IDF Reservists Fight Anti-Semitism on College Campuses

November 10, 2017

WRITER

On today’s show, Glenn was joined by Amit Deri, the executive director of Reservists on Duty (RoD), an organization of former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers dedicated to fighting and anti-Israel propaganda on college campuses across North America. Founded in 2015, the volunteer group is comprised of army reservists from every religion and background, including Christians, Muslims, and Atheists.

Surge of Jewish Center Bomb Threats Reminds Us 'Never Again' Has Never Mattered More

“Our goal is to fight hate groups,” said Deri. “I can tell you those groups are anti-American. They are anti everything, anti the western world. Our group is coming first to expose those groups on campus. To educate and give tools to Jew students and non-Jew students for how to speak about Israel, to refute the lies and bad labels they are spreading all over the place.”

Listen to the podcast above to hear the whole interview.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I found out about a group called Reservists on Duty. It's an organization created because of the military experience and the encounters with the far left that are -- that anti-Semitic organizations are -- are using to attack Israel and the -- the members of the IDF. And these are -- these are becoming very, very powerful groups. And you just can't -- you just can't stand up and tell the truth of what you know about Israel. So these reservists have come together. And they have served on active duty in various combat positions. These are not Jews.

These are Christians and Muslims. And I believe atheists. That are standing up and saying, "Wait a minute. None of that is true."

We have Amit Deri. He's the executive director of Reservists on Duty. Amit, how are you?

AMIT: Good morning, Glenn. Thank you for having me.

GLENN: You bet. Okay. So tell me exactly what you guys are doing.

AMIT: So, yeah, Reservists on Duty is a group of former Israeli soldiers. The reason the Jews are also there, but there are a lot of them that are Americans who today lives in Israel. But also a lot of minorities that lives in Israel. You probably know that in Israel, we have Muslims, we have Jews, we have Bedouins, we have Christians. We even have Palestinians. And a lot of them are willing to come and speak in favor of Israel on college campuses. And our goal is to fight BBC, anti-Semitic groups -- hate groups actually that works on campus. And you mentioned, by the way, that those groups are anti-Israel. But I can tell you that they are actually anti-American. They're anti-everything. They're anti the Western world.

GLENN: Yes.

AMIT: And our group actually has come in first to expose those groups on campus, to educate and to give tools for Jewish students and non-Jewish students, how to speak about Israel, to refute the lies and the blood labels that those guys are spreading all over the place. And -- and that's Reservists on Duty. We are -- we are usually coming when they are producing -- you probably know, Glenn, that they're producing a week -- a whole week against Israel called the Israeli apartheid group. You can find that in -- I think in every college campus in America. You have a week against Israel. They build the big wall. They call it the apartheid wall, which means the separation wall that we have here in Israel. Building the wall with a lot of quotes and a lot of lies. And they're actually, for the whole week, spreading lies, misinformation, and disinformation. Pure anti-Semitism against Israel and against the Jewish people.

GLENN: Okay. So a couple -- so a couple of things. So you can contact you, I would imagine. And ask for you guys to come and speak at the college.

I think having a Palestinian speak is really powerful. You know, speaking in defense of Israel.

What is the reception that you're getting at these campuses?

GLENN: Actually, this is our main challenge. We have a lot of people -- all of them are volunteers. And our main challenge is to -- we need more people to invite us. We're not just coming and showing up in the middle of campus.

So we need groups, more groups, Jewish groups, Christian groups, conservative groups, that will invite to us speak on campus. So I invite your audience and the people who are listening to us now to invite us to their college campus. We will come. We have the best speakers. And you said -- you mentioned the Palestinian guy. I can tell you, it's not easy for those speakers.

GLENN: I know.

AMIT: We just came back from two weeks to the United States, with a minority group. One Christian, one Arab, one Muslim girl, one Bedouin, and one Palestinian. And they experienced a physical attack. Freedom of speech today in America, I think, is under fire. I think you know that better than me.

And those guys two weeks ago, they gave a speech on a synagogue, not in a college campus. In a synagogue in New York. Lincoln Square Synagogue. And in the middle of the speech, temple of Palestinians probably -- Palestinians or Muslims sneak into the building or synagogue and started to shout and yell and scream and curse in every possible language inside a synagogue, and tried to physically attack the Palestinian speaker. Just drive them crazy when Arabs, when Muslims, Christians, Bedouins, speak in favor of Israel.

So I think if this drives them crazy, we're doing the right thing. And we want to bring those guys more and more to the stage, and I invite people to invite us to come and speak.

STU: As sick as our universities are right now and all of the things that they're doing that are, you know, not up to what we kind of thought of as real American foundational principles over the years. There's really, I don't think anything, that seems to get our universities more angry than people saying positive things about Israel. Is that just the sort of dark themes that have gone throughout history when it comes to the Jewish people?

Is that an American military argument? Why do you think that is?

AMIT: I think, you know, the -- the essence is anti-Semitism. If you look from the leader of those groups, most of them are -- are Muslims, that immigrated to the states. And, you know, it's not about '67 borders, it's not about a peace agreement with the Palestinians. They want us out. They want the Jews, the Jewish people out from the state of Israel.

And when -- when we're coming on college campuses, you can always see that this is not only about Israel. It's also against conservative speakers who are coming to college campuses.

GLENN: Yeah.

AMIT: It's all the speakers who are not going with -- you know, with the mainstream, with what the -- by the way, most of the administrations on college campuses want to hear -- you are not welcome. Nobody will give pro-Israeli groups to do a hate week, literally hate week, like the Israeli apartheid group that those guys were producing.

Nobody in the administration would let us to do a week even in anti, even in favor of Israel, nobody would let us do that. And the administration, all college campuses are backing those students. I can tell you that we're experiencing the same, like we experienced in the synagogue, we experienced the same in Minnesota, on the campus. At a state university.

GLENN: When you guys speak or are asked to speak, does it cost -- does it cost the organization inviting you anything to bring you over?

AMIT: No money. No. We don't charge a penny. We want to do that because we believe in what we're doing. And all of our -- our activists are volunteers. There's a lot of people who are passionate for Israel here. And we want to do that.

Because we understand now -- and I think, by the way, Glenn, I think we understand too late unfortunately.

GLENN: Yeah, yes.

AMIT: Those guys started back in the '80s. '90s.

GLENN: All right. So how does somebody get in touch with you?

AMIT: Yeah. So we have our website. Onduty, in one word. Onduty.org.il. And all the details and all of our information, contact information and our activities and videos, on the website.

GLENN: Okay. It's onduty.org.il. Don't forget the .il. Onduty.org.il.

Amit, we'll talk to you again, and we hope to see you next time you're in the United States. Thank you for what you're doing.

AMIT: Thank you again. I want to -- I want to thank you and your audience for all of your support for the state of Israel, for the idea of -- I can tell you that a lot of people here in Israel listen to your radio shows and podcast, and we don't take it for granted. Thank you very much.

GLENN: Thank you, Amit. I appreciate it. God bless you.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep