Disclaimer: the views expressed here are the sole responsibility of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
President Trump chose an odd venue as the platform for his
bout of historical revisionism.
Standing at the World Economic Forum in
Davos, he told the assembled global elite that Israel’s Iron Dome was not
really Israel’s achievement at all.
“That’s our technology, that’s our stuff,” he
said, recounting a conversation in which he claimed to have told Prime Minister
Netanyahu to stop taking credit for it.
Trump on the Iron Dome:
“What we did for Israel was amazing…We did it for Israel. And by the way, I told Bibi, ‘Bibi, stop taking credit for the dome. That's our technology, that's our stuff.’ But they had a lot of courage, and they were good fighters, and they did a good job.” pic.twitter.com/tm9G9uHdK5
It was a striking
claim—and it was untrue. The Iron Dome was conceived, designed, and engineered
by Israeli companies—Rafael, Israel Aerospace
Industries, and mPrest—and first
deployed at Israeli air bases in southern Israel in response to Israeli
civilians being shelled by Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist entities in
Gaza and Lebanon. No American president invented it. No American laboratory
designed it. No American general figured out how to intercept rockets fired at
Jewish homes, schools, and kindergartens.
But here is the part
Trump was almost certainly leaning on in making his boastful claim: while the
United States did not invent Iron Dome, it did provide a great deal of the
funding for it, beginning under President Obama.
That funding was critical.
It expanded the number of Iron Dome batteries, ensured a steady supply of
interceptors, and later tied production to American contractors. American funding was framed as an act
of alliance. The expectations attached to that funding constrained Israel’s
ability to respond to attacks.
I was angry at the time—more
specifically, angry at President Obama. His administration would fund the Iron
Dome, but it would not allow Israel to stop the missiles at their source.
Israel could intercept, absorb, and endure—but no more than that.
We were given the
umbrella and told to crouch beneath it, intercepting rockets while Arab
terrorists were allowed to continue firing at Jews. Terrorists were permitted
to keep shooting at Jewish civilians, while Israel was denied the right, as a
sovereign nation, to put an end to it. But we did not create a Jewish state so Jews
could cower under American protection.
Israel was founded to be a sovereign nation, capable of determining its own
responses to threats. It was meant to be a safe haven for Jews in a world that
has never needed much encouragement to hate them.
Iron Dome saved lives.
That is beyond dispute. But it was never a clean or consequence-free solution.
Interceptions send debris and shrapnel raining down, often over populated
areas.
A friend’s son learned
this the hard way. He was driving on a highway when the missile alert sounded.
He did exactly what Israelis are instructed to do: pulled over, got out of the
car, lay flat on the road with his hands over his head. An interception
occurred overhead. Shrapnel came down. He was hit badly enough to require
hospitalization.
This risk is well
known, but people don’t much talk about it. Iron Dome has taken on an almost
sacred status, making it easier to celebrate the miracle than to confront the
cost—especially when that cost is borne quietly by civilians already living
under fire.
Which brings us back to Trump.
Trump’s claim in
Davos echoed an assumption long embedded in Washington: that Israel exists with
American permission, and that its power is something to be supervised. Obama
and Trump both like to assume the role of savior. They put on different
performances, driven by the same vanity—the belief that Israel lives or dies
because they say so, and that they deserve all the credit for Israel’s survival
and success.
Israel may be protected. Israel may
intercept. But Israel does not fully control the terms under which it ends
threats to its citizens.
When Jewish self-defense
is treated as something granted rather than owned, it becomes conditional. And
once it is conditional, it can be reclaimed, rebranded, or spoken of—as Trump
did in Davos—as someone else’s “stuff.”
That should trouble
anyone who understands why a Jewish state exists in the first place.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are the sole responsibility of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
President Trump keeps touting the peace he brought to the Middle East. But if this is peace, I’d hate to see war. Though actually, I’ve seen war and I’m still seeing war—because we still have war. Since the ceasefire took effect on October 10, there have been 78 Hamas violations of the ceasefire.
Below are the president’s own “peace” claims—grouped by date—asserting or clearly implying that peace now exists in the Middle East.
*October 13, 2025 (remarks released October 14): “At long last, we have peace in the Middle East. And now we’re there.” In the same remarks, Trump also declared, “After years of suffering and bloodshed, the war in Gaza is over.”
*October 16, 2025 (Truth Social): Trump described what he called a “Great Accomplishment of Peace in the Middle East.”
*October 25, 2025 (Truth Social and Air Force One press gaggle): “We have a very strong PEACE in the Middle East,” Trump wrote, adding that it had a good chance of being “EVERLASTING.” Speaking to reporters later that day, he said, “We have peace in the Middle East. That’s what we have. Great peace in the Middle East,” and insisted, “This is real peace.”
*November 10, 2025 (Truth Social): Trump referred to “PEACE in the Middle East” and described it as “the Great Miracle that is taking place in the Middle East.”
*December 1, 2025 (Truth Social): He claimed “SUCCESS, already attained, for PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST!”
*December 11–12, 2025 (White House remarks): Trump stated, “We actually do have a real peace in the Middle East.”
*December 16, 2025 (White House remarks): He said the administration’s goal was to ensure that there “remains … peace in the Middle East.”
*December 18, 2025 (national address): In a national address, Trump said the Gaza truce had “brought peace to the Middle East for the first time in 3,000 years.”
You’d never know the reality on the ground if you tried to Google “Hamas ceasefire violations.” What you get instead is page after page of propaganda about Israel’s supposed violations—Israel’s “pretend” violations—while Hamas malfeasance disappears into a black hole. Seventy-eight instances of such malfeasance, ignored or downplayed, because the media (and apparently Google) are more comfortable amplifying accusations against Israel than confronting what Hamas actually does. They love anyone who murders, rapes, beheads, and burns Jews. Including babies.
