RSS
The Campus Problem Didn’t Start on October 7 — And Won’t End This Year
Pro-Hamas demonstrators at Columbia University in New York City, US, April 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs
The horrors of October 7 unleashed a wave of antisemitism that, for many of us, was sadly unsurprising. We’ve seen this before.
In May 2021, when Hamas launched an 11-day war against Israel with a relentless barrage of missiles, anti-Jewish hatred quickly resurfaced.
Critics seized on the conflict to vilify Israel, questioning its right to self-defense. “Why should Israel defend itself?” they screamed.
The disparity in military capabilities was their rallying cry — as though Israel should willingly allow its citizens to become sitting ducks simply because defending them would result in an uneven death toll.
Their warped rationale reframed Israel’s very act of survival as aggression. To them, the lower number of Israeli casualties wasn’t a sign of successful protection but evidence of a moral failing.
The first wave of college campus protests — ostensibly in support of the Palestinians — came just days after October 7.
Even as the bodies of massacre victims were still being recovered and identified, and while it remained unclear who had been killed or abducted into Gaza, American students were already gathering on campus lawns, chanting slogans like “Free, free Palestine,” “Palestine is here and proud,” and the infamous “From the river to the sea.”
The anti-Israel campus protests quickly mutated in the days and weeks following October 7. What began as rallies led by familiar groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the ironically named Jewish Voice for Peace soon swelled into broader support from the general student population.
This escalation was enabled by the alarming inaction of college faculty and leadership, who stood by as student mobs commandeered campus quads to set up so-called “Zionist-free” zones. These makeshift encampments, they proclaimed, would remain until university administrations caved to their nebulous demands for “divestment” from companies with tenuous, if any, connections to Israel.
Yet, these student protests and the horrifying displays of antisemitism they showcased brought into sharp focus a long-festering issue that HonestReporting and others have been warning about for years: the pervasive antisemitism on college campuses.
For years, Israel’s efforts to defend itself from terrorists seeking its annihilation have been seized upon by college activists, eager to use them as a pretext for antisemitism.
During the 2006 Lebanon war, US college campuses saw a surge in antisemitic incidents. A 2005 briefing by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had already sounded the alarm on how criticism of Israel frequently crossed the line into blatant antisemitism. The usual suspects were named: Columbia University, the University of California at Irvine, UC Berkeley, Northwestern, and others.
The scenes that unfolded on these campuses mirrored the abhorrent incidents we’ve witnessed in the past year: Holocaust memorials built by students were desecrated, swastikas were carved into tables meant for Holocaust memorial candles, and antisemitic speakers appeared on campus podiums to address crowds of impressionable 18-year-olds, pushing hateful rhetoric like the “Jewish Cracker theory” and warning them to be wary of “arrogant” Jews.
There was the brick thrown through the Hillel building’s windows during Passover, visibly Orthodox Jewish students attacked, and Jewish students reciting the Kaddish at a Holocaust memorial drowned out by their peers praising Palestinian suicide bombers.
In yet another vile incident, a three-foot swastika was scrawled alongside the phrase “Die Jews” on a campus wall.
Jewish university students share their experiences on campuses in the US.
An important thread pic.twitter.com/6NooG0XFXm
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 27, 2024
How The Media Became Campus Co-Conspirators
A report released this month by the ADL lays bare the troubling state of American campuses over the past year, documenting a 477% increase in anti-Israel incidents. These incidents have included the promotion of classic antisemitic tropes, such as references to Jewish wealth and control, as well as open expressions of support for terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Jewish student centers like Hillel and Chabad were frequently targeted, with at least 73 incidents directly impacting these organizations, including calls for universities to sever ties with them. Protests outside their buildings and events disrupted Jewish life across numerous campuses.
When college administrators finally took action after months of disruptions — spurred by both their disastrous Congressional testimonies and threats from high-profile donors to pull hefty endowments — university presidents began to fall on their swords and resign.
Among those who stepped down were Penn’s Liz Magill and Harvard’s Claudine Gay. Some felt a flicker of hope, believing this might signal a broader recognition of the problem — that institutions were finally waking up to what Jewish students have been voicing for years.
So much easier for @thetimes‘s sub-header to blame “Jewish students and benefactors” for Liz Magill’s resignation rather than her own disastrous and morally bankrupt performance in front of Congress.https://t.co/QyN1jrXGgU pic.twitter.com/jWv688M89E
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 10, 2023
But that hope is misplaced. In truth, college campuses are just a microcosm of a wider problem, where antisemitism is widespread and Israel is uniquely vilified. This issue isn’t confined to academia — it often begins with the journalists covering these conflicts, shaping the public narrative.
The irony is that the media’s coverage of the student protests perfectly demonstrated their own anti-Israel bias. As videos flooded online — showing Jewish students being harassed and pro-terror chants echoing across the manicured lawns of America’s elite institutions — the evidence was clear for millions to see. Yet much of the international media downplayed or excused the protests, reinforcing the very problem they were supposed to report on. Even when they acknowledged the incidents, the coverage was often dismissive, minimizing the severity of the antisemitism on display.
Amid its generally supportive coverage of the student protests, The New York Times sent a journalist to file a “dispatch from inside Columbia’s student-led protest” — the same college that later fired faculty over antisemitic posts.
It was striking that while the reporter could freely enter the protest and write about it, any so-called “Zionist” student attempting the same would have faced immediate hostility and exclusion.
In the first paragraph of the article, the journalist conveniently witnesses a moment that supposedly proves the Columbia campus demonstrations weren’t on the whole antisemitic.
Across the street from the university, a man — clearly not a student — with a large gold cross around his neck, is waving a bloodied Israeli flag and shouting, “The Jews control the world! Jews are murderers!”
As if on cue, a “pro-Palestinian” student calmly walks over and tells him, “That is horribly antisemitic. You are hurting the movement, and you are not a part of us. Go away.” The man obliges and leaves.
The Guardian ran a “video guide to the protest movement,” complete with maps and infographics informing readers that the “war in Gaza [had] unleashed the biggest outpouring of U.S. student activism since the anti-racism protests of 2020.”
There it was, in the first sentence — The Guardian’s view was unmistakable: the anti-Israel protests were morally equivalent to anti-racism demonstrations.
Students shouting that “Zionist pigs don’t deserve to live” were, in the eyes of the outlet, imbued with a sense of righteousness. The paper’s seal of approval, complete with a guide for others to join in, effectively encouraged more students to intimidate their Jewish peers.
Meanwhile, a glowing feature in The New Yorker hailed the protests as a “national uprising of students to end the war in Gaza and, for some, to end their institution’s financial ties to Israel.” But that was hardly the full extent of their demands.
Some college protestors went even further than the official BDS movement, calling for individual Zionists and Israelis to be banned from campuses — a stance that, according to the ADL, breaks with USACBI guidelines, which specifically advocate for “the boycott of Israeli institutions, not individuals” and “[reject] on principle boycotts of individuals based on their identity or opinion.”
For months, the media narrative was unwavering: the students, guided by their unimpeachable moral compasses, were on the side of righteousness. Even when protests veered unmistakably into antisemitism, we were reassured that these were merely isolated incidents — just a few “bad apples.”
The prevailing wisdom, as The New Yorker so confidently asserted, was that the kids were not all right — but only because they weren’t being heard.
Even as universities, after much delay, were finally forced to act — dismantling encampments, suspending students, and issuing long-overdue disciplinary actions — the media somehow continued to rally behind a cause that had rapidly devolved into the indefensible.
And now, here we are, with a new academic year just beginning.
Repercussions and Lessons Learned?
Despite the break in protests and leadership resignations, the reality is that we’re likely to see a repeat of last year’s scenes — if not over the current war against Hamas, then certainly the next time Israel makes headlines.
Why? The inadequate and delayed responses from universities only served to embolden the protesters. It’s this hesitancy, coupled with words of approval from university leadership in the early stages, which allowed the demonstrations to persist for as long as they did.
In fact, some of the key figures behind the protests have even been rewarded by their institutions.
For example, the Columbia University student who famously demanded “humanitarian aid” and “a glass of water” for protesters — claiming they’d “die of dehydration and starvation” without support from the administration — now teaches a required undergraduate class.
At the same institution, Professor Joseph Massad, who openly praised Hamas, still holds his position teaching Middle East studies, facing no consequences. Likewise, at Cornell, the professor who described the October 7 Hamas attacks as “exhilarating” remains unpunished and continues teaching.
Second, and perhaps more troubling, is the fact that many in positions of authority at these academic institutions see no need for punishment — largely because they align with the broader sentiments expressed. The normalization of anti-Israel rhetoric has reached a point where even calls for the deaths of “Zionists” are shrugged off as poor word choice or an excess of passion, while the underlying ideology is tacitly accepted.
It’s difficult to imagine such grotesque views being directed toward the citizens of any other nation, let alone met with the same indifference or rationalization.
At the core of this issue lies the media.
In Europe and the US, the press has traditionally been regarded as the “fourth estate” — distinct from the clergy, nobility, and commoners — acknowledging its powerful role in holding other estates accountable and shaping public understanding. However, when it comes to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the surge of antisemitism, the media has abdicated this crucial role. Where it once sought to expose, scrutinize, and challenge, it now falters. Increasingly, journalists position themselves not as impartial purveyors of truth, but as activists, emboldened by employers that sanction such partisanship.
If meaningful reform is to take root in American colleges, it must begin with a renewed commitment from the media. Journalists must reclaim their role as objective arbiters, subjecting issues to rigorous scrutiny rather than ideological alignment. The path forward requires a return to the fundamental duty of their profession: to illuminate the truth, without fear or favor.
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 The Campus Problem Didn’t Start on October 7 — And Won’t End This Year first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Welcome to ‘Paddystine’
A man walks past graffiti reading ‘Victory to Palestine’ after Ireland has announced it will recognize a Palestinian state, in Dublin, Ireland, May 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Hannah McKay
JNS.org – The other day, during a discussion with a colleague about the wave of pro-Hamas, antisemitic hysteria sweeping the Republic of Ireland, I unthinkingly quipped that the people of Eire should rename themselves “Paddystinians.” I immediately regretted doing so because the term “Paddy” is an aging pejorative, conjuring up images of Irish drunkenness, the supposed Irish proclivity for casual brawling, and ingrained Irish idiocy—stereotypes any decent person should reject.
As it turns out, I needn’t have worried.
A couple of days after that exchange, I discovered that the hashtag “#Paddystinian” was being eagerly adopted on social media by Irish supporters of Hamas. The accompanying posts were variously obnoxious or downright stupid, with many of those mocking the assertion that their country is antisemitic seemingly unaware of the immortal line spoken by a character in James Joyce’s Ulysses that Ireland “has the honor of being the only country which never persecuted the jews (sic)” because “she never let them in.” (There has, in fact, been a minuscule Jewish presence in Ireland for centuries, numbering the current president of Israel among its offspring, and there have been several episodes of antisemitism during that time, including the present, but Ireland is more or less an instance of the “antisemitism without Jews” phenomenon.)
One might say that Ireland is little different from the rest of Europe when it comes to the volume and the venom of its antisemitism: France, Germany and the United Kingdom, among others, are current examples of a similar trend. But Ireland stands out because of the role of its government in stoking these poisonous sentiments, as well as the fact that antisemitic depictions of Israel sit comfortably in its major political parties across the spectrum. That perhaps explains why Israel has closed its embassy in Dublin.
To my mind, the most grotesque offender in this regard is the Irish president, Michael Higgins. An 83-year-old poet who has carefully cultivated an avuncular image with his three-piece tweed suits and swept back, thinning white hair, Higgins’ high-handed manner is at its most infuriating when he articulates—as he has done on a few occasions since the Hamas atrocities in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023—conspiracy theories about Israel that lean heavily on the theme of shadowy, unaccountable Jewish power. Earlier this year, for example, he blamed a covert Israeli intelligence operation for leaking his fawning letter of congratulations to the Iranian regime’s newly installed President Masoud Pezeshkian and was subsequently too pompous to issue an apology when it was pointed out that the Iranians themselves had publicized his message first. Then, last week, as he accepted the credentials of the new Palestinian ambassador in Dublin, he waxed lyrically about Israeli assaults on the sovereignty of three of its neighbors: Lebanon, Syria and Egypt, where the Israelis apparently “would like, in fact, actually to have a settlement.”
In Egypt? Given that Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, not even the most seasoned supporter of Hamas could find actual material evidence that this is Israel’s intention. Higgins had met with his Egyptian counterpart, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, earlier that week, and it’s quite possible that el-Sisi told him something along these lines or had referred to the dispute between Jerusalem and Cairo over the Philadelphi Corridor that runs along the border between Egypt and Gaza. Whatever the content of their conversation, what is absolutely clear is that Higgins has a disposition to believe the most outlandish lies about Israel and that he will respond to any criticism by saying that opposition to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies is not the same as antisemitism—encouraging his audience to think that his beef is with Israel’s leadership and not the Jewish state itself.
But as Dana Erlich, Israel’s ambassador to Ireland, pointed out in a recent interview with an Irish broadcaster, Dublin’s goal has been to undermine Israel’s ability to defend itself by launching lawfare against the Jewish state to chip steadily away at its sovereign rights. Ireland is supporting South Africa’s false claim of Israeli genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague to the point of seeking a redefinition of the term “genocide” in which to shoehorn Israel’s actions against the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah, and their Iranian backers. It has promoted anti-Israel measures both domestically and within the European Union. And it has either ignored or mocked the concern that its actions are encouraging the spread of antisemitism in Ireland, including the revival of racial tropes reminiscent of the Nazis.
Two fundamental questions remain. Firstly, why has Ireland adopted this stance? In part, as the Irish commentator John McGuirk recently pointed out, because Ireland is essentially peripheral in the calculations of geopolitics. “We have, for most of our existence, pretended that we can say or do what we like on the international stage because everybody loves us,” he wrote. “The truth is that we’ve been able to be liked because we are irrelevant. Nobody has ever had to choose between Ireland and a powerful ally.”
Even then, as McGuirk argued, this moral grandstanding against Israel has its limits. It was Israel that closed its embassy and not the other way around “because the Irish government knew full well that a formal break in diplomatic relations with Israel would send a signal to the US and the E.U., and Israel’s other powerful allies around the world, that Ireland is a fundamentally unreasonable place that cannot be trusted to be an honest broker when it comes to the world’s only Jewish state.”
Secondly, why the obsession with Israel alone? Not a peep has been heard from the Irish about the revelations coming out of Syria regarding former dictator Bashar Assad’s machinery of murder—something unseen, according to Stephen Rapp, the former U.S. envoy for war crimes—“since the Nazis.” According to my old friend, the Irish writer Eamann Mac Donnchada, both “narcissism,” emanating from Ireland’s belief that the Palestinian war against Israel is a mirror of Ireland’s own struggle against the British, and “ennui,” the lack of purpose that has accompanied Ireland’s growing economic prosperity in recent decades, are key factors here. “Adhesion to [the Palestinian] cause makes many Irish people feel great about themselves while running no physical or economic risks, and that’s what it’s really about,” he wrote.
How should the rest of the world respond, given that, to cite McGuirk again, “not one single thing that the Irish Government has done since Oct. 7, 2023 has impacted Israeli policy one way or another.” Israel, as the offended party, has done what it needs to do. Many Jews have reacted with disgust, but that probably won’t extend to anything more than the odd prohibition on Jameson’s whiskey being served at a synagogue kiddush or bar mitzvah.
As for the United States, traditionally a great friend of Ireland, relations will likely worsen under Donald Trump’s incoming administration because Trump and his team are convinced that Ireland—in the words of future Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick—“runs a trade surplus at our expense.” Israel has nothing to do with that battle. But because Lutnick is a Jew and a noted supporter of Israel, you can rest assured that voices inside and outside the Irish government will eventually draw a connection where none exists. That it’s all so predictable is probably the grimmest joke of all.
The post Welcome to ‘Paddystine’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Tradition or Tragedy?
An employee tends to a medical cannabis plants at Pharmocann, an Israeli medical cannabis company in northern Israel, Jan. 24, 2019. Photo: Reuters / Amir Cohen / File.
JNS.org – I am writing these lines from the United States, where I am nearing the end of my latest speaking tour. I’ve been to New York, Toronto, Detroit, Philadelphia, and now Miami.
Coming from South Africa, where we suffer one of the highest murder rates in the world—more than 70 people per day are killed throughout the country—I was nevertheless shocked by the most recent school shooting here in the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” In what is stated by CNN to be “the 83rd school shooting in the USA this year,”15-year-old Natalie Rupnow opened fire at a private Christian school in Madison, Wis., killing a fellow classmate and teacher, and then turned the gun on herself. Besides others who were wounded, two more students were today listed in critical condition.
What on earth would motivate a 15-year-old girl to shoot up her classmates? Where did she get a gun? Were her parents negligent? These and more are the questions Americans are asking themselves.
And in other news this week (I must sound like a news reporter), music megastar Sir Elton John, who was just named TIME magazine’s “Icon of the Year” had this to say about one of the current moral dilemmas still being hotly debated around the world: “Legalizing marijuana in the United States and Canada is one of the greatest mistakes of all time.”
The rock star, who was affected by addiction to cocaine and other drugs in the past, said that his own experience leads him to argue that marijuana is addictive and leads to other drug use. “And when you’re stoned—and I’ve been stoned—you don’t think normally.”
Quite a confession from one of the music legends of our time.
By now, you may be forgiven for wondering what on earth all of this has to do with my usual theme, the Torah portion. Well, this week in Vayeshev, Joseph is sold into slavery and, at age 17, finds himself down in Egypt working for Potiphar, the head of Pharaoh’s abattoirs and butcheries. Here is a youngster of high school age, far away from home, with no family, no support—no one to assist or guide him in life.
Quite remarkably, all on his own, he manages to stay afloat and goes on to succeed at everything he does. Furthermore, when the lady of the house tries to seduce him, he finds the inner strength to withstand temptation.
How did he do it? Day after day, she would beguile him, entice him, try to charm him. And then, when there was no one home and no one would ever know the difference, he still eludes her smooth talk and blandishments. No one knew his origins. He was a stranger in a foreign land; he had nothing to lose. And still, he stood his ground.
Elsewhere, I have written about the image of Joseph’s father, Jacob, which appeared to him at that critical moment, giving him strength and courage just as he felt himself starting to slip and succumb. Is it not extraordinary to see how powerful the influence of parents and grandparents on young minds and hearts can be! In the heat of the moment when most people lose their moral grip and stumble into sin, Joseph was able to keep his head and resist the seduction so many might have fantasized about.
I remember in my own youth struggling with personal life choices. One part of me wanted to be a journalist. But I couldn’t bear to disappoint my father and grandfather, who were devout and dedicated Chassidim, so I decided to give yeshivah a chance. The rest is history. I was inspired by Torah—specifically, by Chassidic philosophy, which answered so many of life’s questions.
The other day in Philadelphia visiting our children, I was able to spend some precious time learning Talmud with my two grandsons, Ari and Tzvi. They understood it well and made me proud. I pray that I can have the same positive influence on them that my grandfather had on me.
This Friday is the 19th of Kislev, which marks the liberation from the antisemitic imprisonment in czarist Russia of the founder of Chabad— Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi—back in 1798. His release and vindication also spelled the beginning of a much broader dissemination of the teachings of Chassidic philosophy throughout Europe.
And the Jewish world has never looked back. Today, a wide range of communities around the world will celebrate this day and are inspired to study his life-changing work—the Tanya—and other profound teachings of Chassidic philosophy.
I can’t help thinking that had young Natalie Rupnow and a younger Elton John had those same influences as Joseph did, or even as I did, they might never have fallen into tragedy and addiction.
We should be eternally grateful for our heritage, our family legacies and the teachings of Torah, both revealed and mystical, that have inspired us and kept us on track and in check throughout the generations.
The post Tradition or Tragedy? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
After Hezbollah Supply Lines Cut in Syria, Tehran Will ‘Reexamine Options’
Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad speaks during an interview with Sky News Arabia in Damascus, Syria in this handout picture released by the Syrian Presidency on August 8, 2023. Syrian Presidency/Handout via REUTERS
JNS.org – Iran’s arms supply lines to Hezbollah via Syria have been severed by the fall of President Bashar al-Assad, leading to an unprecedented strategic setback for Tehran and its Lebanese terror proxy, according to observers in Israel.
Tal Beeri, head of Research at the Alma Center, which specializes in Israel’s security challenges in the northern arenas, told JNS on Monday that “we’re talking about a very, very significant blow“ to Hezbollah’s Iranian supply chain.
The first reason for this initial near-term assessment, he said, is that the Syrian territory once controlled by Assad served as Iran’s primary conduit for transporting weapons into Lebanon.
“Practically all the weapons for Hezbollah were funneled through this corridor,” which encompassed land routes, air routes through Syrian airports—possibly including the Russian airbase Khmeimim—and sea routes stretching from the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas in Iran to northwest Syria, mainly the port of Banias, from where weapons would be delivered to inland depots.
“That’s how the Iranians moved goods to Lebanon. Meaning, effectively, the entry gate of Iranian weaponry on Syrian soil has been cut off,” said Beeri. “In the end, control throughout Syria is in the hands of the rebel factions and Kurds, who, by the way, dominate all of eastern Syria, including the land entry routes. So currently, it is not possible to transfer weapons to Hezbollah through Syria.”
The second factor, he added, is the large-scale air strikes conducted by the Israel Defense Forces, targeting the entire Syrian military and its weapons depots. This prevented “a last-minute quick transfer of relevant weapons into Hezbollah’s hands,” according to Beeri.
“For these two reasons, there is basically a nearly complete severing of the weapon oxygen line to Hezbollah,” he said.
However, Beeri cautioned that Iran and Hezbollah might yet adapt and adjust to the new situation. “I estimate they will recalculate and make new efforts … possibly by attempting direct shipments of weapons to Lebanon” by air or sea. Such efforts could see ships and planes travel to Lebanon from Iran via third-party countries to try and deceive Israeli intelligence,” he added.
In addition, said Beeri, “money trumps ideology.” The Iranians could try to establish connections with rebel factions by buying them out, thereby attempting to rebuild the weapons corridor.
Professor Boaz Ganor, president of Reichman University and founder of the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, told JNS, “The biography of Ahmad al-Sharaa [aka Mohammed al-Julani, the leader of the largest rebel umbrella group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham] points to fundamental hostility toward Israel. His senior membership in Al Qaeda, close to [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi and [Ayman al-]Zawahiri, could indicate the future trends of Syria under his rule.”
Ganor warned that “we must not let the seemingly pragmatic position he presents recently mislead the world or Israel.”
Addressing moves by Turkey to exploit the situation, Ganor added, “Syria will not be able to exist without the aid of another country or countries. Those countries will become the patron of the new regime, and there is no doubt that Iran will try to bridge past hostilities with the rebels and establish ties with al-Julani through generous economic aid, emphasizing an anti-Israel ideological common denominator and concealing the religious tensions between Sunni and Shi’ite.” (The Syrian rebel factions are mostly Sunni Muslims, whereas Iran is Shi’ite.)
Ganor noted that Iran could have back-door influence on Al Qaeda through the organization’s leader, Saif al-Adel, who sought and received asylum in Iran after U.S. forces entered Afghanistan.
“If al-Julani returns to his ideological roots in Al Qaeda, Iran’s influence on him could grow stronger,” said Ganor. That might enable the reestablishment of the weapons corridor if Iran and the new Syrian regime found common ground, he added.
On Dec. 13, Israel Hayom reported that Hezbollah’s Secretary General Naim Qassem had acknowledged publicly the impact of Assad’s collapse on the terror group, including the loss of military supply routes in Syria. However, he claimed Hezbollah would work around this and look for new ways to smuggle weapons into Lebanon.
The post After Hezbollah Supply Lines Cut in Syria, Tehran Will ‘Reexamine Options’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.