This is the beginning of an op-ed in Al Montasaf, a Yemeni news site that is anti-Houthi.
The Zionist entity state continues to deceive the world by repeating its broken record that its Jewish people are the only people in the world who are killed because of their Judaism.
This deceptive statement sidesteps the truth, and history denies it in form and content, because hatred of the Jews is not because of their religion, but because of their morals and behaviors that are based on crooked dealings, conspiracies, hatred of others, and their old and new bloodiness.
There you go! There's no antisemitism against Jews for their beliefs - it is because they are simply inherently bloodthirsty, lying, hateful people!
The rest of the article gives "evidence" - Shakespeare's Shylock character! And he then lists a half dozen examples of Jews accused of murdering children to consume their blood - the classic blood libel, the most antisemitic slander against Jews throughout history - as if they are all true.
The Houthis are proudly antisemitic - "Curse the Jews" is part fo their official slogan..But this newspaper hates the Houthis, yet is every bit a jew-hating.
And as with nearly all Jew-haters throughout history, including today's "anti-Zionist" flavors, these Arabs swear that they are not antisemitic.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
By this point the sentiment has become pervasive among Jews everywhere: There is not one but two wars being fought at this moment.
The first is being fought literally in Gaza and, as we saw recently with the Hamas stabbing attack in Jerusalem—not to mention the endless rockets fired at Israel from Gaza—often bleeds over into Israel. The second, which some believe is the war we are less likely to win, is the war of disinformation and Jew-hatred taking place in cities and on university campuses all over the world and especially in the United States.
Jewish stores, restaurants, schools and places of worship have been attacked. People who are visibly Jewish have been subjected to both verbal and physical threats. The hysterical and frenzied screams of “Globalize the Intifada” and worse are the tell-tale characteristics of so-called pro-Palestinian rallies. This second war is nebulous and far-reaching, a speeding car without breaks—that much is true.
But there is yet another war taking place. It is the war in our own lives, with families, friends and communities. Our inner circles are no longer safe spaces, but even worse, we wonder if they ever were. Why? Because there are wolves in our houses: people we considered close friends and allies, many we have known intimately for years, who have materialized into antisemites seemingly overnight.
In the wake of Oct. 7, these people have shown their teeth, razor sharp and poised to bite, fangs glistening in the light of each new accusation against Israel, a country trying to bring its hostages home and end, once and for all, the threat of Hamas. Those of us who were paying attention saw that, even before Israel began to strike back and to hunt down Hamas terrorists, the fangs were sharpened and ready.
On Oct. 11 I published one of the first pieces to call attention to the systematic rape and mutilation of Israeli women on Oct. 7. “Where are the feminists?” I asked. The countless messages I received on social media ranged from insults like “Zionist propagandist b—h” to threats including “I see you have a son.” But the creators of these insults are not the wolves. They are the rot that always bubbles and festers under the surface of any society in which there are Jews—the ones that search relentlessly for an opening, an opportunity to release their filth into the mainstream. I’m not so worried about those.
What concerns me are my friends. In the summer of 2007, I attended the Cornell School of Criticism and Theory (SCT). I felt, for the first time in my life, that I had found my people. The friendships I developed were deep and special and continued even though we were spread across the world. I look back on that summer as one of the best in my life. In the years since, there have been times when our conversations about Israel and the Palestinians have been tense, but they were always grounded in mutual respect for the other perspective, or so I thought. But on Oct. 8, the tenor of the discourse had already changed.
I watched as a few of my SCT friends began to post anti-Israel rhetoric. Not one of them mentioned the massacre of Israelis or the hostages taken into Gaza, and not one of them reached out to me to ask if I had family or friends in Israel. In those days and weeks after Oct. 7, I thought I would die of heartbreak. I watched endless videos of horrific footage because, as a Holocaust scholar, I understand the importance of bearing witness. I, like many others, will never be the same after watching these atrocities. But how can we look away?
Is a university president’s only job to manage speech codes? If not, then why is that all we’re talking about?
It would be great if the reason Claudine Gay kept her job as president of Harvard was that she drew up a comprehensive plan to change the lunatic atmosphere of the institution over which she presides. That would mean the “elite” institution was grappling even superficially with its obligations. But it appears she kept her job because the university wanted to spite Harvard grad Bill Ackman, head of Pershing Square Capital Management and an energetic critic of the current administration.
Political leaders aren’t exempt from the crisis either. Pennsylvania officials recently pointed out that a mob action taken against a Jewish-owned falafel joint in Philly was a baldly anti-Semitic act and one with expected material effects on the business that was targeted. What is being done to address the fact that the City of Brotherly Love has a mob-action problem in the first place? What is being done to make sure Jewish-owned restaurants that have been protested against and vandalized survive in this environment?
The blasé attitude of politicians and university leaders is disturbing at this point. We all agree that 40 physical assaults isn’t a speech issue. But… we all agree it’s an issue, right? Nine-hundred anti-Semitic rallies is a sign of social fabric coming undone. Do our leaders have any desire to see that fabric stitched back together?
If you’re a government body or a university bureaucracy, there is an endless list of things you absolutely should not do. I don’t need to hear you recite them. But please stop pretending that physical assaults and Kristallnacht-redolent attacks on Jewish establishments are proof of a robust culture of speech and debate.
The first took place at Williams College in the late 1980s when, as a faculty member, I attended a lecture titled “When Jews Became White.” The talk left a lasting impression on me. The presenter argued that the stature of Jews in America changed in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Some of it resulted from the valiant service of Jewish soldiers during World War II; some from the shame among non-Jews about ignoring the murder of the Six Million; some from the ascendancy of Jews in business, the arts and virtually every field imaginable. What especially stood out to me was when the lecturer spoke about how transformational it was that arguably the two most iconic women in post-war America, Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor, proudly converted to Judaism. Now that was a stamp of approval.