So they cover up the truth and peddle lies. That we expect. What is galling is DJT’s continued claims that we have peace. But actually, this too is to be expected. The president wants to have accomplished peace—and yes, he’s a braggart—so he calls it peace even when it isn’t. Boy, would he like to earn that Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe he thinks if he says it enough—peace, peace, peace—the world will be convinced and he’ll get that prize. And if he doesn’t get that prize—which almost assuredly he will not—he’ll say that only because he’s Donald Trump, they won’t give him credit for bringing peace to the Middle East—which he assuredly did not.
Don’t get me wrong—Donald Trump got all but one of our remaining hostages out. For that, the Israeli people are hugely grateful. But this is not peace, and IDF soldiers have still been killed. For their families, there is no peace—also for the rest of Israel. We all know we’re still at war.
For anyone who wants specifics, below is what that “peace” has consisted of since October 10: 78 separate ceasefire violations and hostile incidents, in chronological order:
Oct 13 — Arrow Unit killed 32 Gazans accused of collaborating with Israel (incl. Doghmush clan members).
Oct 14 — Hamas failed to return over half the remaining slain hostages within the required 72 hours (hostage-return breach).
Oct 14 — “Suspects” crossed the Yellow Line (Incident A); IDF opened fire; Gaza health ministry claimed fatalities.
Oct 14 — “Suspects” crossed the Yellow Line (Incident B); IDF opened fire; Gaza health ministry claimed fatalities.
Oct 15 — Hamas returned a body that did not match any hostage (forensics mismatch).
Oct 18 — “Suspicious vehicle” crossed the Yellow Line and approached troops; IDF fire; Hamas claimed 11 family members killed.
Oct 19 — Tunnel ambush in Rafah: 2 IDF killed, 3 wounded (Israel called blatant ceasefire violation; Hamas denied responsibility).
Oct 27 — Hamas returned partial remains of a hostage already recovered by IDF (Netanyahu office: “clear violation”).
Oct 28 — Sniper/RPG attack killed 1 IDF soldier in Rafah area (Hamas denied responsibility).
Nov 1 — Hamas handed over 3 bodies claimed as hostages; Israel said none matched any hostage.
Nov 2 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached troops (north Gaza); IAF struck.
Nov 3 — Multiple individuals crossed Yellow Line and advanced toward troops (south Gaza); troops fired.
Nov 3 — Israel assessed ~200 Hamas fighters remained in tunnels within Israeli-controlled southern Gaza (non-withdrawal breach).
Nov 4 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached troops; eliminated.
Nov 5 — Two terrorists crossed Yellow Line and advanced toward troops (central Gaza) (Incident A); eliminated.
Nov 5 — Two terrorists crossed Yellow Line and advanced toward troops (central Gaza) (Incident B); eliminated.
Nov 8 — Two terrorists crossed/approached troops (north Gaza); one eliminated.
Nov 8 — Additional terrorist crossed/approached troops; eliminated.
Nov 10 — Two terrorists crossed/approached troops (south Gaza); eliminated.
Nov 11 — Terrorist crossed/approached troops (south Gaza); eliminated.
Nov 12 — Four terrorists identified east of Yellow Line (Rafah); 3 killed.
Nov 12 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached troops (Khan Younis area); eliminated.
Nov 16 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached troops (north Gaza); eliminated.
Nov 17 — Several crossed Yellow Line and buried suspicious objects near IDF forces; one eliminated, others retreated.
Nov 17 — Individual crossed Yellow Line and approached troops; eliminated.
Nov 18 — Two terrorists crossed/approached forces (south Gaza); both eliminated.
Nov 19 — Several terrorists crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (north Gaza); at least one eliminated.
Nov 19 — Terrorists opened fire toward IDF in Khan Younis; IDF called it a ceasefire violation.
Nov 20 — Two terrorists crossed/approached troops (south Gaza); “hit identified,” outcome unspecified.
Nov 21 — ~15 terrorists emerged from underground infrastructure east of Yellow Line in eastern Rafah; later 6 killed, 5 apprehended.
Nov 22 — Armed terrorist fired from a humanitarian access road (IDF video); attacker eliminated.
Nov 22 — IDF said it eliminated 3 terrorists likely linked to prior Rafah tunnel escape attempt.
Nov 22 — IDF said 2 other militants were eliminated in a separate strike (total in that episode reported as five).
Nov 22 — IDF: 2 terrorists crossed Yellow Line and advanced toward troops; eliminated.
Nov 24 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached IDF in Khan Younis; struck by IAF.
Nov 24 — Two terrorists crossed Yellow Line and approached IDF near Khan Younis; struck by IAF.
Nov 24 — Several terrorists crossed Yellow Line and approached troops (north Gaza); threatened forces.
Nov 24 — Additional terrorists attempted to approach troops in same area; IDF said 2 eliminated total across both Nov 24 northern incidents.
Nov 25 — PIJ delay in transfer of hostage remains (Netanyahu: “additional violation”); body later returned and identified as Dror Or.
Nov 25 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (north Strip); eliminated.
Nov 25 — Nahal Brigade: 5 armed individuals emerged from tunnels in “Rafah Pocket”; eliminated.
Nov 26 — 6 terrorists emerged from tunnels in Rafah; 2 captured, 4 eliminated.
Nov 26 — IDF struck Hamas operative planning an imminent sniper plot in northern Gaza.
Nov 26 — PIJ member approached IDF in southern Gaza (immediate threat); eliminated.
Nov 26 — Individual crossed Yellow Line and approached IDF; eliminated.
Nov 28 — Terrorist approached troops near Yellow Line (south Gaza); eliminated by IAF.
Nov 29 — Two suspects crossed Yellow Line, did “suspicious activities,” and approached troops (south Gaza); eliminated by IAF.
Nov 29 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached troops later same day; eliminated.
Dec 1 — Two terrorists crossed Yellow Line (north Gaza) (Incident A); eliminated.
Dec 1 — Two terrorists crossed Yellow Line (north Gaza) (Incident B); eliminated.
Dec 1 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (central Gaza); eliminated with air support.
Dec 3 — Tunnel ambush in eastern Rafah: Sayeret Golani engaged attackers; 4 IDF injured.
Dec 4 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached IDF (south Gaza); hit/eliminated per IDF.
Dec 5 — Two terrorists with suspicious items approached IDF (north Gaza); struck by IAF; one confirmed eliminated.
Dec 6 — Multiple terrorists crossed Yellow Line (Incident A); IDF reported eliminations (part of three total across day).
Dec 6 — Multiple terrorists crossed Yellow Line (Incident B); IDF reported eliminations (part of three total across day).
Dec 7 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (south Gaza); eliminated.
Dec 10 — Two terrorists crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (north Gaza); one eliminated.
Dec 11 — Two terrorists crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (south Gaza); one eliminated.
Dec 13 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (north Gaza); eliminated.
Dec 14 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (north Gaza); eliminated.
Dec 15 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached forces; eliminated.
Dec 16 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line carrying a suspicious object; eliminated.
Dec 18 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached forces; eliminated by IAF.
Dec 19 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (central Gaza); eliminated by IAF.
Dec 20 — Two terrorists crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (north Gaza); killed by IAF.
Dec 21 — Suspects gathered near Yellow Line; warning fire; 3 crossed and approached forces; IAF struck (outcome unclear).
Dec 21 — Two terrorists crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (Incident A); IAF struck (outcome unclear).
Dec 21 — Two terrorists crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (Incident B); IAF struck (outcome unclear).
Dec 24 — Charge detonated on armored vehicle during Rafah clearing; 1 IDF soldier lightly wounded.
Dec 25 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (north Gaza); eliminated.
Dec 25 — Two terrorists crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (south Gaza); eliminated by IAF.
Jan 2 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (south Gaza); killed.
Jan 3 — IDF destroyed shaft with loaded rocket launcher ready to fire at southern Israel, deployed after ceasefire (explicit violation).
Jan 5 — Terrorist crossed Yellow Line and approached forces (south Gaza); eliminated by IAF.
Jan 7 — Hamas fired into an area where IDF forces were operating (north Gaza); IDF called it a blatant violation.
Jan 8 — Failed launch from Gaza City toward Israel; projectile fell near a hospital; IDF struck launch point.
All ceasefire violations listed above are drawn from reporting by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Long War Journal (longwarjournal.org), which has provided detailed, day-by-day tracking of militant activity in Gaza since the ceasefire.
I’m not surprised at the president’s braggadocio in the least, but I wish he would be honest about what is actually happening in Gaza. About the fact that not only has Hamas violated the ceasefire 78 times as of this writing, but that the war is not over. I wish the president would admit that Hamas is reorganizing, rearming, repairing and reopening tunnels, and reasserting its full control over the parts of Gaza still under its authority.
🚨Hamas has been violating the ceasefire since the beginning.
Since the U.S.-mediated ceasefire in October 2025, Hamas has used the lull to regroup: reconstituting command and policing structures, replenishing weapons stocks, restoring damaged tunnel routes, and tightening its grip over the parts of western Gaza it controls.
Much of this has unfolded out of the Western spotlight. The tunnels did not vanish; they went back underground—literally and politically—while Gaza’s civilians were pushed into ever tighter spaces above them. In that crowded terrain, Hamas can rebuild with more cover and less room for anyone to separate fighters from families. Israeli assessments say the group is returning to a familiar method: tucking command posts, weapons caches, and staging areas into the seams of civilian life—near hospitals, UN-linked compounds, and schools—locations Israel argues have repeatedly been used as shields for military activity.
Meanwhile, the president keeps saying that Hamas will disarm the easy way or the hard way, but it never ever happens. He doesn’t push it. Instead, he’s trying to shove Qatar and Turkey down our throats as if they were good actors, for his Board of Peace (of which there is not).
We deserve safety and peace. But this is not peace and Israel and the Israeli people are not safe. This is not what we bargained for when we agreed to this ceasefire. Or maybe we did. The more things change, the more they stay the same. We are told again and again that Trump is the most pro-Israel president ever, and we are actually giving him the Israel Prize, but unfortunately, the peace that’s breaking out all over, is not peace, and is not breaking out all over.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely the responsibility of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
Back in November 2023 —
only weeks after October 7 — Angelina Jolie accused Israel of bombing “a
trapped population who have nowhere to flee.” She wrote: “Gaza has been an
open-air prison for nearly two decades.”
Fast forward to January
2026. Jolie visits the Egyptian
side of the Rafah crossing into Gaza, ostensibly to check on injured Gazans
and the flow of aid. And there she is: standing on the border with Gaza — in
Egypt.
So here is the question that should be unavoidable now, even for celebrities who don’t do geography:
Because there are two
land borders with Gaza. One is with Israel. The other, with Egypt. If Gazans
have “nowhere to flee,” it’s because of Egypt. Because Egypt
has a border too — and refused to open it to the fleeing Gazan masses, most
of whom are their cousins.
But Jolie does
know where she is standing. She is standing on the border she ignored. She
would have been well aware of it all along, because she served as a Special Envoy for
UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency. Surely she had at least a nodding
acquaintance with borders and crossings.
Now, it is no longer possible for her to claim ignorance of this second border. Her inability to look at a map. Because she has stood at Rafah, on the Egyptian side of the border. Jolie should apologize for demonizing Israel. That she has failed
to do so, proves what we already know: Angelina Jolie is an antisemite. She
hates Jews.
There is no other
explanation — she hates us too much to even contemplate an apology to the
Israeli people, even at the expense of her integrity.
And still, there is no
apology on her lips. Not a peep. No: “I’m sorry. I know it wasn’t Israel
trapping the people of Gaza. That Egypt could have let the fleeing Gazan
refugees in and given them safe harbor, but refused. Israel deserves my humblest apologies.”
But of course, there will
be no such apology. Humble or otherwise. There never is.
Two borders, one ignored.
Because acknowledging the
other would make Egypt the guilty party, the bad guy. And they want the bad guy
to be Israel. They want to make Israel the bad guy for not letting them in after October 7— they want to blame the Jews, and increase hatred against them. Then
come the protests that turn into riots, the riots that morph into bodily
assault, and finally spiral into murder. A Jewish museum affords that opportunity. As does the home of a Jewish governor and his family, set on fire at night while they were asleep.
It's all the same. Two borders, one ignored
— and finally erased.
Even as one stands right
there on the border with Gaza. Even as the Angelina Jolies of the world lose
their integrity, one by one:
Two borders, one ignored.
It's a lie that betrays a deep
and evil hatred of Jews.
The people who will never
disappear.
** Please note that Jolie's father, Jon Voight, has been a staunch friend to Israel and the Jewish people. From Arutz 7:
Jolie’s criticism of Israel was met with a sharp response from her father, actor Jon Voight, who said his daughter “has no understanding of God's honor, God's truths" and added, “The Israeli army must protect thy soil, thy people. This is war. It's not going to be what the left thinks. It can't be ‘civil’ now. Israel was attacked by inhuman terror on innocent babies, mothers, fathers, [and] grandparents."
JD has a weird thing going on with his dog Tucker Carlson/Youube
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
I started out writing something totally different, tonight.
Something about the dangers of a Vance presidency considering his arrogant comments at
TPUSA. The things the vice president said bear out my belief that JD Vance is not just an
isolationist, but a hater as well. In fact, the isolationism may only be cover for his true feelings about Jews. Who knows? But according to JD Vance, I am definitely allowed to say these things. As an American.
As I looked at all that wealth of information relating to hate among conservatives, I happened on a debate between Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan about whether Israel qualifies as an "ally." I was appalled and nauseated by both men.
I created a transcript of their debate when I couldn't find a good one online. I am sharing it here for the benefit of those, who like me, prefer text, having no patience with video. I read fast, and would far rather read a transcript then space out as two arrogant men pontificate. Perhaps some of my readers share my preference for text.
But first a few (okay, so not a few) prefatory comments.
I called it right when I was taken aback by Vance’s reaction to a motion to declare sovereignty in Judea and Samaria coming before
the Knesset just as Vance’s plane was arriving at Lod Airport. When asked by a
reporter how the vice president felt about that, he said that it was weird and insulting.
Not long after that, there was a bit of a ruckus on X when it was discovered that JD's assistant is Buckley Carlson, none other than the
son of Tucker Carlson. This, we are made to believe, is perfectly normal. Besides, said Vance, we have no right to judge the son
according to the father. He was disgusted by any suggestions to the contrary.
Sloan Rachmuth is a "journalist" who has decided to obsessively attack a staffer in his 20s because she doesn't like the views of his father.
Every time I see a public attack on Buckley it's a complete lie. And yes, I notice ever person with an agenda who unfairly attacks a… https://t.co/bjFVuM2yBI
But while we aren't free to say what we think, Vance is. Tucker is his friend. It's okay to listen to
his hate speech and conspiracy theories. Which makes me wonder if Vance thinks that, in theory, it would be okay to laugh
at the victims of Bondi Beach or to listen to someone laugh at that, as if that were a totally normal thing to do. Nothing worthy of remark. Because freedom.
This would, after all, be the perfect application of Tucker
Carlson’s "principles" as outlined by Carlson and Piers Morgan, in their February
2025 debate.
Just now at TPUSA, we had an opportunity to see how people are lining up. We heard things like, “We can have a
conversation about that.”
What does it mean to JD Vance, Candace Owens, Megyn
Kelly, Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon, to have a "conversation?" It means they
are permitted to hate Israel and the Jews—and that it is their right as Americans to
express that hate openly—even in hearing of little children, if they wish.
Commenting on the the coming out of Megyn Kelly at TPUSA, my Facebook friend Moshe Z. Matitya said, "The overnight transmogrification of the big RW influencers feels like something straight out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
"The first tweet from Megyn Kelly below is from 2 months ago; the second one is from two days ago."
Moshe shared two screenshots of Kelly's X posts.
To JD Vance and his associates, perhaps, this is the essence of what it means to be free. The right to express hateful views and also to remain
friends with those who express them. In theory, this would make it okay to say
that a little Australian girl deserved to die. And then lie about it.
Because that would be their right. As Americans. The supreme application of freedom in the good old USA.
***
TRANSCRIPT: Piers Morgan on The Tucker Carlson Show February 8, 2025 · 12:51 a.m.
Piers Morgan: Why do you support Israel against Hamas, for example? Why do you support America giving them billions of dollars? Tucker Carlson: Well, I don’t.
Piers Morgan: You don’t support Israel being supported by America? Tucker Carlson: Well, I… support Israel in the sense that I really like Israel. I brought my family on vacation.
Piers Morgan: But do you agree with America supplying them with a lot of arms? Tucker Carlson: To the extent that it helps the United States, I’m for it, of course. I think what we need is—
Piers Morgan: So you do believe in America interfering in countries a long way away. It just depends which country. Tucker Carlson: No. I, I—
Piers Morgan: Your principle, it doesn’t really apply in Israel. Tucker Carlson: I’ll articulate it for the third time, just to be totally clear. I believe the United States, like every country, should, to the extent that it can, act on behalf of its own people and their perceived interests. We can debate what those interests are.
Piers Morgan: But that doesn’t apply in Israel. Tucker Carlson: I don’t know what you mean.
Piers Morgan: America is supporting Israel because it’s an ally. Tucker Carlson: I don’t even know what those words mean. I’m just saying my principle is—
Piers Morgan: I mean, but isn’t it—they’re an ally, right? I mean, they both know what— Tucker Carlson: I don’t know what that means to be an ally. I mean, we have no—
Piers Morgan: It means that when Israel wants to attack in Gaza and attack Hamas, America will help it because it’s its ally. Tucker Carlson: That’s not what it means to be an ally.
Piers Morgan: So it gives it billions of dollars’ worth. Tucker Carlson: That’s not what it means to be an ally, okay?
Piers Morgan: Well, it fundamentally does. Tucker Carlson: I have no greater allies than my own children. When they come to me and say, “I want to do this,” I assess whether it’s good for them or not. If I don’t think it is, I don’t support it.
Piers Morgan: Right. Tucker Carlson: Because they’re my true allies. They’re my children.
Piers Morgan: But why would you support America getting involved in Israel? Tucker Carlson: Just because a country that’s your ally says, “I want to do this,” does not mean axiomatically you support it. Maybe it’s not good for you or me.
Piers Morgan: So do you support America supporting Israel to the tune of billions of dollars? Tucker Carlson: It depends. If you can make—
Piers Morgan: What’s in America’s interest? Tucker Carlson: It depends in all cases. It’s not just about Israel.
Piers Morgan: But do you support what’s happening then in the support in the attacks in Gaza, for example? Because I don’t see the difference between that and what’s happening in Ukraine. This is a long way away from America. There’s no direct involvement with America. There’s no mainland involvement with America. And yet you think it’s right that America supports Israel. Put words in your mouth. But you don’t think it’s right— Tucker Carlson: I don’t think those are the words that came out of my mouth.
Piers Morgan: You don’t think it’s right America supports Ukraine when Russia invades it? Tucker Carlson: I have a simple solution. Let me explain what I think, and then that way we’ll get—
Piers Morgan: Am I wrong? Tucker Carlson: We’ll get right to what I think.
Piers Morgan: Am I wrong? Tucker Carlson: I actually tuned out midway through. I’m not exactly sure what you said.
Piers Morgan: You can’t tune out when I’m right. Tucker Carlson: I did, I did, I did, I did.
Piers Morgan: Just because I’m right. You can’t tune out. Tucker Carlson: I didn’t follow everything you said.
Piers Morgan: You can’t tune out when I’m right. Tucker Carlson: No, it was more a lecture about what I think, and then I’m like, “Wait, I know what I think. I think I’m the world’s expert on what I’m thinking. I think I’m the uncontested premier of my own head.”
Piers Morgan: That is true. Tucker Carlson: So, I’m going to unload its contents on you right now.
Piers Morgan: Explain what is America’s national interest in Israel? Tucker Carlson: I’ll define the parameters as well, because I’m happier with that, okay? I would say I support the right of all sovereign nations to act within what they believe is their own interest. (laughing) Like we don’t always know our own interest in our personal lives or between nations. Like, we think it’s good for us, but it may not be. The vodka in the morning analogy. Not good, actually, but I thought it was. Now I know it’s not. But to the extent that we think we know, I think countries should act on behalf of their own citizens. That’s the basic idea in democracy. Okay? And there’s certainly—you could make a case that whatever we’re giving to Israel this year in the form of direct aid, military assistance, loan guarantees, however we’re doing it, is good for the United States. I think you just have to make that case.
Piers Morgan: Why is it good for the United States? Tucker Carlson: Well, you could make that case.
Piers Morgan: But why is it? Tucker Carlson: I’m not convinced.
Piers Morgan: What is the case? Tucker Carlson: Well, I don’t know. You’d have to be an advocate for it. You are a vociferous advocate for it. So why don’t you tell me?
Piers Morgan: For what? Tucker Carlson: For U.S. aid to Israel in the current conflict.
Piers Morgan: Actually, I haven’t expressed a view about that at all. I’m just curious about your… the difference in your— Tucker Carlson: You’re not an Israel hater, are you? Why do you hate Israel?
Piers Morgan: Not at all. Not at all. Tucker Carlson: Why are you attacking Israel? I don’t know why. What problem do you have with Israel, Piers?
Piers Morgan: I have no problem with Israel. Tucker Carlson: The press likes this. They secretly hate Israel.
Piers Morgan: I have no problem with Israel whatsoever. Tucker Carlson: It feels like you do. Is Netanyahu a dictator?
Piers Morgan: Actually, I don’t like Netanyahu. I think you should— Tucker Carlson: You hate Israel.
Piers Morgan: I think you should go. Let me, just, I’m going to ask you one more time— Tucker Carlson: Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Piers Morgan: Hang on. Hang on. Tucker Carlson: Now we’re getting into… I’m not comfortable with this.
Tucker Carlson: Here’s my question. Should I be platforming you? That’s my question. You just said you don’t like Netanyahu. Piers Morgan: I’m trying to work out whose brand suffers more when we platform each other. But let me ask you this. Let me ask you this.
Tucker Carlson: All right, I’m going to need a second.
Piers Morgan: One more time, just quietly for the people at the back. You don’t like America getting involved in helping Ukraine against Russia because there’s no national interest for America in doing that in your eyes. Tucker Carlson: Well, there’s a negative national interest.
Piers Morgan: Okay. Tucker Carlson: I found one.
Piers Morgan: So I get that. Tucker Carlson: We’re losing the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency because of this war.
Piers Morgan: All right. Fine. Tucker Carlson: There’s no greater national interest.
Piers Morgan: Your position is America first. There’s no interest for America. Shouldn’t be doing it. Every country should act for this. It’s a problem between Ukraine and Russia. Okay, that’s fine. A lot of people have that view. I respect it. What I can’t understand is the difference in your logic and principle about supporting Israel in its war with Hamas, which is many thousands of miles away from America. There’s no direct— Tucker Carlson: If I’ve been a great advocate for the war in Gaza, I missed that part of the conversation.
Piers Morgan: Well, you support America supporting Israel. Tucker Carlson: No.
Piers Morgan: You don’t support America supporting Ukraine. Tucker Carlson: No. I don’t support America supporting any nation on the planet to its own detriment. Every element of our foreign policy should serve the United States.
Piers Morgan: Okay. Tucker Carlson: That’s the point of our government: to serve the people who live there, called citizens. That’s what democracy is. There’s no other reason. So, if I’m in charge of a country and I decide, actually, I should do this because people who pay me want me to do it or I’m making money to do it, then I’m by definition illegitimate. That’s not democracy. That is a species of oligarchy or whatever. You could assign a name to it. That’s not democracy. So I just believe in our system, and our leaders should act on behalf of their own people or what they think is their own people’s interests. And I would apply that to Israel. I’d apply it to Ukraine. I think there have certainly been times where we have benefited from our alliance with Israel. You know, it’s an alliance. Just like we have an alliance with our country?
Piers Morgan: They are allies then. Tucker Carlson: I don’t know what ally means.
Piers Morgan: It’s short for alliance. Tucker Carlson: Yeah, you’re right. It is.
Piers Morgan: Yes! Tucker Carlson: It’s so funny. I never knew that.
Piers Morgan: I’ve got you. Tucker Carlson: You got me.
Piers Morgan: You’ve literally just— Tucker Carlson: When it comes to etymology, you are the unchallenged king.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
After the Bondi Beach attack, there were public figures who
could not bring themselves to describe the victims as Jews or to call the
attack antisemitic. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was one of them.
In a statement released soon after the attack, Albanese said
only that his “thoughts were with every person affected.” He did not mention
Jews. He did not mention antisemitism. He did not say why the victims were
targeted.
Albanese had no difficulty recognizing a Palestinian state
that does not exist and never has. Yet he could not publicly acknowledge that
Jews were murdered because they were Jews.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did acknowledge
it. He also said he had warned Albanese months earlier about where this kind of
language ends.
“On August 17, about four months ago, I sent Prime Minister
Albanese of Australia a letter in which I warned that the Australian
government’s policy was promoting and encouraging antisemitism in Australia.
I wrote: ‘Your call for a Palestinian state pours fuel on
the antisemitic fire. It rewards Hamas terrorists. It emboldens those who
menace Australian Jews and encourages the Jew hatred now stalking your
streets.’
Antisemitism is a cancer. It spreads when leaders stay
silent; it retreats when leaders act.
Instead, Prime Minister, you replaced weakness with weakness
and appeasement with more appeasement. Your government did nothing. You let the
disease spread. The result is the horrific attacks on Jews we saw today.”
Albanese was not the only one to obscure the Jewish identity
of the Bondi Beach victims.
Oprah
Winfrey wrote, “My heart breaks for the victims, their families and loved
ones, and all you Aussies.”
There was no mention of Jews or antisemitism. Not anywhere. Oprah simply made us disappear.
Israeli American Council (IAC) CEO Elan Carr called Winfrey out,
referring to the missing identification of the victims as Jews in her statement
as "obfuscation."
“Oprah’s neglect to name the actual targets and victims of
the attack, Jews celebrating Hanukkah, conceals both the true nature of this
horrific event and the appalling surge in antisemitism that gave rise to it,”
said IAC CEO Elan S. Carr, a former US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat
Antisemitism. “For a public figure to express sorrow over the attack without
saying that it was an antisemitic mass murder of Jews during their celebration
of a holiday is precisely the sort of misguided obfuscation that allows
antisemitism to flourish.”
Just as we now have ample evidence from the global reaction to the massacre of October 7 that terror begets
terror, we
also have evidence that omitting to call attacks "antisemitic," or the
victims "Jews" begets more of the same. In 2015, for example, then President
Obama famously referred to the 2015 shooting at the Hyper Cacher supermarket in
Paris that left four Jews dead as a random
shooting of “a bunch of folks in a deli.”
Former White House secretary Jen Psaki, when pressed to explain her boss’ assertion that the victims were “random,” doubled down, knowing full well that calling the Hyper Cacher shooting “random” was immoral and a complete falsehood.
I created a transcript of the exchange between veteran AP journalist Matt Lee and Psaki to show all the nervous stutters that gave her away.
Matt Lee: Yesterday uh, the President in his news conference
raised some eyebrows by saying that the victims, of the, uh, shooting in Paris
at the kosher deli were uh “random.” Um, your colleague at the White House
apparently said something similar today. Um, doe. . . is that, really, I mean,
does the Administration really believe that these peop-that the, the victims of
this attack were, were not, uh singled out because they were of a particular
faith?
Jen Psaki: Well as you know, I believe, if I remember the
victims specifically there were, they were not all victims of one background or
one nationality. So, I think what they mean by that is, I don’t know that they
spoke to the targeting of the grocery store or that of the specific individuals
who were impacted.
Matt Lee: Well. I mean, right, but when the Secretary went
and paid respects to he was with a member of the Jewish community there.
Jen Psaki: Naturally, given that it’s the, the na-th-th-th
th-the grocery store is one that uh,
Matt Lee: Well don’t you think that the target, maybe, even
if all the victims, e-even if the victims came from different backgrounds, from
different religions, different nationalities, was the target, the store itself
was the target. Was it not? I mean. . .
Jen Psaki: But that’s different than the individuals being.
I don’t have any more to really. . .
Matt Lee: All right, well, does the Administration believe
this was an anti-Jewish, uh, uh attack on, an attack on the Jewish community in
Paris?
Jen Psaki: I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of
French authorities and what they believe was, uh, the situation at, at play
here.
Matt Lee: Yeah, but if a guy goes into a, a, a, a, a kosher
market and starts shooting it up, you know, he’s not looking for Buddhists is
he?
Jen Psaki: Well again, Matt, I think it’s relevant that
obviously the individuals in there who were shopping and working at the store.
. .
Matt Lee: Who does one ex . . . who does the Administration
expect shops at a kosher, I mean I would like but you know, an attacker, going
into a store that is clearly identified as being one of you know, as, as
identified with one specific faith. I’m not sure I can, I understand how it is
that you can’t say that this was a, that this is was, that this is not a
targeted attack.
Jen Psaki: I don’t have anything more on this for you Matt,
this is a topic for the French government to address.
Psaki was flat out lying when she told Lee, “Well as you know, I
believe, if I remember the victims specifically there were, they were not all
victims of one background or one nationality.”
All four of the Hyper Cacher shooting were Jews. There was no way that Psaki was unaware of this fact.
The backpedaling of the Obama administration was, of course, not long in coming. We were lied to by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest who tweeted that the administration’s views “had not changed,” that Obama had never meant to suggest that the attack was anything but antisemitic.
Our view has not changed. Terror attack at Paris Kosher market was motivated by anti-Semitism. POTUS didn't intend to suggest otherwise.
And not long after Jen Psaki refused to say the victims were Jews, she falsely claimed on Twitter that the White House administration had “always been clear that the attack . . . was an anti-semitic [sic] attack.”
We have always been clear that the attack on the kosher grocery store was an anti-semitic attack that took the lives of innocent people.
— State Department Spokesperson 2013-2025 (@statedeptspox_a) February 10, 2015
It’s a funny thing: When Jews are murdered, the people at the
top of the food chain—government officials and celebrities—suddenly go
nonspecific. They say “victims” or “families.” They say, “people affected.”
But they won’t say the J word: “Jews.”
Even before the Hyper Cacher attack, the Obama White House
tried very hard to not talk about Jews when they were victims of terror. A year
earlier, when Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaar and Naftali Fraenkel were kidnapped (and subsequently murdered), it took six days for the White House to respond, even though one of
the teens, Naftali Fraenkel, was an American citizen.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of 3 Israeli teens who were kidnapped last week. May they be reunited with their sons soon.
— White House Archived (@ObamaWhiteHouse) June 17, 2014
Then, during a press conference, Jen Psaki couldn’t bring
herself to utter Naftali’s name, or perhaps as she claimed, she
simply couldn’t remember it.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Jo.
Question: Can I ask if you have a privacy waiver for the -
one of the teenagers?
MS. PSAKI: We do, yes. So we can confirm that one of the
kidnapped was an American citizen.
QUESTION: Which one?
MS. PSAKI: I believe his name has been reported. I don't
have it in front of me right now.
Again and again, when Jews are targeted, the language
changes. Specific words disappear. Everything becomes vague. By choice. Everyone knows who was
attacked and they know why. But some people choose to omit the truth.
It's not that they've forgotten who was murdered. They haven't lost the words. It's that they've carefully chosen which words to use. They'll say “victims" or "families." They'll say “people affected.” But they won't say “Jews.”
Because when Jews are murdered and no one says they are Jews, the killing is stripped of its reason. The victims lose their identity. The attack becomes just another “random” act of violence.
Leave the victims unnamed and the crime can be treated like any other crime. Nothing about it is Jewish. Nothing about it is special.
You can murder Jews, and afterward it will be spoken about
as if it had nothing to do with Jews at all. But when nothing is named, there
is nothing to stop the next attack. And right now, at least, that seems to be
what most of the world would like to see.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
Dear Mr. Simon,
When I read that you’d signed
a letter calling for the release of
Marwan Barghouti, I wouldn’t say I was devastated. Just deeply sad that I
would now have to consign your music to the “do not listen to antisemites”
discard pile. That pile includes such luminaries as Massive Attack, whose
“Teardrop” was the theme song for the House MD series — a ringtone I
removed the moment I saw they had signed on to “No Music for Genocide.”
Carole King joined that same campaign, which involved
pressuring major labels to boycott Israeli platforms, at which point I realized
that when she sang, “You’ve Got a Friend,” she didn’t mean me. Because I live
in Israel. She doesn’t like that.
By the same token, I have sent Susan Sarandon, Cate
Blanchett, and Ben Affleck to the “do not watch antisemites on the silver
screen” garbage heap. At this point, I refuse to watch anything on Netflix
before checking the entire cast list against the Film Workers for
Palestine pledge. I’ve got that pledge bookmarked for convenience. (The
Big C has Cynthia Nixon
and Idris Elba in it? Nope, not watching it.)
But you, Mr. Simon — I didn’t imagine you would sign a
letter calling for the release of a mass murderer from prison. A man who
ordered the murder of Jews for no other reason than that they were Jews. And of
course, Barghouti didn’t only murder Jews. He was also responsible for the
killing of Father Georgios Tsibouktzakis, a Greek Orthodox monk-priest
shot in his car on the way back to his monastery because terrorists assumed —
based on his Israeli license plate — that he was a Jew. In other words, he was
murdered not because he was a Jew, but because he was thought to
be one.
So now I will no longer be listening to Diamonds on
the Soles of Her Shoes, because the singer-songwriter who created that
musical masterpiece supports the release of a mass murderer — a man convicted
on five counts of murder for attacks orchestrated by the networks under his
control. Attacks that targeted Jews. Jews like you, Mr. Simon.
Marwan Barghouti built his reputation on directing the
gunmen and bombers who left Israelis dead in buses, cafés, and on the roadside.
This is the man you’re calling on us to release.
He wouldn’t care that you’re not Israeli or a member of
the IDF. He wouldn’t care about your one-in-a-million gift for music. He would
only care that you are a Jew. And that is all Barghouti would care about if he
were released from prison: murdering innocent Jewish civilians. Violently.
As head of the Fatah supreme committee in the West Bank
and leader of the military wing of the Al-Aqsa Brigades, Barghouti had the
power to order his men to kill Jews. Jews like 45-year-oldmother-of-two
Yoella Hen, murdered while
filling her gas tank on the way to a family wedding — murdered on the order
of Marwan Barghouti, for whose release you, Mr. Simon, are calling.
Barghouti also supplied weapons to the men who killed Yosef
Habibi and Eli Dahan as they were dining at a popular Tel Aviv café.
The terrorist lobbed grenades into the crowd, opened fire, and when his rifle
jammed, rushed inside stabbing anyone he could reach. Habibi and Dahan were
murdered. Habibi’s wife Haya was critically injured. A Druze policeman, Sergeant
Salim Barakat, ran to help and was stabbed to death as he bent over the
terrorist’s body.
Barghouti was also responsible for the shooting attack at
a bar mitzvah celebration held at a Hadera banquet hall — six murdered, 26
wounded. He directed the shooting spree on Jaffa Road in Jerusalem in which two
Israelis were killed and 37 wounded. He masterminded a shooting attack in the
residential Jerusalem neighborhood of Neve Yaakov, where a young policewoman
was killed and nine Israelis were wounded. A worker at a coffee factory in the
Atarot industrial zone was murdered by a terrorist who acted on Barghouti’s
orders.
In the end, Barghouti was convicted on five counts of murder. Which is why he is serving five consecutive life terms plus 40 years. Which is also why he is very popular among Palestinians — they would love to see this Jew-killer step into Mahmoud Abbas’s shoes, now in the twentieth year of his four-year term
Mr. Simon, I know I shouldn’t be surprised you threw your support behind a murderer — all the cool kids are doing it. But somehow I thought someone as obviously brilliant as yourself knew better than to listen to the lies about Barghouti’s victimhood. That you would know enough to look into the matter and find out why Barghouti is really in prison. Not because Israel is persecuting him, but because he is a stone-cold killer.
But as it turns out, I shouldn’t have been surprised for
a different reason. Something I hadn’t known. Rafael
Medoff filled in the blank: years ago, you wrote The Capeman, a
Broadway musical about Salvador Agron — a gang member who stabbed two teenage
boys to death on a New York playground. You recast him as a troubled outsider
shaped by poverty and street culture.
And now here you are again, extending the same sympathy
to Marwan Barghouti. Only Barghouti’s “environment” is something else entirely.
Jew-hatred permeates the PA’s curriculum, its summer
camps, its official media, and the speeches of its political leaders (though
only when speechifying in Arabic, naturally). Even the sermons of imams praise
those who murder Jews, describing them as pigs and monkeys — just as the Nazis
saw Jews as cockroaches and rats.
When I heard you had joined the call for an
arch-Jew-murderer to be released into the general Israeli population, I
thought: He’s misinformed. They’re telling him lies, and the lies are so
pervasive that no one bothers to check.
I hoped you were one of the rare birds — someone with
enough intellectual curiosity to look into the real story of the war in Gaza.
Why it happened and why it didn’t. The war did not happen because Israel wanted
to wipe out the Gazan people. The war happened because of October 7 — because
of the rape of little girls, the burning of babies, the slaughter of families.
Civilians in Gaza cheered and filmed as hostages were dragged through the streets.
Ordinary Gazans held hostages in their homes.
Hamas has ruled Gaza exactly as it promised it would. It
hijacked aid, blocked distribution, and seized baby-formula shipments with
full awareness of the consequences. They knew infants would die, and they let
it happen because the deaths served their narrative.
During the worst of the days of the hunger crisis in Gaza in the past six months, Hamas deliberately hid literal tons of infant formula and nutritional shakes for children by storing them in clandestine warehouses belonging to the Gaza Ministry of Health.
And yet, instead of looking into any of this, you signed
your name to the accusation that your own people are committing genocide — while
calling for the release of a man who spent years trying to kill us.
The worst part is that so many of the Jews murdered on
October 7 were leftist peaceniks who did everything they could to help the
people of Gaza. You would know this, Mr. Simon, if you had bothered to check.
If you had bothered to come to Israel, even briefly, to see for yourself, to
offer support, to stand with your people in a moment of unimaginable pain.
Instead, you stood with a man who would gladly see you
dead.
I even looked for you online, thinking perhaps I could
explain all this to you — that you would understand how deeply you’d been
deceived. I searched for you on Facebook and X, but you have made yourself
unreachable to your own people.
We cannot find you to tell you what you’ve done, the harm you’ve caused, how
betrayed we feel.
This letter is all I can do. And you will never read it.
But you have placed yourself in a box now — the box
reserved for Jews who turn their backs on their own people. You can leave that
box anytime, Mr. Simon. It would be an easy enough thing to do. You can join
the side that is just, the side that holds life as its greatest value. Or you
can stay where you are and earn a footnote in Jewish history as a man who sided
with a murderer.
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.
Jonathan Sacks: Freedom’s Defence BO
-
[image: Jonathan Sacks: Freedom’s Defence BO] Jonathan Sacks: Freedom’s
Defence BO IsraelSeen.com
Jonathan Sacks: Freedom’s Defence BO And you shall explai...
Why Israel Bulldozed UNRWA’s Jerusalem HQ
-
Key Takeaways: Israel’s dismantling of UNRWA represents a shift from
diplomatic opposition to direct action against an agency whose unique
mandate entrench...
Ms. Rachel Caught ‘Liking’ Antisemitic Comment
-
[image: Ms. Rachel Caught ‘Liking’ Antisemitic Comment]
Ms. Rachel claims an antisemitic Instagram like was accidental, but her
subsequent response may tel...
The Past and the Future
-
Dry Bones Golden Oldie, from 2003 posted by Sali. Enjoy.
The News gets crazier every day. It will be interesting to see what the
future brings. It seems...
The Palestine entity - 1960
-
From FRUS:
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XVII, Near East,
1961–1962
34. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to Ce...
Now What?
-
Today, Jews cannot walk down the street in North America, Europe, or even
Australia without the possibility of being spat on, beaten, or even
murdered. Cou...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
Buy 
.jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
