The Jack Berkovits Show - April 3, 2025 - The Seven Noahide Laws, Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism with Rabbi Daniel Korobkin and Keith Darden - The Jack Berkovits Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
Saga nine sixty am or its management.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
I read this somewhere.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
The most important relationship you can have is with your siblings.
Our parents leave too soon, and our partners come later
in life. But the only person who has been there
from the beginning and stays until the end is your sibling.
They're the only one who has seen every version of you,

(00:46):
your purest childhood self, your rebellious teenage years, your adult struggles,
and your older, wiser self. They're the only person who
will truly understand what it feels like to grieve you grandparents,
your mother, and your father. Siblings are one of the
most important relationships you will ever have.

Speaker 2 (01:11):
Good morning, It's Thursday. Is it a good Thursday? Or
is it a bad Thursday? I hope it's not a
bad Thursday. But is it a good Thursday? I don't know.
How do you define? How do you define whether something
is a good Thursday or bad Thursday? You know, I'm confused.
I'm confused. Why am I confused? Because Donald Trump confuses me?
Are there tariffs or are there no tariffs? Did we

(01:35):
get hit with tariffs or did we avoid the tariffs.
Everybody's writing about the new tariffs and how we're going
to war. The president of Uniform, the Canadian union that
represents thousands and thousands of people across the country, they're
going to fight back. Mark Karney is meeting with all
his ministers in Montreal. I think it is today talking

(01:55):
about how we're going to fight back. But I don't
think we got hit with tariffs. Why am I confused?
Because Donald Trump said yesterday that he's going to clarify everything,
and nothing's been clarified. Canada seems to have escaped the tariffs.
I'd like for somebody to call me and explain to

(02:15):
me what happened yesterday, because I've read everything and at
the end of the day, I don't know anything, which,
by the way, is a lesson in life for all
of us, certainly for me. And as I get older,
I realize how little I know. I knew everything when
I was seventeen years old. I started to forget things
when I was thirty and forty, and I started to
realize when I was fifteen and sixty that I really

(02:36):
know nothing. I know nothing, and today I know less
than I've ever known before, So forgive me if I'm wrong.
But have we not been threatened by Donald Trump with
a twenty five percent auto tariff to go on top
of the metals and aluminum that he hit us with
about a month ago. Did he not say every single

(02:58):
day that he had a microphone in front of his face,
that he's going to hit Canada. Did he not say
that that's because of the lacks security at the Canadian
border into the United States. Did he not say it's
because of the illegal aliens coming into America from Canada.
Did he not say that it's because of the fentanel
that goes into America straight from Canada from China into

(03:22):
Canada into the US. Did he not say that he's
going to make a stop. Did we not react to
that by adding one point two billion dollars to our
budget to take care of the holes and the cracks
in the border. Did he not say as recently as
two days ago that Canada will have to be hit
because we're a terrible neighbor. And he needs nothing from Canada,

(03:44):
not our energy, not our lumber, and our medals, not
our automobiles. He needs nothing from Canada. Did he not
say all of those things? Am I imagining this? And
then he clarified everything yesterday so much so that I
know nothing? What is our status, Caulse, Somebody please call
me up, because here's what I think the status is.

(04:06):
He said that if exports from Canada into the USA
are compliant with KUZMA, then nothing changes. Now what is kuzma.
KUZMA is the Canada US Mexico Trade Agreement, which was

(04:27):
the successor to the NAFTA agreement, which he insisted in
his first term in office to renegotiate, and he got
himself a really great deals called KUZMA. And he said
he's throwing KUZMA out the window because it doesn't protect
American trade and he wants to become an industrialist nation again.

(04:48):
He wants American jobs to be in America. He doesn't
want any jobs exported out of America. He wants to
bring them all back. Okay, I love it, I love it,
I love it. I think, but did he do that yesterday?
Why am I so confused? Does? Why does this man
he's a There's no way a bullet will ever reach
this man. He keeps on dodge dodging them he's the

(05:10):
greatest dancer there is. What is he really thinking? And
is that the same dilemma I've had since the first
time I heard his name. Is there a strategy or
is there absolutely zero strategy? And he makes it up
from day to day. I'm from microphone to microphone. Is
he the most brilliant man that ever lived? And if

(05:30):
he is, what is the ultimate goal? Or is he
just some guy who just throws out whatever comes his mind. Okay,
so here's what I do know. There are no new
tariffs on Canada. There are no new tariffs on Canadian
made vehicles exported to the United States as the Kuzma

(05:53):
Agreement remains in effect. He did not knock out Kuzma.
The status quo remains. What what is that status quo?
Tariffs on Canadian made vehicles exported to the US We're
already eliminated under Kuzma and as long as they meet
the agreement compliance requirements. What are those agreement compliance requirements?

(06:14):
So let me tell you here's what compliance with Kuzma
means and how you get to avoid tariffs for cars
going into the United States. The origin a vehicle's origin
must be manufactured in Canada. The US or Mexico. If
a car is manufactured in one of those three countries,

(06:36):
it is a comply in compliance with CUZMA. But it's
not enough. You need more. The content. What is the
content that is required to go into a car so
that it's considered a COUSMA car. The vehicle must contain
a minimum percentage of North American content, which means parts,

(06:57):
which varies depending on the type of vehicle. So if
it's an suv, if it's a truck, whatever it is,
it needs to have compliance with KUZMA, and it's all
spelled out in the Kuzba Agreement. But there's more that
you need labor. Those are the three things Origin, content, labor.
What is the labor component. The vehicle must be manufactured

(07:18):
in facilities that meet specific labor standards. So if it
got the origin means it's manufactured in Canada, the US
or Mexico. If the content is so many parts that
are Canadian, US or Mexican made, and if the labor
is in a standard that meets KUZMA requirements. Those three
elements make up compliance requirements and it's in compliance with Cousman.

(07:40):
And if it's in compliance with Kuzma. It does not
warrant a tariff. He didn't veer from that yesterday. So
where's the bluster. I'm not complaining. I'm totally not complaining.
I just don't understand. Where's the bluster. So while you're
content complaining, if you can get me an answer, I

(08:02):
wish you would, then you can call me at two
eight nine two seventy five ninety six hundred, two eight
nine two seventy five ninety six hundred. If you can
get me that. I would so much appreciate for someone
to explain to me whether I'm missing something. And on
that same vein, I also want to add the following
little thought. I think Mark Karney just lost his election,

(08:24):
Thank god. Why because he built his entire campaign around
fighting Donald Trump. He's got nothing else. There's no way
to defend the Labor government's performance over the last nine
and a half to ten years. Mark Karney has nothing
to fight on his resume. It's all bluster. His performance

(08:47):
at Brookfield, Yeah, Brookfield did well, but he claims he
had nothing to do with that, including the move of
head office from Toronto to Manhattan. He says he wasn't there.
We all know that's not true. So his performance as
the governor the Bank of England was a disaster, just
as the Prime Minister of Great Britain at the time.
She'll tell you here he says he has nothing to do.

(09:08):
He's distancing himself from the performance and the policies of
Justin Trudeau. But he's been the man behind Trudeau for many,
many years, at least five. So what is it that
he's bringing to the table that should allow you to
consider him for the prime ministership? And there's nothing there.
But the last nail in his coffin was the announcement

(09:32):
yesterday by Donald Trump that said no further taxes on Canada. Now,
Donald Trump announced taxes or tariff's call them what you want,
on everybody, including his very pet favorite Israel, even Israel,
who eliminated all tariff's American product two days ago. Even

(09:53):
Israel is not going to be subject to a significant
tariff on Israeli made product. And let me tell you,
Israel's a tiny country. Israel, his main customer is United States.
Israel cannot really thrive if its products are now somewhat
complicated by tariffs for goods going into the US. Will

(10:14):
he reconsider that I don't know, nobody knows, nobody knows anything.
And before we go into our first commercial break, I
want to say there's something else. And I'm gonna keep
repeating this because I'm troubled by it. I had a
guest yesterday, lovely lady, sociologist trained in osgood Hall, University
of Toronto for many years, lived in Toronto for thirty years,

(10:36):
moved to Manchester, England, where she's a professor and a
researcher and a sociologist. She's a Muslim woman. She wears
the hit Jab. She's a devout person and a very
kind and sincere person. I could tell from the thirty
minutes I spent with her on the phone yesterday on
this station. But she didn't like my line of questioning,
and I thought I did a really nice job of

(10:58):
being polite, even though she said things that really irritated me.
So the thing that became an issue between us was
that she felt that because people are disenfranchised elsewhere, because
people they're disenfranchised elsewhere, then they have a right to
move somewhere else where there's a better economic environment and

(11:20):
a better standard and quality of life, and so they
come to Canada or wherever they go, and they have
the right to do that, she felt. I'm sort of
trying to put into my words the things that she said.
And because they're here, they're not really visitors, and we
have an obligation to receive them and treat them the

(11:44):
way a guess should be treated, meaning they have full rights.
So when I brought up the issue of do visitors
who are all of one faith, such as Muslims, and
they feel the need to pray five times a day,
and at that time of prayer happens to be when
they're doing a demonstration at Dundaf Square, I'm going to
keep calling it dun Dath Square, I'm sorry. And they

(12:05):
get on the ground by the thousands on Young Street
on their prayer mats, and they take a whole bunch
of time, fifteen minutes to do their prayers that the
whole traffic in downtown Toronto must come to a standstill
to accommodate them, even though for the most part they
are visitors to Canada. So my position was, well, you

(12:28):
know what, visitors may have some rights, but visitors have
to act like visitors until they're no longer visitors, and
then they can act like hosts. But the hosts like,
if you come to my house for dinner, you can't
tell me what you want to eat and demand it.
You have to accept what I offer to eat, or
you have a choice of not eating. Those are your

(12:50):
only two options. So the host in this case, the
Canadian citizen has the right to require of the visitor
to act in a certain way, such as a visitor.
So when people come from a certain region such as
the Middle East, and I said that they import with
them hatred and anti Semitism, and I feel that that's

(13:13):
got to be there's got to be a way to
check that out of the border, or no, you cannot
come to my country. You can't bring your hatred and
your animosities. She disagreed, they have rights, or who are
we to check their hatreds at the border? Now she
didn't say that. Okay, I'm putting what I think she
was saying into my words, and I think the implication

(13:34):
was that I'm a racist, because why should I have
more rights than them by virtue of the fact that
I'm a citizen and I've been here all my life.
And so that became an issue, and I got troubled
by it, and I thought i'd be you know, so,
first of all, should I care? And I don't think
I should care? Like why do I care what some
sociologist in Manchester cares things about me? But I do care.

(13:55):
It's a weakness in me. But do you care? So
I put the question to the audience yesterday, am I
a racist? And I've had many conversations since that show yesterday.
What I've had went to my office. By the way,
three of you, three of you came to visit me
to say hello and discuss this issue at the Omni
Juwel Crafters store at Laurence Allen Center. Thank you for coming.

(14:17):
You have no idea what that means to me. And
maybe fifteen of you also wrote to me to say, no,
you don't think I'm a racist. I'm still troubled by it.
So could you please call me and explain to me
whether a visitor, which is on a student visa or
a green card or whatever we call it here, a
permanent residency a PR card, whether you have the right

(14:39):
to impose your way of life onto the people of
Canada and in so doing you inconvenience them. Is that
a problem? Should we allow that do you have the
right to do that to us? I'm Jack Berkowitz. Alway
for your calls. Two eight nine, two seventy five ninety
six hundred, two eight nine, two seventy five ninety six hundred.

(15:01):
I'll be back right after this.

Speaker 1 (15:12):
No Radio, No Problem stream is live on SAGA ninety
sixty AM dot C.

Speaker 4 (15:27):
For wondered who the biggest exporters to the United States are,
Here are the top five countries and how much they
contribute to America's economy. At number five Germany, with one
hundred sixty billion dollars in goods exported every year. From
sleek BMW's and Mercedes to precision engineered machinery and top
notch pharmaceuticals. Germany's engineering excellence truly drives its trade power.

(15:50):
Number four Japan, delivering a solid one hundred seventy two
billion dollars worth of exports to the US annually. From
reliable cars like Toyota and Honda to stay of the
art electronics, Japan is the go to partner for technology
and innovation. Sliding into third is Mexico, with a jaw
dropping four hundred and fifty five billion dollars in export

(16:11):
thanks to its close proximity, Mexico is the ultimate trade buddy,
sending cars, electronics, and even fresh avocados to stock US shell.
Number two China, with a staggering five hundred fifty billion
dollars in export from the smartphones in your pocket to
the laptops on your desk, China is the backbone of
everyday consumer goods in the US. And finally taking the

(16:33):
crown at number one, Canada, with a mind blowing six
hundred and sixty five billion dollars in exports every year.
Canada isn't just your friendly neighbor, It's the backbone of
America's economy. From energy that powers cities to vehicles cruising
down every highway and timber that builds everything from homes
to skyscrapers, Canada's goods are literally shaping the American dream.

Speaker 2 (16:56):
I am thrilled and honored to have as my very
good friend and my teacher, Rabbi Daniel Koropkin, Senior Rabbi
at the Bye Congregation, Canada's largest Orthodox congregation. Thank you
for coming. Welcome to the Jack Burka Show. Rabbi Koropkin,
Hi Jack, so nice to be with you again. I'm
glad you're feeling better. Thank you. We missed you last week.

(17:18):
So I'm going to start with something that troubles me.
Whenever something troubles me, I go to the rabbi and
here something troubles me. Yesterday I had a guest on
She's a Muslim devout woman. She's a teacher, a professor,
a researcher, a sociologist at the University of Manchester. She's
originally from Toronto. Well she's from Toronto, but she's from

(17:40):
Iraq originally. And we had a very heated conversation and
one of the things that came out of it was
that I felt that visitors to this country, whether it
be it by way of a student visa, work permit,
permanent residency, have certain rules they have to go by,
and the hatred should be checked at the border, or
they should not be allowed into the country. She disagreed.

(18:03):
She said, because they are underprivileged, because they come from
other areas that are not so wealthy and thriving. They
are allowed into this country and they enjoy all the
rights of this country, and so therefore it's okay for
them to do what they do. Nobody can treat them
as lesser citizens. I disagreed. So there are two questions

(18:24):
I have for the Rabbi. Number one is I felt
really bad that she felt that. Effectively, I think she
felt that I was a racist. Well, she didn't say that,
I'm paraphrasing, but she felt that there was something wrong
with me. I was coming from a biased perspective. So
that made me feel really bad. So my first question
to the rabbi is should I care what she thinks

(18:45):
about me? Is that a Jewish thing that we do care?
Feel guilty, feel bad? Or like, who the hell cares?
Who is she? That's question number one. Question number two
is my position versus her position on the issue of
visitors to Canada or any country. Should they enjoy the
automatic rights that even some LOCALSS citizens don't have. How

(19:10):
should I guess, feel and act and be allowed to
do things differently?

Speaker 5 (19:18):
Okay, so let's talk about the first question. Are you
a racist? No, You're not a racist. Every country has
its own ideology, has its own culture, has its own values,
and when a person comes to a country as a guest,
they are supposed to be lavished with hospitality. But in

(19:44):
exchange for that hospitality, there's an expectation that they're going
to abide by the moral standards and the esthics of
that country. This is even encoded in the Bible. You know,
the Bible says that there are two different kinds of
residents in the Holy Land of Israel. There's the toshav,
which is the Hebrew word for the resident, and then

(20:06):
there's the gear. There's the stranger, And the Torah says,
you have to treat the stranger with tremendous compassion. He's
a guest. You were guests in the land of Egypt
and you were mistreated. You know what it feels like
to be mistreated. And so you have to treat people
with fairness, with equality, and with charity, and so that
if a person comes to this country with nothing, we

(20:28):
are supposed to be charitable to them. But at the
same time, the Bible itself says that anyone who lives
within the borders of the Land of Israel has to
abide by certain standards of behavior that are that are
that are consistent with the rules of the Torah. So
if a person, let's say, decided that he wanted to

(20:49):
violate the ten Commandments and still have equal rights, he
would not be granted those rights. And I think that
that's true with any country. I mean, the situation that
you that you faced with his guest on your show
yesterday is very similar to what the US Secretary of
State Marco Rubio was saying with that fellow Khaliel who

(21:09):
was deported from the United States because of all of
his nefarious activities on the campus of Columbia University in
New York. He was a guest of the United States,
even though he had a green card. The fact of
the matter is he's not a citizen. And if he
doesn't want to abide by the rules of the United
States to treat others with tolerance and not to foment riots,

(21:33):
not to foment hatred in violence against others, So then
if he's not willing to do that, he's no longer
welcome in our country.

Speaker 2 (21:42):
And Senator Marco Rubio has made it very clear that
the crux of the issue is would we have allowed
him into the country had we known that he is
a sympathizer of Hamas and active on behalf of Hamas
and possibly an employee of Hamas, and that we certainly
would not have allowed him to the country. So even
if we had just known that he's an activist, let

(22:04):
alone what he actually did when he was here, which
is to take over a building and take and kidnap
a janitor, janitor and so on. He did things that
if he was criminally prosecuted, he would probably be found
to be a criminal. So the crux of that issue
is similar to the crux of my issue with this sociologist,
where I said, you have to check your your hatreds,

(22:29):
your manners. You have to whatever animosities and predilections that
you have that come from living in Gaza or Syria
or Lebanon, you can't bring them here. We have a
different society here. We don't allow, we don't tolerate hatred.
So she didn't feel that I was right. And then
when I use the example of bowing down on prayer

(22:52):
mats on Young Street and blocking traffic for twenty minutes
or fifteen minutes, that just doesn't work for us here.
You go praise somewhere else. And I don't know if
I gave her the example, but I will give this
audience today the example. When I need to pray and
I'm at an airport, I do it in the least
intrusive manner possible. When they used to have payphones, I

(23:14):
would grab a payphone and pretend to be on the
phone when I prayed my afternoon's service, so that no
one would know that I'm praying, whereas some other religions
feel that it's the glory to God to go and
pray in large numbers. And it doesn't matter if you
inconvenience anybody. That doesn't work for us here, does it.

Speaker 6 (23:36):
No, no, it doesn't.

Speaker 5 (23:37):
It doesn't work to inconvenience others. But you know, with
that said, the reason why this is such a foreign
thing for you and me, Jack, is because we were
raised in a country that has Judaeo Christian values that
basically shows respect and tolerance to all people of all
faiths and people of no faith. Islam is both a

(23:59):
religion and a political movement. As a religion, it's completely fine,
it's very consistent with the other Abrahamic faiths. But as
a political movement, it has the ambition, at least some
of its adherents have the ambition to not only practice
their religion for themselves, but to impose that religious ideology

(24:20):
onto the entire society. And that's why you're seeing in Europe,
in the UK, and in France and in Belgium, these
mass prayer services that shut down whole streets, and that's
what's being attempted in Canada as well. It's uncanny to me.
It's just shocking to me that the citizens of these

(24:41):
countries have tolerated this for the sake of tolerance, not
realizing that there are limits to tolerance. And I hope
that Canadians are a little bit wiser in what we
choose to allow and not allow.

Speaker 2 (24:55):
Well, certainly Trudeau is the one that opened the floodgates,
and I don't see a much change in marc Arnie's
you know, admirations. I need to go to a break.
Rabbi when I come back, you mentioned the Ten Commandments,
and I'm going to pursue that line of thinking. And
I'm going to ask you about an address that was
made by the Chief Rabbi of Arkansas, Rabbi Cement, who

(25:18):
just addressed the House of Representatives and opened up with
a prayer. In that prayer, he brought up the Noah
Hyde laws. Can we talk about that when we come
back with Rabbi Krupkin. Right after this.

Speaker 7 (25:30):
Stream us live at Saga nine sixty am dot C.

Speaker 8 (25:45):
Hello, let's sit down and discuss this because it's just
gonna hurt American jobs. I can't stress it enough. And
you know, again, he believes he's supporting Americans. He said

(26:08):
he was going to create jobs, create wealth, reduce inflation.
It's worked the total opposite inflation.

Speaker 9 (26:15):
It's fair that you have tariffs on a whole number
of products.

Speaker 8 (26:18):
That's great, and we'd be willing to take those off
tomorrow if he took all the tariffs off. We are
not the problem, Andrew, do you know what the problem is.
China is the problem. And he's taken a blind eye
to China as they continue to build their critical mineral mass.
We have all the critical minerals that our great neighbors need,
We have the energy that our great neighbors need.

Speaker 2 (26:41):
I just want to go I just want to go
back for a moment.

Speaker 9 (26:43):
If in fact you're prepared to take your tariffs off,
why wouldn't you have that negotiation in that conversation now
before any tariffs get put in place.

Speaker 8 (26:51):
Well, we've had We've had this conversation for over the
last month. We don't want tariffs. We have another sixty
five billion dollars the terroriffs to launch today. That's the
last thing we want to do because it's just again,
it's going to hurt both countries. It's going to hurt
American workers. That's the last thing I want.

Speaker 2 (27:11):
And take the other ones off, not the ones you're
launching today.

Speaker 9 (27:17):
You're saying you take all your tariffs off.

Speaker 2 (27:19):
I'm saying that's right. Why is that not? I guess
my question is my guest is Rabbi Daniel Koropkin, senior
Rabbi at the Byte Congregation off Toronto in Thornhill, and
I want to say this about Robbie Carropkin. Every other
guest we have a two minute conversation and we exchange
topics that are of interest to my audience. I did

(27:41):
that with Rabbie Rropkin on the very first segment that
he did with us a couple of months ago. But
he made it very clear, you know what, Jack, throw
it at me, surprise me whatever it is it is,
I'll do my best. I don't need to prepare in
advance because I'm better off the cuff. Attribute to you,
Rabbi Rropkin. You're the only guest I have that doesn't
have any idea what I'm going to throw at him.

(28:03):
So I thank you for your breadth of knowledge. So
the question I put to you, and I think my
audience would like to know, why did the rabbi from
Arkansas bless the chamber with the that they assume the
Noahyde laws? What are those laws? Who do they apply to?
And what did he mean?

Speaker 5 (28:27):
Yeah, So, according to Jewish tradition, the entirety of the
Torah is only binding upon the Jewish people. In other words,
according to our tradition, there are six hundred and thirteen commandments,
some positive commandments, some negative commandments, but there's only a
subset of those commandments that are binding upon people who

(28:50):
are not of the face of Judaism. So those laws include,
you know, the big ones that we intuit anyway, don't murder,
don't steal, don't worship idols, don't commit adultery or other
sexual crimes, don't blaspheme against God. Another interesting one is

(29:11):
don't eat from a living animal, because this is what
idolators and pagans used to do in the ancient world.
They would just tear a limb off of a living animal,
and this creates a sense of cruelty, and that's also
one of the noaside laws, and also to set up
a proper judicial system within every country's boundaries. These are

(29:31):
all the noacide laws.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
So there are seven of them. I just counted.

Speaker 5 (29:35):
There are seven, but they actually, according to many of
the commentaries, they do extend a little bit beyond that,
but as a general rule, they're counted as seven.

Speaker 2 (29:45):
So we'll get into the meaning of the blessing from
Rabbi Cement in the House of Representatives. Why would he
bring that up? But before I get there, do we
explain that God gave the non Jewish world seven laws

(30:06):
that they must abide by. If one of those laws,
the one that we just mentioned about eating from a
living animal, if that applies only to then is god
time constraint? I mean, why would God not give them
a law that has no time limitations or time periods?
Like I'm confused by that. And that comes from the

(30:29):
issue of there you know, many much of the world
says you can't eat pork according to the Torah? But
why can't you eat pork according to the Torah? So
they interpret the prohibition to mean it was an unclean
animal and there was no refrigeration. Well I answer to that, Well,
you mean God didn't know about Westinghouse. God is limited
in knowing about the future. It, So why can't we

(30:53):
eat from a living animal? If that would not be
something that's out of style in the year time one thousand.

Speaker 5 (31:01):
I'm not convinced that it's out of style. You ever
go to a lobster house, I mean you and I
haven't gone there, But from what I understand, you get
to choose your lobster from a tank of water where
there's a lobster alive, and then they just take the
lobster and drop it into a pot of boiling water.
And I understand the same thing.

Speaker 2 (31:23):
Sorry, does that not kill the lobster?

Speaker 5 (31:27):
It does, but it's it's the same type of cruelty
that's displayed. In other words, you're not supposed to create
this type of or have this type of cruel behavior
towards any of God's looking creatures. And so that's the
way I understand prohibition of eating from a live animal is,
don't do anything to any other of God's other creatures

(31:51):
that's going to cause gratuitous pain, because that engenders cruelty
within the practitioner. I think that that's the universal commandment
that still has applications.

Speaker 2 (32:03):
For that understood. So, now, if I was a member
of the House of Representati as a congressman in the
United States, and a religious leader in this case, a
rabbi were to get up and make mention of the
seven prohibitions that are brought about by the noahide laws,
should I not be insulted by that?

Speaker 5 (32:23):
That's a very thoughtful question. I don't know how to
answer that question. Here's what I would tell you if
I was going to make a similar prayer. I'm not
sure if I would bring up the noahside laws. I might,
I might not. It's important to know that the rabbi
who said that prayer is from a group of Hasidic

(32:43):
Jews called Khabad or Lebavich and the Lebabacher Rebbi of
Blessed Memory was very well known for his desire to
rectify the entire world, not just to help the Jewish people,
but to help the entire world find and it's find
its place and to get to a higher station, as

(33:04):
it were. And to that end, he advocated that among
his disciples that when they do have an opportunity to
encounter non Jews and to be a source of influence
that they should discuss the Noachhaid Commandments, because he felt
very strongly that by proliferating the Noahaide laws this would
elevate society.

Speaker 6 (33:25):
As a whole.

Speaker 5 (33:26):
I can't say that I disagree with the logic. I
think it's very sound. I think, certainly when it comes
to issues of chastity and issues of sexual morality, the
seven Noahide Laws would go a long way of society
adhered to them.

Speaker 2 (33:40):
More agreed. You mentioned Marco Rubio, and I don't know
if you're aware of it through your congregation or your congregants,
or whether it ever applies to you, because you are,
I believe, also an American citizen. But there's a tremendous
pushback at US customer for Canadians now lately trying to

(34:03):
get into the US. It's happened to a family member
of mine, it's happening to many others, and it's turned
out that one of the rights that US Customs officers
have is to take your phone and to inspect the
contents of your phone right then and there. It's a
right that they have, and they can go through all

(34:24):
your social media, and they can determine if you have
anything negative to say about their fearless leader or his policies.
And so, how should I be worried about who's running America?
Should we all be concerned about? This is not going
the way we perceive democracy.

Speaker 5 (34:49):
I think we always should have a healthy dose of
concern when we see law and order being stretched. The past,
it's what we would call the normative boundaries of law
and or. I was just recently watching a documentary about
Humphrey Bogart and they were discussing the McCarthy era and
how they had these congressional hearings to accuse people in

(35:14):
Hollywood about being an American. And that's the concern now.
I'm sure that it was born out of the Cold
War and out of a concern that Russia was going
to try to somehow conquer the United States or at
least weaken it significantly, and they wanted to root out
all the bad people, all the bad apples within society.
We have a similar issue today, and that we're concerned

(35:36):
about something that we discussed before, which is the issue
of people coming in with terrorist ideologies and trying to
destroy our country from within. It is a legitimate concern,
but we have to be very careful to have a
watchful eye over our leaders that they don't overdo it,
they don't overextend these laws to make the United States

(35:59):
become a restless place to people who are going to
visit the country.

Speaker 2 (36:04):
We are going to break again. They happen way too
frequently when I'm with Europic Krupkin. But we're going to
discuss when we come back the the withholding. The money's
to Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, sixty other universities, and we're going
to discuss discuss a very worrisome trend and that is
a poll that just came out that says forty eight
percent of American youngsters youngsters meaning eighteen to twenty four

(36:28):
years old, now support AMAS over Israel. And how devastating
that is to me. I'm Jack Berkovis with but Daniel Korupkin.
We'll be back right after this.

Speaker 1 (36:48):
No Radio, No Problem stream is live on SAGA ninety
sixty am dot Com.

Speaker 10 (37:07):
Begin the show by telling you a story of acidic story,
but a guy that goes to his rabbi and says, Rabbi,
never believe what happened to me? My son left the
house and became a Christian. The rabbi said, never believe
what happened to me. My son left the house to

(37:27):
him became a Christian.

Speaker 2 (37:28):
So what do we do?

Speaker 10 (37:29):
We pray to God. They prayed to God and God said,
you never believe what happened to me.

Speaker 2 (37:37):
My guess is my Rabbi, Daniel Kopkin, thank you for
staying with us. That was a pretty good joke. We're
not going to talk about that.

Speaker 5 (37:46):
Though, So well, that was that was mody.

Speaker 2 (37:49):
That was Yeah, you're not supposed to know that stuff
like that in any case, that's why you're my rabbi.
So nine billion dollars of funding to Harvard over the
next ten years is now being held back or threatening
to be held back, because of their attitudes towards the

(38:09):
safety of Jews on campus. Princeton, Columbia, all in the many,
many hundreds of millions of dollars, sixty more universities have
been identified as places where Jews are not safe, and
the Trump administration is coming down very very hard on
those campuses, those universities, and there are many questions to
be asked. I mean, in particular, I think Columbia has

(38:32):
fifteen or eighteen billion dollars in its endowment fund donations
from former alumni. They also charge an incredible amount of
money to attend the universities. So not sure why they
need government funding, but they're getting incredible amounts that they're using.
The government's using those moneies as leverage to get the

(38:52):
universities to enforce what you think would be common and basic,
and that is protection of all students. It's not happening.
So Columbia has sort of caved in. There's still some
infighting at the university. Their president has quit, second president
that has left the campus. Now there's a third one,
and they seem to have a hard time just agreeing

(39:14):
to do the right thing. So a number one rabbi
corrupt cain, will this threat of withholding money work and
get the university universities to do the right thing? And
b how will that hurt public opinion against the Jews
that they seem to have some leverage on the government

(39:35):
that allows the government to do this on behalf of
one party, the Jews.

Speaker 5 (39:43):
Well, first of all, I thank god for President Trump,
if only for that reason, like we say at the
Passover Satir Dianu, if that was the only reason or
the only thing that President Trump did that was good
for the United States. That would be enough for me
that he is clamping down on the universities. I went

(40:05):
to university in the United States. It was a very
positive experience. I can't imagine attending campus today where anti
Semitism is rampant, where students feel like they're under threat
and they don't feel welcome on their own campus. That
should be intolerable any decent human being who's the citizen of.

Speaker 6 (40:26):
The United States.

Speaker 5 (40:27):
And I really don't care about any kind of backlash
that the public may have. Remember, the government in the
United States is not censoring these universities, is not telling
them what they may teach and what they may not teach.
It's simply telling them that if you do not control

(40:47):
the anti semitism on your campus, if you do not
control the hatred and the fomenting of violence against one
ethnic entity on your campus, then you will not receive
funding from the You could still keep your doors open,
you could still be funded by Katar if you want,
or by other private owners. But the United States government
should not be funding places that foment hatred against any

(41:12):
ethnic group. It doesn't matter to me whether it's Jews, Arabs, Blacks, Hispanics.
Any institution of education that discriminates against any particular ethnic
group should not be supported by the government. Period.

Speaker 2 (41:28):
Forty eight percent of young Americans eighteen to twenty four
year olds have now in a poll I think it
was a Harvard poll, indicated that their preference lies with
humas As against Israel. How do we account for that
and how do we fix that?

Speaker 5 (41:46):
Well, I blame the universities themselves. This is a problem
that has been fifty years in the making. Back in
the sixties and the seventies already there were people who
were promoted and paid by the Palestinian authority and by
their sympathizers to infiltrate college and university campuses, to become professors,

(42:12):
to try and mold very young and impressionable minds, to
the point where the vast majority of the faculty of
most university campuses are very, very far left, radical liberal ideologues,
and the students that go to these campuses are being

(42:34):
fed a lot of this vitriol. So it's not surprising
to me, if anything, the remedy is going to be
to do a complete overhaul with the universities of the
United States and Canada in an attempt that hopefully in
a few years from now. It may take decades to change,
to change the course of this ship, but we've got

(42:55):
to start somewhere, and the place to start is denying
funding until these schools get in line. And hopefully there
could be some other efforts people like Charlie Kirk who
are working on college campuses in the United States to
try to push back. Listen, I'm encouraged by the fact
that there are also poles that indicate that there is

(43:16):
a huge resurgence in joining the Republican Party among young
people in their teens and in their twenties, and liberal
parents who are part of the Democratic Party are lamenting this.
They're crying over this. So we shouldn't We should notice that,

(43:37):
you know, the polls can swing both ways, and we
should We should certainly always do the right thing, protect
the Jewish people, and not worry about the polls.

Speaker 2 (43:48):
Agreed, I spend an inordinate amount of time, probably more
than I should. I should be spending this time studying
the Torah, but instead I'm reading everything anywhere about what's
going on in the world and the big story today
in Canada is tariffs, and I thought that there would
be some clarity brought about by the press conference yesterday
with Donald Trump, or he was going to finally put

(44:10):
it all to rest. He was going to elaborate in
great detail as to what the situation is, and he did.
Visa VI Israel, Visa VI every country in the world,
and visa VI Canada, where he's threatened US and demanded
that we shore up the border so that no fentanyl
and no illegals come into America, and he's got us
to spend one point three billion dollars of money. We

(44:32):
don't have to do all of that when it turns
out that was all a bluff. The purpose of these
taras was never about fentanyl or illegal aliens. It was
about bringing jobs back to America. And these tariffs today,
I'm confused. I don't know if you know, do we
have tariffs or don't we have tariffs, because I don't

(44:54):
think anything's changing yet. Everybody, every headline, everywhere is Canada
hit with twenty five percent tariff and all the unions
and uniform is going to fight this, and Carney's going
to fight this. What is there to fight? There are
no tariffs. Am I wrong?

Speaker 5 (45:11):
I really don't have the answer to that. Jack. If
you asked me a question about the tumut or the tora,
I might be able to help. I know, I really don't, und.

Speaker 2 (45:19):
I just I know we're so well read. I just thought,
you know, because I started off the show with I'm
completely and utterly confused. You know it's not I listened.

Speaker 5 (45:29):
I listened to I listened to Trump's press conference yesterday,
or most of it. He pulled out that chart. I
looked at the chart. Canada is not even on that
chart of tariffs. So I don't even understand how this
is going to impact Canada. I think it's a little
bit too early for the regular person to know.

Speaker 2 (45:48):
So the pundits are saying that this actually will bring
down Mark Karney if there are no tariffs, because he
created a platform where he was going to be the
warrior on behalf of Canada, protecting us from the evils
of Trump, and he's going to fight him tooth and
nail and win this battle which cannot be won. And
now that he's if I'm correct, and I think I am,

(46:11):
that there are no tariffs, certainly no more tarifs than
there was on aluminum and steel, there's nothing on cars.
So his platform is gone. So the Liberals, if this
is true, the Liberals have suffered dramatically yesterday. Is that
a good thing for Canada? Are you allowed? Are you,
as a rabbi, allowed to get involved in who we

(46:32):
should be voting for?

Speaker 5 (46:36):
Well, I'm not allowed to provide advice to my congregants
as to who they should vote for. But what I
can tell you is that traditionally the Conservative Party is
much more pro Israel than the Liberal Party. Traditionally, the
Conservative Party is much more in line with protecting minorities

(46:59):
than the Liberal Party is, especially Jewish ethnic minorities, And
so I do have concerns. I have concerns about the
direction that Canada was going under the Trudeau government. And
I have concerns that despite Carney's perhaps presentation being a
little bit more impressive than trudeause I think it's more

(47:22):
of it would be more of the same, and this
causes me great concern. Having seen the poll yesterday where
Carne has surged ahead, I hope that reverses itself.

Speaker 2 (47:33):
I think it will. I also think that your parents
would have voted only Democrats, and I think that's changed.
And my parents would have voted only liberals, and that
certainly has changed. So this is an eglection that I
feel is very very important. A lot of Canadians, especially
of the Jewish faith, I have indicated that they want out.
They're scared to stay in Canada, and that's not a
good thing. In fact, I know of one rabbi who's

(47:55):
planning to move to Israel at some point. So wow,
I want to thank you, Arabi Ropkin. Always a pleasure
to have you on, and I thank your time is
very valuable. We really appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Speaker 5 (48:08):
Thank you so much. Jack. Let me wish you a
happy and healthy Passover holiday, and to all of your
listeners as well, and for those celebrating Easter, blessed Easter
to you all.

Speaker 2 (48:17):
Thank you so much. The same. To you, I'm Jack
Berkowitz and I'll be back with a heck of a
big hour coming up. Right after this.

Speaker 6 (48:42):
We were petrified, kept thinking we could never live without
you by us.

Speaker 1 (48:47):
Side, and we spent so many nights thinking how you
did us wrong. Now we've bended all together.

Speaker 9 (48:54):
Your tennis made us.

Speaker 2 (48:55):
Strong and so you know so great.

Speaker 1 (49:00):
That's not snowballs. Chance in hell will be your fifty
first state. We should have told you this before.

Speaker 2 (49:06):
You don't believe this, but it's true.

Speaker 1 (49:09):
You really need our resources, but more.

Speaker 7 (49:11):
Than we need you.

Speaker 2 (49:12):
So not just go walk out.

Speaker 1 (49:15):
The time we do not see you. You're not welcome anymore.

Speaker 9 (49:21):
Weren't you the one who instigated these trade fights?

Speaker 10 (49:25):
You'll soon grows to regret it when.

Speaker 3 (49:27):
We turn two.

Speaker 1 (49:28):
Fights in a battle.

Speaker 2 (49:31):
We will survive.

Speaker 1 (49:32):
He as long as we can think and.

Speaker 7 (49:35):
Work, we know sam live.

Speaker 6 (49:37):
We have all we really need.

Speaker 1 (49:39):
We can live without your greed.

Speaker 4 (49:41):
We will survive.

Speaker 6 (49:43):
We will survive.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
There's pretty change.

Speaker 6 (49:47):
It's timmy now we're nothing, slightly little country still in
honor you.

Speaker 1 (49:54):
We are now a nation proud that has happened to
be free.

Speaker 2 (49:58):
You didn't realize.

Speaker 1 (49:59):
You've gay our own disease.

Speaker 2 (50:02):
And who wasn't.

Speaker 7 (50:07):
We can't think.

Speaker 2 (50:11):
We are back. Wasn't that a great song? That's such
a great song. We will survive, Yeah, we will. But
it turns out that we don't have to worry about
it because Donald Trump spared us. Can you ever forgive
this man for all the garbage he puts us through?
The threats Canada Mexico, Mexico, Canada, Canada, Mexico. He's gonna
punish Canada, Mexico, I legal aliens, fentanyl. It was never

(50:34):
about any of that. But still they were coming. They
were coming. The tariffs were coming. The tariffs were coming,
and the unions got up in arms and people left
the country and people stopped buying. Can you imagine the
amount of business that was lost from the moment Donald
Trump announced the tariffs until today because they thought they'd
be out of work if they were autoworkers, or they
thought that they were going to have no income because

(50:57):
their pension funds were going to go down and value,
which they did. As a matter of fact, let me
tell you about that. Right now. The markets are in
a massive decline after the threat of tariffs and the
tariffs on the rest of the world. So the S

(51:18):
and P, Standard and Poor is down three point four
percent at that's the worst drop it's incurred since September
twenty twenty two. The Dow plunged twelve hundred points, the
Nasdaq went down three point eight percent. Multinational stocks like
Nike I just bought a pair of sneakers there yesterday,

(51:41):
down eleven percent. Apple down eight percent. Retailers like Dollar
Tree and The Gap are down ten to fifteen percent.
Tech giants like Nvidia and Tesla big time declines as well.
The tariffs are set to take a April fifth. They

(52:01):
impose a baseline of ten percent duty on all countries,
a baseline that's the minimum, and higher rates for nations
that charge steeper tariffs on US goods. Trump defended the move.
He called it a not a full reciprocal response to
unfair trade practices. So I don't understand. I will never

(52:22):
understand what the game was why lead Canada and Mexico
to believe that they're about to fall apart. I mean
the scare that he put into all of us, and
he kept repeating it and repeating it. But you will
recall if you listen to the show that I have
been saying and repeating over and over and over again.

(52:42):
Canada will be exempted. There is no way that a
country like America, even with a president that is as
hard to predict as Donald J. Trump, there's no way
you pick a fight with Canada. You know, there's always
that one person in your life that you just don't
fight with. That could be your mom, could be your sibling,

(53:03):
it could be your best friend, it could be the
neighbor next door because he's just too nice. There's one
person in the world you do not go to war with,
and that's Canada. You do not attack Canada. Like, how
do you go from being perfectly best friends to sorry,
go we gotta put you out of business. No, even

(53:24):
Donald Trump cannot do that. And I've said it. I
even said it yesterday over and over again at the
last minute. Canada will be exempted. And everybody made fun
of me, including my friends, my family, They all made
fun of me. He's a jackie. You're missing the point.
He doesn't care, I said, he can't not care. Furthermore,
it's not possible that his inner cabinet will allow him

(53:47):
to do that. They will stand up to him. You
do not go to war against Canada. It's part of us,
and we attribute it to him all kinds of reasonings
and considerations. You know, he wants to crush us. Militarily
he can't, so economically he will. And we're going to
become the fifty first state and Trudeau slash Mark Carney

(54:07):
will be the governor. No no, no, no, no no no.
And so yesterday when he went ahead with his press
conference and I missed it. I kept saying, where's Canada.
It's not on his chart, Where's Canada? And then I
started absorbing every single literature out there about all And
it took me all night of tossing and turning to
get up this morning and to continue the research to

(54:30):
learn I was right. There is no Canada. He did
not hit us with any additional duties on top of
the ones he announced a month ago about steel and aluminum.
There is no other duties. He is in total compliance
with the agreement that he negotiated in twenty twenty or

(54:52):
twenty eighteen in his first term of office. He renegotiated NAFTA.
I came up with Kuzma Canada usch Ago agreement KUZMA,
and he negotiated the best deal he could at that time.
Why would he want to throw that out and say
that's garbage. I mean, he negotiated it. How can he
now call it garbage? And so all the fear that

(55:14):
we had, I mean, you know you could. We only
have so many years in this world. There's an incredible
debate in the Talmult. The Talmud is part of the
Torah and the debate is, we believe as Jews that
before you're born, your journey in life, it's duration is predetermined.

(55:35):
So when you're born, your duration on this planet is predetermined.
You will live to be ninety seven years, three months,
and twelve days and thirty one hours and six seconds
of life. That's what you've been given. So the rabbi's debate,

(55:55):
can I influence that number? Can I do things that
will make it longer? Can I live a little longer?
Or can I do things that will make it a
little bit shorter? Can I do things that will impact
on my lifespan to the detriment and the rabbis in particular,
there's an argument the debate between a rabbi Akiva and
the group of rabbis on the other side, and Rabbi

(56:17):
Akiva says, of course, you can influence your lifespan by
doing good things such as well, we know that the
reward for honoring your parents is additional life. The rabbis
the Torah tell us that if you honor your parents
one of the commandments, honor your elders, honor your parents,

(56:40):
the reward for that is more life. Well, clearly we
can do things that will be to the benefit of
our lifespan. And I'm sure that we can do things
that will take years away from your lifespan. We also
have instances in the Torah where somebody can dedicate part

(57:00):
of his life and grant it to another person who's
about to die or is shortened lifespan. So you can
actually donate. Don't ask me how to do that. I'm
not such a big donor when it comes to these things.
You can actually donate part of your life to another
person so that he could live longer. So, yes, you

(57:21):
can shorten your lifespan. We have the power to do
good and to do bad, to influence our lifespan. So
I think that when Donald Trump puts a scare into
all of us, can he influence our lifespan? No, I
don't know if a second person can influence, if a
third party can influence our lifespan. Yes, he can by

(57:43):
donating life to you, but canny by scaring the heck
out of you. Maybe the answer to that is no.
So I'm taking I'm no longer causing Donald Trump to
be guilty of murdering me. But it doesn't feel good
to have gone through the last several months saying yes
no to tariffs, and how will it impact my life?
And maybe I should consider leaving this country. It's not

(58:05):
the country I once I loved, and it's still a
country I love, but it's got to change, and it's
got to change for the better. And that change is,
I believe, no doubt in my mind, not a liberal government.
You need to vote conservative if you value the quality
of your life, if you value the country and it's

(58:27):
thinking and the immigration policies, and it matters to you.
I've never considered myself a racist. I know I'm all
over the board here, but I'm in my mind I'm
the furthest thing from a racist. My friends are blacks
and browns and yellows. My friends are young and old
and in between. My friends are Jewish and Muslim and Christian,

(58:48):
and in between. My friends are everything. I pride myself
on really loving everybody around me. I even love people
that are wicked in the hopes that I can somehow
get them to see the light and come around. I
don't like anti Semites, and I don't like anybody that
hates others, and I try to work on them to

(59:10):
have them see the light. It's very demoralizing when you
keep coming across young people who are just so ignorant
and will tell you their version of the truth when
they have not read anything and know nothing. Gasins who
are gay, or demonstrators in America who are gay, who

(59:30):
support gasins who would kill them the minute they landed
in Gaza, but yet they demonstrate on behalf of gasins
who want them dead. I just don't understand that. And
the answer to that as well, It's better to be
killed by a gas in because I'm gay than to
say I love Israel or I support Israel because Israel
is a genocidal country. I mean, it's just really really demoralizing.

(59:52):
Having said all of that, there's a death penalty in
the making right now where the United States is seeking
a death penalty for Luigi Mangioni. He's no longer in
the news. Here's a young man snuck up behind a
fellow called Thompson who was an insurance executive and just
shot him and killed him on the spot, cold blooded,
pre planned. Why. We don't really know, but we believe

(01:00:16):
it's because he's an insurance executive. And Luigi Mangoni felt
that people who are in the business of providing insurance
or the depriving insurance of people should be killed. We
don't understand that. Now we know he had some health
issues and maybe wasn't given the care he thought he
should have had, But he certainly had enough wealth that

(01:00:37):
he could have bought the health coverage that he needed.
And I think he got the health coverage that he wanted,
but for some reason, he's never explained it. He killed
in cold blood in Manhattan, a fellow called Thompson, who
was a senior executive at an insurance company and this story,
died overnight because they arrested him. It was incredible. He

(01:00:59):
was identified a a in a restaurant in Pennsylvania, a
pizza shop, and he's in custody and Pambondy, the Attorney
General of the United States, is going to seek the
death penalty for him. And I mixed on that issue.
I mix on a lot of issues, But I do
believe that people who do what he did should be killed.

(01:01:20):
But I don't believe that anyone on earth has the
right to kill someone else. So how is it that
we can execute someone because he killed someone? Is he
likely to be a threat to anyone else? Ever? Again?
Is he ever going to kill. Somebody's ever going to
hurt anything or anybody, So as punishment only to kill,
as opposed to punishment plus de Trent for future generations

(01:01:42):
and other people, That's a debate worth having. I'm Jack Berkovitz.
I've got fifteen minutes to go in the next segment
before I get a very special guest to gain. So
I'd like to hear from you in the next fifteen minutes.
Two eight nine, two seventy five ninety six hundred two
eight nine, two seventy five ninety six hundred. I'll be
back right after this.

Speaker 1 (01:02:12):
No Radio, no problem stream is live on SAGA ninety
sixty AM dot c A.

Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
We are back, And I was wrong about this segment.
I forgot that Keith is coming at ten fifteen and
not at ten thirty. So I am pleased to present
to you, ladies and gentlemen, a very special man. His
name is Keith Dardin. He's been with us before twice
I think twice or once in any case. He's a
doctor professor of political science at American University, educated that

(01:02:59):
you see and at Stanford. He's written books, and there's
one coming out shortly called Resisting Occupation in Eurasia which
is Ukraine and whatever. And he'll talk a little bit
about that book in a second, but my first question,
Welcome to the show, Keith. Thank you for coming and
thank you for giving us so much time. I appreciate it.

Speaker 6 (01:03:19):
Thanks, it's nice to be back. But I will say
I got my PhD at UC Berkeley, not UC LA.

Speaker 2 (01:03:25):
Yes, I'm sorry, yes, yes, you know what I was
just I was testing to see if you're listening. That's it,
you know, and if your memory is better better than mine? Yes, Berkeley?
That is that is that is so true? How would
I possibly mess that up? But I've done worse. So
your book, Resisting Occupation in Eurasia, when will that be
coming out?

Speaker 6 (01:03:47):
That should be coming out in the fall. It's been
I've been holding on to it just because there have
been so many developments in the war and so I
think I'll sat that for location in the fall.

Speaker 2 (01:04:01):
Okay, And with is it available to pre order now
on Amazon?

Speaker 6 (01:04:07):
I do not think that it is.

Speaker 2 (01:04:10):
No, Okay, So you let us know because so I
certainly want to order one, and I want to get
your signature on it because you are You're a celebrity.
So let's talk about the developments in that war. Donald
Trump and his candidacy during the campaign, said, I will
it never would have happened if I had been president,
like Joe Biden was president. That's why it happened. Number one.
Number two, I'll get it settled right away. Number three.

(01:04:34):
He puts the screws to Vladimir Zelenski, and Zelenski blinks
and caves in and says, fine, let me give you
my minerals. Let's go and make peace and put them
laughs at him. Is that where we're at.

Speaker 6 (01:04:49):
That's kind of where we're at. I mean, I think
that I think Trump had thought that because the war
is costly for the Russian side, that they would have
an incentive to end it. The reality is it's been
so costly to the Russian side that they're not going
to end it on terms that are not as favorable
as they think they can get out of this situation.

(01:05:10):
And so yeah, they're not willing to do the thirty
day cease fire or anything that's going to end the
war at a time when they feel that they have
the advantage.

Speaker 2 (01:05:20):
Well, didn't we get signals from Putin just before the
inauguration that yes, he's very keen on a cease fire.
Was he signaling something to get public opinion on his side? Well,
what was that about?

Speaker 6 (01:05:36):
Well, I think he is keen to end the war.
And so, but when Putin was talking about ending the
war through a negotiated settlement, he was willing to essentially
accept Ukrainian capitulation. So you know, he thought that, you know,
if the United States were to withdraw its support from Ukraine,

(01:06:00):
that would give him enough bargaining leverage to essentially get
his war aims at the negotiating table. And so I
think that Trump was talking about ending the war some extent,
the Ukrainians were talking about ending the war, and Putin
was talking about ending the war. But all three of
those parties had very different ideas of how this war was.

Speaker 5 (01:06:21):
Going to hang.

Speaker 2 (01:06:22):
So, as I understand it, what Putin wanted was a
no issue about CRIMEA that's mine, I've had it now
for twelve years or whatever, and I'm not giving it up.
B I want all the land that I've conquered now
to be mine. I'm not giving any of that back.
And three non NATO joining for Ukraine. Is that not

(01:06:44):
what his stated goals were.

Speaker 6 (01:06:48):
They were and even more than that, not only no
NATO for Ukraine, but significant limits on the Ukrainian military
what he called demilitarization. And he also wanted regime change
in Ukraine, so new elections in his mind.

Speaker 2 (01:07:08):
So which part of that is difficult for Ukraine? And
Zeleski I'm sure would love to walk away from all
of this and go back to being a comedian. I mean,
are they not prepared to give up the land that's
been conquered, which I believe is about twenty percent of
the land mass. Are they not prepared to walk away
from Crimea? They're on a much choice that that's pretty
much lost. NATO will not have them, says Donald Trump.

(01:07:30):
So exactly what are the issues remaining to be negotiated?

Speaker 6 (01:07:36):
The main issue is the demilitarization, So Ukraine won't publicly
and officially give up its right to return to its
nineteen ninety one boundaries, although they would have I think
the fact, willingly accepted the sort of Russian de facto
control over parts of Ukraine that they have already conquered.

(01:08:00):
But they don't want to leave themselves in a position
where they're unable to defend themselves going forward. In case
Russia reinitiates the war after a period of rebuilding its
armed forces, and so the demilitarization and the lack of
a security guarantee that would make Ukraine feel like it
could defend itself in the future and that would make

(01:08:22):
the peace stable. That's really the deal breaker for the Ukrainians,
which is why they kept talking about if not NATO membership,
some kind of security guarantee from the United States that
would deter the Russians from reinitiating this war five years
from now.

Speaker 2 (01:08:40):
So Donald Trump's been accused of being in the pockets
of Vladimir Putin, and let's ignore that possibility for a second.
But do you believe that Trump is prepared to go
up tough against Putin and increase the various sanctions that

(01:09:01):
have already been placed on Russia and increase those dramatically.
Is Donald Trump the man that can stand up to
Putin or not?

Speaker 6 (01:09:11):
I think Trump would be willing to increase the sanctions,
but I don't think Trump is willing to continue to
send arms and ammunition and share intelligence with the Ukrainians
for the long for a long haul. So I think
the military support and financial support for Ukraine is what
this administration has already said they're not going to continue.

(01:09:34):
That's why they want this war to end, and so
the fact that they've put that out front makes their
bargaining position very weak. So it's true, we could really
crack down on secondary sanctions, for example, on Russia. We've
just you know, in the last twenty four hours, essentially
imposed sanctions on the entire world. So clearly this is

(01:09:55):
not an administration that shies away from putting on grade
restrictions on other countries. So Putin could definitely be put
in the same category as everybody else. But I don't
think that we're going to be putting the US military
stocks and producing for the Ukrainians in a way that

(01:10:18):
would allow them to stay in the fight for the
long term. So that's really where the Trump administration is
not willing to stand up to and the Europeans aren't
fully capable of standing up to Putin on their own.
So that's that's why we're at where we're at. So
the Russians don't really want to make a deal now
because they know that the rug is kind of coming

(01:10:39):
out from under the Ukrainians regardless of.

Speaker 5 (01:10:42):
What they sign on to.

Speaker 2 (01:10:43):
So has Trump made a mistake or was that brilliant
and that he's basically announced to the world that his
support for Ukraine is coming to an end, thereby weakening
the Ukrainian bargaining position and thereby emboldening Vladimir Putin. Is
this something that was smart?

Speaker 7 (01:11:00):
No.

Speaker 6 (01:11:01):
I think that the Trump administration could have made this
the outcome of the negotiations. In other words, if they
kept their cards a little bit closer to their chest
and said, you know, uh, we'd like to negotiate an
end to the war. This is costly for you, it's
costly for us, it's costly for the Ukrainians. But we

(01:11:23):
want to make sure that this ends on a you know, on.

Speaker 5 (01:11:25):
A reasonable basis.

Speaker 6 (01:11:27):
And a reasonable basis might have been, you know, Ukraine
gets to enter the EU, gets to maintain its military capability,
and we will continue to supply them at a peacetime
level with some with military hardware. You know, so there
could be a kind of arms control agreement that was
set Uh. And in exchange for that, we're gonna, uh,

(01:11:51):
you know, in exchange for your acceptance of that and
your you know, and your willingness to end the war. Uh,
We're gonna pull back from Europe and do some of
the things.

Speaker 11 (01:12:01):
That you're very concerned about.

Speaker 6 (01:12:03):
Right, So instead we said we're pulling back from Europe,
we're pulling out of Ukraine, and why don't you also
then make some concessions on Ukraine? And so it doesn't
work that way. It's sort of like hand handing the
goods before the other side pays for them. Say here,

(01:12:23):
we're going to give you this gift. Now, why don't
you make us a gift of one hundred dollars?

Speaker 5 (01:12:28):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:12:28):
So, should America's allies be terrified by the position taken
by Donald Trump, and that is, we want out and
we don't care if we're leaving you hanging.

Speaker 6 (01:12:42):
No, I mean I think that they have signaled this
for a long time, and the Europeans have had quite
a bit of time to step up their own efforts.
So there is a certain degree of responsibility I think
that needs to be borne by our allies as well,

(01:13:05):
and you know, the Europeans and Canada for that matter.

Speaker 8 (01:13:08):
Right.

Speaker 6 (01:13:08):
Canada, you know, has been pulled multiple times to raise
its defense spending to two percent of GP, and Canada
has been one of the most vocal advocates of the
Ukrainians in this war. But essentially, you know, the United
States is saying, you can't continue to advocate and not

(01:13:30):
pony up the resources that are going to be required
for this conflict and keep expecting us to do so. So,
you know, I think that the US could have signaled
this to the allies more quietly, but more compellingly, given
a date at which we were going to withdraw our support,

(01:13:53):
rather than simply withdrawing our support and expecting them to
be able to pick up the slack when that's clear
not going to be the case.

Speaker 2 (01:14:01):
So do you believe that the reason America has been
supportive of all of its allies militarily and through financial cooperation,
that they've done that for the benefit of the ally
or they've done that because it serves America's interest first,
it's a.

Speaker 6 (01:14:19):
Little bit of both. So the United States benefited from
peace in Europe, and in the post Cold War period,
the United States probably benefited from European states not having
a large offensive military capability because wars had been very

(01:14:43):
costly for US in Europe.

Speaker 2 (01:14:45):
And so.

Speaker 6 (01:14:47):
We have benefited for sure in the sense that there
was a stable world out there that nonetheless relied on
our military to provide that degree of secure instability, but
it's very costly to the United States to extend, particularly
you know, in conventional weapons, the sort of blanket of

(01:15:10):
US power across the entire globe, right, so not just Europe,
but Asia and Latin America. And so I think that
there had to be some sort of recalibration where very
wealthy European countries took on more responsibility with respect to
their own defense. And so I do think that we

(01:15:32):
have benefited from peace in Europe, but it's not you know,
we would benefit from peace in Europe that is paid
for and supplied by the European states themselves even more
that way.

Speaker 2 (01:15:47):
Right, So, as I see it, there are two benefits
that America has to bring to the world. One is
this incredible marketplace, a very very strong marketplace with a
lot of activity and a lot of money being exchanged
every day. That's the American marketplace. And two is America's
military strength that it is there to protect its allies
or all Western thinking countries all over the world. If

(01:16:10):
America now says that you can no longer rely on
us for your military strength and we will not come
to your aid, because you should be taking care of
that yourself. And America restricts its marketplace by putting up
walls and tariffs. Is America ultimately going to hurt itself
long term?

Speaker 6 (01:16:31):
I think that we will be weaker in the sense
that we will be able to exert less influence and
less power in the world. Certainly on the economic front,
we're going to be poorer, as is everyone else with
this restriction on global trade. But on the security front,

(01:16:54):
I think that the United States doesn't necessarily need to
continue to play that role Glowe, and that we can
ask more of our allies and partners. So I think
it's important not to underestimate how little the Europeans and
other NATO members other than the United States and say

(01:17:15):
Turkey and the UK, we're doing to provide for their
own security. And so at the end of the Cold War,
you know, Germany was had you know, mandatory military service.
They spent you know, four percent of their GDP on
the military, and you know that declined over time, and

(01:17:39):
they had other spending priorities because they knew the United
States would essentially bail them out and provide security for Europe.
That's not a good arrangement over time, so there had
to be some kind of recalibration, and no one took
the United States seriously when it said, you know, we
need you to do this, We need you to step up,

(01:18:00):
We need you to put your resources towards your own security.
And that's kind of what an alliance means, that we
each provide something for this alliance, not just a protective
blanket by one party over the other, much more like
the US Israel relationship. For example, Israel does an enormous

(01:18:20):
amount to provide for its own security and enhance US
security interests by its own capabilities. We don't see that
in our European or North American partners, and so that's
something that I do think had to change, and that
the world will function better if we have a more

(01:18:43):
robust alliance, and that can only happen if our alliance
partners provide a little bit more for their own security.
So it's unfortunate that the Trump administration has taken things
in the direction that they have, which is essentially an
almost a withdrawal from the alliance relationship. But it does

(01:19:03):
seem that other strategies, the cajoling, the begging, the requirements
to spend more. Uh didn't work right?

Speaker 2 (01:19:12):
My guess is Keith Darden, professor doctor, and he'll be
with me when I come back. Right after this.

Speaker 1 (01:19:26):
Streamers live at SAGA nine six am dot c A.

Speaker 5 (01:19:39):
They we're back.

Speaker 2 (01:19:46):
My guest kids, professor doctor, Keith Darden, American university man
who knows his stuff. So, talking of ceasefires that are
slipping away, what about the one in Gaza? Is it gone?

Speaker 6 (01:20:02):
You know, I think it's possible that we may end
up getting a release of the hostages out of this.
And so the fact that the Israelis have really stepped
it up, and you know, Cats has made claims in
the last twenty four hours that you know, Israel is

(01:20:25):
going to seize more territory and that tousands will be
asked to evacuate that territory. You know, it's really putting
the pressure on Hamas. And so it was clear that
when there wasn't pressure on Hamas, Hamas was not going
to be agreeing to a cease fire under decent conditions

(01:20:45):
and not going to be releasing hostages. So we might
get there now. In general, we have to hit Hamas
where they really hurt, and that is with their legitimacy
with the pouse in population in Gaza, and the main
thing that affects that is the loss of territory and

(01:21:08):
the last those territorial control. So hopefully, hopefully we'll get
to a cease fire. But I'm not terribly.

Speaker 2 (01:21:15):
Optimate, so I was confused or sort of. I couldn't
understand that when President Trump announced that if they don't
release the hostages, all hell will break loose, and then
Nataiahu echoed those sentiments saying if they don't release the hostages,
all hell will break loose. My confusion was, well, what
are you going to be able to do now that

(01:21:37):
you couldn't do before? Meaning, what is the issue for
Israel the hostages. They can't bomb away a carpet bomb
all of Gaza because they may hurt their own people,
which to some degree they've already done. So what can
they do? And now there's been a shift. There's no
question that Israel has stepped up the bombing and that

(01:21:58):
Israel seems to be lesks concerned about the issue of
maybe hurting their own hostages. There is seems to be
a willingness on the part of Hamas to negotiate more seriously.
The issue as I see it now is will it
be a forty day cease fire or a longer cease fire.
Will it be ten hostages or five hostages. But there's

(01:22:21):
definitely a willingness on the part of Hamas to talk.
Are they sensing finally that their days are over?

Speaker 6 (01:22:30):
I think they're sensing that they're more vulnerable than they
have been at any time in this war. So the
public demonstrations which were really unprecedented that we saw of
Palestinians in Gaza protesting against Hamas, the calls to release
the hostages, all of the hostages by Palestinians and by Gozans,

(01:22:54):
I think those are things that really challenge Hamas's global
narrative that they are the defenders of the Palestinian people.

Speaker 11 (01:23:02):
And that they're seizure of hostages.

Speaker 6 (01:23:06):
Was legitimate in some way, and so that I think
has affected their calculations, and so they may be willing
even to leave Gaza.

Speaker 5 (01:23:17):
Uh.

Speaker 6 (01:23:17):
That's that's certainly certainly a possibility. I don't think it's
necessarily the additional bombing, although that's that's clearly had an
effect on the Palestinian population. I do think that the
idea that Israel might take and hold more territory in
Gaza has really been a that's that's threatening to Hamas

(01:23:41):
as an organization.

Speaker 2 (01:23:42):
So do you sense that these demonstrations that have seemed
to have arisen willy nilly sort of spontaneously, is that
the Gasin population finally coming out with what they've really
been thinking? Or have they changed their position from recognizing
how for their defender, their champion and now seeing it

(01:24:05):
as a failed situation. And let's turn on Hamas. Were
they always anti Hamas or are they just becoming anti Hamas?

Speaker 6 (01:24:13):
They were not always anti Hamas. I think that you know,
the surveys that Khalil Chikaki, that you know, sort of
a Palestinian polster, has done. It's done clear whether you
know how reliable those surveys are, but they have shown
a steady decline in popularity of ham in Gaza, increased

(01:24:35):
popularity for Hamas in the West Bank, but decline of
popularity for Hamas in Gaza over the course of the war.
And I think that Palestinians really enjoyed ceasefire this time,
you know, and the idea that they could go back
to rebuilding their lives they've lost so much, They've lost

(01:24:55):
so many people, and so the fact that Hamas would
not agree to conditions that would lead to a permanent
ceasefire in their minds, that I think that is that
has affected their view of Hamas significantly. So we've seen
a qualitative change in the attitude of the population towards Maas.

(01:25:18):
So let's keep in mind, this is not all of Gaza.
It is not all Palestinians. You know, there were thousands demonstrating,
but there are you know, you know over you know,
not quite two million, but a very large number of
Palestinians who were not demonstrated in God. So, you know,
I think that there are cracks in Hamas's political hold

(01:25:43):
over the over the Gaza strip.

Speaker 11 (01:25:46):
But it's not clear, you know, sort of how deep
those are.

Speaker 6 (01:25:50):
Going to run.

Speaker 2 (01:25:51):
So Odai al Rabeza was a twenty two year old
man who had the audacity to demonstrate he is now dead,
tortured by Hamas and then had his body dragged throughout
Gaza and dumped at the front of his family home.
That is the public name, the public story of one person.

(01:26:14):
There are stories of many others, at least seven others
that have been equally arrested, tortured, and killed. Do you
think the public is aware of that? Does Amas want
the public to be aware of that because it serves
their purposes of scaring the public, And now that the
world is getting to become aware of that, is this
going to be the death knell both internally and externally

(01:26:36):
for Hamas.

Speaker 6 (01:26:39):
I think i Mus definitely wants the public to be
aware of it, the sort of you know, the you know,
these are like lynchings essentially in the way that they're
the desired effect is on the audience of the living,
and so they're really trying to demonstrate to the population
of God that you know, they will suffer terribly at

(01:27:06):
any public display of opposition to Hamas, and so Hamas
definitely wants to terrorize the population into public displays of
support for Hamas compliance with Hamas. But you know, it
does affect Hamas's position globally, So you don't see much.

(01:27:29):
You know, I'm on a university campus which are sort
of famously anti Zionists, and so you haven't seen much
discussion among the kind of pro Palestinian anti Israeli groups
about Hamas's terrorism of the gods and population. Amas as

(01:27:51):
a brutal authoritarian regime that is illegitimate in Hamas. You
don't really see it affecting that, but I do think
it does affect you know, it does affect normal world opinion.
The more these kinds of crimes and the more that
Hamas is sort of terror hold over the population becomes clear,

(01:28:13):
like those are those are very different images than the
images of you know, Palestinian children wrapped in white sheets,
you know, sort of death by the hands, death of
Palestinians at the hands of Hamas play very differently and
change the narrative about what's going on in Gaza in
a way that I think it's very harmful to Hamas.

(01:28:35):
I don't think it's the end of them yet, but
it does. It does hurt them internationally.

Speaker 2 (01:28:41):
Is American University where you teach, is that one of
the sixty universities that are targeted by the Trump administration.

Speaker 5 (01:28:50):
It is.

Speaker 6 (01:28:51):
It is because we had there was a case, a
suit filed under Title six so that the Jewish students
and Israeli students were not being protected by the university
from harassment, and that was filed last year under the

(01:29:12):
Biden administration, and so all of the universities where there
were suits brought against Title six claims brought against the
universities for anti Semitism. Those are now going to be
investigated by the US government, and I support that investigation.

Speaker 2 (01:29:29):
Wow, I want to talk about that. I'm with Keith Darden, Professor,
doctor Keith Darten, and we'll talk about that when we
come back right after this.

Speaker 1 (01:29:44):
No Radio, No Problem stream is live on Sunday ninety
six am dot C A.

Speaker 2 (01:30:15):
I AM Action. My guest is doctor professor. Which goes first,
the doctor or the professor Keith Darden.

Speaker 6 (01:30:23):
I think it's hair doctor, professor.

Speaker 2 (01:30:25):
Hair doctor, professor, PhD.

Speaker 6 (01:30:28):
But as always, you can just call I.

Speaker 2 (01:30:31):
Know, but I want my audience to know that I've
got an important guest here. If I just called you Keith,
they wouldn't know. So I'm doing this for my sake.
It's important for me to have important guests, So thank
you for being that guest. I have a lot of
things to ask you about, and I'm running out of time,
so let's get right into it. How do you feel
in the University America University when you know that there's
a problem with Jewish students, that they're not welcome they're

(01:30:54):
not feeling safe. There's a title six investigation. How do
you feel being there?

Speaker 6 (01:31:01):
You know, I feel like I should support Jewish students
and I should try to make the university protect Jewish students.
So the university has you know, done a lot in
the last five years to protect other protected categories, you know,
sort of racial, racial and ethnic groups and religious groups,

(01:31:25):
and I think it has fallen down on the job
of protecting Jewish students. And so while I entirely support
my colleagues right to express whatever views they have about Israel,
very often that carries over into into you know, sort

(01:31:48):
of the use of the term Zionist as a proxy virtue,
and anti Zionism can become anti Semitism in that way,
and I know that the Jewish students have felt that
way on campus. Many Jewish students have felt that way,
and so I do think it's it's worth having a

(01:32:10):
thorough investigation of campus policies that protect all students and
making sure that Jewish students in particular are not neglected
in those campus policies while being respectful of you know,
legitimate scholarly work and legitimate criticism of any country. The

(01:32:33):
United States Israel, what have you? So I feel, you know,
I have a thick skin. So you know, when the
students come into the atrium of my building, I'm the
anniversary of Christalma shouting from.

Speaker 11 (01:32:47):
The river to the sea. You know, it bothers me.

Speaker 6 (01:32:51):
But I you know, I can, I can, I can
let it.

Speaker 11 (01:32:56):
I can let it go.

Speaker 6 (01:32:57):
But you know, if they're going into the dormitory is
on a regular basis, if they're you know, marking the
doors of Jewish students with anti Israel propaganda, then I
do think that crosses over into harassment and that the

(01:33:17):
university needs to.

Speaker 11 (01:33:18):
Take action on that.

Speaker 2 (01:33:19):
So how tragic.

Speaker 6 (01:33:21):
I think it's been beneficial, how tragic.

Speaker 2 (01:33:23):
How tragic that we've normalized anti Semitism or anti or
hatred of anybody or anything. At least the fanic has
been booted as the US Ambassador to the United Nations,
allegedly because they need her win in upstate New York
because the margin in the Congress is so tight. But
it's no longer that tight because they want two seats

(01:33:43):
in Florida two days ago. Is there another story that
we're missing out on here?

Speaker 7 (01:33:50):
No?

Speaker 6 (01:33:51):
I think, I think, I hope there's no other story
that we're missing out on. I think I think the
Sonic was very impressed at the hearings of the education.
Was a sign of it with the presidents of the universities. Yes,
it was actually a highlight of my you know, it

(01:34:11):
was very satisfying to see that be the campus climate
and the kind of ambivalence and weakness of campus leadership.

Speaker 11 (01:34:21):
Put on such stark display.

Speaker 2 (01:34:23):
Amazing, and she did an amazing she was amazing. I
was so excited that she'll be in the United Nations.
But now I think it might be David Friedman. And
that's not a pretty bad choice. That's a great choice
as well. Also good, also good. Rubio is saying that
coming into America from Canada allows them and they have

(01:34:44):
this right that customs to seize your phone and scroll
through your social media to see if you're anti pro Trump.
Are we embarking on something very dangerous?

Speaker 6 (01:34:55):
Well, the borders have always been an area where the
government was able to do unwarranted or warrantless seasure of
your devices. That's been true for a long time. You know,
it's and it's true of other countries' borders as well.
I know that when I travel to say Russia or Europe.

(01:35:16):
They can also do an examination of my devices. I
think the problem is that you know, looking through those
devices for things that are not criminal activity. In other words,
there's nothing wrong with being opposed to the you know,
the policies of any US president, and so it's what
they're seeking in those searches and what they might use

(01:35:38):
as conditions for denying entry to the United States that
is worrisome in this particular moment. The search is we've
never been able to protect you know, how to right
to keep our devices locked when we cross a border.
That's that's been true for a long time. Customs, you know,
customs and border they can search any goods that are

(01:36:01):
coming into the country.

Speaker 2 (01:36:02):
Last question, and I know you've got a Canadian connection,
you're married to one. At tariffs, how bad is it?

Speaker 5 (01:36:08):
It's bad?

Speaker 6 (01:36:12):
And I think you know, we've seen a nine percent
drop in the US stock market in the last twenty
four hours. You know, everything that you learn in ECON
one is probably correct, which is that you know, if
you impose tariffs, we produce less and pay more for it,
and everyone is worse off. And you know the relationship

(01:36:36):
between the United States and Canada is a very close
economic relationship. Anything that is going to throw up barriers
to that relationship is going to impoverish both sides. It's
really going to affect Canada even more than the United States.
But the United States is going to be affected very
significantly by throwing up walls to global trade. We benefit

(01:37:00):
fitted a tremendous amount from having a global trading system
that we are really the center of, and bringing that
to an end is going to mean things cost more.

Speaker 5 (01:37:11):
For us and we just have less of it.

Speaker 2 (01:37:13):
Professor doctor Keith Dardin American University, thank you so much.

Speaker 6 (01:37:20):
Thanks, it's a pleasure joining you again.

Speaker 2 (01:37:22):
Thank you very much. We'll be back. No, we won't
be back. That's it. I'm done. Aha. I'm going to
go right now to work at Laurence Allen Center. Come
by jewelry because it's going up in price. Tariffs are
killing us. I love you all.

Speaker 1 (01:37:49):
Missed part of the show or the whole show. Go
to Saga nine sixty am dotz to find the podcast.

All Episodes

The Jack Berkovits Show - April 3, 2025 - The Seven Noahide Laws, Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism with Rabbi Daniel Korobkin and Keith Darden

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Jack Berkovits Show - April 3, 2025 - The Seven Noahide Laws, Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism with Rabbi Daniel Korobkin and Keith Darden