Showing posts with label Tomer Ilan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tomer Ilan. Show all posts

Thursday, October 20, 2022

By Tomer Ilan

 

Recently, there’s a wave of demands from Palestinian Arabs to the United Kingdom to apologize for alleged abuses during the British Mandate period.

Munib al-Masri, a rich Palestinian businessman submitted a dossier of evidence alleging abuses by the British between 1917 and 1948. Masri is planning to present the file to the UK government later this year and is reportedly demanding a formal acknowledgement and apology.

Separately, a Palestinian Arab is seeking an apology from the Royal Ulster Rifles for a 1938 incident in Mandatory Palestine in which he alleged the British troops forced civilians to drive over a landmine after a roadside bomb placed by Arabs killed two British troops.

The Jews have a right to demand an apology from Britain as well.

The Jews deserve an apology from the British for systematically discriminating against the Jews, in terms of official policy against Jewish immigration and Jewish land purchase and settlement in contradiction to international law, namely the Mandate of Palestine. The British government was also deeply involved in the illegal Arab invasion of Israel in the 1948 war.

The first major anti-Jewish move by the British government came in 1922, when The League of Nations, at Britain’s request, modified the mandate by withdrawing Transjordan from the area intended to provide a national home for the Jews. With a stroke of a pen, the Jews lost 78% of the national home promised to them by Britain and the League of Nations.

Then, as a response to Arab violence, including the 1920 Nebi Musa riots and the 1921 Jaffa riots, Britain published a series of White Papers with new anti-Jewish policies that contradicted the legally-binding League of Nations Mandate for Palestine that Britain was supposed to follow.

The Mandate resolution (Article 6) requires Britain to “facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”. The Mandate states that this shall be done “while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced”.

However, in a series of White Papers published between 1922 and 1939, the British Administration restricted Jewish immigration and settlement rather than “facilitate” and “encourage” it as required in the Mandate resolution.

Initially, the 1922 White Paper vaguely stated that Britain would limit future immigration to "the economic capacity of the country". The 1930 White Paper called for stricter controls to be placed on Jewish immigration and land purchase.

The worst White Paper was published in 1939, on the eve of World War 2, with millions of Jews trying to escape from the Nazi threat in Europe, the paper severely limited Jewish immigration to just 15,000 a year for 5 years and made subsequent immigration to require Arab approval. Jewish purchase of land from Arabs was forbidden in 95% of Palestine.

In effect, the White Paper prevented the escape of millions of Jews from Europe before and during WW2. Six million of those Jews were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust. If the British had not imposed the 1939 White Paper immigration restrictions, many of those Jews could have been saved.

The McDonald White Paper of 1939 was explicitly racist and openly discriminated against Jews. Jewish immigration was severely restricted, while Arab immigration was not. Jewish land purchase was forbidden in 95% of the land, while Arab land purchase was allowed in 100% of it. The language of the White Paper was explicit and racist: “Transfer of land save to a Palestinian Arab prohibited” (see map).

In today’s terms, it would be called an “apartheid” White Paper. Anti-Jewish apartheid.



British Land transfer Regulations of 1940 based on the White Paper of 1939

 

Starting from 1939, the British Authorities also restricted Jewish settlement on Jewish-owned land in direct contradiction to the Mandate resolution requiring them to “encourage close settlement by Jews on the land”. The Jews, however, found a way to establish new settlements anyway, the famous “Tower and Stockade” method.

In the 1948 War of Independence, Britain was deeply involved in favor of the Arab side. The Arab Army of Transjordan, more commonly known as the Arab Legion, was financed by Britain and commanded by British officers. The Legion was armed, trained and commanded by British officers and was considered the most effective Arab force in the 1948 war.

The British-backed Arab Legion illegally invaded Palestine in 1948 and helped Jordan illegally occupy eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967.

In 1948, Britain had dominant influence over Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon as well. Those countries would not invade Palestine to fight the Jews, without British involvement.

This is confirmed by Dr. Ezra Nishry’s research. His 2016 doctoral thesis (English Abstract – p. 510) based mainly on the documents of the British National Archives (as well as Israeli and American documents and previous research literature) confirms that the British organized, armed and pushed the Arab countries to invade Israel in the War of Independence.

Nishry shows that the British government used covert action and pushed for the Arab invasion that was actually carried out on May 15, 1948. According to British sources quoted in the research, the senior British leadership in London determined the end date for the evacuation of the British forces from Palestine, brought it forward, and returned to the original date according to the changing needs of the invasion plans which changed according to the circumstances on the ground. There was a direct connection between planning the timing of the Arab invasion and planning the timing of the British evacuation.

His findings were published in a book “The British Trojan horse in the Israeli War of liberation : 1947-1948”.

In many cases during the 1948 war, the British troops themselves helped the Arabs.

One of the worst incidents was at Radar Hill (near Jerusalem) on 23 April 1948. A Jewish force who tried to evacuate wounded Jewish troops in the Many Jewish fighters were killed and wounded in the Nebi Samuel battle, encountered British fire from Radar Hill which killed and wounded a number of Jews. The wounded Jews were collected by the British and handed over to the Arabs who murdered them.


A sign at Radar Hill mentions the battle on 23 April 1948 in which British troops handed wounded Jewish troops to the Arabs who murdered them.

 

Another example of British involvement against the Jews was in the Etzion Bloc. On 4 May 1948, the Arab Legion aided by the British and by a large number of local Arabs launched a major attack on the Etzion Bloc in which 12 Jewish defenders were killed. A few days later, the Kfar Etzion Massacre was committed and the Bloc was ethnically cleansed from Jews until it was resettled in 1967.

Great Britain should apologize to the Jews for:

  • ·         Giving 78% of the Jewish National Home to the Arabs in 1922
  • ·         Restricting Jewish immigration just before WW2, preventing the escape of millions of Jews from the Holocaust
  • ·         Imposing anti-Jewish “apartheid” laws restricting land purchase by Jews in most of Palestine
  • ·         Opposing the establishment of new Jewish settlements on Jewish-owned land.
  • ·         Britain backing the Arab Legion in 1948 leading to the illegal Jordanian occupation the Old City of Jerusalem and Judea & Samaria until 1967.
  • ·         Britain pushing other Arab states to invade Israel an attempt to annihilate her in 1948.
  • ·         British troops fighting against the Jews in the 1948 war.

These British policies and actions went against their commitment to the League of Nations and against the Mandate for Palestine, i.e. against international law.

The British have more reasons to apologize to the Jews than they do to the Arabs.




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, November 27, 2020

  • Friday, November 27, 2020
  • Elder of Ziyon
Business Insider wrote an article about  Israel's assassination of an Al Qaeda official in Tehran. Originally it said:



EoZ contributor Tomer Ilan noticed the highlighted statement - it is incorrect.

He wrote to BI informing them that Al Qaeda did attack Israelis with a 2008 attack on the Israeli embassy in Mauritania and 2002 Mombasa attacks against Israeli targets. (Since then he also found a third attack, the 2009 murder of Yafim Weinstein.)

Commendably, Business Insider corrected the article:



Tomer wonders if the initial claim that AQ never attacked Israel came from some common Arab memes, like these:








We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

  • Wednesday, September 23, 2020
  • Elder of Ziyon
By Tomer Ilan

Some of Israel’s opponents justify Palestinian terrorism by claiming that “Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle”.

Supporters of terrorism often cite Resolution 3314 passed by the UNGA in 1974, adopting the Definition of Aggression Article 7:

Nothing in this Definition, and in particular article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination: nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration.

Article 3 however refers to a State attacking and occupying the territory of another State, which is not the case in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Moreover, the resolution does not mention armed struggle, certainly not against civilians of the “occupying” state. Moreover, UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding international law, only UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding.

UN GA Resolution 37/43, dated 3 December 1982 went one step further by reaffirming

“the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.”

Further, Resolution 37/43 mentions

“the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region”.

Supporters of Palestinian terrorism,  including some academics, interpret this as proof that international law permits terrorist attacks by Palestinians against Israelis.

For example, Dr Brendan Ciarán Browne, an Assistant Professor Conflict Resolution at Trinity College Dublin who has defended Bahaa Abu Al-Ata, who was responsible for terrorist rocket attacks against Israeli civilians opined that

“any critical legal scholar truly invested in the cause of Palestine must nurture space in their classroom to evaluate the right of colonised peoples to agitate for self-determination, including through armed struggle as outlined in UN resolution 37/43”.

UN has condemned terrorism

UN Security Council Resolution 1566 adopted unanimously on 8 October 2004, condemned terrorism as a serious threat to peace and strengthened anti-terrorism legislation. It reaffirmed that

“terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to peace and security.”

Further it recalls that:

“criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature, and calls upon all States to prevent such acts and, if not prevented, to ensure that such acts are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature”.

“Terrorism” vs. “armed struggle”

There are many arguments about the definition of terrorism as expressed by the cliché “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter” which suggests that the question of who is a terrorist, depends entirely on the subjective outlook of the definer. Of course, this is over simplistic.

Oxford Dictionaries defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

As UN SC 1566 clarifies, terrorism intends to provoke a state of terror in the general public and to intimidate a population and often does this by deliberately targeting civilians.

According to Prof. Ganor’s definition, the guerrilla fighter's targets are military ones, while the terrorist deliberately targets civilians. By this definition, a terrorist organization can no longer claim to be 'freedom fighters' because they are fighting for national liberation. Even if its declared ultimate goals are legitimate, an organization that deliberately targets civilians is a terrorist organization.

·         Terrorism is prohibited by a legally binding UN SC resolution, while “armed struggle” is permitted by a non-binding UN GA resolution.

·         Attacks against civilians or violence committed to provoke a state of terror in the general public and to intimidate a population are defined as terrorism.

·         The non-binding UN GA resolution permitting “armed struggle” refers to occupation of one State’s territory by another State, which is not the case in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

ClClearly, the UN does not legitimize terrorism.

Attacks Against Security Forces Combating Terrorism are also Terrorism

Once an organization engages in terrorism against civilians, it can no longer pretend it is a legitimate guerrilla organization that engages in armed struggle against occupation and even its attacks against military targets lose legitimacy and become terrorism as well.

As UN SC 1566 states, it is the right and the duty of States to fight against terrorism. Attacks against security forces while they fight against terrorism, are therefore illegitimate.

When an IDF soldier is attacked while in an operation to arrest terrorists, the attackers become terrorists as well. One such case occurred in 2018 when St.-Sgt. Ronen Lubarsky (HYD), a commando in the elite Israeli counterterrorism Duvdevan unit was killed when a Palestinian dropped a marble slab on his head, while his unit was arresting terrorism suspects in Ramallah. Killing a soldier in such circumstances is murder in the context of aiding and abetting terrorism, not legitimate armed struggle as some, even in the Israeli Left, claim.

The Red Cross has confirmed that Article 2(1)(b) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism means that the killing of non-combatant members of the armed forces or combatants hors de combat can be considered an act of terrorism, provided that it is done with the requisite intent, even if the act occurs during an armed conflict. The killing of military personnel outside the context of an armed conflict also could be considered a terrorist act under this provision, if done with the requisite intent, regardless of the means employed.

Not only is terrorism immoral, it is also specifically prohibited in international law. It is utterly shameful for academics and journalists to support terrorism and falsely claim that it is legally permitted.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Friday, September 20, 2019

Guest post by Tomer Ilan:


Wikipedia is an extremely powerful tool that has a huge influence on billions of people.

It is the 4th most popular website (excluding China) with 18 billion page views per month. For many, it is the only encyclopedia they ever use and the main or sole source of information.
Although Wikipedia operates in 285 different languages, English Wikipedia is the most influential, by far. On top of the huge number of native English speakers, many international users turn to English Wikipedia to search for information about subjects related to Israel which are not available in their own language's version.

With regards to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Wikipedia has very different information in the English, Hebrew and Arabic versions of the same article. In most cases the English version fully adopts the Arab narrative.

This bias is apparent, for instance, with regards to articles on Arab villages abandoned in the 1948 war.

As an example, here's a table comparing the Hebrew, English and Arabic versions of the events of 1947-1948 in the village of Al-'Abbasiyya:


On November 30, 1947, villagers from Al-Abbasiyya attacked a bus, killing 7 Jews.

No mention

No mention

On December 13, 1947, the Irgun attacked the village killing 2 Arabs.

On December 13, 1947 the Irgun attacked the village killing 7 Arabs, mostly women and children.

On December 13, 1947 the Irgun attacked the village killing 7 Arabs, mostly women and children.

In April 1948, Hasan Salama, commander of the “Palestinian Holy War Army” gangs moved his HQ to the village and all civilians left.

No mention

No mention

Irgun captures the village from Arab gangs on May 4, 1948.

No mention
No mention
Jordanian Arab Legion captures the village from Irgun on June 11, 1948.

No mention
No mention
IDF captures the village from the Arab Legion on July 10, 1948.

No mention
No mention
On September 13, 1948, most of the village houses were demolished.

On September 13, 1948, David Ben-Gurion requested the destruction of Al-'Abbasiyya among other Palestinian villages whose inhabitants fled or were expelled.
On September 13, 1948, David Ben-Gurion requested the destruction of Al-'Abbasiyya other Palestinian villages whose inhabitants were expelled.




As this table shows, the English version is almost identical to the Arabic version and both distort the narrative by omitting many critical pieces of information only mentioned in the Hebrew version.

  • No mention of terrorist attack from Al-Abbasiyya and Jewish fatalities before Irgun retaliated.
  • Arab fatalities in Irgun attack are 350% higher in the English and Arabic versions.
  • No mention of “Palestinian Holy War Army” and Arab legion making the village a military base starting from April 1948 in the English and Arabic versions.
  • No mention of the civilian Arab population fleeing in April 1948 in the English and Arabic versions.
  • No mention of several battles between Jewish and Arab forces in the village between April and July 1948 in the English and Arabic versions.

Reading the English article, you get the impression that Irgun attacked the village unprovoked, then Israel arbitrarily destroyed it and expelled the inhabitants. It’s like a microcosm of the entire false “Nakba” narrative of so-called “Ethnic Cleansing”.

The terrorist attacks emanating from the village, the fact that civilians left and it became a military base, the illegal invasion and occupation by the Jordanian Legion – are all missing from the English version. As far as the vast majority of people who get their information solely from English Wikipedia – those events never happened.

A quick look at other articles on Arab villages abandoned in 1948 reveals the same phenomenon.

How does that happen? Why is Wikipedia so biased?

There’s a wide belief that in Wikipedia “anyone can edit and improve articles immediately” making Wikipedia accurate using the Wisdom of Crowds. While this may be generally true, it is not the case with regards to articles on the Israeli/Arab conflict on English WIkipedia. Those articles are subject to the “30/500 editing restriction”, also known as  Extended Confirmed Protection, which prevents users without 30 days tenure and 500 edits on the English Wikipedia.

Apparently, those senior editors who are authorized to edit English Wikipedia articles on the Conflict are a smaller group, in which anti-Israel users are over-represented, who use Wikipedia rules to block the Wisdom of Crowds and dictate an anti-Israel narrative.

New information which contradicts the Arab narrative is blocked from Wikipedia. For instance, David Collier’s research which unearthed British Mandatory documents debunking the myth of Balad al-Shaykh Massacre were removed from Wikipedia just hours after they were added to the article.

By controlling English Wikipedia, the anti-Israel activists control the narrative and are able to rewrite history.

Supporters of Israel should get involved, achieve the 30/500 status that allows them to edit articles about the Conflict and make English Wikipedia much more accurate and balanced.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Saturday, March 23, 2019

  • Saturday, March 23, 2019
  • Elder of Ziyon

Lately, HAMAS has been facing allegations of brutal oppression, arbitrary arrest and torture against their own people even from anti-Israel NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

When faced with these allegations, Israel-haters’ turn to one of their favorite conspiracy theories - “Israel created HAMAS” – and try to use it blame Israel for HAMAS wrongdoings.

This theory is pushed by the PLO, blaming Israel for the divide in Palestinian society between PLO and HAMAS. PLO leader Arafat said "Hamas is a creature of Israel".

In fact, before Hamas came into existence, an non-violent Islamic charity operated in Gaza. Israel did not object to it nor did it have legal justification to ban it.

Once the charity morphed into the terrorist organization Hamas, Israel banned it and arrested and deported its leaders.

Here’s a timeline of events:
1973 - the Islamic charity Mujama al-Islamiya was established in Gaza by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin
1979 - the organization was recognized by Israel
1984 – Ahmed Yassin and others were jailed by Israel
1985 - Yassin was released as part of the Jibril Agreement
1987 - Yassin co-founded the "paramilitary wing" of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, becoming its spiritual leader
Aug 1988 – Paramilitary wing is renamed Hamas and Hamas Covenant is published
May 1989 - Yassin was arrested by Israel and sentenced to life in prison
Oct 1989 - Israel declared Hamas an illegal terrorist organization
Dec 1992 – After a murder of an Israeli policeman by HAMAS, Israel arrests 1200 HAMAS activists and deports 415 of them to Lebanon.

The Islamic charity Mujama al-Islamiya was established in Gaza by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 1973, and started to offer clinics, blood banks, day care, medical treatment, meals and youth clubs, playing an important role for providing social care, particularly those living in refugee camps. It also extended financial aid and scholarships to young people who wanted to study in Saudi Arabia and the West. Mujama al-Islamiya was quiescent and non-confrontational towards Israel. In 1979 it was recognized by Israel and allowed the organization to build mosques, clubs, schools, and a library in Gaza.

At this point in time, Israel had no evidence of terrorist activities that would justify banning the charity organization.

Even those testimonies brought as support for the theory, e.g. Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev (Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s) and Avner Cohen (former religious affairs official in Gaza) say that Israel tolerated or even encouraged the Islamic charity in the 1970’s and early 1980’s before it became HAMAS. Those same officials who implemented that tolerant policy, think it was a mistake. Most of them admit they realize that only in retrospect and all agree that even if Israel didn’t fight the Islamists at that early stage, it was due to negligence, not an attempt to strengthen them.

- David Hacham, an Arab affairs expert who worked for the Israeli military in Gaza in the late 1980s and early ’90s, said: “When I look back at the chain of events I think we made a mistake…But at the time nobody thought about the possible results.”

- Brig. Gen. Shalom Harari, a military intelligence officer, says that warnings were ignored due to neglect, not a desire to fortify the Islamists: "Israel never financed Hamas. Israel never armed Hamas."

- Roni Shaked, a former Shin Bet officer and author of a book on Hamas, says Sheikh Yassin and his followers had a long-term perspective whose dangers were not understood at the time.

In other words, at worst, Israel may be guilty of negligence, by failing to predict that the innocent-looking Islamic charity would, several years later, turn into an Islamist jihadist terrorist organization. At that stage Israel didn't try to ban it which may or may not have been successful even if Israel tried to.

That’s a far cry from the false claim that “Israel created HAMAS”.

History of Hamas:




Reports about Hamas brutality:





Claims that "Israel created Hamas":










We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Friday, January 18, 2019

  • Friday, January 18, 2019
  • Elder of Ziyon


From Tomer Ilan:

Road 4370 was opened last week east of Jerusalem.

Many news outlets have called it an "apartheid road" including Haaretz.

Times of Israel and Ynetnews have also misreported it, as did many international news outlets.

JNS has debunked the apartheid accusation but incorrectly states that the road "separates vehicles of Israeli citizens and non-citizens".

CNN however gives a more accurate description:

"The road, which runs north-south, is actually two parallel roads separated by an 8-meter concrete wall topped with metal fencing. The western half is designed for Palestinians, though it can be used by anyone, and it bypasses Jerusalem; the eastern half is for Israelis, and anyone else with a legal permit to enter Jerusalem."

In other words, the western road can be used by anyone (Israelis and Palestinians) who doesn't want to go into Israel and the eastern road by anyone (Israelis and Palestinians) who wants to go into Israel and has a permit to do so.

That's NOT apartheid.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Friday, November 30, 2018



From the Sandton (South Africa) Chronicle:

The Joburg City Council on 29 November adopted a motion to rename Sandton Drive after Leila Khaled.

Martin Williams, Ward 90 councillor, posted a statement on the Ward 90 Facebook group that read, “… The DA were outnumbered when the EFF and ANC voted together.

“As an affected ward councillor, I undertake to ensure adherence to correct policies and procedures. The people of Ward 90 shall have their say.”

Executive Mayor of the City of Joburg, Herman Mashaba, and Councillor Sergio dos Santos also issued a statement regarding the proposed name change.

The statement read that a motion was tabled in Council to move that the City rename Sandton Drive to ‘City of Ramallah’ Drive.

A further amendment to the motion was tabled and accepted, calling for the motion to rename the road after Leila Khaled, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), said the statement.

Mashaba further said in the statement: Therefore, the nature of the motion was substantially altered. It is the view of the DA that in this case, the motion would need to return to the Programming Committee for review and then serve at the next Council meeting.
Leila Khaled, of course, is an unrepentant terrorist who hijacked airplanes in the 1970s.

The only pushback on the Facebook page of this newspaper is that there is no money to change street signs while basic services are lacking for the people in that community. But no one really is concerned over naming a street after a terrorist.

The newspaper articles from South Africa about this don't say who Leila Khaled is, so it is unclear if they are doing this in spite of her terrorism - or because of it.

South Africa is now more anti-Israel and pro-terrorist than most Arab states.

 (h/t Tomer Ilan)


We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

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 20 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!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive