November 21, 2024 • 32 mins
Natan Sharansky is a renowned human rights activist, former Soviet dissident, Israeli politician, and author. In 1977, Sharansky was sentenced to 13 years of hard labor in a Soviet prison for the crime of advocating for human rights and the right for Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel. After nine years of imprisonment, under harsh conditions and including long periods of solitary confinement, Sharankly was released in 1986 as part of a political prisoner exchange between the Soviet Union and western nations. Upon his release, he emigrated to Israel, where he became a prominent figure in Israeli politics and global Jewish advocacy.
In this wide-ranging interview, Sharansky discusses pressing geopolitical issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the nature of anti-Semitism on university campuses, and the role of the United States in supporting Israel and the broader free world. He also reflects on the 1977 Oslo Accords, the resilience of Israeli society amid ongoing threats, and the enduring significance of freedom and identity in Sharansky’s life and worldview. Sharansky also examines America’s responsibility as a leader in the free world, the challenges posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the deeper cultural and spiritual threads that unite the Jewish people.
Recorded on November 18, 2024.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
>> Peter Robinson (00:00):
Wisdom, moral authority, a life of genuine sacrifice,
Natan Sharansky Uncommon Knowledge, now.
[MUSIC]
Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge, I'm Peter Robinson.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1948,Anatoly Sharansky earned a degree in
(00:24):
mathematics from the Moscow Instituteof Physics and Technology,
then began work in a state research lab.
In 1973, he applied foran exit visa to Israel,
was denied on security grounds,and then became a dissident.
Arrested in 1977,he spent nine years in Soviet prisons.
On his release in 1986, he emigrated toIsrael, where he took the name Natan.
(00:48):
Natan Sharansky served from1996 to 2005 as a minister in
four successive Israeli governments.
From 2009 to 2018 he served as chairmanof the Jewish Agency for Israel,
working with the Jewishdiaspora around the world.
Natan Sharansky has published a numberof books, including his 1988 memoir
Fear No Evil, his 2004 volume The Case forDemocracy, and his 2020 book Never Alone.
(01:14):
Mr. Sharansky andI are speaking in New York,
where last night he was honoredby Commentary Magazine.
Nathan Sharansky, welcome to New York.
>> Natan Sharansky (01:22):
Thank you very much.
>> Peter Robinson (01:24):
Questions about what we got wrong US National Security Advisor,
Jake Sullivan, on September 29 2023 quote,
the Middle East region is quietertoday than it has been in two decades.
Eight days later, the attack by Hamas,how could we have been so wrong?
>> Natan Sharansky (01:40):
Well, look, in this case, not only America was wrong,
Israeli military was wrong,
Israeli politicians were wrong,I think this mistake, well,
wrong concept started 30 yearsago from Oslo agreement.
When in principle there was madea decision that the best way to
(02:04):
guarantee peace is to haveagreements with the dictators,
to give to these dictators as much poweras possible and to make sure that they,
on one hand will be afraid of us, on theother hand, we will give them enough money
in order they will be in peace with us andthey will control their own people.
(02:24):
And that's what we did 30 yearsago with Oslo Agreement when we
brought Arafat to pass and said he willbe the leader of the Palestinian people.
Then we did it with Hamas whenHamas defeated Arafat, and
we decided that on one hand we'll bestriking Hamas, on the other hand,
(02:47):
we'll be giving them some money,at least they will be peacified.
And it was all done under the strongpressure of the freehold, and
first of all, under the strong pressureof America was saying the more materials,
the more money, the more conditionsyou'll give to the other side,
(03:10):
the more the chance that theywill be interested in peace.
And it was absolutely wrong conception, wehad to fight the terrorists and the same
time to respect the rights of the otherpeople by not supporting their dictators.
>> Peter Robinson (03:25):
Mm-hm, another question, what went wrong?
Protesters in this country responded toOctober 7th by demonstrating on college
campuses against Israel andin favor of the Palestinians.
One of the slogans,from the river to the sea, a call for
the destruction of Israel,at Columbia University here in New York,
students put up tens of tents,establishing a Gaza solidarity encampment.
(03:50):
From a Columbia University report onanti-Semitism on its own campus, quote,
one student placed a mezuzah onthe doorway of her dorm room,
as traditional Jews have done forcenturies.
People began banging on herdoor at all hours of the night,
demanding that she explainIsrael's actions, close quote.
Here in the United States,here in the city of New York,
(04:11):
home to a million Jews,anti-Semitism,what went wrong?
>> Natan Sharansky (04:15):
I would say the situation is much worse than you just
described, I was in Colombiatwice since the war started,
I was in many other universities.
For 20 years, we were warning,and I personally was warning,
that universities become the morethe hotbed of the anti-Semitism,
(04:37):
not only the anti-Semitism of this,understanding
that the liberal revolutionstarts from violence.
And we need liberal revolution in America,
that's why what was amazing onthe 7th of October was the most awful,
the most brutal pogromin the modern history,
(04:59):
where not only thousands were killed,raped, all types of tortures,
children are burnt alivein front of their parents,
some kind of sympathy, solidarity.
On the 8th of October, we havedemonstrations in the universities and
speeches of so called liberalprofessors who are saying that
(05:24):
is the beginning of liberal revolution.
And this hope could showvery clearly that so-called
progressive woke movement isnot part of liberal society,
it's the enemies of liberal society.
(05:44):
And here these anti-Semiteswho want to destroy us, and
terrorists from Hamas and Hezbollah ina unique way found common language with so
called progressive forces ofthe Universities of America.
And united,their desire to declare Israel as the last
colonial state in the world,as the one which is illegal, and
(06:08):
that's why oppressed Palestiniansare always right, and
oppressed andcolonialist Israel is always wrong.
And what to do when it begins?
Liberal progressive revolution, there isviolence, that's how it was accepted,
I think.
That was our opening formany liberal Jewish organizations who
(06:29):
wanted to believe that progressivemovement is their closest ally and
they found out that that is their enemy.
>> Peter Robinson (06:37):
I see, Natan, from your time in the Soviet Union, from your book,
Fear No Evil, you wrote a question,which remains a question for
anyone who reads the book.
Why is it so important forthe KGB to destroy each individual?
Why is it that even if he has spentyears in prison and is no danger to it,
(06:57):
the KGB will still want him to confess?.
>> Natan Sharansky (07:01):
Well, I know the nature of dictatorial regime, totalitarian
regime like Soviet, was that they haveto keep people under the control,
physical control, andtheir minds under control.
Because their power is all based on fear.
The moment people will stop being afraid,that is usually the end of dictorial rule.
(07:27):
But in order people should be afraid,
they should know that youcannot go against this regime.
That's why every dissident,every free thinker,
is a danger forthe stability of the regime.
Because the moment this virusof freedom will be released,
(07:51):
the moment, one after another, more and
more double thinkersare becoming dissidents.
It's out of control It's out of control,that's why it's very important for
them to show that nobodycan be out of our control,
that even if somebody will speakagainst and then he will retreat.
(08:11):
And that's why you see one freethinker in the country of 200
million people is a threat for KGB.
>> Peter Robinson (08:20):
[COUGH] I want to return to Israel in a moment.
But first is how it allended in the Soviet Union.
The question here is the roleof the United States.
When we spoke some years ago,you agreed that credit for
the fall of the Soviet Union belongsto the dissidents, to Reagan and
the Americans, and then to Gorbachev.
I think you put it thatway quite strictly.
>> Natan Sharansky (08:39):
Yeah, Gorbachev was a little bit as unsalted butter.
So, [LAUGH] butI said the third place is also very good.
>> Peter Robinson (08:45):
All right, third place is not bad.
A bronze medal, Max Boot has justpublished a new biography of
Ronald Reagan, andit includes this passage.
Quote, one of the biggest myths is thatReagan had a plan to bring down the evil
empire, and that it was this pressurethat led to U.S. victory in the Cold War.
In reality, the end of the Cold War andthe fall of the Soviet Union were the work
(09:07):
of Mikhail Gorbachev." This battle overhistory is going to be taking place.
>> Natan Sharansky (09:13):
Yeah,well, of course look Gorbachev was a good
communist Communists really believed,I would say even
naive communists kept believingin the communist rule.
But he was rather young to understand,to look at this and say it's not working.
(09:33):
It's not working, we cannot becompetitive, we cannot be productive.
So we really have to give to peoplea little bit of freedom, but
he understood it's dangerous,ut what to do?
The West is pressing.Hetold in his memoirs,
in the conversations also with me,that before I became the leader
of the Soviet Union,I was a minister, and I go abroad.
(09:57):
And in each place,whenever I start talking about the trade,
they talk to me about the dissidents.
And the moment I start speakingabout peaceful coexistence,
they insist that they musthave the upper hand and
have these weapons in this spacebecause they don't trust us.
And so there is no otherway to restore this trust.
(10:21):
But to give some freedom, to releasesome dissidents, to let the Jews go.
And he really believed that that'show he will improve communism.
He didn't understand that there is nosuch thing as a little bit of freedom.
You're giving people a little bitof freedom, they demand more.
He brought down Iron Curtainafter he went to Washington,
(10:42):
there were 250,000 Jewsdemanding him let all people go.
The next day you can seetoday in the archives,
they are just recently published.
Reagan starts speaking to him andsaid, before we go to our topics,
you saw yesterday mypeople were demonstrating?
He said, yes, we noticed it, andwe will take it into account.
(11:02):
So in order to reachagreement with Reagan,
first of all, about the arms control,because he was very concerned,
he decided he'll makea freedom of immigration.
The more you bring down the Iron Curtain,people run away.
People won't run awayto their nationality,
to their religious beliefsto their thoughts.
(11:24):
On the other hand, yes,I don't think that Reagan had as a target,
we have to destroy Soviet Union.
But he did believe, andhe said it, that Soviet Union
will collapse because it all builton keeping people under the control.
And they will not be able and we have tohelp those people who want to be free and
(11:45):
he tried to help on one hand andyou can see it all his negotiations.
He was very tough on arms control.
On the other hand,he was saying again and again,
it will solve our problemswith question of human rights.
It will make it easier forus to solve other problems.
And he knew the nature of this regime,he said, it's evil empires,
(12:09):
that's very important to understand.
Not like Nixon and Kissinger's regime,he was not thinking how to appease them,
how to adjust, how to ask them, give us100,000 people and do whatever we want.
He knew that it's evil empire, and
we have simply to help thesepeople to get freedom.
>> Peter Robinson (12:28):
You're talking to a Gentile and an American.
Would you please helpme understand Israel?
I have a couple of questions for you.
Here's one, in my experience,Tel Aviv is thoroughly secular,
an hour away, Jerusalem is very religious.
So you have in the same country,Jews who don't believe in God and
Jews who believe in God morethan they believe in Israel.
(12:51):
In a certain sense,how do you keep over the long term,
under immediate threat, like the countryis under now, of course, but
over the long term,how do you keep a country together?
A Jewish state together whenthe citizens themselves have
such different conceptions ofwhat it means to be Jewish?
>> Natan Sharansky (13:12):
We look, through thousands of years, we are battling and
fighting with one another,having different conceptions.
In fact,all the religious religionbuilt on Talmud.What is Talmud?
People are sitting at the table andarguing on one hand, on the other hand,
(13:32):
that every sentence of Jewish wisdom isattacked from both sides all the time.
You say from Tel Aviv to Jerusalemin one family the other family.
We, I and my wife have verydifferent levels of religiosity.
And of course, people who are coming from100 different countries where they go
to Jew means different things andlive together, they are very different.
(13:56):
But we all feel ourselves part of thisincredible journey through a thousand
years, which started from Exodusfrom Egypt and goes to this day.
And people who are in Israel,there those people who believe that
they are part of this journey, andthat's why it was such a shock,
(14:19):
I would say, for many of us,this young Generation, TikTok generation,
they are all on the screen orgo to Thailand for inspiration.
And the war started, and such a nobility,such a devotion, such a sacrifice.
And not only this, you can see it in oneletter after another of the soldiers
(14:41):
before they die their families thatthey all feel they're fighting
the thousand years fight forour right to continue this voyage.
This path as Jewish people whoare bringing all these values around which
they are arguing all the time.
So, yeah, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem,they are very different
(15:04):
the way how they are expressingthis belief that they belong to
the ancient people, butthey are united with this belief.
>> Peter Robinson (15:15):
Birth rates have fallen below replacement level around the world,
Western Europe Japan,China, the United States.
Demographer Nick Eberstadt, quote,Israel reports fertility levels well
above replacement, and since birth ratesamong Arab Israelis have been falling,
the upswing is due entirely toIsraeli Jewry, with the increase
(15:36):
attributable not just to the Orthodox,but it's a less observant Jews too.
All across the world, women are saying, Idon't wanna bring children into the world.
And in Israel,this small country in extreme danger,
these good Jewish women are saying,
here is where I want to bringchildren into the world, why?
>> Natan Sharansky (16:00):
Not only women it's a decision of the people who have this full,
meaningful, interesting life to continue.
This feeling that you continuethe life of 1000 years you and
you want that it will be continued.
Look, Israel, Jews and Israel is extremelyoptimistic society, extremely optimistic.
>> Peter Robinson (16:22):
Even today?
>> Natan Sharansky (16:23):
Even today if you ask, there are polls of Americans.
Do you think that tomorrowwill be better than today?
70 something percent say thattoday is better than tomorrow.
In Israel, when you make this post,70% of people say that tomorrow will be
better than today, and that not onlyduring the war, it's all the time.
(16:43):
And I tell you why I believeit goes through all my books,
that all the people in the worldwant two things, to be free and
to have a meaning in the life, to be free,that nobody will tell me what to think.
But to have a meaning that your lifeis bigger than your physical survival,
(17:06):
you have identity, you have group ofpeople that you want to be with them.
It's very difficult to have both.
Europe almost gave away their identity inorder to be free as they understood and
In the Middle East, we are aroundthe countries who are insisting on their
identity andready to give away the freedom.
(17:26):
Israel is, among all these dictators,insisting that it is a democratic country.
It belongs to free world insiststhat it is a Jewish country.
There is a lot of meaning anda lot of freedom in our life, and
that's what makes this life sooptimistic, so full, so interesting.
(17:47):
And yes, Israelis today, andyes before non religious want to
have at least four children to make surethat tomorrow will be better than today.
>> Peter Robinson (18:00):
All right so, it's the meaningfulness, even in danger,
even in the present moment,life means something.
>> Natan Sharansky (18:07):
Meaningfulness of the free life.
>> Peter Robinson (18:09):
Freedom Israel and the United States.
Let's go back to the beginning presidentTruman recognizes the State of Israel upon
its creation in 1948, and at least sincethe Yom Kippur War of the United States
has represented Israel's principal ally.
The United State provides uswith $400 UN aid we open our
markets to you and so forth.
(18:32):
Let me put it to you blindlywhat you have for us,
what does the United States getout of this alliance with Israel.
>> Natan Sharansky (18:42):
Well, the fact that America was among the first who recognized
Israel, Soviet Union,Stalin also was among the first.
But there is huge difference.
Stalin recognized Israel because you hopethat in the struggle against Britain,
these socialists, Israel will be on ourside, and he hoped to have some use of it.
(19:04):
When he understood he was wrong,he started fighting against Israel.
America did it because,first of all, Jewish citizens, but
then also non Jewish citizens,
felt that this is a country which is basedon the same principles that we believe in.
There is direct connection between theideas of the founding fathers of America
(19:24):
and ideas on which Jewish civilization andthe state of Israel are built.
And it is reminded again and again,as I said, in today's confused world.
When American society is sometimes soconfused, and then thinks how to go
back to American values when our wokemoment is against American values.
(19:45):
Israel is a country which,in all situations,
reminds everybody that we are fighting forour freedom and our identity.
We are fighting for your right to live infreedom in accordance with your identity.
And that's message which Israel delivers,not through diplomats,
but through its very life.
And I don't think that America andthe free world has such type of ally,
(20:09):
not only the Middle East,but in the world.
And yeah, I think that it is inthe best interest of the healthy
American society to have strong Israel.
>> Peter Robinson (20:19):
All right Ross Douthat in the New York Times,
quote, the strategic situationsin Eastern Europe and
the Middle East have somethingimportant in common.
In both cases, the American government hasfound itself stuck in a supporting role.
If the United States can't exert realleverage over countries that it arms and
supports in We will end up hostage.
(20:40):
We end up hostage to too many interests,not our own, close quote.
So to put that crudely, if we arm Zelenskyand say, go do whatever you want to do,
we give to Zelensky the right to starta conceivably a nuclear conflict with
the Soviet Union that we would inevitablybe drawn into, like goes the reasoning.
(21:00):
If we give Benjamin Netanyahu and theIsraeli government too much freedom for
movement, too much responsibility for
deciding how far to push it in Iran,how far to push Lebanon.
Then we're giving him the right tostart a war into which we may find
ourselves drawn.
So that's at least if we're drawingthis out on a chalkboard and
(21:24):
giving us a seminar oninternational relations,
this is at least a concern no,>> Natan Sharansky: Well,
if don't think that we are livingin the world without any values,
that America can exist absolutelyas a superpower without believing.
In any values and without design to defendthem, then it seems theoretically right.
(21:46):
But I'd like to say that Americareally doesn't care who controls
the situation in that part of the world orIsrael or Hamas or Hezbollah.
But wait a minute but Hamas andHezbollah are terrorists.
They killed so many American citizens.
Well, we'll prefer thatthere would some balance.
(22:07):
If that is the point of view,you're right, but then it's suicide.
It's really suicide for America tobelieve that Hezbollah, they can coexist
with Hezbollah and Hamas, and nuclearfundamentalist Iran, and we're okay.
And the same about Ukraine and Russia.
We can say that it's not our businessafter all, it's very far from us.
(22:30):
Putin wants, exactly like Iran, to changethe rules by which this world is run.
That he wants to rebuild his empire,and for
this can descend the rules whichwere accepted in Helsinki agreement,
that you're not changingthe borders by force.
That small countries in Europe shouldnot be afraid of stronger countries who
(22:54):
are their neighbors,because that is a new order.
He wants to destroy this order.
He wants to finish it and if he willdefeat Ukraine, it's very important
part of his rebuilding empire andchanging all the relations of the world.
So Putin's war against Ukraine isa threat to the order of the free world.
(23:14):
In the same way the fightof Iran through Hamas and
Hezbollah against Israel, it's a wayto change the rules of the world,
to make terror controlling the free world.
So yes, the free world, it is the topinterest of America that Israel will
defeat terrorism, and that Ukraine andher allies will stop aggression of Putin.
(23:37):
Iran, this past summer, Secretary of State, Antony Blinken,
just this past summer,said that Iran's breakout time,
the time needed to produce enough weaponsgrade material for nuclear weapons.
I'm quoting him now,is probably one or two weeks.
One or two weeks to nuclear breakout.
Iran already possessesballistic missiles and on And
(24:00):
on October 1st of this past year, Irandemonstrated that it is willing to use,
not nuclear, butballistic missiles on Israel.
So you've got a week ortwo to weapons grade material, a year or
perhaps to building these into warheadsthat can be carried by ballistic missiles.
(24:21):
Is this an acceptable state of affairs forIsrael?
>> Natan Sharansky (24:24):
It's absolutely unacceptable.
And Israel at least for the last 20 years,
works very hard to organizepressure on Iran on one hand and
to slow down their capabilities to buildnuclear weapons on the other hand.
You probably know that we hadmany different operations of our
(24:45):
intelligence which postponed it forfive years, for two years.
Only recently our attackwith our airplanes and
our rocket missiles definitely postponed,from all that we know it postponed for
some time the developmentof these weapons.
(25:06):
But no doubt in the end we have to attack,not to attack Iran as a people,
the people can be ourvery important allies.
But this regime andto destroy their nuclear facilities.
There is no doubt that we'llhave to do it very soon.
And the question is if America willbe with us in this attack, and
(25:28):
that's the big question that allthe Israelis are thinking about.
That's why whenever the elections,
there is one criteria with which Israelislook on the American government,
whether they'll be with usin our fight against Iran.
>> Peter Robinson (25:45):
So if I may, [COUGH] of course, what I'm coming to is we've just
elected a new president, andfrom your lips to his ears, we hope.
>> Natan Sharansky (25:54):
Yeah.
>> Peter Robinson (25:55):
So Israel retaliates, you just mentioned this,
Israel retaliated againstIran on October 26th.
Israel's, I beg your pardon,you chose to, not you personally,
the government chose to leave Iran's oilrefineries and nuclear program untouched.
But it destroyed much ofIran's air defense batteries,
as if to warn that the Israeli Air Forcecould return at any moment.
(26:18):
And when it did return,it could work its will.
Is that warning going to be enough?
>> Natan Sharansky (26:25):
No, it's not only warning, it's also preparation.
If in the next few months,
we will decide to attacknuclear facilities,
Iran doesn't have anti-aircraftfacility to stop us.
>> Peter Robinson (26:43):
That was not just a warning.
>> Natan Sharansky (26:44):
They had very developed advanced Russian systems of
S-300s, S-400s.
All of them, all of them were destroyedand Iran could do nothing against it.
So yes, we have to see, they'll need like
one year to restore these capabilities.
(27:05):
That is a time when we can attack, whetherwe will attack depends on many things,
and one of them is where willbe America with us in this case.
>> Peter Robinson (27:16):
Okay, so you know the argument, if I may,
since you are at the table, let's pretendfor a moment that we're in Mar-a-Lago,
and they're->> Natan Sharansky: Yeah.
Threshing all this out with the new president elect.
And the argument runs as follows, Mr.
President, we have very limited resources,very limited resources.
We've made what some would say wasa mistake in permitting Ukraine to go
(27:38):
through so many of our munitions,we no longer have munitions left.
If China moves on Taiwan,it will be very difficult for
us to move against China orto protect Taiwan.
We're already over committed,with regard to Israel, let them delay,
and delay, and delay, andwe'll deal with it when we can, fair?
(27:59):
What do you say to President Trump?
>> Natan Sharansky (28:01):
Well, I would say it so happens that America is put in
the position where they are the maindefender of the free world,
of their own world, but also,they are the leaders of the free world.
And if the free world will be destroyed or
any part of the free world will bedestroyed, America will be weaker.
It so happened that America has thepotential to have another weapons to give
(28:25):
to their allies and to defend themselves.
But for this, they have reallyactively used their power,
their political pressure,so very actively.
And it will be disaster,civil disaster for
America if Israel will loseits war to the terror.
(28:47):
It also will be the disaster forAmerica if Putin and
China will reestablish their real empirescontrolling half of the free world.
You are put in this position,you have all these facilities,
you have to decide what is the rightway to use all your power for
(29:09):
the interest of the free world andfirst of all your people.
>> Peter Robinson (29:13):
As we speak, the conflict in Gaza continues,
Hezbollah retains the ability tostrike Israel with rockets and
Iran is threatening, threatening at least,to attack Israel again.
And of course,the hostages are still missing.
Do you still consideryourself a religious man?
>> Natan Sharansky (29:31):
No, the best time to feel yourself religious man was in prison,
when you really can talk to God directlywithout anybody interfering, and
that's when I started reallyfeeling the power of religion.
Think now also, you can see our mostnon-religious soldiers when they're
(29:54):
fighting, when they're writing.
How they feel themselvesinside the history,
inside that covenant which wasmade between God and our people.
That they are fighting forthe future of all the world,
for that heritage which was givento us by Kadosh, ruled by our God.
(30:16):
Look, today we are in much, on one handtragic, people are dying and killed,
many of them are very close friends ofour children, our neighbors and so on.
On the other hand,if to think strategically,
we are in much bettersituation than a year ago.
It was frightening even to thinkthat we will enter the other now
(30:41):
all the leaders of Hamas, those who arethere, those who are abroad are killed.
Hezbollah, it was the strongestarmy created by Iran and
they were really planning to takethe whole cities of Israel as hostages.
All their leadership is destroyed,they are almost non existent.
(31:02):
And Iran, for the first time in 20years that we are dealing with them,
Iran is clear that it is very vulnerableand if necessary we can destroy.
So yeah, the Gods show us his waysin strange ways, but he shows us.
>> Peter Robinson (31:18):
Do you still carry your Psalm book that you had in prison?
>> Natan Sharansky (31:21):
All ways.
>> Peter Robinson (31:22):
Will you close our conversation by reading the 23rd Psalm?
The passage about>> Natan Sharansky: Yeah, well,
I will read one similar phrase.
[FOREIGN] That was the first phrase, and
when I go through the valley of death,
I fear no evil because thou art with me.
(31:43):
Natan Sharansky, thank you.
For Uncommon Knowledge,the Hoover Institution and Fox Nation,
I'm Peter Robinson.
[MUSIC]
Wisdom, moral authority, a life of genuine sacrifice,
Natan Sharansky Uncommon Knowledge, now.
[MUSIC]
Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge, I'm Peter Robinson.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1948,Anatoly Sharansky earned a degree in
(00:24):
mathematics from the Moscow Instituteof Physics and Technology,
then began work in a state research lab.
In 1973, he applied foran exit visa to Israel,
was denied on security grounds,and then became a dissident.
Arrested in 1977,he spent nine years in Soviet prisons.
On his release in 1986, he emigrated toIsrael, where he took the name Natan.
(00:48):
Natan Sharansky served from1996 to 2005 as a minister in
four successive Israeli governments.
From 2009 to 2018 he served as chairmanof the Jewish Agency for Israel,
working with the Jewishdiaspora around the world.
Natan Sharansky has published a numberof books, including his 1988 memoir
Fear No Evil, his 2004 volume The Case forDemocracy, and his 2020 book Never Alone.
(01:14):
Mr. Sharansky andI are speaking in New York,
where last night he was honoredby Commentary Magazine.
Nathan Sharansky, welcome to New York.
>> Natan Sharansky (01:22):
Thank you very much.
>> Peter Robinson (01:24):
Questions about what we got wrong US National Security Advisor,
Jake Sullivan, on September 29 2023 quote,
the Middle East region is quietertoday than it has been in two decades.
Eight days later, the attack by Hamas,how could we have been so wrong?
>> Natan Sharansky (01:40):
Well, look, in this case, not only America was wrong,
Israeli military was wrong,
Israeli politicians were wrong,I think this mistake, well,
wrong concept started 30 yearsago from Oslo agreement.
When in principle there was madea decision that the best way to
(02:04):
guarantee peace is to haveagreements with the dictators,
to give to these dictators as much poweras possible and to make sure that they,
on one hand will be afraid of us, on theother hand, we will give them enough money
in order they will be in peace with us andthey will control their own people.
(02:24):
And that's what we did 30 yearsago with Oslo Agreement when we
brought Arafat to pass and said he willbe the leader of the Palestinian people.
Then we did it with Hamas whenHamas defeated Arafat, and
we decided that on one hand we'll bestriking Hamas, on the other hand,
(02:47):
we'll be giving them some money,at least they will be peacified.
And it was all done under the strongpressure of the freehold, and
first of all, under the strong pressureof America was saying the more materials,
the more money, the more conditionsyou'll give to the other side,
(03:10):
the more the chance that theywill be interested in peace.
And it was absolutely wrong conception, wehad to fight the terrorists and the same
time to respect the rights of the otherpeople by not supporting their dictators.
>> Peter Robinson (03:25):
Mm-hm, another question, what went wrong?
Protesters in this country responded toOctober 7th by demonstrating on college
campuses against Israel andin favor of the Palestinians.
One of the slogans,from the river to the sea, a call for
the destruction of Israel,at Columbia University here in New York,
students put up tens of tents,establishing a Gaza solidarity encampment.
(03:50):
From a Columbia University report onanti-Semitism on its own campus, quote,
one student placed a mezuzah onthe doorway of her dorm room,
as traditional Jews have done forcenturies.
People began banging on herdoor at all hours of the night,
demanding that she explainIsrael's actions, close quote.
Here in the United States,here in the city of New York,
(04:11):
home to a million Jews,anti-Semitism,what went wrong?
>> Natan Sharansky (04:15):
I would say the situation is much worse than you just
described, I was in Colombiatwice since the war started,
I was in many other universities.
For 20 years, we were warning,and I personally was warning,
that universities become the morethe hotbed of the anti-Semitism,
(04:37):
not only the anti-Semitism of this,understanding
that the liberal revolutionstarts from violence.
And we need liberal revolution in America,
that's why what was amazing onthe 7th of October was the most awful,
the most brutal pogromin the modern history,
(04:59):
where not only thousands were killed,raped, all types of tortures,
children are burnt alivein front of their parents,
some kind of sympathy, solidarity.
On the 8th of October, we havedemonstrations in the universities and
speeches of so called liberalprofessors who are saying that
(05:24):
is the beginning of liberal revolution.
And this hope could showvery clearly that so-called
progressive woke movement isnot part of liberal society,
it's the enemies of liberal society.
(05:44):
And here these anti-Semiteswho want to destroy us, and
terrorists from Hamas and Hezbollah ina unique way found common language with so
called progressive forces ofthe Universities of America.
And united,their desire to declare Israel as the last
colonial state in the world,as the one which is illegal, and
(06:08):
that's why oppressed Palestiniansare always right, and
oppressed andcolonialist Israel is always wrong.
And what to do when it begins?
Liberal progressive revolution, there isviolence, that's how it was accepted,
I think.
That was our opening formany liberal Jewish organizations who
(06:29):
wanted to believe that progressivemovement is their closest ally and
they found out that that is their enemy.
>> Peter Robinson (06:37):
I see, Natan, from your time in the Soviet Union, from your book,
Fear No Evil, you wrote a question,which remains a question for
anyone who reads the book.
Why is it so important forthe KGB to destroy each individual?
Why is it that even if he has spentyears in prison and is no danger to it,
(06:57):
the KGB will still want him to confess?.
>> Natan Sharansky (07:01):
Well, I know the nature of dictatorial regime, totalitarian
regime like Soviet, was that they haveto keep people under the control,
physical control, andtheir minds under control.
Because their power is all based on fear.
The moment people will stop being afraid,that is usually the end of dictorial rule.
(07:27):
But in order people should be afraid,
they should know that youcannot go against this regime.
That's why every dissident,every free thinker,
is a danger forthe stability of the regime.
Because the moment this virusof freedom will be released,
(07:51):
the moment, one after another, more and
more double thinkersare becoming dissidents.
It's out of control It's out of control,that's why it's very important for
them to show that nobodycan be out of our control,
that even if somebody will speakagainst and then he will retreat.
(08:11):
And that's why you see one freethinker in the country of 200
million people is a threat for KGB.
>> Peter Robinson (08:20):
[COUGH] I want to return to Israel in a moment.
But first is how it allended in the Soviet Union.
The question here is the roleof the United States.
When we spoke some years ago,you agreed that credit for
the fall of the Soviet Union belongsto the dissidents, to Reagan and
the Americans, and then to Gorbachev.
I think you put it thatway quite strictly.
>> Natan Sharansky (08:39):
Yeah, Gorbachev was a little bit as unsalted butter.
So, [LAUGH] butI said the third place is also very good.
>> Peter Robinson (08:45):
All right, third place is not bad.
A bronze medal, Max Boot has justpublished a new biography of
Ronald Reagan, andit includes this passage.
Quote, one of the biggest myths is thatReagan had a plan to bring down the evil
empire, and that it was this pressurethat led to U.S. victory in the Cold War.
In reality, the end of the Cold War andthe fall of the Soviet Union were the work
(09:07):
of Mikhail Gorbachev." This battle overhistory is going to be taking place.
>> Natan Sharansky (09:13):
Yeah,well, of course look Gorbachev was a good
communist Communists really believed,I would say even
naive communists kept believingin the communist rule.
But he was rather young to understand,to look at this and say it's not working.
(09:33):
It's not working, we cannot becompetitive, we cannot be productive.
So we really have to give to peoplea little bit of freedom, but
he understood it's dangerous,ut what to do?
The West is pressing.Hetold in his memoirs,
in the conversations also with me,that before I became the leader
of the Soviet Union,I was a minister, and I go abroad.
(09:57):
And in each place,whenever I start talking about the trade,
they talk to me about the dissidents.
And the moment I start speakingabout peaceful coexistence,
they insist that they musthave the upper hand and
have these weapons in this spacebecause they don't trust us.
And so there is no otherway to restore this trust.
(10:21):
But to give some freedom, to releasesome dissidents, to let the Jews go.
And he really believed that that'show he will improve communism.
He didn't understand that there is nosuch thing as a little bit of freedom.
You're giving people a little bitof freedom, they demand more.
He brought down Iron Curtainafter he went to Washington,
(10:42):
there were 250,000 Jewsdemanding him let all people go.
The next day you can seetoday in the archives,
they are just recently published.
Reagan starts speaking to him andsaid, before we go to our topics,
you saw yesterday mypeople were demonstrating?
He said, yes, we noticed it, andwe will take it into account.
(11:02):
So in order to reachagreement with Reagan,
first of all, about the arms control,because he was very concerned,
he decided he'll makea freedom of immigration.
The more you bring down the Iron Curtain,people run away.
People won't run awayto their nationality,
to their religious beliefsto their thoughts.
(11:24):
On the other hand, yes,I don't think that Reagan had as a target,
we have to destroy Soviet Union.
But he did believe, andhe said it, that Soviet Union
will collapse because it all builton keeping people under the control.
And they will not be able and we have tohelp those people who want to be free and
(11:45):
he tried to help on one hand andyou can see it all his negotiations.
He was very tough on arms control.
On the other hand,he was saying again and again,
it will solve our problemswith question of human rights.
It will make it easier forus to solve other problems.
And he knew the nature of this regime,he said, it's evil empires,
(12:09):
that's very important to understand.
Not like Nixon and Kissinger's regime,he was not thinking how to appease them,
how to adjust, how to ask them, give us100,000 people and do whatever we want.
He knew that it's evil empire, and
we have simply to help thesepeople to get freedom.
>> Peter Robinson (12:28):
You're talking to a Gentile and an American.
Would you please helpme understand Israel?
I have a couple of questions for you.
Here's one, in my experience,Tel Aviv is thoroughly secular,
an hour away, Jerusalem is very religious.
So you have in the same country,Jews who don't believe in God and
Jews who believe in God morethan they believe in Israel.
(12:51):
In a certain sense,how do you keep over the long term,
under immediate threat, like the countryis under now, of course, but
over the long term,how do you keep a country together?
A Jewish state together whenthe citizens themselves have
such different conceptions ofwhat it means to be Jewish?
>> Natan Sharansky (13:12):
We look, through thousands of years, we are battling and
fighting with one another,having different conceptions.
In fact,all the religious religionbuilt on Talmud.What is Talmud?
People are sitting at the table andarguing on one hand, on the other hand,
(13:32):
that every sentence of Jewish wisdom isattacked from both sides all the time.
You say from Tel Aviv to Jerusalemin one family the other family.
We, I and my wife have verydifferent levels of religiosity.
And of course, people who are coming from100 different countries where they go
to Jew means different things andlive together, they are very different.
(13:56):
But we all feel ourselves part of thisincredible journey through a thousand
years, which started from Exodusfrom Egypt and goes to this day.
And people who are in Israel,there those people who believe that
they are part of this journey, andthat's why it was such a shock,
(14:19):
I would say, for many of us,this young Generation, TikTok generation,
they are all on the screen orgo to Thailand for inspiration.
And the war started, and such a nobility,such a devotion, such a sacrifice.
And not only this, you can see it in oneletter after another of the soldiers
(14:41):
before they die their families thatthey all feel they're fighting
the thousand years fight forour right to continue this voyage.
This path as Jewish people whoare bringing all these values around which
they are arguing all the time.
So, yeah, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem,they are very different
(15:04):
the way how they are expressingthis belief that they belong to
the ancient people, butthey are united with this belief.
>> Peter Robinson (15:15):
Birth rates have fallen below replacement level around the world,
Western Europe Japan,China, the United States.
Demographer Nick Eberstadt, quote,Israel reports fertility levels well
above replacement, and since birth ratesamong Arab Israelis have been falling,
the upswing is due entirely toIsraeli Jewry, with the increase
(15:36):
attributable not just to the Orthodox,but it's a less observant Jews too.
All across the world, women are saying, Idon't wanna bring children into the world.
And in Israel,this small country in extreme danger,
these good Jewish women are saying,
here is where I want to bringchildren into the world, why?
>> Natan Sharansky (16:00):
Not only women it's a decision of the people who have this full,
meaningful, interesting life to continue.
This feeling that you continuethe life of 1000 years you and
you want that it will be continued.
Look, Israel, Jews and Israel is extremelyoptimistic society, extremely optimistic.
>> Peter Robinson (16:22):
Even today?
>> Natan Sharansky (16:23):
Even today if you ask, there are polls of Americans.
Do you think that tomorrowwill be better than today?
70 something percent say thattoday is better than tomorrow.
In Israel, when you make this post,70% of people say that tomorrow will be
better than today, and that not onlyduring the war, it's all the time.
(16:43):
And I tell you why I believeit goes through all my books,
that all the people in the worldwant two things, to be free and
to have a meaning in the life, to be free,that nobody will tell me what to think.
But to have a meaning that your lifeis bigger than your physical survival,
(17:06):
you have identity, you have group ofpeople that you want to be with them.
It's very difficult to have both.
Europe almost gave away their identity inorder to be free as they understood and
In the Middle East, we are aroundthe countries who are insisting on their
identity andready to give away the freedom.
(17:26):
Israel is, among all these dictators,insisting that it is a democratic country.
It belongs to free world insiststhat it is a Jewish country.
There is a lot of meaning anda lot of freedom in our life, and
that's what makes this life sooptimistic, so full, so interesting.
(17:47):
And yes, Israelis today, andyes before non religious want to
have at least four children to make surethat tomorrow will be better than today.
>> Peter Robinson (18:00):
All right so, it's the meaningfulness, even in danger,
even in the present moment,life means something.
>> Natan Sharansky (18:07):
Meaningfulness of the free life.
>> Peter Robinson (18:09):
Freedom Israel and the United States.
Let's go back to the beginning presidentTruman recognizes the State of Israel upon
its creation in 1948, and at least sincethe Yom Kippur War of the United States
has represented Israel's principal ally.
The United State provides uswith $400 UN aid we open our
markets to you and so forth.
(18:32):
Let me put it to you blindlywhat you have for us,
what does the United States getout of this alliance with Israel.
>> Natan Sharansky (18:42):
Well, the fact that America was among the first who recognized
Israel, Soviet Union,Stalin also was among the first.
But there is huge difference.
Stalin recognized Israel because you hopethat in the struggle against Britain,
these socialists, Israel will be on ourside, and he hoped to have some use of it.
(19:04):
When he understood he was wrong,he started fighting against Israel.
America did it because,first of all, Jewish citizens, but
then also non Jewish citizens,
felt that this is a country which is basedon the same principles that we believe in.
There is direct connection between theideas of the founding fathers of America
(19:24):
and ideas on which Jewish civilization andthe state of Israel are built.
And it is reminded again and again,as I said, in today's confused world.
When American society is sometimes soconfused, and then thinks how to go
back to American values when our wokemoment is against American values.
(19:45):
Israel is a country which,in all situations,
reminds everybody that we are fighting forour freedom and our identity.
We are fighting for your right to live infreedom in accordance with your identity.
And that's message which Israel delivers,not through diplomats,
but through its very life.
And I don't think that America andthe free world has such type of ally,
(20:09):
not only the Middle East,but in the world.
And yeah, I think that it is inthe best interest of the healthy
American society to have strong Israel.
>> Peter Robinson (20:19):
All right Ross Douthat in the New York Times,
quote, the strategic situationsin Eastern Europe and
the Middle East have somethingimportant in common.
In both cases, the American government hasfound itself stuck in a supporting role.
If the United States can't exert realleverage over countries that it arms and
supports in We will end up hostage.
(20:40):
We end up hostage to too many interests,not our own, close quote.
So to put that crudely, if we arm Zelenskyand say, go do whatever you want to do,
we give to Zelensky the right to starta conceivably a nuclear conflict with
the Soviet Union that we would inevitablybe drawn into, like goes the reasoning.
(21:00):
If we give Benjamin Netanyahu and theIsraeli government too much freedom for
movement, too much responsibility for
deciding how far to push it in Iran,how far to push Lebanon.
Then we're giving him the right tostart a war into which we may find
ourselves drawn.
So that's at least if we're drawingthis out on a chalkboard and
(21:24):
giving us a seminar oninternational relations,
this is at least a concern no,>> Natan Sharansky: Well,
if don't think that we are livingin the world without any values,
that America can exist absolutelyas a superpower without believing.
In any values and without design to defendthem, then it seems theoretically right.
(21:46):
But I'd like to say that Americareally doesn't care who controls
the situation in that part of the world orIsrael or Hamas or Hezbollah.
But wait a minute but Hamas andHezbollah are terrorists.
They killed so many American citizens.
Well, we'll prefer thatthere would some balance.
(22:07):
If that is the point of view,you're right, but then it's suicide.
It's really suicide for America tobelieve that Hezbollah, they can coexist
with Hezbollah and Hamas, and nuclearfundamentalist Iran, and we're okay.
And the same about Ukraine and Russia.
We can say that it's not our businessafter all, it's very far from us.
(22:30):
Putin wants, exactly like Iran, to changethe rules by which this world is run.
That he wants to rebuild his empire,and for
this can descend the rules whichwere accepted in Helsinki agreement,
that you're not changingthe borders by force.
That small countries in Europe shouldnot be afraid of stronger countries who
(22:54):
are their neighbors,because that is a new order.
He wants to destroy this order.
He wants to finish it and if he willdefeat Ukraine, it's very important
part of his rebuilding empire andchanging all the relations of the world.
So Putin's war against Ukraine isa threat to the order of the free world.
(23:14):
In the same way the fightof Iran through Hamas and
Hezbollah against Israel, it's a wayto change the rules of the world,
to make terror controlling the free world.
So yes, the free world, it is the topinterest of America that Israel will
defeat terrorism, and that Ukraine andher allies will stop aggression of Putin.
(23:37):
Iran, this past summer, Secretary of State, Antony Blinken,
just this past summer,said that Iran's breakout time,
the time needed to produce enough weaponsgrade material for nuclear weapons.
I'm quoting him now,is probably one or two weeks.
One or two weeks to nuclear breakout.
Iran already possessesballistic missiles and on And
(24:00):
on October 1st of this past year, Irandemonstrated that it is willing to use,
not nuclear, butballistic missiles on Israel.
So you've got a week ortwo to weapons grade material, a year or
perhaps to building these into warheadsthat can be carried by ballistic missiles.
(24:21):
Is this an acceptable state of affairs forIsrael?
>> Natan Sharansky (24:24):
It's absolutely unacceptable.
And Israel at least for the last 20 years,
works very hard to organizepressure on Iran on one hand and
to slow down their capabilities to buildnuclear weapons on the other hand.
You probably know that we hadmany different operations of our
(24:45):
intelligence which postponed it forfive years, for two years.
Only recently our attackwith our airplanes and
our rocket missiles definitely postponed,from all that we know it postponed for
some time the developmentof these weapons.
(25:06):
But no doubt in the end we have to attack,not to attack Iran as a people,
the people can be ourvery important allies.
But this regime andto destroy their nuclear facilities.
There is no doubt that we'llhave to do it very soon.
And the question is if America willbe with us in this attack, and
(25:28):
that's the big question that allthe Israelis are thinking about.
That's why whenever the elections,
there is one criteria with which Israelislook on the American government,
whether they'll be with usin our fight against Iran.
>> Peter Robinson (25:45):
So if I may, [COUGH] of course, what I'm coming to is we've just
elected a new president, andfrom your lips to his ears, we hope.
>> Natan Sharansky (25:54):
Yeah.
>> Peter Robinson (25:55):
So Israel retaliates, you just mentioned this,
Israel retaliated againstIran on October 26th.
Israel's, I beg your pardon,you chose to, not you personally,
the government chose to leave Iran's oilrefineries and nuclear program untouched.
But it destroyed much ofIran's air defense batteries,
as if to warn that the Israeli Air Forcecould return at any moment.
(26:18):
And when it did return,it could work its will.
Is that warning going to be enough?
>> Natan Sharansky (26:25):
No, it's not only warning, it's also preparation.
If in the next few months,
we will decide to attacknuclear facilities,
Iran doesn't have anti-aircraftfacility to stop us.
>> Peter Robinson (26:43):
That was not just a warning.
>> Natan Sharansky (26:44):
They had very developed advanced Russian systems of
S-300s, S-400s.
All of them, all of them were destroyedand Iran could do nothing against it.
So yes, we have to see, they'll need like
one year to restore these capabilities.
(27:05):
That is a time when we can attack, whetherwe will attack depends on many things,
and one of them is where willbe America with us in this case.
>> Peter Robinson (27:16):
Okay, so you know the argument, if I may,
since you are at the table, let's pretendfor a moment that we're in Mar-a-Lago,
and they're->> Natan Sharansky: Yeah.
Threshing all this out with the new president elect.
And the argument runs as follows, Mr.
President, we have very limited resources,very limited resources.
We've made what some would say wasa mistake in permitting Ukraine to go
(27:38):
through so many of our munitions,we no longer have munitions left.
If China moves on Taiwan,it will be very difficult for
us to move against China orto protect Taiwan.
We're already over committed,with regard to Israel, let them delay,
and delay, and delay, andwe'll deal with it when we can, fair?
(27:59):
What do you say to President Trump?
>> Natan Sharansky (28:01):
Well, I would say it so happens that America is put in
the position where they are the maindefender of the free world,
of their own world, but also,they are the leaders of the free world.
And if the free world will be destroyed or
any part of the free world will bedestroyed, America will be weaker.
It so happened that America has thepotential to have another weapons to give
(28:25):
to their allies and to defend themselves.
But for this, they have reallyactively used their power,
their political pressure,so very actively.
And it will be disaster,civil disaster for
America if Israel will loseits war to the terror.
(28:47):
It also will be the disaster forAmerica if Putin and
China will reestablish their real empirescontrolling half of the free world.
You are put in this position,you have all these facilities,
you have to decide what is the rightway to use all your power for
(29:09):
the interest of the free world andfirst of all your people.
>> Peter Robinson (29:13):
As we speak, the conflict in Gaza continues,
Hezbollah retains the ability tostrike Israel with rockets and
Iran is threatening, threatening at least,to attack Israel again.
And of course,the hostages are still missing.
Do you still consideryourself a religious man?
>> Natan Sharansky (29:31):
No, the best time to feel yourself religious man was in prison,
when you really can talk to God directlywithout anybody interfering, and
that's when I started reallyfeeling the power of religion.
Think now also, you can see our mostnon-religious soldiers when they're
(29:54):
fighting, when they're writing.
How they feel themselvesinside the history,
inside that covenant which wasmade between God and our people.
That they are fighting forthe future of all the world,
for that heritage which was givento us by Kadosh, ruled by our God.
(30:16):
Look, today we are in much, on one handtragic, people are dying and killed,
many of them are very close friends ofour children, our neighbors and so on.
On the other hand,if to think strategically,
we are in much bettersituation than a year ago.
It was frightening even to thinkthat we will enter the other now
(30:41):
all the leaders of Hamas, those who arethere, those who are abroad are killed.
Hezbollah, it was the strongestarmy created by Iran and
they were really planning to takethe whole cities of Israel as hostages.
All their leadership is destroyed,they are almost non existent.
(31:02):
And Iran, for the first time in 20years that we are dealing with them,
Iran is clear that it is very vulnerableand if necessary we can destroy.
So yeah, the Gods show us his waysin strange ways, but he shows us.
>> Peter Robinson (31:18):
Do you still carry your Psalm book that you had in prison?
>> Natan Sharansky (31:21):
All ways.
>> Peter Robinson (31:22):
Will you close our conversation by reading the 23rd Psalm?
The passage about>> Natan Sharansky: Yeah, well,
I will read one similar phrase.
[FOREIGN] That was the first phrase, and
when I go through the valley of death,
I fear no evil because thou art with me.
(31:43):
Natan Sharansky, thank you.
For Uncommon Knowledge,the Hoover Institution and Fox Nation,
I'm Peter Robinson.
[MUSIC]
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.