web analytics
December 6, 2016 / 6 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘problem’

The UNESCO Problem: What Can Be Done?

Thursday, November 3rd, 2016

Given the rancor between UNESCO and pro-Israel groups in light of UNESCO’s recent anti-Israel resolutions, it is fascinating to recall what the UN organization’s director said just a few months ago.

Speaking at an event showcasing the Israeli Education Without Borders initiative, UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova said it “reflects the strong foundation of cooperation between Israel and UNESCO, covering the full range of UNESCO’s mandate – especially in education for peace, for inclusion, for human rights.”

The high-spirited event actually took place in UNESCO headquarters in Paris. Sponsored by the World Jewish Congress and Israel’s Permanent Mission to UNESCO, it launched a photo exhibition of Israel’s project to provide education to hospitalized children. More than 150 people took part, including more than 20 ambassadors and senior diplomats.

Before we explain the ramifications of the anti-Jewish UNESCO resolutions, let us take this opportunity to note, as WJC head Robert Singer told the participants, that Israel is the only country in the world where education is mandatory for children who are hospitalized for more than three days. Singer also highlighted how the program shows that “people of all races, backgrounds, and religions can and do coexist in Israel.” It was noted, too, that Israel’s Galilee Medical Center has treated over 1,000 Syrians injured in the Syrian civil war.

This honeymoon between UNESCO and Israel was short-lived, however. Just a few days later, UNESCO’s executive board passed the first of a series of resolutions denying any Jewish link to the holiest sites in Judaism and Jewish history. UNESCO referred to the Temple Mount as Haram al-Sharif, the Western Wall of the Mount as Al-Buraq Plaza, after Muhammad’s horse, and the Jewish state not as “Israel” but as “the Occupying Power.”

That resolution went over with relatively little protest, and a few weeks later UNESCO proceeded to do it again – twice. First its executive board passed a resolution similar to the above, and then, in late October, the body’s World Heritage Committee voted to accept a third one. The last one was slightly watered down, in that it did not refer to Israel as the “occupying power.” But the long and short of it is that UNESCO denies the historic Jewish ties to the site of our own holy Temple.

Fascinatingly, our sages teach that three critical places in the Land of Israel were duly purchased by the Jewish nation and can therefore never be contested: Jerusalem (purchased by King David from the Jebusites), Hebron (purchased by Abraham from Ephron), and Nablus (Shechem, bought by Jacob from the sons of Hamor). So why is it that the Jewish ties to these three places draw even more objections, if such a thing is possible, than the rest of the Holy Land?

The answer can only be intuited: The enemy senses that the sites holy to the Jews are the key to the entire struggle. Whoever controls Jerusalem and Hebron and Shechem will be victorious. At present, we are in a tight holding pattern, with sovereignty over Jerusalem but without day-to-day control over the Temple Mount, and with varying degrees of control in Hebron and Shechem.

What can be learned from this combination of contemporary news reports and age-old rabbinic teachings? Mainly that our struggle for our holy city of Yerushalayim must be waged as fiercely now as ever before. Seeing that the Palestinian Authority spares no efforts in this war, as evidenced by the international support it drummed up for the groundless and deceptive UNESCO resolutions, how much more so must we – who have the truth on our side – not remain silent.

We are not without allies. UNESCO’s director Bokova has herself spoken out against her organization’s anti-Israel resolutions, saying, “To deny, conceal, or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of [Jerusalem], and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list.” Even outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has criticized the votes, and a small number of countries that voted in favor have attempted to rectify the damage.

In addition, some Christian groups in the United States were greatly disturbed by the votes.

David Brog, director of Christians United for Israel, said: “The places under discussion, namely the Temple Mount, play a central role not only to the Jewish faith but also to the Christian faith.”

Robert Nicholson, who heads the Philos Project that “seeks to promote positive Christian engagement in the Middle East,” said: “UNESCO’s decision to deny Jewish history is also a decision to deny Christian history. If the Jews don’t have a legacy on the Temple Mount, neither do Christians. And yet we know that… Jesus came to the Temple throughout his life to worship and pray to the God of Israel, as a Jew, six centuries before Muhammad was even born.”

But this is far from enough. We must encourage our Christian allies in our fight against hostile Muslim anti-Jewish trends, but we must not rely on them. The fight is ours. If Jerusalem is to take its place as the site “from where Torah shall go forth” and which will become the “house of prayer for all nations,” as the Prophets promise, we must all enlist in the cause. The following must be done:

* The Jewish people, in Israel and in the Diaspora, must educate themselves regarding their heritage in the Land of Israel in general and in Jerusalem in particular. Ignorance is our enemy, and will not be able to stand up to the lies and inaccuracies spread by those who seek to harm us.

* Those with the skills and inclination to make Israel’s case must be not only reactive but also proactive. Whoever can, must! We cannot let the ongoing farce of negating Jerusalem’s Jewishness continue without a popular and decisive campaign for the truth. All the accepted channels, in the classic as well as new media, must be utilized to correct the lies and disseminate the truth. We must also recruit our gentile friends around the world to participate in this campaign.

* A concerted effort should be made in friendly countries to pass pro-Jerusalem resolutions on the national, federal and local levels. This has already begun in the U.S., where such declarations have been passed in South Carolina, Florida, and elsewhere. Furthermore, personal commitments to Jerusalem can be expressed by signing on the Keep Jerusalem Covenant, found on Keep Jerusalem’s website, www.keepjerusalem.org or e-mail us at tours@keepjerusalem.org.

Hillel Fendel and Chaim Silberstein / KeepJerusalem.org

Blame Shimon Peres for the Ofra-Amona Problem and More

Thursday, November 3rd, 2016

Right after Shimon Peres died, and Israelis of the Right -Pro Jewish Rights in All of the Land of Israel- were looking for nice things to say about him, they credited him with his help in establishing the very first yishuv, Jewish community, in the Shomron, north of Jerusalem. But the truth is that his pushing for the location that is now Ofra was actually a way to sabotage the community, as I explained in my post,  The Utter Irony of Shiloh for a Relocated Amona.

Peres pushed for a location that had a building. Either he ignored the possible ownership of the land in question or he, like many in the government, didn’t take the settler movement, Gush Emunim, seriously as a potential power.

None of the politicians of any party, even the Right, had a clue that within a few decades there would be hundreds of thousands of Jews in Judea/Samaria. And if the government would solve the legal issues and give building permits, there would be more than double the number. 

This should not be in the hands of the Supreme Court. Prime Minister Netanyahu is wrong in leaving those Leftist ideology-driven judges to make law. The Government and Knesset are supposed to make the laws, not the Judicial branch.

In the half a century since the 1967 Six Days War we periodically hear politicians talking about annexing the Land we liberated in that war for survival, like Naftali Bennett right now. All international legal precedent is that a country that wins a war, especially a war for its very existence and survival, automatically annexes whatever land it finds in its possession. That’s the way of the world.

And, yes, of course, Peres was part of the ruling team that decided Israel should do the very opposite. He and his ilk had this totally fokokt idea that the Arabs would be willing to live in peace in exchange for those “territories.” This was a mistake, the infant of his “New Middle East” fantasy, which made him the darling of those trying to find a politically correct way of destroying the State of Israel.

Now, we are stuck with horrendous politicians running the country. Gd willing, someone will get the wisdom and guts to fix this mess.

Batya Medad

Former Shas MK: Solve Train Problem the Jewish Way – Use Goyim

Monday, September 5th, 2016

Former MK Rabbi Haim Amsalem told the website Srugim Sunday that Jewish Law provides a simple and practical solution to the problem of performing crucial infrastructure labor on Israel’s railroads on Shabbat, a problem which was threatening the stability of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s coalition government: use gentile employees.

“The simplest solution would be to follow what Jewish Halakha says and facilitates,” Rabbi Amsalem advised. “In a country where 20% of the citizens are not Jewish, when there is a compelling need, we can utilize ‘goy shel Shabbat,’ (‘Shabbes goy’) for all the labor that involves the desecration of Shabbat. We’ve done this for hundreds of years, everybody is familiar with the concept — the gentiles would receive an increased pay and Jews wouldn’t be required to work on and desecrate the Shabbat,” Rabbi Amsalem said, noting that “everybody is for a modern and democratic Jewish State, so this should be a fitting solution.”

Rabbi Haim (Emile) Amsalem, 57, a native of French Algeria who immigrated to Israel in 1970, was among the founders of Shas and served as its MK, until, following a breakup with his colleagues, he launched his own party, Am Shalem (a play on his name, meaning “whole nation”) that failed to make it into the Knesset in the 2013 elections. He is considered a moderate Haredi who believes in a dialogue with secular Israelis.

“In general, it can be stated that the state institutions for the most part observe Shabbat, which is something anyone arriving in Israel from abroad notices. It may not be exactly as we want it to be, but we can’t focus only on the negative,” Amsalem told Srugim.

Pointing out that the law already provides for government to be able to issue permits for Shabbat work that relates to security, crucial economic concerns or any other matter affecting the public’s welfare, including hospitals, the power and the water utilities, Amsalem suggested that the clash over the railroad works over the past two Shabbat days was mostly about politics.

“In the end, those who cry out for the alleged honor of Shabbat ends up causing a much bigger, mass desecration. We strive to reach as broad an agreement as possible on the value of Shabbat, of its image and its respect by the public. Our role as rabbis is to take care of Shabbat observance, but when it is necessary we must find halakhic solutions that would facilitate a normative existence for society at large, and won’t cause hatred for Shabbat on the part of the public,” Amsalem said.

“In a Jewish State it is permissible to employ those for whom those vital works on Shabbat are permissible,” Amsalem concluded. “This way the needs of the modern state would be fulfilled while the demand of our Torah regarding Shabbat observance in public would be obeyed.”

JNi.Media

Memo To Obama: ISIS Is A Symptom, Not The Problem

Sunday, July 31st, 2016

A lot has been made of the president’s irrational refusal to say that radical Muslims are responsible for the terrorist attacks they commit. He has rationalized that the semantics don’t matter, and argues that he does not want to create the perception that we are in a war with Islam, even as Muslim states openly engage in a war against these extremists.

Obama is wrong, misleading the American people and sewing confusion as to the threat we are confronting.

Obama talks about terrorists like they’re misguided youths who need more time with community organizers such as the young Barack Obama. The journalist Jeffrey Goldberg noted that instead of being engaged in a clash of civilizations, “Obama believes that the clash is taking place within a single civilization, and that Americans are sometimes collateral damage in this fight between Muslim modernizers and Muslim fundamentalists.”

This view is not just mistaken, it is dangerously inaccurate, and reflects his complete misunderstanding of the objectives of radical Muslims and their reading of the Koran. They believe the Koran requires them to engage in a holy war against the infidels (which includes Muslims they consider apostates), until their brand of Islam becomes universally recognized as the one true religion.

Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are fighting a war against religious zealots, tens of thousands, if not millions of them, and, those we kill will be replaced by others equally willing to die for what they believe Allah expects.

This is why the current obsession with ISIS is dangerous. If we wiped them off the earth tomorrow, our problem with radical Islam would not disappear. Obama tried to convince us that killing Osama bin Laden “decimated” al Qaeda, even though offshoots of the group continue to be a threat today. He was even more dismissive of ISIS, which he dismissed as a “JV team” just after the group captured Fallujah.

Obama’s naiveté, to give him the benefit of the doubt, was on display even earlier when he supported the takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood, the inspiration for many of today’s Muslim extremist groups.

Then, of course, there is the radical Muslim regime in Iran with whom Obama signed the disastrous nuclear agreement that failed to contain any safeguards against Iran’s sponsorship of terror. Obama even tried to sell the snake oil notion that Iran’s behavior would change thanks to his diplomacy that was so brilliant he abandoned many of his most important demands. Obama could believe his own fantasy because of his refusal to recognize that Iran’s leaders are radical Muslims whose goal is world domination by the word and the sword of Allah.

Consequently, following the fanfare over concluding the nuclear deal, Iran’s leaders continued their public denunciations of the United States, escalated their ballistic missile program, increased support for terrorists, challenged the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf, tested new, more powerful centrifuges, and tried to secretly buy nuclear technology from Germany.

If only Obama and other Western leaders had a scintilla of knowledge about Muslim history, perhaps they would understand what we are up against. In 1909, for example, the British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote: “The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.”

This is what radical Muslims have in mind for the infidels. They want to return to the days of the Islamic Empire when much of the world was dominated by Muslim rule.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is caricatured as a paranoid hysteric, but he knows that Jews are among the first targets of the extremists. Islamists have repeatedly made clear their animosity toward Jews and Judaism. Back in 1937, Saudi Arabia’s King Ibn Saud declared: “Our hatred for the Jews dates from God’s condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa [Jesus] and their subsequent rejection of His chosen Prophet [Muhammad].”

He added “that for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be killed by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Heaven and into the august presence of God Almighty.”

There are hundreds more recent quotes along these lines, such as the statement by Saudi cleric Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid, who said in May, “The Jews are among the enemies of [Islam]. In fact, they are at the top of the list…. the Prophet Muhammad clarified that our war with them will continue until the end of time.”

Obama is wrong in his belief that we are not in a war with radical Islam, but he is correct in the view that we cannot defeat the religious extremists on our own. Ultimately, it is up to Muslims to rise up against them. As Muslim author Irshad Manji put it:

“If Muslims claim that we are against violence, why aren’t we demonstrating in the streets against suicide bombings? Why is it so much easier to draw us into protest against a French ban on the hijab, but next to impossible to exorcise ourselves about slavery, stonings and suicide killings? Where’s our collective conscience?”

Mitchel G. Bard

What’s the problem with Reform Judaism?

Saturday, July 9th, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s website, Abu Yehuda}

Today I came across an article by Rabbi Baruch Efrati in which he opposes cooperation between Israelis and the Reform Movement.

So what, you say. Another Orthodox attack on the heretical reformim. Perhaps so, but here is what caught my attention:

The secular Jewish world does not want to take over the religious world from a theological point of view, but to live beside it – hence, the possibility of influencing that world, listening to its hearts’ desires, elevating its holy sparks to their heavenly source. The secular are actually non-observant Orthodox, they do not present an alternative organized religion that turns transgressions into an ideology intended to take the place of the Torah. They have not invented a made up religion but are in the midst of a process where secularism is withering and faith is blossoming, as one can see over the last few years in which there is constant strengthening of ties to Torah, baruch Hashem.

“Non-observant Orthodox,” or as the saying goes, ‘the synagogue that they don’t go to is Orthodox’. At worst, thinks Efrati, they won’t interfere with the religious world while at best they might join it. On the other hand, the Reform are a threat. “It’s either we or them [sic],” he adds.

One wonders why he is worried, because only about 3% of Israeli Jews identify with the Reform movement, and most of those are English-speaking immigrants. The ‘non-observant Orthodox’ aren’t rushing to join them, either. Those that I talk to simply don’t see the point of Reform Judaism, maybe because just living in Israel provides the sense of Jewish community that many American Jews seek from their congregations, and because even the least observant Jew in Israel is likely to have a stronger background in Jewish history and ideas than most American Reform Jews. And of course, they already speak Hebrew!

The real possibility of religious change in Israel today comes from Orthodox Jews (including well-known rabbis) who ask why certain customs, in particular in respect to women, are adhered to when they are not required by Jewish law. They also ask why certain rabbis should have a monopoly on kosher certification, conversions, and so forth. These folks will certainly have a much greater effect on the nature of Jewish observance in Israel than Reform Jews, because they can’t be accused of ‘inventing a religion’.

Nevertheless, the American Union for Reform Judaism does present a problem for Israel, but it has little to do with theology.  It is because the Reform Movement is conducting a left-wing political campaign targeting both American Jews (primarily) and Israelis.

The campaign focuses on issues like mixed prayer at the Western Wall, ‘segregated’ Haredi buses, and the Rabbinate, which is widely perceived as arbitrary and even corrupt in its behavior in regard to marriage and conversion. Another issue is ‘religious pluralism’, which means the fact that Orthodox synagogues and rabbis are subsidized by the government’s Religious Affairs Ministry while liberal streams of Judaism are not. The URJ’s associated groups have filed numerous lawsuits in connection with these issues. The controversies are presented as evidence for Israel’s failure as a liberal democracy.

They resonate as civil rights issues in the US. But they haven’t ever become serious concerns for most Israelis, who are much more concerned with security and economic problems. The average secular Israeli sees both the Women of the Wall and the Haredi Rabbi of the Kotel as radical extremists, and their struggle as having nothing to do with ‘normal people’.

The URJ also takes a strong position for a ‘2-state solution’ and is critical of Israel’s settlements across the Green Line. In the US it has supported the Obama Administration’s policies (after agonizing for a time, it decided ‘not to take a position’ on the Iran deal that was strongly opposed by both the Israeli government and opposition). Many American Reform rabbis belong to J Street, and the President of the URJ, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, is a former activist in both J Street and the New Israel Fund.

Jacobs wasn’t shy about his intention to intervene in Israeli politics when he outlined his positions in his 2015 biennial address and announced that the URJ would not “check [its] commitment to tikkun olam at the door.”

The American Reform Movement, in its 1885 Pittsburgh Platform was explicitly anti-Zionist. After the state of Israel was established it was grudgingly accepted, but it wasn’t until the 1997 Miami Platform that Reform Judaism began to present itself as a Zionist movement. But two years later it began to specify the kind of Jewish state it wanted Israel to be, and the proprietary attitude has only gotten stronger. Like the Obama Administration and J Street, Reform seems to love us to death.

All of this fits neatly with the program of the tiny but loud Israeli Left, which lately has been arguing that the liberal Israel that they knew and loved is being replaced by an undemocratic, theocratic and militaristic monster, the Jewish counterpart of the Islamic State. They too want to make us better.

Just as very few Israelis are attracted to Reform Judaism, very few agree with the political point of view that the URJ espouses. And neither secular nor religious Israelis buy the idea that Israel is becoming undemocratic, theocratic and militaristic. What is happening is that the cultural elites that have set the tone here since 1948 are finally changing to match the more right-wing political landscape. Naturally, those being deposed are unhappy.

Regardless of whether they think Reform Judaism is a “made up religion” or even care, most Israelis think that decisions affecting life in this country should be made here, and not by a liberal American organization that represents very few of us. And that is the real issue.

Vic Rosenthal

A New Coalition To Deal With The Get Problem

Thursday, April 21st, 2016

Over the past two years it has been my privilege to be involved with an organization called Tahel, the Crisis Center for Religious Women and Children. Based in Israel and headed by Debbie Gross, it serves Orthodox abused women and children. I presented lectures at both the 2014 and 2015 organizational conferences in Jerusalem.

During my first trip, a thought came to my mind after meeting attorneys from around the world who deal with one of the most troubling problems when it comes to divorce in the Orthodox community – the difficulties many women have in obtaining a Get.

My idea was to form an organization of attorneys that would essentially be a forum for the discussion, and eventually the implementation, of ideas that have worked in various venues that have substantial Orthodox communities. The organization would encourage collaboration between attorneys, dayanim, and lay leaders.

Based on my experience as an attorney who regularly practices in the Supreme Court and batei din, I knew the need existed for such an organization. My semicha from Rav Pam, zt”l, enabled me to understand and work through the halachic issues involved.

At Tahel’s December 2015 conference at the Ramada Hotel in Jerusalem, I introduced the organization I founded – the Yashar Coalition – to a wide array of mental health professionals, law enforcement personnel, rabbanim, and, of course, attorneys.

The principles of the Yashar Coalition are: (1) no representation of clients who will not give a Get at the conclusion of the matter; (2) facilitation of a prenuptial agreement accepted by a wider spectrum of the Orthodox community; (3) discussions of ideas and legislation that have worked in various communities in the U.S. and elsewhere, as well as creative measures that have been adopted by batei din throughout the world.

The Yashar Coalition is actively working on the draft of a prenuptial agreement with the goal, as mentioned in the organization’s founding principles cited above, of obtaining wider acceptance of prenuptials from community rabbis and rosh yeshivas both within and outside the United States.

Additionally, we have been meeting with local public officials regarding possible passage of new legislation to assist in this regard. Details will be forthcoming.

On the one hand, we will never have the police powers the state of Israel has in the area of religious divorce. On the other hand, we can attempt to introduce legislation, drafted with separation of church and state in mind, that can assist those who have been unable to obtain a Get.

The attorneys of the Yashar Coalition come from South Africa, Australia, England, Canada, Israel, and the U.S. We will be holding a symposium in New York on May 23. To register, go to registration @yashar coalition.org.

Readers interested in becoming involved with the Yashar Coalition can e-mail Yasharcoaltion@gmail.com or call my office at (212) 321-7092.

Martin E. Friedlander

How to Turn a Campus Into an Indoctrination Center

Sunday, September 29th, 2013

Originally published at Rubin Reports.

If you want to understand how the far left controls campuses, consider this story.

There is no university more supportive of the Arab nationalist (historically), Islamist, and anti-Israel line in the United States than Georgetown’s programs on Middle East studies. Every conference it holds on the Middle East is ridiculously one-sided. The university has received millions of dollars in funds from Arab states, and it houses the most important center in the United States that has advocated support for a pro-Islamist policy.

One day in 1975, not long before he died, the great Professor Carroll Quigley walked up to me when I was sitting in the Georgetown University library. Everyone was in awe of this brilliant lecturer (remind me to write him a tribute explaining why he was so great).

[In fact the  classroom where Carroll Quigley taught his main class was Gaston Hall, where decades latest Obama demanded to cover up the cross before he spoke there! What would this pious Catholic have said!]

I thought he might have remembered me from my extended explanation of why I was late for class one day because I had rescued a sparrow and taken it to a veterinarian (true).   I vividly recall that detail, because I couldn’t think otherwise why he would want to talk to such a lowly person.

“May I sit down?” he asked.

“Of course!” I said, stopping myself from adding that it was an honor. Without any small talk, he launched into a subject that clearly weighed on his conscience. “There are many who don’t like your people.”

What was he talking about? I thought, is he talking about Jews?

He explained that he had just come from a meeting where it was made clear that the university had a problem. They were getting Arab money, but on the secret condition that it was for teaching about the Middle East but none of it could be used to teach about Israel. How was this problem to be solved?

Simple. They would call the institution to be created the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. It was explicitly expressed that this was how the problem would be dealt with.  Quigley was disgusted. Ever since then, I have referred to that institution as the Center for Contemporary Arab Money.

Georgetown was the place where the university accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi–who was, of course, very active in promoting anti-American terrorism–to establish an endowed chair in Middle East studies. When the president of the university backed down due to bad publicity, the professor who had been named to the post responded by calling the Jesuit university president a “Jesuit Zionist.”

This same professor–and I am not joking in saying that compared to today, he was a fine scholar and a comparatively decent man given what goes on now–was also a personal friend of Palestinian terrorist leader Nayif Hawatmeh and an outspoken Marxist.

To his credit, he told me in 1974 on a visit of mine to Lebanon, “One day we will be ashamed of all the terrorism [against Israel].” But I don’t think he ever spoke out publicly. At my Ph.D. oral exams, he said something like this as his question: “I don’t care whether you believe it or not, but give the Marxist analysis of development in the Middle East.” He did not ask me to critique it! As a Marxist, atheist though, the son of a Muslim imam, he did participate in the traditional glass of scotch after they passed me. And they did pass me, something I would never assume might happen today. These professors really did believe in scholarship and balance in the classroom.

Another professor (you can guess I was sure he was not on my board), however, was an example of the new generation of indoctrinators. One day, I was standing in the line in the campus post office shortly after I had clashed with him in class. The two girls I could overhear were talking about the disturbing incident in class. To my relief, they took my side. I guess that, too, wouldn’t happen today.

This teacher’s radicalism and knee-jerk hatred of Israel was so terrible that we used to joke about it.  A right-wing Zionist in the class did an experiment. He wrote an exaggerated version of a Marxist, anti-Israel rant. It read like a satire. He got an “A” from this professor. In retrospect, however, we should have seen that the field was getting far worse.

Barry Rubin

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/rubin-reports/how-to-turn-a-campus-into-an-indoctrination-center/2013/09/29/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: