Friday, March 24, 2023

Israel haters are absolutely gloating over a recent Gallup poll. As NBC reports:
More Democrats have sympathy for Palestinians than for Israelis amid their ongoing conflict, according to recent polling from Gallup. The shift marks the first time since Gallup began collecting this data in 2001 that members of either party have been more sympathetic to the Palestinians.

The survey finds 49% of Democrats saying they're more sympathetic to Palestinians, while 38% say they’re more sympathetic to the Israelis. 

Now, it is true that this is the first time that the question garnered more sympathy for Palestinian than for Israelis.  But there is another part of the poll that, for some reason, the Israel haters and mainstream media are ignoring.

The poll had one other question:  "I’d like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. What is your overall opinion of [country]? Is it very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable or very unfavorable?"

For that question, 56% of Democrats answered that their opinion of Israel was favorable, while only 36% felt favorably towards the Palestinian entity. 

In fact, the "favorable" question has shown a large preference for Israel that has been fairly consistent of more that 40 percentage points over time.


And while the media loves to make it sound like Democratic support for Israel is at an all-time low, it isn't so - they gave worse ratings in 2004 and 2010, for example.



To be sure, the Democratic support for Israel among the young has been flagging. There is reason for concern, as the anti-Israel players have the media and academia solidly on their side. But more Americans, including Democrats, feel warmly towards Israel and far fewer feel that way towards the Palestinian Authority even now.

There's another problem with the "sympathy" question. It  reflects an either/or mentality, and there are good reasons to sympathize with Palestinians - I myself do. They are led by corrupt leaders and intimidated by their own terror groups, their leaders are against any serious peace deal, kids are taught in schools that their highest aspiration is to die as martyrs - there are very good reasons to sympathize with Palestinians. And if forced to choose between two sides for sympathy, Palestinians are in much worse shape than Israelis are. 

The proper response should be that the question is flawed. It assumes a zero-sum game - that you can only pick one side for sympathy, that there is a winner and loser. 

That is false. 





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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, March 23, 2023

From Ian:

‘I am one of those liberals who got mugged by reality’: An Interview with Gadi Taub
Introduction by Gabriel Noah Brahm
Senior Lecturer in the School of Public Policy and the Department of Communications at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Dr. Gadi Taub is an Israeli historian, novelist, screenwriter, political commentator and influencer of wide repute, ubiquitous on television, social media, podcasts and in print.

Once a man of the left, Taub says he is ‘one of those liberals who got mugged by reality’ and is now a prominent intellectual on the Israeli right and host of Israel’s leading conservative podcast, Gatekeeper (שומר סף). He recently conducted an exclusive hour-long interview with Justice Minister, Yariv Levin, who laid out the details of his proposed reform. (The interview is now available with English subtitles on the Gatekeeper channel.)

Moreover, some on the left have come to consider Taub so dangerous that his long-running column in Haaretz was terminated by its publisher, Amos Schocken, who justified the decision on the grounds that Taub’s columns were, he claimed, giving a ‘tailwind’ to a ‘coup’.

The following is a transcript, lightly edited for readability, of a recent conversation conducted at Taub’s home in the heart of Tel Aviv, not far from Allenby Street, which gave its name to the hit Israeli TV show, based on his novel, Allenby.

The Reform is Needed
Gabriel Noah Brahm: Professor Taub, you seem to have become a polarising figure these days. In any case, you’re in the eye of the storm concerning legal reform, for one thing. But you’ve also had some ups and downs with a longtime publisher of some of your more public-facing work—Israel’s leading highbrow daily, Haaretz, which seems to have ‘cancelled’ you. First of all, how are you doing? How do you handle being caught up by such a whirlwind of attention? Moreover, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the country’s future and your own prospects?

Gadi Taub: I’m optimistic, because I think Israel’s democracy is proving much more vigorous than Israel’s elites assume. Their hysteria is not a result of any danger to democracy. It stems from their fear that their hegemonic rule is at an end—which it is. Their ability to rule us from above, from the bench of the Supreme Court, is crumbling. It cannot be saved, even if they defeat the judicial reform now, which can only be done if the chaos they are trying to cause spirals out of control, causing a split in the coalition.

Look at this battle over reform and the way it is conducted. The reform itself is clearly needed. An arrangement where 15 unelected judges hold the final power of decision over any and all matters—political, legislative, economic, social, while also holding a veto over the appointment of their own associates—cannot be called democratic by any stretch. Keep in mind that on many of the most important issues of the day these 15 individuals mostly hold to the opinions of Meretz, a progressive political party that did not pass the threshold [to hold seats in the Knesset], and you’ll get the picture of just how distorted politics have become in this country.

This is only sustainable if you prevent the public from realising what’s really going on. But you can’t do that forever. ‘You can’t fool all of the people all of the time’, said Honest Abe. Israelis, educated and uneducated alike, are tired of seeing their ballots shredded by judges. And since in this country existential threats are ever close and vivid, so are reality checks. This puts progressive pipe dreams at a permanent disadvantage.
Israel in the Eyes of New Immigrants
Even when Israel is embroiled in intense disputes, new immigrants continue to arrive. A Young New Immigrants Fair for those interested in studying at Bar-Ilan University saw many attendees from Russia and Ukraine, as well as immigrants from Turkey, Ethiopia, and Peru.

Shelly Shuver, 20, who immigrated from Paris, said, "In France, the situation has become less safe, and not just for Jews. There have been many attacks, so as a Jew and generally as a human being, I personally prefer the country and the security here....Nothing will make me leave because I have no other place to be."

Georgi Zaves, 18, from Belarus, said, "The security situation in Israel doesn't worry me at all....Those of us coming from Russia, with all the tensions there, the war with Ukraine, the economic pressure, not to mention the violation of freedom of expression and violent repression - I fear nothing....You in Israel simply don't know how to appreciate the freedom you have, the ability to express an opinion freely without someone handcuffing, arresting, or severely punishing you for it. In Russia, you can only dream of a free democracy like you have in Israel."

Tefra Gethon, who immigrated from Ethiopia, said, "The State of Israel is known for its democracy and the ability of every person to express their opinions freely, unlike in Ethiopia." Bayilan Worku, 25, also from Ethiopia, said, "Many people in the world admire the State of Israel and its democracy. This is precisely the reason that more and more young people, including immigrants from all over the world, choose to live there and start a family there, to raise children in peace. Israel is a good place to live."
Netanyahu: I'm 'taking over' judicial reform despite conflict of interest
The coalition will not freeze its "softened" proposal to restructure the Judicial Selection Committee, but will do all it can to arrive at a solution and calm tensions on the streets, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference on Thursday at the end of a dramatic day, which included security warnings against the reform, a "Day of Paralysis" and political drama.

After explaining the concerns of both the supporters and detractors of the reform, the prime minister stated that his government was "determined to advance with responsibility a reform that will bring back the proper balance between the branches [of government]," which will provide a solution for all of the sides involved.

The reform will end decades of what the prime minister said was the High Court of Justice taking authorities unilaterally and end the lack of proper representation amongst the judges, but will also promise and fortify the rights of all citizens and minorities, the prime minister said.

Specifically, Netanyahu said that there would not be an unlimited Override Clause, but he stressed that the coalition would continue with its proposal for the Judicial Selection Committee and will pass it next week – despite the opposition, protests leaders and legal authorities' claims that it would still lead to the politicization of the court system. The bill gives every coalition the power to appoint two judges as it wishes and will give the current coalition the power to appoint the next Chief Justice, who in turn controls the makeup of specific hearings and has other powers such as appointing senior election officials.

Netanyahu is standing trial for corruption charges but said that he would now begin to enter the heart of the issue after his "hands were tied" due to a threat of the attorney general deeming him unfit for service due to violation of a conflict-of-interest agreement, which bars him from engaging in issues that could affect his trial.

Netanyahu is still bound by the agreement, but the coalition on Thursday morning passed the Incapacitation Bill, which blocks the attorney-general from removing him.
The University of Cambridge has a small but impressive collection of digitized Hebrew manuscripts. I mentioned their 15th century complete Mishna yesterday.

They have two illuminated siddurim (prayer books), both of which include Passover Haggadot. Since they are not standalone, they seem to be more obscure than some of the more famous illuminated Haggadot. 

The more interesting one, from the 14th or 15th century CE, doesn't even have a name - it is an incomplete siddur, missing many pages, and its drawings are a bit faded - but it is a very impressive work, especially since the entire siddur is illuminated.



Some of the creatures drawn remind me of Dr. Seuss. But as the page above shows, the scribe had no problem with drawing human figures.


The word "אומר" in this section seems to use a concatenation of the "mem" and "resh" as a single letter, a ligature I had never seen before (you can see on the last line the more well-known "aleph-lamed" ligature, while rarely used today it is part of the Unicode font set.) 

I just did a brief search and I cannot find any mention of a mem-resh ligature, so maybe I (and jamie t) made a real discovery. That's the sort of thing that can launch entire academic papers. 

The Cambridge notes mention that a couple of sections were crudely blacked out, and they theorize this is because of fear of Christian censors. I'm not so sure - the Haggadah's "שפוך חמתך" is not touched, and one would think that would be the first section to be censored. 

Since it has more than a Haggadah, we can see pictures like this one of Moses at the beginning of Pirke Avot!


Who wrote it? We don't know, but in the Grace After Meals there are crowns over the names "Abraham" and "Isaac" with a small note saying that this was the scribe and the person who inserted the vowels - so it appears that one was named Avraham and the other Yitzhak.



Now, that's humility.




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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.




  Ramallah, March 23 - Staff at an institution dedicated to displaying indigenous artifacts of the Arab people of this part of the Levant struggled again today to articulate the difference in tone the exhibits take toward two different periods in which a colonizing foreign entity swept through the land and imposed hegemony on its inhabitants, with periods prior to the seventh century and after the nineteenth portrayed in frightful terms, while those in between are characterized in neutral, benign, or glorious terms, a discrepancy that curators and docents have grappled with unsuccessfully since the venue opened to guests several years ago.

The Palestinian History Museum in the de facto Palestinian capital has long faced an uphill campaign to collect and present artifacts consistent with the premise of Palestinian Arab indigeneity. Spokesmen for the institution have at various times accused Zionists of destroying or fabricating evidence, only to become stymied in the face of Arab pronouncements from previous ages that assume as a matter of fact, for example, that Jews were sovereign here long before Arabs imposing Islam arrived in the first half of the eighth century CE. A prominent instance of the phenomenon involves a guide to the Haram al-Sharif - the compound housing the Dome of Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque - by the Islamic Waqf itself - stating the established fact that the site held both ancient Jewish temples.

"The Islamic expansion into Palestine brought peace and prosperity," the staff and exhibit notes insist, with similar effusive treatment of Seljuk, Mameluk, Ottoman, and other brutal conquests by repressive rulers under the banner of Islam. "Byzantine corruption and repression caused untold suffering," on the other hand, depicts a population in torment under regimes that followed anything but Islam, with special venom reserved for Jews reasserting their claim to the land.

Museum officials changed the subject when visitors asked, in the context of their insistence that Palestinians have lived in the land since long before Judaism existed, about the pride with which so many Palestinians boast of their Arabian Bedouin heritage and ancestry, their nomadic ancestors having migrated into the land in the last several centuries. "You misunderstand," they argued, but preferred to point to shiny new artifacts rather than clarify the misunderstanding.

"Look, we just got this in," they rushed to interject. "It's a collection of arrowheads from the Seleucid campaign in the mid-second-century BCE."

"Whom were they fighting?" asked a visitor.

"Next exhibit!" the docent yelled. "We really have to get through, we're running out of time."




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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: America, Israel and the era of false messiahs
Obama hated Israel because, to him, the Jewish state is a microcosm of the America he believed was responsible for the wars of the region. He turned against America’s Sunni allies in the Persian Gulf and against Egypt because they viewed the United States as a positive rather than a negative force in the region.

For failing to hate American power as he did, Obama determined that the Sunni regimes weren’t “authentic” and he worked to destabilize them by supporting the Iranian mullahs and their allies in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Since jihad was a reasoned response to American aggression, so the thinking went and still goes, by empowering jihadists at the expense of Israel and the Sunni regimes, America could convince them to leave America alone or provide it with moral exculpation.

America’s spurned Sunni allies responded to Washington’s betrayal by casting about for other options. First, they turned to Israel. Then they turned to Russia and China. China’s mediation of the Saudi-Iranian dispute is a testament to the Sunnis’ conviction that the United States can no longer be trusted.

The report this week that the UAE is considering downgrading its relations with Israel is a testament to the growing sense among the Arabs that Israel is going down with America.

The Biden administration’s open support for the revolt of Israel’s post-Zionist elites seems to support this assessment. Those elites have a long record of scuttling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to develop strategic independence and the means to physically destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, they favor support for U.S.-led nuclear diplomacy and appeasement of the ayatollahs. If Israel will not serve as a counterweight to Iran, then it has no value to the threatened Sunnis.

Israel’s takeaway from a generation of failed U.S. messianism must be that the time has come to end Israel’s strategic dependence on Uncle Sam. A restored alliance can only be based on mutual respect and sovereign independence. The mutinous elites must be brought to heel.

America’s takeaway from its generational flight from reality must be to restore reality to its proper place as the basis for American foreign policy. This doesn’t mean that the mythmakers and dreamers should be sent off to pasture. But the image of America that will rebuild its power and vitality isn’t a crusading banner of universal freedom. It isn’t an LGBT flag with a Black Lives Matter fist in the middle.

A restored America will be one that presents an updated version of the icons of the past—Horatio Alger and the Lone Ranger. Theirs told the story of a free people who persevered and prospered because they were willing to pay the price for freedom. They stood up for themselves and succeeded through hard work, courage and grit.

That was the dream Americans had and the one they shared with the world. If it is restored, America may still return to greatness. If it remains elusive, the American dream for its people and the world will disappear.
Mark Regev: Mahmoud Abbas: The rise and fall of the Palestinian leader
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas will be celebrating his 88th birthday this year – although a certain amount of online confusion exists as to the precise date, either March 26 or November 15. There is however no dispute about the year (1935), city (Safed) and country (British Mandatory Palestine) of his birth.

Despite his advanced age, Abbas continues to hold three crucial positions: He is president of the Palestinian Authority, chair of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and head of the Fatah political movement.

Abbas assumed these roles following the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004. Arafat had established Fatah in 1959, took control of the PLO in 1969, and became the PA’s founding president in 1994.

For more than a generation, Arafat’s defiant persona, with his trademark black and white checkered keffiyeh, habitual unshaven stubble, and ubiquitous green battle fatigues, was synonymous with the Palestinian cause.

Compared to Arafat’s larger-than-life presence, Abbas is a dry suit-and-tie technocrat. But upon inheriting the leadership, Abbas’ more restrained manner was widely perceived as an advantage, given what his predecessor’s maximalist revolutionary agenda did to hopes for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Mahmoud Abbas, the failed nation-builder
The initial enthusiasm for Abbas’ governance seemed to be vindicated in his January 2005 campaign slogan for the PA presidency: “One authority, one law, one gun.” For many, this indicated that instead of persevering with Arafat’s terrorist war against Israel, the new Palestinian chief would be focusing on positive nation-building.

Such a view was seemingly affirmed with Abbas’ June 2007 appointment of Nablus-born Salam Fayyad as PA prime minister. Fayyad holds a PhD in economics from the University of Texas and had previously been the International Monetary Fund’s representative to the Palestinian territories. He served as Ramallah’s finance minister under both Arafat and Abbas, and was respected as a reformer committed to strengthening the PA’s institutions and economy.

But Fayyad’s plans for modernization, while very popular with international donors, threatened the way Fatah does business and challenged its system of political and economic control. Tellingly, Abbas sided with his Fatah cronies and Fayyad was forced to resign the premiership in April 2013.
Amb Alan Baker: Legal Perspectives on Israel's Legal Rights to Rescind Parts of Its 2005 Disengagement Law
In a press briefing on March 21, 2023, State Department Principle Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel expressed U.S. concern at new Israeli legislation rescinding parts of a 2005 disengagement law. Similar concerns were voiced by Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman to Israel's ambassador Michael Herzog.

The 2005 law, which implemented Israel's 2004 Disengagement plan, had called inter alia to remove four Israeli settlements – Homesh, Sa-Nur, Ganim, and Kadim – in the northern part of the West Bank area of Samaria, prohibiting further residence there by Israelis.

The new legislation rescinded this 2005 prohibition on residence in the four localities on the principal grounds that it had overlooked the basic property rights of the residents and, as such, was discriminatory, and that it had failed to result in any reduction in Palestinian hostility and terror.

The new legislation would enable the return of the residents to their homes and properties after the implementation of requisite legal and security arrangements and the resolution of land ownership claims by Palestinians. (The sites of Ganim and Kadim are reported to now be part of Jenin's municipal boundaries in Area A, effectively putting them off-limits to Israelis.)

U.S. spokespersons and former Ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer wrongly claim that the new legislation contradicts previous undertakings by the Israeli Government to the U.S. "to evacuate these settlements and outposts in the northern West Bank in order to stabilize the situation and reduce frictions."

In fact, the 2004 unilateral and independent Israeli plan to evacuate those villages, even after implementation, failed in its stated purpose to secure and encourage a reduction in Palestinian hostility and violence.

Israel's new legislation rescinding the provisions prohibiting residence in the four settlements is distinctly not intended to enable new settlement construction but merely to allow the return of those residents previously removed from their homes and the concomitant restoration of their rights.

The reciprocal U.S.-Israeli commitments of 2004, which served as the premise for the implementation of Israel's disengagement plan, contained an essential affirmation by President George W. Bush that "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."


As I've been reporting, ever since the Abraham Accords were announced, some Arab commentators have sounded the alarm, saying that this is the beginning of a new "Abrahamic" religion meant by Jews to destroy Islam.

Those fears were multiplied by the opening of the multifaith Abrahamic Family House in Dubai.

Now the head of the Egyptian Islamist Nour party is putting all the pieces together:

Sameh Bassiouni, head of the Supreme Committee of the Nour Party, said that the world order is now promoting the model of the so-called “Abrahamic House.” It is not a call for peaceful coexistence,  as the supporters claim, or the deceived repeat. It is a tactical phased step to domesticate future generations through multiple and disparate devotional rituals in one complex under the deception of the unified Abrahamic creed.

In an article published by Al-Fath on its website, Bassiouni stressed that the deception of the Abrahamic religion is a prelude to dissolving the concept of Islamic faith and identity in Arab-Islamic countries, and then pushing for a federation of the alleged Abrahamic states in the region. This will dissolve the concepts of the unity and cohesion of the homeland. 
Then the door opens wide to achieve the fixed strategic Zionist plans to implement the Talmudic dream of a Jewish state "from the Nile to the Euphrates" without objection from future generations in the Arab Islamic countries.
It is all so clear now!

I wish that Israel was half as strategic as the Arabs think it is.



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 




Earlier this month I reported on an antisemitic Arabic article published on MSN, Microsoft's news network. It said that Israel is inflicting a "Holocaust" on Palestinians. 

It is hardly the only example. 

Just today, MSN published one article saying that modern Jews have no relationship with the Jews of Biblical times (while accusing modern Jews of racism, naturally), and another from a Jordanian who writes Israel is "an entire entity of murderous terrorists, who have pursued policies of apartheid and genocide against Palestinians and Arabs for nearly a century" and then concludes that Palestine is all Jordanian. 

MSN gets many of its Arabic articles from a company called SyndiGate, which strikes deals with Arab and other international media companies to syndicate their content.

SyndiGate is owned by the Jordanian Albawaba Group. (Albawaba means "the gate" in Arabic.) 

While Albawaba's news site is not nearly as antisemitic as much of Jordanian media, it publishes its share. Here, for example, is an English language article about how Jordanians protested a preacher attending a seminar in Abu Dhabi with a non-Israeli rabbi, with no mention that this was a classic example of pure antisemitism. They have pushed the discredited antisemitic Khazar theory as well. Last year they claimed, with no fact checking, that Jews in Hebron burned a Quran - which is pure incitement to violence among Muslims. 

SyndiGate's editorial standards for republishing Arabic content are even lower than Albawaba's. They appear to blindly re-copy anything from their own content providers, with little regard for what they actually say. After all, that's their business model - content equates to cash from their client like MSN.

And just as SyndiGate blindly grabs content from its sources, Microsoft blindly publishes the SyndiGate content. It does it with other content providers as well - last year republishing a number of obvious hoax articles without even the pretense of editing. 

MSN is the default page for new tabs in Microsoft browsers, and their articles show up by default on all computers with Windows. MSN gets nearly a billion views a month. By any definition, it is a media giant even if it has little original content. 

Microsoft is complicit with spreading hate to a large global audience. 




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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

It's Ramadan, and we all know what that means: it is a month that we have come to expect jihadists to violently attack their enemies.

And, when the infidels and dhimmis respond, the Islamists instantly change from brave warrior to babies, crying about how immoral it is for others to attack them on their holy month. (And so do their useful idiots.)

It is a dynamic that everyone expects, yet hardly any Western media outlet dares point out the hypocrisy.

One exception was a Christian Science Monitor article from 2003 that noted and explained the phenomenon:
For Islamic militants, Ramadan allows them not only to reaffirm their religious observance but to strengthen their political ideological convictions as well. "Ramadan is a month of commitment and renewal to their faith and also to their cause, whether by military or nonmilitary jihad," says Prof. Nizar Hamzeh, a specialist on political Islam at the American University of Beirut. "It is a month of martyrdom and commitment to one's Islamic ideology."

Throughout Islamic history, Ramadan has been seen as a time of victory for Muslim armies - and a period when those who are martyred have a greater assurance of a place in paradise.
You can't say that nowadays. It is true, of course, but journalists are too afraid of being accused of Islamophobia to report on what everyone knows.

But don' t believe me. Listen to Hamas.

For Ramadan in 2020, Hamas published a list of some 40 terror attacks that they proudly launched on the holy month. 


Here are some of the most prominent Palestinian Ramadan attacks, many of which they exaggerated in this article:

The double suicide bombings on Ben Yehuda Street in 2001, killing 11. 
The Haifa Bus 16 suicide attack, killing 15.
The Kiryat Menachem bus bombing in 2002, killing 15.
The Hadera Market bombing in 2005, killing 7.
4 killed in a shooting attack in Kiryat Arba, 2010.
August 20, 2011, one killed Beersheva during a barrage of 70 rockets from Gaza.

Hamas also is proud to say that they started the 2014 Gaza war - on Ramadan. 

It is not Islamophobic to notice that Ramadan is a month of terror. The jihadists brag about it. 

For the Muslims who are upset that their religion has been hijacked by terrorists, Ramadan Kareem. 



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, March 22, 2023

From Ian:

Democrats vs. the Jews
For those who want to look away: Imagine what our grandparents and great-grandparents—staunch Democrats from the moment they hit Ellis Island—would think about this. Imagine what John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King Jr.—both ardent Zionists—would say.

As a lifelong independent, I don’t understand how any Jew can remain in the Democratic Party after this. I don’t buy the “we will work from within” excuse, because look how well that turned out.

To those of us who believe that this version of the Democratic Party needs to die—that it will never return to classical liberalism—this poll just confirms the obvious. But the fact is that if every Jew and those who claim to not be antisemitic left the party over this, the party would die. Three-quarters of American Jews—5.7 million—identify as Democrats.

We’re seeing the damage caused by a pro-terrorist Democratic Party on a near-hourly basis. From House Democrats voting to block funding of Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system in 2021 to the multitude of missteps by Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the continued funding of Islamist terrorism in Judea and Samaria, what more do the Democrats need to do to show where their loyalty lies?

Yes, disgraced former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced he is launching an organization called “Progressives for Israel.” But talk to anyone who lived through Cuomo’s vicious and self-serving COVID policies about whether he is capable of thinking, let alone doing anything moral. Even Democrats won’t listen to him.

In stark contrast, Republican views on Israel have remained the same. According to the new poll, 78% continue to back the Jewish state.

Until this version of the Democratic Party returns to sanity or dies, American Jews who care about the survival of our people have one task: To make sure pro-Israel Republicans are elected to the White House and Congress. Since polls show that Donald Trump could lose to any Democratic contender for the 2024 presidential race, while Gov. Ron DeSantis has a very good chance of winning—pulling in nearly all Independents and even some Democrats—this is a moment of reckoning for Jews in the GOP as well.

We have to make sure one thing happens: Democrats need to exit the White House and Congress and not come back until they’ve returned to classical liberalism and sanity. And the only way to do that is with a sane GOP.

What else needs to happen for everyone to understand how dangerous this moment is?
Jonathan Tobin: Democrats’ attitudes towards Israel reach a tipping point
Meanwhile, at the same time that the GOP was embracing Israel, a shift began on the other side of the aisle.

Part of that was due to political changes in the Jewish state. The end of the domination of the Labor Party and the election of Menachem Begin as prime minister in 1977 made it a bit more difficult for American liberals to identify with Israel. The policies of Labor-led governments on security issues prior to the Oslo Accords in 1993 were not that different from those of the right. But the rise of Begin’s Likud Party, coupled with the camp of nationalist and religious parties, was hard to fathom for Americans who had come to define their Jewish identity solely through the prism of their political liberalism and social-justice issues.

More than that, it was during this period that the far left of the Democratic Party began to regard the Jewish state through the prism of anti-Zionist propaganda, which falsely depicted it as an expression of colonialism.

Still, the vast majority of Democrats rejected those ideas and the leadership of the party, which was reflected in the views of the geriatrics that have led its congressional caucuses up until this year, and many in the rank-and-file were still happy to identify as pro-Israel.

In 2001, Gallup reported that Democrats still backed Israel by a 51% to 16% margin. While that’s still true of some congressional Democrats, they are now out of touch with their party’s left-wing base.

It’s not as if strong sympathy for Israel across the board is gone. When Gallup asked respondents how they feel about Israel without adding in the contrast with the Palestinians, the numbers are more encouraging. The survey says 56% of Democrats have a favorable view of Israel, a number that has shown little change since 2001 when it stood at 60%. But it’s still much lower than independents, 67% of whom view Israel favorably (up from 59% in 2001)—let alone Republicans, 82% of whom view it favorably (up from 75% in 2001).

And only a minority of Americans think well of the Palestinian Authority—36% of Democrats, 28% of independents and only 9% of Republicans.

But the problem is that when you ask people how they feel about Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians, the intersectional mindset kicks in for those who are influenced by the left. That explains why, when given the choice, more Democrats now favor an entity that has repeatedly rejected peace than those who back Israel.
Jonathan Tobin: Joel Pollak & the Left's Willful Blindness to Antisemitism
In this week’s episode of Top Story, JNS editor-in-chief Jonathan Tobin speaks with Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Joel Pollak who discussed the famous insight of the publication’s founder Andrew Breitbart about “politics being downstream of culture.”

In this far-reaching interview, they discuss
- Why do liberal Jewish institutions only see antisemitism on one side.
- How the ADL has made common cause with hate groups and exaggerated antisemitism statistics to justify its existence
- Addressing accusations against Breitbart of antisemitism and being part of the alt-right.
- Pollak’s view on the current protests against legal reform in Israel


Ken Roth & Peter Beinart Gaslight Jewish Community With Antisemitism Tweets
Ken Roth’s Narrow View of Antisemitism
In his March 18 tweet, Roth, the former head of Human Rights Watch, linked to a recent Pew survey that found “anti-Jewish harassment” had occurred in 94 countries in 2020, an increase from past years. Rather than simply highlighting this fact, Roth tweeted that this is “all the more reason for partisan defenders of the Israeli government to stop using false charges of antisemitism to try to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli repression.”

In doing so, Roth accused pro-Israel advocates of calling out antisemitism in bad faith and effectively minimizing the role of antisemitism in certain critiques of Israeli policy and anti-Israel activities.

As is evidenced by the vibrant political atmosphere in Israel itself, it is perfectly acceptable to criticize the Israeli government’s policies.

However, as noted in the internationally recognized IHRA working definition of antisemitism, anti-Israel activity and rhetoric can devolve into base antisemitism. This includes (but is not limited to) the claim that the Jewish state’s entire existence is based on a racist ideology, the use of antisemitic imagery to criticize Israeli policies/actions, and holding Jews around the world collectively responsible for Israel’s actions.

This last point is especially relevant as the rise in violence and tensions between Israel and the Palestinians has been shown to provide an impetus for antisemitic assaults and harassment worldwide.

Thus, it is clear that the recent rise in international antisemitism is directly related (in part) to an increase in anti-Israel rhetoric and activities that go beyond the pale of acceptable criticism and into the morass of antisemitic hate, a phenomenon that Roth purposefully ignores.

While it is disturbing that Ken Roth seeks to condemn a rise in antisemitism while simultaneously exonerating antisemitism masquerading as criticism of Israel/anti-Zionism, it is not at all surprising.

As noted by both NGO Monitor and UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer, Roth’s own criticism of the Jewish state has on occasion devolved into antisemitic rhetoric and imagery, as well as justifying antisemitism.

This includes blaming Israel for the rise in European antisemitism (as opposed to blaming the antisemites themselves), comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, and suggesting that Judaism is a ‘primitive’ religion.


Can “The Whole World” Be Wrong? Lethal Journalism, Antisemitism, and Global Jihad is a book that makes you shake your head a lot. You just can’t believe how stupid people are. The stupid things they say and do to make themselves feel better about themselves; the stupid things and the lies they say that allow them to hate Jews and look the other way at the jihadists who target the liars, their loved ones, and their way of life. It’s hard to watch—you want to look away from this slow, global, own-goal suicide. But the author, Professor Richard Landes, has made this work so compelling, you have no choice but to continue reading, even when, as a sane person, it leaves you, the reader, feeling rather queasy. 


Richard Landes

The book takes its title from the words of two men on the subject of blood libels, issued a century apart. There are the mocking words of writer Ahad Ha’am (Asher Ginsburg), who in 1897, echoing the oft-expressed sentiment by European non-Jews when confronted with proof that, no. Jews don’t use the blood of Christian babies in the manufacture of matzah: “Is it possible the whole world is wrong and the Jews are right?”

Ahad Ha'am (Asher Ginsburg)

In 2002, little more than 100 years later, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, referring to Israeli denials of a massacre in Jenin that never occurred, said, “I don’t think the whole world, including the friends of the Israeli people and government, can be wrong.”

In this way, antisemitism takes its path. Because there are plenty of Jew-haters in the world. And the more there are, the more they give themselves moral permission to hate. The media, of course, is there to help things along with its own rendition of the modern blood libel. It’s called “lethal journalism.” They use fake footage, knowing it’s fake. They lie, because the lies are what their audiences want to hear. And they demonize Israel every time, because again: it’s exactly what their audiences want to hear.

Landes takes you on a journey, beginning in 2000 with the Al Durah hoax, moving on to 9-11, the phony Jenin “massacre,” and the Danish cartoon scandal (Danoongate). At the end of each chapter, Landes summarizes the stupid things that various figures have said in relation to these events. For example, journalist Catherine Nay said of the faked viral photo of the dead boy in his father’s arms, “This death erases, replaces the image of the boy in the Warsaw Ghetto.”

Every bit as shockingly stupid are the words of George W. Bush, spoken at the Islamic Center of Washington only days after 9-11, on September 17, 2001, “Islam is peace.”

Regarding the fictional Jenin massacre, journalist Janine di Giovanni wrote, “Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechniya, Sierra Leone, Kossovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life," 'Inside the Camp of the Dead,' The Times, April 16, 2002.

And off Danoongate, the French Director of Intelligence speaking in 2005, said, “These riots have nothing to do with Islam.”

Landes has been documenting this astounding stupidity and world folly for more than a decade. The result is this 500-page compendium with its prodigious, painstaking footnotes that leave the reader open-mouthed and astonished. You wonder: “How on earth did we get here?”

But you already know. Landes has connected up all the dots: the lies and lethal journalism, and the way the world gave jihad a pass, while damning the Jews. The facts and the progression of this deadly state of affairs have been amply covered by the author and you begin to understand the depth of the threat to our world, today. 

This a book you want on your shelf. It is not an easy read, but a necessary one if you want to understand how we got here—and how we are to dig our way out of this ugly, Jew-hating, jihadi, fake news mess. I put some questions to author Richard Landes to learn more about his book and its implications for the future:

Varda Epstein: Most writers think about who they’re writing for and gear their writing to that reader. “Can The ‘Whole World’ Be Wrong?” seems to be identifying who the reader is not. The book begins with a warning, but it’s more like a dare, or even a threat—like you’re trying to scare the reader off: “If you feel up to the task . . . turn the page. If not, just sit in your tub tweeting about white, racist privilege, while you bleed out.”

Who do you envisage as your reader? Who is it you’re trying to reach?

Richard Landes: My ideal reader is someone who really does care about liberal and progressive values. I actually lay out my concerns in the introductory chapter by contrasting zero-sum and positive-sum values, and stating my unequivocal preference for the latter, while conceding that the former has an inevitable presence in our lives and warning that those thinking they can eliminate zero-sum are not only fooling themselves with messianic dreams, but ultimately opposed to key life forces.

What I document in the book, however, is a massive shift in what was considered “liberal” or “progressive” in the new century/millennium. By 2003 it became a “litmus test of liberal credentials” to be pro-Palestinian (Buruma in NYT), at a time when the Palestinians were engaged in a suicide-mass murder war against Israeli civilians. By any standards of real liberal values that was a travesty which continues to this day (think Gays and LGBTQ for Palestine). So in a sense, the book is an attempt to go back to the moment this travesty first “took” and rethink how it could have happened so quickly and thoroughly. But since I firmly believe that the willingness to hear criticism and take it seriously is one of the key components of the liberal sensibility, I address this criticism to liberals sufficiently committed to their values to take it seriously.

Varda Epstein: Do you worry you’re preaching to the choir? Do you even aspire to reach the masses?

Richard Landes: Well that’s hard to say. Obviously a 500-page book with notes at the bottom of each page is not for “the masses.” But, between masses and choir lies many a circle of readers. Obviously, the “choir” of pro-Israel people are going to find it congenial. A number of people have written me about devouring the book in one sitting and thanking me: “Someone finally has the words for everything I’ve been struggling to say!” wrote one person. And if it helps them make the point to others, that’s great. But my real audience is what we might call the goats. As shepherds know, if you have about one goat to every ten sheep, then when there’s a problem, the sheep look to the goats. If they’re calm, the skittish sheep settle down. Similarly, I don’t think I’m going to reach some gay guy so caught up in his peer group that he repeats nonsense about being passionately for a political culture that hates gays. But if I can reach the thoughtful ones, then maybe they can explain it to him.

Varda Epstein: You write, “In a sense, this book should not have had to be written and I should be able to work on the origins of modern Western civilization in the demotic millennialism of eleventh-century France to my heart’s content.” Why did the “Can The ‘Whole World’ Be Wrong?” have to be written, and why by you, Richard Landes? After all, as you suggest, lethal journalism, antisemitism, and global jihad are not your chosen field.

Richard Landes: Well, actually, global jihad is my field since it’s an apocalyptic millennial movement, and it came on my screen in the mid-90s through the (then) graduate work of David Cook (now at Rice U.). Actually, in the mid-1990s, in my work on the 11th century, I began to work out a model of antisemitism that went in waves starting with philo-semitism, leading to important socio-economic changes that eventually produced an antisemitic reaction. Given that the period after the Holocaust (i.e. my life) was the longest and most philo-semitic period in recorded history (especially in the USA where I grew up), I speculated that the advent of 2000 might mark the reappearance of antisemitism in the West. At the time I thought it would come from the apocalyptic “right” – fundamentalist Christian Zionists disappointed that the Rapture didn’t happen, and Jihadi Muslims who were already openly and ferociously antisemitic. What I didn’t see coming were two linked phenomena: 1) the attraction of the “Left” for the Jihadi apocalyptic narrative that Israel and the US were “Satans”/Antichrists, and 2) the utter failure of liberals, who had a huge presence in the public sphere, to resist. As a result, what I thought would be a wave of Jew-hatred that we could resist, has, over 20 years of astonishing and self-destructive mishandling, become an existential threat not only to Israel (its purported target) but to democracies around the world.

Why did I have to write it rather than someone else? I don’t know. But someone else didn’t write it. It’s such a hard thing to grasp, a history of your own time. Maybe working historians in the early 11th century writing histories of the turn of that millennium made it a conceivable project. Obviously I don’t write about everything (and neither did they). I write in depth about what I think were errors of judgment on a civilizational plane, which continue to be made by very smart people. We all love the story of the emperor’s new clothes, but few of us want to entertain the notion that it’s actually happening. Someone jokingly said that Amazon should bundle my book not with another book, but with antidepressants. It’s dark stuff. Very depressing. Without a deep sense of humor, I wouldn't have been able to keep my eye on this ball over the course of decades.

Varda Epstein: How, if at all, does your work as a medievalist inform your book, and in particular your interest in eleventh-century France? Does your work on the al Durah story, which you mention in your book, have anything to do with that? You cite many French sources and drop French phrases in your book. I’m getting the idea that you’re a Francophile—but not!

Richard Landes: As for the Middle Ages, there are three key issues:

1)      Honor-shame societies: As a medievalist I work on a society in which gaining/keeping honor and avoiding/revenging shame were key components of public life, where it was legitimate, accepted, even required that one shed blood for the sake of honor. Without understanding those dynamics, you don’t understand Arab political culture. Now Edward Saïd made it taboo to discuss these matters (the quintessence of “Orientalism”), and in doing so blinded the West to the cultural dynamics of this region. In my book I show how the Oslo Accords were based on thinking that Arafat and Arab political culture were ready to give up the view that the very existence of Israel was so shameful that it must be destroyed, and go for the positive-sum, win-win, of “land for peace,” to the benefit of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. And how ignoring those dynamics meant that right up to the last second, the peace negotiators thought we were “sooo close.” And still do.

2)      Apocalyptic millenarian: the jihadis are a classic expression of a distinctly (but not exclusively) medieval form of eschatological thinking, namely they embrace an “active cataclysmic apocalyptic scenario” – evil permeates the world and we are God’s agents in destroying it – aiming at a hierarchical millennium – Islam will dominate the world, infidels either accept dhimmitude (subjection), or convert, or die. It’s really hard for moderns to take apocalyptic beliefs seriously because every time in the past that people have been so moved, they’ve been wrong, sometimes disastrously so. (This included modern historians of the Middle Ages.) As a result of this cognitive lapse, and the pressures of political correctness in the 21st century, to avoid anything too negative about Islam (don’t say “radical Islam”), has produced a Western culture that cannot see its enemy (embodied in the absurd formula “war on terrorism”).

3)      Public Secrets: for reasons that I’m not sure about, both my academic career and my journalistic one have found and investigated public secrets, that is, something everyone “in the know” knows about, but when it comes to the public record, they deny any knowledge or existence of the issue in question. In the Middle Ages it was about how Charlemagne was crowned on the first day of the year 6000 from Creation – a millennial date Christian chronographers had been tracking for over 6 centuries – and yet no one who wrote about the coronation, or his imperial period, mentioned it. In this book, the main public secret I deal with is that the Palestinians fake news footage all the time, and that the press is so profoundly intimidated by them, that they run Palestinian “lethal narratives” as news. This unacknowledged, even denied phenomenon, has immense impact on the kind of lethal journalism that we get constantly from our news media.

Varda Epstein: There’s a lot about stupidity in your book—you call it when and where you see it, using exactly that word “stupid” in its various forms. Why is it important to you to use precisely this descriptor and how do you account for the sheer amount of it that exists in the world? 

Richard Landes: First because it’s a technical term in economic and game theory for someone who hurts someone else without gaining any advantage (Cipolla). Secondly because it’s so stunningly prominent in our times. I define “astoundingly stupid” as creating advantages for an avowed enemy. And as far as I can make out, that has been a consistent pattern among the Western opinion leaders – journalists, academics, public intellectuals, politicians, and policy makers – for the last two decades. As Elder of Ziyon put it, my book is a “modern take on the Emperor’s New Clothes.” Then, when I found the comment by Bonhoeffer (which I included in the epigrams)—who also lived at a time when his society was being seized by apocalyptic memes—about the impossibility of arguing with precisely this kind of self-destructive stupidity, I knew I was on the right track. 


Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Varda Epstein: How did you decide on the structure of the book? How does the first part complement the second? Why not have it in, say, two volumes? Oh, and you must tell us about the haikus! That must have been fun.

Richard Landes: The structure wrote itself. The first four chapters are my “history of my time,” namely four incidents in the early aughts (‘00s) that chronicle key moments in the assault of global jihad on western democracies, and the astoundingly stupid way in which the West processed what was happening to them: the outbreak of the intifada and the al Durah affair; 9-11; the “Jenin Massacre”; and the Danish cartoon scandal.

Then, to explain how this could happen, I went through the key players: 1) Shame-Honor driven Arab culture; 2) Apocalyptic-Millennial driven Jihadi beliefs – what I call Caliphators; 3) Liberal Cognitive Egocentrics: people who project their positive-sum values onto cultures that don’t share it; 4) radical progressives who, blinded by Saïd’s assault on Orientalism, end up allying with the most imperialist movement in the world because it’s “anti-imperialist,” i.e. anti-USA and Israel; 5) the lethal journalists who radically disorient their audiences with their Palestinian-compliant “news” reports; and 6) the virtue-signaling Jews who adopt their enemy’s narrative (something an apocalyptic Caliphator predicted in 2001), thereby giving wings to the very kind of exterminationist antisemitism that fueled the Nazi madness.

The last part sketches developments over the next decade and a half (mid-aughts to now), identifying some of the phenomena so striking in our current culture that I think this turn-of-the-millennium seizure helped set in motion – woke, cancel-culture politics, fake news, anti-racism discourse, and what I call pre-emptive dhimmitude, namely the adoption by our information elites of a posture of subjection to Muslim demands for respect which ends up attacking not the invaders of democratic culture, but those (like me) who warn and mobilize against those enemies.

As for the haikus, I’ve been writing them ever since I ran across the form in my youth. The one for al Durah (chapter one) was originally written for Y2K: “We need not have been/ Mouths open inhaling, when/ The sh*t hit the fan.” My favorite is the one for the chapter on Jews against themselves: “Have ever before/ lambs denounced lambs who refuse/ to lie with lions?”

Varda Epstein: I so appreciated all the detailed footnotes you included at the bottom of each page (I hate it when writers put them the end and I have to flip back and forth). But that would have been a daunting task! You must have been taking voluminous notes for years on end, as you read, watched, talked . . . does that about sum it up? How many years was this book in the making? 

"A book that keeps writing itself,"
Tat Aluf Yossi Kuperwasser



Richard Landes: Yes, it does sum it up nicely. Thanks to Evernote (I have over 35,000 notes clipped there), I’ve been able to preserve access to articles that no longer can be found online. I’m ashamed to say the book was over a decade in the making. The working title – They’re so smart, cause we’re so Stupid – was inspired by the Fort Hood Massacre (2009) in which a Palestinian-American major in the army, after extensively displaying his jihadi sympathies, shot dozens of his fellow-soldiers, and inspired Mark Steyn to write an article entitled: “These days, it’s easier to be even more stupid after the event.” It’s just hard to write a history book about your own time. As Yossi Kuperwasser put it, “It’s a book that keeps writing itself.” When Shireen abu Akleh was killed, I knew I couldn't include this ongoing, slow-motion train wreck.

As for the footnotes, I feel passionately about a) having many, and b) at the bottom of the page. I took out all the URLs one can find for oneself easily from the hard-copy book, but for those who want to get them, I have them up at my personal webpage for the book: https://richard-landes.com/the-whole-world/

Varda Epstein: There are so many shocking parts in your book still rattling around in my head. For instance, that remark from a peer, “Well, the Jews have been asking for it, and now, thank God, we can say what we think at last.”

Richard Landes: For me it will always be Charles Enderlin, when I pointed out how much faking was going on at Netzarim Junction the day Muhammad al Durah was allegedly shot, saying to me “Oh yes, they do that all the time.”

But the two worst comments by far were a) when a colleague in the history department responded to my bemoaning the suicide terror war of the Palestinians with the comment, “What choice do they have?” and b) the journalist Catherine Nay saying that the image of al Durah “erased, replaced” the picture of the boy in the Warsaw Ghetto. Hard to get more empirically and morally disoriented, and yet people heard these kinds of remarks and nodded knowingly.

What would you say shocked you most about your findings? I’m guessing it’s the stupidity. . .

Richard Landes: That’s one way to put it. Cowardice is another. The way I’d put it, in the ‘90s, I may have seen a wave of antisemitism coming in 2000, and even a wave of Jihadi attacks on the West, but I never dreamed that Western democracies would be so feckless in responding.

Varda Epstein: What do you want the reader to take away from your book?

Richard Landes:

1) that when “the whole world” agrees on something (whether it’s the emperor’s courtiers or the academics and journalists and pundits who think they speak for “the whole world” and are sure they’re right) they can (and have, and are and will) be, sometimes, wrong.

2) that the meanings of “liberal” and “progressive” have been terribly distorted, even betrayed, in the 21st century. 

3) that when the legacy media reports Israel has done something terrible and Israeli sources deny it (or even admit to it only partially) it’s possible that the legacy media is wrong.

4) that we’ve gotten into this mess because a lot of nice and well-intentioned people have allowed themselves to be pushed around, silenced, and cowed by those filled with passionate intensity, and we need to speak up.

5) that to continue down this path spells disaster.

***

Landes, R. (2022). Can “The Whole World” Be Wrong?: Lethal Journalism, Antisemitism, and Global Jihad (Antisemitism in America). Boston : Academic Studies Press, 2022. 

(available on Amazon.)



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

I was browsing Google Books looking for the use of the term "Palestinian Talmud"when I came across  an 1883 work, "The Mishnah on which the Palestinian Talmud Rests; Edited for the Syndics of the University Press from the Unique Manuscript Preserved in the University Library of Cambridge, Add. 470. 1" by William Henry Lowe, a Hebrew lecturer at Christ's College.

This edition of the Mishna has little to do with the Jerusalem ("Palestinian") Talmud. It is a transcription of a 15th century manuscript of the Mishnah at Cambridge, one of the earliest complete such manuscripts. 

Lowe chose to write the entire work using "Rashi" script, rather than the usual Hebrew scripts. But that isn't the weirdest part.

Lowe wrote the Hebrew title page, and the Hebrew introduction, in the style of Jewish works of scholarship, to the extent that he refers to the decidedly non-Jewish Christ's College becomes "The Beit Medrash for the Group of the Messiah."

Here are the English and Hebrew title pages:




Lowe even lists the (Hebrew) publication year (5)643 by using the gematria of a Hebrew Biblical phrase the way Jewish scholars do, using a verse from Psalms 102:14 which happens to be quite Zionist: "You will surely arise and take pity on Zion, for it is time to be gracious to her; the appointed time has come."

His dedication page and introduction are likewise in the style of Jewish scholars.

The original 15th century manuscript that Lowe transcribed (and commented on) is now online at Cambridge's website. 
 
My favorite page is this one, where a child decided to practice his or her Aleph-Bet lessons on the bottom margin of the priceless page:



This, to me, symbolizes Judaism's eternal survival. Scholarship is not relegated to the ivory tower; these books were in people's homes where anyone could access them, including six-year olds. 




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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 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.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive