Search Results

If the Israeli occupation ended, how would your life be different? Download YouTube 2023-12-25 (241) < Previous Next > Without israel there is no work, no jobs. Life will be bad. Palestinians are teh enemy of each other". Video Transcription:

Women Organizations worldwide have abandoned Israeli women. Download YouTube 2023-11-20 (#136) < Previous Next > Speak up against violence against women and the deafening silence in the face of it. Israeli women are waiting for your voice. #violenceagainstwomen Video Transcription: Coming soon

The truth from Gaza Download YouTube 2023-11-11 (#109) < Previous Next > A classroom in a school in Gaza with things like posters for anatomy classes, microscopes and a laboratory...and 3 feet away, outside that classroom, more "educational material" such as an ammunition depot with mortar bombs and rockets... Video Transcription: Coming soon

To all pro-Palestinian activists out there Download YouTube 2023-10-25 (#043) < Previous Next > A message for pro-Palestinian activists. Your heart is undoubtedly in the right place. You don't want to see people suffering or dying. What we don't agree on is who to blame. If Hamas' attack had ended after attacking military bases, it's fair game in conflict. But then they went into the towns and massacred civilians, butchered, raped, decapitated them. Mass murder at a music festival. Does that aid the wellbeing of the Palestinian people? And moments after the massacre Palestinians went out into the streets and celebrated. Doesn't that make you wonder? After the media immediately blamed Israel for bombing Al Ahli hospital despite all the evidence of it being an Islamic Jihad rocket that misfired, they didn't retract. They didn't even check their sources. Besides, how can you count 500 bodies in less than an hour? Hamas denied targeting civilians at the music festival after the terrorist recorded their acts using bodycams, but Hamas says it's Israeli propaganda,although the evidence was not provided by the Israeli media. By all means, go out and demonstrate for the Palestinian people, but why tear down posters of hostages? Taking them down is not recognizing the suffering of innocents. If people display swastika symbols and call to "gas the Jews" is that still a demonstration for the safety of the Palestinian people? Or is it a call for the extermination of the Jewish people? Is that human loving behavior? "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free". Free from what? The Christian Arabs, the Bedouins, the Druze, all of whom identify themselves as Israelis? Or free from Jews? This is not about the West Bank or the 1967 borders or the occupied territories, this is about everything. If you do wish to erase all Israelis and/or Jews, doesn't that make you question your humanitarian intentions? Chants of "Intifada" are chants of violence. The Intifada consisted of a series of suicide bombings, run over attacks, shootings and stabbings. Is that pro-Palestinian or is it anti-Israel? Let's face it, if you were silent about the Hamas massacre and ask for a ceasefire only after Israel retaliated, if you ignore the hostages and deny the massacre even after they released all of their footage, if you were outraged when you believed Israel had bombed the hospital but remained silent when it emerged that the Islamic Jihad was the culprit, if you march with people calling for Jews to be gassed or calling for Intifada or "From the River to the Sea", try to think which side you choose to believe. If you answered yes to any of these questions, don't lie to us or to yourself. You're not calling for the safety of innocents, you're advocating for the destruction of the only Jewish country in the world. And even if you are, we've had enough of massacre, murder, burning, rape and kidnapping, and we ARE going to protect our right to exist. Video Transcription: Coming soon

Testimonials from Jewish students at NYU’s Gallatin. Download YouTube 2024-01-28(281) < Previous Next > BY: @LizzySavetsky After speaking with numerous current Jewish students at NYU’s Gallatin, my alma mater, this is what I’ve learned. I am heartbroken to hear these reports, as Gallatin has been a very special and important place in my journey. However, my priority is and continues to be to the Jewish students on campus. I have vowed to do whatever I can for them. Video Transcription:

They don't protest when it's muslims killing muslims!' Download YouTube 2024-01-01 (253) < Previous Next > Pro-Palestine protesters are happy to try and ruin Christmas for everyone else, but they won't protest or post stuff when it's muslims killing muslims' 'When thousands were murdered in Syria, I don't remember activists trying to shut down Christmas then.' Video Transcription:

Why DEI Must End For Good Download YouTube 2023-12-23 (239) < Previous Next > How did the congressional hearing on antisemitism last week go so awry? Was the resignation of University of Pennsylvania’s president just another cancellation, only this time on the other side of the political aisle? How can we fix our broken universities? And what’s at stake if we don’t? Bari Weiss: Founder of "The free press" 00:00 📅 The video discusses a recent Congressional testimony involving the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania and their responses to questions about rising anti-Semitism on their campuses. 02:48 🏛️ The video highlights instances of perceived hypocrisy in how universities handle free speech, citing examples where certain viewpoints were shut down while others were defended. 05:51 🚫 The video expresses opposition to cancel culture but suggests that Penn President Liz McGill lost her job due to her inability to fulfill her role effectively rather than being canceled. 10:48 🏛️ The video argues that Liz McGill's resignation exposes deep issues in American higher education and raises questions about leadership, morality, and the need for reform. 12:11 📚 The video discusses the ideology of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and its impact on American institutions, especially universities, and argues for its dismantling. 19:26 🇩🇪 The video draws parallels between the current ideological climate in American universities and the history of German universities during the rise of Nazism, emphasizing the importance of addressing these issues. Video Transcription: On December 5, America witnessed the most sordid congressional testimony in recent memory. I watched, and probably you did too, in shock as the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania, three of the supposedly greatest universities not just in America but in the world, struggled to respond in front of Congress to very basic questions about the obvious rise of antisemitism on their campuses. In one unforgettable and hugely viral exchange, Republican congresswoman Elise Stefanik asked Penn president Liz Magill if calling for the genocide of Jews violates her school’s rules or code of conduct. Yes or no? Liz Magill sort of smiles at the question and then ultimately says: “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes. I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment? If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment. So the answer is yes. It is a context-dependent decision. Then there was Harvard president Claudine Gay, who, when faced with a similar round of questioning by Stefanik, responded this way: We embrace a commitment to free expression, even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful. That’s interesting because just last year, Harvard told students in a mandatory three Title IX training that using the wrong pronouns for a person constitutes “abuse.” I’ll go on. It said that “any words used to lower a person’s self-worth” are, quote, “verbal abuse” and that, quote, “sizeism and fatphobia contribute to an environment that perpetuates violence.” In September 2021, MIT allowed a mob to cancel a public lecture on climate change by my friend and geophysicist Dorian Abbot, because he had the gall to criticize affirmative action. Or take Penn. In 2019, Penn shut down an event with former ICE director Tom Homan because students were chanting so loudly to “abolish ICE,” and it made it impossible to hold a conversation. And yet here these same schools were last week suddenly discovering the virtue of free speech. I’m satisfied that I’ve conveyed our deep commitment to free expression, recognizing that it’s uncomfortable. The satirical news site The Babylon Bee pretty much hit the nail on the head in a single headline a few months ago: “Harvard Student Leaves Lecture on Microaggressions to Attend a ‘Kill the Jews’ Rally.” It was that same hypocrisy—that same double standard—that millions of people witnessed that day in front of Congress. Millions of people, including Penn’s donors, some of whom decided to close their checkbooks. And then, less than a week after the hearing, Liz Magill—along with Penn’s chairman of the board of trustees—resigned. As listeners of Honestly and readers of The Free Press know, I am the first to stand against cancel culture. In some cases, I’ve literally been the first person to defend unpopular victims of it. People who have been fired or publicly shamed or forced to resign from their jobs because of public pressure for basically nothing, from a mistake or a minor totally blown-out-of-proportion incident. The very first episode of this podcast, the very first episode of Honestly that we ever aired, was about a man named Majdi Wadi. OG listeners will remember, but he’s a Palestinian immigrant whose life’s work, a very successful hummus business in Minneapolis, was boycotted and decimated because an angry mob on Twitter found antisemitic and bigoted tweets that his teenage daughter had posted, and deleted, and then apologized for years earlier. They were such, like, horrible and vile things, and that’s not who I am. I warned in that podcast that holding someone to account and ruining their lives because of one mistake they made was un-American and wrong, and that in this particular instance, a man was being held to account because of the sins of their teenage daughter, who by that point was an adult. I felt it was profoundly illiberal and anti-American to judge a person based on the actions of their relative, no matter how vile the tweets were—and they were vile. But she apologized for them, and she did them when she was a teenager. I defended biology professor Carole Hooven, who was driven out of her position at Harvard for insisting that biological sex is binary. And she said so as a biologist. I defended Kathleen Stock, a professor who was hounded out of the University of Sussex, tarred as a kind of witch, for much of the same reasons as Hooven. I do not think USC professor Greg Patton should have been suspended from his job for saying a Chinese word that happened to sound like an English slur. If you have a lot of “um,” “ers,” and this is culturally specific, so based on your native language, like in China, the common word is "that, that, that," so in China might be "nega nega nega nega." I don’t believe that. University of Massachusetts Dean Leslie Neal-Boylan should have been fired for writing in an email—and this is true—Black Lives Matter, but also everyone’s lives matters. There are dozens of similar examples that we have reported on, that we have written about, or that we have spoken about on this very show. What all of these people have in common is that none of them actually did anything wrong. None of them did anything at all other than violate newspeak, other than offend our cultures new authoritarians who want to usher in a world in which saying there are two sexes is the moral equivalent of screaming the N-word in public. So the question is this Did Penn president Liz Magill do something wrong, or is she another victim of yet another angry mob? Only this time a mob on the other side of the political and ideological aisle? It’s a worthy question, and it’s one that my colleagues and I don’t all see eye to eye on. Peter Savodnik, Free Press senior editor—needless to say, he’s a guy whose views I deeply respect—argued this week in our pages that Magill’s resignation, and I quote, is a blow to academic freedom. It amounts to little more than a cave—yet another prominent American institution succumbing to the angry mob.” For Jewish students specifically, he argued, and I quote, “It will make things worse by making an already illiberal academic environment even more illiberal.” Now, let me first say that I oppose cancel culture, no matter if it’s done by the right or the left or anyone in between. But being opposed to cancel culture—obsessive and odious mob attacks over minutia for the sake of casting out the independent-minded and sending a message to everyone else to shut up or you could be next—does not mean being opposed to anyone ever getting in trouble for actually screwing up. And in my view—and of course, it’s a judgment call—that’s what actually happened here. Liz Magill didn’t lose her job because she was “canceled.” She lost her job because she revealed in front of the entire country that she wasn’t up to the task of running one of the most important universities in the world. Think about it this way: if the quarterback on a football team blows a key game in the playoffs, does the coach have an obligation to keep him on the field? Of course not. He had a job to do and he didn’t do it. Another athlete should come in and replace him. That’s my view with Liz Magill, who failed the very basic duties that her role and responsibilities required of her. Because the job of a university president is not merely to point out the basic constitutional rights of students to scream for a violent uprising against Jews or anyone else. Intifada revolution! One solution! Intifada revolution! And yes, those students, of course, have those legal rights. As Nadine Strossen and Pamela Paresky wrote recently in the pages of The Free Press. “Even antisemites deserve free speech.” I agree with that. But is pointing out obvious legal rights why we have university presidents? Is their job simply to remind us that people are allowed to shout terrible things and that the First Amendment protects them from doing so? Never mind the glaring hypocrisy of the fact that these very same people would never defend the right of white students to march through campus calling for violence against black students, or street students to march through campus calling for violence against gay students. Both of those scenarios, to name one of dozens, would simply be unimaginable. But never mind the double standard, which is a big part of the story and a big reason why people are angry. Take that off the table for just a moment. Because even if that hypocrisy and double standard wasn’t at play, my answer would still be the same. And that is that the job of a university president is not merely to point out what is and isn’t legally permissible. The job of the university president is to offer leadership—intellectual leadership, of course, but also moral leadership. Penn’s motto, and I kid you not, is literally this: Laws without morals are useless. I want to repeat that again because I kind of couldn’t believe that that was the motto: Laws without morals are useless. So can anyone actually look at Magill’s performance—let alone that of Harvard’s Claudine Gay, Now under fire for alleged plagiarism—or MIT’s Sally Kornbluth—and walk away and say, “Now that is a leader with admirable moral judgment”? Can anyone look at those women and say, “If we could choose anyone to lead these schools in this moment, this is who we would choose”? Can anyone look at these three people and say they offer the kind of inspiring leadership and moral clarity that the country so desperately needs at this moment? I think those questions answer themselves. But where Peter Savodnik and I agree is that Magill’s resignation doesn’t actually solve much of anything. It certainly doesn’t do anything to remedy the grotesque hypocrisy and double standards and moral confusion that have corrupted American higher education. But what that congressional testimony did, and what Magill’s resignation does, is finally and at long last pull back the curtain. There’s no more pretending that this incident at this school was a one-off. That this story is just nitpicking no more. Magill’s resignation, which was a direct outcome of that testimony, reveals to everyone, plain as day how deeply American higher education is broken. And the question now, the urgent question, is what we’re going to do about it. How do we fix American higher education? My view is that, above all else, we need to return higher education to its original purpose: to pursue the truth for the sake of human flourishing, and to pass on the knowledge that is the basis of our exceptional civilization. We do that by doing a few very basic—but I guess right now they feel quite radical—things. Things like committing to intellectual freedom, not ideology. Things like hiring based on merit. Things like doing away with double standards on speech. And yes, walking the walk. Not sending our checks and our children to schools that betray the most fundamental liberal and American values. But above all, starting today, we need to uproot—root and branch—the ideology that has supplanted truth at the core of American higher education. And that ideology goes by the name DEI. It was 20 years ago when I was a student at Columbia, that I encountered this ideology for the first time and that I began to write about it. Of course, at the time it was a nameless, niche worldview. But I noticed that it contradicted everything that I had been taught since I was a child. This was a worldview that replaced basic ideas of good and evil with a new rubric: the powerless (good) and the powerful (necessarily bad). It replaced color blindness with race obsession; ideas with identity; debate with denunciation; persuasion with public shaming; the rule of law with the fury of the mob. I noticed that people were to be given authority in this new order not in recognition of their talents or their gifts or their hard work or their accomplishments or their contributions to society, but in inverse proportion to the disadvantages their group had suffered as defined by radical ideologues. When I raised alarm bells about this at the time, I was told by most of the adults I respected not to be so hysterical. Campuses were always hotbeds of radicalism, they said, and this ideology would surely dissipate as young people made their way in the world. At least that’s what they promised me. But they were wrong. It didn’t dissipate. Over the past two decades, I watched as this inverted worldview swallowed all of the crucial sense-making institutions of American life. Yes, universities, obviously, but also cultural institutions, including some I knew well, like The New York Times, as well as every major museum book-publishing company, philanthropy, media company. Then it moved to our medical schools and our law schools. It’s taken root in the HR departments of every major corporation. It’s inside of our high schools and even our elementary schools. This ideological takeover is so comprehensive that it’s almost hard to notice it. That’s because it’s everywhere. This ideology is obviously dangerous to Jews because in this new worldview, where fairness is measured by equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, who do you think that singles out? If under-representation is the inevitable outcome of systemic bias, then overrepresentation—and Jews are just 2% of the American population—suggests not talent or hard work, but unearned privilege. This conspiratorial conclusion is actually very, very close to the hateful portrait of a small group of Jews divvying up the ill-gotten spoils of an exploited world captured most powerfully in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But it isn’t only Jews who suffer from the suggestion that merit and excellence are dirty words. It is strivers of every race, every ethnicity, and every class. That is why Asian-American success, for example, is so suspicious. The percentages are off. Scores are too high. Where did you steal all of that success from? Of course, this new ideology doesn’t come right out and say all of that. It doesn’t even like to be named. Some call it wokeness or antiracism or progressivism or safetyism or Critical Social Justice or identity Marxism. Whatever term you use, what is clear is that this worldview has gained power in the world in a conceptual instrument called DEI: diversity, equity, and inclusion. Right? In theory, all three of these words represent noble causes. They’re in fact, all causes to which the American Jewish community in particular has long been devoted. The American Jewish commitment to justice—not lip service real justice—and the American Jewish community’s commitment to oppose racism—real racism is a source of tremendous pride, rightfully so, and that should never waver. But in reality, DEI is not actually about any of those words. Rather, it uses those words as camouflage. Those words are, in fact, now metaphors for a powerful ideological movement bent on categorizing every American not as an individual worthy of equal rights and dignity because of their individuality, but as an avatar of an identity group. A person’s behavior prejudged, according to that group, setting all of us up in a kind of zero-sum game. DEI calls itself progressive, but it is not. It doesn’t believe in progress. It is explicitly anti-growth. It claims to promote equity or equality, but its answer to the challenge of teaching math or reading to disadvantaged children is to eliminate math and reading tests. It demonizes hard work, merit, family, and the dignity of the individual, all virtues that are the foundation of what makes America exceptional. The dangers of DEI have been made exceptionally clear by what’s been happening on college campuses today, campuses where professors are compelled to pledge fidelity to DEI in order to get hired, promoted, or tenure. Campuses where ever since October 7th, we’ve seen students and professors immersed not in facts, knowledge, or history, but in a dehumanizing ideology that has led them to celebrate or justify terrorism—simply because the terrorists or what they call “the oppressed,” and the victims are what they call, quote, “white settler colonialists.” But perhaps nothing has made the dangers of DEI clearer than last week, when we saw those three university presidents fail to string together basic sentences about the difference between good and evil. Now, the antidote to this poison is not for the Jewish community to plead its cause before the intersectional coalition and to beg for higher ranking in the new ladder of victimhood. It’s not to assign Jews protected status alongside other minorities. Because the solution to discrimination isn’t more discrimination. That is always a losing strategy. And in any case, Jewish identity doesn’t fit into this very crude racial framework. Because is Judaism a race? If so, what color? Is it a religion? An ethnicity? A culture? See, Jews are, by their very existence, an affront to this black-and-white ideology. No, the right solution isn’t to retrench DEI only this time including Jews. The only solution is to dismantle the DEI regime that has enforced an illiberal worldview at nearly every American university. It is time to end DEI for good. No more standing by as people are encouraged to segregate themselves. No more forced declarations that you’re going to prioritize identity over excellence. No more compelled speech, no more going along with little lies for the sake of being polite. It’s time to stand up for what is right. Now, for anyone who thinks I’m blowing this out of proportion or exaggerating how much this matters, I want you to look back and to consider the history of Germany’s universities, how the very same institutions that were once the envy of the world helped usher in the intellectual atmosphere that gave way to the rise of Hitler. As historian Niall Ferguson wrote in a very powerful piece in The Free Press this week called “The Treason of the Intellectuals,” and I quote “Anyone who has a naive belief in the power of higher education to instill ethical values has not studied the history of German universities in the Third Reich. A university degree, far from inoculating Germans against Nazism, made them more likely to embrace it.” Today’s academic leaders, of course, would never recognize themselves as heirs to people like Martin Heidegger, the greatest German philosopher of his generation who jumped on the Nazi bandwagon and wore a swastika pin on his lapel. Today’s leaders will insist that Heidegger was on the right and they’re on the left. But as Niall Ferguson reminds us, totalitarianism comes in two flavors, but the ingredients are the same. Yes, the Holocaust is the worst historical crime in human history. It’s exceptional. But one of the things that makes it exceptional is that it was perpetrated by a highly sophisticated nation-state that had within its borders the world’s finest universities. As Niall writes, “The lesson of German history for American academia should now be clear. In Germany, to use the legalistic language of 2023, ’speech did cross into conduct.’ The ’final solution of the Jewish question’ began as speech—to be precise, it began as lectures and monographs and scholarly articles. It began in the songs of student fraternities. With extraordinary speed, after 1933, however, it crossed into conduct first systemic pseudo-legal discrimination and ultimately, a program of technocratic genocide.” All of which is to say: this isn’t just an issue for elite people that go to elite colleges. The stakes are much higher than that, because what happens at universities matters. What we teach our young people matters. What we teach them about the goodness or the badness of our country and our civilization deeply matters. DEI is undermining liberalism and America, and that for which it stands—including the principles that have made it a place of unparalleled opportunity, tolerance, safety, and freedom—not just for Jews, but for all of us. After the events of the last week, it is clear DEI must end.

Antony Blinken: Israel has the right to defend itself! Download YouTube 2023-11-01 (#073) < Previous Next > Anthony Blinken speaks of Israel's right to defend itself, decribing some of the monstruous acts that Hamas committed on October 7th. Israel has the obligation to defend itself and make sure that such horrors will never happen again. It is important for Israel to try to protect civilians despite the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields and places its weapons underneath hospials and schools. A ceasefire would consolidate what Hamas wants and allow it to remain in power and repeat its actions. No nation would tolerate that. False Hamas propaganda is spreading across social media. It is everywhere and it is shaping public opinion and inciting hate and danger for Jews and Israelis. Yet, brave leaders are still among us, standing with the truth. With those who demand life Video Transcription: Coming soon

Israel is not interested in war. It never was. Download YouTube 2023-10-24 (#037) < Previous Next > Anthony Blinken is against a ceasefire, claiming it will bring about more Hamas terrorism. It's not about reponding or retaliating, it's about Israel's defense and trying to ensure this can't happen again. Hamas undertook the slaughter and knew Israel would have to respond, and they placed all their leaders and weapons in residential buildings, underneath hopitals and schools, knowing tat in Israel's necessary reponse, there would be civilians casualties. Israel can't be expected to let this situation continue. No country can live like that. Video Transcription: Coming soon

Spot the Difference: 9/11 or 7/10? Download YouTube 2023-11-20 (#138) < Previous Next > People in Gaza after September 11th attack, and after October 7th Attack. Same reaction, same evil. Video Transcription: Coming soon

When Egyptian author Dalia Ziada denounced Hamas's terrorist attacks, she faced legal assault. Download YouTube 2023-12-13 (204) < Previous Next > When Egyptian author Dalia Ziada denounced Hamas's terrorist attacks, she faced state-backed incitement, death threats, and legal assault. "I would do it again." Watch Dalia's profile in courage. Video Transcription:

Any Ceasefire Right Now Would Be Temporary and Dangerous to Both Israelis and Palestinians. Download YouTube 2023-12-19 (222) Short < Previous Next > "This is a terrorist group that no member state would tolerate living next to". Listen to the US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas Greenfield. Video Transcription: