RSS
At Stanford, a committee to address antisemitism is roiled by Jewish infighting
(JTA) – Ari Kelman spent the entire Hanukkah party looking over his shoulder.
A professor of Jewish studies at Stanford University, Kelman attended this year’s Stanford Hillel party traumatized by what he’d experienced the past few days on campus. People he didn’t know had declared themselves to be his enemy and had just successfully pushed him to resign from his role co-chairing the school’s committee to fight antisemitism — a committee he himself had lobbied the school’s president to form.
“I spent the night looking around the room, feeling suspicious of the people who are in the room — the people in the Jewish community of Stanford, that I am a member of, and have been a member of for more than a decade,” he recalled. “That was a bad feeling.”
That suspicion was born of attacks on Kelman from a range of voices to his right, including a Jerusalem Post columnist, anonymous students quoted in another publication and a group of alumni co-chaired by Kfir Gavrieli, a three-time Stanford alumnus and footwear CEO who advocated ousting Kelman from the committee’s leadership. Both Kelman and Gavrieli are Jewish, both care about Jewish life at Stanford and both say there’s an imperative need to fight antisemitism on campus amid the Israel-Hamas war.
But for Gavrieli and the sizable bloc of the Stanford Jewish community he says he speaks for, elements of Kelman’s past activism led him to believe that Kelman wouldn’t be an effective steward of the fight against antisemitism. At a moment when so many of the antisemitism allegations concerned debate over Israel, Gavrieli zoomed in on Kelman’s past links to non- or anti-Zionist groups. “There was a rich history of very concerning indicators,” he said he concluded.
The episode underscores how — even at a moment when polls show that the vast majority of American Jews are concerned about reports of rising antisemitism — differences in worldview and strategy have impeded efforts to combat it. Stanford is one of several elite schools that have aimed to address hostility toward Jewish students by forming an advisory committee on antisemitism. But now the committees themselves, and their members, have come under increasing scrutiny from activists who fear they will succumb to the same university culture that allowed antisemitism to fester on campuses in the first place.
“I was experiencing panic attacks trying to represent a community that did not want me to represent them,” Kelman told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “So I stepped down.” In a university release Friday announcing his departure from the committee, Kelman chalked it up to “pockets of Stanford’s Jewish community that strongly opposed my leadership on the committee.”
The committees have been formed after students, faculty, donors and other stakeholders of universities accused campus administrators of doing too little to safeguard their Jewish students in the face of antisemitism following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Administrators hope such committees — generally made up of a mix of faculty, alumni and students — can help coordinate productive responses to the challenge of antisemitism on campus.
But committees at Stanford and other schools have since faced a challenging landscape. In mid-November, University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill announced an antisemitism committee at her school “to better understand how antisemitism is experienced on campus.” Weeks later, she resigned after a congressional hearing where she and the presidents of Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology declined to say that calls for the genocide of Jews constituted harassment.
Rabbi David Wolpe also stepped down from Harvard’s antisemitism committee after the hearing. Wolpe said the body was ill-equipped to address “the task of educating a generation, and also a vast unlearning.”
By contrast, Kelman believes he was forced out of a committee he himself had pushed for, and whose mission he believed in. After Oct. 7, Stanford was the site of several widely reported incidents of antisemitic behavior in conjunction with the war: A professor reportedly forced Jews and Israelis to stand in a corner of class; “Long Live the Intifada” was scrawled in sidewalk chalk near the site of a pro-Israel vigil; and students unfurled banners calling for Israel’s destruction. A campus sit-in that seeks to pressure the university to divest from Israel has continued for over a month. Its organizers recently met with the president and provost.
“After the 7th, you saw on our campus what you saw on lots of other campuses, which was people on the political left saying things, chanting things, tweeting things, supporting things that were calling for the destruction of the State of Israel, that were actively antisemitic, that were sort of violent, that were callous,” Kelman said. He specifically cited instances of students chanting “From the river to the sea,” a phrase associated with Palestinian liberation that many Jews have interpreted as a call for genocide.
A general view of the buildings of the main quadrangle and Hoover Tower on the campus of Stanford University, Oct. 2, 2021. (David Madison/Getty Images)
This wasn’t Kelman’s first rodeo with antisemitism at Stanford. In 2021, he’d led a task force investigating claims that the school discriminated against Jewish applicants in the 1950s, prompting the university to issue an apology. Afterward, Kelman joined the school’s newly formed Jewish Advisory Committee, whose mandate was, at first, broader than simply fighting antisemitism. One of its issues, he said, was “how do we get it so that Orthodox Jewish kids can get into their dorms on Shabbat without using electronic key cards?”
On Nov. 13, Stanford announced that its Jewish Advisory Committee would have a new subcommittee focused on ways “to combat antisemitism at Stanford, to enhance safety and support, and to build community.” It would include the Stanford Hillel director and a Jewish chaplain at Stanford, several current and emeritus professors — including Kelman — and Jewish undergraduate and graduate student representatives.
The committee — created alongside one for Muslim, Arab and Palestinian communities on campus — has already planned out around 30 listening sessions with Jewish and Israeli members of campus. There are currently no Israelis on the committee, though the school says it is working to recruit them.
Kelman soon faced backlash. An anonymous email, a version of which was forwarded to JTA, circulated among Stanford Jews detailing several issues with Kelman. Referencing the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and a leading anti-Zionist organization, the email declares that “Ari has a long history of alignment with BDS and Jewish Voice for Peace positions and activists.”
Soon prominent alums began attacking him in social media posts, and on Dec. 11, an article in Jewish Insider quoted anonymous student critics of his.
Kfir Gavrieli speaks at the press conference for a shipment of 3,000 L.A. produced face shields at LA County + USC Medical Center on April 14, 2020 in Los Angeles, California. (Presley Ann/Getty Images for Emergency Supply Donor Group)
Outside of the article, one of the most vocal critics was Gavrieli, the founder and CEO of the ballet footwear company Tieks. He earned a bachelor’s and two master’s degrees at Stanford and had been waging a parallel fight against antisemitism at the school in the wake of Oct. 7. Following the Hamas attack, he co-founded Stanford Against Hate, a group of Jewish and Israeli Stanford business school alums who circulated an open letter calling on the university to take concrete action against antisemitism.
The group also includes executives at LinkedIn and Google. Its letter makes eight demands of the university, including that it adopt a definition of antisemitism composed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance that includes some criticism of Israel. The group also demanded that the campus ban rallies “that celebrate, glorify, or condone terrorist attacks or the destruction of Israel or that promote antisemitism.” And it called on the administration to meet with Jewish and Israeli students on a regular basis.
Kelman shares some of the group’s stated goals, but Gavrieli and others in his camp decided that a Kelman-led committee would exacerbate their concerns over antisemitism rather than alleviate them. In particular, Kelman opposes the IHRA antisemitism definition, which critics have accused of chilling pro-Palestinian campus activism.
In addition, Kelman co-authored a 2017 paper finding that Jewish college students at the time reported “low levels of antisemitism” and generally felt safe on their campuses. And he previously served as a faculty advisor for Open Hillel, a now-inactive organization that pushed Hillel International to relax its policies forbidding partnerships with groups that endorse boycotting Israel. In 2017, a member of the anti-Israel group Jewish Voice for Peace served as counsel for an amicus brief that Kelman signed onto.
On Dec. 11, Gavrieli linked to the Jewish Insider article in a tweet lambasting his alma mater — and Kelman.
“You’ve done even less than Harvard and Penn to protect Jewish students, and your Antisemitism Committee is chaired by Ari Kelman who’s aligned with JVP and antisemitic groups and is opposed to the IHRA definition of antisemitism,” Gavrieli posted on X, formerly Twitter, tagging Stanford’s account.
Gavrieli added, in all caps, “HE DOES NOT REPRESENT US.”
“We know that ideologically we’re not aligned with him,” Gavrieli told JTA. “I know people who we’re comfortable with, and I know who we’re not comfortable with.”
Kelman rejects the idea that he doesn’t take campus antisemitism seriously.
“It’s a total waste and a distraction,” he said. “I wrote papers in 2017 — like, really? You’re going to spend all week, you’re going to spend all this kind of energy doing that? How about actually saying, ‘Hey, there’s real problems. Let’s try to figure out ways to solve them,’” he said. “So stupid, right? Call me an antisemite, call me an anti-Zionist, call me a turncoat, it’s such a waste — so stupid. I feel like I’m 5 years old.”
He said he has never been affiliated with JVP, adding, “If I was, there’s nothing to be embarrassed about, but I’m not and haven’t been.”
The antisemitism committee members don’t appear to share Gavrieli’s discomfort. Rabbi Jessica Kirschner, the director of Stanford Hillel, called the concerns about Open Hillel a “red herring.”
“The heart of the matter is something else altogether,” Kirschner wrote in an email to JTA, without offering details. She added, “I think the work of the committee is incredibly important, and I am sorry that Ari stepped down.”
Gavrieli was one of a number of public critics to take aim at Kelman. The conservative Jerusalem Post writer Caroline Glick called Kelman “a self-hating Jew” and the online watchdog group StopAntisemitism posted, “Exactly WHY every University should adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. When you can define what you’re fighting, people like Ari Kelman can’t sidestep or deny it’s actually happening.”
Kelman claims that no critic of his ever approached him directly about their concerns. But Gavrieli said there had indeed been attempts from his camp to talk to him — and added that the fact that Kelman was unaware of the level of animosity toward him was further evidence he should not be chairing the committee.
In the end, Gavrieli decided that nothing Kelman could say — not even his past work pushing Stanford to respond to antisemitism — could make up for his past stances on Israel.
Last week, Kelman told the committee he would be stepping down. Not even a direct appeal from the school’s interim president, Richard Saller, could convince him to stay. Saller said in a statement that Kelman had “the full confidence of the president, provost, and committee membership.”
Kelman will remain an advisor on the committee and told JTA he still corresponds regularly with its members.
“I want them to succeed,” he said. “I hope they don’t enter the headwinds that I did.”
As for Gavrieli, he commended Kelman for recognizing he could not do the job anymore but said his group still has concerns about other members who remain. (Multiple committee members told JTA its lineup has not yet been finalized.) He said that his group would continue to pressure the university to instead appoint members who more closely align with their views.
“The composition of the committee speaks volumes about the root of the problem here. And we can’t have people on them who share the ideologies that created the problem in the first place,” Gavrieli said. “I don’t want to suggest that these people share antisemitic ideologies. It’s that they share ideologies with an institution that allowed things to get this bad.”
—
The post At Stanford, a committee to address antisemitism is roiled by Jewish infighting appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
The Fall of Assad: Israel’s Fragile Advantage
An Israeli tank crosses the ceasefire line between Syria and the Israeli Golan Heights, Dec. 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Avi Ohayon
The collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, a turning point in the decades-long Syrian civil war, has set the stage for a drastically different Middle East. While many see Assad’s defeat as a blow to Iranian influence and a big win for Israel, the reality is far more complex and disheartening.
For years, Assad’s regime was a predictable enemy of Israel. While it engaged in occasional attacks and supported groups like Hezbollah, Assad carefully avoided provoking full-scale conflict with the Jewish State. His regime maintained a level of control over Syrian territory, limiting the ability of extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda to operate freely. This control allowed for relative stability on Israel’s northern border.
The rebel group now dominating Syria risks replacing the predictable relationships under Assad with widespread chaos. This shift introduces not just unpredictability but also direct security threats for Israel, undermining the assumption that Assad’s downfall is a victory for the Jewish State.
With Assad’s downfall, the country is no longer a singular nation but a fractured region with competing Islamist groups, many of which harbor deep animosity toward Israel. The most prominent group to emerge is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), currently designated as a terrorist organization, rooted in Al-Qaeda’s ideology.
HTS, founded initially as Jabhat al-Nusra in 2012, became Al-Qaeda’s official partner in Syria before later distancing itself from the group to broaden its appeal. Many argue, however, that its leadership and ideology remain firmly tied to Al-Qaeda’s global jihadist movement.
By 2022, HTS had control over significant parts of Syria’s northwest, particularly in the Idlib province, with a fighting force estimated at over 30,000.
HTS has made no secret of its hostility toward Israel. Recently, its leadership has issued repeated threats, calling for the liberation of Jerusalem and vowing to target Israeli territory. While the group’s primary focus remains on consolidating power in Syria, its anti-Israel rhetoric raises concerns about future confrontations, significantly as the group expands its presence near the Golan Heights.
Under Assad, terrorist activity from Syria into Israel was minimal due to the regime’s tight border control. However, the current disorganization in Syria has opened opportunities for groups like Al-Qaeda to exploit the instability.
In 2023 alone, Israeli forces intercepted at least two smuggling attempts involving weapons and explosives along the Syrian border, underscoring the growing threat.
HTS’ takeover of Syria raises the likelihood of increased cross-border violence.
The Jordanian military, which has successfully conducted counterterrorism operations against ISIS and other extremist factions, now faces the challenge of monitoring an increasingly unstable border with Syria. A 2022 report by the Jordanian Armed Forces highlighted a surge in smuggling incidents along the Syrian border, many involving drugs and weapons trafficked by groups like the HTS.
For Israel, a destabilized Jordan is a matter of significant concern. Jordan remains one of Israel’s most cooperative neighbors, with both nations sharing a peace treaty since 1994. If HTS succeeds in undermining Jordan’s security, it could disrupt this vital alliance and force Israel to reallocate military resources, further straining its defense capabilities amid rising threats on other fronts.
The United States has adopted a cautious approach to Syria. The absence of the US has left Israel alone in managing the results of Syria’s collapse, forcing it to rely on military actions like airstrikes against military targets within Syria. These strikes, while effective in the short term, risk escalating tensions and drawing Israel into broader conflicts.
Despite the challenges, the fragmentation of Syria does offer some short-term advantages for Israel. Traditional adversaries, like Hezbollah, have been weakened. Yet, these gains are unlikely to last; the rise of extremist groups like HTS poses a long-term danger that could surpass the challenges presented by Assad’s regime.
The collapse of Assad’s regime marks the end of an era but does not guarantee stability or security for Israel. Instead, it brings in a period of heightened uncertainty, where new threats emerge. While Israel may not face immediate danger from the new Syrian regime, there is a serious potential for future conflict.
Israel’s challenge is to adapt swiftly to this new reality, reorganizing its military and diplomatic strategies to address both immediate risks and long-term threats. As the region reshapes itself, support for Israel will be crucial in ensuring its security and maintaining this pillar of democracy in an increasingly radicalized Middle East.
The post The Fall of Assad: Israel’s Fragile Advantage first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How Hamas Manipulates the Media and Controls the Narrative About Israel
A flag is flown during a protest in support of Palestinians in Gaza, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, outside the European Parliament, in Strasbourg, France November 27, 2024. REUTERS/Yves Herman
Throughout the current Israel-Hamas war, HonestReporting has exposed ties between employees of mainstream media organizations and the terrorist rulers of the Gaza Strip.
From freelancers who crossed into southern Israel with Hamas terrorists during the October 7 massacre, to Palestinian journalists who were honored by Hamas for their collaborative work with the Hamas Government Media Office, there is strong evidence for Hamas’ control and manipulation of the narratives that emerge from the Gaza Strip. This biased messaging helps shape the way that the conflict is reported on around the world.
However, it is not only local Gazan journalists whose work falls under the tyrannical thumb of Hamas.
Throughout its 17 years of control over Gaza, Hamas has also wielded its violent power to censor the reports of foreign journalists and ensure that only news sanctioned by the internationally recognized terror group sees the light of day.
Operation Protective Edge (2014)
There is no better example of this suppression of press freedom than the media guidelines that were released by Hamas during Operation Protective Edge (which occurred from July through August 2014).
According to an August 2014 report released by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Information Center, both the Hamas-run Ministry of Interior and the Hamas-affiliated Palestinian Journalist Bloc released guidelines during the early days of the Operation on how social media users and traditional media personnel located in Gaza should report on the ongoing conflict.
A key instruction by Hamas was to never publish information about or share photos of rockets, so as not to publicize the proximity of rocket launchers to densely populated civilian areas.
Other regulations that Hamas set out for social media users during Operation Protective Edge included the requirement to refer to all killed Gazans as “innocent” (no matter what their involvement was), to never share an up-close photograph of Hamas members, and to describe all Hamas activity as being in response to Israeli actions.
The regulations and their enforcement by Hamas were so severe that even the Foreign Press Association in Israel was forced to release a statement on August 11, 2014, condemning the “blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox methods employed by the Hamas authorities and their representatives against visiting international journalists in Gaza over the past month.”
According to the Meir Amit Center, by controlling the information coming out of Gaza during the early days of the Operation, Hamas was able to craft a narrative of Israel as an aggressor and the people of Gaza as victims of the Jewish State’s wrath.
However, as the Center notes, there were a number of instances where foreign journalists in Gaza did acknowledge the close proximity of rocket launchers to civilian areas. In some cases, these journalists only publicized their experience once they had left the Gaza Strip (and were outside Hamas’ realm), while others were forced to leave the Strip soon after issuing their reports.
Hamas Issues Strict Rules for Journalists
Operation Protective Edge was not the only time that Hamas sought to wield its coercive power over journalists in the Gaza Strip.
In August 2022, one year after heavy fighting between the IDF and Hamas during Operation Guardian of the Walls, it was reported that Hamas had issued strict rules for Palestinians working with foreign media outlets, including orders not to report on Palestinians killed by errant Hamas rockets, and to blame Israel for hostilities in their reports.
As The Times of Israel reported at the time, these regulations were reversed after an outcry from representatives of foreign media outlets. However, as the media outlet noted:
The rules would have gone much further than existing Hamas restrictions. They appeared aimed at imposing the Islamic group’s narrative on media coverage of the conflict by implicitly threatening Palestinian reporters and translators who live under its heavy-handed rule.
Even if the rules are officially withdrawn, Hamas has still signaled its expectations, which could have a chilling effect on critical coverage, AP reported.
Hamas Sells Its Narrative
Aside from the aforementioned ties between Gazan freelancers and Hamas, as well as the threatening and abuse of journalists who are critical of its terror regime, another way that Hamas has sought to craft the public perception of its current war with Israel is by attempting to sell its narrative to the West, particularly through mainstream media organizations.
In January 2024, the Hamas Media Office published a booklet entitled “Our Narrative … Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.” This document, which sought to justify and contextualize the terror group’s October 7 attack against southern Israel, was released in both Arabic and English. The publication of a Hamas document in both languages was unusual, and shows how the group is intent on not only influencing Arab public opinion, but also the opinion of those residing in the West.
“Our Narrative” is a masterpiece of propaganda and misinformation, replete with claims such as:
- Hamas was only attacking military sites and never attacks civilians;
- Many of the victims were killed by Israel and not Hamas;
- This “battle” started 105 years ago, and Hamas was backed into a corner and forced to attack Israel.
Despite being among the key targets of Hamas’ information campaign, most mainstream media outlets ignored its publication at the time.
However, both Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Voice of America (VOA) fell for Hamas’ propaganda machine, and publicized the terror group’s baseless claims, ultimately giving Hamas an air of legitimacy and spreading its extremism to an international audience.
In retrospect, however, given the prevalence of sources branding Hamas as a “national liberation” group, battling “colonialism,” it’s clear that the Hamas narrative has found a receptive audience in too many places.
The Hamas document even called for an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation, preempting the arrest warrants issued against Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant.
Another more subtle way that Hamas cultivates the narrative around the ongoing war with Israel is by releasing unsubstantiated casualty figures as fact under the guise of the Gaza Ministry of Health, which seeks to portray Israel as an aggressor intent on destroying all of Gaza’s Palestinian residents, not just the terrorists embedded within it.
When mainstream media organizations republish these figures, they are helping to spread Hamas propaganda around the world.
Hamas inflates the Gaza death toll, and the media buys it. Here’s how they twist the numbers to mislead the world.
pic.twitter.com/xemTDOAlET
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 15, 2024
Over its 17-year reign in the Gaza Strip, Hamas has sought to manipulate the way that local Palestinians and foreign journalists report on hostilities with the IDF, seeking to control the narrative and sway the minds of uninformed audiences around the world.
Through Hamas’ issuance of constricting media guidelines in 2014 and 2022, its use of violence against opposition journalists, the recently unearthed evidence of collaboration by certain Palestinian freelancers with the terror group, and its propaganda campaigns focused on influencing mainstream media outlets, it is clear that any news emerging from Gaza must be treated with a critical eye and not taken at face value.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post How Hamas Manipulates the Media and Controls the Narrative About Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
A Hanukkah Lesson for Modern-Day Israel: Internal Divisions Can Destroy Our State
The “Hanukkah Forever” postage stamp is unveiled at Temple Emanu El in Orange Village, Ohio, on Oct. 20, 2022. Second from left is designer Jeanette Kuvin Oren. Credit: Courtesy Jeanette Kuvin Oren.
Hanukkah, celebrated annually on the 25th of Kislev, preserves the historical memory of the dramatic events of 164 BCE. That year, Judah the Maccabee purified the Temple and restored Jewish worship to the center of the national life.
However, the holiday did not mark the end of our struggle for independence — but rather one of its early high points. In reality, the journey to full Jewish independence required another 20 years of fighting and diplomacy. During this time, Judah the Maccabee fell in battle, but not before forging a historic alliance with Rome.
Ultimate independence was achieved by Judah’s brother, Simon, in 142 BCE. Simon not only secured the independence of Judea, but also established the illustrious Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled the Jewish kingdom for 79 years.
The peak of the Hasmonean reign occurred during the rule of Queen Alexandra (Shlomtzion), whose era brought relative cultural and economic prosperity to the kingdom. However, this prosperity was short-lived. After her death, a bloody succession war erupted between her sons, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, and their supporters. This fratricidal conflict marked the swan song of the Hasmonean kingdom, culminating in Roman intervention and the end of Judea’s independence in 63 BCE.
Hanukkah is not just a story of liberation from foreign oppression; it is also a lesson in internal unity and a warning against domestic divisions. During the Hasmonean period, civil strife tore the nation apart from within, providing the Romans with an opportunity to seize control of the kingdom.
Similarly, today, the State of Israel, celebrating 76 years of independence, faces challenges that threaten its internal cohesion.
For example, the issue of drafting ultra-Orthodox Jews into the IDF raises questions about equality in sharing the burden and the balance between religion and state. Judicial reform debates spark contentious arguments about the character of Israeli democracy versus its judicial system. Settlements and disagreements over the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the events of October 7th further strain the public sphere.
Yet the October 7th tragedy also underscored the necessity of unity. These events exposed our vulnerabilities but also our strength as a nation, when we awaken to the dangers of internal divisions and the need to stand united against external threats.
Hanukkah is not merely a historical memory; it is a warning sign and a call to action. It reminds us that our independence should never be taken for granted, and that internal threats can be as dangerous as external enemies.
From the Hasmonean struggles, we learned that prosperity and national security depend on unity. The era of Queen Alexandra demonstrated the achievements possible through cooperation, while the civil war that followed illustrated the destructive power of division.
Today, as we face challenges from within and without, we must remember this lesson. The events of October 7th sharpened the focus on the need for national unity in confronting our enemies. If we fail to learn from history, we risk repeating its mistakes. We must set aside our differences and remember our shared goal: preserving the national home for us all.
May we draw wisdom from the past, strengthen the bonds between the diverse segments of our society, and work together for a better and safer future. Like the Hasmoneans, may we continue building our state with faith, hope, and love. Wishing all of Israel a joyous Hanukkah, and may we always remain one victorious family.
Itamar Tzur is an Israeli scholar and Middle East expert who holds a Bachelor’s degree with honors in Jewish History and a Master’s degree with honors in Middle Eastern Studies. As a senior member of the “Forum Kedem for Middle Eastern Studies and Public Diplomacy”. Tzur leverages his academic expertise to enhance understanding of regional dynamics and historical contexts within the Middle East.
The post A Hanukkah Lesson for Modern-Day Israel: Internal Divisions Can Destroy Our State first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login