I received the following from my longtime friend and loyal reader, Larry. It is based on a letter written in France in 1894 by Emil Zola, a French writer of some renown. We believe that the contents of the letter apply to the current mayor of NYC.
In 1894, Colonel Alfred Dreyfus, a French Jew, was falsely accused of treason. The accusation was not justice – it was antisemitism wearing the robes of the state. A courageous writer, Émile Zola, stood up when almost no one else would. He wrote J’Accuse – “I accuse” – and forced a nation to look at what it had done.
Today, the mayor of NYC has turned the Jewish state, the Jewish people, into a collective Dreyfus. In the spirit of Zola, I say to you, Mr. Mayor: J’accuse.
J’accuse you of calling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “the architect of a horrific genocide” – a word chosen not for precision, but for its power to wound and to inflame. J’accuse you of naming a number – of the dead, of the maimed – and offering it as verdict, when the world’s most careful investigators have not yet reached one. J’accuse you of speaking two full minutes about the war in Gaza without once speaking the words October 7th – without once naming the massacre, the rape, the taking of hostages – babies and grandmothers – that began this war. J’accuse you of silence – a silence so complete that anyone hearing you for the first time would never know Hamas exists at all. J’accuse you of a modern blood libel: accusing Israel of murdering Gazans whom Hamas itself murdered, using them as human shields. J’accuse you, in that same breath, of accusing my grandchildren.
When you call the Prime Minister of Israel a war criminal and an architect of genocide, you are not speaking only of one man in Jerusalem. You are speaking of the many thousands of children and grandchildren, brothers and sisters of New Yorkers who serve in the IDF army that defends the Jewish state.
J’accuse you of painting a target on the backs of Jews and of every New Yorker who supports Israel – because words like yours, spoken from the office you hold, do not stay contained. They travel. They are heard by those who already hate us, and they are heard as permission. J’accuse you of finding words for Gaza but none for Iran’s hanged dissidents, none for the churches burned in Nigeria, none for the Uyghurs vanished into camps in China. A conscience that speaks only of Jews and their state, and falls silent before every other cruelty on earth, is not a universal conscience. It is something else – it is antisemitism.
J’accuse you of holding the highest office in the largest Jewish city outside of Israel, and using it to make antisemitism feel official – to make it feel less like hatred and more like policy.
And yet, Mr. Mayor – we have been here before. We are a people with a long and bitter history of being accused. We have been called poisoners of wells, killers of gods, controllers of banks, and now, absurdly, perpetrators of the very crime that was done to us not one lifetime ago. We have heard every accusation there is. And we are still here. Israel – a Jewish state standing alone in a sea of nations that would erase it – is not the crime you make it out to be. It is what a people builds when it refuses to disappear.
Every Passover, at the Seder table, we say these words: she’lo echad bilvad amad aleinu le’chaloteinu – that in every generation, there rise those who seek to destroy us, but the Holy One delivers us from their hands. We say it every year. We will say it again this year. And Mr. Mamdani – for the rest of my life, when I reach that line in the Haggadah, I will think of you. J’accuse.
CONCLUSION
For years the Dems and their allies in the mainstream media have labeled President Trump as “Hitler” simply because they don’t like him personally nor agree with his policies. That characterization is not only false, it is incendiary and a grave insult to those Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust by the real Hitler.
Meanwhile, we have a real “Hitler” in our midst. Comrade Zoh is a communist, not a fascist like Hitler. But in all other respects he is very similar to Hitler. Like Hitler, he hates Jews (and Israel, which as we know did not exist in Hitler’s time). Like Hitler, he has exhibited extremist political, social and economic views. Like Hitler, he wants a country in which the government controls all aspects of everyday life. And like Hitler, he is a glib, charismatic speaker who can mesmerize his audience, particularly if they focus on the style of what he says and not the substance.
None of his campaign promises will succeed. His promises of “free stuff” are a mirage. There is no such thing as free stuff. Somehow, somewhere, someone has to pay for it.
Tag: Israel
SPREAD OF DEM PARTY ANTISEMITISM
As always, the contents of this blog constitute a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.
I have published a multitude of blogs regarding antisemitism, including its origins, its history, its omnipresence and the danger of the false comfort of American Jews. I don’t wish to regurgitate all of that here and now.is It is readily available for those who wish to find it. Rather, the primary theme of this blog will be to illustrate absolutely and definitively the spread of antisemitism in the Dem Party.
As I have written several times antisemitism is not a new phenomenon. It has been omnipresent for thousands of years. Sometimes it has been covert, lurking just below the surface. At other times, such as now, it has burst forth like an erupting volcano.
The radical left wing of the Dem Party and its allies in the mainstream media have been trying, with some success, to portray itself as “socialist” or “progressive.” This is false. They are antisemitic communists who want to blow up the US constitution and the American values of free enterprise, capitalism and freedom of choice that have been a cornerstone of America for 250 years. This is not hyperbole. This is not exaggeration. This is not political postering. They have blatantly and openly espoused these goals. They have been published all over the internet and are easily researched if one cares to look. There policies are reminiscent of Soviet Russia back in the day and could have been written by Karl Marx.
In that vein the recent primary results are most disturbing. Dozens of radical candidates have defeated moderate, veteran Dems. They are aggressive, well-organized and well-funded. They have taken full advantage of the reality that less that half of voters bother to vote in off-year elections, and even fewer in primaries. In some blue jurisdictions a primary victory is tantamount to election. It’s important to note that although these candidates may differ in some degree regarding the radical nature of their policies they are all united in their hatred of Israel and Jews.
For example, the victor in the Michigan Senate primary, Abdul El-Sayad, boasts as one of his principal supporters prominent social media activist Hasan Piker, a notorious, unabashed antisemite who once blogged that America “deserved 9/11.” In my opinion Piker’s reputation will be a liability in the general election. I am not the only one who feels that way. Commentators such as Neera Tanden, the head of the Center for American Progress, has opined that Piker would “alienate general election voters” and provide GOP Mike Rogers a “path to victory” in the general election. Another of El-Sayad’s supporters is Mohammad Bager Oazwini, a Muslim cleric based in Dearborn, MI, who, in a sermon, celebrated Senator Lindsey Graham’s death, wished the same for President Trump and blamed them for fomenting “genocide” in Gaza.
And then there is the candidate for governor of Wisconsin, Francesca Wong, who has advocated the elimination of Thanksgiving. She is so “out there” that Bernie Sanders has declined to endorse her.
As a final example we have James Talarico, Dem candidate for Senate in Texas. He is locked in a close race with Attorney General Ken Paxton. Apparently, the voters have forgotten or chosen to ignore Talarico’s previous comments such as housing illegals to prevent deportation, denigrating ICE, his comments in 2021 that there are “six chromosome variations” (widely interpreted as “six genders,”) and accusing schools of “Christo-fascism.”
I expect that in campaigning for the general election these three and others will do what extremists always do, that is moderate or “spin” their positions, claim they were misquoted, and deny they said what they said even though it is one tape. Unfortunately, this gaslighting often works, and then following the election the candidate reverts back to his or her true policies. The most recent example of this would be Virginia governor Abigail Spanberger.
Let’s not forget comrade Zo. His latest inanity was threatening to arrest Netanyahu if and when he came to NYC. After he realized he lacked the legal standing to do that he backed off. However, his anti-Netanyahu/anti-Israel/antisemitic rhetoric have stirred up the legion of anti-Israel, anti-Netanyahu and antisemitic activists in advance of the upcoming UN meetings. In my view the result will be massive demonstrations and possible violence.
CONCLUSION
The results of the recent primaries highlight the continuing surge of the radical left wing of the Dem Party. The moderate Dems and the independents continue to aid and abet this by ignoring the grim reality. They are the majority and have the ability to crush this movement, but they continue to appease. This is akin to feeding a hungry lion in the hope that it will not eat you. Eventually, however, you run out of food, and it does eat you.
The much balleyhooed “big tent” theory is a sham. As I denoted in detail in my blogs “The Camel’s Nose” and the “Trojan Horse” the radicals have no interest in sharing. They want nothing less than a complete takeover, first of the Dem Party, then of the country. It’s not too late to stop them, but as Yogi Berra once said “it gets late early.”
U. S.-IRAN MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING
As always, the contents of this blog constitute a compendium of various media communications supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.
The recently distributed 14-point Memo of Understanding between the US and Iran has drawn significant controversy. Everyone has an opinion. Comments and opinions have ranged from extremely positive (Trump, Vance and Rubio) to extremely negative, if not derisive (among most Dems, much of the media and even some Repubs). All this, and the ink is barely dry on the document.
In my opinion, people have to take a deep breath and recognize the MOU for what it is and what it is not. It is not a peace agreement. Essentially, what it is is a 60-day cease fire agreement, nothing more, nothing less, and it should be evaluated as such. Moreover, don’t be surprised if the 60-day limit gets extended, perhaps multiple times.
I believe it would be of little value to delve into the weeds of the MOU at this time. Suffice to say, the wording is vague and needs to be refined. Also, some key issues have been omitted, such as (1) Iran’s sponsoring of so-called “proxies” and (2) Israel’s separate war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, or require clarification, such as (1) the treatment of the $300 billion of “frozen” Iranian funds, (2) the details of the collection, disposal, and/or destruction of Iran’s nuclear dust, and (3) the verification process of various matters.
I wouldn’t characterize the MOU as “not worth the paper it is printed on” as some have. Rather, it should be evaluated as a first step in the peace negotiation process. I will denote, however, that it is a bad deal for Israel. It doesn’t address its major concerns with respect to Iran or its proxies. Some supporters, including me, would even characterize it as a betrayal of our staunchest ally in the ME.
I expect all parties to interpret elements of it differently. There is enough in it for both sides to interpret it as a “victory.” Hopefully, these issues will be ironed out sufficiently. Remember, as I opined in a previous blog the “devil is in the details.”
In the short-term I think the most significant matter is the opening of the Hormuz Strait. It will get the oil flowing, which will produce positive tangible results of lower energy prices for both businesses and consumers and ultimately improve the economy. As I have discussed in previous blogs the mid-term elections are approaching, and history tells us that the number one issue for voters is always the economy. Indeed, recent surveys have identified the number one issue for voters as affordability and the cost of living e.g. putting food on the table, paying the mortgage or rent, and healthcare. The Iran War and other key matters are simply not as important to most voters at the present time. Many of them have limited knowledge of the issues and are blissfully unaware of Iran’s nuclear threat.
Conclusion
I have significant misgivings concerning the current iteration of the peace process. I feel like we are missing our one chance to deal decisively with Iran once and for all. I fear that the vague wording of the MOU will yield a long, drawn-out peace treaty negotiation process. This will enable Iran to do what it has always done – lie, cheat, obfuscate, and delay, delay, and delay some more until US public opinion forces us to accept an agreement that does not meet all of our objectives.
As a means of defending the MOU President Trump has reiterated that if Iran fails to “live up” to its end of the MOU he can and will resume military action. Sounds great, but I foresee problems with that. At what point would an Iranian transgression be serious enough to warrant military action? For example, suppose Iran were to resume impeding the flow of oil through the Hormuz Strait or support a terrorist attack by one of its cells in the US or by Hezbollah against Israel. Would any of those actions be deemed sufficient to trigger additional military action? Resuming military action would be a drastic step and would be very unpopular with our allies and even worse, with the voters especially this close to the midterms. Furthermore, I believe Iran will test the US’s resolve by committing a series of “minor” violations.
Finally, and most significantly, although Iran fears and respects Trump he will not be president forever. Iran can take the long view. Eventually, the US will elect a president with less fortitude and with a more flexible attitude toward Iran and the ME in general. Then, I fear, Iran will be able to take advantage.
IRAN PEACE DEAL. THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.
As always, the contents of this blog constitute a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.
Apparently, after several months of fighting and several weeks of on and off negotiations Iran and the US have agreed on a deal to end hostilities. (Sort of, maybe, kind of, perhaps.) Vice President J. D. Vance said the U.S. signed a peace agreement with Iran “digitally” on Sunday. He characterized it as a major step toward peace. He stated the deal “ensures that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon,” the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened, and none of the frozen funds has been released to Iran yet. He added the deal would “change the Middle East” (predicated on Iran’s compliance with it). Major allies, including France, Germany, Italy, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom praised the announcement and agreed “to lift relevant sanctions in response to clear, verifiable steps by Iran on its nuclear program.”
At first blush, this is good news, however, given Iran’s negotiating history I wouldn’t get too excited yet. I, for one, am skeptical. Even after the final agreement has been signed as planned, I will remain skeptical. I just don’t trust Iran to live up to whatever agreement it signs. In my opinion it will lie, obfuscate and cheat. Moreover, I am not the only one who has expressed that opinion. Independent verification of compliance to the terms of any agreement will be crucial.
The initial reaction of the financial markets has been very positive. Both US and foreign markets have posted sizeable gains. The price of U.S. crude oil declined over 5% in early Monday trading to around $80 per barrel, while international Brent crude fell about 4.5% to $83 per barrel. For both benchmarks, these levels were the lowest since the first week of March, just days after the war with Iran commenced. Heating oil declined 3%, while wholesale gasoline prices dropped 4%. Natural gas futures fell 3%. This was in addition a 6% decrease in oil prices during last week in anticipation of an agreement. In addition, I have noticed a drop in the price of gas at the pump, which is very discernible to voters.
Not everyone is so ebullient. For example, various Israeli officials have criticized the deal. Israel has consistently been more aggressive toward Iran than the US and, given their hostile history, for good reason. Prime Minister Netanyahu has yet to comment on it (the word is he hasn’t been provided a copy yet, which is curious since Israel has been our principal ally in this war), but Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz stated that IDF forces will not be withdrawing from Lebanon despite whatever the deal may say. That could be significant as discussed below.
Many news outlets are referring to the deal as “preliminary,” which is disquieting in and of itself. Even VP JD Vance, in an interview with CNBC, described the agreement as but “a major step towards peace,” not a “done deal.” In addition, he declined to divulge specific details of the deal. Again, the devil is in the details. The full text of the agreement has not been made available yet, which is suspicious in and of itself. But emerging details have suggested that some of the most difficult issues, including the fate of Iran’s nuclear program, have been deferred to future rounds of negotiations. Absent a resolution of the central issues how can the negotiators maintain that there is a deal?
In my view we are still a long way from a final agreement. There are a plethora of issues and details that still remain to be finalized. I will outline some of these below. As I said in the title, the devil is in the details. For instance:
- According to many analysts and commentators it is likely that negotiators on each side will interpret the vague language differently, either intentionally or unintentionally leading to misunderstandings and worse.
- It does not address, in sufficient detail, the US’s primary objectives of the war, namely eliminating Iran’s prospective nuclear capabilities, the surrender and disposal of its “nuclear dust,” and Iran’s terminating its support of “proxy” terrorist groups. Those were the main purposes of the war. Any deal that excludes acquiescence with respect to those issues would be worthless.
- The United States and Iran have reached a preliminary agreement to cease hostilities for 60 days, but how will the cease fire be monitored, by whom, what will constitute a violation, and what will be the penalties for said violations? And what of the ongoing hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon? Iran has continually insisted that that conflict must be included in any deal, in which case the cease fire would already have been violated, whereas the US has insisted it is a separate matter.
- Since its commencement on February 28, the war has not produced many of the results President Trump had vowed to achieve, such as overthrowing Iran’s autocratic, theocratic leadership and liberating its citizens, which are among the most oppressed in the world. Will those issues be included in any deal or not?
- The language regarding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is extremely vague. For example, when will it reopen? Who will ensure all the mines have been removed or destroyed? Who will govern the passage of ships through it? Will Iran be precluded from charging fees or not?
- There are questions regarding the US’s blockade of Iranian shipping. The U.K. Maritime Trade Operations Group, which acts as the chief point of contact for merchant ships liaising with military forces in the region, warned that the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports will remain in effect until the peace deal with Iran has been signed. The UKTMO then followed up with a memo warning all vessels not to attempt a crossing until “explicit direction is given” (presumably by them and presumably not until the cease fire is in effect).
Conclusion
President Trump has invested a considerable amount of military assets, time, money, materials, goodwill, prestige and political capital in this venture. His overriding objective that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon is a righteous one. However, apparently, we are still a long way from a final settlement that the US and its allies in this war can live with. It is crucial that we attain our objectives. This will likely be our one and only chance to resolve this issue. Trump will not be president forever, and there are no assurances that his successor(s) will have the nerve, the fortitude and the domestic and worldwide support that Trump presently has to see this through.
Due to the foregoing, I would characterize this as merely the first step toward a lasting peace agreement, nothing more. That’s fine as far as it goes, but there is still much to do. The situation is very fluid. By the time you read this it may very well have changed.
Due to the impending midterm elections, I believe these negotiations need to show tangible results quickly. I further believe that the short-term key is the reopening of the Hormuz Strait. That will lead to the free flow of energy and a reduction of the cost to businesses and consumers alike. The price of energy affects the cost of all goods and services. Remember history has demonstrated repeatedly that the number one issue for voters in every election is the economy.
.
DON’S DEFICIENT DEAL
As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.
Obviously, I have no inside knowledge of the ongoing peace negotiations among the US, Iran, Israel, and other interested parties. All I know is what I have read in the news and seen on tv. The following opinions and comments are based on that.
As most of you know, I have been an avid Trump supporter since 2016. I haven’t agreed with everything he has said and done but based on his many accomplishments I have always given him the benefit of the doubt. All that said, I am appalled at the terms of the proposed peace agreement as disclosed to date. For months Trump has reiterated that the purposes of the war were (1) to prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon; (2) Iran must surrender its cache of enriched uranium; (3) there must be a reliable methodology to independently verify Iran’s compliance with #s 1 and 2; and (4) Iran must allow all ships free and unfettered passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
There are significant inconsistencies with respect to this “deal.” Trump has been saying that a deal to “end the war” has been “largely negotiated.” Only some details remain to be resolved, and they will be announced “shortly.” In addition: (1) Iran is reportedly committing to abandon the pursuit of developing nuclear weapons; (2) it is negotiating the surrender of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium; and (3) the Hormuz Strait will be reopened completely. In return, (1) Iran would be able to resume free oil sales; and (2) billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets would be released contingent upon reaching a final nuclear agreement.
Sounds promising, except just today an Iranian spokesperson issued a statement that totally contradicts Trump’s statement. He told a USA Today reporter anonymously that Iran has NOT committed to giving up its stockpile of enriched uranium as part of any settlement. Furthermore, Iran’s Fars news agency reported early Sunday that any agreement would have to continue to allow Iran to retain control of the Strait of Hormuz; Iran is continuing to deny claims that it has pursued or is pursuing nuclear weapons other than for “peaceful purposes,” and it has the right to do so; and it wants an end to the U.S. blockade on its ports and the lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil sales.
Also, what will be the procedures for inspections of nuclear sites. For example, who will perform them, how often, will they be surprise visits or scheduled, will the inspectors have complete and unfettered access, and what will be the penalties for noncompliance. Truly, the devil is in the details. Does the foregoing sound like an agreement is “imminent,” and just a few “details” remain to be ironed out? I think not.
Trump’s and Iran’s positions are miles apart with significant unresolved differences. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be true. Since Iran’s militant leadership has adamantly and consistently stated it would never give up its stockpile of enriched uranium I believe it is more likely that its statements are more accurate.
One glaring omission from the proposed deal is Iran’s ballistic missiles program. Its missiles represent a clear and present danger. Iran already possesses missiles that can reach all of Europe. It will not be long before it develops missiles that can reach parts of the US as well.
There is also the matter of Israel, which may have different goals and a different attitude toward Iran and its proxies. In my view, there are signs that Israel is more cognizant of the dangers Iran and its proxies still present. Indeed, Israeli media has reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had told President Trump that Israel must “maintain the freedom to act against all threats, including in Lebanon.” I’m not sure if this signifies a slight difference between Trump and Netanyahu or an actual rift.
Conclusion
History tells us that Iran has consistently negotiated in bad faith. Its representatives say one thing and do another. Their negotiating strategy has been to lie, obfuscate, deceive and delay, delay and then delay some more. This strategy has been very successful for 47 years with multiple Administrations. Trump has repeatedly denigrated these negotiating tactics and derided those who have fallen for them. Yet, it appears that he may be falling into the same trap.
If we were to agree to Iran’s current terms the war will have failed to accomplish any of our main objectives. In fact, I could make a case that we would be worse off. Iran would still have its stockpile of enriched uranium; we would not be certain that all of its nuclear material was destroyed; we would have expended a goodly portion of our weaponry; Trump would have dissipated much of his political capital; and many people would perceive Iran to be the winner thus raising its status and diminishing ours in the eyes of the world.
Finally, let’s not forget that we won the war, not Iran. Thus, we should be dictating terms not getting bogged down in prolonged negotiations with murky details. Trump has said he is reluctant to attack in force. He wants to give the negotiations a chance. He wants to avoid killing innocent Iranians. I agreed up to a point, but we are well past that point. The longer these negotiations drag on the more it will hurt our economy. When all is said and done elections are always about the economy. A problematic economy will likely spell defeat in the midterm elections. Remember, America first!
These negotiations have not and will not bear fruit. It’s time to lay down the hammer and end this once and for all.
ANTISEMITISM IN AMERICA
The contents of this blog are a compendium of various media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.
Antisemitism is not a new phenomenon. In my view, its roots go back thousands of years, and it has persisted to the present day. At times, it has been covert, hidden below the surface like a simmering volcano. At other times, it has erupted suddenly and violently, often precipitated by a misfortune such as a famine, a plague, or the king’s desire to divert criticism away from him onto someone else. An example of this overt violence would be the pogroms, which essentially were organized violent riots against Jews, that occurred chiefly in Eastern Europe and Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Kristallnacht in 1938 in Germany was an example with which most of you are familiar.
In my opinion, there are various reasons why some people hate Jews, but they all boil down to one commonality. Jews are different. Not better nor worse, just different. Not all of them, but enough of them to feed into the stereotypes. Many of them look different and dress differently. They have an entirely different culture; they worship a different God, and on Saturdays rather than Sundays; they speak a separate language, and until recently they often resisted assimilating. Many people hate and mistrust those who are “different.” (See the historical treatment of Blacks, Hispanics, Gypsies and Kurds, among others.)
Throughout history, due to ignorance, certain myths and stereotypes have taken hold, i.e. Jews are loud, arrogant, noisy, cheap, eat Christian babies and, worst of all, killed Christ, to name a few. Many of those who feel that way have rarely if ever even met a Jew, much less spent time with one. As recently as the early 1960s a Jewish friend of mine was asked by an acquaintance if she could touch her hair to “feel her horns.” An acquaintance of another friend requested to look inside her refrigerator. Why? She wanted to see if the friend kept Christian babies in it. In modern times these myths and stereotypes have dissipated somewhat but not disappeared.
In America Jews have grown too comfortable. They feel safe and secure. They are not cognizant of the degree of antisemitism extant among the general population. Recent events, such as the conflicts in the ME between Israel and Muslim terrorist organizations, have caused it to erupt into the open most violently. Many espouse hatred of Israel as “cover” for antisemitism. Many of our politicians, leaders and other influential people have failed to condemn this, and some have even openly supported it. For example, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is Jewish and represents a heavily Jewish populace, has not only remained silent but he also has been openly hostile to Israel and its President Benjamin Netanyahu; NYC just elected an openly antisemitic socialist/communist as mayor, and in Maine Dem US Senate candidate Graham Platner sports what appears to be a Nazi tattoo on his chest.
The recent surge in antisemitic incidents in the US commenced in the wake of the heinous terrorist attacks by Muslims against Israelis on October 7, 2023. In 2025 the Anti-Defamation League, which monitors acts of hostility against Jews, recorded in excess of 6,000 incidents for the year including harassment, vandalism, physical assaults, destruction of property, rape and murder. The ADL’s report disclosed the following breakdown:
- Total incidents – 6,274, the third most for any year.
- Violent attacks – 203 (a record), 32 of which involved a “deadly weapon.” According to the NY Post NYS accounted for 44% of these.
- Fatalities – At least three.
- Physical assaults rose to the highest total since 1979.
- States with the most incidents – New York (1,160), California (817), and New Jersey (687).
- Most targeted areas – schools, synagogues, and public spaces.
Additionally, according to the ADL some 45% of these incidents were linked to Israel or Zionism. Many perpetrators use Israel or Zionism as “cover” or “code” for antisemitism much like segregationists in the South in the “Jim Crow” period espoused “states’ rights” as code for bigotry.
The list of antisemitic hate crimes is too extensive to list them all here. Hardly a day goes by without incidents, but according to the NY Post some recent ones just in the NYC area include:
- In Williamsburg a Jewish woman was dragged to the ground by her hair and tossed into a pile of trash.
- In Brooklyn a man knocked on his Jewish neighbor’s door and told him: “We didn’t kill enough of you Jews.”
- A group chased two Jews with a knife while yelling “Heil Hitler” and “Free Palestine.”
- There were a plethora of incidents in which vandals scrawled swastikas and hateful messages on windows, businesses, cars and garage doors owned by Jews as well as on various synagogues.
In addition to the foregoing there are the ongoing incidents of harassment, assault and verbal attacks prevalent on college campuses. I have described these in a series of blogs over the past two years. It is an engrained part of the college culture created and sustained by college administrators, professors and students. Despite an initial burst of publicity, the Federal government has done little to rectify this. The Ivy League schools are the worst, but they are by no means the only ones.
It is so omnipresent that many Jewish students are loath to wear anything that identifies them as Jewish such as a Star of David or a yarmulka. That is so sad. I don’t understand why a Jewish parent would send their child to any of these schools. Why pay up to $100,000 a year to have your child endure that hateful atmosphere. There are a multitude of equally outstanding schools that are far more tolerant.
Conclusion
I could go on and on. I could write a book about this topic and not cover it in the detail it deserves. Hate and intolerance by some against certain groups have long been engrained in our society. Sadly, I believe it is part of human nature. Some people feel compelled to blame others for their own inadequacies or sad circumstances of their own life. I believe that although it can and has, at times, been controlled or mitigated it can never be eradicated.
Finally, a word of caution to American Jews. Compared to other countries they have had it good. They have enjoyed the protection of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That said, I fear that Jews have grown too complacent. They can’t imagine that what they have taken for granted can be snatched away in the blink of an eye. The current rise of the far-left socialists and communists is a foreboding portent. Remember, before the rise of the Nazis German Jews had been living comfortably in Germany for some 500 years. They were prosperous and safe. Many of them had become an integral part of the financial, political, economic and social fabric of the country. We all know how that ended.
ENOUGH ALREADY
As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.
Like many of you I have become extremely frustrated by the lack of progress regarding the negotiations between Iran and the US. As you know, we quickly and easily defeated Iran militarily, destroyed its Navy, killed several layers of its leadership, knocked out its communications systems and have been choking its economy through the blockade of the Hormuz Strait. Some of you may recall that in a previous blog I opined that the military victory was the easy part. Now comes the hard part – winning the peace.
Negotiations have dragged on for weeks. At the present time, they are at a virtual standstill. We have made our demands clear, which include, among other things, no nuclear weapons, no enriched uranium, cease fomenting terrorism, and allowing free and unfettered passage through the Hormuz Strait. These are non-negotiable. They are the main reasons for the war in the first place. If we don’t get them, we will have wasted our time, money, and political capital for nothing.
Iran has not made any meaningful, substantive counteroffer. It is not even clear that its negotiators have the authority to agree to a legitimate deal and enforce Iran’s side of it. Iran continues to insist it will not negotiate the above issues. Instead, it wants to discuss the possible reopening of the Hormuz Strait, which, under international law, it had no legal authority to close in the first place. Its latest proposal called for the complete withdrawal of US forces from the area as a prerequisite for further negotiations. Naturally, Trump dismissed this sham proposal out of hand, characterizing it as “unacceptable.”
In my opinion Iran has no intention of acceding to our demands. Its strategy is what it has always been, delay, delay, delay and delay some more. And, from their point of view, why not? This “rope-a-dope” strategy has been successful every time with previous Administrations. Iran is betting that at some point public opinion, the rising price of oil, and the impending midterm elections will pressure the US negotiators to accept an inferior deal. Currently, according to the AAA the price of oil at the pump is hovering in the $4.50 range, and history tells us it will increase even further over the Memorial Day weekend. Before the war the price averaged $3.00. This is unacceptable.
Oddly enough whereas our allies are mostly supporting the Administration’s war efforts it has been getting strong (and inane, I might add) criticism from the Dem Party politicians, their allies in the media, and the anti-Israel/antisemites. Many Dem politicians have been characterizing the war as “illegal” due to the absence of Congressional approval and “reckless.” For example, Senator Tammy Duckworth and Rep. John Garamendi have characterized the war as a “quagmire.”
One problem for the Administration has been the contradictory messaging. For example, Trump has always described the war as a “short excursion” that would end in a “matter of weeks.” It has been almost three months, and the end does not appear to be in sight. Indeed, recently White House deputy press secretary, Anna Kelly told Fox News that Trump “is not in a rush” to end the war.
The latest Pew Research poll disclosed that Americans now disapprove of the war by 61% to 37%. This is exactly what the Iranians are banking on. In my opinion this level of disapproval will increase if the negotiations continue to drag on and the price of oil remains high, in which case it would likely impact the midterm elections.
Conclusion
Normally, I agree with Trump’s policies and actions. With respect to the Iran War, I agree it was necessary for all the reasons that have been cited in my previous blogs and elsewhere. I applaud his desires to try to reach a negotiated settlement to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. However, in my view the negotiations have gone on long enough.
It is clear to me that Iran will never agree to cease its nuclear ambitions, surrender its enriched uranium, allow free and unfettered access through the Hormuz Strait, nor cease fomenting terrorism throughout the ME and the world. Trump gave negotiations a chance. It’s becoming apparent that they will not culminate in a satisfactory deal.
I say, don’t fall for the “rope-a-dope.” Why are we negotiating anyway? We won; they lost. This should be an unconditional surrender where we tell them what we want and they comply, or else.
This may be our one and only chance to settle things with Iran in a manner that ensures a non-nuclear future. I say, stop “pussyfooting around.” Now, is the time to “drop the hammer.” I say employ any and all means to confiscate the enriched uranium, verify that Iran’s nuclear program has ended, and open the Hormuz Strait.
Enough already! We are on the one-yard line. Punch it in!
PROJECT FREEDOM
As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.
Negotiations have gone on long enough. They are at a standoff. The time has come to act. It’s clear that the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith. They are doing what they have always done – stall, stall, and stall some more. This “rope-a-dope” has worked for years, and they are hoping it will work again. They are banking on political pressure from within the US, and they are getting it. Trump is being criticized for his handling of the war, the price of oil, and the rate of inflation. He is losing popularity, and the midterms are coming soon.
The Iranians have not and are not going to agree to our core demands. We don’t even know that the Iranians with whom we are negotiating have the power and authority to negotiate. We are receiving conflicting information. Who’s in charge? Is it the politicians? Is it the military? Is it the Ayatollah? Is the Ayatollah alive, dead or incapacitated? Is a small cadre of close advisors making decisions in his name? (This is eerily similar to the Biden presidency.)
As I have opined in previous blogs in my view, President Trump’s prosecution of the war has been flawless to date. In a matter of weeks our military has destroyed Iran’s nuclear capability, its military, its infrastructure, its communication systems and its economy. Militarily, the war a complete mismatch akin to an NFL team playing against a high school team.
Now, comes the harder part. We won the war; now we have to win the peace, which will be largely fought in the court of public opinion both in the US and abroad. Now, the overriding goal is to bring down the price of oil and hence the inflation rate. The blockade of the Hormuz Strait was a wise attempt to force Iran to surrender without additional loss of lives – ours and theirs. Trump was being considerate of the Iranian people who have suffered greatly and are continuing to do so. That is to his credit. Unfortunately, the blockade has not opened up the Strait. It has not revitalized the flow of oil. Americans are suffering and getting mad.
Now, Trump must take more decisive action. He has a plethora of choices ranging from continuing diplomacy to “letting the dogs loose,” i. e. resuming massive bombing and/or taking Kharg Island. We don’t have to “bomb Iran back to the Stone Age.” Just take control of its oil.
Wisely, he has chosen a “middle of the road” response. Just today he has initiated one of the mildest possible actions dubbed “Project Freedom” whereby US Navy ships will commence escorting commercial oil tankers through the strait. Many of these tankers are owned and operated by neutral countries who have had no part in the war. Nevertheless, they have been stuck outside the strait since the war began. At this point their crews are running low on fuel, food and other necessities. Trump said these countries have been requesting the US for assistance. The situation grew more critical over the weekend as Iranian boats attacked one of these ships. Additional attacks are feared. If this action does not work, he can always proceed with one of the more aggressive actions.
Several observers, such as Retired General Jack Keane, have been advocating for military action to resolve the Iran problem once and for all. There is merit to that position. This will probably be our one and only shot. We have a president who has the guts to do what’s right, not what is politically expedient. Unfortunately, Trump will not be president forever. His successors might be less assertive. Moreover, let’s not forget, we have three carrier groups in the area and thousands of jets and troops. We can do whatever we want.
Conclusion
Domestic support for the war is dwindling. Trump knows the midterm elections are only six months away. Politically speaking, this war must be resolved before then.
When all is said and done, the top issue for voters is the economy. Elections are always about the economy. Thanks to the rhetoric of the Dems and their allies in the media a goodly portion of voters are not even cognizant of the seriousness of the existential threat of a nuclear-capable Iran. They are unaware of the objective of the war and are questioning its necessity.
People are suffering, and they are mad. They don’t care about Iran. All they focus on is the high price of oil, now as high as $115 per barrel and $4.46 at the pump for a gallon of regular. Before the war it was significantly lower. Prices, in general, are high. They are reminded every time they gas-up their car, go food shopping, or pay the rent or mortgage. Naturally, they blame Trump for all of it.
As of early May 2026, President Trump’s approval ratings, heavily impacted by the economy, inflation and the war, have hit new second-term lows. For example, the most recent ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos Poll disclosed his approval to be just 37% and his disapproval at 62%. Unless these ratings rebound Republicans will likely lose control of one or both house of Congress. In that event Trumps’ program will be thwarted and he will likely be impeached again.
It’s time to focus on the needs of the American people, not those of the Iranian people. It’s time for Trump to refocus on his famous mantra – “America First.”
TRUMP’S STRANGLE STRATEGY
As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.
I like President Trump’s current strategy to blockade Iranian shipping attempting to navigate the Strait of Hormuz. At this stage of the war, it is the best strategy. I prefer it over the alternatives such as additional massive bombing of Iran’s oil wells or agreeing to a peace settlement that falls short of the primary objectives of the war, which for those who may have forgotten is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weaponry.
The obvious objective of the blockade is to strangle Iran’s economy by depriving it of its sole source of revenue – oil. Normally, some 80% of Iran’s oil and 20% of the world’s oil and liquid natural gas passes through the Strait. It is the best and most expeditious route for these products to transit between the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. As I write this, the blockade has generally been very effective even though a few ships have managed to sneak through.
Iran has no alternative sources of revenue. It has no other natural resources, no manufacturing to speak of, and certainly no tourism. All it has is huge deposits of oil, which heretofore have sustained its economy and funded its desire to foment terrorism throughout the ME and the rest of the world through various proxies.
According to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth all ships (some 34 in total) traveling to or from Iranian ports have been “turned around without incident.” Moreover, the blockade has been expanding. As I write this, the US now has three carrier groups in the region. Hegseth added “just this week, we seized two Iranian ‘dark fleet’ ships in the Indo-Pacific region that had left Iranian ports before the blockade went into effect.” Furthermore, in posts on his Truth Social platform Trump claimed: “Iran is collapsing financially! [It] want[s] the Strait of Hormuz opened immediately. [It is] starving for cash! [It is] [l]osing about $500 million a day.” Recently, it was reported that Iran has about 127 million barrels of crude oil reserves that are stored in parked tankers. That sounds like a lot, but in truth it will not last long. But that doesn’t mean that the blockade wouldn’t hurt Iran,” he said.
For various reasons a goodly portion of congresspersons and other critics has opposed the war from its inception. As I explained in previous blogs they fall into four categories: (1) those with a political agenda whether or not it is beneficial to America, (2) “never Trumpers,” who blindly and automatically oppose any action or policy Trump undertakes, (3) antisemites and anti-Israel critics, and (4) those who are misinformed by the “fake news” media and/or ignorant of or choose to ignore the lessons of history. These categories of vociferous naysayers include many Dem politicians such as Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Gavin Newsome, Kamala Harris and AOC, who should know better. Perhaps, some or all of them should brush up on their knowledge of history.
On May 1 the Trump Administration may face a Congressional challenge with respect to the continued deployment of the military in Iran. Some Congresspersons have opined that the duration of the US’s military campaign against Iran is limited by the War Powers Act of 1973, which mandates that a President commence military withdrawal after 60 days unless Congress either declares war, authorizes the specific action, or extends the deadline. Congress has not taken either action and is unlikely to do so.
The Administration has “pushed back” claiming there is “no firm deadline for ending the conflict as it has not formally characterized the campaign as a “war.” Consequently, congressional approval is not required. The 60th day is May 1. We’ll have to see how this matter is resolved. It may require a ruling by SCOTUS.
Conclusion
The blockade has been opposed by the usual suspects as detailed above. Due to their ten-year record of lies, exaggerations and obfuscations that have invariably been ultimately debunked their opinion no longer has any credence if it ever did.
In my opinion, however, it has proven to be a very successful strategy. It has strangled Iran’s economy by depriving it of some $500 million of oil revenue per day. As a result, in addition to not having any nuclear weapons or an effective military Iran’s economy and finances are being severely degraded. It has nothing. NOTHING.
At this point, we don’t have to fight. We don’t have to risk American lives. We can just sit back and watch Iran strangle to death unless it accepts our terms.
THE HARD WAY OR THE EASY WAY
As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.
As I write this blog the US is attempting to arrange round two of peace negotiations with Iran. Predictably, round one did not yield any meaningful results. As always, the Iranian negotiators were not negotiating in good faith. Obviously, they did not have the power and the authority to do so seriously. Since then, it has become apparent that the country is in turmoil. There is a power struggle between the politicians who seem willing to be realistic and reasonable and the military, which is not. There is no clearcut leader, so a meaningful, lasting deal cannot be consummated.
Despite all the fake news characterizing President Trump as a reckless, heartless, warmonger the empirical evidence clearly illustrates that he wants a peaceful resolution to this war. Iran has been thoroughly and completely defeated militarily. At the moment, it is “circling the drain” financially and economically. Its navy has been destroyed; its nuclear weaponry and nuclear “dust,” Trump’s term to describe Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile and residual nuclear material currently buried under tons of debris that could be retrieved and “enriched” to make nuclear bombs have been neutralized; its leadership has been virtually wiped out; its communications systems are “shot;” its economy is destroyed; and the US’s blockade of the Hormuz Strait is preventing any ships from entering or leaving its ports. In short, Iran is completely helpless. It is at our mercy. Trump could, as he has said, bomb it back to the stone age. For them, continuing the war would be futile and suicidal.
I believe further negotiations would be a “fool’s errand.” It would provide Iran with another opportunity to lie, delay and obfuscate and turn public opinion in its favor. It’s what they have always done and what they will continue to do. They are not in any position to negotiate terms. Their choices are to (1) surrender and accept our terms unconditionally (the easy way) or (2) continue to resist and be annihilated (the hard way). At this point most countries would accept reality and opt for the easy way in order to retain some semblance of viability.
However, Iran’s leadership is dominated by fanatical religious zealots who have espoused the destruction of Israel, the US, and any other “non-believers.” We have to understand that they have no desire to negotiate a lasting peace treaty. They would rather fight to the end and die as martyrs. They have been attacking Israel, the US and others and fomenting terrorism through their proxies for 47 years. They have tried to assassinate Trump at least twice. They have no empathy for anyone, even their own citizenry who have been suffering greatly. After all, they have already slaughtered tens of thousands of them merely for the “crime” of protesting. They will fight to the last man. I applaud Trump for continually attempting to forge a lasting peaceful solution, but the time to “lower the boom” once and for all is approaching rapidly. The current situation is untenable. It is hurting Americans economically and, by extension, the GOP’s prospects for the midterm elections. In my view, Iran is akin to a cancer that must be extirpated.
Conclusion
The latest Reuters/Ipsos Poll disclosed that Trump’s approval rating has declined to 36%, which is a new low. A majority of respondents were critical of both the state of the economy and his conduct of the war. There is substantial pressure on him to negotiate a settlement even though we have not yet achieved complete and total victory and even if it would allow Iran to rise again in the future.
His critics primarily include the following groups:
- The “never-Trumpers” who will always oppose any action or policy of his. In this case many of them have openly stated that they would rather the US lose this war than see Trump get credit for winning it,
- those who hate Israel and Jews,
- the politicians (mostly Dems) who crave power over doing what would benefit the country,
- the well-meaning persons who have been gaslighted by the fake news media, and
- the inattentive and/or ignorant persons who neither know nor care about the lessons of history and have no appreciation of the gravity of the current situation.
Luckily, Trump is impervious to criticism and polls. He has consistently pursued the course of action that he believes is right, not one that is politically expedient. It’s what he is doing now. It’s fine to give a negotiated lasting peace a chance, but not for too much longer. I hope that Trump retains the fortitude to persevere and finish the job. To use a sports analogy, we’re at the one-yard line. Punch it in!
We Built It Blog by Larry Jacob 