Oppressed Victim Supremacist Suffering Unhappy Wife Equals Unhappy Life Syndrome

twitter  |  Over my 35-year career, I have been the subject of many thousands of articles, including extremely negative, inaccurate, and libelous articles, yet I have never sued a media organization or a journalist.

Beginning in early January of this year, Business Insider released a series of stories about my partner in life, @NeriOxman, that were defamatory, materially false and misleading, and designed to cause her harm, principally because the reporters do not like me, my support for Israel, and my advocacy to remove former Harvard President Claudine Gay due to her leadership failures, and her lack of moral clarity.

These are not fantastical accusations. We prove them with detailed empirical evidence in a 77-page demand letter that we sent to @axelspringer this morning, and that we are sharing publicly now.

After I posted weeks ago on @X that I intended to sue @Businessinsider and its parent company Axel Springer for defamation, I heard from a number of people that I highly respect who strongly discouraged me from suing, pleading with me to find another solution to resolve this mess.

These individuals did not question that Neri and I had been defamed, but rather they explained that Axel Springer has been perhaps the strongest long-term supporter of the state of Israel of any media organization, and also an important advocate against antisemitism.

I also recently had the opportunity to have dinner with Mathias Döpfner, the CEO of Axel Springer, and he seemed like a good man. We did not, however, discuss the Business Insider reporting or the lawsuit that night, but my opportunity to meet him confirmed much of what I had been told about him and Axel Springer.

Upon consideration of the advice we have received from people we highly respect and my opportunity to meet Mathias Döpfner, we are making an effort to avoid litigation by sending Axel Springer this demand letter in which we outline with particularity all of the facts around BI’s reporting of this matter, the factual inaccuracies in its reporting, Axel Springer’s false statements about BI’s reporting, and a proposed resolution.

If we can resolve this matter as we have proposed, we can avoid litigation, and more importantly, we can hopefully end Business Insider’s unethical and unprofessional practices. If indeed Axel Springer is the professional ethical media company that I am told it is and it purports to be, it cannot continue to own and control Business Insider if it continues to operate as it has historically.

The 77-page demand letter can be found here:

http://clarelocke.com/OxmanRetraction

I strongly encourage you to read the letter. The letter includes the detailed WhatsApp, SMS, and email correspondence that I and Fran McGill, our head of communications, had with the main protagonists in this situation including Henry Blodget, Chairman and Founder of Business Insider, Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Axel Springer, Henry Kravis, Co-Executive Chairman of KKR, Martin Varsavsky, Director of Axel Springer, Katherine Long, BI’s Investigative Reporter, and John Cook, Executive Editor of BI.

It will not go unnoticed that the demand letter reads remarkably similarly to the pleadings of a lawsuit. If needed, we can convert the demand letter into a complaint and file a lawsuit, which I hope is unnecessary.

Business Insider is well known for its dishonest and unprofessional journalism. BI’s actions here are sadly representative of its approach to journalism, and similar to its many other unfair, sensational, false and misleading attacks on high-profile people designed to satisfy the politics and preferences of its journalists, and to drive advertising revenues.

Business Insider has caused enormous harm and reputational damage to many with its false and misleading reporting and unethical tactics. Remarkably, however, Business Insider’s CEO and Axel Springer’s spokesperson claim that Business Insider is a paragon of journalistic professionalism, ethics, and virtue.

In January, when I publicly challenged the accuracy and reporting of the stories, Business Insider’s CEO, Barbara Peng, stated that:

“The process we went through to report, edit, and review the stories was sound, as was the timing… The stories are accurate and the facts well documented.”

Similarly, Adib Sisani, Axel Springer’s spokesperson said:

“I’m certain the sourcing and technical journalistic work done was spotless.”

I strongly encourage you to compare the above statements with the empirical evidence and other irrefutable facts that are included in our demand letter, and judge for yourself.

The demand letter was prepared by Libby Locke of Clare Locke LLP, a firm best known for its recent representation of Dominion Voting Machine in its lawsuit against Fox that resulted in a $787.5 million settlement for Dominion.

Libby and her partner Tom Clare are the rock stars of defamation law. They should be your first call if something like what happened to Neri and me happens to you.

