Showing posts with label dhimmitude. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dhimmitude. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 31, 2023



Nicholas II (Antoniou) is the current Archbishop of Hermopolis and Exarch of Aegyptus Primus, part of the Church of Alexandria, Egypt. 

Egyptian newspaper Dostur discusses a recent statement from "His Eminence:"

Nicholas Antoniou, the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Tanta and Gharbia and the church’s official spokesperson and agent for Arab affairs, spoke about the role of the Jews in the crucifixion, and their attempt to acquit themselves, claiming that by crucifying Christ they had fulfilled God’s will, and had it not been for them, this will would not have been fulfilled, and therefore they are not guilty. He refutes this with Timothy the Catholic: “The Jews did not crucify Christ according to his will, but for the sake of hatred towards him and towards the One who sent him. For this reason they crucified him, that is, in order for him to die and perish on earth. "

He also quoted Ammar al-Basri, an Arab Christian writer from the ninth century, who said: “The Jews did not intend to kill Christ deliberately for the good of people, but rather due to their ancient tyranny, their family envy, and their malicious habits of killing God’s prophets and saints  and his messengers.”
This is doubly antisemitic. Besides the ancient charge of deicide, the archbishop adds that Jews try to fool Christians into giving them credit for killing Jesus so he could die for their sins. 

He then adds a dollop of classic Muslim antisemitism that Jews habitually kill or attempt to kill prophets and "messengers" like Mohammed.

This was also reported in the Arabic language Copts Today

So a major religious figure went on an antisemitic rant, invoking the lie that has been responsible for the murder of countless Jews throughout history. 

Which means this is just another day in Egypt.
 



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, April 16, 2023




The BBC's latest article on Christians in Jerusalem is a classic example of how antisemitism has been mainstreamed in today's "civilized" world.

Walking in the footsteps of Jesus, huge crowds of Christian pilgrims have this month thronged Jerusalem's ancient streets where the Easter story unfolded.

"It's very emotional, I already cried a little," says Marina, who is visiting from Belgrade and joined the Orthodox Good Friday procession carrying a wooden cross. "It's something you have to feel to be here."

Local Christians also stand out as they join the devotions, with Palestinian and Armenian scout groups leading religious processions.

But in recent months, Christians living in the occupied East of the city say they have seen increased harassment and violence.
The first crime of omission is the biggest. 

Palestinian Christians belong to the most extreme doctrinal antisemitic churches in the world. The Greek Melkite Church and the Greek Orthodox Church, which make up the majority of Jerusalem's Christians, still hold on to the classic Christian supersessionist philosophy that regards Judaism itself as an aberration. The most vicious doctrinal antisemitism in pre-Zionist Palestine came from local Christians, not Muslims, and in fact their antisemitism shaped modern Muslim Jew-hatred. 

The church leaders in Jerusalem have been the most extreme anti-Zionists and antisemites, and have been deathly afraid of saying anything negative about the Muslims who have indeed been oppressing them for centuries. They have enthusiastically taken on the role of dhimmi and defended that second-class status assigned to them by the larger Muslim world. 

When they say they are oppressed by Jews, one must be skeptical at the very least. 

The main Christian interviewed by the BBC,  Bishop William Shomali of the Latin Patriarchate, was quoted in a Vatican magazine in 2012 as saying, “The Talmud, the holy book studied by the ultra-orthodox, more highly venerated than the Bible itself, invites religious hatred, speaks badly of Jesus, and even worse of Mary and, in general, of Christians. In Israeli schools love for the other is not taught but rather the destruction of the other.”

This is pure antisemitism - with a dollop of anti-Zionism on the side. 

The BBC then lists some recent examples of Jewish vandalism or disrespect towards Christian sites in Jerusalem. Some of them are legitimate - and the Israeli police arrested the perpetrators. One came from an American. There is no indication that things really are worse than in previous years outside of what the Jerusalem Arab Christians are claiming, and furthermore no proof outside of speculation that this alleged increase is a result of the current Israeli government making extremist Jews bolder. 

The Talmud quote above was a response to anti-Christian graffiti in 2012, so there have always been extremist Jews who have attacked church property. They were outliers then and they are outliers now. Any blanket blame of all Jews or all Israel for the actions of a minority who act in opposition to Israeli policy is just another form of antisemitism - of generalizing the actions of a few to the larger population. 

But the BBC's antisemitism is not only from quoting antisemites without context, which is bad enough. The reporter shows her own bias here:

The holy city of Jerusalem lies at the heart of the Christian faith. However, the number of Christians living here has dropped from a quarter of the population a century ago to under 2%. Many have emigrated, escaping the painful daily realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and seeking better opportunities elsewhere.
The clear implication is that Israeli policies are driving an exodus of Christians, and the article goes on to say that "Many Christians feel that the growing hostility towards them is meant to push them out."

However, if one looks at the demographic history of Jerusalem, one sees that the only major exodus of Christians came under Jordanian rule - from 19% of Jerusalem residents in 1944 to only 4% in 1967, with far more than half of the Christians of Jerusalem fleeing during those years

The reason that the percentage has gone down from 4% to 2% today is not because of Israel forcing Christians out but because Israel expanded Jerusalem to include more Jews and more Muslims. In absolute terms, the Christian population has slowly grown in Jerusalem, and the only times it has ever gone down in history have been under Muslim rule. Indeed, Israel's Christians are overwhelmingly satisfied with living in Israel. 

That paragraph shows that the BBC is not interested in the truth, but in anti-Israel and indeed antisemitic propaganda. 

If the BBC had included any of the context mentioned here, it wouldn't have an article. So it airbrushes Muslim abuse of Christians and Palestinian Christian antisemitism out of the picture, leaving only an ugly lie that blame Jews as a nation for persecuting Christians. 

(h/t Martin)



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, February 09, 2023

The American Bar Association proposed a Resolution 514 condemning antisemitism that referred to the widely accepted IHRA working definition.

Israel haters immediately attacked. 

More than 40 organizations, both those that are explicitly anti-Israel and "progressive" organizations, joined a campaign claiming that the IHRA Working Definition chills free speech. "Any embrace of the IHRA definition by the ABA would legitimize and encourage this undermining of core democratic rights," they say, without explaining exactly how.

The National Lawyers Guild said, falsely, that "the IHRA definition would provide a tool to stigmatize and suppress lawyers, legal advocates and law students from expressing political criticism of Israel or advocacy for Palestinian human rights." Of course, they cannot point to any wording in the IHRA definition that would do anything like that.

Human Rights Watch wrote a similar letter. 

The main point that these critics make is that the IHRA definition has supposedly been used to suppress free speech. They cannot point to where the definition actually does that, because it doesn't mandate anything: the definition is filled with caveats that in the end only provide guidance. If the IHRA Working Definition is being misused, then these organizations should fight the misuse, not the definition. The fact that they don't tells you all you need to know.

Moreover, the ABA resolution explicitly said that nothing in the resolution is intended to diminish or infringe upon the Bill of Rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so even if their lies about IHRA were true, the text wouldn't allow it to be misused that way.

They are lying when they say that their opposition to the definition is based on human rights and free speech concerns. The only problem they have with it is that it notes that singling out Israel as uniquely evil far out of proportion to its supposed crimes is antisemitic. And they want to have the right to do exactly that. 

Their objections are based on their hate of the Jewish state, not their interest in Palestinian human rights or in fighting antisemitism. 

The original draft resolution also included an attached 17 page report on antisemitism that went through a history of antisemitism in Europe and in the US. It mentioned Natan Sharansky's "3-D" test for antisemitism as well as further references to the IHRA and US State Department definitions of antisemitism. 

In the end, the ABA removed everything that could be considered a definition, including virtually the entire report, and left the eviscerated resolution to condemn something that could mean anything:


Without a definition, this is entirely meaningless. Some Israel haters define antisemitism as hating Arabs. Others define Zionism as antisemitism. There is nothing in this resolution that contradicts those bizarre definitions. 

The resolution doesn't even mention Jews - only a single reference to improving security at "Jewish institutions and organizations." It mentions "houses of worship," not synagogues. 

Right now, the resolution is about as meaningful as a resolution saying that puppies are cute. It is a checkbox - now the ABA can say they oppose antisemitism (whatever that is)! Mazel tov!

Because of the modern antisemites who use obsessive, conspiracy-theory driven hate of Israel as a proxy for the age old obsessive, conspiracy-theory driven hate of Jews, the ABA believes that it passed a resolution that didn't upset anyone.

Well, this Jew is upset. 

The Jews who publicly identify as Jews, those who wear identifiably Jewish clothing, those who publicly support the Jewish state or speak Hebrew in public or who stand proud in their Zionism - they are the biggest targets and victims of antisemitism today.  

This resolution doesn't give a damn about them. 




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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, January 30, 2023

Former HRW head Ken Roth and other haters of Israel like to claim that antisemitic attacks by Muslims to Jews are often a response to Israel's actions, and therefore Israeli actions is partially responsible for those antisemitic attacks.

There is a tiny grain of truth there, but the modern antisemites are looking at the issue from the wrong angle.

We need to have a short overview of Islamic attitudes towards Jews.

Many apologists claim that Jews thrived under Muslim rule, and insist that Jews had a "golden age" in Spain under Islam. They purposefully airbrush two major but critical features of Jewish life in Muslim countries.

The first thing they ignore is that, while Jews under Islam did not suffer nearly as much as they did under Christendom, there were still some periods of serious persecution. Jewish Virtual Library summarizes some of the worst cases:
On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in an offensive manner. The killings
touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).

Even so, these persecutions and pogroms did not approach the horror of those under Christian rule, for two reasons: Islam did not have the same antipathy towards Judaism as a religion as Christianity did, and Muslim leaders would allow Jews who were forced to convert to convert back in later generations. At the same time, most Jewish rabbinical leaders in Muslim lands said that conversion to Islam was not considered idol worship and did not require martyrdom; Jews could accept the Muslim declaration of faith without violating Torah law and remain secret Jews much easier than the crypto-Jews of Spain and Portugal.  

The second thing that the apologists ignore is the pervasive issue of dhimmitude. Jews were legally defined as second class citizens, and usually had to submit to humiliating rules and the jizya tax, in exchange for state protection. By any yardstick, this was official persecution of a minority - apartheid, if you will - limiting how Jews could act, dress, pray, work, travel and interact with Muslims. 

 Given that Jews didn't have any better options, they generally accepted this tradeoff, because most Christian countries were worse. Muslims were of course quite comfortable with this class system with Muslims on top, dhimmis in the middle and infidels on the bottom, not to be tolerated at all. 

For the better part of a millenium this was the situation of Jews in the Muslim world - second class citizenship that was accepted, punctuated with occasional cases of major persecutions. 

This was the status quo. 

And Zionism has upset that status quo.

Zionism is the philosophy that Jews deserve to be treated exactly like other peoples. It is compatible with modernity - and utterly incompatible with the Muslim view of Jews since the 8th century. 

Today's Muslims don't attack Jews because Jews are mistreating Muslims and Arabs. They know that Muslims are treated far worse in other Muslim countries. They attack Jews because they cannot stomach a world where Jews assert their rights, and they want to put the Jews back in their proper place. They do not want Jews to challenge their worldview. They want to turn back the clock to the good old days where they could strike Jews for riding a donkey. 

That's why they claim to want a binational state - but only one where they are the majority. It would be a step towards re-asserting their control over Jews and placing Jews back to dhimmitude. Anything less is an insult to their pride and honor. 

How better to assert your superiority than to attack Jewish institutions and Jewish people? How better to revert to a situation of Jews fearing to upset their Muslim overlords than to instill fear through terror today?

So in a narrow sense, Israeli actions do prompt Muslim antisemitic attacks - because Israeli actions are showing the world that Jews will not be pushed around anymore, no longer depending on gentiles for their safety. Jews are ready to pro-actively stop terror attacks on their own terms, not weakly surrender to the whims of the current ruler. 

So, yes, some attacks by Muslims against Jews are indeed a reaction to Israel's actions - but they are not tit for tat, nor a cycle of violence. They are an attempt to take Jews back down a few notches to what Muslims consider their proper place. 

This is only part of the story. Antisemitism goes much deeper that that. It is a remarkably adaptive hate, and this is only one component of the Palestinian version. Palestinian Christians maintain the supersessionist ideas of the Church; Palestinian socialists frame the conflict as a class issue where Jews are the oppressive class, Islamists like Hamas believe that killing Jews is a necessary step to salvation in end times. Amazingly, all these conflicting philosophies of antisemitism co-exist beautifully because antisemitism itself is, I believe, an independent mindset that can find an infinite set of excuses to justify hate, and it is the only belief system that Palestinians have in common with each other. (And this is also why today's "progressives," who should oppose dhimmitude and support Zionism as a Jewish minority rights movement, instead find other excuses to oppose Jewish assertions of self-determination.)

But within the historical Muslim frame of reference, modern antisemitism is a desire to put the Jews back in their place. And every time Israel asserts Jewish rights, mainstream Muslims get angry enough at this humiliation to want to kill Jews and terrorize them to submit, as they did in what they consider the good old days.

Obviously, a crazed psychological linkage between Jews acting assertively in their defense and Muslima attacking Jews is not the Jews' fault. Only bigots think Muslims cannot control their emotions, that they cannot accept a multicultural world where all peoples have rights, and that they are not responsible for their actions. And only antisemites would blame Jews for antisemitic attacks.

But the linkage is there. 

And if we are going to fight a war against all the kinds of antisemitism that are out there, we need to understand the different and often contradictory motivations that make hating Jews so appealing to so many. 

(Some information from Professor Mark R. Cohen)



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, January 06, 2023

Earlier this week, after Itamar Ben Gvir visited the Temple Mount without incident, there was a very telling exchange at the daily State Department briefings:

QUESTION: Just to cut to the chase on this, you talk about how you’re opposed to any unilateral actions and that you support – or oppose any effort to change the status quo. So do you believe that this visit alters the status quo in any way?

MR PRICE: Look, Matt —

QUESTION: And do you not support it? Do you think that it was a bad idea? Would you prefer that it had not happened?

MR PRICE: This visit has the potential to exacerbate tensions and to provoke violence. As we’ve said, we’re deeply concerned by any unilateral actions that have the potential to do that. So yes, we’re deeply concerned by this visit. Now, when it comes to the historic status quo, it’s not for me to define from here what the historic status quo is; it’s not for the United States to prescribe what the historic status quo is. That’s a question of history. It’s a question for —

QUESTION: Certainly you know what the historic status quo is?

MR PRICE: It’s a question for the parties themselves, including the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, whose role as the custodian of Jerusalem’s holy sites, again, we deeply appreciate.
The United States position is that the status quo must not be violated, but it doesn't know what the status quo is. 

Yesterday's address by the US Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood at the UN Security Council sheds some more light on the US position:
Secretary Blinken has said very clearly that it’s absolutely critical for all sides to exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric, at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount and other holy sites in Jerusalem, both in word and in practice. In this spirit, we oppose any and all unilateral actions that depart from the historic status quo, which are unacceptable.
While he didn't directly say that Ben Gvir violated the status quo, in the context of an emergency Security Council session to condemn Israel for allowing the visit, and with not a single word to tamp down the anti-Israel rhetoric there, it seems pretty clear that the US position is that any "provocative actions" are violations of the status quo.

But only "provocative actions" on the Israeli side. 


When Palestinians stockpiled stones, fireworks and Molotov cocktails inside the actual Al Aqsa Mosque multiple times over the past decade and then used them, I could find no mention by the State Department that these actions were "provocative." At the time, they said "we welcome the steps the Israeli Government has taken in recent days aimed at avoiding provocations" but I do not see any indication that turning the mosque into a weapons cache has ever been considered provocative. 

In fact, I cannot recall a single time that any country besides Israel has accused Palestinians of violating the status quo, even when they excavated hundreds of  tons of rubble that contained countless priceless Jewish antiquities to build a brand new, 7000 seat mosque underneath the Temple Mount in the 1990s. It is hard to imagine a bigger violation of the status quo than that, but there were no UN sessions about it.

Putting it all together, we see that according to the US, anything that upsets Palestinians is a violation of the status quo. Because by definition, anything that upsets Palestinians is "provocative" - it provokes them, no matter how trivial it is in practice. And the US makes no distinction between "provocation" and "violating the status quo."

Looking back on the January 3 State Department statement, this becomes clear. If the status quo is defined by "the parties themselves" and Israel's opinion is ignored on the issue, as it has been this week, that means that the only people who define the status quo are the Palestinians and Jordanians - and they can define it however they want, even to change it daily, based on what "provokes" them.

A few months ago, they were "provoked" by a Spanish Christian tourist (that they called a "Zionist settler") showing her legs on the Temple Mount. They were "provoked" by other Christian tourists who carried some Jewish-looking souvenirs they had just bought in the souk on their tour. They are provoked every day that Jews visit the Temple Mount, with headlines in the newspapers about Jews "desecrating" the holy site with their very presence.

According to Israel's best friend, any "provocation" by non-Muslims that causes an uproar is a violation of the status quo and deserves condemnation. And that should concern anyone who cares about Jewish rights. 




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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, January 04, 2023

It is important to examine two events in recent days, as they both severely limit the freedom of Westerners - and signal far worse things that could come.

The first is the visit by Israeli minister of security Itamar Ben-Gvir to the Temple Mount.

The second is the publicizing of the removal of an instructor at Hamline University for including depictions of Mohammed in his art history course.

In both cases, nobody did anything wrong by any reasonable metric: 

- Even though many would say that he has the right to pray on Judaism's holiest site, Ben-Gvir did not. He did exactly what tens of thousands of Jews and hundreds of thousands of Christians have done in 2022 and earlier - he took a quiet stroll on the Temple Mount, without even reporters. There was no violation of the (illusory) status quo. 

- In the case of Hamline University, the instructor told the class ahead of time - in both the syllabus and verbally - that two medieval images of Mohammed, painted by Muslims, would be shown to the class, and he gave any Muslims the opportunity to not look at them. 

In both cases, there is no consensus that even Islamic law was violated: 

- Noor Dahri, a religious Muslim and counterterrorism expert, tweeted, "The rule to allow only Muslims to pray in Makkah is conditioned by the Holy Quran, however such conditions dsn’t apply to the Temple Mount.  Islam doesn’t forbid Jews to worship at the Temple Mount, [just a] political agreement which is called “Status Quo”. It is nothing but racism and religious discrimination against the Jewish people. Jews can freely worship at the Temple Mount according to Islamic rules because the land belongs to them, not Muslims - it’s only holy to Muslims."

- Muslims have included Mohammed in their own artwork for centuries, and Shiites do it today. And while mainstream Sunni Islamic law nowadays is against Muslims creating such depictions, it does not (and cannot) say that non-Muslims cannot create or view such pictures.

In both cases, ignorant Westerners who should be supporting freedom and equality are in the forefront of quashing that exact freedom in order to avoid hurting the feelings of irrational, potentially violent Muslims:

- State Department spokesman Ned Price repeatedly said in response to Ben-Gvir's visit that the US supports the "status quo," implying that the visit violated it and was "provocative:" "We oppose any unilateral actions that undercut the historic status quo. They are unacceptable.... it’s absolutely critical that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric, and preserve that historic status quo at Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, both in word and in practice....We’re deeply concerned by any unilateral actions because – precisely because they have the potential to exacerbate tensions, or worse. "

- Hamline University issued a statement claiming, falsely, that what the instructor did violated Islamic law: "Students do not relinquish their faith in the classroom. To look upon an image of the prophet Muhammad, for many Muslims, is against their faith."  But it is not at all clear that Islamic law addresses viewing such depictions, only creating them. And as mentioned, the Muslim students could have chosen not to view them.

These are perfect examples of "proleptic dhimmitude," where Westerners act (often beyond what Muslims demand)  in fear of anticipated Islamic responses that had not even occurred.

This illustrates the real unwritten law that has increasingly dominated the West: "Don't piss off the Muslims." All of the moral posturing about "tolerance" and "status quo" are fig leaves to obscure the fact that Westerners live in fear of Islamic terror, and are willing and even anxious to give up on our own freedoms to pander to the most extreme Muslim positions, human rights be damned. 

By using the yardstick of banning anything that is "provocative," the West is allowing the most intolerant and violent Muslims to dictate Western behavior in all aspects of life. Because anything and everything can provoke Islamists. 

Because in both cases the dhimmified Westerners are giving a green light for extremist, potentially violent Muslims to expand their demands ad infinitum:

- Palestinians do not only claim that Jews are violating their feelings by visiting the Temple Mount, but the Western Wall as well - which they also consider part of the "Al Aqsa complex." In fact, every single Jewish holy site, from the Tomb of the Patriarchs to Rachel's Tomb to Joseph's Tomb and scores of others - are all claimed by Palestinians to be Muslim shrines. If Israel gives in to western pressure on abandoning Jewish rights, it wouldn't be the end - it would be only the start of the bigoted, antisemitic demands that Jews have no rights in Israel altogether.

- The same Islamic law against creating depictions of Mohammed also apples to every Muslim prophet.  This includes Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus and, according to many, Mary. Beyond that, depictions of Roman and Greek gods would similarly violate Islamic laws against idolatry. The exact same logic that caused Hamline to cave to Muslim intolerance can eviscerate every single art history course in the Western world. 

It isn't hard to picture that as only the beginning, not the end. Imagine a world where every website, every encyclopedia, every outing, every college course, every newspaper article and indeed every activity must be approved by extremist Islamic gatekeepers. We've already seen most Western media refuse to print the Mohammed cartoons from Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, even though they are undoubtedly newsworthy and important to see to understand the story. But that and similar incidents are exactly what is driving today's cowardice: the fear of pissing off Muslims, because they might murder you. 

Jews will only write angry letters, so offending them is "free speech" and "brave." Muslims might kill you, so submitting to their dictates is twisted into "tolerance."

Unless there is serious pushback by those who still value freedom, this is where things are going. 



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



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

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive