Back home, when I would get into discussions on the issue, I would get incredibly frustrated at the total ignorance and misunderstandings some people displayed. Ignorance that at times would amount to casual Anti-Semitism, simply because people were fed with dogmatic and emotively charged narratives about Israel and the issues surrounding it. This proved to be incredibly frustrating.
What was particularly saddening was being labelled as a “traitor” or a “sell out” whenever I attempted to offer an account of the experience of the Jewish people and the Israeli narrative.
Despite being someone that opposed many aspects of the contemporary Israeli governments, I was still berated for attempting to humanise another side to this issue, a side which entailed another people’s suffering, displacement and persecution.
With this, I slowly began to realise that the most toxic elements of this conflict – the absolute segregation of two peoples, incitement and hatred of the other – had leaked into the contemporary discourse and conversations about Israel and Palestine.
Just like in Israel and Palestine, I saw how some people were so entrenched in their hatred for one side that it became impossible for them to fathom a humanised perspective of the other.
I saw the Emerson fellowship as a big opportunity to achieve what I had been seeking to achieve for a long time – education. Education about the issues that mattered to me and many others, on a platform where I would have opportunities to engage with a variety of people from differing backgrounds and discuss the most complex and difficult issues.
An official with a United Nations body supported by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is scheduled to speak next week in Washington, D.C., before a group of Israel boycott supporters, fueling questions about the organization’s continued promotion of anti-Israel causes.
Laila Mokhiber, communications director for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency’s (UNRWA) U.S. office, is slated to appear Monday at an event sponsored by one of the foremost promoters of the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) movement, which wages economic warfare on Israel.
The UNRWA official’s participation in the event is generating concerns about the U.N. agency, which saw its funding cut by the Trump administration as a result of anti-Israel controversies. Her attendance is evidence the group has made no effort to reform. In stark contrast to the Trump administration's policy, Biden in May vowed to restore more than $350 million to the group if elected. Biden maintains the aid is necessary to boost the Palestinian government and entice it into serious negotiations with Israel on peace.
The conference is billed by organizers as "an in-depth course on legislative advocacy" in the United States that seeks to train activists to lobby Congress on issues such as BDS and other anti-Israel priorities. The host, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), is a leading BDS group that was formed by alleged Hamas supporters and former leaders of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity shuttered by the FBI in 2001 for acting as a fundraising front for the terrorist group Hamas. Five officials from the Holy Land Foundation were indicted by a federal grand jury for providing material support to Hamas.
UNRWA’s Mokhiber is currently scheduled to speak on a panel at the event focusing on the various issues activists should bring up in meetings with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Mokhiber did not respond to a Washington Free Beacon request for comment on her relationship with AMP and the BDS movement.
The People on the Beach, by Rosie Whitehouse, describes how Jewish soldiers in the British Army were instrumental in helping more than 1,000 Jews escape from postwar Europe on a ship that got through a Royal Navy blockade of Palestine. The British army's Jewish Brigade, formed in 1944, included thousands of Jewish volunteers from Palestine, mainland Europe and Britain. The unit wore a Star of David as its insignia and was stationed in northern Italy at the end of the war.
The book, published this week, charts how brigade members crossed into Austria, Germany and eastern Europe, against orders, and took survivors in army trucks to displaced-persons camps in Italy. Their actions went directly against British policy seeking to prevent mass migration of Jews to Palestine. "They drove all the way to Lodz in Poland, turned up in the courtyard of the children's home and loaded the kids into the British army trucks to drive them over the border," said Whitehouse.
Akiva Kohane, a survivor of Auschwitz who was 15 at the time, remembered: "I will never forget when they came in with their truck. They had a Star of David marked on the truck. I got a shock when I looked inside the driver's cabin as there were two Tommy guns with the Star of David on them."
Here is an entire English language press release from Iran's Revolutionary Guards via Mehr News. They are VERY upset, but I can't figure out exactly at what - it is a mix of Charlie Hebdo and "Zionist plots in West Asia" which probably means the UAE but it is very unclear.
I think they are saying that Charlie Hebdo's decision to republish the Mohammed cartoons is part of a plot to divert Muslims' attention from the horrors of the UAE normalizing relations with Israel. But then the third paragraph says that the US and Zionists are diverting attention towards the UAE.
If you can figure out their message, let me know.
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps condemned the blasphemous move taken by French’s Charlie Hebdo’s Magazine in insulting Holy Prophet, saying that Islamic Ummah will not neglect US-Zionist plot in West Asia.
IRGC called it a US-Zionist plan to deviate and divert the world’s attention from active conspiracies orchestrated in the West Asian region.
The defeat of hostile policies of Global Arrogance and Zionism against the Islamic Ummah and the failure of their consecutive scenarios regarding Islamophobia have forced leaders of US terrorist government and fake Zionist regime to unveil new and already failed plans to neglect and deviate public opinion and world attention especially Islamic Ummah towards what is happening these days in strategic West Asia, the statement is read.
Republication of a cartoon by France’s Charlie Hebdo Magazine in insulting the Holy Prophet of Islam Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) is considered as a part of series of new conspiracies of enemies waged against the Islamic Ummah in the current critical historical situation which has emerged concurrently with unveiling sedition of normalization of Zionist relations with some Arab rulers, it adds.
Insulting the Holy Quran and the Prophet of Islam in Europe and the West under the pretext of freedom of expression, at the condition that thinking about the Holocaust is an unforgivable crime with punishment, is significant and reflects their false claim to support freedom of expression and human rights, adds the statement.
Hereby, Iran’s diplomatic apparatus and Islamic international legal institutions are expected to take practical and responsible action in dealing with the perpetrators of this heinous act, the statement reads,.
The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has republished offensive cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (S) that stirred outrage in the Muslim world when they were first published in 2015. The special issue was released on Wednesday, on the eve of the trial of suspects in a deadly attack on the paper’s office five years ago.
Meanwhile, during an illegal gathering on August 28, supporters of right-wing Danish politician Rasmus Paludan, who leads the anti-Islamic Group Tight Direction (Stram Kurs), burned a copy of the Holy Qur’an in the southern Swedish city of Malmo.
I think that there is serious evidence of mental illness here.
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.
If We In The EU Undermine Israeli Sovereignty, That Undoes the Holocaust, Right?
by Josep Borell, Chief of Foreign Policy, European Union
Brussels, September 10 - Europe's unified approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict grows in large part out of the Continent's ambiguous legacy when it comes to the wholesale slaughter of Jews under Nazi occupation during the Second World War. The perpetrators could not have committed atrocities on such a vast scale without the enthusiastic collaboration of local gentiles, and to grapple with the shame that knowledge engenders in these subsequent generations, the many nations the Union comprises have settled on a basic principle: that weakening Jewish control of the ancestral Jewish homeland, through the funding and strengthening of the Jewish State's existential foes, will somehow negate the evil perpetrated against Jews who should have enjoyed our protection here in Europe.
This approach currently unfolds on two main axes: Palestinians and Iran.
Concerning the Palestinians, European Union policy aims to sever any Jewish control of the places where Jews have their ancient roots, in this case by underwriting and fostering the construction of facilities to establish Palestinian "facts on the ground" in violation of existing Palestinian agreements with Israel concerning the disposition of various areas of respective control. We also maintain steadfast refusal to recognize Jewish claims to Jerusalem, the center of Jewish ritual and longing since ancient times. All this stems from our effort to expunge the sins, both of commission and omission, the weight of which the various peoples of Europe bear as their post-Holocaust legacy.
Our attitude toward Iran also bears the hallmarks of this approach. Empowering the mullahs who hold Holocaust-denial conferences, vow to destroy the world's only Jewish state, sponsor terrorism against Israeli and Jewish interests all over the globe, and show blatant disregard for all people who stand in the way of their hegemonic ambitions, Jews or otherwise, provides Europe with yet another way to expiate its Holocaust guilt.
Philosophers can quibble over the metaphysical processes by which Europe can undo, to whatever extent possible, its historic shame by following this approach. Speaking for myself and a large part of my constituency, the moral calculus is simple: play up the Jews-are-the-new-Nazis angle in propaganda and political rhetoric; cast the Palestinians as the helpless victims of Israeli aggression, thus inverting the Nazi-Jewish dynamic under the Third Reich (during which the Arab leadership in Palestine sided vociferously with the Nazis and their genocidal policies toward Jews); and then swoop in to rescue the oppressed Palestinians from the new Nazis, and presto - moral carte blanche to be rid of the Jews by whatever means.
Heaven knows we'll never forgive the Jews for the Holocaust.
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.
Israel-haters must not be very happy these days. All of a sudden, the big lie that nourished their anti-Zionist venom for so long is slipping away.
For more than 50 years, diplomatic geniuses kept telling the world that “the key to peace in the Middle East is to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” The convenient corollary was that the solution was all in Israel’s hands, which kept the Jewish state constantly on the receiving end of global condemnation.
This brilliant maneuver sought to camouflage the plain truth that the deepest ills of the region have absolutely nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinian conflict.
Consider just a few: centuries of conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims; brutal dictatorships that have led to general misery and despair; a predatory Iranian regime seeking domination of the region; civil wars in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen; the rise of terror groups like ISIS; and a gross absence of civil liberties that results in the routine jailing of dissidents.
When the Arab Spring erupted in 2011 and millions poured out onto the streets to demand those very liberties, many of us thought the big lie would be exposed. After all, what were these desperate protestors demanding if not the same rights, freedoms and opportunities that their Arab and Muslim brethren already enjoyed in Israel?
Turns out it took a little longer, about nine years.
One can’t overstate the paradigm shift represented by the decision of the United Arab Emirates to go public with its open relationship with Israel. Here is the dreaded Zionist enemy, the scapegoat exploited by countless dictators over the decades to distract from their own failures, being publicly legitimized and validated by a powerful Arab nation.
No wonder Israel-haters are unhappy. Their lie is crumbling. The Zionist state is suddenly turning into a source for solutions and hope rather than hatred.
Senior White House adviser Jared Kushner said on Wednesday that the Trump administration’s peace plan is an attempt to “save the two state solution” because it stops Israel from further expanding its presence in the West Bank.
“The reality today is that a lot of this land is inhabited with Israelis,” Kushner told reporters during a phone briefing ahead of the White House signing next week of the Israel-UAE normalization deal.
During the call, Kushner, who was extolling the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the Middle East, was asked about the Palestinians appearing to be left behind.
Kushner said the Trump plan presented in January this year was still on the table even though it had been rejected by the Palestinians, and that it provides them with their best hope of stopping continued Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, which Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War.
“What we did with our plan was we were trying to save the two-state solution, because… if we kept going with the status quo… ultimately, Israel would have eaten up all the land in the West Bank,” Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser specified. The comments mark some of the most specific the Trump administration has made at odds with Israel’s expanding settlement enterprise.
The US plan would grant the Palestinians a state with restricted sovereignty in Gaza and in most of the West Bank, with additional land swaps from inside Israel, while allowing Israel to annex some 30 percent of the West Bank including all its settlements and the Jordan Valley, and to keep nearly all of East Jerusalem.
The fact that Defense Minister Benny Gantz is willing to hold a meeting of the planning and building committee in order to make 5000 housing units available in Judea and Samaria does nothing to reduce the concern over the establishment of a Palestinian state. There is no better way than a few building crumbs to silence and paralyze the residents of Judea and Samaria and the Right.
Another worrying item: The Prime Minister is still committed and bound to the paradigm of two states. He never denied it or expressed regret for the Bar Ilan speech. Even if he claims that it would be a “demilitarized” state, everyone knows that ultimately a demilitarized state is a state like all other states.
Does Israel gain anything from this political process? Is this really a win-win situation? Will Israel really have “peace in exchange for peace”? After all, the purpose of the Deal of the Century is the solution to the “Palestinian problem”, meaning, the establishment of a state for them. The American president sees this goal as an impressive achievement and proof to his people that he has the power to do what all the presidents before him could not do. President Trump seeks to prove his abilities as a deal-maker in the political sphere too. In the speech that he gave on the 28th of January, 2020, at the White House, President Trump made it clear that “Forging peace between Israelis and Palestinians may be the most difficult challenge of all. All prior administrations, from President Lyndon Johnson, have tried and bitterly failed. But I was not elected to do small things or shy away from big problems.”
It seems that the “peace” process now being formulated for economic and commercial development has one result: the surrender of large parts of the Land of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Pinhas Inbari, a veteran journalist and commentator on Arab affairs, senior consultant and researcher for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, who writes books on the Palestinians, writes clearly on this topic: In his essay from Sep. 9, 2020 in “Zman Yisrael”: “After we have sobered up from the fake-annexation, the time has come to sober up from the fake “peace for peace”. “There is a problem with the Americans. They mean what they say. To understand the Trump plan, you just have to listen to the program manager Jared Kushner. They intend that a Palestinian state will arise in parts of the West Bank. The Palestinian state will bring Arab states into an agreement with Israel – the original Saudi plan but in reserve order. Not a state first and normalization later, but first normalization and then a Palestinian state”.
We must really ask the entire Rightwing camp: Aren’t we, with our paralysis, advancing the establishment of a Palestinian state? Are we, on the Right, at all aware of the tectonic change that is happening here? And what should our response be?
We are raising the alarm about the existential danger concealed in the political processes that are leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of our Land. A majority of the people and a majority of the Likud ministers and right-wing members of Knesset oppose a Palestinian state and many have worked hard for sovereignty.
The agreements with the various countries must be done from strength and faith, without harming the Land of Israel! We have returned to our Land to dwell in it securely and for our concern for future generations.
A huge process might develop in our area if we act with the knowledge of our own spiritual, physical strength and our historic destiny. It is still possible! True leadership can bring about wonderful results in the world. When historic justice is done, the ethical side is strengthened and will act throughout the entire world.
It is now just before the Days of Awe, days of individual and collective rectification. “Today the world was conceived, today all the creatures of the world are judged”.
I have noted before that the UK has a Conservative government but a Labour foreign policy. Once Brexit has been completed, there will be no major issue in international affairs that divides the two parties. This is particularly the case when it comes to Israel. I am always bemused when some conspiracy-minded anti-Israel columnist or activist points to the number of Tory MPs who are members of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFOI), typically portrayed as a wielder of awesome institutional power and influence within the Tory party. They are a good bunch and throw a cracking conference booze-up, so I don’t want to beat up on them too much, but the reason they manage to sign up so many MPs is that their agenda is so anodyne. The only aspect of Conservative Friends of Israel that Labour Friends of Israel would object to (and vice versa) is the first word of its name.
If CFOI commanded one-tenth of the sway its demonisers insinuate, the UK’s embassy would be in Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv. The Conservative government would not refer to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza as ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’ and would not scold Israel for allowing Jews to live in Judea. Our UN delegation would not abstain on something as basic as extending the arms embargo on Iran, whose Supreme Leader has called for ‘eliminating Israel’. We would not have a prime minister who hits all the right rhetorical notes but remains wedded to the cobwebbed dogma of a world since passed.
There are many ways to be pro-Israel and it ought not to be confused with being on board with the political agenda of the Likud party, but it should involve a Tory government having a position substantively distinguishable from that of the European Commission and the UN Human Rights Council. Boris Johnson is, I believe, instinctively and sincerely sympathetic to Israel and the Jewish people but his policies do not reflect the warmth of his feelings. Maybe he believes his course is wise and right. Fair enough; people like me can bang on in hopes of changing the terms of debate and nudging him out of his wrongheadedness. However, it could as easily be that the Foreign Office, the world’s leading exporter of certainty and paternalism, has defeated another prime minister who would like to have his own foreign policy but doesn’t have the time or energy to challenge the rule of Sir Humphrey. The latter would reflect a fundamental weakness in the Prime Minister, and that is harder to remedy.
Whatever the reason, Boris Johnson is allowing the UK to become irrelevant in a Middle East that doesn’t work the way it used to but in which we still have strategic interests. If the Conservatives are friends of Israel, rather than polite acquaintances, the Prime Minister would, at a minimum, recognise its capital and put our embassy there.
*The Organization for World Peace (OWP) targets key issues such as war and international security with the aim of educating and challenging individuals as well as larger international institutions to think critically about peaceful solutions to complex issues plaguing society.
*The OWP aims to challenge the status quo of resorting to war and destruction both within the national and international space. Instead, the OWP proposes peaceful solutions to these complex issues.
In an article about the Israel/UAE deal, they make the mistake that so many other do in viewing the Palestine issue as the major source of problems in the region:
If other gulf states follow Dubai’s lead, as U.S. diplomats have been pushing them to do, this may mark a turning point in negotiations of a peace deal. But a peace that is achieved by progressively ignoring the territorial claims of millions of Palestinians is not likely to have enduring effects.
One would think that the Organization for World Peace would be a bit more enthusiastic about something that furthers world peace.
The author is a recent graduate from the anti-Israel SOAS at the University of London.
At the end of the Second World War, the issue was handed over to the UN, which recommended the division of the country into separate Jewish and Arab states. The partition plan was reluctantly accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected outright by Arab leaders. The UN General Assembly adopted the resolution in November 1947, triggering the outbreak of civil war across the country. When the British left in May the following year, Jewish leaders in Palestine declared the establishment of the State of Israel, prompting an invasion by the surrounding Arab states. The ensuing war saw Israel emerge victorious, during which conflict 700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes, becoming lifelong refugees. By the time of the 1949 armistice agreement, Israel had acquired territory far greater than what it was allocated in the UN Partition Plan of the previous year – territory it would expand upon further during the 1957 Suez Crisis, the Six-Day War of 1967 and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In response to these latter conflicts, the UNSC adopted resolutions 242 and 338, calling for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from territories occupied during the Six Day War. These resolutions formed the basis of the Oslo Accords, signed between 1993 and 1995, in which Israel agreed to recognise the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Despite this relatively hopeful period, the turn of the century saw a return to violence as Israel stepped-up its building of illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories (a practice adopted in earnest following the 1967 conflict). This government-led, illegal settlement activity continues to be a cause of extreme tension today and is now openly supported by the government of the Unites States.
Besides the many basic factual errors ("700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes", "1957 Suez Crisis", saying Israel gained territory then, 242 forming a basis for Oslo, and the insane assumption that settlements are the core of the conflict,) this paragraph has startling errors of omission: Nothing about Palestinian terror, whether in 1947 or the 1970s or either intifada. Nothing about Jordan's annexation of the West Bank and Palestinian acquiescence to that. Nothing about Palestinian rejection of multiple peace plans. Nothing about current Palestinians making terrorists into heroes.
This overview shows that OWP is hardly a serious organization, at least in terms of dealing with Israel.
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.
Emgage is a moderate American Muslim group that "seeks to educate, engage and empower Muslim American communities through educational events, voter initiatives, and leadership development for the purpose of creating a community of equitable, knowledgeable, and motivated citizens."
Joe Biden's Muslim American outreach advisor is a member of Emgage, and it seems to have raised its profile significantly during the Biden campaign.
Ali Abunimah goes through his usual attempts of smearing by association as he ticks off the supposed offenses of Emgage's leadership. For example, members of Emgage attended the Muslim Leadership Initiative, sponsored by the Shalom Hartman Institute in Israel, to give thinking Muslim American professionals information about Israel. Abunimah and BDSers absolutely hate MLI because it shows that normal Muslims are not necessarily the BDS drones that Israel-haters want the world to believe. So Abunimah tries to smear MLI by saying
MLI is managed by Turkish-born Duke University professor Abdullah Antepli and Brooklyn-born Israeli author Yossi Klein Halevi, a former adherent of Meir Kahane.
Kahane was the founder of the violent racist Israeli party Kach, which is designated by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.
The idea that MLI and Meir Kahane shared any common ground is laughable, but it shows how Abunimah tries to smear anyone who doesn't share his bigoted, antisemitic views.
Abunimah also goes on a rant against what he calls "faithwashing" - having Jewish and Muslim groups talk to each other to find common ground. Really.
Emgage's main crime, to Abunimah, is that it is not focused like he is on hating Israel. Its issues page talks about oppression of Uyghur and Rohingya and Kashmir Muslims - but not Palestinians (who are living a dream compared to those other groups.) Emgage apparently commissioned a survey of issues most important to Muslim Americans - and, as with Jews who vote Democrat, the Middle East was not a top concern.
Abunimah's main issue with the group is that these are Muslims who think for themselves, and don't automatically adopt the extremist pro-terror position of the BDS crowd. BDS and haters like Abunimah depend on making the world think that all Muslims are as bigoted and hateful as they are, which gives the impression of widespread support for their anti-Israel positions. Normal Muslim Americans, meanwhile, have other issues that are more important to them.
I'm sure I would have disagreements with Emgage members on Israel and the Middle East. But they seem to be willing to listen and have a conversation, rather than boycotting mainstream Jews as the haters want.
Abunimah's deranged article tells us far more about his unhinged hate than about Emgage.
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 fallout from the UAE/Israel deal reverberates every day in the larger Arab world, in surprising ways.
Jordanian media has been the most hostile to Jews. But this article, while it fully embraces antisemitic stereotypes, is more admiring of the supposed plots of Jews to take over the world than afraid.
Prof. Bilal Abu Al-Hoda Khamash, a frequent contributor to Alsaa.net, writes:
The events of history that took place in the past and are in the present and expected to happen in the future have proven that the Jews are the most capable nation for planning in the short and long terms, for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years since God created them and after the mission of our master Muhammad, peace be upon him.
It goes on to say that the Rothschilds were very shrewd in how they took over the world's financial system, how they used the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to achieve their power, and how Sheldon Adelson is their spiritual descendant in using his money to influence Donald Trump to have pro-Israel policies.
The [Rothschilds'] had strong will and unlimited patience to reach their goals set within their master plan and their sub-plans for the whole world. Intellectuals and informed people in the world still remember the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which they had planned for more than a hundred years with their successful organization and management. They were and still are distributing tasks to each member in the set plan according to his abilities and capabilities and not according to any other criteria, and they only reveal their secret to those who can keep the secret. They do not divulge it under any circumstances. By their will, confidentiality, and boundless patience, they picked, reaped, and would reap the fruits of their plans as planned.
These characteristics are characteristic of most, if not all, of the Jews in the world.
While Khamash still believes in antisemitic stereotypes, they have suddenly morphed from hate into admiration - sort of how many South Koreans look at Jews.
Again, while there have been articles in the past in Arabic media that were grudgingly admiring of Jews and trying to learn from them (often using Nobel Prize winners as a proxy for success,) there has been a significant change in recent weeks. And some of it is more antisemitic than beforehand as well, where people who disapprove of the UAE try to find religious based reasons to oppose it and invariably that goes back to Koranic views of Jews.
Things have been shaken up, and it is fascinating to watch.
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.
Not long ago I wrote about one of Israel’s “soft enemies,” who choose to fight the Jewish state with money rather than bullets and explosives: the European Union. Indeed, the European Union has just demonstrated its hostility by threatening to torpedo (see also here) the bids of Serbia and Kosovo to join the EU if they persist in their intention to open embassies in Jerusalem.
Now, when the formerly impenetrable anti-Israel solidarity of Arab and Muslim nations has finally begun to crumble, our soft enemies seem to be pursuing the war against Jewish self-determination even more aggressively. Today I want to discuss yet another one, this time one that weaponizes American dollars: the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The Rockefeller fortune began with John D. Rockefeller, certainly the richest American in history, and indeed one of the most wealthy humans ever. Rockefeller founded Standard Oil in 1870, and before he died in 1937 (at the age of 98), he donated enormous sums for various charitable purposes, in the areas of education, health, scientific research, and causes connected to his Baptist faith. He established various foundations during his lifetime to facilitate the disbursement of his wealth. Very much a free-market conservative, he nevertheless took seriously his personal commitment to those less fortunate than himself and his family. He had four daughters and a son, J. D. Rockefeller Jr. “Junior” continued his father’s philanthropy, including founding the Rockefeller Museum in eastern Jerusalem (the site of a 1967 battle, now operated by the Israel Antiquities Authority).
John D. Rockefeller Jr. had a daughter and five sons. One was Nelson, who had a long career in public service, serving as Governor of New York from 1959-73, and Vice President under Gerald Ford from 1974-77. Nelson was socially liberal and considered a moderate on economic issues; he was the paradigmatic “moderate Republican.” Another was David, who was Chairman and CEO of the Chase Manhattan Bank from 1969-81, and was a director of the influential Council on Foreign Relations from 1959.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) was started by “Junior’s” five sons in 1940, who were its first trustees. It received large endowments from J. D. Rockefeller Jr., in 1951, and David Rockefeller, who gave it $225 million in 2006.
Note that there is also a Rockefeller Foundation (started by J. D. the patriarch in 1913), and a Rockefeller Family Fund (started by younger family members in 1967). They are not the subject of this article.
The RBF gradually moved politically leftward as time went by, especially after Stephen Heintz became its president and CEO in 2001. Ironically, it divested from investments in fossil fuels – the original source of Rockefeller money – in 2014.
It has strongly advocated for and funded advocates of the JCPOA – the nuclear deal with Iran – and criticized US President Trump for exiting from it. Armin Rosen notes that “Between 2012 and 2015, RBF gave $4.4 million to the Ploughshares Fund,” which then “led the public campaign in favor of the [Obama] administration’s Iran diplomacy. Ploughshares … gave National Public Radio $100,000 toward its coverage of the Iran nuclear issue.”
In 2011, RBF began its “Peacebuilding” program, and it started to make grants related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today it supports various organizations and programs whose goal is to eliminate the Jewish state. It funds the group “Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP),” which supports boycott-divestment-sanctions (BDS) of Israel, and which was called one of the top 10 anti-Israel groups in America by the ADL. It has made grants to IfNotNow, the BDS-supporting student organization. It supports the American Friends Service Committee, which also promotes BDS, and numerous other BDS-supporting groups, including the umbrella organization for BDS in the US, the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR). The USCPR is deeply involved in the successful campaign to get the “mainline” Protestant churches like the Presbyterian Church USA and the United Church of Christ to adopt BDS. USCPR also pushes the absurdly false but popular idea that the movement to destroy Israel is analogous to the American civil rights movement.
At this link is a partial list of grants made by RBF to groups that are to a greater or lesser extent involved in activities to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state, in “lawfare” against it, or even which have connections to anti-Israel terrorist organizations. One of the largest recipients of RBF money is J Street, the phony “pro-Israel” lobbying organization which has consistently taken positions opposed to Israeli interests. Other recipients include Zochrot, an Israeli NGO that wants to “dezionize” the state, Breaking the Silence, which defames IDF soldiers, and Adalah, a group that works to radicalize Arab citizens of Israel and incite them against the state. There are dozens of other groups, each of which has its own particular angle to attack Israel.
It’s unlikely that David Rockefeller, also a moderate Republican, would have approved of the uses to which his bequest was put. His Chase Manhattan Bank was the agent for Israel Bonds in the US, making it a target of the Arab boycott. And unlike another tycoon, Henry Ford, there is no evidence that the founder of the dynasty, John D. Rockefeller was antisemitic.
One of the notable images used by Jew-haters from 19th-century Europe, through the Nazi period, and including today’s European and Middle-Eastern antisemites is the hook-nosed Jewish spider sitting in the center of his web, pulling strings that stretch his malign power throughout the world. But in reality, the opposite is true: there are a number of anti-Israel puppet masters, pulling the strings – and streaming money – into the literally thousands of loci of misozionist hate around the world. Money that originates in the European Union, the RBF, the Ford Foundation*, and George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and its satellites, flows into the numerous anti-Israel NGOs, student organizations, propaganda organs, Middle East Studies programs, and so forth.
Think about it. It’s truly marvelous. Has there ever been another enterprise like this in history? All this, aimed and concentrated against one tiny country, my country! _________________
* The Ford Foundation funded many of the same organizations as the RBF until 2013, when it was convinced to stop supporting anti-state NGOs in Israel. It still provides funds for international groups like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Oxfam, etc. that are strongly biased against Israel.
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 was the case in those BBC reports from 50 years ago, throughout the programme presenter Bob Howard referred to the terrorist organisation to which the hijackers belonged using the euphemistic term “militants” and the word terrorists was not heard once.
Howard: “The two hijackers, a man and a woman, armed with a revolver and a hand grenade, now effectively held the 155 passengers and crew hostage. They were hoping to use them as a prisoner exchange for Palestinian militants held in various jails in Israel and Europe.”
As we have previously had cause to note, three of the prisoners described by Howard as “militants” had carried out a terror attack on an El Al plane in Zurich the previous year and three others had carried out an attack on a bus carrying El Al passengers at Munich airport on February 10th 1970, killing one person and wounding several others.
Listeners were told that: Howard: “…over the course of three days there’d been attempts to hijack four other [sic] planes. One had failed, resulting in the death of a hijacker but another three had succeeded. […] Three days later a BOAC VC10 was hijacked en route to London and also flown to the same Jordanian airfield.”
Howard: “The hijackers of the three planes had joined with other PFLP militants and were now looking to escape from Dawson’s Field.”
Howard did not clarify that the point of that later hijacking was to pressure the British authorities to release Leila Khaled who had taken part in the failed hijacking of an El Al flight. Later listeners heard that:
Howard: “Although all of the passengers survived their ordeal, several PFLP prisoners had been released in exchange…”
BBC World Service audiences heard nothing about the British government’s negotiations with the PFLP concerning the release of Khaled or the radio station’s own small role in that story:
“At 7pm on 13 September, the BBC World Service broadcast a government announcement in Arabic saying that the UK would swap Khaled for the hostages.”
Howard’s superficial portrayal of Black September likewise included presentation of additional terrorist factions as “militants”.
The Arabs have alays maintained that a "Palestine" was included in the British pledge made during the McMahon-Hussein talks.
I found this: PALESTINE (MANDATE AND BALFOUR DECLARATION).HC Deb 09 December 1929
§33. Mr. de ROTHSCHILD asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made any promises or pledges to the Arab-speaking populations of Palestine or neighbouring countries which invalidate in any way the Balfour Declaration of 2nd November, 1917, or the clauses of the Mandate for Palestine as approved by the League of Nations?
§The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels) I have been asked to answer. The position in regard to this question was fully stated in the White Paper (Cmd. 1700) of 1922, to which I would refer the hon. Member. His Majesty's Government have always held that there is nothing in their pledges that could invalidate the Balfour Declaration or conflict with the terms of the Mandate.
§Colonel HOWARD-BURY Is it not the case that on 24th October, 1915, Sir Henry McMahon made a declaration stating I am empowered in the name of the British Government to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the limits of the boundaries proposed by King Hussein and that these limits included Palestine?
§Dr. SHIELS As regards the first supplementary question, I think it is true to say that the facts which I have stated are perfectly well known. The position is that which the British Government have always taken up in this matter. In regard to the second supplementary question, the pledge to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred was not made to the Palestinian Arabs, and the British Government have always taken the view that Palestine was excluded from that pledge.
Diana Buttu has another screed up today in the New York Times about how the Israel-UAE deal supposedly betrays the Palestinians. I can leave much of Buttu's article to others, but one part has been mentioned numerous times before without sufficient rebuttal (Daniel Pipes provieds one example of rebuttal is here) and is at the root of the narrative of Israeli Goliath wantonly oppressing Palestinian David.
Beginning in 1993 with the signing of the Oslo Accords, the P.L.O. embarked on a process of negotiation with Israel that was supposed to lead — at least as the Palestinians viewed it — to an independent state, kicked off by recognition of Israel.
Buttu is correct that the signing the Oslo Accords in 1993 meant that the P.L.O. embarked on a negotiation process with Israel that kicked off with a recognition of Israel. She might even be correct that rank-and-file Palestinians only sought an independent state for themselves. However, the P.L.O. viewed the Oslo Accords as a means to strength the Palestinian national movement and weaken Israel so as to achieve what decades of conventional warfare and terrorism had been unable to achieve, which is the eradication of Israel. Yasir Arafat's talk to a Muslim audience in South Africa, in which he cited the Treaty of Hudaibiyah as a precedent entering into the Oslo Accords, makes sense once one assumes that motive.
For years, Israelis were in denial that the Palestinians sought Israel's destructions and insisted to themselves that they only wanted a some degree of independence for themselves. However, repeated muggings by reality have forced the overwhelming majority of Israelis to recognize the Palestinians' true objectives. In response, Israelis have decided to stop cooperating in their own destruction and have voted for parties that are reliable to withhold that cooperation. The end of any progress towards a Palestinian state is the result.
Ardie Geldman is a people person who happens to love Israel. That makes it only natural he'd use his people skills to impart the truth about Israel to visiting groups of tourists who often have a negative view of the Jewish State. Geldman calls his initiative iTalkIsrael, and the work is having an impact even if it's only to draw attention to the idea that hey: when it comes to Israel, there's another narrative out there to consider.
At 68, Ardie looks many years younger, and shows no signs of slowing down, so don't count him out. He's right in the thick of things on the Israel front, offering straight talk on settlements and Arab terror to often-hostile tourists and students who show up with all kinds of ignorant preconceptions. Anyone else, this author, for instance, would have lost their mind arguing with these people, eons ago. But Ardie keeps on keeping on, using his God-given talents to make a difference for his beloved country, Israel.
Ardie Geldman
Ardie's late father, Z"L. "My Zionist Inspiration."
Varda Epstein: Can
you tell us a bit about yourself, your family, where you’re from, why you made
Aliyah?
Ardie Geldman: I was born and raised in Chicago. My mom,
z”l, was also born and raised in Chicago. My father, z”l, was born in
Bessarabia, later Romania, in a city called Bolghrad, today in Southeast
Ukraine. He came to Eretz Yisrael as a chalutz
[pioneer V.E.] in 1920 and stayed for about a year, helping to construct the
first paved roads in the Galilee near Tiberias.
According to my father’s American visa application his residence in Israel was “HaMashbir Tiberias.” I believe that this was the first HaMashbir enterprise [HaMashbir is a chain of department stores in Israel, V.E.] established under the then newly formed Histadrut [General Organization of Workers in Israel, V.E.]. After contracting and, B”H, recovering from malaria, common then and there, he accepted his aunt’s and uncle’s invitation to come live in America, specifically Milwaukee, WI. My father lived there for a few years but subsequently moved south to Chicago where employment opportunities were better. There he met my mother. I am the result.
Ardie and Ivonne Geldman
I am sure that the few stories my father told me about his experiences here, when I was quite young, planted a seed in me that, along with
other influences, including the 1960 movie Exodus, contributed to my decision
to live my life in Israel. My wife was also born in the States. She came to
Israel immediately after high school. While neither of my parents personally
experienced the Holocaust, my late father-in-law was a prisoner in a number of
concentration camps and lost much of his family at the hands of the Nazis. His
experiences, I’m sure, influenced my wife’s Zionism and contributed to her
decision to live here.
Both myself and my wife were raised in secular Jewish homes
and independently were drawn to a religious-Zionist way of life before we met. We moved to Israel in 1982 and lived in Petach Tikvah for the first three years. We
have been living in Efrat since 1985. Here we raised six children and have been
blessed, so far, with 10 grandchildren.
Varda Epstein: When did
you start italkIsrael and why?
Ardie Geldman: What
became iTalkIsrael began with my speaking to media people, Jewish tourists and Jewish
organizations that would visit Efrat in the late 1980s and especially in the
early 1990s while I was an elected member of the Efrat Town Council. The mayor
of Efrat at that time barely spoke English and my flexible work schedule,
overseeing sundry community development projects in Israel on behalf of the
Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, allowed me to arrange my time to
meet with these groups.
In those days I
would say that nine out of ten such Jewish groups were gung-ho about
“settlements” like Efrat [Efrat has official town status, but since it is
located in Judea, is often condemned as a “settlement,” V.E.], whereas today, representatives
of Jewish organizations coming here most often say that we are an “obstacle to
peace.” At some point during the 1990s, and I don’t remember exactly when, I
believe that my name was shared with a guide that brought to Efrat what turned
out to be a non-Jewish, pro-Palestinian group from Australia. I don’t remember
much else about this group other than being on the receiving end of hostile
questions for the first time; it was like suddenly being kicked in the stomach.
In short, word then
got around to these types of groups that there is a “settler” who lives in an
“illegal settlement” near Bethlehem who is willing to meet with pro-Palestinian
foreigners. For years I did just that, speaking to mostly pro-Palestinian
groups in Efrat for 1½ to 2 hours who, with but few exceptions, left with the
same jaundiced and deluded views of “settlers” and “settlements” with which
they came. It seemed that almost all left with the same scripted non-committal
line, “Thank you for your time.” This meant to me that the content of my
presentation had fallen upon deaf ears.
iTalkIsrael was created
to change that response. It was an initiative that emerged following the
experience of three Christian college students, women, who were the only ones
that, during a short lecture visit, took me up on my invitation to the entire
group to return and spend a traditional Jewish Shabbat with Efrat families. The
three had an amazing time and this convinced their program director to include
a three-day Shabbat weekend stay in Efrat for some 30 Christian students the
following year. This first experience indicated to me that I was onto something
and my marketing efforts have led to the participation of additional Christian
student programs.
Christian students listen intently to Efrat resident.
Varda Epstein: Can
you tell me about the demographic of the people you work with?
Ardie Geldman: The demographic is mixed if you overlook the
fact that the majority of the groups with whom I meet are mostly Christian. With
respect to age the participants range from high-school groups to mature adults.
The only groups that spend a full Shabbat weekend (Thursday through Sunday morning)
in Efrat are Christian college students. All the others, mostly from the U.S.
and Canada, but also from the United Kingdom, Western European countries and
Australia (though not to the best of my recollection from either Central or
South America or Africa) come only for short, hour-and-a-half lectures.
Some groups represent mainstream “high church,” such as
Presbyterians or Methodists, while others are Quakers and Mennonites. Some come
from independent congregations that do not belong to any major Christian
denomination. However, about a quarter of the groups with whom I meet are
secular, self-defined social justice or human rights groups. Among these,
especially if they come from the States, is often a sprinkling of (very
deluded) Jews. The latter often make a point of letting me know that they are
Jews, especially when they stand up and condemn Israel, the IDF, and settlers.
I have to say that I never sensed any antisemitism in any of the Christian college groups; not even a hint. In fact, so many left Efrat saying how much they enjoyed learning about Judaism. Some even said that they would stop using electronics on the Sabbath (Sunday, for them). On the other hand, I did encounter antisemitism from time to time among the groups that came for only a lecture. This happened with a few church groups as well as some so-called "social justice" groups. Three years ago I literally threw out a student group from a major East coast university and did the same two years ago with a group of adults from Belgium.
Learning to bake challah bread (challot).
Varda Epstein: On
your website you have a blurb: “Come for a real
education.” What does this mean?
Ardie Geldman: It means to be exposed to ideas with which
they are unfamiliar, or even opposed, and to a variety of opinions about
religion and politics, even within just one Jewish “settler” community. Here is
a quote from a recent email I received from a director of one of the
participating Christian college programs that reflects the work of iTalkIsrael:
“It's been so long that we had a decent argument - I
genuinely miss coming to Efrat and engaging in the wonderfully hot
conversations we had over the years. I consider the times spent with you and
Ivonne as one of my top memories during the two decades of bringing
students to the Middle East. You have given me a lasting appreciation for
Judaism, a deeper respect for Zionism, and both a deeper understanding - as
well as a recognition of my own limitations on understanding - of living in
Israel in "disputed territory."
Dialogue with Efrat youth over pizza on a Saturday night.
Varda Epstein: What
is your goal for each group that comes to you, or does that vary from group to
group?
Ardie Geldman: For the short visit groups the only objective
is to plant a tiny seed of doubt among even just a handful of the visitors
about their views of the conflict. Over the years, from time to time, a few
people would approach me after I am done speaking while the others are making
their way back to the bus and say something like “Thank you so much. We are not
hearing any of this.”
The goal for the Shabbat weekend groups is more ambitious. First
I’ll tell you what it is not. It is not to transform the visitors into
Christian right-wing Zionists. It is to disarm them, to confuse them, to reduce
their suspicion and distrust, and even to develop positive, longer-lasting
relations with people in Efrat; in short to “humanize the settlers” in their
eyes. Based on the obligatory written feedback I receive from each and every
participant, I can say that, yes, at least immediately following their “Shabbat
in Efrat” experience, this goal is 100% realized.
Christian college students dialogue with Efrat yeshiva high school seniors in the Efrat library.
Varda Epstein: Do you
ever correspond with those who hear your lectures, when their trip to Israel is
only a memory?
Ardie Geldman: Other than those very few who contacted me not
long after their visit because they were writing a term paper and needed some
additional information, the general answer is no. The reason for this is
interesting. The college programs that come fly under the radar. That is to
say, there is an implicit understanding with each program director that their
students’ participation in a weekend program in an “illegal settlement” where
they are home-hosted by “illegal settlers” remains on the QT.
The directors actually obfuscate this part of their
“Israel-Palestine” itinerary from their colleagues and their other program
partners in Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and of course, the Palestinian Authority. I’m
not sure how they do it, but I have a feeling that not even all of their
superiors in their respective colleges are aware of the Efrat stay. It does not
appear on the respective programs’ website, although visiting Israel does.
Two years ago a group almost dropped out after the director
became enraged after reading my Commentary piece that mentioned these programs, even
though I purposely didn’t identify any of the programs by name nor their
schools. In other words, the program directors wish to maximize anonymity and
want total control over the students’ ties to the program. Consequently, they
do not share their email addresses with me. I would very much have liked to be
given their email addresses all these years in order to follow up and see how
much of an impact the Efrat experience has on the students in the long run. Having
said all of this, some of the participating Efrat host families, at the request
of individual students, do maintain email contact with the latter.
Some students, I have been told, have even returned to visit
their Efrat hosts on subsequent trips to Israel and “Palestine.” Some students
over the years came back for the Purim seudah
[feast, V.E.]; others attended a wedding celebrated by their Efrat host family.
If you consider where these students’ heads were when they first arrived in
Efrat, yes, the “Shabbat in Efrat” program does chalk up some impressive
achievements.
Ardie hosts a small group in his home in Efrat.
Varda Epstein: If
someone spends their entire trip exposed only to the progressive narrative on
Israel, is hearing you speak enough to offer balance?
Ardie Geldman: Absolutely not. The cognitive dissonance
factor is way, way too strong. The theme under which the short,
hour-and-a-half-visit groups operate is “Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is
made up.” I believe that to be true for over 90% of those whose visit to Efrat
takes place in the midst of a highly propagandized 10-day (on average) tour.
So why do they come? They come because “settlements” are
controversial and coming to one is a titillating experience. They come to take
notes and photographs that they use in their own pro-Palestinian propaganda
work back home. And some come for the opportunity to chastise a settler in
person for the evil he represents.
That is why I developed the “Shabbat in Efrat” program. It
is based on the principle contained in this Maya Angelou quote: “People will forget what you said, people will forget what
you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”
Christian college students visit Efrat preschool.
I have come to
believe that the myriad lectures, PowerPoint presentations, video clips,
websites, tweets, articles, books, etc., etc., etc. that tell the truth about
Israel and the “Palestinians” don’t amount to a hill of beans in comparison to
a positive and extended emotional experience. Such an experience requires the
time not afforded by a lecture. In fact, I believe that a series of even great
lectures, regardless of how outstanding the lecturer(s), is relatively
ineffective at changing hearts and minds. The only thing that I am convinced
can do this requires two key elements: (1) an intimate personal experience and
(2) sufficient time. That is why “Shabbat in Efrat” is a 3-4 day program.
Things that the
students are told on the first day but would reject out of hand as “Zionist
settler” propaganda are towards the end of the program suddenly palatable and
worth considering, possibly even true! This is especially the case when
statements that conflict with their current beliefs about Israel, about Israeli
“settlers,” about the “settlements” or “Palestinians” are uttered by members of
their host family, and especially around the Shabbat table. The effect of this
experience is almost miraculous and is reflected over and over again in the
students’ written responses on the questionnaires they complete just prior to
their departure. I have collected over 800 questionnaires from student participants.
Varda Epstein: What
would you like first-time visitors to Israel to know?
Ardie Geldman: (1) The Middle East is not the Midwest, or: Dorothy,
you’re not in Kansas, anymore. Many values here are different than those by
which people live in Western countries. It is a conceit and counterproductive
to try and understand political and social events and developments in this part
of the world through a western lens.
(2) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not “good guys vs.
bad guys.” It is far more complex and nuanced than they likely appreciate.
(3) Yes, to be honest, there are moral failures on both
sides of the conflict; no nation state, no society is perfect. But there is no
comparison between the quantity and enormity of such failures committed by the
Palestinian side and those on the Israeli side. Unfortunately, there are
examples of individual Israelis who have committed some unacceptable act of
violence, and of course we never hear the end of these. But Israel is condemned
most often for legitimate acts of self-defense. The Palestinian side, in
contrast, is guilty of ongoing systematic and strategic acts of terror and
violence. There IS a difference and that difference must be appreciated by
anyone who wishes to understand the conflict.
(4) Finally, with regard to first time visitors, they need
to be told that Palestinian spokespeople are masters of the tragic visage. They
take people to sites and expose them to heartrending images. These are either
presented out of context, such as (A) bringing visitors to the sordid living
conditions of refugee camps and blaming Israel for their existence, while
drawing their attention away from the mansions and expensive, late model cars
situated just across the road, or (B) as outright lies, pointing out the water
tanks on rooftops and telling visitors that Israel purposely denies the
“Palestinians” sufficient amounts of water.
Varda Epstein: What’s
the dumbest question you were ever asked about Israel and how do you answer
that question?
Ardie Geldman: The dumbest, and also the most offensive
question, uttered only a few times throughout the years is “How can Israel do
to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews?”
Varda Epstein: What’s
the question you’re asked most and how do you respond?
Ardie Geldman: Without a doubt, that question is: “Why did
you choose to live in a settlement and not somewhere else in Israel?” And my
answer is inevitably is “Because I agree with the Palestinians. There is no
difference between Efrat and Tel-Aviv.”
Varda Epstein: What
wisdom can you impart to us for dealing with people who are certain that Israel
is an occupier oppressing its Arab minority? Do you have an elevator pitch for
such people? A question that stops them in their tracks?
Ardie Geldman: That is exactly the point. In the case of
such an emotionally fraught issue where the disinformation is so deeply
ingrained there is no such thing as an effective elevator pitch. We have our
facts; they have their facts. We have our anecdotes; they have their anecdotes.
The cognitive dissonance that is created when a conflicting
opinion or idea is raised protects the “Palestinian” narrative like an Etrog. You
just can’t get to it. The words, the facts, they just bounce off.
The only way to get past it, to break through, to penetrate
it, is by way of a positive experience over time, meaning at least a few days. That
is the lesson of iTalkIsrael. The “Palestinians” learned a long time ago that the
way to a person’s brain is through their heart and NOT the other way around.
You must change the heart before you can change the mind. That is true in many
other areas of life and it is no less true here.
"She had just said in our group discussion that Israel practices racism. Then we came across these two IDF soldiers on the group's way back to the bus."
Varda Epstein: What’s
next for you and italkIsrael?
Ardie Geldman: I have a "business plan," if you will, to
duplicate the iTalkIsrael experience in five other Jewish communities in Judea
and Samaria. What we have been doing so successfully in Efrat for eight years,
the Shabbat weekends, can and should be implemented elsewhere. Before the
Corona pandemic we were hosting some 100-150 students in Efrat per year. The “Shabbat
in Efrat” program has proven itself as a kind of beta plan. There is no reason
why this can’t, within 2-3 years, grow to some 1,500 and more participants.
I would also like to create a training institute to teach
others the advocacy principles and skills that I have acquired over the years. I
have a huge, I would even say unique, library of materials waiting for this. All
that is missing are the financial resources to put this in motion.
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.
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.
Weekend long read
-
1) At the INSS, Orna Mizrahi lays out the changes that need to be made to a
UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. “According...
The post Weekend lon...
Weekend long read
-
1) At the INSS, Orna Mizrahi lays out the changes that need to be made to a
UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. “According...
The post Weekend lon...
How the British Gov’t is Working to Elect Kamala
-
The British government’s chief of staff, head of communications, director
of policy and director of strategy have allied with the Kamala campaign
while ...
The GPU festival – my weekend with the devil
-
The Global Peace and Unity – GPU festival The first GPU festival in eleven
years was just held at the Excel London exhibition and convention centre.
Orga...
Gaza: A Brief Modern History Outline
-
Pre-1917 - Gaza part of the Ottoman Empire
1917 - Gaza conquered by British Army and subsequently becomes part of
Mandate Palestine
1948 - Gaza conquere...
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...
Yom Hashoah 5784 – 2024
-
Israel’s Yom Hashoah began at sundown this evening with the annual ceremony
at Yad Vashem with torches lit in memory of the 6 million Jewish victims of
the...
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...
Thursday, September 10, 2020
