The latest news as of this writing is that not only did Israel assassinate the head of the northern Gaza branch of Islamic Jihad’s military wing, Baha Abu al Ata, but that at nearly the same time Israel also bombed and nearly killed another major Islamic Jihad leader, Akram al-Ajouri, in Syria.
There is lots of speculation on the timing of these strikes. The IDF says that al-Ata was planning some very serious operations, and even Islamic Jihad says that he was in the midst of a "heroic act." But it is also possible that Israel is sending a message to Iran.
Al-Ata seems to have directly reported to Iran and took instructions from them to disrupt the uneasy detente that has been in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. Hamas has shown irritation at groups attacking Israel without going through them.
Al-Ajouri almost certainly was close to Iran as well, working with the regime in Syria.
The intelligence to know where these terrorists are sleeping is quite impressive. If al-Ata was planning a major attack, chances are the planning and timing came from Iran.Israel is sending a message to Iran that their plots to attack Israel are being foiled because someone on the inside is revealing them, making Iran wonder who they can trust and alowing down the pace of what they can accomplish if everyone suspects everyone else of being a Zionist spy.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
THE term “Zionist” has been stripped of its true meaning and instead become a term of infamy and curse, Alex Ryvchin says.
This distortion is the motivation behind the Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-CEO’s just released second book, Zionism – The Concise History, which tells the history of the Jewish people from their origins in biblical Israel to their exile and the formation of the national movement that led to their return nearly two millennia later.
It examines the leaders who shaped the Zionist movement and events that impacted on it, including Chaim Weizmann’s wartime service to the British, the Dreyfus Affair, the emergence of Jerusalem mufti Haj Amin Al-Husseini and the impact of the pogroms and the Holocaust.
“It is vital that our young people understand the story of Zionism, which is not only inspiring, but is inextricably linked to every phase of Jewish history, and as such, forms a fundamental part of Jewish identity,” Ryvchin said.
“It is an organic expression of two core aspects of the Jewish people – our peoplehood and our connection to our ancestral lands.”
He said the consequence of allowing deliberate distortions of the meaning of Zionism to go unchallenged is that new generations “will only know of Zionism and Zionists as an evil to be fought”.
“The movement to liberate or at least shelter the Jewish people from antisemitism, the movement that seeks nothing more than to give the Jews a scrap of land to call their own, to ensure that the Jewish people and their contributions to humanity shall not vanish from this earth – somehow this has become akin to racism, to Nazism, to colonialism, to white supremacism, and every other popular conception of evil known today,” he said.
“These are lies that cannot be allowed to be laundered into truth.”
Last week, my organization, the World Values Network, hosted a discussion with Yair Netanyahu, son of the Israeli prime minister, and one of Israel’s best-known young social media influences.
I’m a free speech absolutist and consider the First Amendment to be inviolate. I am so proud of countries like the United States and Israel for ensuring that people can speak their mind without fear of government censorship or arrest.
I allowed Ariel Gold, National Co-Director of Code Pink, to attend our event. As she entered the talk, someone spotted her and a spirited debate ensued between our organizers and security as to whether she would remain. Everyone was sure she would try and destroy the event.
So I walked up to her, and asked if she planned to disrespect our speaker and destroy the talk. She told me, and other organizers, that her sole desire was to listen and take notes. I asked her again for her commitment to not disrupt. She looked me in the eye and gave me her word. And I took her at her word. She, however, did not keep her word — and tried to ruin our event.
It turns out that in addition to Ariel Gold’s repulsive views on Israel and role as an apologist for Iran, she is also an inveterate liar who has the nerve to look people right in the eye and lie. Even after I spoke to her privately, I extracted a public commitment from her — only to witness Gold get up with scores of other protesters to try and destroy a free speech event because they disagreed with the views of our guest.
Gold would later say on her Twitter feed that she protested alone and did not lead the others. But she’s a confirmed liar, as we all saw. So why believe anything she says?
As a religious man, I have debated some of the world’s most famous atheists, like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. As a pro-Israel activist, I have debated some of the world’s leading Palestinian apologists, including Peter Beinart and Hussein Ibish. All of these debates have been respectful, and we did not try to shut each other up.
It was mid-September 1988, and while shuffling through the mail in my Budapest apartment, I came upon an oversize envelope inviting me, as a journalist, to cover the events of the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht on Nov. 9 in Berlin. That was not unusual since the city of West Berlin and the rest of the Federal Republic—West Germany—marked the event in scores of towns, villages and cities. As well they should, of course.
I did a double take. This envelope came from the press office of the East German government, the German Democratic Republic, and after a few phone calls to friends in the press corps in West Germany, they were as surprised as I was.
When did the GDR start commemorating Kristallnacht, I asked a friend at Reuters in Budapest, who called his bureau in West Berlin.
“You mean in its entire 38-year history?”
“Yes,” I said.
“Never.”
Word was that Erich Honecker, head of East Germany’s Communist Party, was trying to secure legitimacy for his country, and since Romania’s dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, had managed to secure Most Favored Nation Trading status from the United States—mostly because he allowed the Jewish community to function and receive financial support from America—Honecker was keen to deal a Jewish card he’d never played before.
And did he ever play it. Over a two-day period in East Berlin there would be an exhibition on the history of Jews in Berlin (the first in East Germany’s history), a special session of the East German parliament, a rededication of the giant, ruined synagogue on Oranienburgerstrasse, which was going to be rebuilt as a Jewish museum, and an evening performance by the Berlin Symphony Orchestra.
Honecker would never see a return on his investment, because exactly one year later, on Nove. 9, 1989, Berliners would be tearing away at the Berlin Wall, and he himself would be sitting at home, watching history unfold on TV. Having been fired a few weeks earlier, he would soon be on trial and the German Democratic Republic would be erased from the map.
But that lay in the future. It was fall, 1988, I had my permission, an official invitation, and a few weeks later I drove up from my home in Budapest to East Berlin, arriving on Nov. 9.
It is the 15th anniversary of the timely death of arch terrorist Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian media is asking once again, "who killed Abu Ammar?" - Arafat's nom de guerre
Member of the Fatah Central Committee, Tawfiq Tirawi, affirmed that Fatah is working hard to reach results regarding the "assassination of Abu Ammar" and will one day reach a result that satisfies all the Palestinian people. He notes that the people are in a hurry to know the answer - but, hey, its only been 15 years. These things take time!
Member of the Executive Committees of the PLO Azzam al-Ahmad said, "It is not easy to reach the precise details regarding the assassination of martyr President Yasser Arafat ...The decisive issue is that Israel has poisoned him, but how? We are looking for a solution for this mystery, but all the great leaders who preceded Abu Ammar were assassinated in the same manner, including Nasser." He knows it was Israel but they just need a little more evidence!
The perennial mystery is also fodder for Hamas/Fatah infighting. A Hamas website stated flatly that current Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas was the person behind a huge conspiracy to poison Arafat, listing lots of supposed circumstantial evidence like Abbas sabotaging investigations and the movements of some people close to Arafat to Israel at the time.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
As usual, it downplays left-wing antisemitism and completely ignores Arab and Muslim antisemitism.
The essay also brings up the straw man that the Right considers legitimate criticism of Israel as being antisemitic: "We should be very clear that it is not antisemitic to criticize the policies of the Israeli government. " Literally no one disagrees.
Sanders then goes on to acknowledge a tiny amount of antisemitism on the Left. "It is true that some criticism of Israel can cross the line into antisemitism, especially when it denies the right of self-determination to Jews, or when it plays into conspiracy theories about outsized Jewish power. "
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.... Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Bernie Sanders' allies, like Linda Sarsour and Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, falsely claim that this definition includes legitimate criticism of Israel. I have yet to see a single progressive critic of the IHRA working definition point out the specific wording that they disagree with. Either they disagree with the definition or they can say their specific concerns so it can be discussed.
No one does.
Bernie Sanders, if he is as honest as he claims to be, seems to be agreeing with the IHRA definition. If he is truly serious about fighting against antisemitism, and he is really interested in fighting antisemitism wherever it may be found whether from the Right, the Left or the Muslim world he ignores, then he should explicitly embrace the IHRA working definition of antisemitism - or tell us exactly which parts he disagrees with.
If Sanders is as honest and brave as he presents himself to be, he will address this issue forthrightly.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Ridding the world of its one Jewish state to create a state of Palestine “from the river to the sea” is a supposedly “progressive” ambition for the anti-Israel crowd.
But the idea that the Palestinians are in any way interested in establishing a progressive paradise is downright preposterous, since extensive opinion surveys document that extremist and fundamentalist views are mainstream in Palestinian society.
It’s only to be expected that fringe sites like the Electronic Intifada or Mondoweiss hide this evidence from the anti-Israel activists they cater to. But unfortunately, the prestigious magazine Foreign Affairs has recently also promoted the myth of a one-state solution as a model of peaceful co-existence and equal rights for all its citizens. By giving a platform to Yousef Munayyer, the executive director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, the magazine published a professional propagandist whose job is to demonize Israel while marketing the idea that Palestinian “rights” include the elimination of the Jewish state.
“One-state” proponents like Munayyer can’t really afford to be honest about the kind of state Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza want, because that would endanger the widespread illusion that the Palestinian cause deserves uncritical support from progressives.
As documented in a Pew survey from 2013 that included almost 40,000 Muslims in 39 countries, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were often among the Muslim populations with the most extremist views about the role of Islam in society: 89 percent of Palestinians said they wanted Sharia law; 66 percent endorsed the death penalty for Muslims who convert to another religion; 76 percent supported mutilation as a punishment for theft; and a shocking 84 percent wanted adulterers stoned to death.
When asked how much political influence religious leaders should have, 29 percent of Palestinians said religious leaders should have a lot of political influence, and another 43 percent wanted religious leaders to have at least some political influence. These views are reflected in the Palestinian draft constitution, which stipulates that the “principles of the Islamic shari’a are a main source for legislation.”
In one sentence, the US Secretary of State managed Nov. 7 to define the ultimate nightmare of diplomatic and security decision-makers in Israel and bring all the demons out into the open: “Members of the international community who are rightly concerned with Iran's latest attacks and provocations should imagine how Iran would behave with a nuclear weapon,” Mike Pompeo said, following the Iranian declaration of the start of phase 4 in its slow withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. He confirmed the estimate of Israeli intelligence that was published here a year ago, according to which the Iranians will violate the agreement gradually, in slow steps, that will gradually grow, until they reach a range from which they could break through to a military nuclear program within a few months.
In the end, so estimated Israeli intelligence officers after the United States left the nuclear agreement, Iran would be ready for a quick “breakthrough” toward the first military nuclear facility. This is, exactly, the situation Israel fears more than anything else on earth. Pompeo also discussed this possibility, saying that the United States will not let it happen; but these words convinced no one in Jerusalem, nor in Tel Aviv (the location of the Israel Defense Forces and intelligence agencies’ headquarters).
“Unfortunately, experience teaches us,” a former high-ranking Israeli intelligence official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “that not all of the Trump administration’s declarations are translated into deeds. The thing is that this time we are reaching an existential crossroad that might force us to choose an independent path. This time this isn’t North Korea, but Iran, whose declared intention is to erase Israel from the map of the world.”
Israeli intelligence predicted with astonishing accuracy all that has happened in the year and a half since President Donald Trump declared the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, in May 2018. In conversation with Al-Monitor in mid-2018, a senior intelligence source, speaking on condition of anonymity, sketched the full scenario: The Iranians would respond to the American exit from the agreement with violations that would grow in severity, it was said in that conversation. At first, they will start enriching uranium again to the 3.5% level, then they will increase the number of centrifuges. Later, they will increase the enriched uranium supply they hold in their territory, then they will operate the enrichment facility at Fordow and start using their sophisticated, fast centrifuges.
Argentina has asked Azerbaijan to arrest a high-level Iranian adviser to the country’s supreme leader in connection with the bombing in 1994 of the Buenos Aires AMIA Jewish center
Alí Akbar Velayati was scheduled to attend the Second Summit of religious world leaders in the Azerbaijani capital Baku, Nov. 14-15.
Velayati, who was Iran’s foreign minister at the time of the terrorist attack and has been implicated in ordering the bombing, is now an adviser on international affairs to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Under existing Argentine law, an accused person must have the opportunity to defend himself before a judge. Since the Iranians accused in the attack, many from the upper political echelons, have not set foot on Argentine soil, it has been impossible to move the judicial process forward.
The Argentine Foreign Minister summoned the ambassador of Azerbaijan in Buenos Aires on Friday and expressed the “deep concern” of Argentina’s government about Velayati’s presence in Baku and asked for Azerbaijan’s cooperation “in order to carry out the detention for extradition purposes.”
Iran also is believed to be behind the 1992 car bombing that destroyed the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 and injuring 242.
Nuclear physicist Dr. Hadi Issa Dalloul said in a November 5, 2019 interview on Mayadeen TV (Lebanon) that what the West really fears is Iran's technological and medical development. Dr. Dalloul said that the University of Tehran is on the verge of producing an alternative medicine for cancer that "will make Jewish companies that invest in chemotherapy and spread cancer go bankrupt."
Nuclear Physicist Dr. Hadi Issa Dalloul: Tehran University on the Verge of Producing Cancer Treatment that Will Make Cancer-Spreading Jewish Companies Go Bankrupt pic.twitter.com/8jcomAx0d9
Dalloul's Facebook page says he was born in Ramallah but now lives in Isfhahan, Iran. His LinkedIn page says he lives in the UAE. His Twitter bio says he lives in the UK.
So I'm not altogether convinced that this guy is the nuclear scientist/British nuclear inspector he claims he is.
But that doesn't stop him from regularly appearing on Arabic language TV, as his YouTube page attests.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
The Times of Israel reports that some Israeli officials are warning that a private lawsuit brought by the Psagot winery to the European Court of Justice against a French policy of labeling goods made by Jews in Judea and Samaria as being made in "Israeli settlements."
Israeli officials are concerned that the lawsuit will backfire, Psagot will lose, and world headlines will again be screaming about settlements.
The Psagot winery argues otherwise. It hired some serious lawyers to argue that adding "Israeli settlements"to the labels adds a political commentary to consumer goods, something that would become a nightmare if enforced equally across all imports from countries with problematic political policies.
Psagot's questions for the ECJ are:
Does EU law, and in particular Regulation No 1169/2011 …, where indication of the origin of a product falling within the scope of that regulation is mandatory, require, for a product from a territory occupied by Israel since 1967, indication of that territory and an indication that the product comes from an Israeli settlement if that is the case? If not, do the provisions of [Regulation No 1169/2011], in particular those in Chapter VI thereof, allow a Member State to require those indications?’
The decision wlll be handed down Tuesday.
Experts consulted by Times of Israel think that this lawsuit does not stand a chance. The major reason is that ECJ’s Advocate General Gerard Hogan already expressed a non-binding opinion on the matter and he is rarely overruled by the court.
In order to achieve a high level of health protection for consumers and to guarantee their right to information, it should be ensured that consumers are appropriately informed as regards the food they consume. Consumers’ choices can be influenced by, inter alia, health, economic, environmental, social and ethical considerations.
Hogan's ruling concentrates on the "ethical considerations" part, saying that the territories are occupied and therefore consumers who base their purchases on information like that need to know this.
In my view, the reference to ‘ethical considerations’ in the context of country of origin labelling is plainly a reference to those wider ethical considerations which may inform the thinking of certain consumers prior to purchase. Just as many European consumers objected to the purchase of South African goods in the pre-1994 apartheid era, present day consumers may object on similar grounds to the purchase of goods from a particular country because, for example, it is not a democracy or because it pursues particular political or social policies which that consumer happens to find objectionable or even repugnant. In the context of the Israeli policies vis-à-vis the Occupied Territories and the settlements, there may be some consumers who object to the purchase of products emanating from the territories, precisely because of the fact that the occupation and the settlements clearly amount to a violation of international law. It is not, of course, the task of this Court to approve or to disapprove of such a choice on the part of the consumer: it is rather sufficient to say that a violation of international law constitutes the kind of ethical consideration which the Union legislature acknowledged as legitimate in the context of requiring country of origin information.
Psagot's argument against this is that if the consumer information required is so broad then the labeling for all countries must include political information about that country.
TOI:
“The court will not rule in favor of labeling, because I am confident the judges are more farsighted than that,” [lawyer Brooke] Goldstein told The Times of Israel.
“Either way, I do not think that EU member states will be able to enforce any EU regulation that requires it to label only Israeli products. Since most EU member states have robust anti-discrimination laws, it will require any EU regulation to apply in a non-discriminatory fashion, to any products imported into the EU that come from either disputed territories or territories engaged in human rights violations.”
In other words, if Europe’s top court decides that West Bank products must be labeled, “that means Styrofoam cups from China, wine from Turkey, oil from Iran, will all be mandated to have labels indicating the particular political circumstances of each country. That will obviously be an economic nightmare for Europe and totally unenforceable.”
Hogan's ruling subtly shows his own anti-Israel bias because he simply doesn't even consider that "occupation" is only one of thousands of possible "ethical" considerations that consumers would have the right to know. Does the country of origin discriminate against gays? Does it have laws against abortion? If one "ethical" consideration is important enough to be considered important for the labeling, then why aren't the others? According to his logic, every country of origin should have a laundry list of possible ethical violations listed, from its stance on abortion to its gun control laws and whether it allows kosher slaughter. Yet Hogan rules only that the purported illegality of the settlements is the only consideration important enough for consumers to be told explicitly, so much so that it should be mandatory to label the goods that way!
Interestingly, he seems to undercut his own argument a bit when he says that other legal rulings assume that consumers are "well-informed" about the issues of importance to them. He argues that such a consumer needs to be told that the provenance of the goods come from "Israeli settlements" even though if they really are "well informed" they wold know that wine that is clearly labeled as coming from the Golan Heights or Judean Hills are obviously made by Jews and not Muslims who do not drink wine.
Unfortunately, as his ruling shows, the ECJ is likely to have its own biases against Israel just as Hogan does.
Hogan's ruling does not address the EU states' non-discrimination laws, apparently because they are up to each member state. So while Psagot's argument against Hogan might not help in the ECJ, it might be useful in terms of fighting it in individual countries - and, from the other side, to fight for the ECJ to apply its reasoning to every problematic country that goods are imported from.
I spoke to Yaakov Berg, the owner of Psagot Winery, a number of years ago, where he briefly addressed the labeling issue. "It's very funny, because for example, if I would sell my winery tomorrow morning to a German guy, to an English guy, so what is going to be written on the bottle? Nothing! In other words, only if a Jew will have a winery or a factory in his own land, only then will it be written on a bottle a 'warning,'"Berg said.
Berg told TOI, "This court decision is just the beginning of the fight we’re preparing to put up. We won’t agree to a double standard. It cannot be that products from Tibet are considered ‘Made in China’ while I am labeled. I — who am working the field where my ancestors were already making wine during the Second Temple period. There is no historical debate over this; all historians agree that this was the homeland of the Jewish people.”
“My grandmother escaped the Nazis; they labeled her as a Jew. I grew up in Russia, where they labeled us as Jews. They shall not stick special labels on us,” Berg declared. “It just won’t happen, certainly not in Europe. We won’t accept it.”
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Plans have just been unveiled for a new massive interfaith complex in Abu Dhabi, encompassing a mosque, a church and a synagogue.
The facility, to be known as the Abrahamic Family House, will be located on Saadiyat Island in the United Arab Emirates' capital city, right next to the new Louvre Abu Dhabi. Abraham of the Old Testament is considered a holy prophet in all three religions.
The compound is expected to be completed in 2022. Sheik Mohammed and Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, ruler of Dubai, have already signed the foundation stone.
On September 20, the initial designs for the complex were presented at an event at the New York Public Library in midtown Manhattan. British firm Adjaye Associates won the contract to design the center, which will consist of three large buildings arranged around a central garden, under which will sit a museum and education center.
All three buildings appear to be the same height, which is symbolically important - each religion has rules, formal or informal, that its own house of worship be the highest building in the area. It would be interesting to find out if the mosque is a couple of inches taller than the others.
Here's what the synagogue is going to look like:
The synagogue interior is supposed to look like this:
This artist's rendering does not show a bima (lectern for the Torah and prayer leader) nor an Aron (Torah ark.) It appears to have a raised women's section.
Given the things we've been hearing from the UAE, it seems quite possible that there could be regular services there with a minyan, as more and more Jewish businesspeople and Israelis visit the Emirates.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Hizbullah deputy chief Sheikh Naim Qassem on Friday said his part is “effectively taking part in the consultations with the heads of the parliamentary blocs and the relevant officials with the aim of forming the (new) government.”
“We hope the final format for the premier and the government will emerge soon,” Qassem added.
Stressing that Hizbullah “will maintain its role in carrying people’s concerns and working for reform and combating corruption,” Qassem said his party’s “presence and representation will be effective in the government that will be formed.”
“It will be part of the coming government because it is part of this people,” he added.
The comments are withering:
You must be kidding, why haven't you fought corruption in the past if you care so much about the people. There will not be any room in the new government for any current or past political players....
No salvation for Lebanon until you remove your arms and don't behave as attack dogs for Iran radicals! This is what scared away investment and caused the exodus of all good paying foreign corporations.
It is a joke right??
so, iow, you are responsible to the non formation of government and you still want the same thing--obviously listening to anyone but iran is not listed as an option to you.
Do the world a favor and hang yourself with your own turban
Stressing that Hizbullah “will maintain its role in carrying people’s concerns and working for reform and combating corruption, looooool where are the Kizb drones out on this site to explain this joke?
Hezbollah (at the direction of Iran) is now wholeheartedly against the protests, and they are still claiming that Lebanon owes them for dragging the country into war:
The head of Hizbullah’s parliamentary bloc MP Mohammed Raad on Sunday stressed that his party “cannot be strong-armed” and that “fabricated battles” linked to the ongoing popular uprising in the country will not deviate Hizbullah’s attention from its main objectives.
“We share the goal of combating corruption, lifting immunity off corrupts and recovering stolen funds… with all the honest people who rose up and took to the streets… but we want others to respect our experience and realize that their movement is within the atmosphere provided to them by our martyrs, mujahideen and heroes,” Raad went on to say.
The Hizbullah lawmaker also warned the protest movement against “launching arbitrary accusations” or “hurling insults against icons, especially those related to the leadership of the purest, most honorable and noblest people.”
Meaning, don't insult Nasrallah or the Iranian mullahs. Or else.
That's how to ingratiate themselves with the people!
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
There is, however, another reason why so many American Jews disdain Christian support. This is that they themselves have heavily bought into the secular approach to the world, which has replaced religion by mankind-centered ideologies.
This is particularly unfortunate since these universalist ideologies are inimical to Jewish principles, though many American Jews mistakenly think they embody the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, or the “repair of the world.”
They don’t realize, therefore, why intersectionality – the doctrine that links groups that consider themselves victims of the so-called white hetero-normative capitalist patriarchy – has made such an enemy of Israel and the Jewish people.
They don’t realize that through its animus against Jewish religious principles, seen as the basis of the oppressive power structure known as Western civilization, and against Zionism, seen as the ultimate ethnic colonialist enterprise of that civilization, secular liberal universalism entails a fundamental illiberalism, in addition to a deep intolerance towards biblically faithful Jews and Christians.
They don’t realize that this universalist creed they have made into a secular religion is taking an axe to the cultural virtues they themselves take for granted.
In this crisis for Western civilization, the tragedy for these Jews who don’t realize the importance of their own culture to that civilization is that they’re on the wrong side.
Did you think I’d complain that the world is silent in the face of the atrocities perpetuated by a purported refugee agency that acts like a terrorists’ hub? In fact, global silence would be a step up compared to the reality we’re in, because UNRWA has actually been supported by Western countries, along with Arab states. They are guilty by association. For us, this is yet another form of antisemitism, this time concealed under the guise of humanitarianism.
And now we are incensed. Last week it was announced that UNRWA Commissioner General Pierre Krahenbuhl had stepped aside following “allegations of misconduct,” pending investigation. While the nature of these allegations has not been made public, I am confident it is nothing to do with UNRWA’s many decades of supporting – even promoting – hatred, terrorism and violence. So why the outcry now?
When UNRWA support terrorism against Jews, the world is silent. When allegations of corruption come up, countries remove their funding from UNRWA and force the commissioner to step down.
The truth is that no matter what last week’s accusations relate to, it is a slap in the face to Israelis. It confirms what we have suspected all along: Our suffering does not matter. That of Palestinians, yes, but not ours. Misconduct results in consequences – stepping aside, an investigation – only when the victims are not Israeli.
Below is a list of basic changes that must be made in the UNWRA textbooks used in the Palestinian Authority.
2. Avoid Demonization of Israel and Jews
- Schoolbooks should not include pieces which virulently demonize Israel/Jews, or de-humanize them, or any description that goes beyond the presentation of Israel and/or the Jews as an ordinary adversary with its own rights, interests and positions. Jews should not be presented as enemies of Islam, as has been often done.
- It is desirable to add to the books the still non-existent material that deals with Israel and the Jews objectively (for example, pieces that talk about the Israeli government structure, economy, science and technology, the Hebrew culture, Jewish history, etc.), which might balance the enormous anti-Israeli critical material in the books.
- It is crucially important to stress in the books that, in spite of the conflict, the Jewish/Israeli individual is also a human being, apart from being an adversary, and should be treated accordingly.
- While dealing with the conflict, the PA schoolbooks studied at UNRWA schools should include also self-criticism (i.e., the rejection of proposals for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, massacre of unarmed Jewish neighbors, etc.)
If the Arabs are trying to convince the Jews that giving up
land will bring Israel peace, they are doing a poor job of it. Unilateral land
for peace moves by Israel have been disastrous. The unilateral withdrawal of
Israeli troops from Southern Lebanon in 2000, with nothing gained in return,
strengthened the terror group Hezbollah, essentially collapsed Israel’s ally
the South Lebanon Army, and did not bring peace with Lebanon or their de facto
rulers Syria. Rocket attacks in the North continued and cross border attacks,
including attempted kidnappings, amplified until 2006 when a war lead to a
strong response on the side of Israel that served as a deterrent.
Gaza was always considered a
quagmire for Israel and most Israelis were tired of sending their children to
serve in the dangerous enclave. Many questioned Israel’s reason for being
there. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in the hopes that it
would serve as a model for transitioning territory to the Palestinian
Authority, short of a peace agreement. Israel uprooted 10,000 Jews and even
left the Palestinians housing and a commercial greenhouse. It was a huge
victory for the peace camp in Israel, who were certain that land is all it took
to end the conflict. At the very least, it would earn Israel capital in the
international arena. The Palestinians promptly destroyed the greenhouse and
Israel’s South has not enjoyed a moments peace ever since. In addition, the
international goodwill the peace camp was sure to follow never materialized. It
seemed, in fact, that Israel was punished for the move. Two years later, there
was a bloody coop in Gaza and the terror group Hamas gained power. The
situation continues to deteriorate. Hamas is strengthened. Residents of the
south in Israel endure thousands of rockets with little recourse. Unilateral
land for peace has been a disaster.
But, what about bilateral land for peace? Surely that has
worked. Look at Egypt. In 1979, Israel and Egypt agreed to an historic peace
agreement. In exchange for peace, Israel gave Egypt the Sinai peninsula,
captured in the 1967 war. By 1982, Israel completed a withdrawal from the
entire peninsula, uprooting Jewish communities, and handing the keys to Egypt.
On the surface it seems like a success. Before 1979, Israel and Egypt fought in
four wars (1948, 1956, 1967, 1972), in addition to constant skirmishes. Since
1979, there have been no wars. The problem is that the peace has been cold.
Incitement against Israel and Jews in Egypt, often sponsored by the government,
continues. Most Egyptians do not accept Israel’s right to exist and by
extension the peace agreement. The Sinai has become a hotbed of Islamist
activity, with ISIS establishing a stronghold in the peninsula. Hamas has
established smuggling tunnels into Sinai used to bring in weapons and materials
to attack Israel and shoot rockets. There have been concerns from Israel that
the peace could collapse. In 2008, Egypt conducted war game exercises against
an imaginary Israel. At no time was the concern more acute than when Mohamed
Morsi, a member of the extremist group the Muslim Brotherhood, an ally of
Hamas, won the presidency of Egypt. If not for his overthrow a year later, it
not hard to speculate that the peace would have fallen apart. It’s possible
that Egypt’s largest motivator for maintaining the peace is the $1.3 billion in
military aid that they receive from the United States. If that were ever to
disappear, would peace persist?
And so we come to Naharayim. It was suppose to be the
model of coexistence between the Jews and Arabs. On the heels of the first Oslo
Accords, Israel and Jordan signed a peace agreement in 1994. It was suppose to
usher in a Pax Romana in the Middle East. Israel and Jordan, two bitter enemies
to that point, no longer had any territorial disputes. Jordan has ceded their
claim to the West Bank, which they occupied in 1948 and then lost in 1967, to
the Palestinians. With peace between Israel and the PLO, rebranded the
Palestinian Authority, seemingly imminent, King Hussein and Israeli president Ezer
Weizman shook hands near Eilat and the future seemed bright. That Hezbollah was
still launching rockets into Northern Israel while the agreement was being
signed seemed like a temporary problem.
Between Israel and Jordan lies an area called the Jordan
Valley. Israel’s connection to the Jordan Valley is both historic but more
importantly strategic. It is strategic because it offers a natural barrier
between Israel and Jordan (and by extension other Arab countries to the East)
and a strong defensive position. In the Jordan Valley is a small town called
Naharayim, which in Hebrew means two rivers, because it is the junction between
the Jordan River and the Yarmouk River. The land was purchased by a Jew named
Pinhas Rutenberg, a staunch Zionist, who established the Palestine Electric
Corporation and began building hyroelectic power plants to modernize Mandatory
Palestine. One of those plants was located on the land that he would call
Naharayim.
The problem with Naharayim is that even though it was
legally bought by Jews and inhabited by Jews, it was on the other side of the
Jordan river, the Jordanian side. The river forms a natural border between the
two countries. So, when Israel and Jordan signed their historic peace
agreement, Israel decided in good faith to give this small piece of land to
Jordan. Land...for peace. However, there was an obstacle. Jews - Israelis -
were living on the land for over 70 years. They had built kibbutizim, working
farms, and made a living off the land. For several generations of Jews, it was
the only home they knew. This was not in the West Bank but rather Northern
Israel near Tiberias, one of the four holy cities in Judaism. Not wanting to
displace the Jewish residents, Israel agreed to give up the land and Jordan
agreed to lease the land back to Israel for 25 years, with an understanding
that the lease would be renewed in perpetuity. It was the model of cooperation.
So much so, that they built a park near by called the “Island of Peace”. It was
suppose to usher in a new era of coexistence in the region. Both Jews and
Arabs, Israelis and Jordanians, could enjoy the park. Land...for peace. But
like so many things in life, things aren’t always at as they seem.
If the peace with Egypt was cold, the peace with Jordan
was freezing. Incitement against Jews and Israel in Jordan continued. Not only
could antisemitism be found in Jordanian media and schools, but in the
Jordanian parliament itself. For example, Jordanian MP Yahya al-Saud supported
terrorism against Israel, not uncommon in the parliament, but even publically
called to “liberate our holy places from the plundering Jews”. Another MP,
Khalil Attieh, went on Jordanian TV and railed, “It is an honor to incite
against the Jews. It is a great accomplishment to provoke and incense them.” He
also publically called Jews “descendants of apes and pigs” and stated “Hating
the Jews is a great honor for me and it makes me walk with my head high because
they are worthy of hatred...They are not decent people. Any man of honor should
hate the Jews.” These are not isolated incidents. They often praise terror
attacks against Israel in the parliament, including the Har Nof synagogue
massacre in Jerusalem, where terrorists killed 5 worshipers with axes, knives,
and gun. They have also blocked the extradition from Jordan to the United
States of Ahlam Tamimi, the woman who helped carry out the Sbarro Massacre in
2001 at a pizzeria in Jerusalem where 16 were murdered, including eight
children 18 or younger (two of which were toddlers aged 2 and 4). She often
goes on Jordanian television laughing and praising her roll in the murders,
saying “I admit that I was a bit disappointed, because I had hoped for a larger
toll.”
But through all that incitement, the Island of Peace
persisted as a symbol of cooperation. That is until 1997, three years after its
creation, when a group of Jewish school girls aged 13 and 14 were on a school
trip to visit this historic park - the park of peace. On that day, there was no
peace. A Jordanian soldier named Ahmed Daqamseh decided he wanted to kill some
Jews, went to the park now part of Jordan with no Israeli protection, and
started shooting the children. He killed seven girls and wounded six others.
Reviled by some, a hero to others, he was sent to prison in Jordan unrepentant,
proud of what he did. His mother telling Al Jazeera, “I am proud of my son, and
I hold my head high. My son did a heroic deed.” Why did he go to jail in
Jordan? Because, the land has been handed over to Jordan three years earlier.
It was no longer under Israeli jurisdiction. You would think that for the
murder of seven children and near murder of six others one would spend more
than ten years in jail, but the calls to release this national hero started in
the Jordanian parliament shortly after his imprisonment. In 2017 he was
release, not quietly, but with great fanfare. There were parades on the street.
People handed out candy. The symbol of coexistence became the symbol of hate. A
memorial exists to this day for those seven young girls. There are no parades
for them. Only a lifetime misery for the families. No one hands out candy, only
tears.
This brings us to 2019, the
twenty-fifth anniversary of the historic peace agreement between Israel and
Jordan, and the expiration of the twenty-five year lease to the Jewish farmers
who live near the Island of Peace park, and who make a living from it - the
automatic lease renewal in perpetuity. Except, it never happened. Jordan
decided that they did not want to renew the lease. They stated that they never
meant to renew in perpetuity. The problem is, they didn’t even renew it once. Jewish farmers be damned. On
November 10th, Jordan took back possession of the land. Jews who
live and work there, some for multiple generations, on land bought by their
ancestors, have an uncertain future. Even if the Jordanian government agrees to
let them stay, how long will that last? When will they finally tell then to get
lost once and for all? That is the problem with “Land for Peace”. Land is
tangible and peace is intangible. Once you hand over the land the other side
possesses it. You possess nothing in return. If the peace gets broken, the land
does not get returned. Here is the land, but where is the peace? It’s a
cautionary tale for the Israelis. I support a peaceful resolution between the
two ethnic groups, Jews and Arabs, that share the tiny strip of land between
the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. I’ve even supported land for peace.
But it’s become increasingly harder to argue with those that say it doesn’t
work. Israel’s neighbors are not helping with the argument. How can you
convince an Israeli that exchanging land for peace will work or that it is the
best solution when it has been so ineffective until now. It’s becoming apparent
that for peace to work, something tangible has to be exchanged for something
tangible.
Disclaimer: This article is meant to highlight the potential pitfalls of theoretical, asymmetric land for peace deals only. It is not intended to criticize any peace deals Israel has signed with her neighbors nor oppose any future peace agreements. The author believes in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians without preconditions.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Yahya al-Saud, chairman of the Palestine Committee in the first chamber of the Jordanian parliament, called on his government not to comply with any US pressure demanding the extradition of the mass murdering terrorist Ahlam al-Tamimi.
This was in the wake of the revelation that the US officially stating that its extradition treaty with Jordan is valid, referencing Tamimi.
"The Jordanian government must preserve its citizens, and America should not play the role of an international policeman, but should align itself with the peace camp rather than the darkness camp," al-Saud said. (Peace and darkness rhyme in Arabic.)
"I think from my point of view and from the point of view of the Jordanian street, that the United States is a partner in the occupation," he said.
Al-Saud added that "Ahlam has been tried and released, she may not be tried twice, knowing that she did not commit a crime, and what she has done was the right to defend her homeland."
How sickening is that? Not only is al-Saud invoking "double jeopardy," but he is saying that Tamimi didn't commit a crime to begin with - she is a hero. Naturally, no Jordanian is publicly pushing back on this perverted thinking that celebrates the murder of 15 people.
The "double jeopardy" argument has been shown to be baseless in international law. International law specifies that someone may not be tried twice for the same crime in the same state. The US can prosecute Tamimi for her role in murdering two Americans and injuring four others.
The fact that this is being noticed in Jordan and is making some politicians nervous is a good sign. Arnold Roth, who has been tirelessly working to get justice for his murdered daughter Malki, has expressed frustration that US officials have not brought up this case when meeting Jordanian officials. The media attention now being given to this case in Jordan and Israel will make it harder for US politicians to ignore the issue.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
But if that was her point, then what did her tweet add to the original CNBC story, which already pointed out that Cooperman and Bloomberg were both billionaires?
As soon as Jews noticed the obvious dog-whistle, her defenders - including IfNotNow - all claimed no, of course she is only talking about billionaires, not nefarious Jewish billionaires.
Billionaires have class solidarity. If you're accusing a Black Muslim woman of antisemitism for pointing that out, you've got some stuff you need to work on.
And of course, David Duke likes Omar because he recognizes a fellow Jew-hater when he sees one.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
The Palestinian Solidarity Committee at Harvard University, a student organization that favors the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, has set its sights on Israel Trek.
Harvard’s Hillel sponsors Israel Trek, a student-led, student-organized spring break trip to Israel and the West Bank. Past participants speak of how the trip challenged their preconceived notions about Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One writes of his visit to Ramallah, where, at Fatah headquarters, his group heard “from a number of high-ranking [PLO] officials who discussed with us their views on the conflict, the state of affairs in Palestinian communities, and the prospects for peace going forward.” They had already met “members of the Knesset, a former Supreme Court justice, a prominent investigative journalist, and the spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”
As this witness saw it, “our organizers truly strove to provide the broadest range of perspectives that they could” so that students could form their own judgments. Not that the student leaders weren’t Zionists. They evidently calculated that Israel’s reputation would benefit from the exchange of ideas.
Students who attend Israel Trek don’t necessarily emerge allies of Israel. Two participants wrote of their experience that they “had even more questions than we had before departing,” about, among other things, what a democracy is. On the question, “are you pro-Israel or pro-Palestine,” the students demur because they now think it “fails to acknowledge the deep nuances that complicate a conflict involving real people, each with their own experiences, politics, and pain.”
Those of us who are pro-Israel may find this a little too wishy-washy. We may find the students’ views of Fatah’s objectives naïve. But we can hardly, if we are also in favor of liberal education, object to a trip that dissolves a student’s sense of “Manichaean clarity.” Even a student who had done his best to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by discussing it with friends and consuming news and opinion found this education no substitute for first-hand experience. He had, it turned out, “relied too heavily on external, and often biased outlets, both in favor and against Israel.”
Former Jordanian Health Minister Dr. Zaid Hamzeh said in an October 9, 2019 interview on A One TV (Jordan) that nations oftentimes only progress after having suffered for centuries and that future Arab generations must suffer before progressing. In addition, he said that he had supported Adolf Hitler during World War II like other Arabs, and recalled that in fourth grade his school had participated in demonstrations and chanted "Long live Abu Ali," which he said had been a reference to Hitler. Dr. Hamzeh said that the Arabs supported Hitler because he hated the Jews, although he added the Arabs have a general tendency to admire dictators.
"Was That Really The Reason, Or Was It Because We Arabs, By Nature... Love Dictators"
Interviewer: "Was that really the reason, or was it because we Arabs, by nature – and I don't have time to give a historical review... We love dictators."
Zaid Hamzeh: "No."
Interviewer: "Really?"
Zaid Hamzeh: "Nobody loves dictators, except for people who have been led astray, and I don't want to use..."
Interviewer: "We love people who kill and slaughter. We consider this to be a sign of manliness."
Zaid Hamzeh: "Unfortunately, many people do, but we shouldn't generalize."
Interviewer: "Right, not everybody..."
Zaid Hamzeh: "But with regard to dictators, you are right. We laud the dictator and wish he would come back. We want him to come riding in on a white horse and to liberate the land, while the people here are in a slumber or watching from the sideline."
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf were among the books featured at a book fair in Sharjah, UAE sponsored by The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Simon Wiesenthal Centre exposed the book fair on Thursday and the Centre’s Director for International Relations, Dr. Shimon Samuels, wrote a letter to UNESCO Director-General, Audrey Azoulay, condemning the book fair.
“Sadly, the name of UNESCO is abused as appearing to be complicit in validating for young Arab readers, the bigoted stereotypes of Jews - as expounded by Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. This is particularly damning at a time of reconciliation between Gulf States and Israel, now facing common enemies,” Samuels wrote in a letter to Azoulay.
In the letter, Samuels added, “the organizers are known to carefully vet all titles on display for Islamophobia, but leave Jew-hatred in pride of place!”
Sharjah was declared UNESCO’s 2019 “World Book Capital of the Year,” as part of an initiative that was launched in 1996 “that seeks to encourage and promote publishing activities at the local and global levels by nominating for a one-year period the best city program aimed at promoting books,” according to the Sharjah World Book Capital website.
In July 2019, UNESCO published a blog post entitled “Addressing contemporary antisemitism: A global issue?”, in which the organization acknowledges that “antisemitism did not begin or end with the Holocaust.” It also stated that “antisemitic bigotry” was “no longer restricted to extremist circles,” in the modern world.
The former Labour MP Ian Austin, who resigned from the Party over antisemitism, has given a series of powerful interviews this morning condemning antisemitism in the Labour Party and announcing that he will not be seeking re-election.
Speaking on Sky News, Mr Austin, who is an honorary patron of Campaign Against Antisemitism, was asked if his decision to leave the Labour Party and stand down as an MP was “personal”. In response, he explained: “I joined the Labour Party as a teenager in Dudley. I was a councillor there in my twenties, I worked for the Party and for the Labour Government in my thirties, and I became an MP and a Government minister in my forties, so this has been my life. This has been my life.
“I can’t really believe it’s come to this,” he said, “but I’ve got to be honest with people: I think that Jeremy Corbyn is unfit to lead the Labour Party. I think he’s certainly unfit to lead the country.”
Asserting that only two individuals can be Prime Minister the day after the election, Mr Austin remarkably declared: “I’ve sadly come to the conclusion that it can’t be Jeremy Corbyn,” and endorsed the Conservative Party Leader instead.
Visibly emotional, Mr Austin pointed out that he “could just disappear off back to Dudley, never say a word, keep quiet — but I think people in politics have got to stand up and tell the truth and you’ve got to do what you think is right, however difficult it is.”
In support of his decision, Mr Austin asserted that Mr Corbyn and Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, John McDonnell, have spent their careers in politics “working with, defending, supporting all types of extremists, including antisemites,” and backing genocidal antisemitic terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hizballah, whom Mr Corbyn has described as “friends”.
Mr Austin insisted that he has “thought about this long and hard,” and said: “But most shameful of all…you know under his [Mr Corbyn’s} leadership a political party with a proud record – a long history – fighting for equality, fighting racism, has become poisoned with anti-Jewish racism and it is a complete and utter disgrace, a complete disgrace.”
Just devastating! The heroic @IanAustin1965 on Sky News:
"@jeremycorbyn isn't fit to lead the @UKLabour. He isn't fit to lead the country. At every opportunity, he backs our country's enemies. I don't think he loves this country. I don't think he's a patriot." pic.twitter.com/SgjMY9zbKq
This is not true. It is a complete lie. I was appointed an unpaid trade envoy in July, along with 27 other MPs and peers from different parties, including Labour, to promote UK trade and exports John should withdraw this lie and apologise. https://t.co/HP8GLJTCJD
BBC Panorama is a finalist in the British Journalism Awards in the category of ‘Investigation’ for its programme titled “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?”, which explored antisemitism in the Labour Party.
The episode’s creators, John Ware, Leo Telling, Neil Grant and Rachel Jupp, have also been shortlisted in the ‘Politics Journalism’ category.
The programme, which was televised in July, showed former Labour Party employees speaking out publicly to reveal Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s personal meddling in disciplinary cases relating to antisemitism. The programme explained how senior Labour Party staffers, some of whom Campaign Against Antisemitism has known for years, used to run Labour’s disciplinary process independently, but soon after Mr Corbyn’s election as Party leader found themselves contending with his most senior aides, who were brazen in their efforts to subvert due process.
During the programme Labour’s press team made claims that the staffers featured had political axes to grind and lacked credibility, and it is understood that they and Mr Ware have now commenced libel proceedings against the Labour Party. The libel cases are being brought by Mark Lewis, a highly esteemed media lawyer who is also an honorary patron of Campaign Against Antisemitism.
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.
Sephardi traditions at Hanucah
-
Sephardi and Mizrahi communities have their own customs for Hanucah, the
festival of lights. Adam Eilath , whose roots are in North Africa,
discovered th...
BBC Newsbeat report ignores BBC style guide
-
On December 18th the BBC News website published an article credited to
‘Newsbeat’ reporters Manish Pandey and Jordan Kenny, with the latter
described as....
BBC Newsbeat report ignores BBC style guide
-
On December 18th the BBC News website published an article credited to
‘Newsbeat’ reporters Manish Pandey and Jordan Kenny, with the latter
described as....
Chanukah Over Syria
-
On this Chanukah, menorahs will be lit not only in the land of Israel, from
Jerusalem to Gaza, but in Lebanon and on the heights of Mt. Hermon
overlooki...
Fawzi al-Qawuqji and Southern Syria
-
Fawzi al-Qawuqji (or spelled Fauzi el-Kaukji) played a role in two Arab
anti-Zionist military campaigns.
He was Lebanese-born, Tripoli, and fought for Fa...
This Week’s Sanity Report from Israel Dec. 22, 2024
-
[image: This Week’s Sanity Report from Israel Dec. 22, 2024] This Week’s
Sanity Report from Israel Dec. 22, 2024 IsraelSeen.com
This Week’s Sanity Report f...
Israel’s Anti-UNRWA Campaign is Working
-
The IDF has gathered evidence that proves that dozens of UNRWA staff
members took part in the atrocities — rapes, tortures, mutilations, murders
— carried ...
Hamas/Gaza War Musings #36- Dangerous Surrender!
-
As a student of the Bible/Tanach, most recently Prophets/Navi, that's the
message. Gd will save us if we do the right thing. That's how we won the
1967...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
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...
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
.jpg)
