Mutual Interests, Shifting Priorities: The US-Israel Security Conversation—The Z3 Podcast
In this episode of the Z3 Podcast, Host Rabbi Amitai Fraiman, Prof. Chuck Freilich, and Maggie Feldman-Piltch discuss the evolving concept of national security in the context of Israel and the United States. From the impact of October 7 to the evolving nature of warfare, they dive into the tensions, values, and deep strategic ties between the U.S. and Israel. They explore what keeps countries safe today beyond simply armies and borders as well as the operational differences between the two nations and the challenges they face moving forward. If you’re interested in U.S.–Israel relations and security strategy this is a conversation you don’t want to miss.
About Our Guests
Prof. Chuck Freilich, a senior fellow at INSS, was a deputy national security adviser in Israel. He was a long-time senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center and has taught political science at Harvard, Columbia, NYU and Tel Aviv Universities. Freilich is the author of Zion’s Dilemmas: How Israel Makes National Security Policy (Cornell Press 2012); Israeli National Security: A New Strategy for an Era of Change (Oxford Press 2018); and Israel and the Cyber Threat: How the Startup Nation Became a Global Cyber Power (Oxford Press 2023). He is now working on a book on the US-Israeli strategic and military relationship. Freilich has written some 250 op-eds in American and Israeli press and is the senior editor of the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch makes national security make sense. Her writing under the name Non-State Actress reaches several hundred thousand people a week. She is the Managing Director of Unicorn Strategies and an Advisor to several defense frontier technology companies. She previously led the Digital and Electronic Warfare portfolio for the Wilson Center’s Science and Technology Innovation Program prior to the institution, including the Wilson Presidential Library’s, destruction by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). She’s been a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council and completed a non-resident fellowship at Joint Special Operations University, guest lectures at the National War College and is exceedingly proud of her engagement with Meridian International Center, Munich Security Conference, and her undergraduate alma mater Wesleyan University.
Video Transcript
Amitai Fraiman (02:15)
Hi, Professor Freilich. Maggie, it's great to have you here on the Z3 podcast. ⁓ You know, we have these conversations where we cover a variety of topics for our audiences. We try to give them a little bit more insight into what's going on and a variety of issues that pertain to Israel, Israel-Diaspora relations, Zionism, Jewish peoplehood. Today we're gonna talk about national security with the two of you. And I couldn't be more excited to have this conversation. And so really thank you for joining us and for your time today.
Chuck Freilich (02:43)
My pleasure.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (02:45)
Thanks for having us.
Amitai Fraiman (02:46)
Excellent. So we're going to dive right into it because, you know, events are unfolding in the world. We said jokingly as we're preparing for this, that this might not be relevant by the time we hear it. We hope that we can get it out as soon as possible. So we'll get right into it. So I'm going to start with my first question because I think it's important to level set for the listeners. If we can maybe land on a definition of sorts of what do we even mean when we say national security? Because I'm sure we're going to use that throughout the conversation.
And so if we can roughly agree on the parameters of what for this conversation we mean, I think that will be helpful. And I'm going to start with you, Chuck, and then I'll ask Maggie to fill in and we'll take it from there.
Chuck Freilich (03:28)
So national security is actually an American term that stems from the immediate post-World War II era. When the US came to the conclusion, ⁓ actually while the war was still underway, that the old stove piping, the separation between state and the war department and other ⁓ departments just didn't work anymore when you were trying to run a world war. And you needed a broader approach and a broader term that would encompass the different areas.
and so is national security. Now, over the decades, there's been a debate what actually should be included there. And there's a more, let's say a traditional or conservative approach. And today there's a broader one. The conservative approach is that it's about foreign and defense policy and those aspects of economic and domestic policy that directly feed into one's ability to play as an effective actor.
on the international, foreign and military stage. In the last decade or two, there's been an attempt to broaden the definition to include food security, climate security, human security. I tend to the more traditional and the narrower definition.
Amitai Fraiman (04:49)
Thank you. Maggie, how ⁓ would you ⁓ think about the definition in light of what Chuck brought up?
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (04:57)
I mean, I'm tempted to say no notes, right? 85 % of my personality is the National Security Act of 1947. It is potentially like my favorite piece of legislation ever. And so I'm infamous for writing about this and kind of like, what is the definition of national security and what is national? What is security? How do the two words together augment?
and in maybe some ways modify one another. And so I very much agree with kind of what is the definition, particularly from the historical context and really this idea of like, yeah, there is this sort of traditional, or at least from the last 80 years perspective of this is about how we protect and project ourselves there, right? Beyond and up to our borders.
sort of the saying at least here in the States of politics stop at the water's edge. I think the other half of that sentence is traditionally like a national security starts. And then this other rising school of thought looking at food security, climate security, human security. And then I think we're kind of coming to this point where trying to figure out where does the Venn diagram hit of, okay, climate is relevant.
for some people, and I think I would probably put myself here as we're thinking about ⁓ rising ⁓ tides in a very literal sense of like, what does that mean for the US Navy? What does that mean for the movement of people and ⁓ conflict or potential conflict and things like that? ⁓ But I would agree with Chuck. think ⁓ it's important for words to have definitions that begin and end.
Otherwise, we're just talking about everything all the time, which is super irritating.
Amitai Fraiman (06:50)
Yeah, agreed. So that's kind of why we started with this idea of a definition. So if we kind of land on these two definitions, I think that for, I don't want to get, I don't want to put the cart in front of the horse and then we'll touch upon it later, but I suspect that depending on which definition you go with, that informs also your decision-making process as it pertains to policy, et cetera. Because if it's more expansive, one might include more elements or more dimension than a calculus as opposed to a more.
of straightforward traditional approach is you know these are things are important but they fall outside of this ⁓ dynamic for the moment and therefore we're gonna you know that that kind of might might create a different set of decisions. I don't want to get ahead of ourselves probably reach at some point. So okay so if we so so given that those that distinction that the two of you made it was easy we we kind of landed on one that's great I guess this is a very organized field it's ⁓ of straightforward which is good I mean like the truth is I
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (07:35)
Yeah.
Amitai Fraiman (07:45)
you know, as a lay person who's not an expert in any sense or shape ⁓ of the term, kind of at least imagine that that was going to be some kind of the distinction which is great. let's, if using the first one, right, the more traditional approach for now, ⁓ what would you say are, you know, the greatest, let's say top two, three maybe, threats on national security of the US and Israel?
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (08:08)
Thank you.
Amitai Fraiman (08:13)
And before you ask that, I'm folding in another question because Chuck said, made this point. It's a, term that, that emanates from, from, from an American perspective. But I imagine this is already kind of commonplace in at least the Western world. This, this kind of, consideration of national security. don't know if there's another term elsewhere, if it's even helpful for this conversation. So we'll put that aside. And so, so again, so what would you think are the, the, the, biggest, considerations or threats in the, for the US and for Israel?
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (08:45)
That is a doozy. I feel like that's a check. I don't know if you agree with me or not, but I mean, that's like six questions. This is a book, right? I don't know how much of this is a podcast versus this is an iceberg. I'm a typist.
Amitai Fraiman (08:55)
Great, get started.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (08:59)
I mean, I'm going to keep my mouth shut on a lot of the, does this mean in Israel? ⁓ And most of that is because I don't know. ⁓ And it up until now, ⁓ that's quote, not been my job. And I don't mean that in a dismissive way. I mean that, you know, much like we have a beginning and an end of a definition for national security. ⁓
there's a beginning and end to expertise and what is appropriate, particularly here in the US. Historically, we've had some pretty clear guidelines, requirements and guardrails about where one speaks and where one doesn't. ⁓ so I know kind of I can I have an idea on the US part ⁓ and maybe an American
Jews' perspective on Israel, but like, I'd be really curious, ⁓ Chuck, I don't want to put you on the spot, but if you want to start...
Chuck Freilich (10:07)
Sure. Of course, to be difficult, I can't limit myself to two, but I will limit myself to three. And I think at the moment there is an uncanny and unholy similarity between what may be the number one for both the US and Israel. And that's actually the domestic political situation. Because both countries are in the midst of what I can do.
Amitai Fraiman (10:16)
Okay.
Chuck Freilich (10:36)
considered to be a deep political and maybe even de-constitutional crisis. And there is a war against the truth. There is a war against the judiciary. There is a war against the press. There's a war against all sorts of values and norms that we, most of us used to hold holy. And there's a battle between ⁓ the different parts of the government, the executive and the judiciary and the legislature.
And depending on which day and what time we speak, I'm not sure lately who's in worse condition, the US or Israel. The US having one advantage that it does have broader national security margins than Israel does. And we're in the midst of a war which is now 20 months long. ⁓ So if you ask me beyond that, what are the two biggest issues in Israel? One is obviously the Palestinian issue.
which is not existential in the physical sense of the word. The Palestinians, Hamas caused us incredible pain on October 7th, but the state of Israel writ large was not ⁓ in danger. the Palestinians cannot destroy us. By the way, I don't think anybody can today. I'll come back to Iran in one second. ⁓ But the Palestinians, of course, can cause us a great deal of pain as they did through this was a specific case of it.
terrorism and decades of terrorism and where it becomes the Palestinian issue becomes sort of an existential issue is in terms of Israel's future character as a state. How do we live in a situation where there are three million Palestinians in the West Bank and about two million in Gaza that's five million and there are seven million Jews in Israel and another two million Arabs, one seven.
Today, the ratio between Jews and Arabs in Israel and the West Bank is 60-40. Is that a Jewish state? Not by my definition. Now, I don't know what the exact ratio is, but it's certainly not. Is it 80-20, which is what it is without the West Bank? Yeah, for me, that's an overwhelming majority.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (12:33)
Thank
Chuck Freilich (12:56)
The good news is that the 60-40 holds out for the next few decades because Palestinian birth rates are plummeting and Israeli birth rates are pretty high. But one of these days we're going to have to reach some sort of decision what we want. What do we want with the future of the West Bank and the Palestinians? And by the way, I am not a a gog about the prospects of a Palestinian state.
I think it will be another corrupt, radical Palestinian dictatorship. I also think we have no choice but to reach some solution with the Palestinians because we need it. They too, but I'm more worried about us. And the third issue, of course, is Iran. And you can say that it's existential and it may be, you can deny that. I think the chances of Iran ever using a bomb against Israel
are extraordinarily low because they know that they will be hit back in a way that they cannot tolerate by Israel and probably by the United States. But the real problem with an Iranian nuclear capability is the influence that it will give them over every future development in the region. So the next time that a Hamas or Hezbollah, whoever wants to attack Israel,
and Israel's attacking back and maybe going into Gaza or going into Lebanon and they say, uh-huh, sorry guys, you can't, we're here and you know what we have. And the ability to dictate terms and all sorts of situations that ⁓ we cannot afford to allow them to have that ability. And for the US, I think number two and three are pretty clear. Number two is to...
or maybe even it's number one, but certainly after the domestic situation is China, which is the peer competitor today. And number three is still Russia and the whole Ukrainian mission.
Amitai Fraiman (14:58)
Thank you.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (15:01)
Yeah, I mean, I come up this also from the perspective of somebody whose expertise and kind of understanding is in information operations and algorithmic warfare, right? So the China piece is certainly part of it. I very much agree about the threat to democracy potential for, if not an ongoing constitutional crisis here in the US.
and with the comparison to that in Israel. ⁓ And I think here in the US, ⁓ we are seeing the fruit of many, many years, but particularly the last four years of effort and labor on the part of authoritarian regimes working together to undermine
democratic norms, democratic institutions, democratic processes at a hyper specific level that the US is not incapable of responding to and playing offense on, but it's been a long time. So I would say that one of the, I don't like ranking things because I feel like I'm picking a favorite child. So I'll give you like three things I'm worried about in no particular order.
So one of which, of course, being ⁓ the constitutional situation here. Another being our inability to collaborate and define both what a democracy is, what our values are, and then collaborate with fellow democracies. And to show up for our allies and vice versa and have those relationships be real and true and resilient.
and so cohesive in the way that China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea, what we call crank or I call crinkle cut fries, because I like to be funny, do. Those are just some of the state entities that have been working a long, long time to not just undermine but replace democracy as the primary social, economic,
political, all of these things, right? Their vision of the world is a very different place than that of the United States, NATO nations, Five Eyes, et cetera. So that is a real concern for me and I think also kind of covers the China, Ukraine, Russia thing. And then coming out of that as a result of that,
those behaviors, that collaboration and the collective inability to respond, defend and perhaps from my perspective, ⁓ inability to play offense there is not just disengagement, but ⁓ sheer level of confusion among citizens and democracies that has unraveled into obsession with conspiracy theories. That again, not impossible to pull people back from.
but I'm feeling a little bit too much like I'm living in Philip Roth's The Plot Against America, like more than I want to be, ⁓ more than I would ever want to be, but especially right now. ⁓ And as someone who is from New Jersey, like all of those points about where Jews live and don't live in New Jersey, still true. So that's not great either.
Amitai Fraiman (18:48)
So if I'm hearing correctly, you're both listing a threat on, we'll call it internal cohesion and democratic norms. Maggie, your last point was about, if I'm trying to map it onto Chuck's, it the threat on truth and our perception of truth and ability to act accordingly because there's too much. And that's really, in my experience, a result of the effective attacks that we're all undergoing daily online by those...
countries, that's maybe the tactic. ⁓ And ⁓ Chuck, you're also listing those for Israel, in particular, several like real, what might be perceived as like the classic security considerations, right? Of like actual kinetic ⁓ warfare. Yeah, like a physical kind of, ⁓ which was going on. just a small follow up on that is,
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (19:38)
Very physical.
Amitai Fraiman (19:47)
Has any of this changed for you? know, a lot of us use October 7th as like a watershed moment. Has any of this changed for you, you know, from before or after in any way?
Chuck Freilich (19:58)
Well, here I would differentiate between the national security strategy, the fundamental strategy and national security policy. I think what failed on October 7th was the national security policies pursued by this government and its predecessors. And there was mixed in with an incredible and almost inexplicable ⁓ intelligence and operational failure.
Amitai Fraiman (20:08)
Mm.
Chuck Freilich (20:27)
because October 7th should not have happened. As a former IDF officer and government official, I'm mortified to think that this could have happened to us. ⁓ But okay, not the first time in Israeli or any other history. What was behind this on the strategic level was thinking that
We could divide the West Bank and Gaza in perpetuity, that we could ignore the Palestinian issue in perpetuity, ⁓ that we were so strong that we could just sit back and not worry that much anymore. There are all sorts of changes that will have to be made in how we address issues. And I hope we will go back to the kind of one can disagree with it, but the kind of serious.
national security thinking that Israel was always known for and which disappeared in the last decade or so. In terms of fundamental strategy, I think it's quite remarkable that the strategic ⁓ construct that Ben-Gurion developed and formulated in the 1950s, for the most part, not all of it, but most of it is still true. There are a couple of areas that will have to be looked at again. And one I think I will just emphasize this one because it's...
⁓ pertinent to the rest of our conversation ⁓ today is one of the elements was, well, it actually two that went together, was ⁓ having a very strong relationship with at least one global power in the early decades of his France and since the late sixties, it's been the US. And at the same time, maintaining ⁓ strategic autonomy, freedom of ⁓ movement, of operation, a little bit.
⁓ conflictual. What we found in this war fighting should have been a far-kakhter, unimpressive enemy, Hamas, first of all turned out to be a much more serious enemy than we knew, and Hamas and its allies, the Iranians, ⁓ Hezbollah, ⁓
the Houthis, they had come to the conclusion that the way that they can really hit Israel is through a multi-front war, because if it's a single front war, we're in pretty good shape. And in a multi-front war, which threatened to really spiral out of control, ⁓ go beyond Hamas and a limited conflict with Hezbollah to a major one with them and a major conflict with Iran, we ended up needing direct American involvement.
not in the fighting itself, not offensively, but defensively. And President Biden on three or maybe even four occasions deployed two aircraft carriers and lots of other military assets to the region to try and deter the axis of resistance as it's called. We never thought that we would need that kind of help. We thought that these were threats that we could handle entirely on our own. And that's going to require some serious rethinking in the future.
Amitai Fraiman (23:50)
Thank you. Maggie, for you.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (23:51)
Yeah, get it.
I mean, quite a bit has changed. One thing I will say is, check, like I could not have imagined in my lifetime that ⁓ multiple, you know, deployments of FAD missile defense systems would be required from the United States to Israel. And the amount of time that I've spent over the last year or so explaining what a FAD missile defense system is.
Chuck Freilich (24:03)
you
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (24:18)
and really digging in on what is the difference between defensive and offensive capabilities ⁓ in the context of not generally what does the US supply or make available to its allies, but specifically the US Israel relationship ⁓ is incredibly uncomfortable for me because I am not an Israel expert. I have many, many friends who are. ⁓
Chuck Freilich (24:19)
Thanks
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (24:47)
have deep expertise on US Middle East relationships, US Israel relationships, particularly when it comes to defense, intelligence, military, foreign policy, which I am listing separately because they are in fact separate things. I am not that person. I am the person that helps a lot of this stuff make sense to quote the average human being. so Amitai that one of the things that has
been the biggest change for me, that the amount of time I am spending as a non-Israel expert, but as a fairly visible, fairly known to be observant American Jew, who is a national security expert, talking about Israel, answering questions about Israel, ⁓ which is incredibly uncomfortable for me because, again, in the US, we have this ⁓ historic
tradition, I say historic because things are all messy right now, about kind of staying in your lane. Right? This is when now former President Biden was then Vice President Biden, this was something he was infamous for reiterating alongside people like former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and others at important meetings, know, stay in your lane. And it wasn't meant in a derogatory way. It was just like there were a lot of experts in the room and know where yours begins and ends. ⁓
So that has been a real challenge for me and has sort of pushed me into some uncomfortable places in my professional life. ⁓ And I was in a conversation at the end of last week ⁓ where somebody made a comment to me ⁓ that the elected leadership of Israel was making it hard to be a Jew right now. This person is not Jewish. ⁓
And I think they specifically said the hardest it's ever been to be a Jew. And I was like, that is such an interesting thing to say to me because I am an American. ⁓ Also, I don't know what your view on history is, but like,
What did the structure of that sentence was really interesting. The point, the fact that someone would think up that sentence and then it would leave their mouth here in Washington, DC. It had nothing to do with what we were talking about. That has been a dramatic change for me over the last 20 months. And it's not pleasant.
Chuck Freilich (27:14)
Thank
Amitai Fraiman (27:26)
Yeah, I can only imagine. mean, I've seen some, even internally, some odd conversations about that kind of calculus or equation, but specifically from your perspective, I'd say maybe of like ranking or understanding the national security needs of America or the US, because I'm not going to ask you about Israel in this context. I'm listening, active listening, but has it changed for you because, and this will be the next questions, I guess, we've already folded the next questions because there is, you know, there is a
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (27:44)
Thank you.
Amitai Fraiman (27:55)
level of there is there seems to be
Chuck Freilich (27:57)
Thanks. ⁓
Amitai Fraiman (28:00)
real, at least there's, know, something's being talked about is ⁓ a heightened, not heightened, it's not the right word. There seems to be an elevated relationship between Israel and the US. when it comes to ⁓ kind of international, the international stage. And I'd say, thank goodness we have that. We saw that play out with Biden and the deployment of, ⁓ you know, several assets as Chuck listed them. But, you know, and because of that closeness, one could, you know, then the question brings up is something has changed.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (28:20)
Okay.
Amitai Fraiman (28:30)
Has something changed because of October 7th? Or what has maybe come to light about the nature of this relationship, the importance of it? Why is it so close? ⁓ There seems to be kind of ⁓ a fuzziness or a fog around, like what is the nature of this relationship? And we see a lot of, I'd say
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (28:49)
and the way that this, we're this in a way that's a way that's not not just a that's not just a way that's not that's
Amitai Fraiman (28:49)
on both ends of the spectrum, kind of this push to distance from Israel, either from like an isolationist or a neo-isolationist perspective.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (28:57)
not a a that's not just just that's just a way that's just a way that's just a that's not a that's not a not
Amitai Fraiman (28:57)
And more from a, you know, on the progressive side is kind of, know, Israel is the source of all evil. We can't be affiliated with that ⁓ country. So I guess, you know, just to narrow the question is like, what is the source of the relationship? Why is it so important? ⁓ And what has come to light because of October 7th?
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (29:18)
Yeah, so I would say like, you know, this heightened or particularly close relationship between the US and Israel, I would push back on that a little bit and say, ⁓ how are we measuring that? Right? Because how different is the relationship between US and Israel from a defense perspective as the relationship between US and Estonia, right, which is a frontline country in NATO, or the US and Ukraine, ⁓ or the US and Canada?
Chuck Freilich (29:18)
Thank
So thank you.
Thank
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (29:46)
where we, another NATO ally, directly to our north, ⁓ whose airspace we use for a lot of practice and other things, and an Arctic nation. I think the reason I mention this is because what we're really talking about is a strategic question and not a quantitative one, by which I mean this isn't about how many FAD missile defense systems we are sending to a place or how many aircraft carriers.
Chuck Freilich (30:00)
Thank you.
Thank
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (30:16)
it is what do those
Chuck Freilich (30:16)
you.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (30:17)
things represent and why are we doing it? Right? Which is, course, what you are asking. But I think that the kind of everyday version of this question is like, well, in order to treat everybody equally, we must treat them the same when that's not actually true. Geography matters. Strategy matters. All of these things. Right? So the US
Chuck Freilich (30:22)
you. ⁓
Thank
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (30:46)
should be providing different resources to Ukraine than perhaps Italy, right? So I think that's a really important base concept to understand before we start talking about what is the nature of the relationship between the US and Israel. Because I would say the relationship between the US and Ukraine is very similar to that of the US and Israel when you think about geography, right?
Amitai Fraiman (30:49)
Yeah. Right.
So.
Chuck Freilich (31:05)
Good.
Amitai Fraiman (31:09)
Okay,
so great. then, so as we say in the Talmudic discourse, I'm the rabbi in the room, so I'm say it, inachinami, then all the more so, right? If that is, then why is Israel, right? If it was a different country, different name, fine. That region, so critical for the US. to be invested in.
Chuck Freilich (31:16)
Thank you.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (31:29)
which I just want to point out is an important differentiation between what is the relationship. It's not about it being Israel necessarily, right? It could be called something else. I feel like, right? And I just, and I think that that's really important for us to acknowledge that yes, it's about it being Israel, but it's also about it being ⁓ the only democratic nation in that physical space. It's about the US.' strategic national security interests and relationship with Iran.
Amitai Fraiman (31:36)
Yeah, fine, great.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (31:59)
and with Lebanon. And yes, the US has a state partnership for peace, is how the US military helps train foreign militaries program with Lebanon's army, but like, how great is that going? So that's what we're talking about, right? We're not talking about the US and Israel.
Chuck Freilich (32:16)
Thank
Amitai Fraiman (32:20)
Great. I
yeah, I don't think that's from my perspective. think the conversation that we see and this is probably intentionally by those from whatever perspective we're coming in to make it a special relationship one way or the other. But I think it's actually very helpful and very important to be focused on from a national security perspective. I was always taken aback by this kind of ⁓ the language used to describe the relationship when it's really, you know, driven by ⁓ national security, realm of politics and other things. Chuck, what do you think about this whole?
Chuck Freilich (32:35)
this thing.
Amitai Fraiman (32:49)
kind of the question about the nature of relationship and.
Chuck Freilich (32:54)
So I think actually it is all about Israel. And part of what makes Israel Israel is the fact that says Maggie was saying it's the only democracy in the region and it's the only country in the region that ⁓
fought for its independence, I mean, against all odds, people who had fled religious persecution ⁓ to come and settle a largely, not completely, but a largely unsettled ⁓ area. The analogies to the American experience ⁓ are very great. And you have ⁓ the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition.
which is a lovely American term, which I cringe every time I hear it because for me, the tradition is to cross out scaling Jews, but okay. And not just the Cossacks.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (33:43)
Okay.
Amitai Fraiman (33:46)
Yeah.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (33:49)
Okay.
Amitai Fraiman (33:49)
It's a toxic hyphenation, that Judeo-Christian thing, right? It's like, yeah, sure. Wonderful relationship.
Chuck Freilich (33:53)
Thank you.
⁓ But I mean, is more seriously, there is the Judeo-Christian heritage. ⁓ Many Americans, a fewer today, but many Americans go to church every Sunday and they read about the Israelites and the Israelites were doing things in Beersheba and Hebron and various other places that
they're doing to this day. And Israel in many ways looks like a very mini America.
And many Americans, when they come to Israel, feel that they're almost at home. So I think the so-called normative source of the relationship is the most important part of it. What's also happened in the last, it's 40 years, but I'd say it's mostly from the mid-90s, is the development of a strong strategic relationship.
where Israel actually be in the early decades, the Pentagon didn't really want to know about Israel because Israel was thought, especially to the Six Day War, but even afterwards, Israel was going to be a weak, ⁓ isolated country. It might face destruction and the US would be called upon to intervene to save it when American interests in the Middle East really lie with the Arabs. There are more Arabs. They have more votes in the UN. They've got the oil, etc.
⁓ Well, starting with the Six Day War, but it took another 15 years for this to gel and then another decade to really turn into policy. The US started realizing that Israel has an important strategic role regionally, not globally.
Now, our conversation is sort of we're talking about Israel versus other American allies. Well, I don't think that we can compare Israel and Estonia as allies. There's no comparison. As a matter of fact, there's even no comparison between Israel and Ukraine because Ukraine doesn't have the normative dimension that Israel does. But the fact that Maggie could correctly say, what's in the relationship with Canada that we don't have with Israel? And I can tell you when I was in the National
Security Council in Israel in the early 2000s and I led the interagency meetings about the US-Israel relationship. And one of the issues that we address, I'm going back 20 years ago, was what do the UK and Canada have that we don't? And when that's your question, you're starting from a pretty good starting point. As a matter of fact, an extraordinarily good one.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (36:31)
Mm-hmm.
Chuck Freilich (36:38)
So we are not one of the five eyes. doubt that the five English speaking countries, ⁓ Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and on the US is number five. ⁓ The United States, four other primary allies in the world were not there. And there's no defense treaty as it was with Japan or South Korea. But informally,
The relationship is probably as strong as it is with them and formally maybe we're still a ⁓ step or two below that. to my way of thinking, there's no doubt that it is a very, very special relationship.
Amitai Fraiman (37:17)
So I want to I just want to do a callback something said earlier both of you said which I think is important from this normative perspective then the necessity to keep Israel I mean us also obviously but Israel a Democratic Western facing country is crucial for its for national security perspective a cuz that's a country want to live in but more like maybe not or as importantly or
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (37:39)
.
Amitai Fraiman (37:40)
part of that calculus is We want to be in the group of countries that share those normative values
so that when God forbid push comes to shove, we are in that camp. If we find ourselves ice, you know, creeping towards other kind of, or galloping or sprinting, wherever you ask, towards other structures, that might, we might find ourselves outside of that ⁓ block. Now, so Chuck, if I can just follow up to what you're saying is, maybe this might be trivial or obvious.
to the both of you, but I think it's important to spell out, ⁓ not what are the, like why, say this differently, I think for the majority of people, they don't live in the universe of national security, obviously. They don't see this West versus the rest kind of ⁓ equation that's been persistent for a very long time. They see the world differently. Maybe it's because of their expanded understanding of what national security means, including other areas which aren't, you directly.
countries versus countries in the way that it was in earlier part of ⁓ the 20th century. I mean, think it's worthwhile expressing those strategic, the strategic importance of the five I's. This is things that I think are lost for most people. don't even begin, that's okay, because it doesn't, it won't govern their day to day ⁓ as much maybe as it was when the whole nation was at war. But I think it's important to state these things because I think...
It's easy otherwise to dismiss the relationship, right? it's it's a big strategic importance of relationship. Well, what is it? You know, why is this so critical?
Chuck Freilich (39:22)
Why is it critical for the United States?
Amitai Fraiman (39:24)
Yeah, and I know this might be trivial, like a lot of people are
like, okay, veh, right? And so America is like, you what is at stake? What is at stake of these statements?
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (39:30)
Thanks
Chuck Freilich (39:37)
All right, so I think ⁓ why the relationship is critical for Israel is more self-evident. ⁓ As a matter of fact, ⁓ I posed a question in my last book, and then I posed it in various forums in Israel and the National Security Council, a couple of IDF forums, the Ministry of Defense, and expected everybody to fall out of their seats when I asked the question, and all I got was a yawn.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (39:39)
Okay.
Chuck Freilich (40:04)
And my question was, can Israel even survive today
without the United States? Go on, next question. Now, to tell you the truth, I don't really know. There's no clear answer. Maybe we could. But it is clearly a much weaker, less secure and a much poorer existence than we've become used to in recent decades.
even including October 7th.
everything in Israel is about the US. Again, if I'll tell my own war story, so to speak, in the National Security Council meetings, and I would ask people, right, so now we've discussed the issue, what should Israel's policy be? And basically the answer was always, well, let's see what the US wants. And I would say, okay, nobody has to be, no one's more minded to American policy than I am. My accent gives me away, but where I was born, but.
How about first of all, we define what Israel's strategic interests are, then we'll think of what the American interests are and we'll see how we can make the match to the extent possible.
Amitai Fraiman (41:14)
But Israelis
were reactionary. Israelis were reactionary.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (41:15)
Thank you.
Chuck Freilich (41:18)
No, but I just, everything is the US. The case that's harder to
make is what is American strategic interests in Israel. And for decades, as I was saying before, the Pentagon and most of the state for sure didn't want, didn't really want much of a relationship with Israel at all. It then turned out that Israel is actually a very strong actor, arguably or maybe not arguably the strongest actor in the region.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (41:24)
Thank
you.
Chuck Freilich (41:47)
And ⁓ it is a very close American ally, putting aside all the differences in the final analysis.
Israel usually on most issues is close to American policy. ⁓ Israel has great capabilities. Israel is, so to speak, a land-based aircraft carrier for the United States. It's the one place in the entire Middle East that the US knows that it can always land in in a time of need.
And it also turns out that this little little picture of a country, okay, where 10 million people that have the population of New York City or not to denigrate Maggie's home state, the population and the geographic size of New Jersey, that's it. That's the state of Israel.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (42:29)
Yes.
That's the whole thing.
Chuck Freilich (42:33)
That's the whole thing. It's New York City. ⁓ It turns out that this Pisscher has global capabilities in certain areas. Cyber, for example, ⁓ counter-terrorism, unfortunately. were the, Israel was the first country to develop the use of drones for military purposes. The US. learned from the American experience and then took it way beyond.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (42:44)
Okay.
Chuck Freilich (43:00)
The US actually benefits, it learns from Israeli experience. is one of its primary intelligence partners, by the way, even more than most of the Five Eyes. And ⁓ there is extensive
cooperation. And it turns out that Israel actually has considerable strategic importance for the US. And one last sentence.
I was stunned a couple of years ago when I took a look at the statistics and it turns out that Israel is, I remember correctly, and if not, I'm off by one or two, it doesn't matter, the 24th largest American trading partner. Okay, which I mean, you've both heard of China and India and Britain and France and Italy, et cetera, South Korea, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And we're number 24.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (43:37)
right.
.
Chuck Freilich (43:50)
Not everything we're doing is so bad.
Amitai Fraiman (43:53)
So I'm going to put a finer pointer because that was very helpful for me. When you say an important strategic partner, I'm going to paraphrase, you mean that to the extent that the US understands its role in the global scene and kind of curtailing rise of bad actors, Israel, both geographically and from a capability perspective, is an important piece of that puzzle.
Chuck Freilich (44:23)
Yes.
Amitai Fraiman (44:27)
Maggie, would you?
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (44:29)
Yeah, so, you know, I would agree that like, it's a wild oversimplification to say that Israel and Estonia's relationships with the US are exactly the same. But part of the reason I make that point is because I think there are a lot of Americans in particular who
are listening to this and maybe not for themselves, but when they go to talk to other people who are part of different communities and are coming at this, are also not national security people, are not, you know, usual listeners of the Z3 stuff, that is a really helpful starting point is to kind of zoom out before you zoom in, right? Like much like we need to define what is national security. Let's talk about what
bilateral and multilateral relationships are. What do they look like in other places between the US and other countries? And what are the driving factors of those? So what does it mean to have a strategic relationship? What are the factors that go into that? And what does it look like in different places of the world? ⁓ I would agree with the vast majority of what ⁓ Chuck says. I would also add in that something Israel does much better than the US. ⁓
on the operational side is, what's the polite way of putting this? ⁓ Perp... response using international supply chains. ⁓ This is... ⁓ Not so long ago, there were some ⁓ beepers that went boom. Yeah, I remember those. ⁓
Amitai Fraiman (45:52)
polite.
You gotta simplify that. You gotta simplify that for me.
Yeah. I remember those.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (46:15)
The logistics steps there, the ⁓ really narrow definition of proportionality, which here in the US, ⁓ not to say that this is not the case in Israel, but just because this is the framework I'm most familiar with. ⁓ We have ⁓ just war theory, another one of these Judeo-Christian things where you're like, you're trying to convert me all the time, but this is the word we use. Just war theory, what is right, what is wrong, what is acceptable. ⁓
Chuck Freilich (46:44)
the
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (46:45)
in times of conflict, in times of war. And the concept proportionality is basically,
Chuck Freilich (46:45)
different types of conflict in terms of our mutual concepts of mutual understanding and our differences.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (46:51)
you responding at the level to which the thing you were responding to was, right? A proportional response. Are you doing ⁓ what you can and should to mitigate civilian harm? Are you being as targeted as you can and should be? Talk about playing long ball.
Right? You look at the execution of ⁓ the explosion of these electronic devices, mostly pagers, beepers, if you're a mid-millennial like me. That's years of work, right? That is an enormous amount of research. That is incredibly careful planning. This is not something that the US is incapable of. It is something that our institutions
Chuck Freilich (47:27)
Thank
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (47:44)
have lost and are unfortunately, particularly right now, rapidly losing the ability to do because we're losing a lot of institutional knowledge and relational knowledge. And Israel plays long ball from an operational perspective in a very different way than the US does. And I think from my perspective, I would posit and Chuck, please let me know if you disagree that Israel does a really
Chuck Freilich (47:46)
Thank you
And I think that's something I'm very happy to have. So I that's something I'm I think it's a great thing. It's really a great thing.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (48:14)
solid job of because or as a result of or whatever, this long ball perspective on the operational front, ⁓
Chuck Freilich (48:14)
It's a great job. But it's not easy. It's a job. It's It's a great experience. It's a job.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (48:25)
there is a, the wall between the political, particularly the domestic political and the operational national security when it comes to the intelligence side is really quite thick.
Chuck Freilich (48:28)
Thank you.
Thank
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (48:43)
between Israel and in Israel. That's important to me to articulate because I feel like that's something that we're losing a little bit here in the US. We're spending a lot of time screaming at people who work at the FBI because we don't understand what the FBI does. And that's the thing that's causing me a lot of stress. So I would say that. And then I'm gonna try something else you mentioned, is sort of this
Chuck Freilich (48:48)
I mean, it's a bit kind thing. It's like a good, beautiful place for to be able to do whatever to do. It's not a bad place. It's good place to be able be able do whatever because you don't have to certain things every other time. That's a different kind of process. You can do certain things, but don't have do certain other time because you don't have things time. You don't have do certain
things every other time because you do certain things time.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (49:12)
People don't understand what the West versus the rest thing
is because we're not at war. I would argue with the fact that we are not at war, we are at war. If you want me to come back and tell the story about the for sale of Grindr as opposed to the attempted for sale of TikTok and why one worked and one didn't and all that algorithmic warfare, we can do that on another day. We are absolutely at war. We're just at war in a different way than we thought we would be.
we think we see around us, right? This is an ideological war. It is not kinetic in the way that we are used to seeing here in the US. So I think that's really important. ⁓ And I think to put a really fine point on this idea of what is a strategic relationship, what are the other side of that is what are the alternatives? ⁓ And one of the frequent questions I get about, well, what's so bad about China, right? As an example is,
Chuck Freilich (49:44)
Thanks.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (50:12)
I spend a minute talking about how North Korea is run, specifically the states sanctioned and run ⁓ sex trafficking between North Korea and China. And I say to people, those are two governments who know exactly what they're doing and they're running that. How do you feel about it? Because I know how I feel about it. And I think that's a pretty clear divide, which side do you want to be on? So I think examples like that are actually really helpful.
Chuck Freilich (50:25)
Thanks.
Amitai Fraiman (50:40)
So basically, so the war, and that's actually a great tee up for the next kind of set of questions, is maybe the location of the war has shifted, and it's important to shine a light on that. And either way, in both spaces, Israel is an important piece of that puzzle from the US perspective. That's a statement we can get behind.
Yeah. Okay. No, we're not.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (51:06)
Yeah.
Chuck Freilich (51:07)
Yes, there's a war
between the democratic world and the non-democratic world led by China and Russia. China and Russia are the primary supporters of Iran and North Korea and all sorts of other wonderful places. And yes, Israel is a part of the struggle against them normatively and strategically.
Amitai Fraiman (51:20)
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah. So yeah, I think unfortunately that part that hope that whole part that we just kind of, you we not uncovered, we reached in this conversation of kind of the West against the rest and the kind of how we're in our mind that happens. I think we're so much in it for most people on social media and all the influence warfare and the algorithmic warfare and all that side of it ⁓ is is,
Chuck Freilich (51:35)
Thanks.
Thank
Amitai Fraiman (51:50)
But basically, I think the point I was making that I think that the battlefield that we're in is in our phones and our pockets. It's everywhere and people are forgetting and they're so immersed in it that they're not noticing anymore that it's actually going on in a way, right? That, know, the algorithm warfare, you know, some people are aware of it, of course, but it's I'd say that everyday user is not even cognizant. you know, unfortunately, we have to talk about it, but I'm glad that we were able to kind of uncover that piece of it, that layer.
of where it is. So that kind of brings you to the next set of questions, I guess, in our conversation. think, I mean, before we get to the electronic or the algorithm warfare or cyber and that layer of stuff, which I am very curious to hear your thoughts about, just a quick like temp check of how do you think the nature, know, where the relationship is at this moment, up and down, you know, Biden and Trump and Bibi and this and that, and, know, there's what's being.
Chuck Freilich (52:16)
So you can make the next three items up. So you make next three up. So can make make the So you can make up. So you can items So you can So you next So can make the next So you can make the next So three items So can make the items next three up.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (52:20)
you
Chuck Freilich (52:43)
up.
Amitai Fraiman (52:44)
told
to the world and the media for all kinds of reasons. And then there's what's really going on. So from your perspective, Chuck and Maggie, how do you rate the relationship in this moment?
Chuck Freilich (52:44)
So
that you see.
I think if, I mean, if you're using your thermometer every day, then the last few weeks, the temperature is down. And there are clearly differences between the Trump administration and Israel over the Gaza issue, over Iran. ⁓ Trump went ahead and made some major decisions such as a unilateral end to the war in ⁓
again, or the aerial campaign against the Houthis in Yemen without even informing Israel. And he told Bibi about the beginning of the nuclear talks with Iran about two hours before they then held a joint press conference about it. So, okay, so the last few weeks, the temperature is down. ⁓ President Trump is...
strongly pro-Israel president and in the first administration he did some very, very good things and important things for Israel, whether it was recognizing the Golan Heights as part of Israel, ⁓ recognizing Jerusalem as the capital, the Abraham Accords. He also did, as far as I'm concerned, he made a historic error by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, but there was no doubt that he was a very pro-Israel president.
He's coming on the heels of, to my mind, the most pro-Israel president ever. I think Biden proved himself to be beyond the best friend we could have wished for in this war. And I say that despite the fact that in recent, in the last few months of the administration, there was a fair amount of criticism. And I think the administration made a number of egregious errors.
But still, his overall friendship, the strategic backing that he provided for Israel was ⁓ extraordinary. And I think if you look at the trajectory of US-Israel relations from 1948 to where we are today, what you see basically is one almost unwavering straight line of a growing relationship. So if in the first 20 years, it was pretty cool,
Then Kennedy begins it, but it's basically Johnson who starts the military relationship and Nixon ups it and Reagan takes it to a new level. ⁓ the same for ⁓ Clinton who brings it to the overall closeness of the relationship with Clinton was extraordinary. And Bush was a great friend. And I believe that Obama was a good friend as well. And I already mentioned. ⁓
Biden and Trump. So I think that the trajectory has been very, very, very positive. I'm afraid, concerned about the future trends because at least in part of the American public, mostly the Democratic, the progressive left,
I think as you were saying before, Amitai, the attitude towards Israel is that it can't say anything or do anything which could be construed as being in any way positive. Israel is the source of all evil.
That approach is expanding within democratic ranks generally. It's not the majority democratic view. But actually, well, let me qualify that because in the last year, in the last two years, we've had at least two polls that I've seen by major organizations, whether it Pew or Harris, don't remember at the moment, that more Democrats now support the Palestinians and support Israel.
Now on the Republican side, the overall picture is still very good, very strong, but there's the new isolationists, as you were mentioning before. And the Republicans also were affected by the kinds of normative issues that have impaired the relationship on the Democratic side. And then there are demographic issues in the US., whether it's the rise of population groups that...
I mean, the religiously unaffiliated is a very large group. we know that actually religious affiliation, there's a strong correlation between religious affiliation and support for Israel. The Latino community, not anti-Israel by any means, but they also don't have any particular sense of warmth towards Israel. And the Jewish community, which, and I'll say something that some of our reviewers may not like hearing, but.
If you value the idea of Jewish existence, the Jewish community is intermarrying and assimilating itself out of existence, at least a non ultra orthodox part of the population. And I don't think there are going to be very many ⁓ non.
Orthodox Jews in the United States in not too many years to come. And that worries me very, very deeply. And one last point is what also worries me very deeply is that I do think that Israel's governments in the last 20 years, give or take, have done just about everything they can ⁓ to harm the relationship rather than doing what their predecessors did, which is to try and carefully nurture it.
Amitai Fraiman (58:10)
Anything to add?
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (58:11)
Yeah,
you know, I very much agree, check with that last point, right, is that over the last 20 years, particularly over the last 10 years, the Israeli government has consistently made choices that have made it very difficult, you know, in the US-Israel relationship. And I also think it is increasingly important, you know, we saw this before, we saw this always and certainly
We've seen this always. And in the judiciary crisis before October 7th, it was increasingly clear to Americans. ⁓ Some of this has faded since, which is very hard to see as an American Jew. ⁓ But there is not infrequently, much like here in the US, and God willing that continues, a gap between the government of a country and the people of a country. They are not always
in agreement with one another. one, would think that I know that many Americans are unfamiliar with the structure of the Israeli government, right? They're not familiar with the parliamentary system or what is essentially a parliamentary system. Like we just, don't have that. So they don't understand how elections, coalitions really work in that way. ⁓ And in the last decade, especially over the last three years, the space
the understanding of the space between ⁓ the Israeli government and the people of Israel has become so narrow in most Americans' minds that it almost doesn't exist anymore. And that is a problem. It's a problem regardless of what is going on in Israel, mostly because, much like the economy, a government is not a person, right? The people of a nation collectively together make a country.
Chuck Freilich (59:46)
Thanks.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (1:00:08)
And what I'm saying is that there is a decreasing level of personal connection to Israel by many Americans, very similar to the decreasing connection that many Americans have to the US military, right? Fewer and fewer Americans are serving in the military. That means less Americans know someone who serves in the military. We're at a point in the American.
Chuck Freilich (1:00:24)
So, I'm to do this little secret.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (1:00:32)
cultural history where fewer and fewer people actually know anyone who've been to Israel, live in Israel, know anything about Israel besides Bibi. That's a problem, right? Because if all you know about the US is Donald Trump, that's also a problem because we are more than one person. ⁓ So I think that is incredibly important and is something we need to get a handle on while we are also dealing with very real democratic.
Chuck Freilich (1:00:42)
is ⁓
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (1:01:00)
and increasingly likely a constitutional crisis in both places.
Chuck Freilich (1:01:01)
Can I
Amitai Fraiman (1:01:03)
So I, you
Chuck Freilich (1:01:05)
add one thing here?
Amitai Fraiman (1:01:07)
Yeah, of course.
Chuck Freilich (1:01:11)
Look. ⁓
Israel never promised world jewelry, a rose garden. It just so happens God was not good to us and decided that the land of Israel would be in a particularly difficult part of the world. And we have been taken over for the last couple of decades by a kind of politics which I believe is taking or has taken hold in the US as well, but considerably later.
And the question is whether we really are one people, separated maybe by nationality, but one people or not. Now, ⁓ fair weather friends don't need them that much.
Before the Six Day War, the American Jewish community didn't have a great deal to do with Israel. Then there was the great victory and everybody was proud to be Jewish in the US and Israel became the darling and could do nothing wrong. it was in the way that I believe the criticism today is greatly overstated. The praise at the time was greatly overstated. ⁓
No one has, well, I don't know no one, but very few people have been more critical of Israel's policies in recent decades than myself. And because I'm an opinionated SOB, I've written about 250 op-eds stating those positions. But at the same time, when I hear American Jews saying, well, this isn't the Israel that we signed up for. We don't like this Israel. We're disaffected. We're alienated. We're turned off.
I have an impolite suggestion for what they might consider doing to themselves.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (1:03:01)
Does it involve something in the middle of the ocean or is it a shorter word?
Chuck Freilich (1:03:05)
No, it's not in the middle of the ocean.
Look, it took us 2000 years to restore our national sovereignty. When after 76 years, now 77, people are giving up or disaffected. mean, really, guys, imagine where we are today with all of the problems, with all of Israel's mistakes and misdeeds and whatever. Where we are in Jewish history compared to where we were a few decades ago.
in 1945 or 1939 to 1945 and a little bit of humility and perspective is called for by people here. So you want to criticize, you want to disagree with policies, hey, I'll agree completely with that. But you want to express disaffection from Israel? Get real.
Amitai Fraiman (1:04:03)
So I, ⁓ yeah.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (1:04:04)
I completely, hold on, I just want to say something.
I completely agree with you. And one of the things that I am most frustrated by here in the US is that I often feel like we can't deal with any challenge, but especially one like this, Unless we look at what it really is, right? Cause I agree with what you're saying, right? We don't need fair weather friends.
everything you've said. And for me personally, I don't know what to do about it unless I try to understand where people who I fundamentally disagree with on certain things. Like I try to get inside their head because then I can work backwards, right? And for me, I try to be honest about what I think.
is happening in their heads and the hope that somebody smarter than me can get there faster than I can, because I agree with you, like this is not sustainable. And if we're really in trouble in a lot of ways, if we can't not just rebuild this relationship to really truly be one people, but to allow that to evolve and continue to grow into the future, right? And I don't know how to do, like what my brain thinks
the answer is there is inherently not the answer because that's because I disagree with the people who think that. Do know what I mean? I sound like I'm talking inside of a spiral of myself, ⁓ you have for me, at least I feel like I have to get inside the mind of the people who irritate the bejesus out of me ⁓ to try and undo what's been done to them or what they've done to themselves. ⁓ And yeah.
Chuck Freilich (1:05:40)
sorry.
Amitai Fraiman (1:06:00)
So I
mean, that makes sense from your perspective of trying to build bridges. do want to ask a question because I think I understand. I I understand what you're saying, but right up to the point where Chuck made a very clear stance about the fair weather friends, both of you made statements to the effect of Israel has made decisions that have made their relationship difficult. Implicit in that means that the
I'm simplifying, but there were two options, an option that was good for Israel and an option that would make the and then would make the relationship difficult or an option that would keep the relationship good but may not have been good for Israel. Now that's an oversimplification, obviously. But if we can just for a second, because we are coming up in time and there's a whole lot of questions to reach, I do want to focus on this for a moment. Maybe you can clarify. And it could be just a simple untangling of saying, no, there was a anyway, I'll let you put words in your mouth. But that's kind of where I'm saying because there was there's a little bit of a
potentially misunderstand that can happen. There are self contradictory ⁓ way to interpret what you said.
Chuck Freilich (1:07:08)
I mean, there is never going to be a complete convergence of interests between a global colossus and a tiny regional player. And in some cases, there will even be significant differences. The question is how we manage those differences and how we ⁓ maintain the unity despite that, the fact that that's going to be the case. And we don't like what's happening in Israeli politics, but
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (1:07:15)
.
Chuck Freilich (1:07:34)
We don't particularly like what's happening in American politics. And there aren't
that many, there are some, there aren't that many Americans saying, well, I'm disaffected with the United States now and I'm leaving the US. By the way, there are some who are doing so. But ⁓ I find that morally repugnant. I would not leave the US because of what's happening. I love the United States and we'll go down with the ship in the same way that I'll go down with the ship with the state of Israel.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (1:08:01)
Amen.
Chuck Freilich (1:08:04)
We have to manage the differences. And by the way, ⁓ just by the law of nature, Mr. Netanyahu will not be the prime minister forever. And as a matter of fact, there's a good chance that the next elections have to be held by law no later than November 26th, but there's a good chance that they'll be pushed up even before then. And there's a very good chance that in the next elections, he will no longer be the prime minister. Will that eliminate all the disagreements? No.
Amitai Fraiman (1:08:35)
So I know we talked about electronic warfare, but we are coming up on time. I want to just reflect something back that Chuck said earlier that I can't get out of my head. When he talked about the national security approach that Ben-Gurion set in place in the early days, this is an unbased and uneducated guess. But I would assume that in part came from the fact that he was such a astute student of the Bible.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (1:08:36)
Okay.
Amitai Fraiman (1:09:04)
and of history, knowing that Israel has always or perpetually been on that kind of geographic where it is a client state of sorts with varying degrees of freedom. And Ben-Gurion understood that this isn't likely to change, maybe. And therefore we have to maybe figure out how we ⁓ in this unfolding reality, once again, lean into that dynamic of there's going to be a superpower we have to be close to.
and also maintain a sense of autonomy. And one can't get away from the fact that there are growing voices of those saying, we don't need superpower, we don't need America, we don't need, I think those voices have been quieted down since October 7th, but certainly up to October 7th, it was very much kind of on a rise. ⁓ But all that's to say that I think, and this really ties into kind of this part of what's the Z3 approach of this is a unique moment in Jewish history.
And we've never had a sovereign state at this level and also with all its issues, a thriving diaspora and all the issues in Israel, but we've never had both at this level, also from a perspective of human ⁓ development. And that begs questions about who we are, who we ought to be, who we want to be, and how do we manage these relationships in the unfolding world. with that, I'm going to thank you both very, much for your time. This was ⁓ very illuminating.
and interesting to me. I'm sorry we couldn't get to all the questions I had about electronic warfare and cyber warfare and the next battlefield, but we covered a lot of ground in this conversation. So thank you both so, much for joining us today for this episode.
Chuck Freilich (1:10:46)
Thanks for having us.
Maggie Feldman-Piltch (1:10:48)
Thank you.