May Golan Looks And Sounds Just Like A Pig Grunting....,

#Israel official states:
"I am personally proud of the ruins of Gaza, and that every baby, even 80 years from now, will tell their grandchildren what the Jews did."

— May Golan, Israeli Minister of Social Equality & Women's Advancement

-MyLordBebo pic.twitter.com/b9KRRMAJX2

— Arthur Morgan (@ArthurM40330824) February 23, 2024

AA  |  Israeli Minister of Social Equality May Golan said she is "proud" of the destruction caused by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip.

Speaking during a session held by the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) Wednesday evening, Golan threatened Hamas leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, with decapitation or arrest.

"We are not ashamed by saying that we want to see the soldiers of the IDF (Israeli army) catching Sinwar and his terrorists by their eyes and dragging them across the Gaza Strip on their way to the dungeons of the Prison Authority," she said in a widely circulated video of her speech.

"I am personally proud of the ruins of Gaza, and that every baby, even 80 years from now, will tell their grandchildren what the Jews did," she said. "No dove and no olive branch, only a sword to cut off Sinwar's head, that's what he will receive from us.”

Israel has pounded the Gaza Strip since an Oct. 7 Hamas attack that Tel Aviv says killed nearly 1,200 people.

The ensuing Israeli bombardment has killed at least 29,410 victims and caused mass destruction and shortages of necessities. Nearly 70,000 people have been injured.

The Israeli war on Gaza has pushed 85% of the territory's population into internal displacement amid acute shortages of food, clean water and medicine, while 60% of the enclave's infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed, according to the UN.

For the first time since its creation in 1948, Israel stands accused of genocide at the International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body of the United Nations.

An interim ruling in January ordered Tel Aviv to stop genocidal acts and take measures to guarantee that humanitarian assistance is provided to civilians in Gaza.

So It Is Written, So Let It Be Done - Lord Rothschild Reads The Balfour Declaration

thenewyorker  |  Yet Britain, however formidable its power, did not conjure up the Jewish national home with magic words. Since the Ukrainian pogroms of 1881, about thirty-five thousand settlers had come to various colonies in Ottoman Palestine, most funded by Baron James de Rothschild, half of whom stayed. About ninety thousand acres of land had been purchased, and new winemaking towns were dotting the Palestinian landscape: Rishon LeZion, Zichron Ya’akov. The real reason Weizmann had rejected East Africa in 1905 was that a national home in Eretz Yisrael was, however embryonic, becoming an established fact. By the end of 1905, with the arrival of five thousand socialist cadres from Russia—the so-called Second Aliyah, or ascent—Labor Zionism had its ideology, the beginning of its revolutionary infrastructure, and its leadership, including David Ben-Gurion, who was later Israel’s first Prime Minister. In 1909, Tel Aviv, the first modern Hebrew-speaking city, had been founded just north of Jaffa. That same year, a Labor Zionist group inspired by Ben-Gurion’s hero, A. D. Gordon, founded the first of the kibbutzim near the Sea of Galilee. Weizmann’s mentor, Asher Ginsberg (known by his pen name, Achad Haam), visited a collective settlement in Palestine in 1911. He wrote in an essay for Zionist readers the next year, “So soon as the Jew from the Diaspora enters a Jewish colony in Palestine he feels that he is in a Hebrew national atmosphere . . . half-complete, extending only to children . . . but going on.” (Weizmann stayed at Ginsberg’s home in London—the latter made his living as the sales representative of Wissotzky tea—during the negotiations leading to the Declaration.)

The Declaration, then, only crystallized for the great powers what seemed a workable cultural transformation—of Jews, but also of a part of the Palestinian landscape. By the time of the Balfour Declaration, there were as many as fifty thousand Zionist settlers, whom the Turks had tried, and failed, to suppress. (The chaos of the Soviet Revolution was bringing thousands, and would bring tens of thousands more.) Indeed, the most prominent, or conspicuous, Arab leaders seemed somewhat reconciled, too. In 1918, Weizmann travelled to Aqaba to meet Feisal; neither yet knew the full extent of Britain’s intentions to take Palestine for itself. Weizmann supported a larger Hashemite federation, and Feisal, the Arabs’ champion, Jewish “closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil”—so long as “Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights.” Feisal, meanwhile, told the Times of London that December, “Arabs are not jealous of Zionist Jews, and intend to give them fair play; and the Zionist Jews have assured the Nationalist Arabs of their intention to see that they too have fair play in their respective areas.” The socialist-Zionist method of settlement, so disdained by the British yet so suited for incubating Hebrew culture, was bound, however, to encroach upon “Arab peasant and tenant farmers,” known as fellaheen. (The riots of 1921 had been incited, in part, by the purchase of vast lands in the Jezreel Valley, which was accomplished in a manner that had displaced, and enraged, thousands of fellaheen.)

Putting the Balfour Declaration into practice—so the Colonial Office stated—presumed an “equality of obligation” to both sides. It was another matter to presume “fair play.” As Balfour admitted in a secret memorandum in August, 1919, “So far as Palestine is concerned, the powers have made no statement of fact that is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.” The British were straight about one thing: the Declaration did not presume a Jewish state, which Weizmann himself could not yet envision. Building a novel Jewish nation was challenge enough; how this nation’s home might fit into larger Middle Eastern structures and machinations seemed a secondary consideration. But while the British occupation army still had the power to end Zionist colonization with brute force, it was too late to neatly nip it in the bud. By 1922, as Balfour addressed the Lords, the Jewish population had reached nearly eighty-five thousand.

Why Is The Biden Administration Abetting Genocide?

nader  |  Among the puzzling questions that the media chooses to ignore is asking high government officials why they are exercising the illegal use of power that violates the rule of law which they are required to obey.

This week, the Veterans for Peace (VFP) made it very easy for reporters to pose questions by sending an open letter (See veteransforpeace.org) to the Inspector General of the U.S. State Department and Antony Blinken, Secretary of State, invoking several U.S. statutes that require the “termination of provision of military weapons and munitions to Israel.”

Josh Paul, a former senior official in the State Department’s office charged with reviewing weapon transfers to foreign countries, said: “The Secretary and all relevant officials under his purview should take this letter from Veterans for Peace with the utmost seriousness. It is a stark reminder of the importance of abiding by the laws and policies that relate to arms transfers.”

What laws are being violated by the State Department daily as it approves ships and cargo planes full of weapons of mass destruction to be used in Israel’s war crimes and genocide against hundreds of thousands of Gaza’s civilians, mostly children and women?

These are the laws highlighted in the VFP letter:

• The Foreign Assistance Act, which forbids the provision of assistance to a government which “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”
• Arms Export Control Act, which says countries that receive US military aid can only use weapons for legitimate self-defense and internal security. Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza goes way beyond self-defense and internal security.
• The U.S. War Crimes Act, which forbids grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and unlawful deportation or transfer, perpetrated by the Israeli Occupying Forces.
• The Leahy Law, which prohibits the U.S. Government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights.
• The Genocide Convention Implementation Act, which was enacted to implement U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention, provides for criminal penalties for individuals who commit or incite others to commit genocide

Under these laws, the State Department has a “Conventional Arms Transfer Policy” which, the letter notes, “prohibit [U.S. weapons transfers when it’s likely they] will be used by Israel to commit … genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, [including attacks intentionally directed against civilian objects or civilians protected] or other serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights laws.”

The VFP letter continues, “Dozens of authoritative complaints and referrals made by hospital administrators in Gaza, as well as by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Palestine Authority, South Africa, Turkey, Medicins san Frontieres, UNRWA, UNICEF, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Norwegian Refugee Council and the World Food Programme have confirmed that there is an ongoing human rights and humanitarian disaster due to Israel’s cutoff of water and electricity, deliberate destruction of sewage infrastructure and delaying of aid shipments by Israeli forces.”

If you are wondering why these laws are not being enforced – the answer is that individual citizens or groups of citizens do not have any “legal standing” to sue Secretary Blinken, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Only a Committee of Congress, backed by a Senate or House Resolution, can take the State Department to federal court. That action to enforce Congressionally passed and enacted laws is not likely to happen in this lawless, Israeli government-indentured Congress which refuses even to demand a ceasefire.

Mike Ferner, VFP National Director, observed “Just as any good soldiers can recognize when they are given an unlawful order, we believe some State Department staff are horrified at the orders they’re given and will decide to uphold the law, find the courage to speak out and demand an end to the carnage.”

There is a related serious matter, pointed out by international law practitioner, Bruce Fein who said “The United States has clearly become a co-belligerent with Israel in its war against Hamas-Gaza Palestinians by systematically supplying the IDF with weapons and intelligence without conditions. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, nationals of a co-belligerent state are not regarded as protected persons if their state has customary diplomatic relations with an allied nation [in this case, Israel].”

For decades, the State Department has had an independent Office of the Legal Adviser. The present occupant of that post, acting legal adviser Richard C. Visek has been publicly silent. I am sending the Veterans for Peace letter to him and asking him to respond to this letter and to the American people who pay his salary.

If I Wanted To Increase AntiSemitism...,

caityjohnstone |  If I wanted to increase antisemitism, I imagine I’d do a lot of really evil stuff under a Star of David flag while adamantly insisting that my actions are inseparable from the Jewish people and the Jewish faith. I’d kill children by the thousands and commit genocidal atrocities.

To really help antisemitism spread I’d do everything I can to make people less vigilant against it. I’d try very hard to make the warning label of antisemitism look ridiculous and meaningless — circulate narratives that people who oppose genocide and ethnic cleansing hate Jews, frame peace marches as hate crimes, brand calls for justice as calls for the genocide of Jewish people. I’d falsely cry wolf as many times as possible in the most self-evidently absurd ways I could think of in order to desensitize everyone to alarm bells about the real spread of anti-Jewish hate.

I’d try to make sure the Jewish soldiers carrying out the atrocities under the Star of David flag make themselves look as inhuman as possible, thereby dehumanizing ordinary Jews in the eyes of the public. They should film themselves doing the most evil things imaginable while laughing and celebrating their deeds, and then share those videos on social media. The more viral content they can create with their horrific acts, the better.

I suppose I’d also want to research longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories and make sure everyone’s helping to feed into them. “Jews control the media”? I’ll make sure the media are wildly biased in favor of the Star of David flag. “Jews control the government”? Make sure governments are bending over backwards to facilitate the crimes of the Star of David nation. “Child blood sacrifices”? Make sure the war crimes perpetrated under the Star of David flag are killing as many kids as possible.

These steps would create the perfect environment for very real acts of hatred toward members of the Jewish faith, which I suppose could then be used to drum up support for further atrocities, thereby making the very real antisemitism even worse. This would create a self-reinforcing feedback loop of violence and hatred, causing steadily escalating antisemitism throughout our society that one day could potentially lead to something as terrible as history has ever seen.

Of course I would never do such a thing, because it would be a terrible evil to inflict upon the Jews of the world. If such a thing happened it wouldn’t be the fault of the Jews — many of whom are among the most kind hearted and upstanding people on earth — it would be the fault of the governments and media outlets who paved the way to such an outcome. Any power structure which created or fed into such a dynamic would be unforgivably depraved, and would need to be stopped for the good of humanity.

Jewish Identity With And Without Zionism

thenewyorker  | Although the prospect seems scarcely imaginable now, there was a time, not very long ago, when American Jews were free to have no particular thoughts or feelings about Israel. This was true not only of run-of-the-mill Jews but of intellectuals and writers as well. And it wasn’t merely that assimilation—an act at once idealistic, pragmatic, and mortifying—was more pressing to a Philip Roth or a Saul Bellow than one’s relationship, one way or another, to the nascent Jewish state. It’s that Israel, and Zionism, didn’t seem like relevant objects of concern. This is no longer a tenable position. Joshua Cohen’s novel “The Netanyahus: An Account of a Minor and Ultimately Even Negligible Episode in the History of a Very Famous Family,” which won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 2022, is a revisionist history that needed little more than a year to lie in wait for its time. The book is premised on a counterfactual: What if the American Jewish intellectuals of the interwar period—that is, between the end of the Second World War and the Six-Day War—had been forced to wrestle with Zionism? And what if their Zionist challenger hadn’t represented the ostensibly liberal, humanist, kibbutznik wing of the movement that was then in ascendance, but the expansionist, chauvinistic, Messianic contingent then in retreat? These aren’t idle questions.

Cohen’s novel is narrated from the present but takes place in 1959, to coincide with the publication of Roth’s “Goodbye, Columbus,” a book with only a single glance over its shoulder at Israel—a reference to the fact that the American Jew, when he thought about Israel at all, then considered it a place that didn’t have enough trees. Very loosely based on a personal anecdote relayed to Cohen (who, I should probably note, is a friend of mine) by the late Harold Bloom, “The Netanyahus” tells the story of an encounter between Ruben Blum, a first-generation scholar of taxation—“I am a Jewish historian, but I am not an historian of the Jews,” he warns, defensively—and Benzion Netanyahu. At the time, Benzion was a largely unknown and quasi-mystical interpreter of the Iberian Inquisition—which, for him, represented the perennial efflorescence of antisemitism as a racialized (and hence ineradicable) phenomenon. Much later, he became known as the (spiritual and, incidentally, actual) father of Bibi, the current Israeli Prime Minister, and as, in Bibi’s retelling, the patriarch of American-Israeli relations. Blum, as the lone Jew on a rural campus that stands in for Cornell, is asked by his Waspy, alcoholic department head to host Benzion for a job talk. Benzion, who believes that the Jewish people can only be safeguarded in perpetuity by Jewish state power, has become persona non grata in Israel in part for the extremity of his views—the territorialist belief, for example, that Jewish sovereignty ought to extend over “Greater Israel.” He has been invited to interview for a joint appointment in the college’s history department and its seminary. The rationale is budgetary, but Benzion, despite his secularism, exploits the irony of the occasion to try out the kind of end-times ethnonationalism that will soon drive Religious Zionism and the settler movement.

The Zionist Plan For The Middle-East

globalresearch  |  The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government,  the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. 

President Donald Trump had confirmed in January 2017 his support of Israel’s illegal settlements (including his opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, pertaining to the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank). The Trump administration expressed its recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. And now the entire West Bank is being annexed to Israel. 

Under the Biden administration, despite rhetorical shifts in the political narrative, Washington remains supportive of Israel plans to annex the entire Jordan River valley as well the illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Bear in mind: The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is to extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East.  

In this regard, Washington’s strategy consists in destabilizing and weakening regional economic powers in the Middle East including Turkey and Iran. This policy –which is consistent with the Greater Israel–  is  accompanied by a process of political fragmentation.

Since the Gulf war (1991), the Pentagon has contemplated the creation of a “Free Kurdistan” which would include the annexation of  parts of Iraq, Syria and Iran as well as Turkey

According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”  According to Rabbi Fischmann,  “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

When viewed in the current context, including the siege on Gaza, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East bears an intimate relationship to the 2003 invasion of  Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria, Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the political crisis in Saudi Arabia.

The “Greater Israel” project consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, the Saudi-Israeli rapprochement is from Netanyahu’s viewpoint a means to expanding Israel’s spheres of influence in the Middle East as well as confronting Iran. Needless to day, the “Greater Israel” project is consistent with America’s imperial design.

“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates. According to Stephen Lendman,

“A near-century ago, the World Zionist Organization’s plan for a Jewish state included:

• historic Palestine;

• South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;

• Syria’s Golan Heights, Hauran Plain and Deraa; and

• control of the Hijaz Railway from Deraa to Amman, Jordan as well as the Gulf of Aqaba.

Some Zionists wanted more – land from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East, comprising Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey.”

The Zionist project has supported the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.

The Project of “Greater Israel” is to create a number of proxy States, which could include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of  Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article,   The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:

“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

“Greater Israel” would require the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.

“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must

1)  become an imperial regional power, and

2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states.

Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation…  This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)

Viewed in this context, the US-NATO led wars on Syria and Iraq are part of  the process of Israeli territorial expansion.

In this regard, the defeat of US sponsored terrorists (ISIS, Al Nusra) by Syrian Forces with the support of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah constitute a significant setback for Israel.