OR
Dear Reader,
What I’m about to expose is unspeakable…
The political and media establishment do not want this discussed.
Dare to oppose the regime? You will be branded a bigot, a conspiracy theorist, and every other “ist” and “ism” they can weaponize against you.
I refuse to bow to their tyranny though.
So I’ll ask the question that nobody else dares…
Do you ever feel like something bigger, something darker, is going on at our southern border? That something doesn’t add up?
I know I do.
And if you’re like me, you have probably watched the immigration crisis and asked yourself: what the hell is going on?
Why is Biden allowing millions of illegals to pour across our border, completely unopposed and in many cases assisted.
That’s the question I have spent the last several months uncovering and while it brings me no joy to say this…
When you see what my investigation uncovered you will realize the worst is yet to come. You see, our country is not being turned upside down by accident.
The border and immigration crisis is part of a far greater political plot that I call America’s Last Election.
And if you’re someone who’s worked hard, saved, and followed the rules for decades… you cannot ignore this imminent, inescapable threat.
As their sinister plan comes to a head this November, I believe it will rip our nation apart.
On one side, millions of people could be financially wiped out… forced to rely on the government for handouts.
While on the other side, the small minority who understand what’s really going on will have the ability to build substantial and lasting wealth…
Not only securing their financial freedom but also their personal sovereignty from an increasingly tyrannical government.
Which side will you be on?
Well, that depends on whether you watch my new documentary or not.
It’s here for you to stream at no cost.
The choice is yours.
Porter Stansberry
++++
I believe Trump will win a significant victory and in the close states it could mean Democrats' are going to make pre-election changes that allows them to try and steal the election. I do not doubt they will make every sleazy effort to accomplish this mission.
Will they be successful? Stay tuned.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pinch Me, I'm Dreaming: Florida to Communism-Proof SchoolchildrenBy ATHENA THORNE |
When I was growing up in America's heyday, all the adults around me understood that communism was evil. We were at (cold) war with the USSR, the horrorshow results of the red menace were staining the Far East with blood, and fleeing Cubans were literally drowning in shark-infested waters rather than live under Fidel Castro. A young Athena could ask any random grownup, "What's communism?" and learn everything she needed to know just from the repulsed expression on the adult's face at the mere mention of the word.
"Communists want everyone to be the same," one wise elder summarized it to me. A red-blooded American, even at that tender age, I remember thinking about what a soulless nightmare that would be.
Flash forward, and the American establishment has become uniformly communized. But thank God, bastions of freedom still remain, and from these repositories we may yet be able to reclaim and rebuild the USA — especially if more states keep following Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis's lead.
Speaking on the 63rd anniversary of JFK's Bay of Pigs disaster, standing behind a podium emblazoned with the glorious words ANTI-COMMUNIST EDUCATION, the magnificent governor announced the bill he was about to sign into law.
“We are committed to telling the truth about this ideology," the mighty governor avowed, "and we are going to make sure that people have a very accurate understanding of the human carnage that has resulted from communist regimes throughout history."
Tampa Bay Times covered the announcement of the historic and badly, badly needed correction to the education system:
Florida public schools will be required to teach students from kindergarten through 12th grade about the history of communism under a bill signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday.
The lessons will be required to be “age appropriate and developmentally appropriate” for each grade and will be developed by the Florida Department of Education. Among the required instruction, which would begin in the 2026-27 school year: lessons on the history of communism in the United States, the “increasing threat of communism in the United States” and the “atrocities committed in foreign countries under the guidance of communism.”
"We tell the truth about communism," wrote DeSantis in a post on X. He shared a graphic that outlined the provisions of Florida SB 1264:
This legislation:
Requires schools to give students age-appropriate instruction on the history of communism
Authorizes the newly-established Institute for Freedom in the Americas at Miami Dade College to promote the importance of economic and individual freedoms
Workshops, symposiums, and conferences
Coursework and programs that advance democratic practices and economic and legal reforms
Partners with the Adam Smith Center for Economic Freedom at Florida International University
Initiates a process for the Department of State and the Department of Education to provide a recommendation to the legislature on the creation of a museum on the history of communism
Miami Dade College President Madeline Pumariega also spoke at the news conference. She assured listeners that the new law will make sure no Florida student “ever romanticizes socialism.”
Imagine being able to obtain your higher education without being surrounded by Marxists and socialists — what a dream! Where was Miami Dade when I was in college?
“Through the institute, both FIU and Miami Dade College will partner to make sure that we preserve democracy in the Americas,” said Pumariega. “We are [only] as good as our memory is.”
Recommended: Trump’s Brilliant Prosecution Juxtaposition Campaign
According to the official summary, the new law also "Initiates a process for the Department of State and the Department of Education to provide a recommendation to the legislature on the creation of a museum on the history of communism."
“I am sure there’s going to be a lot of people down here that are going to want to see it located down here in Miami,” said DeSantis, in a nod to the Cuban exile community affectionately known as "Little Havana."
Gov. DeSantis is doing nation-saving work, laying the foundation for a future in which the majority of Americans once again loathe communism. He is saving his state and maybe his region. Can you imagine if DeSantis one day becomes president and has control over the federal DOE? The left would deeply regret ever empowering that department, as anti-communism training would be a required curriculum in every school across the country.
This is how you save America.
++++
O’Keefe Media Group Exposes Who Is Really Running the White House
By MATT MARGOLIS |
Joe Biden doesn't even know where he is most of the time. He gets lost on stage and can't remember when or how his son died. He mixes up world leaders, and claims to have spoken with dead people.
Is he really the guy running the country?
Well, O'Keefe Media Group (OMG) went undercover and discovered the White House's real power structure.
What they found probably confirms what you long suspected.
According to Tyler Robinson, special advisor to the chief of staff of SBA administrator Isabel Guzman, Biden's chief of staff, Jeff Zients, is “the second most powerful person in Washington.” He told OMG’s American Swiper Citizen Journalist that “whatever this guy says, it’s what the president says.”
Robinson said that Zients holds more power than Vice President Kamala Harris and that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have behind-the-scenes involvement at the White House.
"I feel like Barack Obama's still very involved," the undercover journalist prompted.
"No, he is," Robinson admitted.
Robinson also said that Hillary Clinton still has people "that are, like, super close to her, that are still, like, senior people in the White House."
"I hope that Hillary's involved behind the scenes," the journalist
"No, she is, yeah," Robinson told her.
He also revealed that the White House directs Guzman to campaign for the president, resulting in her being the most frequently traveling cabinet member. She uses her frequent travel to help Democrat candidates in swing states under the guise of meeting with local small business owners, making such trips blatant violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activities.
Robinson said, “We try to visit with a member of Congress if they’re a Democrat… Just because then we can help them get re-elected as well.”
One such example is Montana, where incumbent Democrat Sen. Jon Tester is up for reelection for a seat seen as most likely to flip to Republicans.
“The White House was like, yes, go. Invite Senator Tester. Don’t invite the other senator because he’s a Republican. And don’t invite the two members of Congress because they’re Republicans.”
Who exactly did Robinson mean when he referred to the White House? According to Robinson, the power behind President Biden who is running the White House is White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients whom Robinson described as more powerful than Vice President Kamala Harris. Robinson implied unelected Zeints wields considerable control claiming, “by getting Jeff’s sign-off, you’re getting the President’s sign-off” and “whatever this guy says, it’s what the President says.” White House Chiefs of Staff have an expansive role and help shape the President’s agenda as a gatekeeper to the President, but Jeff Zeints is not your average Chief of Staff using the position as a steppingstone to more lucrative government relations positions. Named to Forbes Magazine’s 40 Under 40 list with an estimated net worth of $149M when he was only 35 years old (over 20 years ago), Zeints is already an experienced public and private sector executive. He has held numerous positions in the executive branch, investment firms, on the Board of Facebook, and as Chief Operating Officer of DGB Enterprises, a holding company for the media company that publishes The Atlantic. This is the person whom Robinson states “can sign off on things without the President.”
"All these revelations exposed in yet another expose by an OMG American Swiper Journalist reveal an increasingly insular group of party operatives influencing the Biden Administration and using federal institutions to manipulate elections," writes O'Keefe. "Only by continuing to shine a light on this waste and corruption will we ensure fair elections."
You can watch the undercover interactions here.
And:
https://townhall.com/columnist
++++
From the Water to the Water
Oh, to be a university president these days. What struggle. What drama! Having to go in front of congress and answer questions about whether or not anti-Semitic phrases are anti-Semitic or not. This week’s hearing from Columbia president “Minouche” Shafik was remarkably better than the previous one, and she managed to summon enough moral clarity to identify that calling for the genocide of Jewish people was, in fact, hate speech. Where she paused, however, was in the question of whether the now-common phrase, “from the river to the sea” is anti-Semitic. Initially, she said no — in that some people hear it as anti-Semitic, and others hear it as aspirational. She eventually came around and said that it was anti-Semitic. But perhaps this is just the most salient example of “west-splaining”— wherein Western scholars and people translate things in Arabic in a softer or gentler way. Case in point, a recent reinterpretation of the phrase “jihad” — which literally Islamic fundamentalists use to describe their holy war — as “aspirational” and “peaceful.” Okay. But perhaps we need to actually look at what this means, both historically and now — because, my dear Dr. Shafik, its intent isn’t really up for debate.
I recently looked up the Arabic version of “from the river to the sea,” and was met immediately with the Wikipedia definition, which says that it has a focus on freedom. Well, maybe. In Arabic, the rhyming couplet is min ah-nahr ila l-bahr/ Filastin sa-tataharrar. This is a relatively new statement, however. The original version of the slogan in Arabic is min el-mayeh lil-mayeh, Filastin Arabiyeh, or, from the water to the water, an Arab Palestine. Perhaps less a clarion call for freedom, but certainly more in line with what the statement actually means, no matter what nonsense Rashida Tlaib spouts from her pulpit. And to see the truth of this, one really only has to look to history.
Islam is a religion born of the Judaic tradition; indeed, they have much in common. The fact that it was literally built on the original Jewish scriptures is potentially also reflected in the fact that the Islamic Dome of the Rock is literally built on the ruins of the Second Temple (and, prior to that, the First). Despite this, a newly fashionable statement is to declare that the Jewish people have no historical or contemporary right to the Land of Israel — which is straight up nonsense. There’s a very basic reality that when scholars dig in the Land of Israel, they find Hebrew Scriptures, coins, pomegranate figurines etc. Of course, both peoples have some claim to the land, which is why it’s such an intractable conflict. When Jews were being forced out of Europe and Arab lands, they came to reclaim this ancient tradition in their ancestral homeland — having been shouted at for centuries to go back there. But despite much of the current narrative being about Israelis coming in and stealing land, that history is far more complicated, and presents Palestinians in far from the “innocent, naïve, indigenous, agency-less” light than they are often seen in today.
Jews began to settle in the north of Israel, having bought vast tracts of land from Arab landlords. There they turned swampland into orange groves. In 1920, the first act of violence in the Arab-Israeli conflict happened, when Arab villagers stormed a Kibbutz, Tel Hai, killing dozens. Shortly thereafter, there was a set of riots that killed many Jews. These riots and violence continued. In 1937, the British started to realize that there was no way these two peoples could live on the same land in peace, as they had no common aspirations. They argued that the instigators of the violence were the Arabs, and that they had been spurred to violence by Arab leadership who shouted fabricated Jewish conspiracies to destroy Islamic holy sites etc. During the so-called Peel Commission (this fact-finding mission about the future of Palestine), the leader of the Palestinian Arabs, the so-called “Mufti” testified that if and when Palestine became a fully independent Arab state (which had, to that point, never existed in history), he could offer no concrete plans for the 400,000 Jews who lived there. When questioned further, he admitted that they could not assimilate the population and that they would be removed. Ominously, he gave a vague description of this intention, with “we must leave all that to the future.” In 1942, he sent a letter to the Foreign Minister of Hungary, advising that Hungary ship all of their Jews to Poland — where, of course, they were being killed in droves. So, fairly sure that we all know what he meant. Needless to say, the British concluded that living together was impossible, and contemplated a partition, wherein Arabs got almost all of the land, and Jews were given a small section in the North, near the Lebanese border. The Jews accepted. The Arabs did not.
Fast-forward ten years. After World War Two and the Holocaust, the UN voted to formally partition the land. This time, the Jewish community was given more than a tiny state, instead being given some 40% of the land. The Jews, again, said yes to this partitioned state. While much is made of Jews attempting to get to Jerusalem during this time period, the day after the partition vote, mass anti-Jewish violence began. The Arabs refused to declare their state, instead banking on the combined Arab armies “sweeping them into the sea.” When this failed, the Jewish state remained — and the Arab state was taken by Jordan and Egypt. During this time, what has now become known as the “Naqba” happened — the description of 750,000 Palestinians leaving their homes. While it’s become commonplace to blame Israel entirely for this at this point, the majority left because their own leaders told them to do so. Don’t take my word for it, take the Prime Minister of Syria’s. While people love to harp on about this, and yes, the living conditions of most Palestinians is horrifying — particularly now –, those same people often ignore the 800,000 Jews who were forcibly removed from Arab lands at the same time.
After many wars, the peace process finally began. But every single time, every peace plan, every partition, was rejected fully by Palestinian leadership. So, when people talk about why Palestinians don’t have a state, that’s a big part of the reason why. In 2000, in 2008, in 2016 — over and over again, a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank (with land and population transfers of some kind) has been proposed, and always turned down. Always based on the right of return — something that Palestinians believe that they have, that no other refugee does — including the 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands and all of their descendants. But what does this really mean? It means the dissolution of the Jewish state. Were all 5-7 million “refugees” that UNRWA supports to return to Israel, demographically, it would cease to be Jewish. Which, honestly, is probably the dream.
There has never been any willingness to partition and share the land on behalf of the Palestinian people — or at least their leadership. Hamas, who now claims to represent Palestinian interests, has always maintained that the destruction of the Jewish state is their number one goal. And let’s remember that if an election were to take place in the West Bank tomorrow, Hamas would win. Maybe we finally need to start listening to what is actually being said and done, without a Western lens. “From the River to the Sea” or “From the Water to the Water” betrays a fundamental reality about the so-called legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. Partition has never been okay. It’s never been enough. Sharing has never been acceptable, in 1916, in 1920, in 1937, in 1947, in 1967, in 2000, in 2006, in 2008, in 2016, today. So when Rashida Tlaib and her ilk spout from their pulpit that it’s an “aspirational” call for peace, what in the history of this conflict makes people believe that? Is it as “peaceful” as “globalize the intifada” and the red hands that depict the blood of Jews being celebrated?
Today, the US House of Representatives declared that the phrase is to be considered hate speech. I’m sure that for many of the people who love to shout it, this is just another example of nefarious Jewish control. But at no point has Palestinian leadership been willing to compromise on land or the Right of Return. When they say from the river to the sea, historically, it has always meant that. From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, it should all be Arab. And that inescapably means that the 9 million Jews who also live between these two bodies of water are to be expelled or killed. You cannot get around that fact. And you know what they say about people? If someone shows you who they really are, you should believe them.
++++
Michael Oren: How Did the War Begin? With Iran’s Appeasers in Washington
Historians will look back and wonder how the U.S. not only allowed Iran to repeatedly assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies—but rewarded it for doing so.
JERUSALEM — Historians writing years from now about the Middle East conflagration of 2024 will undoubtedly ask, “When did it all begin?” Some will point to the Bush administration which, demoralized by its inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, rejected Israel’s entreaties to take out Iran’s then-inchoate nuclear program in 2008.
Others might cite Israel’s willingness to play by the mullahs’ rules, retaliating against their Hezbollah and Hamas proxies rather than against Iran itself, enabling it to emerge from each round of fighting utterly unscathed.
But the bulk of the blame, fair historians will likely agree, will have to fall on the policies of those in Washington who sought to appease Iran at almost any price and ignore its serial aggressions.
Those policies began in the week after President Barack Obama’s inauguration in January 2009. In one of the forty-fourth president’s first acts of foreign diplomacy, Obama sent an offer of reconciliation to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. That June, in his historic Cairo speech, Obama became the first president to refer to Tehran’s regime as the Islamic Republic of Iran—legitimizing the oppressive theocracy—and stood aside while that republic’s thugs beat and shot hundreds of Iranian citizens protesting for their freedom.
Over the next four years, the White House ignored a relentless spate of Iranian aggressions—attacks against U.S. Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf; backing for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups dedicated to America’s destruction; and barely disguised efforts to undermine pro-Western Middle Eastern governments.
At the same time, Iran supported Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s mass slaughter—often with poison gas—of his own countrymen. Obama had declared Syria’s use of chemical weapons as “a red line” that would have “enormous consequences” on America’s involvement in the war. It didn’t.
In Washington, the administration overlooked an Iranian attempt to assassinate the Saudi and Israeli ambassadors (including me) and ended a federal investigation of a billion-dollar Hezbollah drug and arms trafficking ring in the United States. Most egregiously, Iran constructed secret underground nuclear facilities and developed an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system that threatened the entire Middle East and much of Europe.
Why would any White House, even one devoted to rebuilding America’s relationship with the Islamic world, seek rapprochement with such a regime?
At the time, there were multiple reasons. First, there was the desire of the United States, tired of Middle Eastern wars and no longer dependent on Arab oil, to withdraw from the region and focus on the Far East. Next, there was the belief that the U.S. had traditionally relied on its Sunni and Israeli allies only to discover that Sunnis perpetrated 9/11 and Israelis defied American policy in the West Bank. The Iranians, stronger, modern, and open to the West—so many American policymakers concluded—offered a better alternative if only their leadership were assuaged. Lastly, and ultimately most decisively, was the Iranian nuclear program, a burgeoning strategic threat that the White House refused to interdict by military means.
The nuclear agreement reached in 2015 between the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Germany, and Iran—euphemistically called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—had three major objectives: to block Iran’s path to the bomb, ensure that Iran became what Obama called “a responsible regional power,” and, failing that, to kick the “nuclear can” down the road. The first two goals proved illusory.
Rather than block Iran’s path to the bomb, the agreement solidly paved it by allowing Iran to retain most of its nuclear infrastructure and to continue producing ever more advanced centrifuges capable of reducing Iran’s breakout time to mere weeks. The deal put no meaningful restrictions on Iran’s missile delivery systems or its clandestine weapons programs. And even then, the largely cosmetic limitations were set to expire in less than a decade. Well before that time, though, Iran harnessed the deal’s financial and strategic rewards to expand its sphere of influence across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. So much for the responsible regional power.
In 2018, President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, reinstated punishing sanctions on Iran, and retaliated for Iranian attacks against Americans, indicating a different approach to the issue, but that policy proved short-lived. A centerpiece of Joe Biden’s 2019 presidential campaign was his pledge to restore America’s adherence to the JCPOA. No sooner had the Democrats regained the White House than the Iranians began to violate the agreement on a massive scale, gradually achieving military nuclear threshold capacity.
Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Obama’s singular foreign policy achievement.
As the Iranian centrifuges spun, the Biden administration entered into intense negotiations to renew the JCPOA. The talks were headed by Robert Malley, who was evicted from the Obama campaign in 2008 for meeting with Hamas. Under Biden, Malley became America’s special envoy to Iran, but he was recently ousted for mishandling sensitive information. Though the initiative to reinstate the deal eventually failed, the U.S. still provided Iran with at least $10 billion in funds that had been frozen, and reportedly much more than that in quiet sanction relief.
Meanwhile, the Iranian provocations mounted. An ally of Russia, Iran provided thousands of offensive drones and long-range missiles used to kill America’s allies in Ukraine. Since the start of the war against Hamas, Iranian proxies have launched more than 170 attacks against U.S. military bases in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, and all but blocked international shipping through the strategically crucial Bab al-Mandeb Strait.
Still, the U.S. refrained from retaliating against Iran directly, or even holding it publicly responsible. When, in January, three American soldiers were killed by a drone strike by an Iranian-backed militia, the U.S. struck back at the militia and not at the country—or even the factory—that produced the bomb.
Then, on Sunday, a historic first: Tehran directly attacked Israel from its territory with hundreds of drones and missiles.
Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran to repeatedly assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.
While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. Press reports about President Biden’s refusal to support an Israeli counterattack against Iran indicate, sadly, that nothing substantial in the U.S. position has changed. He has reportedly urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to see the coordinated response to the attack as a “win.”
The Iranians, though, will not see things that way. Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity. If Israel follows Biden’s advice it will send one message to the ayatollahs: “You can launch another 350 missiles and drones at Israel or try to kill Israelis by other means. Either way, the United States won’t stop you.”
Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”
The story of America can end only one of two ways: either it stands up boldly against Iran and joins Israel in deterring it, or Iran emerges from this conflict once again unpunished, undiminished, and ready to inflict yet more devastating damage.
Michael Oren, formerly Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Knesset member, and deputy minister for diplomacy in the Israeli prime minister’s office, is the author of the Substack publication Clarity.
++++
Israeli source: We attacked in Iran, sent a message
Intelligence source says Iran unlikely to respond to attacks, US and Australia issue travel warnings for Israel.
Following the conclusion of an aerial strike on Iran, Iran has removed all restrictions on flights at the Imam Khomeini International Airport and Mehrabad International Airport in Tehran, after the flights were suspended due to alleged Israeli attacks in Isfahan.
However, Fly Dubai has cancelled its Friday flights to Tehran.
The strike was carried out in retaliation for Iran's Saturday night launch of 350 drones and missiles towards Israeli territory. A full 99% of the launches were intercepted, only five fell in Israeli territory; only one person, a Bedouin child, was injured.
Parallel to the strikes on Iran, targets in southern Syria were also hit. Later, the Syrian government confirmed that the Israeli missile attack had targeted aerial defense sites in southern Syria.
A spokesperson for the Iranian aviation organization said that the restrictions had also been removed in "several other airports."
Iranian reports also said that Israel's attack was carried out by means of UAVs.
An Iranian source told Reuters that the UAVs which operated in the country were activated by sources within Iran. He also said that there are no plans for immediate retaliation, and that it is not clear whether Israel or other sources are behind the attacks.
The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), there has been no damage to any of Iran's nuclear sites: "IAEA can confirm that there is no damage to Iran’s nuclear sites. DG Rafael Grossi continues to call for extreme restraint from everybody and reiterates that nuclear facilities should never be a target in military conflicts. IAEA is monitoring the situation very closely."
An intelligence source told CNN that that initial estimates are that Iran will not respond to the attack on its territory. Despite this, reports in Israel said that the Israel's aerial defense system is at peak readiness.
An Israeli official told the Washington Post that the strike on Iran "was intended to signal to Iran that Israel had the ability to strike inside the country."
The US Embassy warned Friday: "Out of an abundance of caution following reports that Israel conducted a retaliatory strike inside Iran, U.S. government employees and their family members are restricted from personal travel outside the greater Tel Aviv (including Herzliya, Netanya, and Even Yehuda), Jerusalem, and Be’er Sheva areas until further notice. U.S. government personnel are authorized to transit between these three areas for personal travel."
Australia issued a similar warning, with a government site urging citizens to "reconsider" travel to Israel and whether those already in Israel need to remain in the area.
"Reconsider your need to travel to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories overall due to the volatile security situation, including the threat of terrorism, armed conflict and civil unrest," the warning read.
++++
No comments:
Post a Comment