Friday, April 19, 2024

By Daled Amos 

This interview was done before Israel's response to Iran's attack this morning. It outlines an approach that in fact appears to be the one adopted by Israel in Syria and Iran.

"Israel continuing undeterred to attack Iranian interests as before, would frustrate the Iranian attempt to stop Israeli action against Iran and their proxies"
Irwin Mansdorf, Ph.D., fellow at the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs specializing in political psychology 

Dr. Irwin J. Mansdorf

In your recent article, To Respond or Not to Respond: Is That the Real Question? you discuss the issue of Israel's deterrence of Iran, in light of Iran's direct attack on Israel. From a psychological standpoint, what is the definition of deterrence? How is its success measured?

Deterrence is simply reducing the probability, frequency, or intensity of an action. For Iran, deterrence is directed at Israel’s actions against Iranian interests in Syria, Lebanon, and in Iran proper. For Israel, deterrence is targeted against Iranian aggression against Israel.

Israel has been attacking Iranian targets both in Syria and in Iran itself for years now. What do you think Israel's goal has been, and has it been successful?

Israeli actions in Syria differ from Israeli actions in Iran. Most of the activity in Syria was directed against arming Iranian proxies who fight Israel. Action on Iranian soil was directed largely at thwarting Iranian nuclear ambitions. Measuring success is relative, and since the motivation for attacking Israel and developing nuclear capability still exists, we can only talk about suppressing behavior as opposed to eliminating it.

As a psychological tool, does Israeli deterrence rely only on the 2 opposing parties, or is there a message there for Israel's "allies" in the West and the Gulf as well?

To the degree that Israeli interests align with that of “allies,” the message is the same. But for each “ally”, there are domestic considerations, and those considerations can determine how far any country will go in their cooperation with Israel or the United States against Iran.

You indicated in your article that the debate of whether Israel needs to retaliate has overlooked Iran's purpose in launching their barrage of drones and missiles. What was Iran's intent? How does that goal affect Israel's calculation of whether to retaliate immediately? What do you think Israel should do?

The immediate goal of Iran was to “punish” Israel for the strike that killed several top IRG commanders. This was a public humiliation for the Iranian regime that they apparently felt they needed to respond to. By launching such a massive response, they hoped for success, which would be a reduction in Israeli activity against Iran. However, Iran’s ultimate intent is to destroy Israel. That has been made clear time and time again. I don’t think there was an expectation that the drone and missile attack would destroy Israel, but it certainly was a test of their weaponry and an exercise that was aimed at convincing Israel to restrain attacks against Iranian interests.

Since Iran’s goal was to reduce Israeli military and covert operations against Iranian interests, Israel needs to continue according to a plan that demonstrates that the Iranian attack did not achieve that goal.

You write:

Considering the success of Israel in its defensive stance, any future Iranian actions in response to Israeli initiatives should be viewed as a failure in Iran’s stated goal of deterrence, viz. Israel

Can you elaborate?

I don’t think that Iran expected that their drone and missile attack would fail to produce more damage than it did. That reduced the deterrent effect of their action. Considering the scale of their attack, they would be risking an even greater loss of deterrence should a subsequent attack produce similarly limited results.

Business as usual -- Israel continuing undeterred to attack Iranian interests as before -- would frustrate the Iranian attempt to stop Israeli action against Iran and their proxies. While a larger-scale "show" attack would certainly make waves, we need to keep in mind that Iran's purpose in their attack was to stop the current Israeli policy, and an approach that counters those goals would appear to be most effective, and, given the international support at the moment, the most functional and practical for Israel to take.

In 2006, Kissinger wrote:

A modern, strong, peaceful Iran could become a pillar of stability and progress in the region. This cannot happen unless Iran's leaders decide whether they are representing a cause or a nation — whether their basic motivation is crusading or international cooperation. The goal of the diplomacy of the Six should be to oblige Iran to confront this choice.

Hamas sees itself more as a cause than as a nation, claiming that the defense of Gazans falls to the UN and Israel. Would that explain in part why deterrence has not worked?

Absolutely. Hamas is an abbreviation for the “Islamic” resistance movement, and “Palestine” is not even part of their name. Their motivation may include nationalistic goals, but their primary purpose is a religious one—and that sort of ideology is much more resistant to change

What about Iran -- do you think their "cause" of spreading Islam in general and their brand of radical Islam in particular help explain why the West, for its part, has had difficulty deterring Iran? Is it possible to successfully deter Iran?

“Deterrence” is temporary. Within Islamist philosophy, temporary breaks in fighting are acceptable so long as the goal of ultimate victory can be resumed at a later stage. The religious ideology of Iran’s leadership will not be deterred, in the conventional sense, from moving towards their ultimate goal. While they may make temporary concessions that, to Western eyes, may appear to be steps toward accommodation, this is only a “break in action” until the circumstances and conditions are ripe for them to take the next step toward their goals. Iran may seem to accept “moderation” as a temporary and functional step, but their ideology will always keep its goals against Israel and the United States on “standby” until they are able to take action.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!



  • Friday, April 19, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon

Jordan's official Petra News Agency reports:
Minister of Endowments, Islamic Affairs and Holy Places, Dr. Muhammad Al-Khalayleh, condemned the desecration of the courtyards of the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque/the Holy Mosque by extremist Jewish leaders and groups.

Al-Khalayla said in a statement today, Thursday, that the attacks took place under the protection of the occupation police and with the support of political leaders in the government of the occupying authority.
Al Jazeera shows the actual Jews doing a full ninety seconds of storming. "On Thursday, dozens of extremist settlers stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, under heavy Israeli police guard. "

So much storming! So much desecration! Such extreme attacks! It's almost too much to bear!

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!



  • Friday, April 19, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon
Late Wednesday, I published a Twitter/X poll asking my readers what Israel's response to Iran's attack was likely to look like: 

"Symbolic attack" placed only 7th out of 8 choices, but that appears to be the actual response after the initial reports of a much larger set of airstrikes, reported primarily by ABC News  and then repeated and elaborated on by others.

Israel was trying hard to come up with a response that threaded the needle between lots of competing desires: don't prompt an escalation, don't appear weak, don't upset Joe Biden, don't wait too long.

We still don't know all the details, but we know that Israel hit an airbase near Isfahan as well as an air defense site in Syria. The latest reports say it was hit with missiles fired from aircraft, probably from outside Iranian airspace.  Earlier reports that drones were involved appear to not be true.

At the moment it appears that the attack was calibrated to appear similar to Iran's target of an Israeli airbase. In that case the target was also chosen to be symbolic. Iran tried to hit the airfield from which Israel allegedly struck Damascus, killing senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards leaders. 

But the symbolism in this morning's strike is multifaceted..

First of all, Iran's strike was much more massive - and much less successful. Israel is sending a message that it can hit Iran much more easily than Iran can hit Israel. 

Secondly, the choice of an airbase in Isfahan is significant, since Iran has nuclear facilities in Isfahan. Israel is telling Iran that it could have done a lot more if it wanted.

Thirdly, it is Iran's Supreme Leader's 85th birthday today.  Israel was sending an unmistakable "present" not only where but also exactly when it wants to. 

Fourthly, Israel's response was a surprise, unlike Iran's which was telegraphed for days - if not carrier-pigeoned.

Fifthly, Israel made it clear to the world that it would not succumb to massive Western pressure notto respond.

Sixthly, Israel sent a message that it was not isolated - it has powerful friends to help it defend itself. Iran has no one.

Finally, Iran  had promised it would respond to the tiniest attack "within seconds" at an "immediate and maximum level." Iran has lost credibility, both to its people and to the Arab world altogether that it wants so badly to lead.

Iran is very sensitive to symbolism, and it received these messages loud and clear.  

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!



Thursday, April 18, 2024

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Columbia Anti-Semitism Hearing
Columbia’s anti-Semitism problem is so advanced that today’s hearing was devoted solely to the esteemed former King’s College. The school’s representatives at the hearing were President Minouche Shafik, trustee cochairs David Greenwald and Claire Shipman, and its anti-Semitism task force head, law professor David Schizer (a one-time COMMENTARY contributor).

In December, the three school presidents failed to answer in the affirmative when they were asked if calling for the genocide of Jews violated their institutions’ policy on student harassment. Shafik and Co. were ready for that question today…but were unprepared for a host of others. Ironically, Stefanik saved Shafik from a late-hearing blunder regarding one of the most important questions of the entire proceeding.

It began when GOP Rep. Bob Good asked Shafik: “Have there been any anti-Islamic demonstrations on campus? Any anti-Muslim demonstrations on campus? Any anti-Arab demonstrations on campus?”

Shafik’s initial response, a telling indication of the warped worldview prevailing in academic spaces, was: “There have been many pro-Israeli demonstrations on our college campus.”

That was, by far, her worst answer of the day. Good stopped her and the two of them clarified together that as a matter of fact, there have been no anti-Arab or Islamophobic rallies on the Columbia campus.

That stands in contrast to the fact that the Columbia campus exists in an almost perpetual state of anti-Jewish agitation. That is true of plenty of other schools around the country as well. The key fact of the past six months in university life has been this: whether it be protests, harassment, intimidation by teachers and students, or administrative discrimination, no other group has been facing anything like what Jews have faced. University faculty, administrators, and student groups are guilty of no other organized campaign of out-group harassment. No other group is consistently told by campus security officials to hide evidence of their religion or ethnicity for their own safety. On the nation’s college campuses, nothing else exists that is comparable in any way, shape, or form to the campaign against Jews.
Matti Friedman: Homage to Orwell
Many of Orwell’s comrades took his honesty about Soviet Communism as heresy, and he spent years afterward avoiding old Stalinists in pubs. An account of this time appears in a superb new biography by D. J. Taylor, Orwell: The New Life, which was published last year. Orwell’s publisher, Victor Gollancz, wouldn’t touch his book about Spain because of its anti-Soviet angle, as the biography recounts, and the New Statesman turned down his essay “Eye-Witness in Barcelona” for the same reason: it would “cause trouble.” The magazine’s editor, Kingsley Martin, explained later that though the article may indeed have been true, the editor’s decision must actually be based “on general public grounds, to the end that one side might win rather than the other side.”

All of this sounds as if it were drawn precisely from my own experience seven decades later working in the Western press in Israel, which left me with similar conclusions and ultimately led me to Orwell’s essays. It is obvious that the story in the Middle East and North Africa in our times is the rise of violent and conflicting strains of Islam and the move of these ideologies and their adherents into the West. A great deal of effort goes into obscuring this, even though the phenomenon is visible from Algeria through Syria and Yemen and Iraq to Afghanistan, and from the Twin Towers to the Bataclan theater to the Nice promenade and the Manchester Arena. For a reporter in Israel, the main local incarnations of the phenomenon are the Islamic Resistance Movement (known by the Arabic acronym Hamas) and Islamic Jihad among Palestinians and the more formidable Party of God militia (Hezbollah) in Lebanon, all allied to some extent with the Islamic Republic of Iran, all working to forge a new Islamic order, and all explicitly dedicated to erasing the unbearable pocket of Jewish sovereignty on 0.2 percent of the land of the Arab world.

This is depressing but not very complicated. However, during my time in the press, we were expected to tiptoe politely around Islam’s two billion adherents and pretend the region’s key story was a group of six million Jews oppressing a minority, the Palestinians, who only wanted a peaceful state beside Israel. Because this was mostly fictional, my colleagues and I were forced into increasingly ludicrous contortions as we “built emotional superstructures over events that had never happened,” in Orwell’s words, and buried much of what was actually happening—like Israel’s rejected peace offer of late 2008, for example, which we were instructed not to cover, or like the way Hamas followed Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza by methodically wiring the territory like a suicide bomber, building a system of tunnels under the entire civilian landscape and quite clearly condemning vast numbers to death in the holy war they promised was coming.

This all fits what Orwell understood about the way Western observers are guided chiefly by their own politics and imaginations. Atrocities in war, he wrote, “are to be believed in or disbelieved in according to political predilection, with utter non-interest in the facts and with complete unwillingness to alter one’s beliefs as soon as the political scene alters.” He would have understood the refusal by many observers in our times to believe the details of the Hamas murders, rapes, and kidnappings of October 7, while being eager to believe a few weeks later that Israel had purposely bombed a hospital—and also the unwillingness of some on my own side to admit any civilian suffering in Gaza, and the desire to dismiss anything that makes us feel bad as “Pallywood.”

Some elements of Orwell’s writing suggest he would grasp the nature of Israel’s dilemma. One example stands out in particular: a striking line from a 1938 article phrasing the horrific dilemma of modern industrial war, which I read for the first time in Taylor’s biography. “The only apparent alternatives,” Orwell wrote, “are to smash dwelling houses to powder, blow out human entrails and burn holes in children with lumps of thermite, or to be enslaved by people who are more willing to do these things than you are yourself.” He hated wars, nationalism, and the British Empire, whose rapaciousness and racism he’d seen up close while a young man serving as a colonial policeman in Burma. But when World War II came, he tried to join the British Army, was rejected because of poor health, and ended up an enthusiastic recruit to the Home Guard. A responsible person will have to choose among poor options or different kinds of evil.
Everyone has right to self-determination, except Jews
We have recently been provided with fresh evidence of this moral collapse: Starting with the high priestess of progressivism, Judith Butler described Hamas as a progressive movement and the events of October 7th as acts of resistance. And it continues with the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT, who shamefully failed to condemn the call to genocide of the Jewish People.

The events of October 7 brought antisemitism to new heights of insanity and hatred: blatant support for the rape and murder of innocent men, women, and children, the demonization of IDF soldiers and the state of the Jewish people, comparing them to Nazis, the distortion of the Holocaust, and the application of hypocritical double standards tailored to specifically target one people and one state alone.

Streets in Europe are once again unsafe for Jews, and many of its leaders, instead of showing courage, are demonstrating weakness.

Instead of standing with the truth, they align themselves with false Palestinian propaganda. Instead of supporting the victims of the attack, they choose to side with the aggressors.

This moral laxity may serve short-term interests, but make no mistake: The ultimate result will be the intensification and strengthening of radical Islam barbarism.

It is enough to see what is happening on the streets of London to understand where we are heading. Just recently, British MP and friend of Israel Mike Freer was forced to step down from his position due to threats on his life from Islamists after his office was set ablaze by Hamas supporters.

Freedom is waning in the country that brought the Magna Carta to the world, and people can no longer speak freely; even Churchill’s statue requires protection to keep it from being vandalized.

Freedom is waning here, in the capital of the European Union, as we are all currently experiencing at this important conference. With strong “progressive” forces, doing everything to not allow up to speak up and share our voice.

As the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks reminds us: “What starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews.”

Those who turn their back on the righteous war we are fighting against absolute evil will eventually bring it to their doorstep.

Those who seek to deny us our historical rights in our eternal homeland will see their rights undermined.

The future belongs to those nations that will relegate political correctness and woke culture to the dustbin of history.

The future of the West hinges on courageous nations willing to swim against the current, and re-cultivate the values that Judeo-Christian civilization has brought to the world: the importance of tradition, the sanctity of the family, and the vitality of a robust community.

It depends on education that fosters a familiarity and appreciation of the past to comprehend the present and shape the future.

Dr. Chazoni, in one of your essential articles on conservatism, you wrote the following lines: "...The only forces that grant the state its internal consistency and stability are our national and religious traditions."

The unique national tradition is the foundation, and upon it is added the floor of individual freedoms and the limitation of executive authority, not vice versa. This is the essence of the conservative view.

This worldview is shared by a series of exceptional leaders, some of whom are with us here today, such as Prime Minister Victor Orban. Under his leadership and action, Hungary is one of the safest countries in Europe for its citizens and also for its small Jewish community that can express its identity in public freely without fear of harassment and violent attacks.

The leaders who stand firm on the right of Israel today do not do so because it is a startup nation, nor because of its cherry tomatoes.

They do it because they draw inspiration from the history of an ancient nation that has risen from the ashes and rebuilt its ruins. They are inspired by the eternal book that forms the foundation of our civilization.

They do so because of the values we share — human life, faith, family, and freedom. Eternal values that will survive both the storm of Jihadism that sanctifies death and the storm of "progress" that sanctifies nothingness.

This world is fundamentally good, this is our belief, which is why we bring sweet children into it even during difficult times, and why our anthem is "Hatikvah", The Hope.
  • Thursday, April 18, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon
I was interviewed in The Jewish Link that just came out today, where the interviewer called me "The Most Important Pro-Israel Blogger You Likely Never Heard Of."

The following cartoon from the pro-Israel blogger known as the Elder of Ziyon does a good job of summing up how the United Nations deals with Israel.


The United Nations has made the systematic invalidation of Israel a de facto tenet of its existence. Many U.N. agencies have their goal, like UNRWA, not to serve their constituency, but rather to preserve the existence of the agency. Often to the detriment of Israel.

Anti-Israel coverage in the Arab world has been going on for decades. Hasbara has long been used to counter that. And it’s unclear how effective it has been.

But one person who has been at the forefront of countering anti-Israel bias is an anonymous blogger known as the Elder of Ziyon. He wants to remain anonymous and has done a good job at that.

We know he’s an American male based on public audio recordings he has given. See

Of course, he could be putting on an American accent. But whoever he is and wherever he is from is ultimately irrelevant.

I’ve been a big fan of the Elder for many years. I reviewed his book “Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism” in The Jewish Link in 2022: 

As good as his blog is, I find it surprising that more people don’t know of it.

I contacted the Elder, who was kind enough to answer some questions.


Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!



From Ian:

Elliott Abrams: How Israel Can Win in Gaza - and Deter Iran
In the wake of Iran's attack on Israel with hundreds of drones and missiles last weekend, Israel must decide how to calibrate its response. One part of Israel's response must be to stay the course in Gaza, despite tremendous pressure from the U.S. and others to retreat. That means entering the southern Gaza city of Rafah and eliminating the Hamas brigades and leaders based there.

In 2006, Hizbullah attacked Israel, and the George W. Bush administration, in which I was serving at the time, gave the Israelis strong support - but only for a couple of weeks, after which Washington pressured Israel to end the war by extending assurances that have never been met and never seemed likely to be.

UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006 included an end to arms transfers by any state to Hizbullah and total Lebanese army control of Lebanon's south. Neither stipulation has ever been enforced - a testament to the dangers of relying on a paper peace rather than conditions on the ground. That is why Israel is resisting international pressure, especially from Washington, for a ceasefire that would leave Hamas in control.

Israelis across the ideological spectrum agree that Hamas must be crushed because they see the fight as an existential conflict. All of Israel's enemies are watching to see whether Israel can fully recover from the Oct. 7 attack. If they conclude that it cannot, the Jewish state will find itself in mortal peril. Israel gained Arab partners in the region through demonstrations of strength, not acts of restraint.

Polls make it clear that both Israelis and Palestinians are highly unenthusiastic about and wary of the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Gallup polls found that 65% of Israelis opposed the two-state solution and only 25% supported it. Among Palestinians, polls that Gallup conducted before Oct. 7 found that 72% of Palestinians opposed the two-state solution and only 24% supported it.

Moreover, the PA lacks the ability to lead a Palestinian state that would be free and democratic, have a decent and effective government, and build a prosperous economy. Palestinian nationalism still seems to be more about destroying the Jewish state than about building a Palestinian one. In addition, an independent Palestine would represent yet another route through which Iran would seek to attack Israel.

In last weekend's mammoth Iranian aerial assault, the Islamic Republic deployed hundreds of drones and rockets against Israel. Israelis understand that their country's long-term survival depends on reasserting deterrence by striking back: displaying resilience, determination, and military prowess.
Caroline Glick: What happens when children seize the wheel
Since Saturday night, U.S. officials and supportive commentators have played up the “international coalition” that came together to prevent Iran’s missiles from causing harm to Israel. This ad hoc group, which included Jordan and Saudi Arabia, it is said, are proof that Israel can depend on America and that if Israel follows Washington’s directives, it will enjoy peace and security even as Iran grows in power, and its proxies prevail, thanks to America’s protection.

But the truth is far different. The Saudis and the Jordanians are directly threatened by Iran. Unlike the children running U.S. policies, the Jordanians and Saudis were aghast at Iran’s assault, which they rightly understood was not a tit for tat, but an unprecedented escalation of Iran’s war. They realized that the attack was a sign that Iran believes that thanks to the Biden administration, it is now immune from counterattack, to the point where it dares to attack Israel directly. Their intervention wasn’t on Israel’s behalf, per se. It was self-defense, as officials from both countries have stated.

The U.S. posture in this war has rattled Israel and the U.S.’s Sunni allies to their core. Like Nasrallah, all of them now understand that while the United States is the most powerful actor in the region, it is also delusional. It fails to understand the reality of what is happening. Washington’s policies for contending with the war that Biden and his top officials refuse to acknowledge are just making things worse.

If Israel fails to defeat Hamas in Gaza, then there will no longer be any restraints on Iranian and Iranian-proxy aggression against Israel. And there will also be no restraints on Iran’s efforts to overthrow the regimes of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. If the United States successfully forces Israel to stand down in the face of Iran’s shocking attack, then that attack will be the baseline for future assaults—conventional and unconventional—against Israel and the Sunni Arab states.

Iran itself is so certain that this is the case that its top officials are now speaking openly about using nuclear weapons. As the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reported, on April 7, Iranian nuclear scientist Mahmoud Reza Aghamiri said in an interview with Iranian television that Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei can change his religious ruling forbidding the production of an atomic bomb whenever he wishes. Aghamiri said that Iran’s nuclear capabilities “are high,” and that once a country has nuclear capabilities, making a nuclear bomb “is not complicated.”

The administration’s refusal to recognize the existential nature of the war Iran and its proxies are now waging against Israel places Israel in an existential dilemma.

Israel today is compelled to decide between two options. It can fight the war to win it, in Iran and Gaza, first and foremost, and risk a rupture of relations with the United States.

Or, it can lose the war and accept the position of a U.S. protectorate, with the full knowledge that the United States will not permit its protectorates to challenge Iranian hegemony.

In other words, if Israel fails to risk a rupture in relations with the United States, it will accept a position that will lead to its destruction.
Matthew Continetti: Biden's Bad Advice for Israel—And America
In statecraft, defense without retaliation is exceedingly dangerous. It leads to a false sense of security. It emboldens the aggressor. This isn't academic international relations theory. This is Hamas 2024.

For over a decade, Israel believed it could disengage from the Gaza Strip by relying on its layered missile defenses and periodic "mowing the grass" air campaigns to degrade terrorist capabilities. The two-pronged strategy would hold Hamas in check. The promise of economic integration, with Palestinian workers crossing from Gaza into Israel, might even promote reform within the Strip.

Such was the logic behind the "Conceptzia" that governed Israeli policy toward Hamas.

The Conceptzia died on October 7. Land-based missile defenses such as the Iron Dome and David's Sling are remarkably effective. They have saved lives. But they haven't changed the nature, aims, and objectives of Hamas. They changed its tactics.

To protect its personnel and weapons from the Israeli air force, Hamas built a submerged state of tunnels and spider holes. Meanwhile, Hamas's leadership planned the surprise land, air, and sea attack that killed 1,300 Israelis, wounded thousands, and took hundreds captive.

You can shield your population from harm, but threats will remain until the source of the attacks is neutralized. That was the lesson of October 7. It should be the takeaway from April 13.

If Iran's attack goes unanswered, a new precedent will be set in the region. Fire whatever you want toward Israel, and so long as we intercept the projectiles, you won't pay a big price. Such an outcome would be a disaster. No sovereign state should be forced to accept such vulnerability. Yet that is precisely what will happen if Israel takes the "win" as President Biden suggests.

A real win would reestablish deterrence against Israel's and America's enemies. It would make Iran think twice before launching any more drones in Israel's direction. And the way to reestablish deterrence is to ignore the arms of the octopus and go straight for its head.

Take away something Iran's leaders hold dear—their nuclear program. By destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure, you not only exact a heavy cost for the regime's malign behavior. You guarantee Israel's security.

After all, why did America come to Israel's defense but not to Ukraine's? Both nations are under assault. The difference is Israel's assailant has no nuclear weapons. Ukraine's enemy has thousands.

Would America coordinate a similar operation to defend Israel if Iran had nukes? Maybe a future president would do that. This president would not.

I understand Netanyahu's position. A superpower is not easily dismissed. Especially when that superpower—despite counterproductive rhetoric and diplomatic incoherence—continues to deliver unconditional military aid for operations against Hamas. Especially when that superpower helped Israel fend off the Iranian attack. Israel wants to keep America on its side, where America belongs.

Yet lines must be drawn. Leaving Iran to fight another day, and leaving Hamas intact in Rafah, weaken the state of Israel and diminish the future of the Jewish people. Talk all you want, Mr. President. But if you call this a win, God help us if we lose.
Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Cambridge, MA, April 18 - Human rights activists warned today that the growing likelihood of the Jewish State holding new parliamentary elections this fall constitutes a blatant attempt to mask the dictatorial nature of the governmental system.

Harvard Fellow and former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth joined a number of colleagues to decry Israel's use of its democracy to distract from its lack of democracy and its oppressive, tyrannical state. In an open letter published in The New York Times and the Washington Post, the activists described Israel's Opposition Leader Benny Ganz's call for early elections "a transparent attempt to divert the world's attention from Israel's failure to uphold democratic norms."

Israel has held elections on average about every two years since about 2005, even though the standard legislative term lasts a little more than four years, owing to a fractured electorate that yields only the narrowest majorities for successive unstable coalitions. The writers called the democratic elections a mere cosmetic feature of the system, the same characterization that they gave Israel's independent judiciary, rule of law, religious freedom, freedom of expression, and other hallmarks of democratic societies.

"It has been clear for a long time that when Israel adheres to policies and institutions of democracy," the writers also wrote, "they do so not because it values democracy or those institutions, but only as cover for the nefarious depredations of Zionism and supremacy. This is a well-established principle in evaluating the legitimacy of Israel's behavior. Wherever one can posit a dark ulterior motive, it becomes the default assumption of what drives that behavior or policy."

Roth and his colleagues from Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Health Organization, and twelve other human and civil rights groups also cited the well-known model of "pinkwashing" as precedent: the established assumption on the part of activists that Israel's openness to, even celebration of, LGBTQ people - with Tel Aviv hosting by far the largest Pride Parade in the Middle East - stems not from genuine care and tolerance but from a desire to distract from the country's true evil nature.

"Given these axioms about Israel, the world must treat so-called Israeli democracy accordingly," the letter concluded. "Until Palestinians are free to replace Israeli democracy by whatever means necessary with a violent repressive homophobic misogynistic Islamist theocracy pursuing global genocidal Islamic supremacism, Israel cannot honestly call itself a democracy."

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!



  • Thursday, April 18, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon

 The New York Times writes:

Many donors, politicians and Jewish students have pressured their colleges to confront antisemitism more forcefully.But one challenge can make the whole exercise feel like quicksilver.

There’s no consensus about what, precisely, constitutes antisemitism.

University administrators and federal bureaucrats alike have considered one contentious definition that has gained traction in recent years, put forward by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

A new book, Hate Speech and Academic Freedom: The Antisemitic Assault on Basic Principles (Critical Contemporary Antisemitism by Cary Nelson, was released last week by Academic Studies Press. I have not read it yet, but he discusses the IHRA definition and then goes on to consider others, including mine:

In truth, there is probably no way to define antisemitism adequately in a few  sentences. Historically, no other hatred has been so adaptable and shifting. I recommend considering several different short definitions so we can see what  is  at stake. A good place to start is with Helen Fein’s well-regarded definition of antisemitism as

a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collectivity manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore, and imagery, and in actions—social or legal discrimination, political mobilization against Jews, and collective or state violence—which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews (Fein 1987, 67). 

In August, 2022, the well-known pro-Israel blogger Elder of Ziyon presented an alternative definition of antisemitism at a conference organized by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP). He offered it as a kind of algorithm, a definition one could reliably use to determine whether a statement is antisemitic. It is less helpful in understanding complex bodies of antisemitic theory. He offers it as an elaboration of Natan Sharansky’s “3D” definition of the forms that antisemitism takes—delegitimization, demonization, and double standards. It has two columns. On the left are four types of antisemitism; on the right are their multiple targets: 

Each of the four categories of aggression on the left can be combined with any of the five Jewish targets on the right, so there are a total of twenty possible combinations. It’s a pretty good test, which is one of the things a definition can be. The IHRA Definition itself, however, doesn’t seek to be a test. It seeks to be a guide to analysis. Its authors also chose not to use the eleven examples to list all the malicious lies you can tell about Jews or Israel. 
While my definition is not a guide to analysis, it could be used as a springboard for a more focused analysis. For example, once an incident is defined as either antisemitic or not using my algorithm, the details can then be elaborated on as to why it is or isn't, as I do in my article that tests the definition against specific examples of incidents that some have called antisemitic. 

I'm happy that my definition is getting some recognition. And I still claim that for the purposes of defining antisemitism in places like campuses or governments, it is a far more useful and practical tool. When a specific event happens, it is more important to make a determination instead of endless arguments on whether it is or not, which only makes it easier for haters to try to cloud the issue. 

I hope more people consider the benefits of using my definition. 

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!



  • Thursday, April 18, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon

In January, anti-Israel protesters at Columbia University claim they were exposed to a "chemical attack." As The Nation breathlessly reported:
[T]he protests by SJP and its affiliates were met with a new threat at a peaceful action on Friday January 19. Columbia SJP reported that protesters were sprayed with a horrible-smelling “stink bomb” at the event, before later posting an update that the foul product was identified as Skunk, an Israeli-developed chemical weapon, used as recently as December in East Jerusalem on Muslim worshippers.

Dozens of students told the Spectator that the spray left a strong odor—one that smelled akin to a dead body, according to one graduate student—that led to nausea, burning skin and eyes, and soiled clothing and hair. Numerous students were hospitalized and received care for chemical inhalation.

The two students accused of spraying the substance were suspended from Columbia. 

Al Jazeera spent hours creating an entire documentary about this incident, interviewing students who claim that they suffered medical problems from the spray.  A few went to local doctors, complained about alleged symptoms, and CityMD gave a diagnosis of "(suspected) exposure to potentially hazardous chemical" based not on any evidence but on what the student claimed. So now this report is "evidence of chemical attack."

The network even identified one of the alleged attackers holding something white!

Ladies and gentlemen, here is Liquid Ass, "extra strong poop spray:"

One of the suspended students  is suing the school:

A Jewish Columbia University student claims he was improperly suspended for discharging two “novelty fart sprays” during a campus anti-Israel rally — arguing the substances were “non-toxic” and his actions were harmless, a lawsuit says.

The student, named “John Doe” in court papers, sprayed gag gifts called “Liquid Ass” and “Wet Farts” that he bought on Amazon for $10.99 into the air and not at any particular person during the Jan. 19 protest, the lawsuit, obtained by The Post, claims.

“[The] plaintiff’s actions were a harmless expression of speech to demonstrate discontent with the pro-Hamas pro-Palestine message through the use of a gag gift, and nothing further,” the lawsuit, filed Tuesday by the student in Manhattan federal court, says.

It sure looks like this evil criminal is holding a bottle of Liquid Ass and didn't import the Israeli "skunk" spray (which is also non-toxic, by the way.) 

Q: Is Liquid ASS safe?

A: Yes. Liquid ASS has been thoroughly tested by an independent lab and found to be safe. The Material Safety Data Sheet for Liquid ASS notes that "No hazardous ingredients known to be present."   Follow directions, and you are good to go.

Q: From what ingredients is Liquid ASS made?

A: Well, believe it or not, Liquid ASS is not made from real ass, although your nose screams otherwise. We can't tell you the actual ingredients since they are proprietory. However, Liquid ASS has been tested to be safe and it has been rumored that Liquid ASS clears up clogged sinuses. So ASS 'em hard and frequently.

Q: Will Liquid ASS stain cloth, furniture, or carpet?

A: Liquid ASS is virtually clear and will not stain most fabrics. In fact, Liquid ASS will not even show on fabrics unless it is pure white.

But it does smell really, really bad. That's the point. 

In fact, it is used by...medical professionals!
Researchers, hospitals, and programs designed to train medical professionals routinely order Liquid Ass. The stench so realistically mimics the human colon, it’s the perfect training tool to teach medical responders how to maintain focus and professional demeanor in the midst of a truly overwhelming smell. And because the stench is universally offensive, psychologists have found it’s the perfect tool for studying the effects of disgust on all sorts of human behavior, from political decision-making to health care choices.
And by the military:
Liquid Ass even made its way into military training operations, as Mary Roach describes in her book Grunt. It’s a key ingredient in fake bowels filled with dyed oatmeal, used in a device called a Cut Suit, a creation of a training company called Strategic Operations in San Diego, California which trains some members of the US military. The Cut Suit is a wearable prop that realistically mimics wounds; it starts off looking like healthy skin, and when you cut into it, it looks and smells like a real body would if it were cut open. The suits have been used, for example, by Navy medics practicing attending to wounded soldiers during an ongoing battle.

It is pretty clear that Liquid Ass is a perfectly safe, if disgusting, joke product, and not a chemical weapon. 

(Wet Farts is also certified non-toxic.)

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!



  • Thursday, April 18, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights is looking hard for novel ways to accuse Jews of heinous crimes in order to keep its European funding. The NGO, with known ties to the PFLP terror group,  issued a report accusing Israel of intentionally attempting to prevent births in the Gaza Strip.


The paper takes as a given that Israel specifically intends to wipe out Palestinians, in part by actively and deliberately preventing them from giving birth. 

The entire reason for this report is to shoehorn Israel into Article 2(d) of the Genocide Convention, which says, "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:....(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group."

Hence the title of the report.

It doesn't bother trying to prove intention, because it can't. It just asserts it, and then lists several examples of pregnant women caught in a war that their side started, doing some hand waving, and pretending that they somehow proved that Israel specifically and intentionally targeted those women and that they weren't just stuck in the middle of battles.

The anecdotes given are not researched and verified. At least one is almost certainly a lie:
After being exposed to white phosphorus fired by IOF on al-Wehdah Street in Gaza, I suffered from severe suffocation and was 8-month pregnant. I fled to al-Remal Preparatory School and after two weeks, it was my due date so I went to the Patient’s Friends Clinic to check on my baby. The doctor told me that the baby was not moving and died. I was totally shocked and did not want to believe at first because I was 9-month pregnant and could feel the baby’ moving every day. I did another checkup with another doctor on the same day, but he confirmed what the first doctor said, “you lost your baby.” He asked me if I was exposed to white phosphorus and I said yes. He told me it was the reason behind my miscarriage as many women like me lost their babies for the same reason. There was a woman beside me who lost her baby in the same circumstances. I was so sad and worn out mentally as the due date of my baby marked his death.
Israel would not use white phosphorus in the middle of Gaza City.  The only report I'd seen was Amnesty and HRW saying that Israel used WP in the first week of the war in the port area of Gaza City based on photographs. I have not seen the accusation since then. There would be lots of photos because WP use has a distinctive look. But suddenly, this woman is an expert on what white phosphorus looks and smells like, as opposed to any other smoke. 

Another woman claims that her baby died January 18 because the NICU in Kamal Odwan Hospital had no electricity - but I cannot find any reports of babies dying from lack of electricity in that hospital in January (there were such reports in November.) I cannot find any mention of electricity shortages in that hospital in January at all in the WHO or OCHA sites; Israel arrested dozens of terrorists from that hospital in December.

PCHR does not even make a pretense of checking the facts from these "testimonies." Or even fo having a professional methodology for the interviews to begin with.

One could use the same methodology to find all mothers who miscarried in 2023 and ask how many ate cornflakes for breakfast that week, then writing a report about how the cornflakes cause miscarriages. 

What is clear is that the report's conclusions were written before the report itself was, and PCHR than looked for any evidence it could make up to confirm what it already determined. 

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!



Wednesday, April 17, 2024

From Ian:

Phyllis Chesler: Behold the 21st-century boycott
Some 73 years after Adolf Hitler fired Jewish professors from German universities—and burned and banned Jewish books—British academics were leading the pack against Israelis.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science condemned the British boycott, as did one of my groups, the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. We launched our own petition. Many who signed were professors of physics, medicine, math and computer science who were not as “politicized” as those in the social sciences and humanities. And many of them described the British boycott as “shameful,” “repugnant,” “indefensible,” “anti-academic” and “dangerous group thinking.”

By 2010, the leading British journal of medicine, The Lancet, published a scurrilous article that blamed indigenous gender apartheid practices (wife-beating, etc.) among Middle Eastern Arabs on the so-called “Israeli occupation.” Their so-called study was funded by the Palestinian National Authority and was collected by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. No control group based in Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia (where similar violence against women was normalized) was used. The Lancet did it again in 2014, by publishing an Open Letter that accused Israel-only of crimes it had not committed. This letter had also been funded by known Palestinian terrorist organizations.

The Lancet has long been viewed as a distinguished journal of science. Increasingly, their work descended into political propaganda which, no doubt, has influenced (or bullied) the coming generations.

Recently, I have been told about some authors in the West who were discouraged from writing—or submitting—anything “Jewish,” be it about Judaism or Israel. Publishers are shying away from this topic.

This is where it all started—in the academy. It influenced two or three generations of professors and students, journalists and international organizations, and is now flourishing in the streets, jihad-style, at loud and aggressive anti-Israel demonstrations all across America and Europe. Cheers for Iran after it attacked Israel with missiles and drones. Remember, there were similar shouts of joy for the Hamas demons on Oct. 7.

I must note that each successive wave of Israel-blaming took place when the Jewish state was under attack and fought back to save itself. That is again the case now.
Seth Mandel: Media Revive the Classic ‘Jewish Oppressor’ Stereotype
So here’s how the Washington Post frames the Rutgers situation: Pro-Hamas people are having their lives ruined by Jews who highlight their public comments, and this Rutgers fellow is an example not only of that but of essentially doxxing. (Doxxing means to reveal personal identifying information that is either nonpublic or requires enough effort to find that it is, in a practical sense, nonpublic.)

Here’s what actually happened. Members of the Student Bar Association sent their group chat anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas messages after the Oct. 7 massacre, and an Orthodox Jewish law student in the chat, Yoel Ackerman, responded. He shared the messages with the Rutgers Jewish Law Students Association. For this, the law school opened disciplinary proceedings against Ackerman, with the law school dean telling her colleagues “we have a Jewish law student seeking to take and publish the names of those he deems to be supporting Hamas.” He was then subject to a Sovietesque impeachment hearing from the Student Bar Association. Ackerman, without receiving sufficient explanation, was berated for three hours in what amounted to administrative harassment. In order to dispense of their troublesome Jew, the SBA then moved to suspend its own constitution in order to expel Ackerman.

That’s when Rutgers University stepped in, and briefly suspended the SBA while it could sort out the mess that Hamas propagandists and their enthusiastic supporters among the deans had made of the school. The SBA was soon reinstated.

This, the Washington Post tells us, is an example of a Jew oppressing the poor gentile.

This is not biased reporting. It is Jew-baiting propaganda with a long and very disturbing history. The rest of the article, meanwhile, is biased reporting: Verma simply launders the exterminationist language of domestic extremists into legitimate criticism of a foreign government.

The whole article is science fiction. But the apology the paper owes Ackerman is very real.
Congress must pass Define to Defeat Act as definitive stand against antisemitism
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has been embraced by President Biden, former Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, 36 U.S. states, and dozens of other countries — not to mention the vast majority of Jews across every spectrum. It underwent a comprehensive, decade-plus-long review conducted by a multitude of experts and is the only definition with an actual track record of demonstrable effectiveness in curbing anti-Jewish hate and bigotry.

As it relates to this act, the IHRA definition of antisemitism also contains the appropriate caveats and carefully balanced safeguards that take into account the importance of nuance and context in situations that involve allegations of discriminatory intent.

For example, the definition makes clear that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic and that all of the examples are not meant to be dispositive but rather are the types of things that could, taking into account the overall context, be evidence of antisemitism.

The Define to Defeat Act builds on the bipartisan momentum created by Rep. Mike Lawler’s Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would codify Executive Order 13899 and require the Department of Education to make use of the IHRA definition when assessing unlawful discriminatory behavior under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Mr. Lawler, who has long been a leader on this issue, was working on that bill well before Oct. 7. Since that time, however, it has unfortunately only become clearer that the Jewish community needs the protections clarified in other contexts as well. Hopefully, that bipartisan support will continue; it is hard to imagine someone being supportive of Jewish people being properly protected under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act but not, for example, under Title VII of that same law.

According to the FBI, the majority of religiously motivated hate crimes in the United States are committed against Jewish people. That number is on the rise despite the fact that Jews make up only about 2% of the population. This trend is terrifying, and there is much work to be done to defeat it.

That work starts with defining the problem, and God willing, Congress, led by the members from New York, will now do that.

I am on the phone with Hatzalah, faint, one hand on the tile floor to steady me. I just want to lie down and feel the cool tile on my face. But the Hatzalah guy on the phone won’t stop asking questions. He wants me to describe what I’m feeling. I don’t know how to explain that weird feeling in my face and hands in ENGLISH, let alone in Hebrew. Yet somehow, my blurred mind flashes to this, from Bava Metzia (58b):

A disciple taught before Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: “Anyone who publicly mortifies his companion is comparable to a shedder of blood.”  He replied: “Your statement is correct, for the red color of the face disappears, and it becomes white.”

So in bad Hebrew, I tell the Hatzalah guy, “I feel like you feel when you’re very embarrassed or have a shock.”

He has no earthly idea what I am talking about, and I am filled with a hopeless despair. I need help. And I can’t make anyone understand. I hold out my phone to son down the hall and beg him. “Please. You talk. Just tell him to come.”

He takes the phone, annoyed. “Shalom. My Eema is dehydrated.”

“I’m not, I’m not,” I say weakly, from the other end of the hall. “Give me the phone.”

Son down the hall, truly exasperated, walks over to me and hands me the phone. “Eema, you’re just dehydrated.

“Open the front door,” I tell him.

“Eema!” he says. Translation: Don’t exaggerate.

“Open the door,” I say, raising my hand to point in that general direction.

He stomps down the hall, goes to the front door. Opens it.

At some point the love triangle of me, the Hatzalah guy on the phone, and son down the hall, becomes a love quartet. “What’s going on?” calls querulous post-surgery Dov from the bedroom.

I would normally reassure him, but I can’t. I can no longer deal with anyone else. I am barely there. Words are difficult to form. I want to save them for the medics, to tell them what’s wrong, though I don’t know how. There aren’t words for what I’m feeling.

“Varda! What’s going on?” Dov calls out, his voice rising. When no one answers him, I hear the sound of his walker, smack creeeak, smack creeeak, and I know he is determined that he will know what is going on under his roof, though he hasn’t been able to get in or out of bed without help since his operation, four days ago.

It’s too much for me. I can’t worry about him now. The air around me feels wavy and brown.

“Eema’s dehydrated. She called Hatzalah,” says son down the hall.

“I knew it!” says Dov. “I knew it would be too much for you,” meaning me dealing with his care and our household in the aftermath of his surgery, which he had resisted for years. “You’re having a nervous breakdown!”

“No,” says son down the hall. She’s just dehydrated. She needs to drink.”

“Stand outside and wait for them, to show them where we are,” Dov says to him, pointing to the door, the exasperation plain in his voice.

I hear the medics come in. I know them. One of them had paid a sick call to Dov only seven hours earlier. When he comes in, Dov says, tongue in cheek, “Can’t get enough of us huh, Shlomo?”

Shlomo and the other medic, Moshe, crouch on the steps next to me. They ask me to tell them what’s wrong. I am fuzzy, but I try. “I’m nauseated, my head is spinning, and my hands and face feel like the blood has drained from them.”

“Do you want us to call an ambulance,” they ask.

“No.” I say, hoping there is a way for the medics to take care of me at home.

Here, I must interject with another story. This time, my husband’s. The pain of Dov’s spinal stenosis had made his blood pressure spiral out of control a few months earlier. I had suspected that it was the pain that did this, and my suspicions are now confirmed. Since the surgery, Dov’s blood pressure has improved and somewhat stabilized, as has his general health.

But one night, I woke up, saw Dov wasn’t in bed, and wondered what was wrong. I got up, went into the living room, and he was sitting there. “What’s the matter? I asked.

“I don’t know. Something’s not right.”

“Well, what do you feel?” I asked. “Do you hurt anywhere? Do you have a headache?

Dov was as unable to describe what he was feeling as I was on that otherworldly dark Friday morning. “I don’t know. Just something’s not right.”

“Should I call an ambulance?” I ask him.

“I don’t know,” he says.

I call an ambulance. When it arrives, one of the medics is my friend, Elisheva. They take Dov’s blood pressure. It’s high. So high that maybe they suspect their equipment has malfunctioned. They take his blood pressure during the whole ride to Shaarei Zedek Hospital, and I hear them wondering if the machine is broken, because the number is crazy.

When we get him into the hospital, his BP is 233. It’s a hypertensive crisis. Dov is treated over a period of some 18 hours, in the ER, until his blood pressure is a more manageable 180 (!). They take tests, and even though Dov is obviously showing signs of confusion, and keeps forgetting words, the hospital releases him. We pay for the ambulance, because I made the call. We pay for the ER visit because he isn't admitted.

Yes, we were able to pay the bill, but I mean, the man was seriously ill! And they didn’t admit him. Maybe they were too full up with wounded soldiers? I don’t know. But I knew that Dov SHOULD have been admitted.

This had been percolating in my brain for months, as I schlepped with my husband from doctor to doctor, and to all kinds of tests, some I’ve never heard of. They should have kept him. He is still now quite ill. I am angry at the hospital.

I was thinking of all this when the nice Hatzalah volunteer lady, my angel, said, “Why call Magen David Adom? Call Hatzalah. It’s free.”

I did not now want to go in an ambulance, because I’d be damned if they were going to make me pay for that again. In fact, Dov had called for an ambulance after he sustained minor injuries in a car accident only a few months before his hypertensive crisis. They made us pay for that ambulance, too. It was the money, but it wasn’t the money that made me say no to calling an ambulance. It was the principle of the thing, the injustice! 

This is WHY I had called Hatzalah in the first place. I didn’t WANT to call Magen David Adom (MDA) and pay for ambulance service. “Are you comfortable there on the floor?” asks one of the medics.

“Yes,” I say, grateful to give in to the desire to lay my head on the floor, to feel the coolness of the tile against my face.

“Your pulse is very weak,” said one of the medics. “We’re calling MDA.”

Maybe they won’t charge me, because Hatzalah is calling, not me. I think. But then I think of Dov. I can’t let him down now. He needs me right now, after his surgery.

The MDA medics come in and crouch around me on the three little steps that lead up to the hallway where I am prostrate. One of them says, “Varda, do you want to go in the ambulance?”

“No,” I say weakly.

“Do you think you can walk to the living room if we help you?”

“I’ll try,” I say, so weak.

Somehow, the four of them, the two medics sent by Hatzalah, and the MDA guys, manage to lead me to the living room. They motion to the chair we think of as “Dov’s chair.” It is close and I am relieved. I make for the chair, but Dov is about to lose his balance. At that point, even with the walker, he can only walk a few steps.

So I stumble to the next closest chair, on the other side of the room, directly in front of Dov. The MDA guy hooks me up to an EKG. He really wants to take me to the hospital. But who’s going to take care of Dov? I think. And what if it’s just dehydration, or like Dov says, I’m working too hard, I’m overwrought?

So I say to the MDA guy, trying to sound nonchalant, “Can’t you just hang a bag?” I ask, meaning give me some IV fluids here at home, and I’ll be fine.

I really don’t want to go to the hospital. I really don’t want to go in that ambulance. I say so.

So while I’m still hooked up to the EKG, the MDA guy hands me a clipboard with a form to sign saying that I refused the ambulance. I take the pen, put it to paper, then slide off the chair in a dead faint.

To be continued.

Previously, Part I: Varda wakes up, and begins to feel truly ill.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!




EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"


EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz





For $18 donation

Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years


Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون

This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.


Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options

One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive