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.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
When Tatiana
Schlossberg—the granddaughter of John F. Kennedy—revealed her diagnosis of
acute myeloid leukemia in a poignant essay published in The
New Yorker, it resonated as a deeply personal tragedy. At 35, she's a
young mother of two, a journalist, and a woman whose life was just beginning to
expand in new ways after the birth of her second child. Her story evoked
widespread sympathy—but it also stirred up an old, insidious rumor in the
shadows of social media: “The Kennedy curse. Again.”
The truth is, the torrent
of bad things that have happened to the Kennedy family does seem more curse
than coincidence. So much so that Wikipedia has a page devoted to the
subject of the Kennedy
Curse. And yet, Wikipedia says nothing of the rumor that has been
around since the early 20th century: that it was a rabbi who was
responsible for cursing the Kennedys.
I guess we can thank God
that at least in this one case, Wikipedia didn’t blame the Jews. Of
course, there’s always that next edit!
Rabbi Aharon Kotler
The myth of a rabbinic
curse on the Kennedy family stems from the widespread knowledge that Joseph P.
Kennedy Sr. was possessed of a thick, boundless hatred for the Jewish people. Those
who believe in the curse say that it was meant as retribution for Joe Kennedy’s
refusal to aid Jewish refugees escaping the Holocaust. Some say it was Rabbi
Aharon Kotler who cursed the Kennedys, vowing that Joe Kennedy would "never
see joy from his descendants" after Kennedy senior declined to lobby
President Roosevelt for rescue certificates. Others ascribe the curse to the
Lubavitcher Rebbe Rav Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn or the Ponevezher Rav. Still another
version of this story claims the origins of the curse hail from a 1937 ocean
liner incident where Kennedy complained about noisy Rosh Hashanah prayers by
Rabbi Israel Jacobson and yeshiva students, prompting a curse on his male
heirs.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (seated) congratulates Joseph P. Kennedy on becoming the new ambassador to Great Britain, January 1938. Associate Justice Stanley Reed, center, administered Kennedy’s oath. Because of intemperate remarks, Kennedy’s ambassadorship lasted less than three years.
It’s not only non-Jews
who keep this story alive. Some Jews repeat the rabbinic-curse rumor with a
kind of pride, as if the Kennedys’ misfortunes prove the spiritual power of
great rabbis. But this inward-facing bravado has no more evidence behind it
than the antisemitic version of the tale. Folklore doesn’t care who repeats it;
it survives because the story is irresistible, not because it’s true.
Such stories, popularized
in books like Edward Klein's The
Kennedy Curse, lack any historical evidence. There are no eyewitness accounts,
diaries, or corroboration, leading us to dismiss the idea of a rabbi-invoked
Kennedy curse as an urban legend. We know this not just from the absence of any
Jewish tradition supporting such curses, but from the response of the late Rabbi Berel Wein, a respected
historian and scholar, who weighed in on a question about the rumor in 2002:
"The story of the alleged curse is pure legend, fabricated after Kennedy
was running for President. In any event, Jews don't put curses on
anybody."
Rabbi Berel Wein
While there is no real
evidence of a rabbinic Kennedy curse, Joe Kennedy’s Jew-hatred and pro-Nazi
sympathies were all too real and very well known.
The Kennedy story is
soaked in loss, enough to make even the most rational observers reach for
patterns that might make sense of things. Because it really is a lot. Joseph P.
Kennedy Jr. was killed in a 1944 plane explosion during WWII. His sister
Kathleen died four years later when her plane went down in a storm. Then came
the assassinations that shook the world: John F. Kennedy in 1963, Robert F.
Kennedy in 1968.
The tragedies didn’t stop
there, and the losses continued to mount. Ted Kennedy barely survived a 1964
plane crash, only to face the 1969 Chappaquiddick tragedy and the implications
surrounding the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. David Kennedy died of a drug
overdose in 1984. Michael Kennedy was killed in a skiing accident in 1997. John
F. Kennedy Jr. perished in a 1999 plane crash. Saoirse Kennedy Hill overdosed
in 2019. And in 2020, Maeve Kennedy Townsend McKean and her young son Gideon
drowned in a canoeing accident.
Even before these events,
bad things were happening to the Kennedy family. There was, for example,
Rosemary Kennedy’s disastrous 1941 lobotomy. It was Joe, her father, who
insisted on the lobotomy, which left Rosemary incapacitated for life. The
Kennedy tragedies differed in significant ways, yet taken as a whole, it does
seem like the Kennedy family has experienced more tragedy than most.
People struggle
with randomness. A curse gives shape to chaos, turning a series of tragedies
into a story with structure. But this says more about human psychology than
about the Kennedys themselves. When faced with repeated misfortune, people
often reach instinctively for meaning, even where none exists.
Pinning such
misfortunes on a rabbi reinforces the old, durable stereotype of Jews as wielders
of dark or vengeful powers. This stereotype,
rooted in centuries of hatred, has no basis in reality. But it hasn’t
stopped people from repeating the trope.
Jewish tradition stands
in stark opposition to curse-casting. Key principles include:
*Prohibition in the Torah: "Lo tekalel" (Do not curse),
emphasizing ethical speech.
*Halachic guidance: Cursing is viewed as a grave misuse of
words, akin to verbal harm.
*Mystical focus: Judaism is a religion of repentance
and prayer, not one of maledictions.
*Historical context: No credible records exist of rabbis placing curses on
non-Jewish families over political or personal slights. As Rabbi Berel Wein
noted, ‘Rabbis don’t put curses on people. It’s not part of their job
description nor our religion.’”
Rabbi Wein's response is
a perfect fit to these tenets. He didn’t need to document or refute any
historical precedents for rabbinic curses. All he had to do was dismiss a
fabrication. The Kennedy Curse, real or not, didn’t come from any rabbi. That’s
just a “grandmother’s tale,” a “bubbe meisa.”
Calling Schlossberg’s diagnosis part of a “Kennedy curse” doesn’t illuminate anything; it only repeats a narrative that has been stitched onto every Kennedy family tragedy for nearly a century. The misfortunes keep coming, and so does the folklore. A new loss appears, and the myth switches on, ready to explain everything at once: assassinations, crashes, overdoses, drownings, even bad decisions made by Joe Kennedy.
The rumor of a rabbinic curse has survived for the same reason most folklore survives: it’s got drama, offers a villain, and adds a supernatural edge to an already mythical American family. Different versions name different rabbis — from revered Hasidic leaders to Lithuanian sages — none with evidence, each contradicting the other. As Rabbi Berel Wein flatly noted, the whole thing is “pure legend,” because “rabbis don’t put curses on people.” That hasn’t stopped the story from mutating and reappearing every time a new Kennedy headline breaks.
Tatiana Schlossberg
And now, with Schlossberg's illness, the myth is back in circulation again — the curse refreshed, the narrative extended. But isn’t it interesting the way Jews get pulled into American mythology even when the facts don’t support it. When the Kennedy tragedies pile higher, someone inevitably dredges up a rabbinic figure as the supposed architect of all their misfortune. It’s a pattern: another Kennedy crisis, another Jewish rumor. The linkage is baseless, but persistent — as Jew-hatred tends to be.
Schlossberg’s news is the latest entry in a long, grim list. The tragedies accumulate, the curse narrative resurrects itself, and the alleged rabbinic source remains as fictional as ever. If this saga has any pattern at all, it’s that the misfortunes and the mythology advance together — and so does the impulse to place Jews at the center of everything.
I’m no rabbi, but the level of depravity exhibited by Hamas,
the things they did on October 7, the horrors inflicted on hostages—were so
creatively cruel that they can’t, to my mind, be anything but Amalek. In fact,
I wouldn’t be surprised if the “innocent people of Gaza” are also Amalek, along
with those under the Palestinian Authority. The greatest achievement of these people
seems to be taking depravity to new heights.
The October 7 massacre—1,200 Israelis slaughtered, women raped, babies burned, genital mutilation, starvation, mental and physical abuse, families torn apart in an agony for years. Even now, over two years since
that black day, I’m still learning about fresh atrocities. The way they behaved is inhuman.
Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu invoked Amalek twice in the weeks following the attack, as
did Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. In fact, the *cough cough* International
Court of Justice (ICJ) seized on any and all references to Amalek they could
find to help South Africa “prove” that Israel harbors genocidal intent in its
war against Hamas. As we find ourselves once again in a ceasefire that isn’t,
it’s time to think about this: If Hamas is Amalek, doesn’t Jewish law demand
its obliteration? And doesn’t that indeed equate to genocide?
I’ll leave these questions to the rabbis and philosophers—because
I’m definitely not leaving it up to the ICJ to decide. Not that it matters,
because despite Netanyahu calling Hamas “Amalek” twice, he has ruled over this
war with restraint in the face of existential threat. We did not wipe out the
people of Gaza. And we did not wipe out Hamas. This was the choice our leaders
made. A choice that says we DON’T see them as Amalek, either that, or we don’t
care about God’s directive to wipe out Amalek. Or maybe we’re too cowardly to
do what needs to be done. Too afraid of what all the other countries will do if we do what we should.
Primer: What is Amalek?
Hindy Gross wrote a great condensed story
of Amalek for Jewish
Resources. Read the whole thing, but here are a few excerpts:
King Agag was the sole survivor of the battle. Hashem had
instructed Shaul to leave no trace of the Amalekite race, however Agag was left
alive, spared by Shaul. As a result of this tragic mistake, Haman, the
descendant of Agag, was born, and went on to persecute the Jews. Had King Shaul
killed Agag as he had been commanded to do, the nation of Amalek would not
exist today. . .
. . . Haman, as an
Amaleki himself, would stop at nothing to see the Jews fall. He pursued this
task with the same sinas chinam (baseless or pointless hatred) that we sadly
see in our own communities. There was no point to Haman’s demands, yet
Achashverosh went along with it all, even to stamping the Amalekite’s plan with
his royal signet. The way of the Amalekim is to unjustly pursue the death of
the Jews without purpose, and without logic. So too, our love for God must be
pursued without logic, to dispel all doubt. . .
Today as yesterday, we are commanded to blot out the blood
of Amalek. Rashi explains this as a missing element in the world. Hashem’s name
will not be complete (ושמו אחד) until Amalek’s
presence and name is gone. Just as Haman called for the complete eradication of
the Jews, so too we must remove the name of Amalek from the world in order to
restore this missing element.
“Restore this missing element.” Lyrical, but easy to
misconstrue. Still, Netanyahu said it, Hamas is Amalek, “You must
remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.”
Smotrich, as previously mentioned, also said the “A” word—Amalek—demanding stronger,
more decisive action against a horrible enemy. The concept of “Hamas is Amalek” even wound its way into Israeli pop culture. The 2023 hip-hop track Harbu Darbu
by Ness Ve Stilla, went viral with over 4.5 million Spotify streams and 16
million YouTube views.
Harbu Darbu is powerful and it names names, such as Dua Lipa and Bella Hadid, along with now-eliminated bad guys, Haniyeh,
Mohammed Deif, and Nasrallah and takes them to task. The lyrics
offer some catharsis to young Israelis in this tragic time. It expresses what
they feel.
Can anyone say definitively that Hamas is Amalek? No. But in the end, we do have the Vehi Sheamda verse that we've read at every Passover seder:
And it is this (the promise) that has stood by our ancestors and for us. For
not only one (enemy) has risen up against us to destroy us, but in every
generation they rise up to destroy us.
But the Holy One, Blessed be He, delivers us from their
hands.
The Jews have read those words, wherever they were, for thousands of years. They serve as a guide: When they rise up to destroy you, that's how you know they're bad guys. Hamas is just one among many evil entities who just really, really want to k*ll Jews.
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: Leadership and the People Shemot
-
[image: Jonathan Sacks: Leadership and the People Shemot] Jonathan Sacks:
Leadership and the People Shemot IsraelSeen.com
Jonathan Sacks: Leadership and th...
Crazy first week of the New Year
-
Dry Bones Golden Oldie, from 1977 by Sali the LSW. (Long Suffering Wife).
The news is so crazy these days, I thought that this old cartoon might be
appr...
Does The American Right Know Where It's Going?
-
I see too many confusing rhetoric and statements coming from the American
Right, davka rather similar to the anti-Israel Antisemitic ideology of the inter...
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 07, 2026
Buy 
.jpeg)
