WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
Favorite
Websites
My Stuff
On The Web
Audio-Visual Updated: 08/01/2025
Favorite
Articles
This Month's Scripture Verse:

For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
I Timothy 6:10

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Only Time Will Tell

We just finished a 12-Day War in which all sides claimed victory and a President claimed to have masterminded the most complex military strike in history which also ended the war. All three leaders of the nations involved claimed victory. Will the real truth teller(s) please stand up?

The 12-Day War was started because the Israeli Prime Minister claimed that Iran was on the verge of creating nuclear weapons that would be used to utterly destroy his own nation. BTW, he has been making that claim for decades but now he has found a willing partner in the White House to act on his claims. And now he claims that what his nation and the US did will change history in the Middle East. Besides the fact that we are talking about changing one prediction for the future, we need to ask the Rocket J. Squirrel question regarding that change: Is it friendly change?

We have heard other claims too but let's just consider the ones above. Which claims are true and which ones are false. We should note that all key national leaders have political reasons for claiming victory. While the approval ratings of the Israeli Prime Minister and President Trump have been sliding down, the Iranian leader could possibly face possible removal if the war went too far south. And so each of these leaders have reasons to interpret the war opportunistically.

As adults, we have a sound reasons for ignoring the claims made by all opportunists whether they are made by national leaders, their supporters, or their critics. Instead, we should let time determine what we should believe. And indeed, time has already spoken on some of those claims. For example, intelligence garnered and interpreted by our military says that the damage done by our 'Bunker-Busting Bombs' was not as great as the President claimed it was. This caused the President to lash out at that intelligence information and double-down on his claims. Again, who is right? Time will tell.

In the meantime, one lesson from the 12-Day War is clear: the powerful need friends, not enablers. The difference between the two is that friends tell us the truth in order to help us; enablers tell us what we want to hear for their own sake. The problem that exists here is that the powerful are often all too eager to see enablers as friends and friends as mortal enemies. What we see with each of the key leaders in the 12-Day War is that their lust for power and, for 2 of those leaders, their desire to outrun the laws of their own nation have blinded them so that they are unable to distinguish between friends and enablers. And so we should further define our terms here.

We could define an enabler as a person who contributes to another person's efforts to perform malevolent or unhealthy actions. In contrast to that, a friend will not only help make another person do what is good or healthy, a friend will speak out against those actions that are immoral or unhealthy.

Unfortunately, national and other leaders who are focussed on garnering as much power as they can tend to surround themselves with enablers. Here we could compare and contrast the current set of enablers who currently serve in Trump's Cabinet from most of those who served in his Cabinet during his first term. Many of Trump's Cabinet members who served during his first Presidential term insisted on telling Trump the truth. In so doing, they acted as his friends and faithful advisors. Most of Trump's current Cabinet advisors are acting as his enablers in order to enjoy riding in on his coattails. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's Director of National Intelligence has, regarding the effectiveness of American airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, decided to speak truth to power and report what her intelligence resources shared with her. Of course a question becomes what will her future job status be.

Both enablers and many opponents act as opportunists. While enablers are more than eager to provide either positive spins on or deny potentially damaging news and stories, opponents provide either negative spins on or deny favorable news and stories. Both are way too eager to accept the first news report or story that serves their purposes.

At this point, those of us who are Christians have choices to make. As has been made apparent by the facts, most of my fellow religiously conservative Christians voted for Trump and many of them still support his Presidency. They need to choose being a friend to the President rather than an enabler.

Those of us religiously conservative Christians who oppose some of policies or his whole Presidency have choices to make too. We must choose to be Trump's opponents who are also his friends. That means that we oppose his policies and even his Presidency while caring about him as a person. But we must also choose to resist the temptation to be the opportunists with the news like his opportunists are. 

We religiously conservative Christians need to take such an approach to President Trump for a few reasons. The first reason is that our regard for and treatment of Trump must reflect how God has treated us in Christ. If God has not treated us as our sins deserve, then how dare we not do the same for those in our lives including our public officials. Because of that, we religiously conservative Christians cannot respond to our government with the animosity and rancor that many unbelieving fellow opponents to Trump often respond with. Here, though forgiven, it is important for us Christians to remember the sins we have committed in the past so that we understand what we are capable of doing in the future. Such understanding can help us to properly respond to our leaders when they do what is wrong.

The second reason is that the Scriptures tell us to respect those in authority over us. Many times, that respect includes obedience. But when our government practices or promotes social injustices, either domestic or foreign, then we need to speak out and sometimes engage in civil disobedience.

The third reason for us religiously conservative Christians must avoid being opportunists with the news is the prohibition against bearing false witness that one of the Ten Commandments warns against. Being too quick to comment on the news can lead us to, because of carelessness and overeagerness, to bear false witness against those in power. 

Certainly, it should be clear by now that our President and the Prime Minister of Israel are pursuing pathological policies. The attacks on Iran are an example of those pathological policies. Iran posed no immediate threat to the existence of Israel. That is despite the atrocities that it enables through its proxies. We need to ask whether Israel's Occupation and treatment of the Palestinians is the driving cause for Iran's opposition to the current form of Zionism that Israel passionately embraces. After all, the Occupation serves as camouflage for Israel's often brutal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the land. And Trump joined in Netanyahu's pathological practices by being Israel's tag-team bombing partner in the 12-Day War along with his support for Netanyahu's unconscionable war against Gaza where civilians are daily slaughtered with no remorse. As Rita Corriel wrote in an article on Israel, and this was written a while ago, Israel is showing that they have learned more from their oppressors than from the experience of being oppressed (click here for the article). 

What about Trump? His immigration policies alone show an extreme favoritism toward those who already have more than enough as well as a cruel disposition toward many who emigrated here to escape life-threatening poverty and/or violence in their own countries that are south of the border. His immigration policies not only look to deport people, but to deport many without due process to nations that practice cruelty on its own prisoners. And Trump's deportation of immigrants has not taken sufficient care to distinguish between law-biding immigrants from those with criminal records.

His big beautiful bill shows the same kind and similar level of favoritism as he wants tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of social safety net programs that serve those in need. Trump's tariffs shows his approach to foreign policy to being that of shoot or threaten first hoping that his targets will grovel to make a deal second.

And what Netanyahu and Trump also share is their attempts to use their positions in government to outrun the law with the former having been investigated for corruption and the latter being a convicted felon. Is either one morally superior to Putin who brutally suppresses political support at home and has his military slaughtering civilians in Ukraine?

What leaders like Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu teach us is that the powerful are, on a practical level, above international law while the rest are not. That the powerful only need to make claims about threats and injustices made by the weak in order to move against them without having to rely on international due process to attack. And so here we can conclude that power hungry leaders like Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu need help, not power. But they are getting the latter thanks, in large part, to their enablers.

Thus, we need to avoid being enablers for leaders like Trump and Netanyahu. We could also include Putin and Iran's leader, Ali Khamenei, and a host of others And one way to avoid being such an enablers is to refuse to be opportunistic with the news.

And how can we avoid being opportunistic with the news? One of the first ways by which we can avoid doing so is to be patient. We need to let time tell which claims are true and which ones are false. And that means not being eager to selectively report the first tidbit of news that favors our own agendas and perceptions. The more we let time speak, the more complete will be our knowledge and understanding of the world around us.




Tuesday, April 30, 2024

Jon Stewart Pulls A Noam Chomsky

 My best friend, who is an unbeliever and who is not a political conservative, is partially responsible for my current political direction. I used to be a conservative Republican. As such, I went into teaching computer science at a college. There I met my best friend. We are best friends for two reasons: we experience life 80% to 90% the same way and we always help each other do what is right. One of the most prominent traits of my best friend is her compassion. Perhaps there is only one other person whom I know who has her level of compassion. 

And so a year passed since my best friend and I were working at the same campus--I live a significant distance from that campus--and then  I decided that, because of my best friend's level of compassion, I would read a couple of nonconservative writers to see what I could learn. And so I picked up a book by Martin Luther King Jr and one by Noam Chomsky to read during that summer. What impressed me most about Martin Luther King Jr was his passion for winning people over. On a side note, perhaps our political discussions with others would be more civil if we shared that passion. What impressed me most about Noam Chomsky was his passion for fairness. In particular, he stressed our nation's need to judge itself using the same standards by which it judges other nations. This is another trait that is sorely missing from our world today.

It is this judging others using the same standards that a nation is judging itself is what Stewart channelled in one of his most recent stints on The Daily Show (proceed to the 5:43 mark of the video clip below). 



In that episode, Stewart compared how our nation interpreted and spoke to Russia about its attacking Ukraine with how Israel is attacking Gaza. And what was immediately apparent was the vast disparity over how our nation is responding to the two military actions, or wars if you will. That though there were many similarities between the two conflicts, our nation's leaders spoke one way to Russia, who is an enemy,  and quite another way to Israel, who is an ally. In other words, Stewart seemed to be saying that we need to use the same standards to analyze and respond to both attackers. 

This using the same standards to judge one's ally as one uses to judge one's enemy is but a variation of Chomsky's use of the Principle of Universality (click here for the source):

Among the most elementary of moral truisms is the principle of universality: we apply to ourselves the same standards we do to others, more stringent ones if we are serious. A near-universal principle of intellectual culture is the rejection of this truism, sometimes explicitly.

Only instead of applying the same standards to ourselves, Stewart is made the point that we should apply the same standards to allies as we apply to others.

And what Stewart says later on in the video, the October 7th atrocities committed by Hamas seems not to be the determining factor in how Israel is attacking Gaza.  For in the West Bank, there is Israeli violence against Palestinians, where Hamas is absent, as well as the confiscation of land.

The current blind support that American Zionists, many of the them being my fellow religiously conservative Christians, are giving to Israel would be similar to how G.K. Chesterton used the phrase, 'my mother, drunk or sober' to describe blind patriotism.

Of course the Principle of Universality flies into the face of patriotism, nationalism, and every other kind of tribalism--including the tribalism that can occur between allies. For with tribalism, comes the Principle of Moral Relativity. That principle says that what is right and wrong depends on who is doing what to whom. In addition, we should be able to see that the Principle of Universality aligns itself with the Rule of Law while the Principle of Moral Relativity embraces the Rule of Force. 

The current form of Zionism, there are multiple forms of Zionism, is much like American Exceptionalism. It is passionately embraced by those who pride themselves on patriotism and national identity. And despite the idealistic notions that lovers of Zionism or American Exceptionalism have on their respective nations, in the end, they embrace the rule of force. In other words, those who are strong enough have earned the right to be a bully.

Though I disagree with their goal, there is a group that is challenging the rule of force that is being executed by Israel and enabled by the U.S. That group is the students who are camping out at their colleges in order to move their colleges to divest from Israel. I disagree with their goal because it is too big of a goal to achieve in such a short amount of time. But the students are protesting grave injustices that Israel is committing even though Israel's military actions are in response to the grave injustices it experienced on October 7th, 2023. And for that, the student protesters are being unjustly maligned by the liberal MSM as well as government and college officials. The anti-Semitic actions practiced by a few individuals at those encampments is inexcusable. But those actions are against, not just not a part of, what has been planned by Jews, Arabs, Muslims, and others for the encampments.  

Friday, June 25, 2021

Sometimes Wanting A Return To Normal Shows How Out Of Touch One Can Be

 Last month, Bader Mansour (I could not find a bio on him) wrote a short article that appeared in the Exchange on the Christianity Today website (click here for the article). Mansour is the Executive Director for the Association of Baptist Churches In Israel. 

Mansour's article was a humble request for prayer for six requests. Those requests were:

  1. Pray for peace for all of Jerusalems residents.
  2. Pray that the leaders in the region seek peace so that the Christians there can live 'quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.'
  3. Pray for the relationships between Jews and Arabs in the region, especially the relationships of the young people there.
  4. Pray for the churches and the communities of the church families who live there.
  5. Pray that the Christians there keep their eyes on God
  6. Pray for the faithfulness of the Christians there so that they can be a witness to their neighbors.


What prompted the request for prayer was another horrible outbreak in violence between Israel and the Palestinians. We should note that such outbreaks are always asymmetrical because of the disparity in strength between Israel's defense forces and the Palestinian militant groups. The difference in strength between the two sides is made obvious by the huge difference in the number of casualties suffered by each side and by the truth about who controls whom.

In essence, the prayer lists and the article expressed a desire for a return to normal where the violence practice by both sides was at more acceptable levels with more acceptable levels meaning that the violence was not easily noticeable. Because of The Occupation, there is always violence being practiced.

There are at least two distinct characteristics that are a part of the article and the prayer list besides the humility easily seen in the article. First, there is no mention of The Occupation. With the Occupation comes Israeli control and checkpoints, the continual confiscation of Palestinian land by settlers who feel entitled to it and of natural resources by Israeli forces, and the necessary violence needed to maintain the Occupation.

Basically, The Occupation against the Palestinian people exercised by Israel is at the root of most of the immoral terrorist atrocities conducted by Palestinian resistance fighters. So on one hand, we have the international, illegal Occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel vs. terrorist attacks by Palestinians which could have multiple motivations. The purpose of many of those attacks is to resist The Occupation while the purpose of other terrorist attacks is to undo Israel's Zionism. In either case, what prompts the terrorist attacks is the gross inequity forced on some groups of Arabs. 

And the problem with Mansour's article is that the return to normal that Mansour wants restored is a return to a passive response to The Occupation by the Palestinians. For if the Palestinians are passive while the Occupation continues, then the lives of those in the churches under Mansour's care are less interrupted and disturbed by the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

This troublesome call for a return to normal reminds me of how many of my fellow Americans strongly desire as quick a return as possible to normal from the pandemic. The problem here is that for the marginalized people in America, a return to normal does little to better their lot in life. That is because of the suffering they already undergo from being marginalized. To pray for peace between the Palestinians and Israel without praying for the end of The Occupation is like praying for someone to no longer experience the problems from having cancer without praying for them to be healed from cancer.

Also, when one peruses the prayer list, one notices how much the concerns expressed in the pray list revolve around what immediately benefits the Christians there. The raison d'ĂȘtre for prayer request #2 is for the benefit of Christians, it is not for justice. Similarly, prayer requests #4-6 are all about the welfare of the Church in the light of violent and troubled times. While prayer requests #1 and #3 are for Israelis and Arabs in general, the other prayer requests gives one a feeling that Mansour is requesting prayers for peace is more for the comfort of the churches there than for the end of both inequality there and The Occupation against the Palestinians. 

Is being righteously self-absorbed what has become of the Church?




Friday, December 13, 2019

Losing One's Faith When Sving One's Land

An important personal friend and fellow activist, Rita Corriel, wrote the best analysis of Israel which I have ever come across. In her 2003 article, she claims that in obtaining and securing the Promised Land, those in Israel who support how their government treats the Palestinians have lost their faith (click here for the article). Why is that the case? It is because in obtaining and securing the Promised Land, they made it into a physical idol and thus have had to regard and treat the Palestinians as less than human because they are see as obstacles to the worship of that idol. We should note that that phraseology of Palestinians being less than human was never quoted or cited either in her article or any article I've read which support today's Zionism. But here, actions speak louder than words.

So because the Promised Land has become an object of idol worship, that which was essential to the spirit of Judaism is being  sacrificed. And in how Israel treats the Palestinians, Corriel contends that Israel has learned more from its oppressors than from the 'experience of being oppressed.' And that is true because the way the Promised Land has been worshiped and secured indicates that 'Never Again' does not apply to everyone, especially to those who get in one's way. So she contrasts Israel's treatment of the Palestinians with how the 'Righteous Gentiles,' those Gentiles who chose to shield European Jews from the Nazi Holocaust. She contrasts the Zionist idea of being chosen with the Righteous Gentiles who put their humanity and their following of Universal Law above any other allegiance including their national identity.

One of her strongest points is that in Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, Israel has decided to turn a deaf ear to the world rather than the world turning against Israel. And thus a significant amount of the criticism that Israel receives from the world is not because Israel's Judaism, but because of its lack of Judaism as demonstrated in how it treats the Palestinians.

Now either we could focus solely on Israels' sins here, or we could look into a mirror of truth to see if we have either imitated Israel's sins or we have already set a precedent for Israel's approach to the Promised Land. For there is one thing we should note about Israel's sins against the Palestinians, and yes I know that the Palestinians are not innocent either, that is that Israel's sins are NOT sins peculiar to the Jewish people as defined either religiously or ethnically. Instead, they sins that been practiced by people of other ethnic groups and religious faiths.

To illustrate how Israel's sins against the Palestinians are sins that any group of people could commit or imitate to varying degrees, we Christian Americans can look at our history to see how we share the moral weaknesses demonstrated in how Israel approaches its Promised Land. For from our beginning, many of our national and religious forefathers viewed themselves as a then modern version of Old Testament Israel. Thus they viewed the land as the Promised Land and the indigenous people who lived here as the Canaanites. Our national and religious forefathers thus felt entitled to a land that belonged to others and they did so based on a belief in their own moral and religious superiority. And neither the Native Americans nor the Africans slaves whom they had kidnapped and shipped here were never seen as fully human, as fully equal.

Whereas escaping brutal anti-Semitism and the belief in Zionism became driving forces for some European Jews to pursue the Promised Land, escaping religious persecution caused Christians to come here and their belief in white supremacy eventually created and carried out the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. And here we should note that our fellow Americans who are Black are still trying to obtain a full equality with White Americans.

But there is another parallel here with the analysis Corriel gave of Israel. Many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians claim that America was founded as a Christian nation and are fighting what they perceive as America losing that identity. If we suppose that is true, then we have to wonder whether America has become our physical idol since history shows how we have devalued Native Americans and Blacks in building America and have devalued the LGBT community in our most recent attempt to maintain America as a Christian nation. Thus we have to wonder whether we have sacrificed our faith on the alter of our nationalism.

Certainly Corriel's view of Judaism is different from how many of us religiously conservative Christians have been taught to see Judaism. And part of  her view of spirituality goes against the grain of what we have been taught in Church. But her analysis of Israel's Zionism is the best I've seen and should be read by all. And the similarities we American Christians have in how we have treated others with how Israel has treated the Palestinians raise a host of red flags about the consistency in which we have lived out our faith here.



 



Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Was Ilhan Omar Being Anti-Semitic?

Debating issues on a website where there is considerable amount of group-think produces at least one inescapable observation: that many people use accusations to distract others from the issues at hand. Of course this happens in other places besides on the web.

And so we have to consider whether Ilhan Omar's tweets are anti-Semitic. After all, she made some claims about how things work in Washington and was greeted with accusations. So here, we will be examining two sets of her  tweets (click here and there). The accusation of anti-Semitism was formalized and made official in a resolution that eventually failed in Congress (click here for the resolution). In addition, the feedback that Rep. Omar is receiving is also based on a 2012 statement however I could not find that statement in time to publish this post.

Before any further examination, we must remember that just as location is to real estate so too is context to statements. In the first set of tweets linked to above, the context from which Rep. Omar seems to be speaking was her life and the people around her from both those in and out of Congress and what they have been saying to her.. The context for the second set of tweets linked to above was limited to a journalist and what she observed In Congress.

The Resolution cited above condemned her comments,
without mentioning her by name, as being anti-Semitic because of the following :
  • The history of anti-Semitism
  • The history of America's discriminatory treatment of Japanese-American citizens during WW II and others at other times because of assumptions made about their true loyalties.
  • That anti-Semitism includes hatred of the Jews and that includes the scapegoating of Jews for when things go wrong.
  • That there have been false assumptions made about the loyalty of those with dual citizenships.
  • State Department's working definition of anti-Semitism (click here for that definition)
  • Jewish attempts to control the world

The above tells us that the historical context from which the Resolution was written justifies a certain vigilance against anti-Semitism. But that historical context does not prove the anti-Semitism allegations made against Rep. Omar.

What are we to conclude here? Considering that the first set of Omar's tweets cited above do not refer to the Jews except in a positive light,  nor does it even hint at any questioning of those with dual citizenship or even mention AIPAC and its alleged paying of elected officials, the charges of anti-Semitism seems problematic. The first set of Rep. Omar's tweets revolve around herself and the allegations she faces on a regular basis regarding her loyalty to America because of her questioning of how we should support Israel. \

She states that she should not expected to be loyal to Israel. She also says that she must question America's relationship to Israel. As a result, she faces accusations on a regular basis about her own loyalty to America. This particular set of tweets is more-less a personal defense of her political views on Israel.


What about the State Department's definition of anti-Semitism. Were her first set of tweets anti-Semitic according to its definition of anti-Semitism? Here, we must first note that there are three problems with the State Department's definition. First one sign of anti-Semitism consists of accusing Jewish individuals of being more loyal to Israel than one's own nation. Such a statement is problematic because it implies that no Jewish individuals will be more loyal to Israel than one's own nation. And not only has such an implication never been proven, it is untestable because to test the statement seems to qualify as Anti-Semitism.  Thus, one must accept that criteria without questioning it. Here, we should want to distinguish between questioning an Jewish individual's loyalty based on past and present behavior. But with this part of the State Department's definition of anti-Semitism, we are forbidden to even examine if any Jew's behavior to see if their loyalty to Israel is greater than that person's loyalty to their own country. Certainly, we should never examine without cause. But if there is sufficient evidence to indicate whether an individual is more loyal to Israel than to one's own nation, it should be considered to be anti-Semitic to question one's loyalty.

Now the question becomes this: Did Rep. Omar accuse any Jewish member of Congress of being more or equally loyal to Israel than to the U.S.? Considering that her first set of tweets revolved around her own struggles, the answer has to be no. If when talking about herself, people perceived her as suggesting something about others, there is not much to be done about that. Her tweets regarding others should be regarded as ambiguous at worst rather than clearly anti-Semitic.

The second problem with the State Department's definition of Israel is that it automatically counts any questioning of Israel's right to exist, assuming that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, as anti-Semitic. It should be very problematic for Americans to accept that part of the definition. Why? It is because then Israel would not resemble an American kind of Democracy . For most Americans do not picture the U.S. as being a white, conservative Protestant democracy that is suppose to revolve around a specific ethnic group. But that is how Israel pictures itself. Israel portrays itself as a Democracy but it is one that revolves around the Jewish people and thus it belongs to its Jewish citizens more than it belongs to non-Jewish citizens. Israeli activist whose organization tries to help Palestinians who are being dispossessed from the land, Jeff Halper, calls such a Democracy and ethnocracy. And regardless of what one wants to call it, it certainly doesn't follow Jefferson's spoken prescription for a Democracy--though neither did the Democracy he oversaw when he was the President.
What about the second set of tweets cited above? Again, Rep. Omar makes no reference to the Jewish people. The tweet that might incur the most wrath is the one regarding AIPAC. But that tweet does not even reference the Jewish people in general let alone scapegoat them. However, there is a group of people whom Rep. Omar accuses of wrong doing in the second set of tweets cited from above. That group of people consists of Senators and Congresspeople who have received financial aid/rewards from AIPAC, a lobbying organization. Is accusing elected officials of taking money from AIPAC for voting favors anti-Semitic in and of itself? Shouldn't the answer to that question depend on the accuracy of the accusations? After all, does the mere accusing of an American company like Boeing which employs lobbyists  imply that one anti-Boeing? Again, only the reasonableness of the accusations can answer that question.

A third problem with the State Department's definition of anti-Semitism is not applicable regarding Rep. Omar's tweets and the reaction to those tweets from many of her colleagues.

That Rep. Omar has good reason to tweet what she did in the first set of tweets. Whether her comments about the influence of AIPAC were anti-Semitic depends on the reasonableness, not necessarily the veracity, of her accusations. And instead of addressing her concerns bout AIPAC's influence, the accusation of anti-Semitism was employed to distract people from examining her concerns. Thus, Rep. Omar is not facing reactions that are significantly different from those who express dissenting views on websites where there are high degrees of group think. Rep. Omar is basically facing defensiveness from those who accept money and/or favors from AIPAC and tribalism from those whose loyalty to Israel surpasses their loyalty to their own nation regardless of the citizenships they possess or to absolute morals and principles. And such loyalty is not unique to those who place that loyalty with Israel. Rather, such loyalty is a product of tribalism regardless of the object of one's loyalty.




 





References
  1. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/04/omar-israel-house-democrats-1201881?fbclid=IwAR3FRYGBFf4cijoyyMaCmr5lPUbtFxaxqptgDpsErXI9Xl-uPVYY7iWAlL8
  2. https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1102317234125529088
  3. https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/nothing-semitic-calling/?fbclid=IwAR3WCFoUwZgWdj99x7-AuxhE80AExSLyT3zIeYdoij9OpZrgGdM47qQtYdQ
  4. https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/feb/25/blog-posting/no-members-congress-dont-have-dual-citizenship-isr/

Monday, March 11, 2019

ONIM For March 11, 2019

10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.


Christian News

World News

Israel-Palestine News

Ilhan Omar News

Donald Trump News

Pick(s) Of The Litter

Just For Fun







    Monday, February 18, 2019

    ONIM For February 18, 2019

    10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

    If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.
     
    Christian News

    World News

    Israel-Palestine News

    Donald Trump News

    Pick(s) Of The Litter

    Just For Fun









    Monday, February 11, 2019

    ONIM For February 11, 2019

    10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

    If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.
     
    Christian News


    World News


    Israel-Palestine News

    Donald Trump News


    Pick(s) Of The Litter


    Just For Fun