generational divide. i'm michael smerconish in philadelphia. when it comes to supporting israel, america is seeing a significant split. thousands protesting in d.c. today to demand both a cease-fire in the israel-gaza war and an end to u.s. aid to israel. in many cities and on many campuses, missing persons-style posters created by israeli artists to support the hostages being torn down. the president of israel, isaac herzog, wrote this in "the new york times," "professors and students at american colleges make speeches and sign statements justifying terrorism, even glorifying it, and then it would have been unthinkable to hear such moral confusion uttered after the september 11th attacks or after bombings in london, barcelona, and baghdad." so what's different this time? why the troubling rise in anti-semitism? data suggests it's generational. by way of example, according to new polling by quinnipiac, half of registered voters in the u.s. approve of israel's response to the october 7 attack, while 35% disapprove. but among voters 18 to 34, those numbers flip, 32% approve, 52% disapprove. an earlier quinnipiac poll found while 10% of americans hold israel more responsible for the outbreak of violence, among 18 to 34-year-olds that number basically doubles to 19%, and only 55% of them blame hamas. the founder and ceo of another poll, harris x blamed some of gen-z's opinions on its relatively uninformed views of the conflict and said, quote, they don't have a clear distinction between hamas the terrorist organization and the palestinian national movement. last month, a berkeley law professor, steven davadov solomon, outraged some on campus with this op-ed in the "wall street journal," "don't hire my anti-semitic law students." he recounts the student organization lost students for justice in palestine, asked other student groups to adopt a bylaw that bans supporters of israel from speaking at events, and 11 other groups adopted it. he wrote this, "the student conduct at berkeley is part of the broader attitude against jews on university campuses that made last week's massacre possible. it's shameful, and it's been tolerated for too long. it's time for the adults to take over, and that includes law firms looking for graduates to hire." in response, more than 200 alumni signed an open letter to the law school's dean, who will join me here in a moment, he's a constitutional law scholar who happens to be jewish. the letter urged him to publicly address the harm done by the article and to uphold freedom of speech for all students. he sent an email affirming the school's commitment to freedom of speech, including language that others find offensive, even deeply offensive. a couple of weeks later, perhaps he changed his mind when he published an op-ed of his own in the "los angeles times" called "nothing has prepared me for the anti-semitism i see on college campuses now." he wrote these words, "there has been enough silence and enough tolerance of anti-semitism on college campuses. i call on my university administrators to speak out and denounce the sbcelebrations of hamas and the blatant anti-semitism being voiced." this past wednesday, more than two dozen major law firms sent a letter to the deans of 14 of the nation's top-ranked law schools. it said this, "as educators at institutions of higher learning, it's imperative that you provide your students with the tools and guidance to engage in the free exchange of ideas, even on emotionally charged issues, in a manner that affirms the values we hold dear and rejects unreservedly that which is antithetical to those values. there's no room for anti-semitism, islamaphobia, racism, or any other form of violence, hatred, or bigotry on your campuses, in your workplaces or our communities." i want to know what you think. about some smerconish.com and answer today's poll question -- should a student's political speech be considered by prospective employers during the hiring process? irwin shamorinsky joins me, dean of the u.c. berkeley school of law. his latest book, "worse than nothing: the dangerous fallacy of originalism." professor, great to have you back. here's the question -- where is the line -- today there are large protests, is it defensible to march for palestinian rights? is it defensible to burn an american or israeli flag? and what about advocating from the river to the sea? >> all of that is clearly protected by the first amendment. the right to advocate for palestinian rights, there's the right to defend what israel's doing. the supreme court has said there's a right to burn an american flag, so there's also a right to burn an israeli flag. there's a right to chant from the river to the sea. all of this is being protected by the first amendment. >> okay. a colleague of yours suggested to prospective employers that they ask students to what organizations have you belonged. is that an appropriate question? >> i don't think it's an appropriate question when it's put that way. i'm uncomfortable with law firms using students' speech or ideologies as basis to deny them jobs. professor solomon has the right to express his views, but they're not the views of the law school. we're committed to helping every student find a job. >> i referenced the letter that was sent to the law deans from so-called big law. i'm sure you're familiar with it. i read one paragraph aloud. what's your take on that? >> i certainly agree with the law firms in condemning anti-semitism and condemning islamaphobia. i'm not sure from the letter what the law firms are asking the law schools to do. >> well, are you concerned about speech on campuses? blatant anti-semitism i would argue needs to be called out, and prerperpetrators of it held accountable. we are having a conversation as to what that actually looks like. but at what point does big law go too far and might the schools go too far and students feel like they can't show up and even witness an event on campus for learning purposes? >> students can say what they wish, but law firms can decide that expression of certain views don't reflect what they want present within their firm. imagine that a student were at a rally or on a blog to express just horrible white supremacist views. in the law firm, that hired that firm says we don't want someone with those views in the firm. the student has the right to express white supremacy and the law firm has the right to say that's not who we want in our firm. students have free speech rights, but law schools can't protect them from the consequences of their expression. >> does my analysis, my summary of the polling data at the outset of this program, on the subject of a generational divide, does that comport with your observation and your experience? you've been around students for many, many years. you're an astute observer. >> yes, it very much correspond with what i see every day within my law school, within my campus, campuses across the country. there is a deep divide between a group of students who believe that israel shouldn't exist at all and who celebrate what hamas did, and a group of students who deeply believe in the importance of israel and condemn what hamas did as terrorism. i don't know how to find a bridge between those students. >> how much of that is due to a misunderstanding of the facts on the ground? i shared at the outset of the program a quote from an individual who runs one of the polls who said he's not so sure that they distinguish properly between being supportive of palestinian rights and the actions of hamas on 10/7. how do you see that? >> i very much agree with that statement. i think my students who celebrated hamas did equate hamas with palestinian rights. and i think there is generally among students a lack of historical awareness. this week was the 100th anniversary of the ballfour declaration that said there would be a jewish state where israel's located. my guess is a few of my -- few of my students have ever heard of the declaration. >> professor, in the piece that you authored that i read from aloud, you spoke of your own experience and some of the anti-semitism to which you've been exposed. expand on that. >> i certainly have seen within my law school and campus celebration what hamas did. also, a week ago yesterday, there was an instagram post of me with military make-up saying that i had taken an indefinite leave from the law school to join the idf. i held a town hall which had been previously scheduled, and a student said to me the only way that you could feel safe in the law school was to get rid of the zienlists in the law school -- zionists in the law school, which i took to mean get rid of the jews in the law school. >> how do you respond? >> respond directly. we can't yet rid of -- the law school, those with any viewpoint. but i said in response i consider myself a zionist in the sense that i support the existence of israel. and many jewish students who wrote afterwards said they wished they had spoken out, but in the environment it was difficult. i do want to make clear there's a great difference of opinion within the law school and on the campus and all campuses. i don't want anyone to get the impression that the viewpoint of that student is representative of most or even a significant minority of the students. >> how are you -- final question -- how are you answering my poll question today? should a student's political speech be considered by prospective employers during the hiring process? >> the difficulty that i have with -- it depends on what the political speech is. if a student expresses white supremacy -- i think students celebrates what hamas did on october 7th, i understand why law firms want to consider that, as well. but also i wouldn't want law firms to decide who to hire based on whether they support biden or trump. >> professor, appreciate your sentiments as always. thank you for being here. irwin shemarinsky. he answered the poll question at smerconish.com. i don't think he likes that it's a binary choice, but it is what it is. go vote. should a student's political speech be considered by prospective employers during the hiring process? from the world of twitter, what do we have? hit me occupy social media. it's not about the political or religious beliefs of an employee. but if those beliefs will disrupt the operation of the workplace, says ed hudly. i don't think this is limited to big law. we could be having this about any employers. like where is the line of when it matters? keep voting, i'll give you the results as they stand at the end of the hour. ahead, mutual dehumanization. that's what pulitzer prize winning "new york times" columnist nicholas cristophe said he saw on the ground in israel. the worst he says he's ever seen. and with prime minister benjamin netanyahu reportedly rejecting u.s. pleas for humanitarian pause comes the prospect of a prolonged war which cristophe says will only make things worse. nicholas cristophe will join me inin a moment.t. in israel despite calls by secretary of state antony blinken and others for humanitarian pause in the fighting to allow relief to reach the citizens of gaza, prime minister benjamin netanyahu said friday there would be no cease-fire until the hostages are released. cnn is reporting that u.s. officials are anticipating a new phase in the coming days in which israel decreases the scale of its air campaign and focuses on a more tactical ground operation. joining me is nicholas cristophe, two-time pulitzer prize-winning columnist for "the new york times." his latest piece, " lolosing ho in the west bank." nice to see you it. i'm looking at the front page of today's "new york times" above the fold. the headline is the convention at wisdom, israel rebuffs blinken's plea for war pause. but now i'm going to put up on the screen what axios is reporting. they say what actually took place is this -- that blinken had a message, according to one u.s. and two israeli officials, we don't want you to stop, but help us help you get more time. how do you read the tea leaves? what do you think really is being said between american representatives and the israelis? >> so maybe not surprisingly -- i can't think the "times" got it right. i think the white house and tony blinken have felt increasing pressure and have wanted to have a genuine humanitarian pause. you know, not a -- some kind of lasting cease-fire, but some period where people would be able to move out of northern gaza safely, i think they'd like to see more fuel imports into gaza. some relief partly to take the pressure off of israel and off of the united states for its role in this. and i think benjamin netanyahu, you know, pretty much stiffed tonight blinken pretty directly. >> in other words, you're suspect of the alternative version which is this is becoming a domestic issue in the united states, maybe 100,000 in washington, d.c., today. so publicly the administration, you know, tries to put guardrails on the israeli ground incursion. but privately says we understand, this is what you've got to do? nicholas kristof, suspicious of that analysis. >> yeah, i am. i do think that the administrations would welcome a humanitarian pause at this point. you know, i think it's also -- you know, my read of it was that president biden was really very, very deanly moved -- deeply moved by the october 7th attacks and by what hamas did. and that lined up so directly behind netanyahu that afterward they tried to walk it back a little bit. i think they've also been moved since then by these extraordinary scenes from gaza and tried -- i think they were also struck by the outrage from cairo, from jordan, et cetera, and the refusal of leader there to meet with president biden and so i think they've been trying to be a little more balanced in their approach, and i think that's part of the reason for the call for humanitarian pause. >> i highlighted something that you wrote recently. i'll put it on the screen and read it aloud. quote, i don't think this is politically sustainable for israel or morally sustainable for america as we provide weapons used to kill and maim civilians, nor do i believe it will be effective at protecting israel. expand on those words. >> look, you know, what happened on october 7th was a catastrophe. it was a war crime. the response in israel's interests and morally is not to engage in war crimes to repay war crimes. and israel has every right to go after hamas. but right now what we've been seeing in gaza is entire blocks being leveled in a way that is not -- is not surgical at all. i think the u.n. last i saw had launched 72 staff -- lost 72 staff members. a child is being killed in gaza on average for more than three weeks now once every ten minutes. and you know, the idea is this is going to go on for months and months. i don't think that that is morally appropriate. i don't think that that is protecting israel, and i think it is right for the biden administration to put pressure on israel to try to take a more surgical approach directed at hamas rather than taking out entire city blocks. >> in 1982, a younger nicholas kristof backpacking through the middle east meets a pair of palestinian men who are contemporaries in the west bank. you write about this. it's a really compelling piece. you enjoyed their company. they enjoyed yours. 40-plus years later you wondered are they alive, i found them, tracked them down, and just spoke with them. thankfully everybody's still alive and healthy. what did you learn? >> it was really poignant. i had had no communication with these guys, and found them, we had lunch together, they invited me to visit their refugee camp where i visited their homes originally. and what struck me was that they had been full of ambition, full of hope, and over the years, over the decades, they'd lost that. they both hoped to engage in graduate school abroad. and neither was able to do that because of crackdowns, getting permission from the west bank. they originally had been able to drive to the beach and tel aviv, travel all around, and then because of understandable security concerns -- and there were, you know, there were suicide bombings -- so the barrier was put up, the checkpoints were put up. now mahmoud can't easily go visit his doctor still in the west bank. to get to them, i had to drive -- take an israeli taxi, leave it at a berm, walk over it, and take a palestinian taxi. i couldn't even get into the camp this time. and they just conveyed a sense of hopelessness for themselves, for their kids, for their grandkids, that i think has -- i felt very poignantly was a real loss of freedom of dignity, of sense of purpose, and i think as many wage the representative of the tragedy that's happened to palestinians and underlines the broader risk of an explosion on the west bank. >> i'm going to put in my social media losing hope in the west bank by nicholas kristof. a must read. up this for coming. we appreciate it. more social media reaction now from the world of x i believe. why are we calling for a cease-fire when we should be demanding a release of the hostages? are innocent civilians any less human to you simply because they are jewish? i hope, alanna, that that's not directed at me. i agree with you that not enough of this conversation has been hostage driven. that needs to be the priority, and i hope that they're all alive and safe and come back. i want to remind you, make sure you're going to smerconish.com and answering the poll question. i will be really interested at the end of the hour to see how this is going. should a student's political speech be considered by prospective employers during the hiring process? up ahead, it's possible for a.i. to be utilized as a force for good. this week we saw how it helped build a new quote/unquote beatles song. i'm more concerned about its darker potential like the story of a new jersey high school where the boys used a.i. to create deep fake nudes of their classmates. i'll talk with one of the teens whose image was altered. and sign up at smerconish.com for the daily newsletter. see award winning cartoonists like jack ohman. check that out. the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. to me the biggest story about a.i. this week was not the president issuing an executive order to curtail it or the meeting on capitol hill with elon musk and mark zuckerberg trying to get a handle on it or how it was utilized to finish that new beatles song. instead, it was the story out of new jersey about how male students at the westfield high school were sharing fake nude photographs of their fellow female students doctored from actual online pictures using a.i. there are currently no federal laws in the united states against the creation of sharing nonconsensual deep fake pornography. a recent study found the number of pornographic deke fakes on line doubled early six months from 2018 to 2020 and that 96% of deep fakes are sexually explicit and feature women who didn't consent to the videos. the incident in westfield took place over the summer, but officials only learned about it on october 20. the school implemented an investigation and sent out an email asking if a parent or guardian thinks their child is a victim of a criminal act related to the incident to report it to the local police. in a local facebook group in westfield, some parents called to punish whoever had created the images. others saw it as a forgivable, youthful transgression. in a statement to cnn the school said, quote, we aren't able to provide specific details