Tuesday, June 21, 2016

From Ian:

The ​Time Has Come for UNRWA Reform: A Solution to the Palestinian Refugee Dilemma
This reality can be changed. Instead of just throwing money at UNRWA, donors could advance policies to improve ​the living conditions of UNRWA refugee residents and offer a​n​ alternative to the current “refugee status in perpetuity” and “right of return” mantra drummed into the minds of half a million UNRWA student​s. A new reform initiative could galvanize donor nations ​to overhaul six UNRWA ​policy challenges​:​
  1. Ask for an audit of donor funds given to UNRWA. This would address widespread documented reports of wasted resources, duplicity of services and the undesired flow of cash to Gaza-based terror groups, which have gained control over UNRWA operations there for the past 18 years.
  2. Introduce UNHCR standards to UNRWA, to advance the resettlement of Arab refugees after 67 years. Current UNRWA policy is that refugee resettlement would interfere with the “right of return” to Arab villages that existed before 1948.
  3. Cancel the new UNRWA curriculum, which incorporates principles of jihad, martyrdom and a the “right of return” by force of arms.
  4. Cease paramilitary training in all UNRWA schools. Should UNRWA, as a UN agency, not demonstrate a renewed commitment to UN principles to “peace education”?
  5. Insist that UNRWA dismiss employees who are affiliated with Hamas, in accordance with laws on the books in western nations, which forbid aid to any agency that employs members of a terrorist organization.
  6. Since UNRWA has recently hired a “youth ambassador” — Mohammad Assaf — to travel the world and encourage insurrection and violence, would this not be the appropriate time for donor nations to ask that UNRWA cancel that contract with a promoter of war?
​At a time when Israel is pressed to launch a new diplomatic initiative, this is an opportunity to remove the stain of “Arab refugees in perpetuity” as a source of intergenerational incitement.
Remove the Arab refugee issue from the Middle East agenda, and you remove a root cause of violence in the Middle East.

An End-of-Semester Report Card for BDS-Supporting Students
Now that the academic year is over, it is high time to grade the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Like most evaluations, this one is subjective—but it should withstand close scrutiny.
Full disclosure: I am a committed Zionist. I believe Israel is a country that should proudly take its place among the world’s nations. However, I criticize Israeli policies regularly. I disagree with how Israel has handled its occupation of the West Bank. But, as a world citizen, I try to prioritize my rage at the world’s injustices. I try to maintain an intellectual rigor when it comes to oppression and violence. I do not believe the BDS movement does that. To the contrary, I believe the BDS movement allows Tibetans to languish under a brutal Chinese occupation, the Copts to be institutionally discriminated against in Egypt and the Kurds to remain oppressed and stateless—not to mention the systematic injustices against many others.
Now to the grades.
Historical Accuracy: D-
The BDS movement is premised on a historical accounting that contains cleverly construed omissions and distortions. Recently, I listened to an NPR broadcast on Nakba Day. (Nakba means “catastrophe” in Arabic; “Nakba Day” is a commemorative day observed every year by Palestinians on May 15, the day Israel was declared an independent country). In the discussion of the Palestinian loss of land, not once was it mentioned that the United Nations had voted in 1947 to partition Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. In explaining the 1948 War, there was another omission: the attack on the newly born state of Israel by five Arab armies. The BDS historical narrative espoused by students on campus depicts the birth of Israel as an unprovoked, imperialist land grab. According to this erroneous reading of history, in 1967 another unprovoked Jewish attack seized even more land (rather than this capture of land being the result of a war). Other territorial partitions accepted by the international community, such as that of India and Pakistan, are ignored. If quizzed on what happened in 1947, 1948 or 1967, I imagine 90 percent of BDS-supporting students would have no clue about these basic historical facts. (h/t messy57)
JCPA: Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism: Same Idea, New Cloak
This correlation is substantiated in the findings of the AMCHA initiative report of 2016 about U.S. colleges. That report shows:
  1. Strong correlation between anti-Zionist student groups such as “Students for Justice in Palestine” (SJP) and anti-Semitism,
  2. Strong correlation between the presence of faculty who have expressed public support for an academic boycott of Israel and anti-Semitism,
  3. BDS activity strongly correlates with anti-Semitic activity,
  4. Presence of SJP, faculty boycotters and BDS are strong predictors of anti-Semitism,
  5. Anti-Zionism permeates and is inseparable from contemporary campus anti-Semitism.
Yet, a deeper analysis of the similarities and the differences between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism requires thorough understanding of the broad perspective and context of the effort to delegitimize the existence of the nation state of the Jewish people in its ancestral homeland, which is the purpose and the realization of Zionism. The complex DNA and the ideological and political substructure of this delegitimization campaign, one of whose expressions is the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement, is constituted on the one hand in the Palestinian leadership’s 100 year old terror and ideological warfare against Zionism and its realization in the state of Israel and on the other hand in the extreme radical thinking and the ongoing anti-Semitic feelings in certain radical groups in the West.
As a matter of fact, delegitimization of Israel represents two ideas which are not mutually exclusive. First, it is a manifestation of a modern form of anti-Semitism. In the past hatred of the Jews and their discrimination and persecution were justified by false religious and later on racial argumentations, which are totally inconceivable today. Nowadays this attitude is justified by national argumentation claiming that the Jews should be treated differently from all other nations and that their state represents evil because of both the injustice embedded in its creation and prolonged existence and the horrible nature of the Jews who live there, and therefore its existence is unjustified and illegitimate.

  • Tuesday, June 21, 2016
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Iran's Tasnim News Agency:
The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) strongly condemned the Manama regime’s decision to strip Shiite cleric Sheikh Isa Qassim of his Bahraini citizenship, saying the move will trigger a crushing uprising against the ruling regime and accelerate its downfall.

In a statement on Tuesday, the IRGC took a swipe at the “racist” Al Khalifa dynasty for its “inhumane measure” to revoke the prominent cleric’s citizenship, saying the move runs counter to Islamic values and internationally-recognized norms and is at odds with the dignity of the Arab world people and the Bahraini nation.

The decision is a result of “the anti-Islam strategies of the hegemonic and Zionist system and a plot hatched by the Al Saud,” it added.

The statement went on to say that such an unwise move by the Al Khalifa family will “fan the flames of Bahrain’s Islamic revolution” and trigger a “crushing uprising” against the ruling regime.

The shaky foundations of the US protégées will soon collapse with the will of the Bahraini nation, it underscored.

The IRGC then gave a warning to the rulers of the “illegitimate Al Khalifa regime” that if they do not stop pursuing “Zionist-favored adventurism” and fail to acknowledge the rightful demands of the Bahraini people, they will have to suffer the same fate as that of the late dictators in some other Muslim countries.

Bahrain said Monday that the citizenship of Sheikh Qassim has been revoked, accusing him of sowing sectarian divisions.
Al Jazeera adds:
Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia group, said the decision would have "grave consequences", while Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, gave a warning of armed resistance to Bahrain's rulers.

In a statement published by Fars news agency, Soleimani said: "The Al Khalifa [rulers of Bahrain] surely know their aggression against Sheikh Isa Qassim is a red line that crossing it would set Bahrain and the whole region on fire, and it would leave no choice for people but to resort to armed resistance.

"Al Khalifa will definitely pay the price for that and their blood-thirsty regime will be toppled."
So Iran and its proxies are essentially threatening to start a violent revolution in Bahrain.

If only Israel would make more concessions to Palestinians, we wouldn't have these problems in the Middle East.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.



We all want to save this planet, we all want a life that’s free
So we voted for the Greens, cause they stood for equality.
But as soon as they got power, it went right to their head,
Now they’re not supporting freedom, but racism instead.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,
Greens, greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.
There are human rights abuses in most countries you could name
But there’s just one tiny country that the Greens would like to blame,
A country known as Israel where citizens walk free,
Muslims, Jews and Christians – the region’s lone democracy.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.
Israel’s fought in seven wars, not one did it start,
Rockets launched each day from Gaza still tear children’s lives apart.
But to the Greens they’re the aggressors, not entitled to their views –
How dare Israel defend itself, those stubborn bloody Jews.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.
Sure, Israel isn’t perfect, and it’s always in the news,
But would you fare any better, standing in their shoes?
If you call a country racist, while ignoring the great wealth
Of far greater wrongs around it, you’re just racist yourself.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were, that’s for sure.
Greens, Greens we now see who you are, and we won’t vote for you anymore.

That catchy ditty entitled “Racist Heart” whose words I decided to reproduce since they don’t seem to appear all together anywhere on the internet (to hear them go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHPe04ZrVGY) is the work of a New South Wales singer-songwriter inspired by the utter hypocrisy, bigotry and double standards displayed by the New South Wales Greens in 2011 when they committed the council of Marrickville in Sydney to BDS, a mean and divisive move that outraged both Jews and non-Jews and has since been overturned.

For a party that was founded with the welfare of the environment and ecological issues in mind, the Greens in Australia, like the Greens elsewhere, have a disproportionate fixation with “Israel Palestine” and appear to have passed more “party resolutions” pertaining to that corner of the world than to any other foreign policy issue. Here’s their most recent resolution, one that allows no consideration of the pre-Six Day War 1949 ceasefire lines as they affect Israel’s security and which offers everything to the Palestinian Arabs on a platter, despite their decades-old rejectionism and with no responsibility on their part towards negotiation with Israel:

Resolution on Palestine, November 2015
That the Australian Greens National Conference:
1. Notes:
a) The state of Palestine is currently recognised by 136 states, representing 70.5% of the 193 member states and two non-member states of the United Nations;
b) The importance of recognition of the state of Palestine, alongside the state of Israel, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution, based on 4 June 1967 boundaries with both states sharing Jerusalem as their capital;
2. Formally recognises the State of Palestine.
Motion passed by consensus

Since, as made clear by Greens politician Adam Bandt the other day (see below) they support the “right of return” for “Palestinian refugees” they are, quite obviously, unconscionably hostile to Israel.
Here’s a brief glimpse of their obnoxious attitude. In 2013 the New South Wales Greens, apparently spearheaded by David Shoebridge, member of the state Legislative Council and co-convenor of the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, announced support for the “Gaza’s Ark” project, which will challenge the blockade by rebuilding a boat in Gaza using Palestinian shipbuilders, load the vessel with Palestinian goods and products, and sail to international waters with both Palestinians and internationals on board,” the aim being “ to challenge the ongoing, illegal Israeli blockade and focus worldwide attention on Gaza and the complicity of the governments that support it or look the other way.” This, despite the fact that in 2011 an inquiry under UN auspices declared Israel “fully within its rights to impose [the blockade] in order to prevent the import of weapons which will be turned against it.” To the ire of the then federal Greens’ leader Senator Christine Milne when she found out, a staffer in Shoebridge’s office invited notorious German-born South Australian Holocaust denier Dr Fredrick Töben to the “Gaza’s Ark” fundraiser (a cruise around Sydney Harbour), leading Shoebridge to have the invitation withdrawn.  
That same year NSW Young Greens posted on Facebook a poll that asked whether respondents believed in the rights and sovereignty of Palestine” or supported the creation and continuance of the state of Israel”. Although the poll was later removed owing to pressure by the then party leadership, those who administered that Facebook page remained defiant in their outlook, leading the executive director of the Executive Council for Australian Jewry to observe: “Regardless of their personal views, their activities and rhetoric have time and again been magnets for gross expressions of antisemitism, both online and in public forums. The Greens … have a choice to make … They can speak and act as a party with mainstream voter appeal, or they can pander to the radical fringe of politics.
Federal Senator Lee Rhiannon (born Lee Brown to hard left parents, and of part-Jewish extraction through her mother) is arguably the most infamous of the anti-Israel Greens. Her attitude can be discerned in a speech she made two and a half years ago in the Senate, in which she said, inter alia:
There is a strongly growing case for the Australian government to adopt the Greens policy of no military cooperation and trade with Israel. This policy change is needed to ensure that Australia no longer supports crimes committed by the Israeli government…. Jake Lynch, Director of Sydney University's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, has pointed out that Israel is the only country which is guilty of the following four major transgressions. The first transgression is that it is illegally occupying foreign territory. The evidence for this is UN Security Council resolution 242 which calls on Israel to reinstate the 1967 borders. This violation is now in its 46th year. The second transgression is that Israel is the subject of well-founded allegations of war crimes, most recently the 2009 UN Goldstone Report into Operation Cast Lead. A third transgression is that it is a nuclear armed state yet has refused to admit this or join the non-proliferation treaty. This is surely one of the biggest obstacles to a peaceful and stable Middle East. The fourth transgression is that it is the subject of well-founded allegations of apartheid crimes, violating the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid….”
Last month Senator Rhiannon, as readers of David Singer’s posts on my blog will be aware, authorised Israel-demonising leaflets, including that ubiquitous set of mendacious maps and other misleading material, to be issued by her office at public expense.
Senator Christine Milne’s successor as federal Greens’ leader, Dr Richard Di Natale, was praised by Jewish communal leaders in May 2015 when, was asked in an interview with the AJNwhether Abbas should recognise Israel’s existence as a Jewish state” he replied “Of course. How can you have a two-state solution when you refuse to acknowledge the right of one state to exist? It’s patently nonsense.” The ensuing furore in his party caused Dr Di Natale to backtrack. A fortnight after the interview was published, the AJN (4 June 2015) reported:

Ignoring the fact that the Jewish State has existed for almost 70 years and is recognised in international law, Greens leader Senator Richard Di Natale this week earned the ire of community leaders for declaring “absolutely” that he does not support the establishment of a Jewish state and does not believe it would be conducive to a two-state solution. The backlash [from Greens regarding the answer he gave in the interview] prompted a clarification, in which his executive assistant stated that Di Natale was “concerned about the way in which his comments were reported” and that while he supports a two-state solution, “the establishment of a ‘Jewish state’ (as opposed to an ‘Israeli state’) is not conducive to that outcome”. When The AJN contacted Di Natale’s office, a spokesperson said they didn’t mean to imply there had been “an error in reporting”, explaining “it was just a misunderstanding”….

Di Natale this week reiterated his position in correspondence with the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ)…. “My comments in the AJN piece were intended to reflect that view and that view alone. I have never believed that the establishment of a ‘Jewish state’ (as opposed to an ‘Israeli state’) is conducive to this outcome and I absolutely do not support that goal.” …. Labelling Di Natale’s “about turn” as “profoundly disquieting”, Zionist Federation of Australia president Danny Lamm noted the UN and Israel’s Declaration of Independence, as well as statements by US President Barack Obama as supporting its existence as the Jewish State. He added, “Senator Di Natale’s revised position on Israel should also be assessed in the light of Articles One and Four of the Palestinian Basic Law (2003) that respectively declare: ‘the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation’; and ‘the principles of Islamic sharia shall be the principal source of legislation’. “It would be useful to ask whether Senator Di Natale’s objection to national ethno-religious identity applies solely to a Jewish Israel, or extends to an Arab/Muslim Palestine as well?….’

The words of the “Racist Heart” song above are so pertinent to the despicable, discriminatory attitude of the Green Party in Australia towards Israel, and even, as recent events in the state of Victoria have reminded us, towards Jews. The latest whiff of Greens’ poison has emerged during the current federal election campaign, and it involves Greens candidate Steph Hodgins-May, who is hoping to wrest the seat of Melbourne Posts from the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP’s) Michael Danby, who has represented the seat in federal Parliament in Canberra since 1998. Mr Danby, who is Jewish, is and always has been a stalwart champion of Israel, and from his university days has been instrumental in building up support for Israel among trades unionists and others on the right of the party. On 22 June Mr Danby’s two main rivals, Liberal Party candidate Owen Guest and the Greens’ Ms Hodgins-May, were due to join him in a pre-election debate on issues raised by Jewish constituents (who comprise a not insignificant proportion part of the seat’s electorate). But as a result of Ms Hodgins-May’s sudden withdrawal, the debate will be between just Danby and Guest.

The debate, to be chaired by Australian Jewish News editor-in-chief Zeddy Lawrence, was first proposed to the three candidates on 26 May, and Ms Hodgin-May’s office that same day confirmed her participation. On 30 May Mr Lawrence emailed her to inform her that the event would be co-sponsored with the AJN by Zionism Victoria. On 7 June she told an enquiring journalist on Twitter that she was unaware of the involvement of Zionism Victoria, and on 8 June her office informed the AJN by email: “At the time of Steph accepting AJN’s invitation to participate in the candidate forum, it was our understanding that it was being independently hosted by your newspaper. Since the circumstances of the forum have changed, Steph won’t be participating.” That same day she informed the paper, in two separate conversations: “I’m not comfortable participating in a forum that is co-hosted by an organisation that isn’t an independent newspaper, so that’s my reason for withdrawal” and that she felt it was not “appropriate and right to speak at an event co-organised by a politically active organisation”.

On 9 June the AJN pointed out to her that the Greens member for Melbourne and former deputy leader of the party Adam Bandt would be speaking at an Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) (see, by the way, Bandt’s response to an APAN questionnaire (https://apan.org.au/party-positions-on-the-question-of-palestine/adam-bandt-mp-greens-member-for-melbourne/). Thus cornered, she offered this excuse: “I was unaware when I accepted that it was also being co-hosted by an organisation that holds strong political views, including in relation to the United Nations. As someone who worked at the UN and holds their work in high regard, I have chosen not to participate in the now co-hosted forum.” Yet, as the AJN notes, the description a “nuisance and a sham organisation,” which Hodgins-May attributes on her website to Zionism Victoria, emanated from the Zionist Federation of Victoria.

See Bandt’s shameful response when confronted at the APAN forum with this issue by David Schulberg: (http://jmedia.online/2016/06/14/australian-palestinian-advocacy-network-event/ )

Here is Bandt’s speech at the APAN forum, where he makes clear that the Australian Greens support the “Palestinian Right of Return” (something that, if effected, would spell the end of Israel): 

Ms Hodgins-May has behaved disgracefully, treating a section of her potential electorate with contempt. As excoriating articles in the current AJN make clear, she has caused deep offence and hurt to Jews in the constituency she hopes to represent. Not long ago she tweeted a photo of herself holding a loaf of challah on a Friday afternoon, together with appreciative comments. But elections are not won by bread and blarney and photo opportunities alone. The Greens are poisonous.

Editorialises the AJN:

“As a newspaper – albeit a Jewish, Zionist one – we don’t as a rule presume to tell our readers who to vote for. We may encourage them in a certain direction, but on the whole we present relevant information and allow them to make up their own minds. In this instance, however, we feel we have no choice. We not only opened our pages to Steph Hodgins-May, we invited her to take part in our panel. In turn, she has shown considerable disrespect towards our community. And that being the case, we would urge you not to give her your vote.”

Michael Danby goes further: “Approximately 71 per cent of Australian Jewish residents of Melbourne Ports have family in Israel. If she doesn’t want to represent our local Jewish community, or even speak to them, she cannot be their local member. Greens Leader Di Natale must sack her.” Excellent point.


We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Explaining the Israeli Left
Haaretz and other leading leftist voices admitted openly that endangering the country by surrendering Gaza, along with Gaza’s border with Egypt, to terrorists was a small price to pay for destroying the religious Zionist movement.
A month before the August 2005 expulsions, Haaretz published an editorial, which explained that it really didn’t matter whether Israel’s security was damaged by the withdrawal.
The real question,” the paper argued, “is not how many mortar shells will fall, or who will guard the Philadelphi Route [between Gaza and Egypt], or whether the Palestinians will dance on the roofs of [the destroyed communities].
“The real question is who sets the national agenda. The disengagement of Israeli policy from its religious fuel is the real disengagement currently on the agenda. On the day after the disengagement, religious Zionism’s status will be different.”
Israel has fought three wars with the Palestinians and one with Hezbollah since that withdrawal. Hundreds of soldiers and civilians have been killed. Thousands have been wounded.
Whereas 25,000 Israelis lived within range of Palestinian mortars and rockets from Gaza in July 2005, today Hamas’s missiles have a range covering nearly all of Israel.
Today we are subjected to daily claims by Leftist politicians, activists and their media partners that Israelis are tired of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. His days in power are over. The “public” now sees that the Left is the only side that brings hope so it behooves the government to listen to the “public” and let the Left rule for a change.
But to the dismay of the Left, the public won’t go along for another ride with them, no matter how much hysteria they promote.
Despite the best efforts of Herzog, Newman, and their allies in the media echo chamber, the public has taken their measure. The public is not interested in electing parties that subvert the national interest to advance their political fortunes. The public is not interested in being led by men and women driven by an irrational and dangerous hatred of their fellow Israelis.
EU thinks 'feeding Israel to the crocs means they will be eaten last'
The event was the initiative of the Israel Allies Foundation, the umbrella organization of pro-Israel caucuses in 35 parliaments around the world, and I Like Israel, an umbrella organization of pro-Israel groups in Germany.
“This conference is taking place under the shadow of a damaging peace initiative that aims to pressure Israel to make irrational concessions and force Israel to give up its sovereignty in the name of a false peace,” Israel Allies Foundation Executive Vice President Josh Reinstein told attendees.
“They believe by feeding Israel to the crocodiles they will be eaten last. This conference is our answer to that initiative.”
Yisrael Beytenu faction chairman Robert Ilatov, who heads the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus, attributed the French initiative and its support in Europe to historic anti-Semitism that has deep roots on the continent.
“We don’t understand why our friends in Western Europe create double-standards for Israel,” Ilatov told the crowd. “We don’t understand why they are attacking Israel and not countries in the Middle East that do not protect human rights and protect religious freedom.”
The Israel Narrative Is Wrong
The answer, of course, is that the narrative is simply wrong on every count. Diplomatically speaking, as I’ve noted before, this government is actually one of the more left-wing in Israel’s history: Though Netanyahu doesn’t consider a two-state solution achievable right now, he does accept the idea in principle; in contrast, during Israel’s first 45 years of existence, all governments from both left and right considered a Palestinian state anathema. And Netanyahu’s policy of restraining settlement construction – which, contrary to his “cowardly” image, he has maintained despite considerable opposition from parts of his base – is consistent with his stated commitment to a two-state solution.
Moreover, as the examples above show, his past three governments have actually been among the most progressive in Israel’s history in terms of their practical efforts to improve Arab integration. And unlike his settlement policy, his efforts to advance Arab equality have sparked no significant opposition from either his cabinet or his electorate, even though Israeli Arabs overwhelmingly vote for his political opponents. The reason is simple: Any government which considers Israeli-Palestinian peace unachievable in the foreseeable future has no choice but to invest in Israel’s internal development, in order to ensure that the country is strong enough to survive without peace. And improving Arab integration is crucial to the country’s internal development because Israeli Arabs, currently underrepresented in both higher education and the work force, represent one of the main potential sources of future economic growth.
But proponents of the “far-right-extremism” narrative seem utterly impervious to the facts. So they can only scratch their heads in puzzlement over why Israel’s “most right-wing government ever” is precisely the one that’s taking far-reaching steps to improve the lot of Israeli Arabs.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 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:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive