++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wrong (read liberals) believe they are always right and right know there are many sides to issues and are frequently hesitant in thinking they are correct.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
An Open Letter to the Editorial Board of the Harvard Crimson
What your commitment to - and promotion of - the toxic BDS campaign really reveals.
By Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Jew-Hatred Rising: The Perversities of the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.
On April 29th, in a breathtaking display of tendentiousness and a misreading of history and fact, you published an editorial in the Harvard Crimson entitled, “In Support of Boycott, Divest, Sanction and a Free Palestine,” an outrageous column replete with slanders against the Jewish state that called for the Harvard community to commit itself to the corrosive BDS campaign against Israel.
You suggested that the editorial was inspired by the April demonstrations and programming of the Harvard College Palestine Solidarity Committee (HCPSC) which, as part of Israeli Apartheid Week, “installed a colorful, multi-panel ‘Wall of Resistance’ in favor of Palestinian freedom and sovereignty.” Additionally, you heaped praise on the childish mock wall and suggested that “art is a potent form of resistance” and that you were “humbled by our peers’ passion and skill” in creating such an activist masterpiece.
Even more importantly, you contended, fallaciously, “The admittedly controversial panels dare the viewer to contend with well-established, if rarely stated, facts [emphasis added].” What are examples of those “well-established facts” you alluded to? One panel announced in capital letters, for example, that “Zionism is: Racism - Settler Colonialism - White Supremacy – Apartheid,” mendacious slurs that echo the UN’s notorious 1975 Resolution 3379 that proclaimed that Zionism is racism.
Framing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a matter of race, as this foolish display did, and accusing Israel of maintaining a system of apartheid, is something that Israel-haters are fond of doing, even when the charge is patently false. The accusation of apartheid was given even more support last year with the publication of reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, both obsessive, perennial critics of Israel, that redefined apartheid in a way that it could be used to slander Israel—reports that you, in fact, alluded to in your editorial. The puerile accusation of white supremacy against Israel is as grotesque and unhinged as is the oft-repeated claim that Israelis are the new Nazis, committing genocide against the Palestinians, and both are not only counter-factual but are also forms of anti-Semitic expression described in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism.
Of course, your claim that the “facts” on the HCPSC mock wall are “well-established” is only true inasmuch as these are facts that live in the minds of progressives and anti-Semites who promiscuously and carelessly throw around words without attention to their actual meaning and import. Progressive thought, such as is apparent in this editorial, involves allowing emotions to define things instead of facts.
Your other preposterous contention that these attitudes toward Israel, these supposed facts, are “rarely-stated” is so naïve that only college students who have just begun to counter anti-activism could possibly believe them, since the campaign to slander, libel, and destroy the Jewish state has been in high gear for some two decades, and this counter-factual language and the allegations within it have been and continues to be ubiquitous on campuses worldwide. And it requires no bravery at all to be an enemy of Israel on university campuses seeped in such activism, as much as you try to impute bravery on the part of those who promote Palestinianism.
In justifying your position in this debate, you remarked that “It is our categorical imperative to side with and empower the vulnerable and oppressed.” Really? Does that include Jewish civilians who are being stabbed, rammed with cars, blown up, and showered with rockets in their sleep by the genocidal terrorist organization of Hamas in Gaza and even Arab Israelis? Or it is only the Palestinians you care about, who have rejected statehood when offered to them on multiple occasions, preferring instead to mount an endless resistance against a sovereign state they cannot and will not abide simply because its residents are Jews?
Your calling for a BDS campaign to be unleashed against Israel demands that, among the many and various calamitous examples of human strife and suffering occurring around the world, Harvard should focus on and commit to denouncing only one: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And more than that—just as the Third Reich and Arab League before them—you wish to target Jewish businesses, organizations, and educational institutions, and expel them from the world community. You wish to single out only Zionism and Jewish self-determination as being singular evils in the world. If you apply a double standard to Israel, holding it up to a standard of behavior not expected or required of any other nation, denying only Jewish self-determination while advancing and being a cheerleader for Palestinian self-determination, that behavior conforms to the IHRA working definition of what, in the contemporary context, can be indicative of anti-Semitism.
You, like other anti-Semites, may vigorously deny that nothing you say or do in this cognitive war against Israel has anything to do with Jew hatred, but the IHRA definition suggests that when you promote anti-Zionism, Jewish self-determination, and employ tactics such as BDS designed specifically to weaken and destroy Israel, you are engaging in anti-Semitic behavior, “advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent,” as former Harvard President Lawrence Summers once put it.
You yearn for the “liberation of Palestine” but what do you assume such an event would actually result in? When you carelessly refer to a liberated Palestine are you talking about the West Bank and Gaza, areas that would comprise a new Palestinian state? Or are you really describing and eagerly imagining a liberated Palestine that BDS supporters and their fellow travelers in the Arab world and in the West actually seek, namely, a Palestine which includes, and subsumes, present-day Israel? Could Israel even survive a “liberation” of the Palestinians, even encompassing only Gaza and the West Bank, assuming the Palestinians actually agree to such a territorial settlement? Israel knows, because of its experience after cleansing Gaza of all of its Jews, that instead of working on the creation of the beginnings of a state for themselves in Gaza, the Palestinians allowed Hamas to transform Gaza into a terror enclave from which to continually assault Israel, something which Israelis understandably imagine could happen again were the West Bank, in addition to Gaza, to be totally controlled by the PA, Fatah, or even Hamas.
And if the perverse and immoral fantasy in which Israel disappears completely into some sort of bi-national state were ever to be realized, a complete “liberation” of Palestine, what do you think would be the fate of the Jewish democracy of Israel and the Jews who live there? Were this to occur, Israelis would find themselves at the hands of hostile Arabs who are taught from birth that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs or under the control of Hamas terrorists whose charter includes the lethal exhortation to Muslims everywhere which claims that “'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'”
Conspicuously absent from your editorial, as is common with activists’ condemnation of Israel, is any questioning or critique of Palestinian agency, responsibility, behavior, political decisions, or even the nature of their culture and society. You feel very comfortable, sitting in the safety of your Harvard Square offices, hectoring Israel to tear down its security wall, welcoming millions of Jew-hating Arabs into its country as citizens, abandoning territory it rightfully owns or won in defensive wars, and otherwise making any concession you and other critics of the Jewish state demand of Israel, even to its own detriment and physical safety—consequences you apparently could care less about in your relentless quest for social justice for the long-aggrieved Palestinians.
Perhaps peace and statehood could finally be realized by the Palestinians if their worldwide supporters made demands on them, as you have no problem doing when the target is Israel. Perhaps the Palestinians could be encouraged to end the cult of death that pervades their society with kindergarteners dressed as terrorists and playacting the killing of Jews; where Palestinian summer camps and town squares are named after shahids, martyrs; where student groups in Palestinian universities compete for prominence based on the number of Jews their members have murdered; where it is a capital offense in the West Bank for an Arab to sell land to a Jew, the same West Bank where the supposed “moderate” Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly asserted that not one Jew will be allowed to live when it becomes part of a new Palestinian state; where geography books in Palestinian schools contain maps without Israel on them and children's shows on Palestinian TV include perverse characters like Farfur, Mickey Mouse's demonic twin, who playfully regurgitates hateful propaganda about Israel on the Hamas-affiliated al-Aqsa TV to encourage children to become martyrs and attack and kill Jews; and where, in 2019, for example, the Palestinians spent $343 million of the foreign aid showered upon them to pay terrorists who had murdered Jews and their the families gruesome bounties in a “pay to slay” program to effect that “liberation” for which you so vocally and unashamedly lend your support.
Can you not see how your support of this murderous and morally-debased campaign to extirpate Israel, thinly disguised as activism to promote Palestinian self-determination, might not be shared with many of your Harvard peers? And can you not see, finally, that your obsessive focus on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict—with Israel positioned as the perennial oppressor and the Arabs as its perennial victim—reveals your bigotry and even marginal anti-Semitism, despite your protestations to the contrary.
You make a careless reference to Israel’s killing of Palestinians, including children, without any context, failing to mention, of course, the inconvenient fact that since the 1920s Arabs have resisted, through violence and attacks, any Jewish presence in the Holy Land, including to the current day. Like other enemies of Israel, you are quick to count Arab bodies when they are killed by Jews but carelessly and immorally ignore any of the deaths of innocent Jews in Israel at the hands of psychopathic murderers who randomly attack civilians without provocation, including the 11 innocent Israelis murdered randomly in the streets last month in the uninterrupted campaign of terror that you and your fellow travelers help justify when you euphemistically excuse “resistance” on the part of Palestinians or chant, “Intifada, intifada, long live the intifada,” a grotesque rallying cry for the murder of Jews regularly heard at anti-Israel hate-fests.
Characteristic of anti-Semitic expression such as yours which specifically debases and targets Jewish self-determination in the name of Palestinianism, you hector only Israel about its many perceived predations, never even suggesting the possibility that the sorry state in which the Palestinians find themselves might have something to do with their own culture, religion, society, and political decisions, and not wholly the fault or responsibility of Israel. Like liberal elites in the West often do, you assign no agency at all to your favored victims, choosing instead to point to the brutality and injustice of their oppressors, in this case, Israelis.
The plea in your editorial to employ the corrosive BDS campaign as a part of the cognitive war against the Jewish state again reveals that you are either ignorant of or indifferent to the actual stated intention of that movement: namely, extirpating Israel completely, thereby “liberating” Palestine and removing any annoying racist Jews from what is now current-day Israel and replacing it with yet another Arab majority state in which Jews, assuming they survive the inevitable carnage of such a liberation, would now live in dhimmitude as second-class citizens in what was formerly a Jewish sovereign state.
“It is our categorical imperative to side with and empower the vulnerable and oppressed,” you wrote in one of your virtue-signaling paragraphs. But your implication that the Palestinians’ weakness somehow makes their cause and actions automatically virtuous and just—merely due to their lack of power and influence—is another trap progressives fall into which sanitizes the morally indefensible actions of terrorists like Hamas who justify their homicidal behavior toward Jews.
You pompously claimed in the editorial that “the weight of this moment — of Israel’s human rights and international law violations and of Palestine’s cry for freedom” led you to proudly “lend our support to both Palestinian liberation and BDS” and necessitated a call for everyone at Harvard, like you, to commit to the BDS campaign. You purport to have noble motives, but all context is lacking in your debate, you have contorted facts and history to justify your anti-Semitic expression, and you have proceeded with willfully blind certainty and determination to demonize Israel and ignore any of the defects of the Palestinian cause. And by encouraging and excusing the use of violence against Israelis as a means of achieving Palestinian liberation, you, together with others in the thrall of Palestinianism, will also be morally complicit in the inevitable deaths of Jews, a probability that you seem to have justified as an acceptable cost of achieving social justice for the oppressed.
In short, you have given credence to Bertrand Russell’s observation that “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You say yor minds are always opened then, why are your minds often closed?
Is there a modicum of real empathy from this elitist university of vastly liberal, so called, educators or just fear that the billions of dollars, donated by Jewish graduates over decades might dry up a bit? Are Jewish graduates gutsy enough to reduce or eliminate their giving as a sign of rebuke?
I, for one. no longer give a dime to The U of Pa where I attended and, instead, have established a Scholarship at St John's College where I served on the board but never attended.
We also established an Art Foundation at The UGA where Lynn attended and I continue to serve as a Board Member on The GMOA.
You either walk the walk you talk in life or you are a cowardly fool.
+++
Harvard Faculty Statement in Response to The Crimson Editorial Board’s Endorsement of BDS
As members of the faculty of Harvard University, we are dismayed by The Crimson Editorial Board’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. While we may not agree with every point in this statement, and there are many diverse perspectives among us on issues of Israeli policy, the boundaries of academic freedom, and the role of universities as political actors, we are united in our opposition to BDS and The Crimson stance.
We are deeply concerned about the long-term impact of this recent staff editorial on the morale and well-being of Jewish and Zionist students at Harvard, some of whom have already reported that they have become alienated from the newspaper on account of the inhospitable culture that prevails there.
We extend our full support to these students who may now be feeling marginalized and demoralized. We also express our steadfast commitment to Harvard’s ties with Israel, a country that is home to some of the world’s best universities. Our research and teaching missions benefit from these educational exchanges, and we encourage Harvard to grow them further.
While acknowledging the right of those within our campus community to endorse and advocate for BDS, we stand firmly opposed to this movement. In addition to calling for a wholesale boycott of Israeli academia, BDS compromises educational goals by turning the complex and intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a caricature that singles out only one side for blame with a false binary of oppressor versus oppressed.
We believe that many well-meaning people with no hate in their hearts, including those at Harvard, gravitate to this movement believing that it offers a means for advancing Palestinian rights and peace in the Middle East. But the reality is that BDS merely coarsens the discourse on campus and contributes to antisemitism. In seeking to delegitimize Israel through diplomatic, economic, academic, and cultural isolation, and by opposing the very notions of Jewish peoplehood and self-determination, BDS is disrespectful of Jews, the vast majority of whom view an attachment to Israel as central to their faith identity.
Contrary to the Crimson editorial, and despite its claim to be a movement for social justice, BDS does not advocate for coexistence, peace building toward a two-state solution, or even dialogue with Israel’s supporters on our campus. BDS negates the importance of Israel for Jewish continuity and as a refuge and safe haven for Jews who need one. It excludes Israel’s remarkable achievements as a post-colonial nation after independence, ignores the country’s relative successes in integrating waves of multi-ethnic and multi-racial communities, and neglects Israel’s own efforts at peace. Because of the movement’s rigid policy of “anti-normalization,” BDS casts Israel as uniquely malevolent among nations, with any and all attempts at mutual understanding to be resisted.
We are saddened and disheartened that both the Crimson and the Harvard College Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC), to which the Editorial Board gave full-throated support in its editorial, are creating spaces on campus where Jewish and Zionist students are targeted and made to feel unwelcome. In its “Wall of Resistance” art installation at Harvard Yard, callously displayed over the Passover holiday, the PSC equated Zionism with “racism” and “white supremacy.” Such language is shameful and has no place at Harvard. We call out this rhetoric for what it is: anti-Jewish hate speech that is antithetical to the values of any academic institution.
Zionism— the right of the Jewish people to a homeland and self-determination—is a millennia-old tradition, with deep roots in Jewish history and religious practice. It is also a more recent political response to the utter failure to produce freedom and safety for Jews living in most places in the world. To treat Zionism as an illegitimate and oppressive movement, as BDS does, is to ignore history and to deny empathy, respect, and dignity to Jews.
We at Harvard have a responsibility to recognize the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to acknowledge the lived experiences, traumas, hopes and dreams of all peoples impacted by it. The mission of our great university is to rigorously interrogate and debate complex problems. We are at our best when we consider and evaluate competing perspectives, focus on facts, acknowledge nuances, and avoid simplistic, monocausal explanations.
Proposing disengagement from Israel, in rhetoric that harshly characterizes the Jewish national project, has consequences here at Harvard too. At a moment when antisemitic incidents, often including violence, have reached an all-time high, it is more important than ever for us to model a respectful and inclusive learning environment.
We urge the Crimson Editorial Board to reach out to Jewish peers so that they can begin to repair the damage caused by writing such a divisive staff editorial, adding insult to injury by thoughtlessly publishing it the day after Yom HaShoah—Holocaust Remembrance Day.
We encourage Crimson’s editors to take advantage of the many resources and educational opportunities that Harvard has to offer for learning more deeply about Jewish identity and Israel, the diversity of the Jewish experience, and the multifaceted nature of contemporary antisemitism, including how it manifests on campus.
We also hope that the students who report and write for Harvard’s treasured and beloved Crimson, the oldest continuously published campus daily in the United States, will turn to us for more information and insight into the issues and concerns that we have raised in this statement. Our doors are always open."
+++
Pro-Israel Editor of ‘Harvard Crimson’ Blasts Editorial Supporting BDS JNS News Service
A Jewish editor at Harvard University’s student-led newspaper The Harvard Crimson criticized a recent column in which the editorial board declared its support for the BDS movement against Israel and a free Palestine, and rejected the views of previous editors who voiced their opposition to BDS.
In their editorial last week, Crimson editors said that while they “unambiguously” condemn anti-Semitism, they are “proud to finally lend our support to both Palestinian liberation and BDS—and we call on everyone to do the same.”
In her own opinion piece, published on Tuesday, Natalie Kahn, who is both the president of Harvard University’s Hillel and an associate news editor at the paper, slammed her colleagues. She wrote: “the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement—overwhelmingly condemned by Congress in a 2019 resolution passed 398-17—is not just a boycott; BDS rejects Jewish self-determination altogether.”
“Israel is not perfect, nor is any other country. But this editorial is part of a larger trend of singling out Jews, conveniently neglecting our half of the story—and by extension our right to self-determination—while claiming to ‘oppose anti-Semitism,’ ” she wrote.
“Does the editorial board believe Israel even has a right to exist? Because, if so, that line is coincidentally missing,” wrote Kahn, who made it clear she has no intention of quitting the newspaper. “The editorial board believes it is advocating for the underdog in the name of social justice, but the ‘overwhelming power imbalance’ has always been against the Jewish homeland, surrounded on all sides by those who wish to destroy it—the same wish that has led Israel’s neighbors to declare war on it again and again.”
Kahn, who is set to graduate in 2023 and has been a staff member of the newspaper since her freshman year, said that while she is open to talking to people with opposing views, “dialogue is not the goal of BDS or student anti-Israel groups, who have refused conversation and rely instead on substanceless platitudes like ‘Zionism is racism settler colonialism white supremacy apartheid,’ ” she wrote, noting that “their goal is demonizing Israel and delegitimizing its right to exist.”
“And so when my people and our homeland come under attack, I will not stay silent,” she wrote. “I am still a Crimson editor, but this editorial does not represent me; I do and always will stand with Israel.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
America must re-learn unity correlates with strength. Liberal Jews, all too often, still struggle over this fact/dictum.
It is easy to break a single popsicle stick but when you place two together, ah, the matter becomes more difficult.
+++
Israeli ‘unity’ lies in Zionism
Posted By Ruthie Blum
ONE WOULD not get this sense by listening to lectures from on high about our lack of “unity.” It’s a word that’s always bandied around when tensions arise over politics and social issues.
A new Zionism (photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM)
Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israel Independence Day, is always marked by a mixture of joy and reflection. This year is no different, though a touch of malaise is putting a damper on the former, while taking the latter in the wrong direction.
Among the minority currently in power are members of the Left, who have always held Israel accountable for the plight of Palestinian Authority denizens and for international condemnation. This group still blames the entire Right for the 1995 murder of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. Neither nationwide horror surrounding that unprecedented event, nor the fact that assassin Yigal Amir has been sitting in prison since then, has made a dent in the Left’s view that anti-Rabin incitement from the opposition — led at the time, as today, by Benjamin Netanyahu — was directly responsible.
That Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s family recently received threatening letters with live bullets in them has brought the old accusations to the fore, providing the “anybody but Bibi” crowd with proverbial ammunition.
The above camp’s go-to position whenever Arab terrorism spikes, as it is currently doing, is the one that was voiced ad nauseam by gung-ho supporters of the disastrous Oslo Accords: that we cannot allow the “enemies of peace” to win.
This bloc, which now has important ministerial portfolios, contains politicians who call for Israeli “soul-searching” at every opportunity, including during Holocaust Remembrance Day and Yom Hazikaron, our Memorial Day for fallen soldiers and victims of terrorism. Their message is that if Israel isn’t careful, it will become like Nazi Germany.
AMONG THESE paragons of virtue-signaling are Knesset members who proudly announced that they would be attending the annual alternative Yom Hazikaron ceremony to mourn the loss of Israeli and Palestinian lives alike. In other words, they believe that the perpetrators eliminated while killing Israelis — or those used by Hamas as human shields — are equivalent to the Israeli soldiers and civilians targeted by them.
Thankfully, the majority of the populace does not waste time thumping its chest with moans of mea culpa. It is too busy trying to steer clear of shootings, stabbings, car-rammings and rocket launches.
This completely diverse sector has one important thing in common: the understanding that the problem does not lie with “enemies of peace,” but rather with enemies of Israel and the Jews. Indeed, most Israeli citizens have a healthier outlook than the people governing them and the pundits shouting over one another on TV.
All one needs to do to recognize this reality and receive a boost of optimism is walk the streets, ride the buses and frequent the shops in and around the country. In between the acts of antisemitic violence endured on a regular basis, everybody goes about his and her business as usual.
Yes, we Israelis like to “get back to abnormal” as soon as possible. You know, fretting the small stuff, such as what to cook for Friday-night dinner, how to fix a broken faucet or where to find a parking space.
ONE WOULD not get this sense by listening to lectures from on high about our lack of “unity.” It’s a word that’s always bandied around when tensions arise over politics, social issues and religious observance. The trouble is that it’s an elusive concept that has very little meaning, particularly where conflicting worldviews are concerned.
But it was necessary for the ideologically disparate parties to tout it while forming the coalition a little more than a year ago. To persuade the public that the beauty of the new government lay in its ability to get along in spite of its deep divisions, required a lot of pronouncements about change on the one hand and “restoring unity” on the other.
It didn’t work. Aside from the hype, the hope and the amnesia that it initially generated in certain circles, the feeling that all disagreements can be settled without rancor did not trickle down in the way that Bennett and his cohorts had fantasized.
In the first place, the arguments in the halls of power have been loud and clear, so much so that the coalition is falling apart at the seams. Secondly, “unity” is never a lasting phenomenon in any case. It is achieved occasionally, under certain conditions. Furthermore, it is fleeting.
THE QUIP “two Jews, three opinions” is funny precisely because it’s true. In his Yom Hazikaron address at the Western Wall in Jerusalem on Tuesday, Bennett himself described the very infighting that has characterized Jewish history.
“[This] is the third time that there has been a sovereign Jewish state here in the land of Israel. The previous two times, we did not succeed at reaching the eighth decade in peace,” he said. “This is the most important lesson in our history, and I do not tire of repeating it. In the first instance, our first state, in the days of David and Solomon, survived 80 years as a united and sovereign kingdom. In its 81st year, because of internal conflicts, the country split in two, and we lost forever most of our people, the 10 tribes.”
He went on: “In the second instance, during the Second Temple period, the Hasmonean kingdom existed for about 77 years as a united and sovereign state. Towards the end of that period, there was again a severe internal conflict within us and it was the Jews themselves who invited the Romans inside Israel. We lost our independence and became a humiliated protectorate of the Romans. And we also lost this protectorate, at the end of the Second Temple. In the heat of purism and hostility, Jews burned each other’s food reserves, inflicting defeat on themselves. What a terrible price we paid: 2,000 years in exile, because we succumbed to hatred between brothers.”
Today, he added that “we have won a third chance; there will not be another [one]. We are now in the eighth decade of the state [that] we have not yet succeeded in as a united nation. We have been given an opportunity to correct the sin of our ancestral brotherly hatred and to get rid of the tendency toward sectarianism that destroyed our people.”
HE WAS right about the past. Yet his description of contemporary Israel as having “not yet succeeded as a united nation” was both inaccurate and inappropriate in the context of mourning the dead before celebrating the establishment of the modern state.
With all its warts, among them an electoral system that enabled Bennett to become premier with very few seats, Israel is a paradise of coexistence. Despite being pummeled physically by foes in and around its borders, relentlessly delegitimized abroad and under the threat of a nuclear Iran, it is miraculously vibrant.
It is simultaneously Western and Middle Eastern; provincial and cosmopolitan; religious and secular; conservative and progressive; entrepreneurial and old-fashioned; empathic and brash; exorbitantly expensive and a haven for tourists. Above all, it is a fantastic place to live, which is why even some of its heavy-duty detractors in the foreign press covet the Israel beat.
WE ISRAELIS deserve leaders who remind us of how great we are to have achieved such a feat, not warn us that we’re headed for implosion as a result of internecine strife. If anything needs emphasizing as Israel turns 74, it is patriotic Zionism, the core around which we actually can and should unite.
++++++++++++++++
Sent to me by a dear friend, a Doctor and fellow memo reader:
New study: Face mask usage correlates with higher death rates
Using data from 35 countries and 602 million people, peer-reviewed study confirms previous research and cautions use of face masks "may have harmful unintended consequences."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
%20(1)%20(4)%20(1).jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment