that you've shared. Thank you.

Ron Kampeas:

Thank you.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

If you missed last week's episode, tune in for my conversation with AJC Jerusalem Director Avital Leibovich on what the widely reported deaths of two terror leaders last week could mean for Israel and the wider region.