But I witnessed the downside of this broadened social acceptance at a second event around a decade ago, when I was president of Northwestern University. I was part of a group of administrators who invited students to discuss how we could work together to make the university as welcoming as possible in light of our rapidly diversifying student body. One of the student leaders began her remarks by telling us to “check our privilege at the door,” an expression I had never heard at the time but would hear often in the years that followed. At first I thought she was asking all of us to do so, since not only were we all fortunate to be associated with such a highly regarded institution, but also many of the people in the room were raised in households with considerable wealth. It was immediately clear from the reaction of the other students, however, that they didn’t own up to having any privilege whatsoever. While I almost blurted out that as a practicing Jew who grew up in a family with very modest means and who faced covert and overt antisemitism throughout my life and career, I have never felt particularly privileged, I kept silent. As with most such sessions, the intention wasn’t to engage in collaborative dialogue, but rather simply to shame.
Taken together – Jews over time becoming accepted in American life, and so-called campus progressives focusing on “elites” as the source of all societal ills – I can better understand how we got to the harrowing moment we are in today.
But the critics are right about one thing: it is indeed a privilege to be Jewish. How wonderful to be part of a group that contributes so mightily to the welfare of others. While history suggests that some will always use Jews as scapegoats, I know how blessed I am to be a Jew. It is both a privilege and an obligation that I will never check at anyone’s door.
Washington, December 14 - A Kentucky Congressman followed up today on criticism of his colleagues' firm support of Israel with a disavowal of his origin and childhood in a different state, a spokesman for the legislator announced today.
Bill T. F. Sharry, an aide to the Republican lawmaker, told reporters at the Capitol this morning that Thomas Massie (R-KY) decided to put his money where his mouth was, and, after tweeting a meme that claimed Congress was rejecting patriotism in favor of Zionism, realized he must show consistency on the matter of his place of birth vs. the place he was elected to represent in DC.
"The Congressman is a man of principles, and if principles call for him to oppose foreign interests superseding American interests, then consistency demands that he also foreswear any loyalties to a different state from the one he now serves," Sharry explained. He neglected to explain how the Congressman believes Zionism contradicts American patriotism.
"Up yours, West Virginia," he added. "None of your pernicious influence will ever again penetrate Kentucky."
Sharry also called on other members of Congress, in both houses, to follow Massie's lead, and formally disconnect themselves from any former states of residence, as a hedge against dual loyalties.
"Too many of our representatives and senators hail from states where they lived before getting elected to Congress to represent their present states of residence," he continued. "[Republican Senator from Texas] Ted Cruz was born in Canada, which I'm told isn't even part of this country. Has he renounced loyalty to that foreign regime to the north? Or will we one day face a crisis in which Mr. Cruz has to choose between American interests and the interests of people whose idea of a good time is the so-called sport of curling? All elected officials, and all appointed or hired ones, for that matter, should renounce loyalty to any other state or locale, at once."
Some critics opined that Massie's move remains insufficient. "He got a degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology," charged commentator Mike Cernovich. "We all know New England, the Boston area in particular, is a hotbed of degenerate liberal ideology and immorality. Massie spent years there, on and off. Now we're supposed to just trust that none of that craziness rubbed off on him, that he has no compromising sympathies for them? No one's impressed if you disavow West Virginia. West Virginians want to disavow West Virginia. It's a cesspool. No, I take it back, that's unfair to cesspools."
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
The pattern of this selective rage shifts slightly if the U.S. is involved and reaches its peak when Israel is involved. We saw it when U.S. forces were rooting out terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, there was almost total silence when Russian President Vladimir Putin was annihilating Muslims in Chechnya.
In northwestern China, the Uyghur Muslim population has been the victim of a cultural genocide perpetrated by Communist authorities. Their religious and human rights have been stripped and many are being held in concentration camps. Yet again, the Muslim world remains silent.
Perhaps this is exactly the reason much of the world is not rallying behind the Palestinian cause this time around. People can easily see through the thinly veiled hypocrisy and selective outrage.
There is another interesting paradox. When Muslim regimes like Iran, Turkey and other Persian Gulf states abuse the human rights of their citizens, almost all Muslim governments choose to side with the regime instead of the victims. But when the U.S. or Israel is involved in any conflict in the Muslim world, the same regimes take cover behind international human rights laws that they have scant regard for.
The Pakistani military mastered this art of duplicity and hypocrisy. It received billions of dollars in aid from the U.S. and its allies to fight jihadis in Afghanistan, supported many of the same jihadis in their fight against NATO, turned a blind eye to terrorism perpetrated against Pakistani civilians and stoked anger over U.S. drone strikes, leading to widespread protests.
This is all about politics, not the political rights of Muslims. Israel is the only modern, democratic and technologically advanced state in the Middle East. Compare it with the Muslim monarchies of the region and you have a stark contrast. Support for Palestinian cause comes from a fear that if Israel is allowed to exist in peace and security, its democratic values will eventually permeate the region.
It may strike some observers as curious, and others as unimaginably evil, that only weeks after Hamas slaughtered over 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, the Biden administration awarded sanctions waivers worth $10 billion to Iran, the primary external sponsor of those attacks. The waiver, which allows Iran to collect money from the sale of electricity to Iraq, an arrangement that further deepens Iranian control of that country, came with an added bonus: Iran would be allowed to convert the funds into euros which it could spend immediately, without the usual requirement that the money remain in escrow inside Iraq. The prospect that Iran might immediately spend the money it receives on continuing to target U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria doesn’t appear to have disrupted the deal, either.
Which is strange. In the informal but apparently binding relationship between the Biden administration and the Iranians, minor events like a horrific, large-scale terror assault on a close ally, the kidnapping of American children and burying them in underground tunnels, and the regular maiming and occasional killing of U.S. military personnel on American bases in the region can hardly be permitted to interfere with the goal of ensuring that billions of dollars reach Iran every month, in order to buttress the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.
Showing its awareness that there is something obviously bizarre—not to mention hideously amoral—about this relationship, the administration has gone to absurd levels to downplay Iran’s role in the massacre. According to The Wall Street Journal, hundreds of Hamas terrorists who took part in the attack received specialized training in Iran. Meanwhile, reporting in Israel indicates that Tehran was involved at the operational level to the extent that it determined the actual timing of the operation, moving it to October from its originally planned date during Passover. These reports are the latest in a series that began to come out immediately after Oct. 7, that have directly implicated Iran in various stages and aspects of the terrorist onslaught, in addition to its already well-understood role as Hamas’ main funder, arms supplier, and political sponsor.
Iran, the state sponsor without whose material and logistical support Hamas would not be able to function, is naturally kept in the dark. Yes, that’s definitely how it all went down.
The detailed reporting on Iran’s direct involvement in the Oct. 7 massacre that has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and in the Israeli press stands in stark contrast with the public assertions of the Biden administration about the lack of any Iranian involvement. The administration staked out its position on the matter from the very day of the assault, which ostensibly took both Israel and the U.S. entirely by surprise: “On Iran’s involvement, I mean, look, specifically about what happened today, it’s too early—too early to say whether, you know, the state of Iran was directly involved or planning and supporting,” a senior administration official told reporters on a background call on Oct. 7. Asked again, the senior official gave a more specific answer: “Again, on that question, what I said: We don’t have anything to indicate Iran was involved in this specific—what is unfolding now.”
The weasel language the senior official used in both answers set the tone for subsequent pronouncements and leaks on the subject. Namely, that no “direct” evidence whatsoever existed that suggested “the state of Iran” was “directly” involved in planning and supporting this “specific” attack. In other words, the Biden administration understood from the day of the attack onward that its role was to serve as Iran’s lawyer, minimizing Iran’s involvement at every turn, in order to protect the U.S.-Iranian relationship from American legislative and public opinion.
So when the WSJ reported on Oct. 8 that Iran helped plan the operation—including in multiple meetings in Beirut with senior Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) officials, all the way to giving the green light a week before the attack—administration officials sprung into action, like any hardened Bronx defense lawyer would when informed that a notorious client with a rap sheet as long your arm had apparently gone on a wild rampage, murdering well over a thousand perfectly innocent people in cold blood. “We don’t have any information at this time to corroborate this account,” one official told the paper. In an interview with CNN, Secretary of State Antony Blinken robotically played back the buzzwords from the day before: “In this specific instance, we have not yet seen evidence that Iran directed or was behind this particular attack, but there is certainly a long relationship.” (Emphasis added.)
A Biden administration official acknowledged on Wednesday that Iran has made two “transactions” using money held in a bank in Oman under a sanctions waiver that was granted to the Islamic Republic last month.
Speaking at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee, Elizabeth Rosenberg said that Iran has spent part of $10 billion of revenues for selling electricity to Iraq, which was held in an Omani escrow account.
Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.), chair of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, asked Rosenberg: “Have there been any humanitarian transactions facilitated from the Iranian funds held in Oman?”
“There have been two transactions,” confirmed Rosenberg, assistant secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes at the U.S. Treasury Department, adding that she would only provide additional detail about those transactions in a classified setting.
Wednesday’s hearing appears to be the first acknowledgment by the Biden administration that Iran has spent part of the funds it received under these sanctions waivers.
Rosenberg did not say when the transactions took place. The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to a query from JNS.
Mousa Abu Marzouk made comments in an interview with Al-Monitor this week. The comments were portrayed as Hamas considering “Israel recognition.”
In fact, nothing of this sort has taken place, and it is part of the Hamas attempt to portray itself as moderate in English while it not only commits genocidal acts when it has the power, but it pushes global extremism against Israel and Jews. Selling Hamas as willing to moderate is one phase in the strategic agenda of the group as it has its sights set on the West Bank and the region.
The comments by Abu Marzouk were characterized as a “shift” for Hamas by Al-Monitor. “In an interview with Al-Monitor, senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk suggested the militant group would adhere to the Palestine Liberation Organization’s stance on Israel.”
Bait and switch
This is a form of charlatanism by Hamas and a bait and switch. Hamas itself continues to hold more than 130 hostages in Gaza and carried out the most brutal mass murder against Israeli civilians in Israel’s history recently. Hamas is so brutal and genocidal that its attack on October 7 also targeted foreign workers and tourists, the organization spared no one. Hamas, like some other historic terrorist groups, like to benefit from the privilege these groups get from media, where they have an “armed wing” and a “political” wing.
There is no such thing as an “armed wing” of a terrorist group, any more than a country’s army is its “armed wing.” Terrorist groups nevertheless benefit from this by massacring people with one hand and then sending their leaders to appear on Western media channels.
Hamas has done this for years, appearing on Al-Jazeera in Doha, where Hamas leaders are based, or sending Hamas members to talk to UK or US media. At such meetings, they have crafted talking points that make Hamas seem open to negotiations. For instance, they pretend that Hamas might be willing to adopt the stance of the Palestine Liberation Organization and, therefore, recognize Israel.
Of course, the real goal here is not for Hamas to recognize Israel, but rather for Hamas to grow its presence in the West Bank. A recent poll has found that after October 7, Hamas is gaining in popularity in the West Bank.
In order for Hamas to come to power in the West Bank, it needs to get out from under sanctions in the West and to sell itself as a potential peace partner.
#BREAKING: Musa Abu Marzouk says his words were taken "out of context" by Al-Monitor and emphasizes that Hamas still rejects recognition of Israel and promises that "resistance will continue." https://t.co/egCZ402ovIpic.twitter.com/d9cmNlDoll
I reported on a new PCPSR survey yesterday showing that Hamas' popularity has surged since October 7.
While I report on these polls often, major news media almost always ignore them. This time, though, AP highlighted the part about how Hamas is now far more popular than Fatah, especially on the West Bank, and how Palestinians do not want Abbas as their leader.
That is indeed an important story. But AP continues to ignore one critical question that is in every poll, that is even more important.
69% of the respondents say they support "a return to confrontations and armed intifada."
By a greater than 2-1 ratio, Palestinians want to go back to the days of suicide bombings and blowing up buses filled with Jews.
Media and politicians love to talk a lot about ceasefires, and the importance of peace, and the desirability of a two-state solution. But this single fact means that none of that matters.
More than half of Palestinians have been supporting a return to terrorism for a while now. Hamas' pogrom increased that desire by 11 percentage points.
Palestinian support for terror isn't a side issue. It is the issue.
Palestinian antisemitism isn't something to be minimized. It is prevalent and it is a major factor behind every Palestinian political decision.
The media and politicians actively choose to ignore what Palestinians happily tell pollsters, and instead choose to pressure Israel to keep making concessions to these people that want so see Israel destroyed and Jews living, at best, as second-class citizens. It isn't exactly a conspiracy, but it is an active choice made by the most influential people in the Western world to ignore reality and try to impose their own wishful thinking instead. But the end result is not the peace they desire, but more war.
It is way past time to remove the blinders to the real obstacles to peace in the region.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
CNN does it again, using a sensational headline that is undercut by information buried far later in the article.
The article is a classic example of how journalists can craft a story that is technically accurate and thoroughly - and intentionally - misleading.
The headline:
Exclusive: Nearly half of the Israeli munitions dropped on Gaza are imprecise ‘dumb bombs,’ US intelligence assessment finds
It starts off with information we can assume is factual:
Nearly half of the air-to-ground munitions that Israel has used in Gaza in its war with Hamas since October 7 have been unguided, otherwise known as “dumb bombs,” according to a new US intelligence assessment.
The assessment, compiled by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and described to CNN by three sources who have seen it, says that about 40-45% of the 29,000 air-to-ground munitions Israel has used have been unguided. The rest have been precision-guided munitions, the assessment says.
Then it slides into speculation:
Unguided munitions are typically less precise and can pose a greater threat to civilians, especially in such a densely populated area like Gaza. The rate at which Israel is using the dumb bombs may be contributing to the soaring civilian death toll.
It then brings in fake evidence based on what is probably a presidential gaffe:
On Tuesday, President Joe Biden said Israel has been engaged in “indiscriminate bombing” in Gaza.
But experts told CNN that if Israel is using unguided munitions at the rate the US believes they are, that undercuts the Israeli claim that they are trying to minimize civilian casualties.
“I’m extremely surprised and concerned,” said Brian Castner, a former Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) officer who now serves as Amnesty International’s senior crisis adviser on arms and military operations.
“It’s bad enough to be using the weapons when they are precisely hitting their targets. It is a massive civilian harm problem if they do not have that accuracy, and if you can’t even give a benefit of the doubt that that the weapon is actually landing where the Israeli forces intended to,” Castner added.
Note that Castner is not at all an expert on targeting. He's (presumably) an expert on disposing mines and unexploded bombs. Which means he is not an expert at all.
Marc Garlasco, a former United Nations military analyst and war crimes investigator who served as chief of high value targeting on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff in 2003, said that using unguided munitions in a densely populated area like Gaza both greatly increases the chance that a target is missed and that civilians are harmed in the process.
Besides his problematic hobby, Garlasco quit the Pentagon two weeks after arranging an attack on a major Iraqi figure - who was not in his home, killing 17 innocent civilians instead. And he then joined Human Rights Watch, who had no problem hiring someone who did something they routinely call war crimes when anyone else does it. But, hey, he's an "expert."
So now CNN set the stage to make people think Israel is bombing civilians with dumb bombs. It gives sly implications and quotes "experts" who aren't experts.
Finally, in paragraph 15, we learn from real experts that "dumb bombs" can be nearly as accurate as smart bombs:
A US official told CNN that the US believes that the Israeli military is using the dumb bombs in conjunction with a tactic called “dive bombing,” or dropping a bomb while diving steeply in a fighter jet, which the official said makes the bombs more precise because it gets it closer to its target. The official said the US believes that an unguided munition dropped via dive-bombing is similarly precise to a guided munition.
That one sentence undercuts the entire story. And it is buried between two quotes from potential war criminal and Nazi SS enthusiast Garlasco, as if his opinion has more weight than actual US military experts.
But Garlasco said the Israelis “should want to use the most precise weapon that they possibly can in such a densely populated area.” With an unguided munition, “there are so many variables to take into account that could lead to an incredibly different accuracy from one moment to the next,” Garlasco added. The US has deliberately phased out its own use of unguided munitions over the last decade, he noted.
But Israel doesn't have a Pentagon-sized budget to toss aside perfectly good munitions that can be used without hurting civilians.
The structure of the CNN article is designed to marginalize the most important part of the story - the part that contradicts the entire story itself. But it can defend itself against charges of bias because it does mention the dive bombing assessment from real military sources (not marginal former military who do not have the knowledge or expertise to even know about dive bombing.) Yet the structure of the article is where the bias lies.
The problems with the story don't end there.
The story is based on the assumption that Israel used the dumb bombs exclusively on crowded civilian areas. But there is zero proof of that.
It could have used them after all civilians have left an area, and therefore the bombs are an effective weapon against large underground targets - tunnel networks.
More importantly, Israel doesn't only target places where there are residents.
Open source intelligence identified a dumb bomb that the Israel Air Force showed in a tweet on October 12, an M117:
This is early in the war, so it seems unlikely that the IDF was running out of guided weapons at that point. So either Israel was purposefully using dumb bombs in cities, they were dive bombing in cities (which seems unlikely), or they were not aiming these bombs at residential areas altogether.
The New York Times published maps showing where they identified building damage in Gaza. Here's a detail of one such map from October 18:
While the detail is poor, it looks like this target is in the middle of an area where there are no residential buildings.
Google Earth shows more detail:
Zooming in:
It is a large warehouse (5600 m3, 60,000 square feet) surrounded by fields.
Assuming it was identified as a Hamas military site, the best weapon to use would be a "dumb bomb."
Here's another industrial area targeted by the Israel Air Force according to the NYT maps early in the war:
Gaza has plenty of similar industrial parks that no one lives near. The media concentrates on airstrikes in crowded urban areas, but there is a lot more in Gaza.
It just so happens that Hamas prefers to place its tunnels - which are their key military assets -under the civilian areas.
CNN could have done what I just did. They have access to far more resources than I do. But they chose to frame the story to make Israel look monstrous, when the facts show quite the opposite.
They could have quoted the US officials who said they believe Israel is using the dumb bombs in responsible ways before extensively quoting the "experts" who are literally paid to find dirt on Israel.
This article tells us much more about CNN's desire to demonize Israel than it does about Israel's supposed lack of concern for civilian lives.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Reality check — intifada has nothing to do with genocide of Jews
When New York Rep. Elise Stefanik repeatedly — and now infamously — badgered three college presidents about the nuances of free speech last week, she attempted to push her narrative that elite schools are antisemitic by equating “chants for intifada” with “genocide of Jews.”
The three presidents fell for the trap that a Palestinian uprising could be connected to crimes against humanity.
I was a journalist for Al Fajr, a Palestinian weekly, in the late 1980s, when the first intifada began. The word appeared on leaflets in the title of a Palestinian Liberation Organization-backed group: the Underground Unified National Leadership of the Intifada.
Dan Fisher, then the Jerusalem bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, asked me to translate it. “Intifada” means “shaking off,” I told him, a reference to the demand for freedom from occupation. Palestinians opposed the occupation, not Israel. Palestinians’ aspirations were for an independent state alongside Israel, not instead of Israel.
This is gaslighting.It is akin to the stupid argument that "antisemitism" means "against Semites." Words and phrases evolve in meaning and today, "intifada" is understood by all Israel haters to mean violence.] (The idea that Palestinians would accept a permanent Jewish state in any form is simply a lie.)
It is not only Kuttab trying mightily to redefine "intifada" this week - here is Judith Butler in Boston Review:
Intifada, generally translated as “uprising” in Arabic, means “to be shaken” or “to shake oneself.” It is understood as a movement that refuses to remain docile in the face of colonial violence, an effort to throw off the shackles of colonial rule. It is also a call for Palestinian unity. Does it necessarily imply genocidal violence? No.
Again, gaslighting.
When the word "intifada" is used by both Palestinians and protesters today, it means nothing other than violence.
The first intifada, while violent, was not characterized by the horrific suicide bombings and bus bombs of the second intifada, or as Palestinians celebrate it, it the "Al Aqsa Intifada."
In Arabic Palestinian media, however, the word "intifada" by itself is always understood to mean the second intifada.
The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey research routinely asks in their polls how people want to respond to Israel,. The latest poll released yesterday includes choices of "unarmed popular resistance" and "a return to confrontations and armed intifada."
Not once have they referred to unarmed resistance as an "intifada." The Palestinians who are answering the questions wouldn't even understand a question that asks about an unarmed intifada.
Finally, the people behind the "Globalize the Intifada" slogan itself make no secret of their support for violence. After all, they are the same people who also chant "by any means necessary."
The Within Our Lifetime group, one of the key organizers of these protests demanding an intifada, write on its "Points of Unity page,"We defend the right of Palestinians as colonized people to resist the zionist occupation by any means necessary. ...We believe the liberation of Palestine will be achieved through the initiative and strategy of all forms of Palestinian resistance." This means violence, and that is exactly what they mean when they say "intifada." These groups applauded the violent pogroms of October 7. Their leader, Nerdeen Kiswani, has promoted violence against "Zionists" and called for their deaths.
There is no doubt among both Palestinians and anti-Israel activists as to what the word "intifada" means.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
In a country where every child is a miraculous reaffirmation of Jewish resilience against the attempts over the course of more than two millennia to wipe out the Jewish people, the death of every one of these young Israeli soldiers tears open the historic wound.
This war has many midwives. A reckoning is due in Israel itself for the role played in the October 7 catastrophe by the governing class, from the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu down through the top brass of the IDF and security establishment. And both the Obama and Biden administrations in the US bear a heavy responsibility for having empowered and incentivised Iran, the infernal godfather and patron of Hamas and Hezbollah.
But the fundamental reason for this war is that the world will not permit the Jews to live in peace and security in their own ancestral homeland. There is no other conflict in the world in which the west has encouraged, funded and incentivised those waging a war of annihilation as the west has done with the “Palestinians” for the best part of a century. There is no other conflict in the world in which an indigenous people that is the victim of existential attack is regarded as aggressive interlopers, and their defence against annihilation wickedly misrepresented as deliberate mass killing and even genocide, as much of the west has done with Israel.
More Israeli soldiers are being killed than would otherwise be unavoidable because, in this as in every war in which Israel is forced to fight against an enemy bent on the extermination of the Jews, the west insists that Israel go to lengths to which these countries themselves would never go to protect the lives of its enemy civilians — lengths which cause more IDF casualties than if Israel had a free hand to defend its people.
And unlike the west, which usually wages war from the safe distance of the skies, Israel puts boots on the booby-trapped ground, with its commanders leading from the front and dying heroically alongside their sergeants and privates.
Not only does the west refuse to acknowledge Israel’s desperate plight; not only does it display indifference to Jewish suffering in Israel; but those demanding an Israeli cease-fire or that the IDF put its own forces at risk in order further to protect Gaza’s civilians are also making it shockingly plain that, if there’s a choice between the lives of Israelis defending themselves against genocide and the unintentional killing of Palestinians in a just war waged by Israel for its survival, it’s the Jews who must die.
May the memory of all of Israel’s fallen children in the lion-hearted IDF — Jews, Arabs, Druze and others — be a blessing. And may their sacrifice not be in vain.
The two letters need to be taken in tandem. Washington’s words to Newport’s Jews express the idea of American equality, but it is Washington’s letter to Savannah that reminds us how the Founders revered the Jewish story and sought succor from the Jewish faith. It explains why Jews were so warmly welcomed in America, as well as why so many Americans support Israel today. As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks reflected, the Founders’ reverence for the Hebrew Bible reflects the fact that “Israel, ancient and modern, and the United States are the two supreme examples of societies constructed in conscious pursuit of an idea.”
The story of Washington’s letters is instructive as American Jews confront the specter of anti-Israel Jew-hate in the United States. It is right to emphasize, as Lipstadt did, that bigotry toward any community in America is un-American, and to cite Washington in making that case. But it is also vital to stress what is also learned from the words that Washington himself composed: the deep and long-lasting bond between Judaism and the American idea, and therefore the deep antipathy of Israel-haters for America.
The pro-Hamas rallies proclaiming their support for jihad are reflecting not only their hatred of Jewry and of Israel, but also their hatred of America itself. The two hatreds are joined; those seeking the destruction of the Jews living “from the river to the sea” instinctively understand that the bond between American and Israel is more than pragmatic, and the rallies’ defense of utter evil in the name of “decolonization” reflects a set of ideas proclaiming that America itself is a villain and unworthy of existence. There is a reason why the Jewish gathering on the Mall featured countless American flags, while the mobs in New York, Philadelphia, and the quads of the Ivy League raging “long live the intifada” feature nary a one.
Washington famously concluded his letter to Newport’s Jews with the prayer that “the children of the stock of Abraham” dwell in safety and security in America, where “there shall be none to make them afraid.” Unfortunately, the children of the stock of Abraham in America are afraid, and for good reason. But there is still succor and inspiration to be found: from a Jewry that is experiencing more unity than at most points in American history, and in a vast swath of Americans who understand the bond between the Jewish and American stories. It is this that must be emphasized, as we remind our fellow citizens that what is at stake in this battle is not only the future of American Jewry, but of the American idea—and therefore of America itself.
The Harvard Crimson, which limply and unenthusiastically substantiated reports of Gay's decades-long record of plagiarism, talked to scholars like Lawrence Bobo—one of the many authors from whom Gay cribbed, er, inadequately cited—who told the paper he was "unconcerned" that Gay quoted him and his colleague, Gary King, without proper attribution.
Sure, Gay violated the standards to which Harvard holds its own students. Sure, she did the same and worse to dozens of other scholars. But Harvard's 30th president isn't a plagiarist. And besides, isn't imitation the highest form of flattery? Take notes, Harvard students. And Princeton students. And Amherst students.
What the Crimson didn't mention is that Bobo, the dean of social sciences at Harvard, was appointed to his role five years earlier by Gay, when she was dean of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences. She's not just his boss, she's his patron. Gay's dissertation adviser, Gary King, and her former classmate, Stephen Voss, also defended the Ivy League apparatchik who absconded with their work.
What none of them, least of all the members of the Harvard Corporation, want to say out loud is that Gay wasn't tapped for her scholarship, and they aren't about to hold her to the standards of a serious scholar. Obviously.
No, Gay was chosen for a different set of credentials—her race, gender, political views, and religious devotion to DEI—and she is delivering on her promise to rededicate the university to identity politics.
To that end, she engineered the defenestration of Roland Fryer, allegedly on Title IX charges, after the star black economist ruffled feathers by debunking myths of rampant police violence. She helped strip Ronald Sullivan, a black Harvard Law professor, of an administrative post because he served on Harvey Weinstein's defense team. She even dismissed allegations of research fraud against Ryan Enos, a Harvard government professor, who just so happened to find that Republicans are racist—a recurring theme in Gay's own (well, not really) work.
In her disgraceful testimony before Congress, in which Gay was asked whether Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state and responded, "I believe Israel has the right to exist"—not necessarily as a Jewish state—she was doing the job for which she was hired, in the way she was hired to do it. And the Harvard Corporation, in reaping the media whirlwind and tossing standards aside (again) to save its gal, is getting exactly what it asked for.
Even at that young age, I knew that to check that black box was to move off the merit track and onto the race track, where people like Claudine Gay excel. She is perhaps the most successful black to walk this path, but she is not a free individual.
Throughout her career, Gay has placed emphasis on her skin color and the politics of the black identity, which we are now learning involved a brew of incompetence, racial essentialism, and plagiarism, all emerging now.
As bad as this all is, the worst thing that the Claudine Gays of America did was lead so many people of their race down this dead-end path of racial essentialism.
Today, the focus has been on how Gay hurt Asians and Jews, but it can never be forgotten that people like her hurt blacks far more and for such a sustained period of time, affecting multiple generations.
My refusal to check the race box meant that no one could hold a claim over me. I’m a free individual, and the only thing I owe is gratitude to the many people who helped me as I pursued the path of merit.
But if one really wants to know why I never checked the black box, the true answer lies in my black grandfather’s life. Born to formerly enslaved parents on a dirt floor in Camp Nelson, Kentucky, his parents died when he was just a teen. On his own, he traveled to Detroit and then to Chicago, where he worked odd jobs to fuel his playboy lifestyle. Then one day, he realized his current life would lead to no good. He straightened up and became a founding member of Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), where he met my grandmother. He got a job as a truck driver, became a family man, and educated himself by reading every book he could find. In doing so, he lifted his family from poverty to a solid lower-middle-class life despite living under segregation.
Why, then, would I betray this admirable progress for the empty promise of skin color?
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
Liz Magill, with her smug smile and inability to denounce calls
for the genocide of the Jewish people, disgraced herself and UPenn. No one
wonders why she resigned. The question is why Julie Platt, chair of the Jewish
Federations of North America’s board of trustees, saw fit to defend Magill,
when all the other Jewish leaders were vocal in their demands that Magill step
down. A second question we might ask is why Platt, who also serves as vice
chair of UPenn’s board of trustees, is now overseeing the search for Magill’s
replacement.
That’s right—Platt, after defending Magill—is in charge of finding
a new Magill, likely every bit as antisemitic as the one who stepped down in
disgrace. How do we know? Because Platt’s defense of Magill predates
the events of October 7th, says Alana Goodman, writing for the Washington
Free Beacon on December 8 (emphasis added):
Platt’s defense of Magill predates the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks.
She stood by the UPenn president when the school played host to the
"Palestine Writes" conference in September, an event that featured
anti-Semitic speakers. This included Pink Floyd singer Roger Waters, who has
"dressed in a Nazi-like uniform" and "desecrated the memory of
Holocaust victim Anne Frank," according to a letter sent to the school by
the Jewish Federation’s Philadelphia chapter.
In October, when Apollo CEO Marc Rowan called on Magill to
resign from the UPenn board after Magill declined to condemn Hamas terrorism, Platt
publicly backed the UPenn president, saying she had "full confidence
in the leadership of President Liz Magill and Chair Scott Bok."
"The university has publicly committed to unprecedented
steps to further combat antisemitism on its campus, reaffirmed deep support for
our Jewish community, and condemned the devastating and barbaric attacks on
Israel by Hamas," said Platt in a statement to the New York Post.
But Platt has been noticeably silent after Magill’s shocking
congressional testimony this week, during which she and other Ivy League
presidents said calls for Jewish genocide were permitted on campuses. Platt, a
former banker, is also co-chair of UPenn Hillel's National Board of Governors
and sits on the board of overseers for the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic
Studies, according to her biography on the Penn Alumni website.
Three days later, Goodman offered her readers a shocking
update—the fox, in the form of Julie Platt, was now guarding the hen house (emphasis
added):
Julie Platt, a prominent Jewish leader who repeatedly
defended Magill as anti-Semitism surged on campus, will serve as interim chair
of the Board of Trustees during the search for a new president. Platt, who was
previously vice chair, will replace the board's outgoing leader, Scott Bok, who
resigned alongside Magill on Saturday.
"As current Vice Chair, Julie was the clear choice, and
we are grateful to her for agreeing to serve in this capacity during this time
of transition," the board said in a statement on Sunday.
Critics told the Washington Free Beacon last week that Platt—who
is also chair of the Jewish Federations of North America's board of
trustees—leveraged her Jewish community leadership role to protect Magill's
position at the university for months.
Platt defended Liz Magill as UPenn hosted an anti-Israel
conference with antisemite Roger Waters, and after October 7th, when
Magill refused to condemn Hamas terrorism. But in her official
JFNA statement on her appointment as interim chair, Platt wants you to know
that all this time, she was “working hard from the inside” to address the rising
antisemitism on the UPenn campus—in the form of defending Magill’s indefensible
defense of Jew-hatred, of course (emphasis added):
As Vice Chair of the university’s board these past several
months, I have worked hard from the inside to address the rising issues of
antisemitism on campus.
Unfortunately, we have not made all the progress that we should have and
intend to accomplish. In my view, given
the opportunity to choose between right and wrong, the three university
presidents testifying in the United States House of Representatives failed. The
leadership change at the university was therefore necessary and
appropriate. I will continue as a
board member of the university to use my knowledge and experience of Jewish
life in North America and at Penn to accelerate this critical work.
Platt is clever, if somewhat devious, when she tells us that she has “worked
hard from the inside” to address antisemitism. If the work she did was from “inside,”
we didn’t see it, so we don’t know what she did, or how much effort she
expended on fighting antisemitism, sight unseen. The ruse almost works, except
that the whole world has been watching, or at least the Algemeiner,
which documented the number of times Magill gave free rein to antisemitism, as Platt
continued to defend her:
Magill had several previous opportunities throughout her
tenure to denounce hateful, even conspiratorial, rhetoric directed at both
Israel and the Jewish community. However, Magill repeatedly declined to respond
to the mounting incidents of antisemitism, especially anti-Zionism, on campus,
according to an analysis by [the Algemeiner] of public
statements she had issued since July 2022, when she assumed the presidency at
Penn.
“Israel is a settler colonial state that uses apartheid to
further its ethnic cleansing agenda,” said an
essay by Penn Against the Occupation (POA) that was included in
the 2022-2023 edition of the Penn Disorientation Guide, a
symposium of essays published annually by upperclassmen. It was issued just
weeks after Magill started on the job.
“It is time to end the way our school helps to perpetrate
human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and
organize around divesting from Israel,” the essay continued. “Here’s what you
should know about divestment, a popular movement to fight for equality for
Palestinians.”
POA went on to charge the university with numerous offenses:
Penn “normalizes ties with the occupation” by hosting the Perspectives
Fellowship, a program the school’s Hillel chapter founded to educate students
about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by taking them on a trip to Israel, as
well as Gaza and the West Bank. Penn’s support of Birthright, which sends
Jewish students to Israel, “turns a blind eye to the crimes of the Israeli
occupation.” Both programs, POA said, “frame the Zionist colonial entity in a
positive light.”
Later that semester, after campus police arrested radical
student environmentalists for staging an unauthorized protest on school
grounds, POA said in an Instagram
post that “arresting peaceful protesters is a staple of policing in
both the United States and in Israeli-Occupied Palestine.” The group drew a
link between the world’s continued dependence on fossil fuels to Israel,
saying, “We urge Penn not only to divest from all fossil fuel companies but
divest from companies that profit from Israeli apartheid, many of which are one
in the same … policies of forced displacement, from Palestine to the UC
townhomes in Philadelphia, are all modern-day practices of settler
colonialism.”
Neither Magill nor the university responded to the apparent
accusation that the Jewish state, conspiring with the US, has caused climate
change and colonized both Americans and Palestinians.
The next month, on Nov. 6, POA held a screening of Gaza
Fights for Freedom “with snacks provided” in Penn’s Van Pelt Library. The
film rationalizes the terrorist acts committed during the Palestinian intifadas
against Israel and features a clip of an interview with Hamas co-founder
Mahmoud Al-Zahar, who can be heard saying, “We run effective self-defense by
all means including using guns.”
The film was directed by Abby Martin, a 9/11 conspiracy
theorist and a former host on the Russian-funded media network RT America.
Martin, who has compared Israel to Nazi Germany, reposted on social media posts
that celebrated Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.
It doesn't seem like Platt was working hard from inside, if at all. Why did Platt, an important Jewish leader, stand by, as
Magill proved, without a doubt, over and over again, that she is an Israel-hating antisemite? Even now, Magill affirms her anti-Jewish creds, most recently during
the infamous hearing that led to her resignation. There, Rep. Virginia Foxx
(R-NC) asked all three Ivy League university presidents, including Magill, a
loaded (and exquisitely worded) question:
Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?
Just as the three women answered in chorus on “conduct,” “context,” and parroted the words “pervasive and severe,” here too, the women echoed one another in both what they said—Israel can exist—and what they didn’t say, “but not as a Jewish nation”:
Virginia Foxx: Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?
Claudine Gay: I agree that the State of Israel has a right to exist.
Virginia Foxx: Ms. Magill, same question.
Liz Magill: I agree, Chairwoman Foxx. (nodding) The State of Israel has a right to exist.
Virginia Foxx: Dr. Kornbluth?
Sally Kornbluth: Absolutely. Israel has the right to exist.
With their collective response to that one question, Magill
and her friends made clear their unified belief that Jews do not have the
right to self-determination in Israel. And still, Platt stayed dumb (emphasis
added):
In October, when Apollo CEO Marc Rowan called on Magill to
resign from the UPenn board after Magill declined to condemn Hamas
terrorism, Platt publicly backed the UPenn president, saying she had "full
confidence in the leadership of President Liz Magill and Chair Scott
Bok."
"The university has publicly committed to unprecedented
steps to further combat antisemitism on its campus, reaffirmed deep support for
our Jewish community, and condemned the devastating and barbaric attacks on
Israel by Hamas," said Platt in a statement to the New York Post.
But Platt has been noticeably silent after Magill’s
shocking congressional testimony this week, during which she and other Ivy
League presidents said calls for Jewish genocide were permitted on campuses.
Platt, a former banker, is also co-chair of UPenn Hillel's National Board of
Governors and sits on the board of overseers for the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic
Studies, according to her biography on the Penn Alumni website.
Why did Platt, a highly-placed Jewish leader, stick to a university president who wouldn’t condemn Hamas terror or calls for genocide? Are they friends? It seems unlikely, as the two women are almost a decade apart in age.
What then? Did Platt aim by design to rise up the UPenn chain of command to the level of interim chair, and perhaps, beyond? Put her own guy in? Who knows? She’s not talking, and neither is the CEO of the Jewish Federation:
Platt didn’t respond when the Free Beacon asked her on [December 6] to comment on Magill’s testimony. Eric Fingerhut, the CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, also didn’t respond to a request for comment about Platt’s defense of Magill.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
The latest survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research reveals that Palestinians, as a whole, are thoroughly delusional.
As we've seen in other polls, the overwhelming majority support Hamas' terror attack on October 7. Even after seeing the devastation in Gaza, a huge majority (72%; 82% in the West Bank and 57% in the Gaza Strip) said Hamas attacking Israel was a correct decision.
But almost none of them admit that Hamas has done any war crimes.
Only 10% of Palestinians think Hamas committed any war crimes, and only 7% think that Hamas committed atrocities against Israelis on October 7. . Only 14% saw videos of Hamas attacking Israelis.
The early narrative in Arab media is that Hamas was heroic and the attack was purely military, so it appears that the people swallowed that whole - and have very little interest in learning anything that might change their minds.
Of course, nearly all Palestinians agree Israel is committing war crimes.
There is one war crime that the Palestinians cannot possibly deny, which is that Hamas took civilians hostage. So to answer another question about whether kidnapping civilians is a war crime, nearly half simply reported that it wasn't - so they could keep thinking of Hamas as being moral.
The Palestinians in the West Bank are even more deluded than Gazans are. 70% of West Bankers think Hamas will emerge victorious in this war, while only half of Gazans think so. Only 1% in the West Bank think Israel will emerge victorious, but nearly one third of Gazans think so.
72% (85% in the West Bank and 52% in the Gaza Strip) are satisfied with how Hamas is doing during the war. The outside country that they are most pleased with during the war is Yemen (80% approval; 89% in the West Bank and 68% in the Gaza Strip.)
Hamas' popularity has skyrocketed. When asked which political party they support, the largest percentage selected Hamas (43%), followed by Fatah (17%). Support for Hamas nearly doubled since the last time the question was asked three months ago.
Similarly, if new parliamentary elections were held today, Hamas'party would trounce Fatah, 51%-19%.
54% believe that Hamas is the most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people today, also double the number three months ago.
The percentage that supports a return to terrorism ("confrontations and armed intifada") went from 58% to 69% - more than two-thirds.
The poll shows that the most intransigent, militant and terror-supporting Palestinians are the ones whom the world thinks is "moderate"- the ones in the West Bank ruled by the PA. Hamas is more popular there than in Gaza. The overwhelming majority want to see Israel destroyed (as the last poll showed.)
This is the most important story that the Western media is actively hiding from you.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
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.
Are we There Yet?
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Israel, Hostages, Shuldig, Gaza, Hamas, War,
Oct7,]
Has Israel been Trumped?
* * * Please support DRY BONES (through PayPal or y...
Steve Kramer: Eternal Refugee Status? – No problem
-
Steve Kramer: Eternal Refugee Status? – No problem IsraelSeen.com
Steve Kramer: Eternal Refugee Status? – No problem In addition to the many
news sources I...
The BBC apology should be absolutely rejected
-
Last week I ran an exclusive which exposed blatant antisemitism in a live
BBC News interview with a Jerusalem based Rabbi. When faced with the
undeniable...
Jewish "settlers" in 1932, in Russia
-
Mr. Medad, are Jews in their historic national homeland termed "settlers"?
That's the language everyone now uses. In the London Times of August 20,
1932, ...
Just in time for Chanukah – 4 interesting new books
-
He’s An Anti-Zionist Too!: Cartoons by Elder of Ziyon The Elder of Ziyon
(EoZ) is one of the most important pro-Israel bloggers. You can read my
interview ...
Hamas/Gaza War Musings #36- Dangerous Surrender!
-
As a student of the Bible/Tanach, most recently Prophets/Navi, that's the
message. Gd will save us if we do the right thing. That's how we won the
1967...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Friday, December 15, 2023
Elder of Ziyon
