Friday, November 14, 2025

We’re told over and over again  that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. It’s just politics, we’re told; it is opposition to one state’s policies, not a judgment about Jews as Jews. In fact, calling it antisemitism is a form of censorship, a way to silence a legitimate political opinion. 

On the surface, this claim seems plausible. People criticize countries all the time. Saying “I oppose China’s treatment of Uighurs” doesn’t mean you hate Chinese people. So why should opposing Israel mean you hate Jews?

The strongest rebuttal so far has been that anti-Zionism denies the Jewish right to self-determination. But the anti-Zionists answer that by saying that most Jews don’t live in Israel and are happy citizens of other countries. They don’t need national self-determination. That’s just a Zionist ideology, not a universal Jewish claim, and opposing Israel's existence as a Jewish state is therefore a moral political opinion and Zionism is an illegitimate form of Jewish supremacy. 

And there the argument usually ends. One side says Jews deserve a state; the other says Jews have no such right and in fact their desire for a state in the Levant is colonialist.  It sounds like a disagreement about values, with two legitimate opinions. And if they are both legitimate opinions, then the anti-Zionist side wins by default, because antisemitism is illegitimate but political opinion isn't. Being anti-Zionist cannot be considered truly antisemitic - perhaps some extremists are, maybe Hamas is, but opposing Israel has nothing to do with Jews as Jews and therefore is fine. 

Until you dig deeper.

I’ve been developing a new method of analysis called Derechology. It begins with a basic principle: everyone has a derech — a consistent moral path. Even when someone’s statements or actions seem contradictory, their derech is usually more coherent than it appears. Contradictions only appear that way because we haven’t yet uncovered the deeper assumption that holds their worldview together.

Which brings us to Professor Ramsi Woodcock.

Woodcock is a law professor at the University of Kentucky. In late 2025, he was suspended after publicly calling for every country in the world to make war on Israel — not metaphorically, but literally — until Israel surrendered unconditionally to Palestinian rule over the entire land from the river to the sea.

He defended this position:

He said his calls for military intervention against Israel, and his views that the future of Palestine should be determined by Palestinians alone – including Jews who lived in Palestine before large-scale Jewish immigration began in the late 19th century – are consistent with recognizing Israel as a colonial project. Woodcock, who is part Algerian, often refers to that country’s experience of ending French colonial rule as a basis for his argument.

He supports Palestinian nationalism while condemning Jewish nationalism as illegitimate. In his view, Jews who lived in the land before Zionism could be considered Palestinians and equal citizens, but everyone else - including Holocaust survivors and Jews from Arab countries and their descendants - are foreign colonizers.

At first glance, this seems like hypocrisy. Why is Palestinian nationalism considered noble, but Jewish nationalism a crime? Why does he support decolonization in one case and not the other? Why does he say that Jews whose families arrived 140 years ago should be subject to a referendum by Arabs but Arabs whose ancestors immigrated to Palestine in the early 20th century are fully Palestinian and have the right to stay?

If we assume his derech is internally consistent, there must be a hidden assumption that resolves the contradiction.

That assumption is this: Jews are not a people.

Jews are merely a religious group. They are not a nation, not an indigenous group. Just a religion. They are merely a group of individuals who have no collective claim to history, land, memory, or destiny.

If you believe that, then Zionism isn’t a form of national liberation. It’s a fraud - a manipulation of categories. There is no “Jewish people” in the national sense, so any attempt to behave like one is inherently illegitimate.

That is Ramsi Woodcock's philosophy. If you ask him if there is a Jewish people, he will have to claim there isn't - because he is a professor who has thought deeply about this and has made anti-Zionism the centerpiece of his identity. The very first word on his personal webpage is "Antizionist." 

But if you think about it, this is the underlying philosophy behind all of today's anti-Zionism.  Arab media denies Jewish peoplehood explicitly, claiming that Jews are really Khazars with no history in the land to begin with; Palestinians routinely claim that all archaeological evidence of a Jewish people in the land is fake and that every Jewish shrine is really Muslim. 

The idea that Jews aren't a people is a fundamental, load bearing premise behind anti-Zionist philosophy. The only way people can believe that Jews have no national rights is if they believe there is no Jewish nation to begin with.  

Once you accept the anti-Zionist premise that Jews are not a people, a whole new moral framework emerges. Any Jewish effort to act collectively as a people -  even outside Israel - becomes suspect. Jewish summer camp becomes indoctrination. Singing “Am Yisrael Chai” becomes a supremacist chant. Prayers that speak of “Your people Israel” become racist. Chanting "Next Year in Jerusalem" at the Passover Seder is colonialist aggression.

This isn’t an accidental side effect of anti-Zionism. It is the logical structure beneath it, and it is the logical result of following its philosophy. You can’t consistently oppose Jewish nationalism while affirming other forms of nationalism -  unless you believe Jews are not a people.

Which means that all consistent anti-Zionism is built on the denial of Jewish peoplehood. Woodcock is not an outlier. He is just saying explicitly what anti-Zionists must believe if they are consistent. 

And that’s antisemitism.

It isn't mere criticism of a government. Anti-Zionism erases the Jewish right to exist as a collective -  as a “we” - not just in Israel but anywhere

And when that erasure is dressed up as progressive, anti-colonial, or humanitarian, it becomes even harder to detect - and even more important to expose.

Denying Jewish peoplehood is at the very core of anti-Zionism. If Jews are a people, the entire argument against Israel falls apart. And until anti-Zionism emerged, no one in the world denied that Jews are a people. That denial is a recent invention - a retrofitted premise created to justify a political conclusion.

It is easily possible to criticize Israel and not be antisemitic. But it is structurally impossible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. 

Once you realize this, the landscape changes. Anti-Zionism isn’t merely entangled with antisemitism. It doesn’t simply echo older tropes. 

Anti-Zionism is antisemitic by definition.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Thursday, November 13, 2025

From Ian:

Dermer: "I Could Not Be More Confident in the Jewish Future"
Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, who served for 8 years as Israel's ambassador to the U.S., resigned from the government on Tuesday after nearly three years in office.

In a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Dermer wrote:
"On the day I was sworn in as a minister, I promised my family I would serve only two years in that position. I extended my tenure twice with their blessing - first to work with you to remove the existential threat posed by Iran's military nuclear capability and second to end the war in Gaza on Israel's terms and bring our hostages home."

"October 7th was indeed the darkest day the Jewish people have known since Israel was established. But the story of our ancient people...has been defined by our perseverance in overcoming the darkness."

"That has been the story of Israel since October 7th. We rejected moral equivocation and fear to confront our enemies with clarity and courage. Two years later, we have dealt a devastating blow to Iran's terror axis."

"One hundred generations of Jews dreamed of living at a time when there would be a sovereign Jewish state. Four generations have had the privilege of realizing that dream."

"With that privilege comes a sacred responsibility: To secure that dream for future generations. I feel eternally blessed to have had the privilege of serving the State of Israel and devoting myself to that sacred responsibility."

"I could not be more confident in the [Jewish] future. Many enemies who reveled in the evil perpetrated on October 7th and vowed to extinguish the flame of Israel have been eliminated, while the light of Israel burns bright across the region and around the world."
Melanie Phillips: The mainstreaming of Jew-hatred
Among the ethno-nationalists, there are also disturbing echoes of the Christian antisemitism that poisoned Europe for centuries. The view that Christian Zionism is a modern heresy is gaining traction among Protestants and Catholics alike, putting into reverse the hitherto ironclad support for Israel by America based upon the reverence for Hebrew scripture among evangelical Christians.

This has all led to a frightening convergence. Left-wingers blame the Jews for capitalism. Right-wingers blame the Jews for liberalism and for denying the divinity of Jesus. Islamists blame the Jews for all the evils of the world. So left, right and Islamists are all now linked to each other by loathing of the Jews.

Alarming as this is in itself, the consequences for politics are likely to be seismic.

America’s Democrats and Britain’s Corbynite hard-left both turn off mainstream voters who reject their extremism. In parallel, if the Republicans are identified with white-nationalist conspiracy theorists, they will also lose great swathes of the public.

However, these extremes of both left and right now have significant and growing traction. In Britain, Corbyn’s hard-left, the ultra-left Greens and the Islamists represent a huge body of feeling that is anti-Israel and anti-West.

Competing with Labour for the same constituency, they will all damage each other. In theory, that would benefit the conservative side of politics. But that grouping is itself divided between the populist insurgency Reform and the Conservative party.

The likely outcome, said the astute political philosopher John Gray in London this week, will be a seven-party split. Reform may emerge as the biggest party in this fragmented chaos, but radical leftists and Islamists will be greatly empowered.

In America, said Gray, after Trump leaves office, the forces of ethno-nationalist radical populism are likely to become even stronger.

At the same time, Mamdani has laid down a blueprint for a merging of radical progressivism and Islamism. That alliance of extremes will damage Democrats and benefit Republicans. But if Republicans are divided between mainstream conservatives and radical populists, they will destroy themselves.

More balefully still, this Zoomer generation—having never been taught the history of the worst that humanity has done to itself—is so profoundly alienated from a liberal democratic culture they believe has badly failed and comprehensively lied about it that they see nothing wrong with authoritarianism and fascism.

The political consensus over reason and morality disintegrated when the left adopted Palestinianism as its cause of causes and turned exterminatory Jew-hatred into a badge of conscience.

That, in turn, lifted the constraints against antisemitism that had previously existed on the right. Antisemitism has exploded on the right because the left gave it permission. In other words, the old guardrails against Jew-hatred have disappeared.

Ideological capture—making impermissible any challenges to the dogma of Palestinianism, identity politics or other “progressive” causes—has turned left-wing views into a hermetically sealed thought system. But on the right, there’s been a parallel retreat from rationality and truth.

Gray says that if politicians continue to fail and thus alienate the public still further, the West could be looking at the rise of real fascism or authoritarianism within a decade.

None of this portends well for the Jews of America and Britain.

The way to respond is to fight like hell: to fight to destroy the progressive ideologies that have hollowed out Western civilization; to fight to turn back the tide of Islamization; and to fight to reconnect Christianity to its Jewish parent by affirming, promoting and celebrating the historic, biblically based identity and culture of America and the West.
Benny Morris: Anti-Israel Demonstrators Don't See Hamas for What It Is
Muslims - whether born in the U.S. or Europe or recently arrived - have been at the forefront of the demonstrations chanting "Death to Israel," "Death to the West," and, occasionally, "Death to the Jews." In many European cities, Muslims feel empowered and, with their growing numbers, are able to cow politicians.

After Hitler's destruction of European Jewry, for a time antisemitism became politically taboo in Western Europe and the U.S. But by the 2020s, the memory and impact of the Holocaust had faded and the Gaza war witnessed a convergence of Western and Muslim antisemitism. Old-style Muslim antisemitism now washed across Europe, persuading ignorant Europeans that their fathers' antisemitism had actually been legitimate.

Anti-Israel sentiment is encouraged by the way the country has constantly been depicted in the Western media. Almost all that the West's largely ignorant young people see and know are images of dead and wounded Arab babies and women - never of jihadi fighters. They know nothing about the Arab terrorism that stalked the Zionist effort to settle in the Jews' ancient patrimony.

They know nothing about the wars Palestinians and Arab states have waged against the Jewish state, nor do they know that the Palestinians consistently rejected the periodic peace offers made by the Zionists/Israel and the international community for a two-state compromise. These young people are probably even unaware of the treaties Israel signed with Egypt and Jordan, to those countries' mutual satisfaction.

Hamas are close cousins of ISIS and though they have had the public relations smarts not to broadcast the slitting of hostages' throats, they have been just as murderous. Hamas kindergartens and schools in Gaza systematically inculcated hatred of Jews and Israel, in line with Hamas's foundational charter of 1988. So the mass slaughter of Israelis by Hamas on 7 October, with its accompanying rapes and beheadings, was prophesied by Hamas documents and ideology long before any blood was actually shed on that day.

Why the keffiyeh-wearing Christian students and professors marching through America's campuses and Europe's capitals don't recognize Hamas's homophobia, misogyny, totalitarianism, and their anti-Christian/anti-Western core beliefs is beyond comprehension. But somehow the demonstrators don't see Hamas for what it is.
From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Cease-Fire and Israeli Sovereignty
Some of the questions around the U.S. role in the cease-fire seemed designed to pick a fight. It was suggested that perhaps Israel was being put in the role of a “vassal” state. Netanyahu had a good response to this: “One week they say that Israel controls the United States. A week later, they say the United States controls Israel.”

Still, questions persisted. An Israeli official complained to the Times of Israel that at Kiryat Gat, the headquarters of the stabilization team, Israel was playing second fiddle, and that Israeli agencies were relegated to “contractor” roles.

Former Ambassador to the U..S Michael Oren expressed similar concerns. He acknowledged that the Israeli military rarely has full freedom of action and that most wars end when the U.S. tells Israel to stop fighting. Still, Oren wrote, “there is a huge difference between receiving an order to stop fighting and the need to receive approval every time we must act. This is the situation today when there are 200 American soldiers in Kiryat Gat and American drones are flying over Gaza.”

Fortunately, Oren says, President Trump knows Israel needs to be able to respond to Hamas’s violations. I would add that Trump has been careful not to ask Israel to do anything that would grant Hamas a loophole around its obligations under the deal. Also, while some fret over the presence of troops from European (read: unfriendly) countries, for now it appears those countries’ leaders are following Trump’s lead consciously and carefully.

The question, then, is less about Trump and the near future than about the post-Trump future. The U.S. isn’t seeking a forever force in Gaza, but no rebuilding mission takes exactly as long as it is budgeted for. Further, any extension—which is likely—of a peacekeeping force will give it an air of semi-permanence, and it will act accordingly.

Trump has positioned himself as the indispensable man of the Gaza cease-fire. On balance, that is surely preferable to the alternatives. But there’s a clock on his presidency and a competition to succeed him that will ensure the “sovereignty” question remains near the front of Israeli minds.
In the Israel-Hamas War, International Law Favors the Lawless
The rules of war were created for a world that no longer exists. They were designed to regulate conflicts between states - actors with borders, uniforms, and at least a minimal respect for order. The Geneva Conventions assumed reciprocity: that both sides would follow the same moral code, even during armed conflict. But what happens when one side rejects those norms entirely? What happens when the law begins protecting those who operate outside it?

The war between Israel and Hamas exposes that contradiction with brutal clarity. On Oct. 8, 2023, Israel did something unprecedented: it declared a formal state of war - not against another nation, but against a terrorist movement. Hamas is not a resistance movement or a political party, but a death cult that massacres civilians, hides behind them, and celebrates it. Yet in the eyes of international law, Hamas remains entitled to protections it has never earned.

That legal fiction has become the foundation of a moral farce. Hamas livestreams atrocities and then hides in hospitals, knowing that each civilian death it engineers will be tallied against Israel in global opinion and international courts. This isn't war - it's lawfare, the weaponization of humanitarian norms to discredit liberal democracies and shield those who commit war crimes.

The International Criminal Court's decision in 2024 to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders alongside Hamas commanders marked the collapse of legal neutrality. To equate a liberal democracy defending its citizens with a jihadist organization dedicated to genocide is not impartial justice - it is ideological jurisprudence.

The law's neutrality, meant to ensure fairness, now serves those who reject fairness altogether. The result is a grotesque inversion: liberal democracies are treated as war criminals for defending themselves, while regimes and militias that glorify mass murder are treated as legitimate political actors.

If international law can no longer distinguish between those who uphold it and those who annihilate it, then it ceases to be law at all. The challenge of our time is to rescue the law from those who would use it to destroy the very civilization that created it. A world where the law protects the lawless is not a world governed by justice - and democracies will not survive long in it.
Khaled Abu Toameh: How Hamas Is Planning to Deceive the Trump Administration
Hamas lied to President Trump when it said it had accepted his plan for ending its war against Israel. It was simply trying to buy time to reassert control over Gaza and prepare for more attacks against Israel. Now it is arguing that it needs to engage in negotiations about the implementation of most parts of the Trump plan.

Since the ceasefire in Gaza went into effect in early October, Hamas officials have repeatedly emphasized that they did not accept all the points mentioned in the Trump plan. According to these officials, Hamas only agreed to the first phase of the Trump plan, which calls for Israel to suspend military operations and release Palestinian prisoners, and for Hamas to return all Israeli hostages, dead and alive, within 72 hours. It has been weeks, and Hamas has not yet fulfilled that phase-one obligation.

What about the part in the Trump plan that talks about the demilitarization of Gaza and the deployment of an "International Stabilization Force" as a "long-term security solution?" Hamas insists that these issues are "up for negotiation" but that it never agreed to demilitarization or the presence of international experts and security forces in Gaza. Hamas official Osama Hamdan affirmed on Nov. 10 that "What we signed was related to the first phase of the plan, the remaining phases are up for negotiations and discussions."

For Hamas, the longer the negotiations continue, the better. Those who are familiar with Hamas's way of handling things know that such negotiations, if and when they start, could last for months or years. Hamas will likely try to drag out negotiations until the Trump administration is replaced by another that Hamas hopes will be less interested in Gaza.

Hamas is not serious about laying down its weapons or relinquishing control over Gaza. For Hamas, the Trump plan is nothing but a temporary ceasefire that would enable it to get back on its feet to rule Gaza again, and resume its Jihad (holy war) to destroy Israel.

 Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook  and  Substack pages.



Jerusalem, November 13 - The drive to make capital punishment mandatory for anyone convicted of terroristic murder picked up significant advancement today with the discovery that every lawmaker will vote for such a bill, provided that the same capital punishment applies to those who attempt to make a career out of a social media presence, political analysts observed today.

