A London council called off a planned exhibition about Jewish culture at its headquarters, citing a “significant heightened risk to personal safety” amid the conflict in Gaza, prompting anger from community leaders.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews, which has run the travelling Jewish Living Experience exhibition for 40 years, said the decision by the borough of Hounslow in west London to postpone the exhibition was “baffling” and added: “The Jewish community will not accept being marginalised.”
The group said that the exhibition, designed to teach non-Jews about Jewish life and traditions, was even more important during a period of increased antisemitism and hate crimes.
So something that can combat antisemitism is canceled because of the threat of antisemitic attacks. Unreal.
Since the eruption of violence in Israel and Gaza triggered by the Hamas attacks on October 7, the exhibition has been hosted in Borehamwood in Hertfordshire, where 500 schoolchildren visited, and in towns across south Wales, where 1,500 children visited. A source said the events had all run without incident.
So why are thing different in Hounslow? A possible hint below.
The Times has learnt that the decision to postpone the exhibition was taken by the council on Thursday November 16 but only communicated to its organisers at the Board of Deputies late in the morning of Friday November 17, just three days before the exhibition was due to open and hours before the Jewish sabbath began at sundown that day.
Why has it taken nearly three weeks to find out about this?
It is understood that Board of Deputies officials were left “flabbergasted” by the decision, with one source describing the move as “outrageous”.
Then why didn't they talk with the media about it until now?
Edwin Shuker, vice-president of the Board of Deputies, said: “The Jewish Living Experience exhibition is carefully designed to inform and educate non-Jewish children and adults about our way of life.
“At a time of hugely increased antisemitism around the country it is baffling that any council would choose to cancel an exhibition with the potential to provide context and understanding. We have asked for a meeting and been refused. The Jewish community will not accept being marginalised.”
Apparently, the BoD does, by waiting so long.
A spokeswoman for Hounslow council said: “Hounslow is one of London’s most diverse boroughs and we cherish and celebrate this diversity. The decision to postpone the two-week exhibition, due to take place in a public space, was not taken lightly and we appreciate the disappointment and inconvenience it caused.
“However, due to the current situation in Gaza and associated increase in reported hate crimes, there is significant heightened risk to personal safety across London and consideration of this had to take precedence.”
Hounslow has a high proportion of people who identify themselves as BAME (Black, Asian and minority Ethnic), and it is the borough's most diverse town. In seven of Hounslow's eight electoral wards, the BAME proportion is above 70%.[9] The town has a large British Asian community.
So even though the exhibit was shown in other districts since 10/7 with no incident, Hounslow knows its residents are a bit more, shall we say, animated.
The district knows it has a lot of antisemites living there. Instead of protecting the Jews it decides to penalize them - for their own safety. Instead of giving a message to the Jew-haters that this is unacceptable behavior, they are sending a message that their hate is so potent that they can get the government to punish Jews without even vocalizing a single threat - what scholar Richard Landes calls "proleptic dhimmitude."
Jews are quiet and compliant. Muslims are loud and unpredictable and potentially violent. So it is easier to do what the Muslims demand even before they demand it, penalize the Jews, and then claim that you are protecting the Jews by forcing them not to have their exhibits, or Chanukah menorah ceremonies, or whatever.
The antisemites win, thanks to the spineless people who end up being their allies.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
The Washington Post describes Hamas deceptions ahead of their October 7 attack. As far as I can tell, it is among the most elaborate and successful deceptions in military history.
The deceptions reach back over years to make it appear that Hamas wanted quiet with Israel.
Hamas spent more than a year planning its historic assault on Israel, following battle plans built on open-source materials and high-level intelligence, Israeli intelligence officers told a small group of journalists this week.
The sophistication of the attack, and the growing evidence of long-term, strategic planning by Hamas, sheds new light on the reach of the group’s intelligence apparatus and the complacency of Israel’s vaunted security state.
For years, in public statements and private diplomacy, Hamas had claimed that it was more interested in building Gaza economically than in renewing a conflict with Israel.
[Head of IDF intelligence Aharon] Haliva said in September 2022 that although Hamas was involved in military activities, “we see that the processes being undertaken vis-à-vis Israel to stabilize the economy and to allow entry to laborers have potential for bringing years of quiet.”
Hamas had largely refrained from firing rockets at Israel after 2021. In May, it remained on the sidelines as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a smaller militant group in Gaza, engaged in a short-lived conflict with Israel.
Hamas officials even provided Israel with intelligence on PIJ to reinforce the impression that they were interested in collaboration, an Israeli security official told The Post on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the news media.
There were plans to discuss the issue again after Oct. 7, the holiday of Simchat Torah, according to the Kan report.
Also in recent months, large demonstrations were staged at the fence in Gaza to get the IDF used to the sight of crowds at the border, and, more broadly, “to lull Israel into complacency,” said Miri Eisin, a former senior IDF intelligence officer.
Eisin said that Israel’s security apparatus, and many of Israel’s allies, were more concerned with Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group to the north that in 2018 declared plans to conquer the Galilee region.
The British in World War II were perhaps the masters of deception in war, creating elaborate ruses to fool Germany as to the location of invasions . Egypt in 1973 used many months of fake deployments and other deceptions to ensure that Israel wouldn't mobilize ahead of the Yom Kippur War.
But a deception that unrolled over the course of years to plan a single devastating attack? I am not aware of this ever happening before.
The level of planning and detail shows not only how much Hamas hates Jews, but also how little it cares about its own people. After all, the deception included improving Gaza's economy, securing jobs for Gazans in Israel, keeping things quiet to increase imports and exports from Gaza. Hundreds of thousands of Gazans, probably more, benefited from the improved economy. A key part of the deception was to fool Israel into thinking that Hamas actually cared about the people it rules.
Another component was not just to fool Israel but to fool the world. Hamas' new political document of 2017, where they claimed not to be antisemitic, may easily have been a part of this deception as well. And even before that, in 2011, Hamas fooled much of the world into believing that they accepted a two state solution.
Their elaborate duplicity to make themselves appear pragmatic and moderate over more than a decade set the stage for October 7.
Trickery is part of Hamas' political DNA. And it continues today, with the bogus statistics of civilians killed in Gaza and denials of atrocities on October 7, designed to give antisemites "evidence" that it is Israel that is lying, not Hamas.
Who says that we now know the extent of the deception? Once we truly understand how elaborate this deceit is, how confident can we be that it is only Hamas? Many claim Iran did not approve this specific operation on that date - but why assume that is true? Hezbollah is assumed not to want to drag Lebanon into a devastating war - but Hamas didn't care at all about its people, why do we assume Hezbollah is more sensitive to the desires of the Lebanese?
Hezbollah's limited response so far is enough to tie down a lot of IDF soldiers in the north, who may have shortened the Gaza war if they were deployed there. Is that part of the larger, still unknown plan?
Yemen's attacks appear to be test runs of Iranian weapons - could one of the goals of this war been for Iran to probe Israel's military defenses against long range ballistic missile attacks in a far larger future war of which this is only a precursor?
Exploiting wishful thinking has been a key component not only of Hamas' deceptions over the past decade, but Iran's as well, particularly with the nuclear deal.
And once Iran knows Hamas will happily sacrifice huge numbers of Palestinians to hurt Israel, why does Iran need missiles to shoot a nuclear weapon to Israel? A bomb smuggled to Gaza will do just as well and is much easier to hide.
The entire world needs to re-evaluate every single assumption we have made about Iran's "axis of resistance." All the experts have been wrong about Hamas, including nearly all of Israel's best and most cynical analysts. We have to assume that everything coming directly or indirectly from Iran and its allies is false, and to reconsider everything we accepted as true over the past decade from the region.
Finally, we need to truly understand the level of evil involved in Hamas' deceptions. Their goal, at least for October 7, was purely wicked- the murder, rape and kidnapping of a large number of Israelis and terrorizing all Jews in the world. As we should have learned with the wave of suicide bombing in the 1990s and 2000s, the motivation is utterly foreign to Western thinking, and we still try to shoehorn Western ways of thought into groups like Hamas. If Hamas is as evil as October 7 proved it is, then negotiations and ceasefires are the exact wrong approach.
Hamas' deceptions to murder Jews is not pragmatic - it is genocidal. It is irredeemable. It is Nazi-level evil. And any response that does not insist on its destruction is immoral.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Invoking a rarely used article of the UN Charter, Secretary-General António Guterres on Wednesday called on the Security Council to “press to avert a humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza and unite in a call for a full humanitarian ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants.
This says that the UN chief “may bring to attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.”
In a statement to journalists along with the letter, UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said that this was the first time Mr. Guterres had felt compelled to invoke Chapter 99, since taking office in 2017.
Mr. Dujarric explained that the UN chief was taking the step “given the scale of the loss of human life in Gaza and Israel, in such a short amount of time”.
He described the use of Article 99 as a "dramatic constitutional move" that Mr. Guterres hoped would put more pressure on the Council - and the international community at large - to demand a ceasefire between the warring parties.
"I think it's arguably the most important invocation", Mr. Dujarric told reporters at UN Headquarters, "in my opinion, the most powerful tool that he [the Secretary-General] has."
As the report states, Article 99 says "The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security."
The current war indeed threatens international peace and security. But not because a lot of Gazans are suffering.
One of the astounding things about this war is how the media has been reporting it as a war between Israel and Hamas.
It isn't.
Since October 7, Israel has been attacked on five fronts: Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. All of those are part of Iran's "axis of resistance."
Israel was not the aggressor. Yemen, Hezbollah and other Lebanese terror groups, and Syrian rockets all attacked as soon as Hamas did. This is already an international war, if somewhat limited so far.
Any threat to international peace and security is coming from Iran's :"axis of resistance," not Israel. All of those other four fronts can escalate at any moment into a much larger crisis that could drag other countries into a war.
Yet in Guterres' invocation of Article 99 in his letter, meant to bring attention to a potential threat to international security, there is not one mention of Hezbollah or Syria or Yemen, and certainly not their patron Iran.
If international pressure is needed anywhere, it is towards Iran as well as Hamas' sponsor Qatar, the two countries that have the most influence over the people shooting missiles at Israel.
Why are we not seeing maps like this one in international media? Because no one wants to make Israel look like a victim, only an aggressor. Yet when you look at what is really happening you see that these countries aren't supporting Gazans but attacking Israel - for no valid reason under international law.
Shouldn't the useless UN be spending a bit more time pressuring the countries who are actually threatening world peace?
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) is routinely described as one of the world’s most powerful non-governmental organisations (NGOs), but it is tainted by a biased political agenda and troubling questions about the ethics of its fundraising. The salience of these problems has only increased in the wake of a high-visibility campaign following the October 7th Hamas massacre, during which 1,200 Israelis were brutally murdered and 240 more were taken hostage.
In response to the October 7th atrocities, HRW officials rushed to condemn Israel’s military campaign with repeated accusations of war crimes, apartheid, collective punishment, and similar terms. For a senior employee, who had worked at HRW for 13 years, this response crossed a moral red line, and she circulated a bitter email, confirming the pervasive bias and lack of credibility that have previously been detailed by the organisation’s critics (including this author). In parallel, the publication of a leaked document appeared to show that HRW received $3.75 million from Qatar in 2018, a conflict of interest that casts further doubt on the organisation’s commitment to its stated mission.
These developments raise a number of important questions: How did this organisation, established to promote the principles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, become a world leader in political propaganda, apparently willing to accept donations from some of the world’s most oppressive and brutal regimes? How did an initial emphasis on detailed and verifiable research reports on global human-rights issues degenerate into narrow political advocacy tracts?
A Changed Mission
In order to understand HRW’s transformation, we should begin with its founding in 1978. The NGO was established by Robert Bernstein, the CEO of a major publishing company, after he returned from a trip to the Soviet Union where he met with prominent dissidents. Three years earlier, Washington and Moscow had signed the Helsinki Accords, which included a commitment to “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,” and Bernstein’s new NGO (initially called Helsinki Watch) began by documenting compliance from Moscow. It quickly grew into an influential watchdog, and its reports and other activities brought international pressure to bear first on the Kremlin, and then on dictatorial regimes worldwide as its remit and operations expanded. Unlike other NGOs such as Amnesty International, which relied on claims by activists, HRW produced detailed academic-style research reports based on verifiable information.
Bernstein served as the organisation’s chair until 1998, when he retired from active involvement. Five years earlier, executive director Aryeh Neier had left and Ken Roth was appointed to take his place—a position he would hold until 2022. Following the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, Roth began to pursue a very different agenda, anchored in an anti-Western, anti-American, and postcolonial ideology that was and remains popular on university campuses. This simplistic perspective divides the world—subjectively and a priori—into opposing groups: aggressor states that are presumptively guilty of aggression and war crimes, and victims who cannot be held accountable for even the most egregious acts of brutality and terror. Under the pretext of promoting human rights, Israel went from being a parliamentary democracy to a neocolonialist oppressor, while Palestinian terrorists—including Hamas—became decolonial activists exercising their legitimate “right of resistance” by murdering hundreds of Israeli citizens.
This ideological shift was only amplified by indications that Roth harbored personal animus toward Zionism, regardless of Israel’s borders or policies, and he repeatedly attacked its use of military power in self-defense. Roth frequently refers to his father’s experience as a child in Nazi Germany (until 1938) to justify these obsessive condemnations, and makes frequent use of his social-media accounts to attack Israel. At times, he even employs a distorted text from the Jewish Bible in an effort to provide his hostility with some Jewish authenticity. In a 2006 letter to the New York Sun, Roth described Israel’s response to a lethal Hezbollah attack as “an eye for an eye” and “the morality of some more primitive moment.” In response, the Sun ran an editorial calling this “a slur on the Jewish religion itself that is breathtaking in its ignorance. ... To suggest that Judaism is a "primitive" religion incompatible with contemporary morality is to engage in supersessionism, the de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much anti-Semitism.”
Antisemitism has evolved through a breathtaking dialectical leap: It is now conveyed through the lingo of human rights. This is how a host of liberals and progressives—many of them Jews—have been seduced into supporting NGOs that claim to promote human rights, but are in fact promoting a racist view of the Jewish people. They do so by singling out the Jews as the one people not partaking in the universal right to self-determination, and Israel alone among the nations as the one state which has no right to exist. Singling out the Jews for special hostile treatment is, of course, the very definition of antisemitism.
How has this old-new antisemitism become a legitimate, even respectable position once again? And how did the idea of human rights, which purports to serve as a universal standard, get distorted so badly as to yield an argument for the targeting and exclusion of Jews?
One part of the answer is that academia and the media have created an Industry of Lies, as the title of Israeli leftist journalist Ben-Dror Yemini’s book accurately called it. By using gross double standards, this industry portrays Israel as a uniquely monstrous violator of human rights. The world’s actual egregious violators of human rights—such as China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and most of Israel’s neighbors—don’t receive a fraction of the moralizing attention that Israel gets.
But that is not the whole story. Another part of the answer lies in the way the human rights agenda has been channeled globally into undermining national democracies in general. This trend usually presents itself as a critique of nationalism, understood by the global left as proto-fascism permanently poised to break into actual fascism at any moment. The argument is admittedly catchy: If nationalism is particularistic and exclusive, then human rights, which are universal, are the answer. Catchy, that is, only if you conceive of nationalism as a “negation of others,” as opposed to the particular manifestation of a universal right to national self-determination.
What is more troubling is that behind the declared critique of nationalism lies the undeclared attack on democracy. Because to “transcend” nationalism is to “transcend” the nation-state. When those nation-states are democracies, that means “transcending” democracy too. It means undermining the one effective framework by which citizens exercise political control over their common fate. Imposing a universal regime of human rights from above, through international institutions, is therefore a direct attack on the right to elect the government under which one lives—a right which is the single most effective check against tyranny, and therefore the linchpin of liberty and all other human and civil rights.
Both parts of the answer—the demonization of Israel and the attack on democracy—were clearly manifest in the Durban conference of 2001, beginning with its Orwellian title: World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. The conference turned into a festival of blood libels against the Jewish nation-state—in the name of tolerance, of course. But it also exhibited the rising trend of using the idea of human rights to undermine democracy.
John Fonte was the first to point out, a year after the conference, that the new transnational globalist agenda was utilizing the United Nations and the conference to undermine the principle of government by the consent of the governed. Forty-seven American human rights activists, Fonte noted, sent a petition to the UN’s high commissioner for human rights, under the title “A Call to Action to the United Nations.” The petition demanded that the U.N. impose on the U.S. an agenda that the U.S. government rejected. Fonte went on to write a landmark book, Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or Be Ruled by Others?, detailing the many ways in which new globalist elites are bypassing democratic sovereignty in pursuit of policies that the citizens of democratic nation-states have not consented to.
The case of Israel is most instructive because the general trend of anti-democratic liberalism acquires special poignancy in the one instance where a nation-state’s very right to exist is being questioned. The effort to undermine the Jewish nation-state does not therefore need to camouflage itself. It can be explicit about both its aim and its means: the destruction of Israel in the name of human rights.
Yet it seems clear to me that our shuffling, nervous Ivy League heads have very little in common with yesteryear’s valiant warriors for the liberty to speak. Witness their entirely administrative attitude to the question of genocide-speak. These doyennes of the Byzantine bureaucracy of the 21st-century campus seem obsessed with ‘the rules’. The only way they can understand the profound question of whether genocide advocacy is permissible speech is by referring to their universities’ carefully drawn speech codes. They avoid the immense moral challenge thrown up by a question like ‘Should genocide advocacy enjoy freedom?’ in preference for citing the rulebook. Where liberals of the past thought in deep moral terms, this lot thinks only technically. They end up defending the right to call for genocide for the wrong reasons – not because, in Aryeh Neier’s view, we must defend freedom even for speech we hate, but because they’ve memorised that dusty document in HR’s top drawer that sets out exactly when words become ‘violence’.
Worse, there’s the double standards. To many observers of yesterday’s hearing, it will have felt nothing short of horrifying that the representatives of campuses overrun by petty and insane forms of censorship should be so chilled about the most racist speech imaginable. What the layman knows of the Anglo-American campus in 2023 is that you can be mobbed and reprimanded and disinvited for the slightest transgressions against correct-think. That students, often with the blessing of administrators, have constructed ‘safe spaces’ in which to hide from the horror of a disagreeable idea. That trigger warnings have been whacked on works of literature to shield students from scary storylines and adult themes. And yet now we see Ivy League presidents essentially saying: ‘Yeah, it’s okay to call for the murder of all Jews.’
Jews, clearly, are not covered by the new moral order in the academy. They do not enjoy the same security from offence that is offered to other identity groups. All of us have the right to a ‘safe space’, ‘a refuge’, where we might feel ‘insulated from pressures, insults and impositions’, says the Penn website. Not Jews, though? They might have to run the gamut of genocidal hate? A ‘sense of belonging’ is ‘critical for students’, says MIT, which is why we ‘strive to create an environment that is welcoming’. But not for Jewish students? They might have to suck up hearing people call for the gassing of their race? Harvard promises to be a ‘safe environment’ for everyone regardless of their ‘race and ethnicity, gender, LGBTQ+ [status]’, etc. And yet Jewish students might hypothetically have to listen to some Goebbels fanboy with blue hair and a Palestinian scarf praying for Jewish extermination? Make it make sense.
Clearly, the safe-space system that now pertains on campuses does not extend to Jews. No safe space for you. No sense of belonging. No shield from triggering. Let’s be clear: Jews are second-class citizens in the modern academy. Where racist regimes of old forbade Jews from entering certain professions or marrying gentiles, the new woke regime denies them access to the new moral conventions – good and ill – of campus life. This is identity politics in action, in all its wickedness and bigotry. This new hyper-racial regime brutally organises people according to their ‘oppression’ or ‘privilege’, offering safety to the former while exposing the latter to ridicule, judgement and, we now know, open calls for their mass slaughter. So where some students are protected from the microaggression of being asked ‘Where are you from?’, Jewish students can be exposed to people calling for Jews to be killed. Thus anti-Semitism is re-institutionalised, under the cover of woke.
What should Jewish students do about their blatantly racist exclusion from campus convention? I agree with Batya Ungar-Sargon: instead of fighting for inclusion in the safe space, they should fight against the safe space. Instead of agitating for their fragility to be respected alongside that of other minority groups, they should revolt against the entire cult of fragility. The hypocrisy, illiberalism and outright racism of the new campus ideologies of ‘safety’ and ‘inclusion’ have been starkly exposed in the aftermath of 7 October, and such a poisonous moral order deserves dismantling, not expansion. It was the academy’s turn against reason and enlightenment that landed us in the horrendous situation where students are not allowed to say a man is not a woman but they can call for every Jew on Earth to be murdered – only with the restoration of reason and enlightenment might sense finally return.
Throughout the Anglo-American world, many young people seem to have thrown in their lot with Hamas. Indeed, a recent poll carried out by More in Common shows that 24 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds would characterise Hamas as freedom fighters.
That nearly a quarter of Zoomers have chosen to see Hamas, a vicious Islamist terror group, as liberatory heroes is all too telling. It suggests that millions of young people throughout the West identify with a movement that is unambiguously hostile to their society and way of life. Many of those who regard Hamas as freedom fighters are also likely to give more credence to Hamas propaganda than to mainstream news sources. As a result, over 30 per cent of Zoomers now believe the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October are a fiction invented by Israel or the West.
There is considerable evidence that even before 7 October young people tended to be more supportive of Palestine than of Israel. After 7 October, Zoomers stood out for being the generation most likely to support anti-Israel protests. These sentiments are particularly prevalent among university students where the caricature of Israel as a ‘settler colony’ holds sway.
So what is it about Gen Z that has encouraged so many of that cohort to sympathise with or even support Hamas? And why are so many young people excusing the atrocities Hamas committed on 7 October or even denying they ever happened?
Many commentators have found a familiar scapegoat. They are blaming Gen Z’s pro-Hamas views on social media, noting the role played by influencers on TikTok and Instagram, or pointing to the huge amounts of pro-Hamas videos and propaganda on these platforms. They also claim that young people are afraid of saying the ‘wrong’ thing about the conflict, in case it leads to being singled out by the vocal pro-Hamas mob.
Social media’s role is no doubt significant. Unlike older members of society, who still get most of their news from mainstream outlets, the younger generation relies on social media to inform themselves about current events. They are thus much more likely to encounter sceptical takes on mainstream reporting. But it’s important not to overstate social media’s influence. A TikTok influencer does not have magical powers that can automatically make young people perceive an atrocity as a blow for freedom.
To understand properly why many young people are so uncritically anti-Israel, we need to look instead at the influence of identity politics. Make no mistake: identitarianism suffuses Gen Z’s worldview. It dominates Anglo-American popular culture. And it has become institutionalised in schools and universities.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of
the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
When the war started, I phoned my neighbor to make sure she
knew she was welcome to bring her family to our safe room, at any time of the day
or night. We talked about logistics and how we were having a key made for them
and how I didn’t at all mind a LOT of children in a small space because I’d had
12 of my own. The whole time, my neighbor, whom I’ll call “Terry” out of
respect for her privacy, said, “Thank you, but so far we’ve been sitting in the
stairwell, and that’s fine with us.”
I got the idea she didn’t think the missiles were all that
big a deal, and so finally I confessed, “Yeah. To tell the truth, I don’t worry
so much about the missiles either. It’s the other stuff I worry about.”
“Exactly. It’s the other stuff,” said Terry.
Neither of us had to elucidate the nature of that “other
stuff,” and I won’t say it here, either. But the thing I think about when I
think about that “other stuff," is rape.
I can’t swear that this is the thing that worries my
neighbor most, when she thinks about the things she fears most. She didn’t say.
But then again, she didn’t have to—fear of rape is not exclusive to this writer—it’s
fairly universal among women and researchers have been studying the phenomenon
for years.
Take, for example, this abstract from “Fear of Rape Among Urban Women,”
a 1985 paper by the (in-)felicitously named Mark Warr, of Penn State University
(emphasis added):
Sample survey data from Seattle are used to examine fear of
rape among urban women. The magnitude and prevalence of such fear are
striking, particularly among younger women, who fear rape more than any other
crime. The high fear attached to rape stems from the fact that it is
perceived to be both extremely serious and relatively likely; and from the fact
that it is closely associated with other serious offenses such as homicide and
robbery. Fear of rape also lies behind fear of other offenses among women in
our sample, and is strongly associated with certain social or lifestyle
precautions.
Some four paragraphs into the introduction to this paper,
Warr says something that touches on the universal nature of fear of rape among
women. More women, it seems, are scared of rape than are actually raped (emphasis added):
This paper is not about those who rape, nor is it about
those who are direct victims of rape. Rather, the paper considers a much larger
group: those who fear rape. One of the major developments in criminology during
the past 20 years has been a general realization that the social consequences
of crime are not limited to those who are directly victimized. That principle
is particularly true when it comes to fear of victimization, because the
number of fearful individuals greatly exceeds the number of actual victims
during any given period.
Wikipedia has something on “Rape
Fear” that speaks to cause: the socialization of women. Women have been raised to fear
and protect themselves from rape (emphasis added):
Socialization of Women
The fear of rape, unlike other fears of specific crimes,
is almost exclusive to women. Among women, it is also one of the strongest
crime-related fears, and is the strongest crime-related fear for young women.
Levels of fear of rape vary among women by age, race/ethnicity, residential
area, and other factors, but are especially high for women who have been
victims of rape in the past or know victims personally (the latter group may
include a significant portion of women, with one study estimating that over
half of women know rape victims). Women are socialized from a very young age
that rape can happen anywhere, to anyone, at any time. They are taught that
they should always be aware of the possibility of rape and protect themselves
from it. Young women are taught strategies to keep themselves safe, and this
idea is instilled in them at a young age. This teaching women about the
possibility of rape at a young age may contribute to higher levels of fear of
crime in women. Studies have shown that women that take more precautionary
steps to avoid being raped have more fear of actually being raped, whereas
women who work nights and are outside in the dark tend to have less fear of
rape. This may be because women that are out in the dark alone are more
familiar with the area, so they feel that there is less of a threat.
Every day, women live with fear. It’s not paralyzing, but
it’s omnipresent -- whether you’re walking out of work in the dark or
asking a friend to watch your drink.
“Ask any woman you know. You always have a plan,” said Mary
Dickson, who worked on a PBS documentary about women and fear in 1996.
Nothing’s changed since then, she says.
The fear is low hum beneath the music of your regular
life, implanted in your teenage years. You’re afraid a strange man will attack
you.
So you don’t run at night.
You don’t park in a public garage.
You don’t enter an elevator already occupied by a single
man.
You don’t leave a party without your friends.
Women are raised to fear and protect themselves from rape. But fear
of rape exponentially increases when women read about or see images or footage of
rape. Perhaps that is the reason I sensed that my neighbor Terry felt as I did,
after photos emerged of a female hostage being led away to Gaza, her pants
bloodied at the crotch. I am also fairly certain that like me, Terry finds it
difficult to stop thinking about Shani Louk, whose story I
can’t bring myself to relate here.
We, the women of Israel, know that Hamas, in addition to
raping women—and it must be said, men—uses fear of
rape as a form of psychological warfare, to inspire incapacitating fear in Israeli
women and rage in their men. For this reason, Israeli experts have advised Israelis
not to watch the footage, read the stories, see the photos, or listen to podcasts
where the atrocities might be mentioned. These things spike fears; in the case
of women, fear of rape.
Female
Fear, a US Dept. of Justice resource, speaks of several types of media that
can trigger rape fear in women, among them “frightening press accounts” (emphasis
added):
In the United States, the Nation with the highest rape rate
in the world, warnings, admonitions, and fear of rape are handed down from
mother to daughter. Although rape happens to 1 female in 12, frightening
press accounts, violent pornographic movies, cultural stereotypes of rapists
and their victims, attacks on friends and acquaintances, and escalating
statistics have contributed to women's fear of rape. In exploring the
social and psychological specter of rape in women's lives, this study probes
both the myths and realities of rape and society's response to it, including
strategies women have developed to protect themselves. Fear of rape is
reflected in the way women think, organize their lives, and relate to others.
As the authors indicate, a reasonable amount of fear is useful in motivating
women to take reasonable precautions. The book presents concrete ways both
women and men can begin to alleviate the destructive effects of the fear of rape.
These include educating the public, integrating women into their communities,
promoting legal reform, and forcing accountability in media coverage.
Fear of rape explains the “Believe Women” campaign, which
arose out of the #MeToo movement. Rape is one of women’s foremost fears and
concerns. Why then, do women at the forefront of efforts to support women, make
excuses for Hamas rapists when the victims are Jewish?
The UN, however, bears special
mention for its spectacular betrayal of Israeli women in the face of widespread
rape by Hamas terrorists, still an ongoing situation for Israeli hostages of
both sexes.
An October 26 Jerusalem Post editorial speaks of that betrayal (emphasis
added):
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s speech
to a special Security Council meeting on the Israel-Hamas war on Tuesday began
promisingly enough.
“Nothing can justify the deliberate killing, injuring, and
kidnapping of civilians – or the launching of rockets against civilian
targets,” he said at the beginning of the speech.
Then Guterres’ moral compass went haywire, and he began to
justify what he had just said was unjustifiable.
“It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas
did not happen in a vacuum,” he said. “The Palestinian people have been
subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. They have seen their land
steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy
stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished. Their hopes for a
political solution to their plight have been vanishing.”
Why does Guterres justify violence against Israeli Jews, and
fail to mention at all, the sexual violence and the rape and degradation of
Israeli women? How does anything make rape an excusable offense? In the
enlightened world, how can it be that the head of the UN uses his soapbox to blame
the Jewish victims and tell lies about the Jewish State—and the Gazan people?
By November 30, however, Guterres had apparently changed his
tune. It must have been getting more difficult to get away with the sort of outright
Jew-hatred that makes allowances for rape when the victim is a Jew. Hence his
post on X.
"There are numerous accounts of sexual violence during the
abhorrent acts of terror by Hamas on 7 October that must be vigorously
investigated and prosecuted.
"Gender-based violence must be condemned. Anytime. Anywhere."
There are numerous accounts of sexual violence during the abhorrent acts of terror by Hamas on 7 October that must be vigorously investigated and prosecuted.
Gender-based violence must be condemned. Anytime. Anywhere.
But why so vague? Where is the mention of rape? Where are
the words “support Israel women” and “believe Israeli women” and what do we gleam
from these omissions?
Here is my takeaway: with his fuzzy pronouncements of “investigating
accounts” and “sexual violence” Guterres is telling the world that it’s okay to
suspend belief in women when they are Jewish and Israeli; that it’s
understandable that Hamas terrorists would rape Jewish women; and finally, that
it’s fine and dandy to lie in public and make public proclamations about Jews
occupying their own indigenous Jewish territory when everyone knows the bible is their deed.
My neighbor Terry is somewhat new to Israel. She and her family
made Aliyah after there was a drive-by shooting not far from their home in the
States. They took the shooting as a sign that it was time to leave the States and come
to Israel. She hasn’t changed her mind. Why would she when the entire world
repudiates her because she is a Jew, doesn’t care if she is raped because she
is a Jew?
Rape fear is real for women everywhere, but fear of rape is
compounded in a woman who is Jewish and Israeli, because she knows that the
world sees her rape as legitimate resistance, and that the head of the UN himself, sees her genitals and body as free-for-the-taking, subhuman
instruments for the release of pent-up Arab anger.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Torah.org has an article about last week's Torah portion discussing the episode of Shechem raping Jacob's daughter Dinah in today's Nablus, and the violent revenge on the entire complicit city from her brothers Shimon and Levi.
The analysis concludes that Jacob did not oppose their bloody revenge on moral grounds - the brothers' final statement, "Should he treat our sister like a harlot?" remains unanswered by him. Jacob's opposition was that it was not tactically wise to potentially create enemies, but Dinah's rape was outrageous and the response was apparently the correct one when the tribes of Israel were powerful enough not to worry about repercussions.
This way of looking at how to respond to Jewish women being raped and sexually abused has obviously become relevant these past couple of months.
What most people don't know is that the story of Chanukah, according to some versions, has much of the same incentive behind the revolt.
A commentary to Megillat Taanit called the Scholion was composed in the talmudic period but edited sometime between the 9th and 11th centuries. It reports that the Greeks sent officials to the Land of Israel for the purpose of raping brides before their marriage, a legal ordinance also called jus primae noctis in medieval legal documents or “right of the first night,” in modern scholarship.
The rabbis who authored the Scholion report that the Jews, out of fear, responded to this Greek policy by abstaining from marriage, and then by engineering underground weddings. But the upcoming nuptials of the daughter of the high priest prove too prominent to conceal. When a Greek official comes to rape the maiden, the Maccabees defend their sister’s honor. This is what sparks the rebellion.
Two other versions of a Hanukkah story based on the rape-of-the-bride motif appear in two disparate texts: the She’iltot of the Babylonian Rav Ahai Gaon, composed in the 8th century CE, and an anthology entitled Beit Hamidrash, which includes medieval midrashim and aggadot that were collected from Jewish communities in Germany and Poland in the 1800s by Rabbi Adolf Yelenik.
Rav Ahai recounts that after corrupting all the oil in the Temple, in a final act of desecration, a Greek leader attempts to rape Hannah, the daughter of the High Priest, while her father and her betrothed, Elazar the Maccabee, look on helplessly. In Yelenik’s version of this story, the Greek unfurls a Torah scroll to serve as a mattress for the rape.
Meanwhile the priests timidly deliberate about whether to act or await God’s redemption. They look to the eastern mountains, hoping that the Persians, also enemies of the Seleucid Greeks, would come to their rescue. Finally, Mattathias turns to the High Priest and suggests a revolt: “Counting ourselves and our sons, we are twelve, representing the tribes of Israel. Therefore, we can be assured of God’s backing.” Upon hearing this, Mattathias’ son Elazar the Maccabee kills the Greek general, saves his betrothed, and the rebellion begins.
In another tale found both in Rav Ahai’s writing and in Yelenik’s Beit Hamidrash, the woman protests her fate, unlike Hannah, who is portrayed as a silent victim. Like in the previous story, the Jews face increasingly severe oppression, yet subserviently attempt to avoid confrontation with the Greeks. Still the marriage of Mattathias’s daughter draws unavoidable attention.
The unnamed woman discovers that the elders are resigned to abandon her; rather than risking persecution, they plan to let her be raped by the king. But she does not agree. Her rape, she reasons, will be a sign to all the women of Israel that they too will not be protected. She prefers to martyr herself rather than become a symbol of desecration.
Our heroine makes a dramatic protest before she accepts death. She exchanges her fashionable clothing and jewelry for rags, brings a jug of wine to the public square, and drinks with all the passersby. In Yelenik’s version she strips entirely naked at the pre-wedding feast. Her family is embarrassed and outraged by the guerilla theatre she enacts.
“Where are all the good men?” she cries. “Are you ashamed by my nakedness, but you are not embarrassed to abandon me to the uncircumcised?” Her plea finally spurs the Maccabees to hatch a plan. Like a Trojan horse, the stunning bride is paraded through town to the house of the king, who lets down his guard and allows the newly-activated Maccabees into his inner sanctum, where a slaughter ensues.
In all the versions of the story given here, the Maccabees are eventually prodded into action because of the threat to the honor of Jewish women.
That threat is a far greater motivation to action and seeking justice than mere murders or kidnappings.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Following the testimonies, Yifat Bitton, an Israeli law professor, noted that the victims had been “silenced twice”— first by Hamas on Oct. 7, and then “by the silence of the very U.N. organizations that were entrusted with the mandate of protecting them.” There were clear signs of sexual abuse from the first moments of the attack, and by mid-November there were authoritative reports of Hamas’s widespread sexual assaults.
Yet it took U.N. Women, the agency that has that mandate to look out for women’s rights globally, eight weeks before issuing a perfunctory statement saying it was “alarmed” by accounts of gender-based atrocities during the attacks of Oct. 7.
As for other so-called human-rights organizations, the website of Human Rights Watch — which includes a page ostensibly devoted to women’s rights — has dozens of news releases about the war in Gaza. Not a word about the rapes. From Amnesty International: nothing that can be found on its website. The National Organization for Women denounced the Oct. 7 attacks on the day they occurred and last week issued a news release condemning “rape as a weapon of war.” But it contained no mention of Hamas.
Why not?
In a remarkable floor speech last week, Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, spoke of “the sting of the double standard,” which, he said, “is at the root of antisemitism.” He also recalled a talk he heard in college by Abba Eban, then Israel’s foreign minister, who confronted left-wing hecklers at an event at Harvard.
“We have lived with the double standard throughout the centuries,” Eban told the protesters, Schumer said. “There are always things the Jews couldn’t do. Everyone could be a farmer but not the Jew, everyone could be a carpenter but not the Jew, everyone could move to Moscow but not the Jew, and everyone could have their own state, but not the Jew.”
To which one can today add: Every victim of sexual violence should be heard; no condemnation of rape should ever come with qualifiers; “Silence Is Violence.”
Why would Gay struggle with such a question? The answer was revealed late in the hearing. Rep. Kathy Manning, Democrat of North Carolina and the former chair of the Jewish Federations of North America, said the following to Gay: “I understand that you have condemned the phrase ‘from the river to the sea.’ But I also know that the Harvard School of Public Health has a course called The Settler Colonial Determinants of Health that introduces students to the concept of settler-colonialism and its health-equity implication. It uses case studies in the United States and Palestine and talks about poorer health outcomes for indigenous and other non-settler communities. President Gay, are you aware that Jews are indeed indigenous to the land of Israel and have lived there for 2,000 years?”
Gay: “I do know about the long history.”
Manning: “So what is Harvard doing to educate members of the community about these phrases and other false accusations that Israel is a racist, settler-colonialist, apartheid state even as Harvard is actually teaching courses with the underlying premise that Israel is a settler-colonialist state?”
Gay: “We have faculty, we have outside speakers who come and, over the last couple of months in particular, have been providing more insight into the nature of the conflict and the ways forward.”
So what the university’s president said is this: Yes, Harvard is teaching a class with an anti-Semitic premise, but you may hear the occasional “outside speaker” who will balance that out by talking about “the ways forward.”
In that way, Gay served ably as both bookends to the hearing. The only thing her answers provided clarity on, unfortunately, was why Harvard has become so overtly hostile to Jews. What it means that Harvard University now has a president that is so clearly comfortable with that hostility is a question we not only need to ponder—it’s a challenge we need to confront.
“Those who don't have truth on their side, turn to dishonesty.” It was apt that Katharine Brodsky tweeted this yesterday morning. What’s going on right now in the Israel-Hamas war is bigger than life. It should stop every serious person dead in their tracks.
So what we’re seeing since yesterday is a truly thrilling marriage of two phenomena: Jewish genocide calls are being protected as “free speech” by the highest elite institutions in America, while the rape of Jewish women on October 7 onwards by Hamas is being denied on an industrial scale. A match made in hell (or I guess heaven if you’re Yahya Sinwar)! Which means that from the most esteemed people in America downwards, everyone can say whatever they want to bring harm to Jews and once they have achieved that harm to Jews, they can also deny it. Happy chanukah, everyone!
Let’s look at the rape denial first.
Yesterday at the UN, witnesses gave testimony about sexual violence on October 7. I watched one first responder testify, and he could barely get words out of his mouth. You can tell that the man has not been able to close his eyes for two months for the horrors that lie behind his eyelids. Some of the first responders couldn't even tell you if the bodies they found were men or women. That's how much Hamas mutilated the human beings on October 7. This particular witness recalled that “nails” and other objects were found in women’s vaginas.
There is no end to my fury.
Yes, I too am incensed that nobody cares. Israeli women are not women apparently. Their rapes aren’t rapes. So many SA activists still say absolutely fuck all about October 7. That's fine. But just so you know, from now on we understand that the only reason you post about rape is when you think it makes you look good. Yes, the only reason you post about rape is because you have convinced yourself there’s some benefit to you talking about someone else’s pain. You’re all sadists, just like Hamas. The level of silencing, gaslighting, deception, bullying, and abuse that Jews as a whole are experiencing currently is absolutely appalling.
Well, Briahna, the victims are in the morgue so…
The Jews are re-living the worst eras of our history. So everyone who isn’t a Jew will fall into one of two camps: either you’re participating in our abuse and attempted annihilation, or you’re sheltering us from it. There is nothing bigger than this right now. Ergo: you’re in one of those two camps. Pick.
From Ron E. Hassner, a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley, in the Wall Street Journal:
When college students who sympathize with Palestinians chant “From the river to the sea,” do they know what they’re talking about? I hired a survey firm to poll 250 students from a variety of backgrounds across the U.S. Most said they supported the chant, some enthusiastically so (32.8%) and others to a lesser extent (53.2%).
That's 86% of college students who either don't understand or actively support a call to destroy Israel.
But only 47% of the students who embrace the slogan were able to name the river and the sea. Some of the alternative answers were the Nile and the Euphrates, the Caribbean, the Dead Sea (which is a lake) and the Atlantic. Less than a quarter of these students knew who Yasser Arafat was (12 of them, or more than 10% [I think 5% - EoZ] , thought he was the first prime minister of Israel). Asked in what decade Israelis and Palestinians had signed the Oslo Accords, more than a quarter of the chant’s supporters claimed that no such peace agreements had ever been signed. There’s no shame in being ignorant, unless one is screaming for the extermination of millions.
But we cannot blame many of the students. They never learned basic facts to begin with, and therefore they are receptive to antisemitic lies.
Would learning basic political facts about the conflict moderate students’ opinions? A Latino engineering student from a southern university reported “definitely” supporting “from the river to the sea” because “Palestinians and Israelis should live in two separate countries, side by side.” Shown on a map of the region that a Palestinian state would stretch from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, leaving no room for Israel, he downgraded his enthusiasm for the mantra to “probably not.” Of the 80 students who saw the map, 75% similarly changed their view.
An art student from a liberal arts college in New England “probably” supported the slogan because “Palestinians and Israelis should live together in one state.” But when informed of recent polls in which most Palestinians and Israelis rejected the one-state solution, this student lost his enthusiasm. So did 41% of students in that group.
A third group of students claimed the chant called for a Palestine to replace Israel. Sixty percent of those students reduced their support for the slogan when they learned it would entail the subjugation, expulsion or annihilation of seven million Jewish and two million Arab Israelis. Yet another 14% of students reconsidered their stance when they read that many American Jews considered the chant to be threatening, even racist. (This argument had a weaker effect on students who self-identified as progressive, despite their alleged sensitivity to offensive speech.)
In all, after learning a handful of basic facts about the Middle East, 67.8% of students went from supporting “from the river to sea” to rejecting the mantra. These students had never seen a map of the Mideast and knew little about the region’s geography, history or demography. Those who hope to encourage extremism depend on the political ignorance of their audiences. It is time for good teachers to join the fray and combat bias with education.
This begs the questions - how can a student make it to college, let alone graduate, without a basic understanding of history?
And how can they support a slogan that they do not even begin to understand?
There is a lot of pleasure in protesting against injustice. One feels accomplished, and well-informed, and - most of all - self-righteous. The more people the modern antisemites get to join, the more emotionally invested they are in what they are spending time protesting. Those people are quickly beyond help. It is a self feeding cycle of smugness and refusal to consider any facts that contradict what one is emotionally invested in.
This survey shows that most students haven't been seduced into joining those protests, but they are primed to. They only hear one side, and they don't even know there is another. Meaning, unless things change, as bad as things are now, they will be far worse in the future.
This is a major failure in American education. And no one seems to be in a hurry to fix this, since the priorities are on teaching "diversity" instead of teaching geography.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Hamas, and its fans, continue to insist that Hamas treated Israeli hostages well, that the hostages were happy and thankful at how they were treated.
This was an important narrative to Hamas. So important that they gave tranquilizers and extra food to the hostages before they were released to the Red Cross.
So important that they went out of their way to make the freed hostages wave to them and shake hands while the captives were still uncertain if they were really free. .
So important that they forced one of the hostages to write a letter "thanking" them for how well they supposedly treated her daughter.
One child said he kept track of time by tearing off pieces of his fingernails and saving the clippings to count the days. Dr. Efrat Bron-Harlev, the director of Schneider Children’s Medical Center of Israel, said another child asked a flurry of questions: “Are we allowed to look out the window? Are we allowed to open the door? Can we walk outside the room?” Another child said she was confused to see people waiting for her because she was told that no one was looking for her, that no one cared for her, and that there would be no Israel left for her.
At times, a social worker or psychologist would step out of the room to cry.
“They spoke about death as if they’re going down to the grocery and speaking about which ice cream they will buy,” Dr. Mozer-Glassberg said.
Hamas went through a lot of effort to create the fantasy of having treated the hostages well. And this is all solid evidence of the levels of deception that they go through to spread their narrative.
Everything Hamas said about the hostages has been proven a lie. But these are not mere lies - they are carefully pre-planned deceptions on multiple levels.
This isn't a set of off-the-cuff lies. This is a strategy. And this strategy extends way beyond the hostages to every aspect of this war. Because Hamas understands, perhaps better than Israel does, that the cognitive war is at least as important as the kinetic war.
Hamas' attempts to fool the world about how they treated the hostages are now proven. Equally proven are the absurd Hamas' denials of rape or even murdering civilians. Some of their lies are laughably obvious, like when they claim to have destroyed hundreds of IDF armored vehicles or killed thousands of soldiers, or that Israeli airstrikes hit the Al Ahli hospital. Any slightly objective observer can see these for the lies they are.
But they are all part of the same strategy to manipulate world opinion - there are plenty of antisemites who will cling to any crumb of Hamas lies and insist that it is Israel that is lying, and they are faithful soldiers in Hamas' propaganda army. Any time Hamas casts doubt in the general public about the truth, they win, no matter how provably false their claims are. And they are also playing to their base in the Arab world, with Al Jazeera eagerly parroting their lies on cable TV.
If Hamas lied about the hostages, and they did, then we can assume they are lying about everything in the same attempt to manipulate world opinion. Lying is an integral part of Hamas' war strategy.
Of course there have been children and women who have died in Israeli airstrikes. But that truth is part of a much larger web of falsehood claiming a huge percentage of the dead are women and children, that practically no terrorists are dead. In the past Hamas counted people who died of natural causes as being victims of Israeli fire - and hundreds of people die of natural causes in Gaza in any normal month. We've seen plenty of faked Pallywood productions of dramatic footage of injured and dead children, bulking up the real footage.
This is why it is so frustrating when the media or politicians make it sound like Hamas claims have equal or greater weight than what Israelis say. The hostage story shows that everything Hamas says must be assumed to be part of this propaganda strategy, that they are leavening a few drops of truth with a tsunami of falsehoods, and they look very sincere when they try to fool gullible Westerners and rally Arab allies.
Literally every word they say is aimed at manipulating the listener. That is the most important fact that the media is not reporting.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Last year, Harvard issued Title IX training that warned that students could be dismissed if they use pronouns that offend the person they are talking to.
Students were given mandatory training in appropriate behavior and one slide showed the "Power and Control Wheel" to help them identify cases where they might make other people feel unsafe.
Now, keep this in mind as you watch Rep. Elise Stefanik grill the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania about whether public calls for the genocide of Jews would violate their universities' codes of conduct.
The answer? It depends. It depends on context. If the desire to murder all Jews is not accompanied by action - perhaps actually killing Jews - then it sounds like it is protected speech.
I think they are saying that if the death threat is directed at one individual, that might be crossing the line. But if someone screams at a Jew, "All Jews must die," based on their testimony here, it sounds like that is not actionable.
Here is a really great clip of questioning by Rep. John James where he asks them what they are doing to fight antisemitism on their campuses. The answer is silence.
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.
The Pope's Genocide Cowardice
-
Pope Francis recently implied that Israel was committing “genocide” in its
campaign against Hamas. While the pope was eager to apply the term to
Muslims...
A Friend Indeed
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Trump, MAGA, President, Jerusalem, Embassy,
America, Huckabee,]
Welcome Ambassador Huckabee!
* * * And *IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO MAK...
An open letter to the police and CPS
-
To the police and CPS. With reference to complaints made by Gabriel
Kanter-Webber about Rupert Nathan. I understand that the matter has now
been referred...
7 Biggest Dungeons In Elder Scrolls Games
-
Please verify your email address. Labyrinthian in Skyrim is a maze of
Nordic ruins with fiends to battle and treasures to find. Sundercliff Watch
in Oblivi...
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, December 07, 2023
Elder of Ziyon
.jpg)
