Sexual Subversion of Ukraine" (Jatras). It's curious they added the social engineering identity politics to the mix, an unnecessary addition which might cause the whole project to fail with conservative church-going Ukrainians.
in the Russian Orthodox Church: Who Will Take Over the Former Western
European Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?" (Iliadi). This is a
separate attack on the Orthodox Church, different than the one being
engineered in Ukraine.
Ho No?! Washington Bears Gifts For Kiev's Neo-Nazi Warmongering Regime" (Cunningham). The 'gift' is providing the mechanism for accelerated asset stripping from Ukraine.
These Nazi patches keep coming up in official Ukrainian government photos of politicians and 'militias': "
symbols? Ukraine's president poses with ‘elite’ paratrooper sporting…SS insignia (PHOTOS)".
: Locked and Loaded for the Putin Invasion" (Butler). Mocking the US-bargain-basement-clear-out F-16s (though they are still far superior to the F-35s which the cool kids are flaunting!). Life in Freedonia.
As far as I can tell, Saakashvili-lover Brink hasn't yet been named ambassador.
Supreme Court Refuses to Allow Discussion of Full Equal Rights & ‘State of All Its Citizens’ Bill in Knesset" (Adalah). Legislative discussion of Jewish (actually Khazar) supremacism in Israel is, naturally, forbidden, along with the 'anti-Semitic' concept of human rights.
2018, Israel’s mask finally came off" (Levy). A noticeable legislative push to finalize the eliminationism (I assume in parallel with President Jared's plans).
Jewish Leaders Decide To Harass College Kids — To ‘Support’ Israel" (Nathan-Kazis):
"In June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets."
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored
aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics
of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and
Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive
tactics against their targets.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one
of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage
in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the
community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the
keynote speech
at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the
American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a
nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with
Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The
Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the
U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on
the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the
institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel
Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey
suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate
establishment.
“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said
in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at
UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly
anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier.
“We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come
in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being
reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and
boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the
suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the
Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been
whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
Read more:
https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
passes bill to force Trump to nominate “anti-semitism” head who would monitor criticism of Israel" (Weir). Shekeling remains the key feature of the current American system of government. The result is some bizarre legislative decisions. The (((media's))) job is to hide this shit from the American people as much as possible.
One of the amusing things about the Khazars is how primitive they are. I see many examples where they sabotage their own conspiracies through their inability to shake their irrational thoughts. One of the most striking is their deep and abiding hatred of schvartzes:
Involvement in Contemporary Refugee and Migrant Organizations — Part Two" (Joyce). Note the comments -
Also references the mysterious death of Gary Kildall, the victim of theft by Bill Gates:
Regime Change in Nicaragua. OAS and Amnesty International: Killing, Torturing Sandinistas Is OK" (Sefton). Perhaps one day there will be a human rights organization that isn't a cesspool of lies.
The End Of The Brutal War In Yemen Finally At Hand?" (Porter). Congress is starting the extraction process for MbS/MbZ, who are stalled, and embarrassed, by the Houthis, and need a face-saving way to get out. It's tough to explain when you've spent billions of dollars on what was supposed to be a cake-walk of a war, and you end up losing (bonus, your countries are actually now less secure than they were before).
A powerful new option for the asymmetrical warriors (who, btw, were
supposed to have been wiped out, with ease, months ago by the dynamic
duo of MbZ/MbS and their crack fighting team): "
: How Yemen's rebels increasingly deploy drones".
Cotton – Reckless Gamble" (Todhunter). Note the
Mediterranean Pipeline Wars Are Heating Up" (Katona). Turkey is throwing a spanner into a lot of plans, in this case all connected to Khazar plans to move stolen gas to Europe.
Are Back And Taking Aim At Kamala Harris" (Steve M.). The whole birther thing started with supporters of Killary (various 'rebuttals' are
, and involve strenuous use of straw men, as they gather significant evidence and then just outright deny it proves anything).
Calm, rational analysis of whether the facts back up the 'collusion' story (in striking contrast to the daily hysteria by 'journalists' like Chait and Marshall): "
Myth of the Russian Crime Boss, Semion Mogilevich, He's Israeli by Larry Johnson". The sheer mendacity of the ((('journalists'))) writing about the 'collusion' is nothing short of amazing, the purest distillation of chutzpah:
by Lang (I think that is bang on with respect to Trump's real corruption problems, but one which neither the (((media))) or US law enforcement would touch with a million-foot pole):
What you have to expect from Counterpunch these days, a call to ruin the French protests by pigeonholing the protesters into one of the official political slots, so they can be comfortably neutralized: "
by TMWNS on the predictable - it's Conspiracy 101! - insertion of a ((())) ringer into the 'discussion', with the archetypal distinction between the good, honest protesters, and the 'hooligans' (i.e., those who really threaten Macron/Rothschild power), who will be beaten, killed, and arrested:
Ruling Opens New Avenue for Mumia to Win New Trial on his Murder Conviction" (Lindorff). Note how somebody in the DA's office sanitized the record by removing Castille's memos from the file! "
of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Innocence: Six “Lost” Mumia Case Boxes Found in District Attorney Abandoned Furniture Closet".
Flip Lids Over Tulsi Gabbard Presidential Run" (Anglin). Clarifying Twitter response. (((They))) will crucify her, but it is good that she will be running on what is essentially an anti-war platform.
tamps down the Kuril hype" (Bhadrakumar). If the Russians give anything to the Japanese the Americans will build a base on it!
Media Might Ban the Pakistani Map at India’s Behest" (Korybko). We see this all the time with the Israelis insisting on their imperial mappings.
sequesters Iran ties from US predatory strike" (Bhadrakumar). India has already done what the Euro-trash have mumbled about doing.
can have sex with your sources, get thrown out of one job, and rise again in the Age of Trump. Journalism is great!" (Van Buren).
Richard Goldstone Suffered for Turning His Back on Gaza, But Not as Much as the Palestinians He Betrayed" (Fisk). The murdering and land theft is just the "complex circumstances of asymmetric warfare", goyim!
accused of shooting down UN chief: ‘Sometimes you have to do things you don’t want to…’".
Posts
