Showing posts with label Varda Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Varda Opinion. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 08, 2025


Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

Black lives matter. Of course they do. Everyone’s lives matter. But you don’t just go and support a group with an agreeable name without some due diligence. Or do you?

My progressive Jewish friends don’t seem to think any due diligence is necessary when it comes to being gung-ho for organizations like Black Lives Matter, or the Women’s March. If Black Lives Matter says it’s against racism then gulldarnit, my progressive Jewish friends are going to put a clenched fist BLM badge on their Facebook profile pic. If they think the Women’s March is for women, they’re going to put on a pink hat with a name that inwardly makes them feel thrillingly naughty as they outwardly express their righteous indignation.

These same progressive friends at some point take down the badges from their profile pics as the truth outs, as truth so inconveniently tends to do. Now they know: BLM is inherently antisemitic and anti-Israel—really the same thing. Were they sheepish when the Women’s March and the Chicago Dyke March excluded women and dykes if they happened to be Jews or Zionists? Or did they just quietly take down the badges on their profile pics and find something hopefully innocuous to support—something that doesn’t hate Jews or Zionists? (Good luck with that.)

But why didn’t they give these groups a thorough vetting before throwing their support behind them? The answer is pathetic: they didn’t believe that someone protesting racism could hate Jews. They didn’t believe that someone speaking up for women’s rights didn’t believe in Jewish women’s rights.

Even very, very intelligent Jewish women—women like Bari Weiss—were surprised when all the groups fighting against sexual violence, looked the other way when the victims of sexual violence were Jews. In her introduction to a podcast with Sheryl Sandberg to discuss the documentary Screams Before Silence, Weiss said, “Sheryl Sandberg watched the horrors of October 7th unfold and assumed that everyone she knew would rally against these unspeakable atrocities—particularly after reports of sexual violence and rape committed by Hamas started pouring in. But when she saw that many people didn't, or worse, that they denied it was even happening, she was stunned. She was particularly shocked that many of her would-be allies—prominent feminists and progressives in this country and around the world—stayed silent.”

During that same podcast, Sandberg described when drove her to make the documentary. “I never thought I would do this, and I wish this didn't have to be made. When October 7th happened, I was shocked. I think everyone was shocked. I was even more shocked afterward. The single most surprising thing I found was that in the weeks following, people started coming out with what I thought was clear evidence that this wasn't just mass murder; there was rape. Women were found naked and bloodied. Over and over, the stories were coming out, and what I then expected to happen is for people to say, ‘Oh my God, rape is never supposed to be used as part of war. No sexual violence is part of conflict.’ But that just wasn't happening.”

Sandberg made the video to convince the rape deniers who only deny rape when Jews are involved. But it didn’t much help. People who hate Jews hate them whether or not they are gang raped, tortured, kidnapped, and abused. They hate Jews whether or not they are Zionists, hate them whether or not they live in Israel.

“We made a video,” said Sandberg, “and that video went very viral. I tried to make that video really carefully. I mean, I have strong views on what's going on, but there were no views in this video. This video said, ‘No matter what flag you're flying,’ carefully including half Palestinian flags and half Israeli flags, ‘No matter what you believe, we have to stand united against the clear use of sexual violence.’

“Yet people were still not believing it. So, I helped organize a conference at the UN where we brought witnesses who stood there and cried and said, ‘Here's what I saw with my own eyes.’ Then I took those same witnesses to parliaments in Europe, where I felt they needed to speak out, but we still encountered some denial and significant silence.”

Bari Weiss details the various denials of October 7 rape even in the face of the rape videos that the terrorists proudly shared. “Max Blumenthal, a commentator and journalist, said that a woman’s body found naked from the waist down was simply because women at festivals like to dress in skimpy attire. Another example is the prominent British commentator Owen Jones, who said there's no evidence of rape. This is a guy with a million Twitter followers.

“Then there’s Briahna Joy Gray, who was Bernie Sanders’s press secretary in 2020. She said Zionists are asking that we believe the uncorroborated eyewitness accounts of men who describe alleged rape victims in odd fetishistic terms. She said, ‘Shame on Israel for not seriously investigating claims of rape and collecting rape kits.’ How do you understand the logic or the worldview that leads people to say things like that?

“Before this conversation,” said Weiss, “I checked in with some of the top feminist organizations in the country. Since October 7th, the National Organization for Women made a statement two months after the fact, which didn’t mention Hamas. UN Women, a group whose mission is to create an environment where all women can exercise their human rights, waited 55 days before saying anything. The International Committee of the Red Cross has issued nothing. I could go on for hours detailing the silence—or worse, weaselly statements where they fail to mention the perpetrators of evil actions.”

So much for “Believe all women.” (Perhaps they should change that to “Believe all shiksas.”)

As for Black Lives Matter, their adherents thought they were invincible. Probably because they saw how all my progressive Jewish friends were using that clenched fist badge on their Facebook pics. They saw how easy it was to pull the wool over our eyes under the guise of a fight against racism. But now we all know about the corruption of those at the top of the BLM food chain.

Take Black Lives Matter cofounder Patrisse Cullors, for example. Cullors resigned from the “charity” in 2021 after getting caught with her hand in the proverbial cookie jar. Back in June, the Washington Free Beacon reported that BLM is still reeling from Cullors’ abuse of power:

Black Lives Matter cofounder Patrisse Cullors resigned from the embattled charity in 2021, but the charity suffered from the excesses of her tenure well into 2023, according to a copy of its latest tax return obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Under Cullors’s leadership, Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation doled out massive contracts to her friends and family, purchased a $6 million mansion in Los Angeles in 2020, and financed the purchase of an $8 million mansion in Canada in 2021. By the end of its 2023 fiscal year, the tax forms show, Black Lives Matter saw the $80 million windfall it raked in during the George Floyd riots of 2020 diminish to under $29 million as it hemorrhaged cash fulfilling lingering contractual obligations to Cullors’s associates.

Those individuals include Damon Turner, the father of Cullors’s only child, whose art firm Trap Heals received $778,000 from Black Lives Matter in 2023 despite performing no work for the charity that year.

But hey, Black Lives Matter, gulldurnit, so all those progressive Jewish women rushed to put up that clenched fist badge on their Facebooks. It made them feel good, like they were making a statement about their own goodness, I suppose. Because those badges certainly didn’t do a THING for black people or against racism. And neither did Black Lives Matter.

The Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), under whose umbrella Black Lives Matter falls (or at least did, originally), is drenched in Jew hatred. In its original 2016 platform, M4BL stated that “[the] US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people,” that “Israel is an apartheid state,” and that “[the] US [has funded an] apartheid wall.”

The US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people. The US requires Israel to use 75 percent of all the military aid it receives to buy US-made arms. Consequently, every year billions of dollars are funneled from US taxpayers to hundreds of arms corporations, who then wage lobbying campaigns pushing for even more foreign military aid. The results of this policy are twofold: it not only diverts much needed funding from domestic education and social programs, but it makes US citizens complicit in the abuses committed by the Israeli government. Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people. Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday [sic], Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the US-funded apartheid wall.

Cullors, back in 2015, while speaking as a guest lecturer at Harvard Law School's 'Globalizing Ferguson: Radicalized Policing and International Violence' forum, opined that people must "end the imperialist project that's called Israel." “Palestine is our generation's South Africa. If we don't step up boldly and courageously to end the imperialist project that's called Israel, we're doomed.”

Is this really what my progressive Jewish friends, relatives, and acquaintances wanted to support as they watched BLM gain momentum? Did my fellow Jews support an end to Israel? Probably not. But they hadn’t bothered to check what BLM actually stands for. Black Lives Matter was a sentiment that brooked no criticisms or doubts about the respectability of the group going under the mantle of that oh-so-progressive-sounding name.

That same year, Cullors and her friends organized a solidarity trip to Nazareth called “Ferguson to Palestine.” To liven things up, they did a flash mob “specifically calling for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions of the state of Israel. We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it’s won.”

Here’s some of the other Jew-hating bullpucky they spouted:

We came here to Palestine to stand in love and revolutionary struggle with our brothers and sisters. We come to a land that has been stolen by greed and destroyed by hate. We learn of laws that have been co-signed in ink but written in the blood of the innocent. We stand next to people who continue to courageously struggle and resist the occupation. People continue to dream and fight for freedom. From Ferguson to Palestine, the struggle for freedom continues.

We who believe in freedom cannot rest. We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it’s won. We who believe in freedom cannot rest.

We sit in a sea of settlements while the sound of suffering is lost in the listening, as the voices of heartache hail the power of presence. People are portals, passports to heaven. Here is a protest in the form of a prayer. God is in the holy water lining the lower lids of a child’s eyes, a tear running against a cheek in Old Jerusalem. The lonely storyteller sits on a leaning chair in the market.

God is a woman holding a crying baby in her arms at a checkpoint, waiting at the gates like cattle. God is in the rubble, with gnarled hands rinsing in an open fire. A journey of dreamers sings through empty streets in Bethlehem. We survive in the telling, unafraid. We survive in the telling.

What if the occupations drain the Palestinians who had thrills underneath their teeth, and they suddenly awoke to see the ships at the Bay of the West Bank shore, discovering that the occupation existed no more? What if Zionism is the second coming of Christ? Destruction is the matriarch of sight, for if we are the Messiah, then God is not white. What if life is the afterlife, and we are already dead? The footage of the moment loops in your head, replaying until you die for the second time.

What a power influence your intelligence and mind, and those with lesser means—the oppressors. Would you still steal this land under that pressure?

Free Palestine! Palestine and Ferguson in the occupation. Ferguson and Palestine, we fight to free our nations.

Black lives matter! Black lives matter!

I believe! I believe!

They know that we know. They know that we win. We are all right.

Group hug! Come on!

Black lives matter! Black lives matter!


See? As long as you say it under the rubric of “Black Lives Matter!” you can say any gulldurned hateful lie you can think of. It’s all good. Good enough for my progressive Jewish friends to not bother to even do a rudimentary check of what these people are plugging—and they ain’t plugging DEI—they’re plugging antisemitism.

There really was such a wealth of material out there, attesting to the disingenuousness and horrifically hateful views of BLM. If only my progressive Jewish friends had been interested in examining even a modicum of the evidence. In 2016, for example, several horrible people made a film comparing anti-black racism, to “Palestinian” suffering under the supposed thumb of Israel.

From Moment Magazine:

Stragglers arrive; extra seats are formed into rows, and even more latecomers will be forced to stand. The lights dim, and a video recently released on YouTube begins to play on the projection screen. Entitled When I See Them, I See Us, it features activist-scholars Angela Davis and Cornel West, musician Lauryn Hill, actor Danny Glover, writer Alice Walker and dozens of other prominent activists, Palestinian and black. Narrators recite the title in rhythmic repetition as the activists hold up a series of slogan-bearing signs: “Racism is systemic. Its outbursts are not isolated incidents.” “Your walls will never cage our freedom.” “End state racism.” “Gaza stands with Baltimore.” Photos of dead Palestinian children alternate with photos of black victims of police shootings and scenes of Gaza rubble.

When the three-minute video ends—directing viewers to the website blackpalestiniansolidarity.com—the room bursts into applause. Dajani introduces the guest speaker for the evening, Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler, the senior minister of the Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, DC. From his temporary pulpit, Hagler weaves a web of parallels—the walls of a maximum-security prison in Massachusetts to Israel’s separation barrier in the West Bank; property destruction in Baltimore in the wake of the death of Freddie Gray to the first and second intifadas. His voice frequently reaches sermon pitch, his audience full of nodding heads, murmurs of approval, snapping fingers, and calls of “Yes.”

For all my progressive Jewish friends who so proudly displayed BLM FB badges until they didn’t, here’s a taste of that film script:

When I see them, I see us.

Every 28 hours, a Black life is stolen by police or vigilantes in the U.S. Every two hours, a Palestinian child is killed in Israel's attacks on Gaza.

Eric Garner, 43 years old, father of six, grandfather, friend. Seven-year-old killed when an Israeli missile struck her home. Hashem Abu Maria, 45 years old, father of four, human rights worker. Ayanna Jones, seven years old, killed in her sleep by Detroit police.

I see us—harassed, beaten, tortured, dehumanized, stopped and frisked, searched at checkpoints, victims of administrative detention, youth incarceration. When I see them, I see us—from Rikers Island to Ophir Prison, from Raeford to Chicago, lives are being stolen.

Remember them. We are not statistics. We are not collateral damage. We have names and faces: Sakia Nadeem Kimani, Renisha Muhammad. They burned me alive in Jerusalem. They gunned me down in Chicago. They shot out our water tanks in Hebron. They cut off our water in Detroit. They demolished our homes in New Orleans. When I see them, I see us.

They see our rooms as dangerous, label us as demographic threats. They sterilize us without our knowledge and mark our children as criminals. We say no to all forms of oppression in U.S. cities and on the streets of Palestine. We respect the uniqueness of our struggles and our varied histories. When I see them, I see us—resilient, steadfast, determined.

I see who we were meant to be: alive, free, liberated, mapping out our destiny. I see hope, strength, love—a place where our children can dream. I see a road, a partner, a family, a world where we can rise and be seen.


Now, with Cullors out of the picture, it has become clear that the BLM people need a new Jew-hater in charge. Which is why they just hired Yonasda Lonewolf!

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

Black Lives Matter Grassroots announced in a New Year's message to its supporters on Thursday that it hired Yonasda Lonewolf, a rapper and activist with close ties to Farrakhan, as a "special projects specialist" to help the group as it works to "claim victory over the white-supremacist systems designed to kill our people." Black Lives Matter Grassroots said in the message it would enter 2025 with "the revolutionary spirit of our Haitian forebears" and featured an image of Haitian revolutionaries in the early 1800s lynching French military officers.

Lonewolf doesn’t shy from her devotion to Farrakhan, who has praised Adolf Hitler as a "very great man" and casts Jews as "termites" and "enemies" who control black people. She professed her love for Farrakhan in a 2016 Facebook post and later, in a 2020 Instagram post, described the minister as "my grandfather Min. Farrakhan who also eased my spirit." In 2023, Lonewolf attended Farrakhan’s annual keynote address, where she told the ministry’s propaganda website that she felt "rejuvenated" by his message.

"We are all under attack right now, and it’s the fight against good and evil, at the end of the day," Lonewolf told the Final Call, the Nation of Islam's official publication. "The fact that we still have a great leader amongst us is a testament that he’s standing, that we need to be able to continue." Other Farrakhan devotees interviewed in that article praised the Nation of Islam leader's stand against "the Satanic Jews" and "the Jewish powers that be."

As to the pink pussy hats, they were all the rage with progressive Jewish women. But that didn’t go very well, either.

From Barbara Kay in the National Post:

It should be obvious to progressive Jewish women by now that the Women’s March, an allegedly feminist movement, which allegedly supports the rights of all women, just isn’t into Jewish women. To progressive ideologues, Jews are burdened by the original sin of Zionism, whether they are pro-Israel or not.

This was made very clear in June 2017, at the Chicago Dyke March, when three Jewish LGBT Pride marchers carrying flags adorned with a Star of David (similar to, but not the flag of Israel) were ousted from the parade. This was an act of pure anti-Semitism by radical feminists. 

In fact, at the event in question, the 21st annual Chicago Dyke March, a member of the group said that the women were told to leave because the flags “made people feel unsafe” and that the March was both “anti-Zionist” and “pro-Palestinian.”

Two years later, things had not much (read “not at all”) improved. But at least the rules of the 2019 DC Dyke March were clear.

From JNS (emphasis added):

The DC Dyke March, returning to Washington, D.C. on Friday after a 12-year absence, will prohibit Jewish and pro-Israel pride symbols, including flags.

“Jewish stars and other identifications and celebrations of Jewishness (yarmulkes, talit, other expressions of Judaism or Jewishness) are welcome and encouraged. We do ask that participants not bring pro-Israel paraphernalia in solidarity with our queer Palestinian friends,” Yael Horowitz, a Jewish organizer of the D.C. march, told A.J. Campbell, who wanted to bring a Jewish Pride flag to the march, in a Facebook messagereported The Washington Post.

The progressive Jews I know are on the whole, accomplished professionals with Ivy League educations. Why then, do they completely lack the ability to see when they’re being taken for a ride? How is it that they’re so quick to support what isn’t? BLM isn’t about equal rights for black people. It’s about misusing funds and hating Jews. The Women’s March and Dyke Marches aren’t about women or dykes. If it were, Jews and their symbols showing up in solidarity would be welcomed. After all, what does Israel have to do with the women’s rights movement in the United States?

Answer: not a thing. It’s not even intersectional. The marches are a pretext to hate whatever floats their hate boat. Straights, whites, Jews, Donald J. Trump . . . whatever they hate most at the moment. None of it hangs together in any cohesive form whatsoever.

In the run up to the election, a friend explained to me that she could not vote for Trump because she feared her elementary school-aged granddaughter would someday not be able to get an abortion as a result. But Trump didn’t do anything with abortion in his first term, and has no intention of having much to do with it now. It’s not even a thing. He’s leaving it up to the states to decide these things for themselves.

And guess what, they already have. There is no place in America where a woman cannot get an abortion where there is a risk to the life of the mother. In fact, there are very few places in America where the usual exceptions are not in place. 


But you know, Kamala Harris told them otherwise, so they believe her. And voted for her. Because they are Jewish progressives, so they embrace whatever cause they are told is progressive without even the smallest effort made at verifying the facts. 

Are they aware that Kamala Harris supports student protests against “Israel’s genocide in Gaza” and tells them they have a right to “their truth?”

 

Probably not. Again, because they don’t care. What they care about is the appearance of being consonant with progressive values. They want to belong, so when others scream BLACK LIVES MATTER, they put those badges up on their Facebook pages. And when Kamala tells them that Donald J. Trump wants to control their bodies, they vote for her, despite her hatred of their homeland and the people who live there. They comfort themselves by saying, there's no way she hates Jews. Her husband is Jewish!

Will Jewish progressives wake up in time to save themselves? Probably not. They are too intellectually lazy to perpetuate their own species. That expensive education their Yiddisher parents paid for is basically a framed diploma on a wall. They graduated a long time ago, and no longer have to use their brain cells to dig deep and critically think about anything much at all.



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Wednesday, January 01, 2025


Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

Jimmy Carter died, but few Jews mourn him. Carter’s animus toward the Jewish people is by now, legendary. Elder of Ziyon offered an overview Carter’s overt Jew-hatred in Jimmy Carter, antisemite. Saving the worst for last, Elder detailed Jimmy Carter’s plea for leniency for Martin Bartesch, a former SS guard at the Mauthausen work camp during WWII:

The single most damning example of Carter's antisemitism comes from an incident in 1987.

Neal Sher was the head of the Office of Special Investigations, the Justice Department’s Nazi prosecution unit. They had iron-clad evidence that a Chicago resident, Martin Bartesch, a member of the SS Death’s Head Division at the Mauthausen concentration camp, was a war criminal and a murderer.

Bartesch's family started a huge campaign against the OSI, writing letters to members of Congress and other prominent people asking for help. Most politicians contacted the OSI to find out the details, OSI provided them with evidence of his guilt, and they would drop the matter.

But, Sher says, not Jimmy Carter.


During a 2007 Israel National Radio interview, Neal Sher went into some detail about a letter he received from Carter (emphasis added):

“In 1987, Carter had been out of office for seven years or so,” Sher recalled. “It was a very active period for my office. We had just barred Kurt Waldheim – he was then president of Austria and former head of the United Nations – from entering the U.S. because of his Nazi past and his involvement in the persecution of civilians during the war. We had just deported an Estonian Nazi Commandant back to the Soviet Union after a bruising battle after which we were attacked by Reagan White House Communications Director Patrick Buchanan.

“Also around that time, in the spring of 1987, we deported a series of SS guards from concentration camps, whose names nobody would know. One such character we sent back to Austria was a man named Martin Bartesch.

“We had an extraordinary piece of evidence against him – a book that was kept by the SS and captured by the American armed forces when they liberated Mauthausen,” Sher said. “We called it the death book. It was a roster that the Germans required them to keep that identified SS guards as they extended weapons to murder the inmates and prisoners.

“We kicked him out and he went back to Austria. In the meantime, his family – he had adult kids – went on a campaign, also supported by his church, to try to get special treatment. In so doing they attacked the activities of our office and me personally. They claimed we used phony evidence from the Soviet Union – which was nonsense. They claimed he was a young man of only 17 or 18 when he joined the Nazi forces, asking for some sympathetic treatment and defense from our office, which they claimed was just after vengeance.”

The family approached several members of Congress. “The congressmen would, very understandably, forward their claims over to our office and when they learned the facts they would invariably drop the case,” Sher recalled.

“One day, in the fall of ’87, my secretary walks in and gives me a letter with a Georgia return address reading ‘Jimmy Carter.’ I assumed it was a prank from some old college buddies, but it wasn’t. It was the original copy of the letter Bartesch’s daughter sent to Carter, after Bartesch had already been deported.

“In the letter, she claimed we were un-American, only after vengeance, and persecuting a man for what he did when he was only 17 and 18 years old.

“I couldn’t help thinking of my own father who returned home with shrapnel wounds after he joined the U.S. Army as a teenager to fight the Nazis and hit the beaches at Normandy at that same age on D-day.

“On the upper corner of the letter was a note signed by Jimmy Carter saying that in cases such as this, he wanted ‘special consideration for the family for humanitarian reasons.’

“I didn’t respond to the letter – the case was already over and he was out of the country – but it always stuck in my craw. A former president who didn’t do what I would expect him to do - with a full staff at his disposal – to find out the facts before he took up the side of this person. But I wasn’t going to pick a fight with a former president. We had enough on our plate.”

“It always bothered me, but I didn’t go public with it until recently, when he wrote this book [Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid V.E.] and let it spill out where his sentiments really lie,” Sher said. “Here was Jimmy Carter jumping in on behalf of someone who did not deserve in any way, shape or form special consideration. And the things he has now said about the Jewish lobby really exposes where his heart really lies.”



As Sher states, the family of Martin Bartesch, launched a letter-writing campaign on his behalf. At that time, in 1987, the Washington Post saw fit to print Heinz Bartesch’s defense of his Nazi father:

'FALSE ALLEGATIONS' ABOUT MARTIN BARTESCH

Over the past several weeks The Post has carried the story of the Office of Special Investigations' prosecution of my father, Martin Bartesch. The misquotes and false allegations have been so great that what most Americans now know is a gross distortion of the truth and equals the disinformation campaigns of the KGB. Some of the falsehoods that have appeared in print:

It is alleged that Martin Bartesch lied on his immigration form. He didn't lie -- his immigration form clearly states his service in the S.S. in 1943-45. He did serve in the Prinz Eugene division. His only oversight was to not list his duty as guard at Mauthausen for three weeks. A questionable oversight, not a lie.

It is alleged that my father fled the country to avoid prosecution. He didn't flee but left as a free man with a valid U.S. passport, with full knowledge and consent from the government. He left willfully to avoid financial ruin from a trial which, under the Holtzman Amendment, would have been grossly unfair and therefore impossible to win.

It is alleged that he is accused of murder. As a guard, his duty was to shoot at escaping prisoners. He shot an escaping convicted felon. The Wehrmacht penal code clearly stated that failure to perform duties would result in execution. This is exactly the command that the American GIs had who did shoot and did kill escaping Japanese from our internment camps.

It is alleged that my father assisted in the persecution of the Jews. His only guard duties before fighting on the Russian front were at labor camps that contained prisoners of war, resistance fighters and convicted felons. It is a known fact that the subcamps where my father was stationed had very few Jews and no women and children. Most of the deaths at Mauthausen occurred at the end of the war, long after my father left in October 1943.

Martin Bartesch committed no war crimes -- the OSI knows this. The complaint against him never even mentioned any war crimes. Again, his only "crime" was a questionable immigration infraction.

These are not all, but certainly the biggest of the falsehoods presented in my father's case. What the OSI did to my father was unfair, cruel, immoral and very un-American. It is appalling that the media acted as a free public relations vehicle for the OSI to spread its lies. HEINZ H. BARTESCH Corte Madera, Calif.

Was Heinz Bartesch being honest when he claimed that Martin Bartesch didn’t lie on his immigration form—that he simply forgot to write that he was a guard at Mauthausen? Put simply: no. When Bartesch was deposed in 1986, he refused to answer questions about what he did during the war pleading the Fifth on the grounds that he feared foreign prosecution. This suggests that Bartesch intentionally omitted the same key information on his immigration form.

Bartesch wasn’t talking then. He sure wasn’t going to talk in 1986, when the US government—with darned good reason—was after him.

At that point, the US government took Bartesch to court, asking that he be compelled to provide answers to their questions. The court did so, noting that the deposition and Bartesch’s responses would be sealed to protect him from prosecution outside of the US.

From United States v. Bartesch (1986) (emphasis added):

*428 I. FACTS

The government filed this denaturalization action against the defendant Martin Bartesch on April 7, 1986. The government alleges that the defendant misrepresented his activities during World War II when he applied for and obtained immigration to, and citizenship in, the United States. As an alternative ground for denaturalization, the government alleges that the defendant acquiesced and personally assisted in persecution and conduct contrary to civilization and human decency on behalf of Nazi Germany during wartime. The wartime activities occurred during defendant's service as a concentration camp guard in the Totenkopf-Sturmbann (Death's Head Battalion) at the Mauthausen concentration camp system in Austria.

During his deposition conducted on June 2 and 3, 1986, defendant, on advice of counsel, asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to answer questions concerning his whereabouts and activities between July 1, 1943 and August 25, 1945. In addition, he refused to answer questions regarding his efforts to immigrate and obtain United States citizenship. Defense counsel stated that the invocation of the Fifth Amendment was not based on the possibility of prosecution in the United States, but rather on the possibility of prosecution in West Germany, Austria, or Romania.

Relying on his Fifth Amendment privilege, defendant refused to answer questions such as: (1) whether (during the period between July 1, 1943 and August 25, 1945) he had ever been at Mauthausen or any concentration camp; (2) whether he belonged to a Totenkopf-Sturmbann; or (3) whether he performed military service. With respect to his immigration and naturalization, defendant refused to answer whether he intentionally had provided false information to United States officials and whether sworn immigration documents placing him in the SS combat division "Prinz Eugen" were correct. These questions are some examples of the questions which defendant refused to answer in his deposition.

Defendant did answer "no" to the following questions: (1) whether he had ever mistreated, shot, or killed a prisoner; (2) fired a weapon; (3) touched a prisoner; and (4) was ever present at a hanging. Defendant's answer to the complaint, filed on June 13, 1986, took a similar approach. In all, defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to 21 paragraphs of the complaint (paragraphs 7, 9-11, 14-15, 18, 22, 36, 42, 48, 53, 55-58, 65, 70, 75-76, 79).

Also among the falsehoods in the letter the Washington Post saw fit to print, Heinz Bartesch claimed that his father had nothing to do with the “persecution of the Jews.” Furthermore, wrote Heinz, there were “very few Jews” at places like Mauthausen. This too, is a lie.

From Yad Vashem (emphases added):

In May 1944, Mauthausen admitted large transports of Jews from Auschwitz. The number of Jews who died in Mauthausen that year topped 3,000. Many groups of Poles also arrived in Mauthausen in 1944, after the Warsaw Polish Uprising was suppressed, in October 1944. Many Polish students and underground members were killed soon after they arrived.

Almost 25,000 new prisoners came to Mauthausen in 1945, including a stream of Jewish prisoners from Hungary who had been previously interned in camps along the Austrian-Hungarian border, and forced to build a line of fortifications. As the battlefront drew closer, their camps were emptied out and the prisoners were marched on foot to Mauthausen. Many died en route.

The Jews interned in Mauthausen were treated much worse than the other prisoners. They were forced to dig tunnels at the sub-camps for underground ammunition factories and were expected to do so at an unbearably fast pace. After a month or so, the Jewish workers were so physically broken and exhausted they could hardly move.

On May 3, 1945, a police unit from Vienna took over the camp's security. The next day, all work stopped at the camp and the SS officers left. On May 5, American troops arrived and liberated the camp. Altogether, 199,404 prisoners passed through Mauthausen. Approximately 119,000 of them, including 38,120 Jews, were killed or died from the harsh conditions, exhaustion, malnourishment and overwork. Furthermore, the sick, weak and "undesirable" prisoners were taken to the nearby Hartheim Castle to be exterminated in the gas chamber during the periods of August 1941 to October 1942 and April to December 1944.

A US soldier looks at the Mauthausen crematorium during the liberation of the camp. Austria, May 1945.

A US soldier with liberated prisoners of the Mauthausen concentration camp. Austria, May 1945.

A pile of corpses at the Russian Camp (Hospital Camp) section of the Mauthausen concentration camp after liberation. Mauthausen, Austria, May 5-15, 1945.

A view of the quarry at the Mauthausen concentration camp, where prisoners were subjected to forced labor. Austria, 1938-1945.

So many lies from Heinz. Heinz wrote that “Martin Bartesch committed no war crimes -- the OSI knows this. The complaint against him never even mentioned any war crimes. Again, his only "crime" was a questionable immigration infraction.”

Again, false. As Neal Sher told Israel National Radio, the OSI had the murder book, the “roster that the Germans required them to keep that identified SS guards as they extended weapons to murder the inmates and prisoners.” That murder book identified Martin Bartesch as having shot and killed a French Jew.

From the NY Times (emphasis added):

One piece of evidence gathered against Mr. Bartesch by the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations was the Mauthausen ''Unnatural Death Book,'' a log kept from October 1942 to April 1945 of prisoner deaths.

Entry No. 300 shows that on Oct. 20, 1943, a French Jew named Max Ochshorn was shot to death at the main camp of Mauthausen by Pvt. Martin Bartesch of the SS, who was then 17.

There is much more to say about Martin Bartesch, for instance that he continued to collect social security after he was stripped of his citizenship and deported for a further two years until he died. (I hope it was painful.) Bartesch did evil and lied about it to get off scot-free. His family was complicit in covering up his crimes against humanity, because yes. Jews are human.

Martin Bartesch after the war

Which leads us back to Jimmeh and his little note in the upper corner of a letter from SS-Sturmmann Martin Bartesch’s daughter, asking for clemency for her father. The letter, similar to that of her brother Heinz, was one filled with lies. As Neal Sher related, without any fact-finding process whatsoever, the dead president decided to let the Nazi (unknown to Carter, already deported) off the hook. Why?

Because of “cases like this.” (emphasis added):

To director O.S.I.

     I hope that in cases like this that special consideration can be given to affected families for humanitarian reasons.
       Jimmy Carter


Now what are we to think when the “case like this” is, in fact, one in which someone killed a Jew (and probably more) and covered it up? In light of the now-dead president’s long history of, for example, cozying up to Jew-hating terrorists like Haniyeh and preaching against Jews in church, there can be only one conclusion. 

From the perspective of Jimmy Carter the antisemite, in the case where the murder victim is Jewish, the perpetrator (and his family!) deserve special consideration for “humanitarian reasons.”

That sure sounds a lot like “Final Solution.” Which makes sense: in the antisemitic world of Jimmy Carter—or rather the one he just left—liquidating the Jews is something people do for “humanitarian reasons,” i.e.; to benefit humanity. Which is why many of us Jews are not sorry Jimmeh has, in the inimitable words of Monty Python, joined the bleedin' choir invisible.

I don’t wonder what awaits—I hope he loves a good fire.



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 



Wednesday, December 25, 2024



Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

Chanukah is kind of lucky because everyone just loves Chanukah, which is why everyone and their dog wants to borrow Chanukah and use it to express themselves however. Take Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff. He thinks Chanukah is about people hiding and running out of oil and such. You know the tweet I’m talking about—the one from 2023—the one ole Dougie had to delete because it was stupid and made up and betrayed his ignorance about his own religion and heritage.

“The story of Chanukah and the story of the Jewish people has always been one of hope and resilience. In the Chanukah story, the Jewish people were forced into hiding. No one thought they would survive or that the few drops of oil they had would last,” said Doug E. “But they survived, and the oil kept burning.”

Oh my. People like Dougie Emhoff really shouldn’t just make stuff up about Chanukah and distribute it to the masses. Because people were bound to see it and make fun of him and his ignorance. Which they did. Because Chanukah is definitely not about people hiding and running out of Wesson.

But Doug wasn’t done putting his foot—instead of say a jelly donut or even a latke—in his mouth, “During those eight days in hiding,” said Doug, “they recited their prayers and continued their traditions.

“That’s why Chanukah means dedication. It was during those dark nights that the Maccabees dedicated themselves to maintaining hope and faith in the oil, each other and their Judaism.”

“In these dark times, I think of that story,” added Emhoff.

Uh huh. Sure you do, Dougie. I can just picture you late on the night of November 5, 2024, thinking of Chanukah. It would have been a very dark moment for you, for sure. I can’t even imagine how loud and long Kamala screamed and pulled her hair out and blamed everyone but herself on her poor showing in the election. But you had faith in the oil!

Old Doug would not have been bothered one bit about Kamala's stunning loss. Not Doug. Doug E. would have been thinking about Chanukah and about hope and about how to squeeze out a few more drops of canola so he wouldn’t have to go to the store and pay out the nose for another bottle because of Biden-Harris inflation. 

I jest.

But it has long been the way of progressive Jews like Emhoff to use and distort the holiday of Chanukah to suit their agenda—an agenda that has nothing to do with religion. In 2012, for example, writing for the Portland Press Herald, Rabbi Akiva Herzfeld, an “orthodox” rabbi, tied Chanukah to gay marriage. “With my very own eyes, I have seen a great miracle this year right here in Maine. A small group of people, homosexuals and their supporters, stood up for their equal rights in marriage.”

Wait, whut??? Chanukah isn’t about standing up for gay marriage. The complete opposite of that. Chanukah is about RELIGION. Specifically about Jewish fidelity to the Jewish religion.

Writing about Herzfeld’s idiotic op-ed, Rabbi Steven Pruzansky was clear, “The demand for same-sex marriage is personal and political, but not at all religious.”

Herzfeld, writes Pruzansky, “inverts the story of Chanukah on its head in order to make a political point that is shockingly shallow and entirely bereft of Torah wisdom.”

What makes the irony even more pungent is that the Greeks – against whom the Maccabees fought and prevailed – were avid supporters of and indulgers in homosexuality. It was just one of the immoral practices of the Hellenists that the faithful Jews found so repugnant, and therefore went to war in order to purge the land of it. In other words, to be faithful to the Chanukah story, the rabbi should have opposed same sex marriage. I.e., rather than succumb to the morality of the dominant culture and wrench the definition of marriage from its traditional moorings, he should have stood with the faithful Jews of yesteryear (and today) and preached the truth of Torah even if – particularly if – he would thereby remain in the minority. That is, after all, a dominant theme of Chanukah historically: that the Jewish people have survived not by mimicking the fluid morality of others but by clinging tenaciously to our own timeless moral norms. Surely the rabbi knows this.


Back in 2014, my piece, The Truth About Hannukkah, was yoinked and printed word for word on a website with an evangelical readership. The piece was an attempt to explain Chanukah in simple terms, in order to combat this rabid infection of everyone abusing the holiday in support of their current ideological flavor of the month or minute. It was irritating the heck out of me. So I explained Chanukah and the history of the holiday as I saw it, in simple terms, a kind of Chanukah for Idiots:

Those flickering Hanukkah lights have nothing to do with equality, integration, and multiculturalism. They have nothing to do with coexistence. They have nothing to do with charity. They have nothing to do with peace.

The candles, in fact, have everything to do with insulating the Jewish people from outside influences which might contaminate them and draw them away from their God.

The story of Hanukkah, the real story, and not the pretend stories that people tell you, begins in 174 BCE when Antiochus IV decided to consolidate his reign by imposing a single culture and religion on those who lived in the region of the Seleucid Empire. Seeing Judaism as a threat, Antiochus outlawed Jewish practice and installed Jews who had come under the influence of Greek culture (Hellenism) in positions of Jewish influence in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

Torah scrolls were burned. Many Jews were killed for refusing to give in to Antiochus’ decrees. They would die rather than give up their God and their faith in favor of Hellenism.

The altar of the Temple was defiled by a Hellenist Jew and that was the tipping point. Matthias killed this man with his sword and then it was all-out war. The Jews formed legions and fought back against those who would destroy their faith.

They fought against integration.

They fought against multiculturalism.

They fought against coexistence.

They fought assimilation—the outside influences that would drown out the voice and spark of the Jewish soul within.

And won.

The evangelical website plagiarism was only the start of what proved to be a very strange phenomenon  in which churches distributed the article among their parishioners, and homeowners all over America found copies left outside their doors. At any rate, some two months after the Chanukah (or “Hannukkah” as we were spelling it that year) piece, I had an odd encounter on Twitter, which led to the following email exchange with a Jewish woman in California:

I saw your tweet about getting in touch with you about your interest in my blog with this address. How may I help you?

Varda Epstein

Hi! Yes I don't have a twitter account, but my daughter tweeted you for me with my email address. I was at an upscale outdoor shopping mall in Berkeley CA on Friday, and when I returned to my car, your flyer, "The Truth About Hanukkah" was on my windshield and plastered on all the cars in the lot. 

It befuddled me!! When I read it, I thought it was a Christian doctrine, as it read like that. These days there is so much antisemitism that I was concerned about who did this and why?  

(name withheld)


Ten years ago, I sat in my living room in Israel, trying to imagine what it would be like to live in a world where a Christian slips a flyer about Chanukah under your windshield, and your mind goes to, “Is it antisemitic?”

Today, I no longer want to tell anyone about Chanukah, what it is, or how they should observe it. I’m not a rabbi and it’s not my place. What I do want is for Jews to show more intellectual curiosity! Don’t take his word for it when an “orthodox” rabbi tells you that the message of Chanukah is that community support for gay marriage is a “great miracle.”

In general, when it comes to Jews mouthing off about Judaism, if what they say sounds shockingly cool, it likely isn’t. More probably it’s just someone saying stuff they made up to get attention. That’s the kind of person who, for instance, is going to tell you that Chanukah is about the miracle of abortion, or the fight for human rights in some third-world country. Don’t listen to that person. See through them, please.

Even if you don’t have a rabbi, or much knowledge of Judaism, you can question what people tell you about Chanukah. Don’t be satisfied with a recitation or a narrative. Press them for sources. Get the facts about Chanukah and don’t allow others to use this Jewish holiday to get you to believe whatever they want you to believe.



Doug Emhoff used Chanukah as a platform to issue platitudes. His words were meant to be some kind of sweet message for the public, something to post on social media on a Jewish holiday, just generally. “Poor” Doug. He didn’t realize that it was important to be accurate about the Chanukah story and its meaning. From his point of view, that tweet was just a season’s greeting, for crying out loud. He was doing something NICE, and look how they treated him. Sheesh.

And yet, Doug ended up deleting that tweet. He came to understand that, indeed, some folks genuinely care about these matters—about the accuracy of it all, and about what Chanukah means. Perhaps Doug Emhoff views these individuals as religious zealots, failing to see that he himself unwittingly represents the very Hellenized Jews that the Maccabees themselves were forced to confront.

Chanukah Sameach to all my readers!



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 



Wednesday, December 18, 2024

                             


Film review and interview with filmmaker Pierre Rehov

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

Pierre Rehov has one clear goal with his latest documentary, Pogrom(s): to defend his people, the Jews. The film shows us what happened on October 7th in a brutally honest fashion. It’s difficult to watch. There are images and footage from which the viewing public has been largely shielded. It’s what Jew-haters have been demanding all along, proof. Not that it will satisfy them—nothing would, except perhaps for the demise of the Jews.

Nevertheless, Pogrom(s) represents a valiant attempt to document the events of October 7, delving into its root causes and aftermath. The film clearly illustrates how antisemitic violence begets further antisemitic violence, creating an insidious cycle. Given the extreme nature of violence on October 7, the resulting acts of aggression—whether on college campuses or in the streets of Amsterdam—have proven particularly severe. With the help of expert testimony, the filmmaker effectively connects the horrific events of that day to a complex interplay of Islamic fundamentalism, Nazi ideology, and 20th-century “Palestinian” nationalism.

Filmmaker Pierre Rehov

If the title of the documentary is any indication, Rehov views October 7 as yet another pogrom in a long and storied history of such events. But was October 7 indeed a pogrom according to the strictest definition of the term? Was it comparable to the anti-Jewish riots that swept through Russia following the assassination of Czar Alexander II?

Arguably, October 7 transcends the boundaries of a pogrom by intent. October 7 was not a mob riot, but a targeted attempt at genocide, with atrocities of unprecedented cruelty, all publicly broadcast on social media for the world to see and hear. But however you land on the question of how to define October 7, it is certain that Pogrom(s) will give you much to think about.

Varda Epstein: You’ve been making films about Muslim terror and the “Arab war against the Jews” as Ruth Wisse calls it, for more than two decades. Why this particular subject? Do you feel called upon to do this work? What do you give viewers that they won’t get anywhere else?

Pierre Rehov: After graduating from law school in Paris in the 70s, I began a career as a journalist and quickly specialized in cinema. This vocation led me to become a film distributor and then producer. But I didn't get politically involved in any cause until September 30, 2000.

Returning from vacation, I stumbled across the France 2 report covering the death of little Mohammed Al Dura. This “filmed death” was the starting point for the intifada that bloodied Israel for almost six years, and gave rise to a propaganda campaign whose results we are sadly witnessing on the international stage today. My experience as a journalist and film-maker made me realize that this death, attributed to Israeli soldiers, was nothing more than a staged event, and I decided to find out for myself. So, with my head held high, I set off to Israel and Gaza to uncover the deception.

In the process, I made my first documentary, and as no one wanted it in France, I created a magazine distributed in newsagents, the sole aim of which was to give away a VHS cassette of the report. The success of this initiative exceeded all my expectations, and so began my new career, which has outstripped all others, and I have since made more than 20 documentaries on the conflicts of the Middle East.

I believe that my experience in many different fields allows me to bring into films materials that few others can. Especially since I was born in an Arab country, I have travelled to many Arab countries and I spent time in Gaza and Judea Samaria to be in contact with Arabs who call themselves “palestinians”.

Where children once played. The aftermath of October 7 

Varda Epstein: Can you tell us a bit about your background? I understand you experienced terror first hand. Can you tell us about that? Is that early experience part of what drives you in your work?

Pierre Rehov: I don't really like to talk about this experience. To make a long story short, I was 7 years old, we lived in Algiers, and my school was targeted by the terrorist “Liberation of Algeria” organization, the FLN. Several children died or were injured. In Algeria, as elsewhere, when Arabs fight, they often target civilians, women and children first, to instill terror. But it wasn't this experience that led to my commitment to Israel. Rather, it's the sense of injustice felt by any Jew who has been driven out of an Arab country, whose family has lost everything, and who has been content to rebuild his life without asking anyone for anything, while the Arabs of the Palestine region, many of whom were recent immigrants, have received all the help they can get from the Western world and the UN.

A burned out shell of a home, post October 7

Varda Epstein: Your latest film is Pogrom(s). The movie is about the October 7 massacres, but not solely, because Pogrom(s) actually covers a lot of ground. If you were to offer us a synopsis of the film, what would it say?

Pierre Rehov: It would say that on October 7 Jews suffered the worst massacre since the Holocaust solely because they were Jews, but the very next day much of the world's media and governments, rather than taking sides with the victims, condemned Israel for its willingness to defend itself, a right that seems not to be granted to Israelis. Pogrom(s) tries to explain why, and to do so revisits the history of the region. It also says, to quote Guterres, that this massacre did not occur in a “vacuum” but in the continuity of an anti-Jewish hatred inscribed in the ethos of Islam.

A sea of the burned out empty shells of what were once cars, set on fire with people still inside them on October 7.

Varda Epstein: What was your chief objective in making Pogrom(s)? What do you want people to get out of seeing your film?

Pierre Rehov: Pogrom(s) is a cry of revolt against a culture of hatred and the revision of history. Pogrom(s) says to the world, “We said never again, but here we go again, and you're behaving as you did in the last century.”

Hostages, whether dead or alive, were paraded through the streets of Gaza on October 7, jeered at, spat upon, and violently abused by the crowds.

Varda Epstein: How did you decide what images and footage to include? A lot of it was difficult to watch and see; it must be difficult to get the balance right. How did you decide what to include? What are some of the factors you thought about as you made choices about what you would and wouldn’t show the world? Do you have any regrets in this regard—were there photos or footage you wish you had included but that ended up on the cutting floor?

Pierre Rehov: The choice of images was based on a criterion set from the outset. They had to be revolting without showing too much. I had access to a lot of material during the making of the film, and the choices were extremely difficult because it's impossible to evoke such a tragedy, when propaganda has already done its job to mitigate the ignominy of the human waste who indulged in such an orgy of murder, rape and torture, without showing a little. But at the same time, we had to protect the families of the victims, respect the dead, and not encourage voyeurism. I don’t have any regrets.

Terrorists paragliding into Israel on October 7.

Varda Epstein: Who is your movie for? Will Pogrom(s) change the mind of ardent antisemites? Educate the ignorant? Will the film offer validation to those in anguish over the events of October 7?

Pierre Rehov: The film is aimed neither at pro-Israelis, who know the truth and might just discover a few historical facts that would reinforce their conviction, nor at pro-Palestinians who wallow in lies and scoff at the truth. Antisemitism is a collective neurosis which, at certain times, becomes a psychosis. The cure lies in psychiatry, not in the presentation of facts. Some Israelis and Jews abroad thanked me after seeing Pogrom(s). I simply hope that I have made my tiny contribution to what I consider to be one of humanity's greatest causes: The defense of Israel and the Jewish people.

Antisemitic protests in the United States in the wake of October 7.

Varda Epstein: Pogrom(s) includes footage of University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer stating that “a good number” of Oct 7 victims were killed by IDF. What struck me was the glee on his face as he leaned in and said that. Is there a way to combat these attitudes? Do you think your film is something we can show the deniers to change their minds?

Pierre Rehov: This “professor” is an antisemitic scumbag. He interprets the facts to suit his ideology. There's nothing to be done with this kind of individual. Just let them get stuck in their certainty until the day they let themselves go too far and find themselves caught by the law. It's not my job to educate them. The work should have been done during their childhood, by parents who, no doubt, were no better than them in human terms. A negationist never changes his mind, because his intellectual construction is based on non-existent facts that he has decided to accept as established truth. A negationist can look at a photo of the Holocaust and say it's a fake, or a photo of a charred baby and claim (as Al Jazeera dared to do) that it's a creation of Artificial Intelligence. I don't waste my time trying to convince these people.

The more hate, the more hateful displays of anti-Jewish hate, everywhere.

Varda Epstein: What's next for Pierre Rehov? Do you have another film in the pipeline?

Pierre Rehov: I'm currently preparing two films, which it's too early to talk about, but which belong to the same field. I'm also co-writing a book on the post-October 7 period in Israel and the Middle East, which will be published in April by a major French publishing house.

***

To watch Pogrom(s) and learn more, visit: https://pogroms.info/



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 



AddToAny

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