A nascent legislative proposal still in development, born of an Israeli public no longer hesitant to take all necessary deterrence measures in the wake of October 7, calls for anyone found guilty of murder with terrorist motives to be put to death. Pubic opinion has long remained split on the merits and drawbacks of capital punishment; the recent urge in support for it, however unprecedented, still did not reach a level that could guarantee passage of a law mandating the death penalty even for mass murderers - until this week, when pollsters noticed that support for the death penalty reached effective unanimity when the proposal included executing "influencers."

Even legislators traditionally opposed to capital punishment on either political or ideological grounds shifted position. "Our established concern involves the protection of Palestinian lives," explained MK Ayman Odeh. "We naturally fear that the death penalty will be used in discriminatory ways, and fundamentally disagree with the characterization of Palestinian resistance to occupation as 'terrorism.' But if it means getting rid of the scourge that is social media influencers..." he trailed off.

Israel has employed the death penalty exactly once: in 1962, the courts convicted Holocaust engineer Adolf Eichmann and hanged him. While the penalty remains, technically, on the books, and is available as a sentence, judges have never imposed it on any other convict, no matter how heinous their crimes. However, to put to an end the incentive to kidnap Israelis in order to leverage them to free imprisoned terrorists, the new push for capital punishment has found more receptive ears than ever before - and 99.89% of the voting public supports its use against terrorists even at the risk of "becoming like the killers" if it means eliminating influencers, a force far more pernicious to human society than suicide bombers, mass shooters, and rocket attacks.

Chinese and Qatari influence operations responded to the news with a burst of new content aimed at discrediting capital punishment in general, and the Israeli criminal justice system in particular. Al Jazeera ran a segment critical of the proposal and highlighting the problems inherent in administering capital punishment, followed by gleeful reportage of Qatari and Iranian execution of dissidents.



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Thursday, November 13, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon
Michigan has a hate crime dashboard. While most hate crimes are racial, the number of anti-religious hate crimes has been going up dramatically in recent year - and it is all because of the increase in antisemitic hate crimes. 

 

Since COVID, the climb in antisemitic hate crimes has been dramatic. In 2023, there was a spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes as well, but then in 2024 there was a sharp divergence - the anti-Muslim hate crimes went way down while the anti-Jewish ones kept going up. 

In 2024, anti-Jewish hate crimes were 60% of all anti-religious hate crimes in Michigan.

Michigan is an interesting case because it has a large Muslim population - about 240,000, double the Jewish population. This means that the average Jew in Michigan is about eight times more likely to be a hate crime victim than the average Muslim.

The types of crimes between the two groups are also quite different. 

20 of the 77 anti-Jewish hate crimes were directed at destroying or damaging  property - compared to zero of the anti-Muslim hate crimes. And six of the antisemitic crimes were for aggravated/felonious assault, again compared to zero for the anti-Muslim crimes.  Meaning that antisemitism in Michigan is much more violent and much more directed to Jews as a group than anti-Muslim crimes. 

The bottom line is that Jews in Michigan have to protect themselves - place locks and gates around synagogues, worry about being attacked for visible signs of religion - while Muslims are pretty free to walk around and worship without fear. 

The media still pretends that "Islamophobia" and antisemitism are similar. They are not. They are quantitively and qualitatively different, and putting them in the same bucket is minimizing the real problem that Jews in America are increasingly vulnerable to attack. 





Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Thursday, November 13, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon

You think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fantasy believed only by fringe-right groypers and neo-Nazis? Think again. 

The lie that Jews exert secret control over the world is just as much a part of “straight” news reporting—written by journalists who would swear on their careers that they are not antisemitic—as it is among white supremacists. The language is different, the tone is polite, and the accusations are dressed up in professional prose, but the structure of the myth is identical. 

The recent “Paramount blacklist” story is a case study. 

 It began with a long, 3,000-word profile in Variety about David Ellison’s first months at the head of Paramount Global. The article had nothing to do with blacklists, Gaza, or Israel activism. Buried deep in the piece was a single anonymous, unsourced sentence: 

And sources say Paramount maintains a list of talent it will not work with because they are deemed to be ‘overtly antisemitic’ as well as ‘xenophobic’ and ‘homophobic.’ Whether the boycott signatories are on that list is unclear.

That’s it. No list, no names, no documents, no connection to Israel, no proof. . No indication that the rumor even had substance. It was a stray aside in a story about merger strategy. 

 But within 24 hours, the single vague line had mutated into a viral accusation that Ellison—an openly pro-Israel executive—is purging actors who signed the anti-Israel industry letter. Outlets ran breathless summaries claiming or implying that Paramount was targeting “pro-Palestinian” talent, even though Variety said nothing of the sort. Examples: 


 Every one of these pieces took the same anonymous whisper and filled in the gaps using imagination, not evidence. And their imagination came straight from the Protocols

The “list” became Ellison’s list. “Overtly antisemitic” quietly morphed into “anti-Israel.” And the idea that Paramount was targeting pledge signatories floated through headlines as if it had been confirmed.

There is a reason for this. Not one of these reporters bothered to check with Paramount before publishing. Nobody asked a spokesperson. Nobody requested clarification. Nobody demanded evidence. The most basic expectation from journalists - to ask for a comment from the person being accused - never happened.

 Why? Because the narrative was too perfect—too aligned with the latent fantasy that “Zionists” secretly control Hollywood—that the rumor was simply too good to check

 By the time Variety added a careful clarification three days later—an update stating that there is no “itemized list” at all, only a general policy of not hiring people who publicly engage in hate—the story had already been cemented across the English-speaking world. 

 The irony is glaring. Even the original sentence made it clear that Paramount’s alleged red lines were for individuals who are “overtly antisemitic,” “xenophobic,” or “homophobic.” If a liberal, non-Jewish-owned studio had said the exact same thing, no one would have blinked. 

Every employer in America avoids hiring people who might become PR disasters by posting slurs or conspiracy theories. Companies cannot always fire someone for off-hours behavior, but they absolutely can decline to hire people who might embarrass them.  But that is not how the story was interpreted. Reporters instantly—and without evidence—decided that “overtly antisemitic” was code for “criticizes Israel.” 

To reach that conclusion, you have to believe that Jews speak in hidden meanings and dog whistles, that Jewish-owned institutions never say what they really mean, and that any Jewish claim—whether about antisemitism or workplace discrimination—is camouflage for a deeper agenda.  

 That is not journalism. That is mind-reading. 

Worse, it is the exact same framework used to interpret Israel’s actions in Gaza. The “genocide” accusation depends entirely on this mental model. When Israeli leaders make explicit statements about humanitarian corridors, evacuation notices, or efforts to avoid civilian harm, critics insist that the real intention is mass murder. When Israel provides the most sustained humanitarian aid of any warring party in modern history, including food, water, fuel, and medical transfers, the same critics dismiss it as a trick. It is assumed that Israel’s “true” goal can be divined through intuition, even when objective evidence contradicts it. 

And that intuition just happens to coincide with a Russian antisemitic hoax. 

 The “pinkwashing” accusation follows the same structure. When Israel protects LGBTQ minorities, enshrines their rights in law, and features them openly in its cultural life, anti-Israel activists claim that this is deceptive propaganda meant to distract from supposed crimes. In this worldview, the more Israel behaves decently, the more sinister it must be. Jews are lying and scheming -and that is the only way to interpret what they do.

This is not political analysis. This is the Protocols with better graphic design. 

The belief that Jews have secret motives, hidden control, and a unique talent for deception is the unspoken scaffolding holding these stories together. It explains why an anonymous sentence about a blacklist of antisemites was immediately reinterpreted as proof of a Zionist purge. It explains why counter-evidence is ignored, why Jewish denials are treated as confirmation, and why any attempt by Jews to define antisemitism is portrayed as a power grab. 

 The truth is uncomfortable but unavoidable: the logic of the Elders of Zion never disappeared. It migrated from fringe pamphlets into mainstream reporting, NGO narratives, and the rhetoric of national leaders who would recoil at the suggestion that they harbor any prejudice at all. 

The Protocols have become the default frame for how to think about Jews in the far Right, progressive Left and much of mainstream media. 

The vocabulary has changed. The habits of thought have not.



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Wednesday, November 12, 2025

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: BDS Cannot Be Negotiated With
In 1948, Golda Meir famously visited a synagogue in Moscow on the High Holidays, a historic visit by an official of the State of Israel. Meir was the young state’s ambassador to the Soviet Union, which enforced anti-Semitic restrictions without calling them that. The Soviets claimed that a true classless society unburdened by capitalist grotesqueries had no reason for anti-Semitism to even exist. But that didn’t help Russian Jews stuck behind the iron curtain.

Meir and her team went to synagogue for Shabbat services a few weeks before Rosh Hashana, the Jewish new year. There they encountered a hundred or so elderly Jews. Meir’s Rosh Hashana visit weeks later was announced in advance, and when the delegation arrived they found the street in front of the shul “filled with people, packed together like sardines, hundreds and hundreds of them, of all ages, including Red Army officers, soldiers, teenagers and babies carried in their parents’ arms.”

Meir was the symbol of the reborn State of Israel, and the Soviet Jews defiantly flooded the Great Synagogue to call out to her “our Golda!” Meir was so moved she could hardly speak. When services ended, the throng made it impossible for her to walk back to her hotel. She was guided into a cab, but the cab “couldn’t move either because the crowd of cheering, laughing, weeping Jews had engulfed it.”

So what did the secular socialist Golda Meir say to the Jews in the brief moment before her cab whisked her away? Meir writes that she was filled with shame for underestimating the Jewish spark that still burned within these Jews who were held down in a society of fear but refused to be broken. She managed to stammer out one sentence, which she ridicules in her own memoirs but which obviously moved the crowd, in Yiddish:

“Thank you for having remained Jews.”

The event had proved to her that the Jewish spirit was far stronger than the evil empire trying to stamp it out. But the Russian Jews would need that strength: Within months, a vicious crackdown on Jewish organizing began. They would pay a price for revealing their unbrokenness.
The Buchanan Resurrection
Buchanan’s charge against the Jews is among the most obviously mendacious things any Washington, D.C., insider has ever said. And yet what’s most notable about the debate over Buchanan’s claims is the deference shown him. Yes, William F. Buckley Jr., the giant of American conservatism, called him to account: “I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism.” But then the writer famous for his concise English prose pulled his punches, wondering what “it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament.”

Or, knowing the truth, Buchanan nonetheless lied about Jews to put Jews in a bad light—the signature move of antisemites who, after they’re called out for lying about Jews, complain that they can’t criticize Israel without being called antisemites.

And then the magazine Buckley founded endorsed Buchanan in the 1992 New Hampshire primary race. It was a tactical endorsement, according to the editors of The National Review, designed to nudge the incumbent Bush further to the right. Buchanan drew 37% of the New Hampshire vote and then 36% in Georgia.

Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz wrote at the time:
At first glance these results seem impressive, especially for a political novice challenging the President of the United States within his own party. But on closer examination the early primaries provide a measure not of Buchanan’s strength but of Bush’s weakness. Thus, on the same day that Buchanan’s strenuous campaign in Georgia was being rewarded with a 36-percent vote, he got about 30 percent in Maryland, where he had not campaigned at all. And in South Dakota, where Buchanan was not even on the ballot, the same 30 percent of the Republican vote went to an uncommitted slate.

According to Podhoretz: “What all this suggests is that anyone—or no one—running against Bush would have been assured of that 30 percent. This inference is borne out by the exit polls, which showed that most of the people who voted for Buchanan did so because they wanted to ‘send a message’ of dissatisfaction to Bush, not because they were for Buchanan himself.”

Trump’s two terms in office prove that you can win by advocating for America First policies on trade, immigration, and war—so long as you master your resentments and don’t smear American Jews as disloyal and spin up lies about Israel and drive away evangelicals, the electorate’s most solid conservative base. Trump didn’t inherit Buchanan’s legacy—he is a repudiation of it.

And yet Buchanan clearly influenced MAGA’s antisemitic faction. Antisemitism was his unique selling point, distinguishing him from others who agreed on the general scope of his core issues. A political faction organized around a pathological worldview is destined to attract broken souls, forming a cohort unwaveringly committed to its cause and leader. Thus, Buchanan carved out a small, devoted faction under his absolute control that could be used to shape Republican politics. His 1992 candidacy didn’t in fact move Bush, who eventually lost, to the right—but the crucial point is that Buchanan was endorsed for “tactical” purposes by the same group of conservative intellectuals who debated whether he was an antisemite. And that confirmed to Buchanan the observation Barack Obama later made: In politics, antisemitism can be used as an organizing tool.

The rising Buchananites are betting that antisemitism doesn’t have a ceiling. Their strategy is premised on the idea that in a historical moment when young voters have more than enough reason to distrust the experts, officials, industries, and institutions ostensibly undergirding our peace and prosperity, Jew hate functions something like a magnet that enthralls splintered spirits, further enchanted by conspiracy theories weaponized to amplify despair and leave its audiences wondering what, if anything, they were told about America is true, and if anything about her is good or beautiful. From this perspective, what held Buchanan back wasn’t that antisemitism failed to appeal to the masses, but that he hadn’t built out the infrastructure that would transform America’s political arena wholly.
The Permission to Hate: Why Antisemitism Feels Good to Its Users
With the rise of worldwide antisemitic rhetoric, demonstrations, and actions, it is natural to turn once again to trying to make sense of it all. Explanations usually focus on history, ideology, or geopolitics. This post looks at something more basic: the emotional payoff antisemitism provides to the people who use it. This is a map, not a cure.

The emotional payoff
Antisemitism arrives as permission—the sense that anger at a pre-approved target is not only allowed but righteous. That permission delivers a potent mix:
Relief: diffuse frustrations condense into a single culprit; anxiety quiets.
Moral bravado: cruelty is reframed as courage, “speaking truth to power.”
Belonging: shared targets bind strangers faster than shared ideals.
Clarity and control: a messy world collapses into clean lines—us/them.
Impunity: harm feels like self-defense, not shame.

A rough formula captures it:
Attraction ≈ (Validation × Belonging × Certainty × Impunity) − Accountability.

Lower accountability—in crowds, echo chambers, or with elite winks—and the “delight” intensifies.

Why Jews “fit” the role
The Jewish figure can be cast to suit almost any resentment:
Visible and invisible: imagined as both puppet-masters and infiltrators.
Insider and outsider: neighbors who remain somehow “foreign.”
Powerful and weak: sturdy enough to “deserve it,” weak enough to be safe to hit.
One and many: “the Jews” as a monolith; counterexamples dismissed as exceptions.

These contradictions aren’t true, but they are useful to anyone seeking the pleasures of permissioned hate. They make Jews a multi-purpose scapegoat across eras and ideologies. The validation loop

Antisemitism scales through micro-permissions—a leader’s wink, a pundit’s “just asking questions,” a chant, a meme. Each erodes shame and pays a small dopamine dividend. Social platforms supercharge the loop: clarity beats complexity; heat beats light. Deindividuation lowers brakes; performative zeal raises the thrill. The result is not only belief—it’s arousal dressed as virtue.
From Ian:

Israel and India, Both Under Threat, Solidify Ties
Both Israel and India have pledged to cooperate on future dual-use technologies, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing and robotics, as well as space projects.

India, a Hindu-majority country, is, like Israel, a democracy bordered by authoritarian states. India, like Israel, is exposed daily to internal and external threats, with the neighboring Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeking India's destruction.

Perhaps the most meaningful dimension of this growing alliance, apart from the benefits of the often outstanding education in both nations, is the element of shared values and trust. It is a strengthening alliance, uplifting to watch.
Israel's Important New Allies, and an Old Enemy, Turkey
US President Donald J. Trump announced the latest addition to his remarkable Abraham Accords last week: China's and Russia's neighbor, Kazakhstan.

One hopes that at some point, Azerbaijan, too, might join the Abraham Accords.

Although Azerbaijan has enjoyed close relations with Turkey, relations between Turkey and Israel have now reached an all-time low. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – after accusing Israel of genocide and crimes against humanity, and issuing arrest warrants for 37 Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- reportedly took Trump's assurance of a Turkish role in the future of Gaza, without consulting Israel, as a green light to assemble 2,000 special forces troops to occupy Gaza. What could possibly go wrong?

Erdogan is also trying to buy F-35 jets – to use for what? -- from the US, which always appears delighted to make a sale. If Trump has any interest in peace in the Middle East, this is one sale he must unquestionably turn down.
ITV’s ‘Breaking Ranks’: The IDF Soldier Documentary That Broke From the Truth
For a documentary to do its job and remain neutral on such serious allegations, the contrary evidence must be presented, but throughout the documentary, this was deliberately avoided.

War, especially against a terrorist organization that operates using guerrilla tactics, presents immensely challenging scenarios. In the fog of war, mistakes and errors of judgment can and do happen. But it is also true that the IDF has consistently held its soldiers to the highest of standards, investigating any wrongdoing as it occurs.

It would be naive to suggest that every soldier in the IDF or any other comparable army behaves in an exemplary fashion. In September 2024, The New Yorker published a database of what it said is the “largest known collection of investigations of possible war crimes committed [by the U.S. military] in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11—nearly eight hundred incidents in all.”

Some of the alleged crimes include “the case of soldiers raping a fourteen-year-old girl and subsequently murdering her and her family; the alleged killing of a man by a Green Beret who cut off his victim’s ear and kept it; and cruelty toward detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and at the Bagram Air Base detention facility.”

All of this is not to claim that the IDF is necessarily more moral than the American military, although there is certainly a good case to be made. The point is that nobody would condemn the entirety of the U.S. Army as an immoral entity that brings shame to its country despite the behavior of a minority of its troops.

And ultimately, ITV’s documentary relies on a tiny number of Israeli soldiers as “eyewitnesses,” most of whom appear to have a political agenda backed by Breaking the Silence.

Rather than offering an honest insight into the complexities of modern warfare against a terrorist organization, the filmmakers chose a simplified, one-sided narrative of Israel’s supposed aggression. In doing so, ITV’s Breaking Ranks fails the very test it set for itself: to tell the story of the war “through the soldiers who fought it.” Instead, it tells a story already written – one shaped by bias, omission, and a refusal to confront the full truth.

Generally, when dignitaries and officials visit Israel, they make a point of stopping at the Western Wall — the Kotel — and they refrain from invoking Jesus Christ. This is done out of respect for the fact that Israel is the Jewish State, something the United States has always recognized.

Over the years, the Wall stop has become almost a diplomatic ritual: a solemn photo-op that signals respect for Jewish history and friendship with Israel. To skip it is to make a statement.

The Making of a Statement

During his October 2025 visit, Vice President J.D. Vance made just such a statement. The official itinerary, released on October 21, listed a visit to the Wall and a joint press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But that is not what happened.

Instead, Vance went to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre — a Christian pilgrimage site — where he spoke openly about Jesus. “I know that Christians have many titles for Jesus Christ, and one of them is the Prince of Peace,” he told reporters. “And I’d ask all people of faith, in particular my fellow Christians, to pray that the Prince of Peace can continue to work a miracle in this region of the world.”

To many, his words might have sounded well-intentioned — a sincere call for peace. But in the context of the Jewish State, invoking Jesus in public remarks was tone-deaf and inappropriate. In diplomatic language, symbols matter. To skip the Wall and choose a Christian site, to publicly invoke Jesus in the Jewish State, is not a neutral act. One analysis noted that “Vance did not visit the Wall, and went instead to honor and pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre” — a move seen as a quiet rebuke to Netanyahu amid friction over Israel’s new sovereignty bill.

The truth is, I’m perfectly fine with Vance visiting a church instead of the Wall — especially since he did visit the Wall on a previous trip to Israel. But it seemed he was hammering home a point, and in doing so, crossed a line. Suggesting that people of faith — which presumably includes Jews — should pray to the “Prince of Peace” is, frankly, offensive to Jews.

He’s welcome to believe in any deity he likes. I only wish he respected our beliefs as much as I respect his right to believe in his. The visit to the church, coupled with a public call for Jews to pray to Jesus, felt off.

The Sovereignty Bill

What truly drove the point home, however, was Vance’s attitude toward Israel’s sovereignty bill. The Knesset had just granted preliminary approval to a measure ending the state of martial law in Judea and Samaria — a step many see as Israel finally asserting sovereignty over its own heartland.

Israel deliberately left the status of these territories vague after capturing them in 1967, hoping to keep the door open for negotiations. But after decades of failed peace processes, terror, and external meddling, many Israelis now believe it’s time to end the ambiguity. Declaring sovereignty, for us, is an act of self-preservation.

The world, after all, keeps declaring that our land is “Palestine.” Yet these are Jewish ancestral territories, won in a defensive war. There is no reason why Israel should not claim them formally as part of the Jewish State.

Vance’s Dismissal

Asked by reporters about the bill, Vance replied:

“That was weird. I was sort of confused by that… When I asked about it, somebody told me that it was a political stunt that had no practical significance. It was purely symbolic… If it was a political stunt, it was a very stupid political stunt, and I personally take some insult to it. The West Bank is not going to be annexed by Israel. The policy of the Trump administration is that the West Bank will not be annexed by Israel. That will continue to be our policy. And if people want to take symbolic votes, they can do that, but we certainly weren’t happy about it.”



If I’d been there, I might have asked him: What’s weird about Jews declaring sovereignty over land that rightfully belongs to them? Why would that confuse a Bible-believing Christian? Surely you know this is land God gave the Jewish people.

To call it “symbolic” is wrong. It was an act of survival. We see the writing on the wall: the world is preparing to carve up our land again and hand it to those who burned, raped, and murdered our people on October 7. Enough. It’s time we took control. It’s our land.

There is nothing “weird” about Jews who love their land enough to protect it.


Bibi’s Balancing Act

Prime Minister Netanyahu had little choice but to downplay the vote, calling it “symbolic” to placate Washington. In spite of Likud’s abstention, the bill still passed its first reading 25–24 — a small but historic majority.

I understand the realpolitik: during a fragile “ceasefire,” the timing looked bad to Vance. And yes, Arab states may have pressed the U.S. to rein Israel in. But Israel’s right to its land should never be a bargaining chip for diplomatic convenience.

What Vance said was shocking. “Very stupid”? “Insulting”? To whom, exactly? To say that a Jewish decision about Jewish land is meaningless or offensive — that is the real insult.

Trump Doubles Down

Trump later backed him up in an interview with Time Magazine:

It won’t happen because I gave my word to the Arab countries. Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.”

Which is ironic, because just seven weeks earlier, U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee told Israeli media:

“The United States has never asked Israel not to apply sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. We respect Israel as a sovereign state and will not tell it what to do.

Unlike Vance, Huckabee refuses to use the propaganda term West Bank. He calls the area by its proper geographical designation: Judea and Samaria. In 2017, he said:

There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria. There’s no such thing as a settlement. They’re communities. There’s no such thing as an occupation.”

Vance, by contrast, parrots the old Washington line, warning that annexation would “embolden extremists on both sides” and “undermine trust.” Someone should tell him that we cannot annex what is already ours.

Amb. Huckabee seated to the right of Vance

Language and Truth

Words matter. “Annexation” implies we are seizing something foreign. But Judea and Samaria are as integral to Israel as Safed or Jerusalem. The proper term is not annexation, but sovereignty — the right of a nation to rule its own land.

We Jews have waited millennia for this sovereignty. We have bled for it, prayed for it, and reclaimed it piece by piece. No American politician, no matter how high his office or how lofty his faith, has the right to tell us it “won’t happen.”

A Visit Full of Meaning

In the end, Vance’s visit was about symbolism — not just the church or the Wall, but the deeper question of whose faith and whose history command respect. To pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre while scolding Jews for wanting sovereignty over Judea is to miss the moral center of this land entirely.

Yet we would never ask Vance to believe as we do, or share our faith. We ask only that he respect our beliefs and rights — and stop presuming to decide what Jews may do in the land that God gave them.

Vance’s visit was full of symbols, and symbols often speak even louder than statements. Skipping the Wall for the church might have been meant as a gesture of faith, but to many of us it felt like a gesture of distance — from Israel, from Jewish history, from understanding what this land means to its people.

Faith, after all, is personal. But our connection to this land is not only a matter of belief — it is the story of our people, written into our prayers, our bones, and our history. That is what Vance failed to grasp: that our faith, our story, and our land are bound together, a holy bond that can never be severed and never surrendered — not even to Donald Trump and his vice president.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 


Guest post by Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, The Sovereignty Movement


Kiryat Gat is a symbol of Ben-Gurion’s vision to settle the northern Negev under Israeli sovereignty — yet precisely there, an international headquarters has been established, one that could undermine our sovereignty.

In Kiryat Gat, a city born from David Ben-Gurion’s dream of settling the northern Negev, a new international control center has recently been established — part of what is called the “regional agreements,” supposedly meant to bring a “stable Middle East.” But behind these enticing words lies a troubling truth: in the heart of the State of Israel, a piece of Israeli sovereignty is being handed over to foreign hands.

Ben-Gurion must be turning in his grave. The man who wholeheartedly believed in the Jewish people’s power to return and rebuild their land — who saw Kiryat Gat as a symbol of the Zionist ideal of making the desert bloom — never imagined that the very place he envisioned as a center of national strength would one day host an international command station. Luba Eliav, who was first entrusted with founding the city out of deep belief in the Zionist-settlement vision, never dreamed that an international force would take up residence in the heart of a sovereign Jewish city.

Eighty-seven soldiers of the Alexandroni Brigade gave their lives in this area during the War of Independence. They fell for the independence of the State of Israel — not for foreign forces or regional administrations. Their blood cries out from the ground: no to international supervision, no to the loss of the Jewish state’s independence.

Sovereignty means Israel’s full control over its destiny, its security, its resources, and its land. There is no such thing as “shared sovereignty” or “stable international oversight.” Every such arrangement undermines the very foundation of our existence — being a free people in our own land.

The Sovereignty Movement calls upon the government, the Knesset, and the public at large to awaken. The so-called “stable Middle East” will be built only through an uncompromising insistence on full Israeli sovereignty — not by transferring powers to foreign entities, not by establishing international centers in the heart of our cities, and not by weakening our hold on the land.

In Kiryat Gat, we must wake up. We must remember why this city was founded, what its founders envisioned, and what our soldiers sacrificed for. We must declare loud and clear: in the State of Israel — sovereignty belongs to the people of Israel, and to them alone.

This declaration must have practical implications. We must restore Jewish control in Gaza, apply our sovereignty there and in Judea, Samaria, and the Bashan, and return to a national Zionist path of Hebrew labor, making the desert bloom, building towns and communities, and encouraging large-scale aliyah .

Our hope is not yet lost — the two-thousand-year-old hope:
To be a free people in our own land.




Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

  • Wednesday, November 12, 2025
  • Elder of Ziyon
In May, the Palestinian Monetary Authority issued a press release:
During the MENAFATF Meetings, the Chairman of the National Committee H.E. Mr. Yahya Shunnar met with the President of MENAFATF Mrs. Samia Abu Sharif, The meeting was also attended by the Vice President of the MENAFATF Mr. Hamed Alzaabi and the Executive Secretary Mr. Suliman Aljebrin, and the Financial Follow-Up Director Dr. Firas Morrar. The discussion focused on ongoing efforts to combating money laundering and terrorist financing in the State of Palestine in alignment with the Financial Action Task Force standards. Key developments included the submission of the National Strategy addressing the findings of the national risk assessment to the Prime Minister of the State of Palestine 
The PA has done a lot to promote the optics of caring about terrorist money-laundering — they set up committees, claim to have submitted internal reports, and maintain communications with FATF and MENAFATF — but they have produced no visible evidence that they are monitoring or stopping terrorist money-laundering. They joined MENAFATF (the FATF-style regional body) in 2015, yet their mutual evaluation remains uncompleted and, according to FATF’s own site, the PA’s assessment date is still “to be determined."  

Despite the fanfare, the public record is thin. The PMA’s press release claims that MENAFATF “adopted the technical compliance report” and that a “national risk assessment strategy” was submitted — but no full mutual evaluation report or independently published national risk-assessment is available on MENAFATF or FATF portals to verify those claims. 

Not that they’ve been shy about using these bodies for their own ends. The PA submitted inputs to the FATF’s 2025 update that single out Jewish groups the PA designates as “terrorist organisations” and alleges those groups run agricultural and environmental enterprises as covers for funding:
“Groups designated as terrorist organisations at the domestic level by the Palestinian Authority, have reportedly established private enterprises involving livestock farming and the development of large-scale agricultural projects, such as fruit, vegetable, and palm tree plantations as means of funding.” — FATF, Comprehensive Update on Terrorist Financing Risks (2025).
Money flowing through NGOs or through PA channels to pay terrorists is effectively ignored in public MENAFATF/FATF outputs — yet the PA can get a paragraph in a global FATF report to name tiny Jewish settler groups as terrorist financing risks. That’s the inversion: international platforms used to amplify politically useful allegations while the PA’s own implementation and oversight remain opaque. 

This fits a broader pattern of Palestinians joining international organizations or conventions to give them the appearance of legitimacy, but never executing on the requirements that these organizations demand from members, blaming Israel for the "delays." I have not once seen any of them submit any information about violations of any rules or laws under territory they control - which is what every nation is supposed to do in their reports.  

There is also a documented problem of weak transparency and accountability in the Palestinian NGO and aid sector. Local watchdogs and anti-corruption organizations have repeatedly highlighted weak oversight, patronage and misuse of public funds, and insufficient reporting by NGOs and public bodies. 

The bottom line is that the PA insists on membership without publication, promises without peer review, and inputs to international reports without reciprocal transparency at home. That is optics, not accountability. 



(h/t Irene)



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive