Chit Chat

By Peloni

From now on comments on every post must relate to the content of the post.

Comments that don’t relate to the post must go here.

Any person who contravenes this demand will be put on moderation. Also their offending comment will be trashed.

The reason for this demand is so that people who want to read comments which pertain to the post, don’t have to wade through the chatter.

Everyone will be happier.

April 16, 2020 | 9,684 Comments »

Leave a Reply

75 Comments / 9684 Comments

  1. New York House candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier is under intense scrutiny after defending her attendance at a tense Times Square anti-Israel rally held just one day after the October 7 attacks. The progressive candidate, who is endorsed by NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, argued her focus was strictly on Palestinian human rights. However, Jewish advocacy groups have forcefully condemned her participation, pointing out her past questioning of Israel’s legitimacy and her refusal to clearly condemn Hamas.
    Source: New York Post
    #NewYorkPolitics #DarializaAvilaChevalier #USPolitics #TimesSquare #Election2026

    Running against Adriano Espaillat in NY’s 13th Congressional District District.

    AI Overview: “ Territory Breakdown by BoroughUpper Manhattan: The district covers almost all of Manhattan north of 125th Street, including the neighborhoods of Harlem, East Harlem, West Harlem, Hamilton Heights, Washington Heights, Inwood, and Marble Hill (which is geographically on the Bronx mainland but politically part of Manhattan). It also dips slightly south to absorb parts of Morningside Heights and the northernmost edge of the Upper West Side.The West Bronx: Beyond Manhattan, the district crosses the Harlem River to encompass neighborhoods including Bedford Park, Jerome Park, Kingsbridge Heights, University Heights, Morris Heights, and segments of Norwood, Kingsbridge, and Fordham.District ProfileCurrent Representative: Adriano Espaillat (D)”

    AI Overview: “ is adriano espaillat pro-Israel +5 Yes, Representative Adriano Espaillat is widely considered a pro-Israel Democrat. He supports a two-state solution and Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign, democratic state, and he receives endorsements and financial backing from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).Key positions and actions:Military Aid: He has voted to send military and defense aid to Israel, including an additional $14.5 billion aid package in 2024.Boycotts: In 2019, he supported the Israel Anti-Boycott Act.Oct 7 Attacks: Following the October 7, 2023 attacks, Rep. Espaillat publicly condemned Hamas and stated his support for the release of all hostages and humanitarian aid to Gaza.Advocacy: He has participated in congressional trips to Israel with AIPAC’s sister foundation and is a member of the Latino-Jewish Caucus.For more information, visit his official Adriano Espaillat House Website or his media statements regarding the Israel-Hamas War Press Release.”

    Early voting starts tomorrow. For me, it’s at the new Columbia Building at 125th St. and Broadway.

  3. Googled:

    is woke killing opera

    While “woke” ideology does not directly kill opera, the industry’s shift toward modern political themes and radical production resets is highly polarizing. This approach alienates traditional audiences and is widely blamed for declining ticket sales at major companies, though financial struggles are ultimately driven by broader economic challenges.The debate over progressive or “woke” opera centers on several major issues:Trigger Warnings and Re-evaluations: Major institutions, such as the Metropolitan Opera and UK-based Glyndebourne, have instituted trigger warnings and pledged to re-evaluate canonical pieces like Turandot and Aida for racial stereotypes and colonialist themes.Concept Productions: Directors often modernize settings to reflect contemporary values. While some critics champion this as a way to keep the art form relevant, audiences often complain that these anachronistic changes disrupt the artistic integrity of the work.Audience Alienation: Arts critics and conservative commentators argue that opera companies have become social justice organizations, alienating loyal, high-paying donors and long-time patrons who feel they are being preached to.Financial Pressures: While social controversy fuels cultural debate, the real existential threat to opera is financial. Skyrocketing production costs, heavy reliance on philanthropy, and aging donor bases have left major companies struggling to fill massive budget shortfalls.

  4. “DJ on FB: “At least 42 people died in the BLM riots and directly related violence. The riots lasted months in May, June and August of 2020, and caused more damage and cost than any other riots or protests in US history, up to 2 billion dollars in insured damage alone.

    Despite the BLM organisation being led by people who were trained Communist revolutionaries, despite these people stealing donations to purchase mansions for themselves, and despite 42 people dying because of these riots and whole neighbourhoods being burnt down and thousands of innocent people terrorised, every major corporation in the US, UK, and Europe supported the BLM movement.

    Despite BLM activists hunting down and killing Trump supporters on more than one occasion, companies, media organisations, streaming services, TV channels, politicians, newspapers, sports teams, and pretty much every institution in the Western world supported BLM. New policy documents were created. Publicity statements were issued. The support was total, unconditional, and near universal. Banks issued statements of support for BLM. Supermarket chains did the same, and put these statements on boards in their shops. All manner of businesses stated that anyone who did not support BLM was not welcome as a customer. Social media companies warned that staff who opposed these statements would be fired.

    Politicians joined in. Kier Starmer knelt for BLM. David Lammy said that people should feel “righteous anger” about the death of George Floyd. Every major Labour Party figure expressed outrage, anger and disgust and encouraged these feelings in others. Parliament held a minutes silence for George Floyd. COVID rules on public gatherings were ignored for BLM protestors, while at the same time church services and funerals and family gatherings couldn’t be held. The British police joined in, kneeling for Floyd when protestors demanded it. Police training was altered too, even more than it had been after the death of Stephen Lawrence. Critical Race Theory was put at the heart of policing and judicial policy.

    In sport, the national football team adopted the BLM kneel and performed it before every match. The England manager gave woke lectures on race relations rather than discussions of football. Every club football team in the Premiership and lower leagues too copied this example. In the UK, this kneeling rirual went on for years. For a death 6,000 miles away, that British society had nothing to do with.

    In the Floyd case, there was never any real evidence of racism presented. The restraint technique was a standard one taught in police training to all officers. It had been use on innumerable white criminals. George Floyd was a giant, and the officers restraining him were much smaller men. The number of unarmed black men killed by the police in the US is actually incredibly low, not incredibly high, given the number of encounters between armed officers and black criminals. Poling shows that most people overestimate these deaths by 1,000’s of percent. Police training shows in firearms simulations that US police are more reluctant to shoot images of black people than images of white people, with a time delay in those instances that could be dangerous for the police themselves in real situations.

    The initial autopsy results showed that Floyd had multiple serious medical conditions caused by decades of drug abuse. Prior to violently resisting arrest, Floyd had swallowed his own drug stash. He had a serious heart condition, among other medical problems. The autopsy found no blockage of the airways, no bruising on the neck, no damage to the windpipe, and none of the other signs of asphyxiation. Floyd’s family and BLM claimed that this autopsy, too, must be racist, and a second was conducted, with the results of the first being ignored.

    The case against Derek Chauvin didn’t prove racist intent beyond reasonable doubt,and didn’t prove that the restraint technique killed Floyd beyond reasonable doubt. But Chauvin was determined to be guilty in a verdict heavily influenced by media reactions, political reactions, prejudicial statements by political and media figures, and the threat of further BLM riots.

    In the Floyd scenario, all of Floyd’s guilt was ignored, and even contradictory physical evidence was ignored. The police were judged guilty by skin colour, and Floyd was canonised by skin colour. The case was made to fit the CRT narrative, despite the evidence to the contrary. And British politicians including our current Prime Minister, our current Justice Minister, and the current Mayor of London who has considerable sway and authority over the Metropolitan Police, were all keen to interfere in US politics with their statements on the case, and to express not just their own rage and hysteria, but ship that up in others too and tell others that they should feel the same anger.

    They were very clear in supporting BLM, despite the deaths in the riots, and they were very clear in deifying George Floyd as a black victim and martyr of police racism, despite the lack of evidence for that, and they were very clear in telling people to be angry while riots were happening.

    In the UK people who printed and put up stickers staring that White Lives Matter or that All Lives Matter were arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for ‘inciting racial hatred’. To Atate that white lives matter as well became a crime.

    This is the context to be remembered today when these same people tell you that it is disgusting and loathsome to express anger about the death of Henry Nowak, when they say that Nigel Farage and Reform are divisive, feckless, irresponsible and extreme for stating that people should feel anger about the Nowak case. They made exactly the same comments, and more inflammatory ones too, about George Floyd, as illustrated in Trevor Phillips discussion with David Lammy. The people today declaring the police innocent regardless of their actions, in 2020 declared them guilty, regardless of the evidence. The people today condemning protest as violent and revolting, in 2920 declared protests with 42 deaths to be mostly peaceful and necessary and noble.

    Phillips asked Lammy why politicians expressing anger and encouraging anger over Floyd was right and good, while politicians doing the same over Nowak is wrong and evil. Lammy had no answer. But we know the answer.

    The answer is in Lammy’s own attitude to skin colour, in his own racial prejudice. As it is with every person who supported BLM or worshipped George Floyd and now doesn’t care about Henry Nowak, and with the societal adoption of the fixed victim and oppressor race hate categories of Critical Race Theory.””
    Henry Nowak

    • Hi, Sebastian

      “DJ on FB: “At least 42 people died in the BLM riots and directly related violence. The riots lasted months in May, June and August of 2020, and caused more damage and cost than any other riots or protests in US history, up to 2 billion dollars in insured damage alone….

      Thank you for cut/pasting this. I live in this American-on-American war zone, not by choice. This is all part of a spiritual war, to divide brother against brother

      Proverbs 6:
      [16] These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
      [17] A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
      [18] An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
      [19] A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

      1

  5. I would in my vision of a better Israeli government, have the Likud, Smotrich, Ben Gvir have a coalition with all the Zionist parties except the Democrats, UTJ and Shas (assuming the later two are actually Zionist especially UTJ).

    This will be unlikely especially since the Likud has also abandoned democratic elections for its leader unfortunately. Bibi is being given the number one spot without a vote.

    • @Rafi

      Bibi is being given the number one spot without a vote.

      Yes, this is unfortunate IMO. It is relevant that Bibi is still being forced before his ridiculous trial as he is also coordinating the wars with Trump, along with the countless other matters before him. Nonetheless, he should have held party leadership elections. Notably, he tried to avoid a leadership contest prior to the last election but ultimately he held it as he should have done. I don’t anticipate that happening this time however.

  6. @Peloni, I asked AI about pollster accuracy in the last election. 14 was accurate as you had claimed but just as I had recalled so were the mainstream media.

    Most accurate pollsters in the 2022 election
    1. Direct Polls (Channel 14) — explicitly confirmed accurate
    Direct Polls is the only pollster in the search results explicitly described as having accurately predicted the 2022 election outcome.

    A 2024 report notes that Direct Polls “accurately predicted the results of the Jewish state’s most recent general election in 2022.”

    Their final projections for Netanyahu’s bloc were close to the actual 64?seat result.

    2. Mainstream pollsters (Channel 12, Channel 13, Kan) — closely aligned with final results
    While the search results do not list a poll?by?poll accuracy score, they do show that exit polls and late?campaign surveys from mainstream pollsters were very close to the final outcome:

    Exit polls projected 61–62 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc, compared to the actual 64 seats.

    These exit polls were conducted by:

    Midgam (Channel 12)

    Kantar (Kan 11)

    Panels Politics (Channel 13)

    These firms are long?established and typically produce the most methodologically transparent surveys.

    3. Lazar Research (Maariv) — methodologically consistent, tracked trends well
    Lazar Research is cited as a major pollster in the 2022 cycle.

    Their polling consistently showed the right?wing bloc near the 59–60 seat range throughout the campaign, matching the general trajectory toward the final 64?seat outcome.

    While not explicitly labeled “most accurate,” their trendlines aligned with the broader polling consensus.

    So, Reshet14 had the best result but all pollsters mentioned above had the victor Likud and their block as winning.

    I saw now after posting this that you provided basically the same conclusion as my AI program. Confirmation!

    • @Rafi,
      With all due respect, and not to make more of this than is useful, what you wrote was as follows:

      Bottom line mainstream pollsters maybe not telling some of us what we want to hear but have proven accurate in the past.

      Channel 14 maybe telling us what we want to hear but have no proven history of accuracy in polling

      Neither of these statements were accurate, and it is this which led me to respond as I did.

      Also, if you look at the final polls, which I am posting once more below, only Channel 14, Israel Hayom and Galei Tzahal showed the National camp winning a majority while Channel 11, 12, 13 and Maariv showed them only gaining 60 seats which would not be enough to win the election, so while all the predictions were close, ie 60-62, only Channel 14, Israel Hayom and Galei Tzahal showed the National camp actually winning the election, again as per the final polls.

      Also, of the Left wing organizations, only Maariv showed the National Camp gaining a victory over the entire last month of polling, and even then they only showed them doing so on 2 of their many polls much earlier in the month, once on October 6 and October 22, for what it is worth. Polling bias is real issue of concern when assessing polls, and while the polling bias for the pollsters associated with the Left wing organizations seemed to swing further to the Left than reality, the polling groups associated with the Right wing organizations did not swing to the right of reality. This, more than anything, might indicate an important bearing with regards to the potential bias present in the polling with the relative polling groups. Something to think about.

      Here are the final polls just before the last election.
      Channel 14 – 62
      Israel Hayom – 61
      Galey Israel – 61
      Kan 11 – 60
      Channel 12 – 60
      Channel 13 – 60
      Maariv – 60

      I don’t have a great amount of respect for polling in general, to be honest, but these were the

      • @Peloni, all pretty close or within margin of error. 14 has no margin of error (they never published one at least, first for a pollster). So, 14 did finally get one correct. I was speaking on a historical timeframe much larger than one election. So, I believe my statement was correct! Anyway, let us see what happens in next election.

  9. Bottom line mainstream pollsters maybe not telling some of us what we want to hear but have proven accurate in the past.

    Channel 14 maybe telling us what we want to hear but have no proven history of accuracy in polling.

    We will see what happens on election day in a few months.

    It may be difficult for either the current Bibi coalition or the Bennet/Eisenkot opposition to form a government after the next election.

  10. 1. Channel 14 Pollsters (Filber, NEXT DATA)
    These pollsters share several characteristics:

    Not part of Israel’s mainstream polling ecosystem

    Lower transparency (rarely publish weighting, sampling frames, or demographic breakdowns)

    Strong ideological skew toward the right bloc

    Not historically tested across multiple election cycles

    Often produce outlier results compared to national averages

    Their polls are generally viewed as reflecting Channel 14’s audience sentiment, not the broader electorate.

    2. Mainstream Pollsters (Midgam, Panels Politics, Lazar Research)
    These pollsters:

    Have decades of track record

    Are methodologically transparent

    Are used by major national broadcasters

    Have documented accuracy across 2015, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 elections

    Are considered professional and non?ideological

    They form the basis of most polling averages and academic analyses.

    ? Bottom Line
    Channel 14 pollsters are not considered reputable or proven in the same way as Channel 12/13 pollsters.
    If you want, I can also create:

    A house?effect chart showing how many seats each pollster typically leans

    A credibility scorecard for each pollster over the last 5 elections

    A visual comparison of Channel 14 polls vs. national averages

  11. Based on the available evidence, Channel 14 (Reshet 14) in Israel does not typically hire the same long?established, widely recognized pollsters used by mainstream outlets like Channel 12 (Midgam/Mano Geva) or Channel 13 (Panels Politics). Instead, Channel 14’s election surveys are primarily conducted by Shlomo Filber or NEXT DATA, which are not considered part of the mainstream, methodologically vetted pollster ecosystem.

    ? What the sourced material shows
    1. Channel 14’s pollsters
    Across multiple recent Channel 14 polls, the pollster is explicitly identified as:

    Shlomo Filber

    Conducted Channel 14 surveys in Jan 2026 and other dates.

    Known political figure (former Netanyahu associate).

    Not considered an independent, academically vetted pollster on par with Midgam or Panels Politics.

    His polls often show systematic pro?Netanyahu/right?bloc results.

    Source: Channel 14 poll conducted by Filber, Jan 2026.

    NEXT DATA

    Conducted a Channel 14 poll of 615 adults on May 28, 2026.

    Not one of Israel’s long?established, mainstream polling firms.

    Source: Channel 14 poll conducted by NEXT DATA.

    These are the only pollsters identified in the search results for Channel 14.

    2. No evidence of mainstream pollsters working with Channel 14
    The search results show no involvement of the major, reputable Israeli pollsters typically used by:

    Channel 12 ? Midgam / Mano Geva

    Channel 13 ? Panels Politics / Midgam

    These pollsters are known for transparent methodology, long?term accuracy, and professional sampling standards. None appear in Channel 14’s polling.

    3. Channel 14’s polls show consistent ideological skew
    Across multiple Channel 14 surveys, the results consistently show:

    Higher seat counts for Likud and the right?wing bloc

    Lower results for center?left parties

    Netanyahu strongly favored for PM suitability

    This pattern appears in all Channel 14 polls cited:

    This does not automatically mean the polls are “fake,” but it does indicate a strong house effect and non?mainstream methodology.

    ? Conclusion
    Channel 14 (Reshet 14) does not appear to hire the established, reputable pollsters used by Israel’s mainstream channels.
    Instead, it relies on Shlomo Filber and NEXT DATA, neither of whom are considered part of the top-tier, methodologically rigorous polling institutions in Israel.

    If you want, I can also provide:

    A side?by?side comparison of Channel 14’s pollsters vs. Channel 12/13 pollsters

    A house?effect analysis showing how Channel 14’s numbers differ from national averages

    A reliability scorecard for each pollster over the last elections

    • @Rafi
      I appreciate your efforts here and sharing your research as well as your own thoughts on the matter of polling, but I would argue that what you do not address, and what most people too often ignore, is the importance of addressing polling bias while conducting political polls and surveys. It was reported many years ago that polling is a mix of 75-80% science and 20-25% art, and what distinguishes the reliability in a given poll is related most acutely to the ability to address the artistic aspect of polling in such a way as to eliminate personal bias while gather the data. While I don’t find the relative percentages in this claim as material, I think the general statement is clearly relevant, and explains why polling is arbitrarily widely different in the period prior to elections and it also explains why the polls are said to ‘tighten’ immediately before elections. While this also happened in the last election of 2022, your Legacy polling groups which you claim are more reliable failed to demonstrate this claim.

      Notably, you suggest that the preference for using a non-Legacy polling group as Channel 14 does demonstrates a preference to hear what we want rather than reality on the ground. But in doing so, you once again (I have raised this point before in our previous conversation on this topic) do not address the FACT that the Legacy polling groups which you claim are more accurate failed the test of accuracy in the last election as compared to the efforts of the non-Legacy polling groups such as Shlomo Filber’s DirectPolls on Channel 14, Notably, as I noted below, Channel 14 had the best predictive model in the last election, and they did so while using a prediction model which is reportedly distinct from that of the Legacy groups which you find more reliable, even as the Legacy groups failed to demonstrate this claim, regardless of the AI endorsement which you find meaningful. Opinions will vary, and I appreciate you sharing your own, I would argue the bottom line is not that Legacy polling should be assumed to provide the best analysis, but that they should be able to demonstrate this claim if it were as well established as is claimed by your research.

      I am told that Filber’s DirectPolls began with the best polling predictions back in 2015, but this is a claim which I have not confirmed, but it certainly was true in the last election, and it begs the question as to why that might be. Was the mood of the country shifted so dramatically in the last days after the last polls were conducted, or was it due to polling bias which the Legacy polling groups failed to address?

      Notably, bias is a highly problematic failing for pollsers, and while I will leave you to research the importance of this fact further on your own, I would argue the reason that such non-Legacy polling is being pursued is not to support an echo chamber effect of hearing what one might want to hear as you claim, but rather to hear a more accurate report of reality than has been offered to the public going back over the years.

      In any event, we will see how well the next election results compare to the Legacy polling reports, but I do question why we might find Legacy polling more reliable when they proved to fail this claim in the last election. Perhaps they will do better this time around.

      • @Peloni, I tried to verify your claim the Fiber was more accurate in the last elections. I was unable to do so. Can you kindly provide data that substantives that claim.

        My memory tells me that most pollsters were fairly accurate in the last election, after so many elections.

        This election has new dynamics which appears to be having some Israelis change their votes. Oct., 7th war, Haredi draft evasion and new parties.

        • @Rafi

          This election has new dynamics which appears to be having some Israelis change their votes. Oct., 7th war, Haredi draft evasion and new parties.

          Very much so. Polling models are based on predictable historical trends having a predictable historical impact on future election patterns. I think the Legacy polling techniques will likely be very challenged by this fact, and likely the non Legacy groups as well..

          My memory tells me that most pollsters were fairly accurate in the last election

          Yes, I would agree with this, but as I noted the most accurate polls were not those of the Legacy polling groups.

          You can find all the polls for the last election here, including the final polls, in which Fillber’s DirectPolls provided the best election predictions on the block turnout:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Israeli_legislative_election

          Here are the final poll results before the polls went silent in 2022:
          Channel 14 – 62
          Israel Hayom – 61
          Galey Israel – 61
          Kan 11 – 60
          Channel 12 – 60
          Channel 13 – 60
          Maariv – 60

          While the polls were not wildly eradic as they were earlier in the year, and as I indicated, Filber’s results were the closest predictor of reality while also failing to perfectly predict the 64 mandates for the National Camp.

          1

  12. @Rafi
    @Sebastien
    I think it is interesting to see what the Right and Left pollsters have to say about the relevant candidates, but as is indicated by the enormous spread between the polls from the two sides, it seems more of a projection if not influence operation than a measured attempt to predict the outcome of the coming election. Notably none of the polling groups accurately reported the outcome of the last election, and while the Right wing polling on Channel 14 was more accurate in predicting the support for the two blocks, it was less accurate in how those votes would be apportioned.

  13. 1. Zman Yisrael / Tatika Research Poll — June 4, 2026
    Headline: Anti?Netanyahu Zionist bloc reaches 62 seats, first time crossing majority alone

    Key Findings
    Zionist anti?Netanyahu bloc: 62 seats

    Netanyahu?aligned bloc: 50 seats

    Arab parties (Ra’am + Hadash?Ta’al): 8 seats

    Notable party results:

    Likud: 23

    “Together” (Bennett–Lapid): 21

    Yashar (Eisenkot): 19

    Yisrael Beytenu: 10

    Shas: 9

    The Democrats: 8

    UTJ: 6

    Otzma Yehudit: 4

    Religious Zionism: 4

    Blue & White: 4

    Why this poll matters
    This is the first major poll in months showing the anti?Netanyahu bloc clearing 61 seats without Arab?party support — a significant symbolic

    Other poll since June has Bennett block winning 60 seats

    Bibi gets nowhere near being able to form a coalition in any respectable professional poll recently

    • Googled Query: tatika research poll left or right +4 Tatika Research and Media is a non-partisan Israeli polling firm that surveys both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. The firm is frequently commissioned by the independent, centrist news outlet The Times of Israel (and its Hebrew sister site Zman Yisrael) to conduct general election and public opinion polls.

      TOA is “centrist?” 😀 Center/Left, you mean and its publisher, David Horowitz suffers from BDS (Bibi Derangement Syndrome.)

      • Googled Query: channel 14 israel poll +7 Recent polls broadcast by Israel’s Channel 14 consistently project a solid majority for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition, putting the bloc at 65 to 66 seats in the 120-seat Knesset.Key trends and figures from recent Channel 14 surveys include:Seat Distribution: Netanyahu’s Likud party leads the projections comfortably, securing approximately 35 of the projected coalition seats.Prime Ministerial Suitability: Netanyahu dominates the “best fit for prime minister” metric, regularly drawing between 55% and 56% support.Opposition Struggles: The centrist and left-wing opposition blocks have faced turbulence, with some polls showing Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party flirting with or falling below the 3.25% electoral threshold.Controversy: The polls have faced public scrutiny for not immediately disclosing that they were conducted by a firm owned by the network’s majority shareholder.For ongoing political updates and full dataset comparisons, you can track the latest surveys on the Israel National News portal or review the broader political landscape in articles from the Times of Israel.

    • @Peloni,

      You, are making an error I believe in thinking that the pollsters (who do the work) are prejudice. Channel 11,12,13 hire reputable pollsters ( based on past proven work).

      I watch Channel 14 the most and it is leaning right and I like it. I am not sure their polling is done professionally. Kindly show me I am wrong by finding who they hire and past poll results.

      I had done some private work with AI and that is how I came to the above conclusions. You appear to equate the polling result based on the organization that hired the pollster.

  15. Trump is harming Israel by trying to micromanage what they do in Lebanon. Now he stopped the Israeli attack on the Hezis headquarters that was imminent in Beirut, based on his belief that the Hezis word that they would stop attacking Israel was worth anything at all.

    1

  16. Israel now must hold the land it has taken in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria for defensive purposes. Israel needs buffer zones for its defense. Withdrawing from buffer areas held in the past just cost lives and gained Israel nothing of concrete value.

    • @Rafi
      I 100% concur, but I would argue the buffer in Lebanon is too limited and the buffer in Gaza needs to comprise all of Gaza. Gaza is Jewish land and it should be treated as such, rather than just as a territorial buffer. IMO of course.

  17. will hungary blocks eu sanctions on israel now orban is gone +4 No, Hungary no longer blocks EU sanctions on Israel. Following the ouster of former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the swearing-in of new Prime Minister Péter Magyar, Hungary’s new government shifted its stance. The change paved the way for the European Union to approve long-stalled sanctions against Israeli settlers.Under Prime Minister Magyar, Hungary’s approach changed:Sanctions Approval: European Union foreign ministers quickly reached a political agreement to impose asset freezes and travel bans on violent Israeli settlers and organizations shortly after the new administration took office in Budapest.Shift in Foreign Policy: While Orbán frequently exercised the EU’s unanimity rule to act as a primary blocker for measures targeting Israel, Prime Minister Magyar’s government indicated it will not stand in the way of broadly supported sanction packages.You can read more about the development in The Washington Post’s EU Sanctions Report and Politico’s EU Coverage.

  18. “NJ candidate who opposes Iron Dome condemns antisemitism ahead of primary”

    Antisemite with terror ties gaslighting Jews favored to win NJ primary.

    https://www.jta.org/2026/05/29/politics/nj-12-candidate-adam-hamawy-decries-antisemitism-amid-scrutiny-of-his-israel-views

    “The political novice has also faced questions about his connections back in the early 1990s to Omar Abdel-Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh” convicted on terrorism charges in 1995 linked to the World Trade Center bombing two years earlier and other plotted attacks. “

  21. Park Slope Food Coop approved a boycott of Israeli goods after moving its meeting online due to Jewish members’ safety fears and changing its bylaws mid-meeting to lower the voting threshold…

    ‘… The outcome sparked fury among Jewish customers, who described deliberate silencing. According to them, during the meeting a motion passed to move immediately to the voting stage, without giving boycott opponents any chance to speak on camera.

    “The motion to move to a vote came up right after only the pro-boycott group spoke,” said one participant who asked to remain anonymous. Another member added: “This is the first time in 15 years that we’ve voted on something without any discussion.” Some members now estimate the rushed rule change will soon lead to a lawsuit…”

    – Channel 14

    https://www.c14news.com/article/1464529

  22. In next month’s Dem primary for 69th NY State Assmbly District (Upper WestSide, Morningside Heights, West Harlem), Eli Northrup is backed by the pro- BDS Working Families Party. Stephanie Ruskay is backed by the anti-BDS New York Solidarity Network. Northrup lost to anti-BDS Micah Lasher previously for that seat, who is running for Congress for Nadler’s seat.

    Primary Election – June 23, 2026 · Election Day is Tuesday, June 23, 2026. Polls are open from 6am to 9pm. · Early Voting Period is June 13, 2026 – June 21, 2026.

    – NYC Board of Elections

    Rent Stabilized tenants cannot afford to vote Republican for NY State Assembly. Only the Governor and state legislatures have the power to abolish it. And they won’t. This was tried in the ’70s. It was a disaster. NY State Assembly, NY State Senate and Governor MUST remain in pro-Israel Dem hands. It’s fine to vote Republican for everything else. That’s what I will do and why Elise Stefanik had to drop out of the Governor’s race.

    Vote Stephanie Ruskay, Adriano Espaillat, Micah Lasher.

    • My Googled Query: “Was it a disaster when New York City abolished rent stabilization in the 1970’s”

      AI Overview

      +3 “Yes, it was largely considered a disaster, but for the opposite reason: the attempt to abolish and deregulate the market created mass displacement and housing harassment. New York City never entirely abolished rent stabilization in the 1970s; instead, a series of state interventions caused massive market chaos. [1, 2, 3, 4]
      The crisis unfolded in several phases:

      1. The 1971 Deregulation Push
      In 1971, the New York State Legislature stripped the city of its “home rule” over local housing laws via the Urstadt Law. The state then passed a package of laws that introduced Vacancy Decontrol. This meant that as soon as a rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartment became vacant, it was entirely deregulated and jumped to market rate. [1, 2, 3, 4]

      2. The Fallout (1971–1974)
      Vacancy decontrol led to chaotic and disastrous consequences: [1, 2]
      * Tenant Harassment: Landlords were given a massive financial incentive to push out long-term, low-paying tenants. Evictions and tenant harassment skyrocketed.[1, 2]
      * Displacement: Tens of thousands of working-class families faced the immediate risk of losing their homes as unregulated rents became unaffordable. [1, 2]

      3. The Reversal in 1974
      The backlash was so severe that the state legislature was forced to act. In 1974, they passed the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA). This largely repealed vacancy decontrol for rent-stabilized apartments, restored the deregulated apartments to regulated status, and formed the basic framework of rent stabilization that exists today.[1, 2]

      If you are interested, we can look into other aspects of New York’s housing history. For instance, would you like to compare the 1970s housing chaos to the impacts of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019, or explore how the city’s Rent Guidelines Board determines rent caps today? Let me know where you’d like to dive deeper.”

    • “This in October 12, 2023. 5 days after October 7th. On @columbia campus in front of the mourning Jewish students.

      Mahmoud Khalil leading “from water to water Palestine will be Arab”, and Darializa Chevalier @darializaforny (NY-13 candidate) right besides him.”

      https://fb.watch/Hrq96ZTL4K/?

  23. On May 1, The New School’s student senate voted to place its local Hillel “not in good standing” and attempted to defund it over Hillel International’s ties to programs like Birthright and other Israel-related initiatives.

    Hillel’s core role on campus is providing a vital space for Jewish students to gather, celebrate holidays, and build community, not partisan politics. Birthright, likewise, is an educational and cultural program connecting young Jews to their heritage, not a military endeavor.

    The move is especially ironic and disappointing at The New School, which once served as a refuge for Jewish scholars fleeing Nazi persecution in Europe.

    If universities claim to value inclusion, it must include Jewish students. Allowing Hillel to exist proudly on campus without renouncing ties to Israel should be the bare minimum.

    https://cameraoncampus.org/blog/the-new-schools-fight-over-hillel/

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1445221410982748&set=a.339345984903635&type=3

  24. Gadi Taub mentioned Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” as a metaphor for the Mossad in a recent podcast (I think he meant, “Second Foundation, the title of the second book in the original trilogy.)

    For the life of me, I can’t fathom why no one has guessed that Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” series is a Zionist science fiction epic.

    Google:

    “Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was a foundational 1st-century CE Jewish sage and a primary contributor to the Mishnah. He is immensely significant because he spearheaded the survival of Judaism after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 CE, pivoting the religion’s focus from Temple-based sacrifices to Torah study and prayer. 

    His critical actions and historical significance include:

    * The Escape from Jerusalem: During the Roman siege, radical factions trapped inside refused to surrender. Realizing the Temple’s imminent doom, Yohanan faked his own death and was smuggled out of the city in a coffin by his disciples.
    * Securing Yavneh: Once out, he met with the Roman general Vespasian. Recognizing that the Temple could not be saved, he made a pragmatic and famous request: “Give me Yavne and its sages.”
    * Founding Rabbinic Judaism: Vespasian granted his request, allowing Yohanan to establish an academy and the Sanhedrin(Jewish Supreme Court) in the town of Yavneh. This allowed the Jewish people to maintain their faith, legal traditions, and identity in the diaspora without a central sanctuary.
    * Shifting Rituals: To cope with the reality of a destroyed Temple, he instituted major religious adaptations. He elevated the role of local synagogues and taught that prayer and acts of loving-kindness could replace sacrifices as a means of atonement. 
    *
    His foresight and leadership effectively laid the groundwork for modern Rabbinic Judaism, ensuring the survival of the Jewish faith.”

    —-

    “Hari Seldon is a brilliant mathematical genius who created Psychohistory, a revolutionary science that uses the laws of mass action, sociology, and mathematics to predict the future of large populations. Foreseeing the collapse of the Galactic Empire, he designed the Seldon Planto drastically shorten the dark ages that would follow. [1, 2]

    Early Life and Rise to Prominence
    Born on the hydroponic planet Helicon, Seldon began as a Tobacco grower before becoming a celebrated mathematics professor at Streeling University on the capital planet of Trantor. It was there that he developed psychohistory. His models revealed a devastating truth: the Galactic Empire was dying, and its collapse would plunge humanity into 30,000 years of barbarism. Seldon formulated a way to reduce this chaos to just 1,000 years by establishing two scientific havens—known as the Foundations—at opposite ends of the galaxy.

    The Trial and Exile
    Because of his doomsday predictions, Seldon was labeled “Raven Seldon” by his Imperial enemies. He was arrested and tried by the Empire’s Commission of Public Safety. Rather than execute him, the Imperial government ultimately allowed him and his followers to exile themselves to Terminus, a remote, barren world on the edge of the galaxy. There, he established the First Foundation under the guise of creating an all-encompassing Encyclopedia Galactica.

    The Seldon Vault and The Plan
    Hari Seldon passed away during the early years of the Foundation on Terminus, but his influence remained. He constructed a time-locked vault containing a pre-recorded holographic projection of himself. Decades after his death, when the Foundation faced existential threats (known as Seldon Crises), the vault would automatically open. Each recording revealed that Seldon had perfectly anticipated the exact sociopolitical crises the Foundation would face, guiding them step-by-step toward the creation of the Second Galactic Empire…”

  25. Crazy! UN chief Gutierrez blamed the October 7 massacre on Israel On October 25, 2023!

    https://www.jns.org/israel-news/israeli-officials-assail-un-chief-for-stance-on-the-hamas-war

    https://www.jns.org/israel-news/israeli-officials-assail-un-chief-for-stance-on-the-hamas-war

    And now falsely accuses Israel of sexual war crimes.

    Israel should have broken relations off 3 years ago.

    https://www.jns.org/news/israel-news/we-are-done-with-this-un-secretary-general-danon-says-after-israel-put-on-sexual-violence-list-of-shame

  26. Why did Alan Dershowitz praise Harvard’s presidemt?

    “Harvard’s antisemitism problem isn’t getting better. It’s getting promoted into leadership.

    Sheryl WuDunn, MBA ’86, will serve as vice chair of the Board of Overseers executive committee for 2026-27. The Overseers help pick the president and govern the university.

    This was not an alumni vote. She was an internal pick, endorsed by President Alan Garber himself.

    She is married to blood libelist Nicholas Kristof.”

    Samantha Ettus

    https://www.aol.com/news/israel-supporters-slam-harvard-appointment-145646080.html

    from X

  28. The Park Slope Food Coop in Brooklyn has voted to boycott Israeli products following months of internal campaigning and growing tensions among members over the war in Gaza.

    According to The Guardian, around 67% of participants voted in favor of removing a range of Israeli products from the co-op, including certain tahini, peppers, and persimmons. The debate reportedly triggered accusations of antisemitism, comparisons involving Nazis, and security concerns inside the organization, with leadership citing threatening messages, hostile online activity, and confrontations between members during the campaign.

    Via ILTV

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid024aqTB6TF9nY36AexWLq6RGjfhHcJsjcujxVTq86iyiWZpjcJQB4LBtPeaVkBhkSAl&id=100086697595894

  32. AG on FB: Is it the immutable viral nature of antisemitism that explains its widespread toxic resurgence, or were Israel and Diaspora communities negligent and overly passive during the last half century by not doing what was required to guarantee that the nonstop lies and propaganda about Israel and Jews were rejected by the masses, just the opposite of what has happened.

    I looked up:

    “Pesach Haggadah, Magid, In the Beginning Our Fathers Were Idol Worshipers 5
    And it is this that has stood for our ancestors and for us, since it is not [only] one [person or nation] that has stood [against] us to destroy us, but rather in each generation, they stand [against] us to destroy us, but the Holy One, blessed be He, rescues us from their hand.”

    Rabbi Jonathan Sack’s Haggadah
    Not one Alone
    One episode, told by a Rabbinical Colleague, has long lingered in my mind. It took place in Russia in the early 1990’s, following the Collapse of Communism. For the first time in seventy years, Jews were free openly to live as Jews, but at the same time antisemitic attitudes, long suppressed, came to the surface. A British rabbi had gone to there to help with the reconstruction of Jewish life, and was one day visited by a young lady in distress. “All my life,” she said, “I hid the fact that I was a Jew and no one ever commented on my Jewishness. Now, though, when I walk past, my neighbours mutter Zhid (Jew). What shall I do?” The rabbi replied, “If you had not told me you were Jewish, I would have never known. But with my hat and beard, no one could miss the fact that I am a Jew. Yet, in all the months I have been here, no one has shouted Zhid at me. Why do you think that is?” The girl was silent for a moment and then said, “Because they know that if they should Zhid at me, I will take it as an insult, but if they shout Zhid at you, you will take it as a compliment.” That is a deep insight. Beyond eternal vigilance, the best way for Jews to combat antisemitism is to wear their identity with pride…
    …When bad things happen to a person or group, there are two questions it can ask, “How can I put it right?” or “Who did this to me?” Asking the first defines me as a subject, a moral agent, a responsible self. Asking the second identifies me as an object, a victim; and a victim can feel only resentment and rage… for defining oneself as a victim– (as) antisemites always do — involves the systematic denial of responsibility…
    …The culture of victimhood, so fashionable today, never liberates, but only perpetuates”

    https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/32448?shem=rimspwouoe,

    • @ Peloni Googled that and this came up:

      Al Jazeera correspondent Ali Hashem says an Iranian source claimed heavy gunfire heard near Bandar Abbas began after the IRGC targeted a vessel at sea, followed by US fighter jets striking IRGC naval boats in the Gulf.

      According to the source, several IRGC Navy personnel were killed.

      “The situation is still unfolding,” the source said.

      https://www.iranintl.com/en/202605254208

      Though I would normally not look at Al Jazeira but that’s the only explanation that came up, at least in the headlines.

      Mahyar Tousi on Tousi TV-Youtube said the U.S. took out the IRGC HQ in Iraq and Trump gave Israel the green light in Lebanon a few hours ago.

  36. Slovenia votes in strongly pro-Israel Jansa as new PM after years of hostility towards Jewish State
    Janša is a long-time supporter of Israel. He condemned his predecessor’s recognition of Palestine as a state, calling it “illegal.”

    “…Yossi Dagan, head of the Samaria Regional Council, is a friend of Jansa, and the two recorded a joint video in recent weeks where the new Slovenian leader said: “I send greetings to the residents of Judea and Samaria.”

    Jansa has previously said he would move his country’s embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.

    While not yet clear, it has been hypothesized that Slovenia may withdraw its recognition of Palestinian independence.”

    https://www.jpost.com/international/article-897143

  40. Want more Immigrants to Israel cut down on red tape. Israel has always had bureaucracy to immigrate. However, for many years now since the Shas has had the interior ministry portfolio, this has become a nightmare, that many people give up on by being worn down.

    Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar! Party, announced that he has set a goal of two million olim (immigrants) to move to Israel by the year 2048.

    How does he intend to do it? “By cutting bureaucracy and expanding incentives for both olim and returning residents.”

    This is refreshing news, because what should have been a relatively simple process, has ended up being a non-ending nightmare of bureaucracy, almost meant to turn away new citizens by completely wearing them down. It wasn’t always that way.

    How aliyah became a bureaucratic nightmare
    It used to be that anyone desiring to live in Israel would present documents showing that at least one parent or grandparent was Jewish, in accordance to the 1950 Law of Return. That stopped being good enough the moment that the Shas Party hijacked the Interior Ministry.

    Since that time, the process became increasingly difficult, to the point where many Jews were turned away, often due to being told they didn’t qualify religiously even though they qualified ethnically.

    What does that mean? According to the present interpretation of the law, the adoption of another faith disqualifies a Jew from being eligible for citizenship. In other words, regardless of being born a Jew, if you are not a practicing Jew or believe in another faith, a bureaucrat from the Interior Ministry has erased your ethnicity and wiped out your peoplehood, based on your personally held beliefs.

    While that may have been regrettable for those who truly wanted to live in their ancestral homeland, it is now become a critical and pressing mistake, begging to be rectified.

    That is because we have reached a time in history when all Jews are prey, whether religiously or ethnically. Potentially, it means that everyone born Jewish has a target on their back, without specifying one’s religious affiliation. That animus is, instead, based on tribal affiliation.

    And that is deterring the Jewish homeland from taking in those who share the same bloodlines but not necessarily the same faith. The obvious fact is that religious affiliation is not the sole criteria for who is a Jew. Because if that were true, millions of Israeli Jews, who are unaffiliated or identify as atheists or agnostics, would also fall into the category of non-Jews, if the religious aspect is the sole factor.
    https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-896978

    • @Rafi
      All you have to do is suffer a PM who historically called for the TTS, and who would have surrendered to Hamas rather than retake Rafiah to appease the Americans. Not the best tradeoff in the current geopolitical environment IMO.

      • @ Peloni,

        You are mixing subjects. You failed to try and I understand my point and the article’s point perhaps. Let me provide an example of someone I know what has occurred to them so maybe you can see what I am talking about.

        True Story:

        Young Jewish Man Ron, from USA moves to Israel after going to US Embassy who arranges for him to go to a Kibbutz Ulpan on a tourist visa.

        After finishing the Ulpan, Ron decides he wants to stay in Israel permanently. So, he goes to the Interior Ministry which was inside the Beersheva Police Station in those days. He obtains an Israeli ID card and his Immigrant Certificate (Teudat Oleh) immediately. He is identified as Jewish which he was.

        Later he meets and an Israeli girl and they decide to get married. The Rabbi he wants to perform the wedding says he needs a letter from an Orthodox Rabbi in the USA. He obtains this letter. He gets married and this is all documented and put in the official Israeli Marriage files by the Rabbinical Council.

        Ron, leaves Israel before he becomes a citizen. However, he has an Israeli ID, records of his immigration and a wedding license on record.

        30 Years later Ron wants to return to Israel and obtain his citizenship. He is now told he must prove he is Jewish again (needs another letter from a Rabbi). However, he does not belong to a Temple, so this is a serious stumbling block. He is asked for about 10 different type of documents and much more than he was ever asked previously. If Ron could obtain all this it would take at least 8 to 12 months before he could get his approval to return as a returning residency.

        When he asks why his marriage record could not be looked up to prove his Judaism. The answer you must get the letter period.

        Instead of welcoming residents returning and new immigrants, the Shas run interior ministry puts intentional barriers up because they are trying to allow only religious (Orthodox) Jews into Israel if they can.

        So Eisenkot has many things that are not admirable about him perhaps, but his idea of a less convoluted and seriously burdensome immigration process is spot on. Shas in the government is a nightmare for many potential immigrants.

        What I would like is an Israeli government without the Haredi screwing up the country in everything from immigration, marriages, divorces, shabbat transportation to the military draft!

        • @Rafi
          @Peloni

          This diacussion reminded of something so I googled and got:

          what was the debate between jabotinsky and weizman over the character of jewish immigration desired on the eve of the holocaust +13 On the eve of the Holocaust, Vladimir Jabotinsky and Chaim Weizmann clashed over the speed, scale, and socioeconomic character of Jewish immigration to Palestine.The core of their debate centered on emergency versus gradualism:Vladimir Jabotinsky (Revisionist Zionism)Jabotinsky foresaw imminent destruction for European Jewry.Character of Immigration: He advocated for “mass evacuation,” demanding the immediate, unselective transport of millions of Eastern European Jews to Palestine.Philosophy: He believed the primary goal of the Yishuv was to serve as a physical sanctuary from European antisemitism. He viewed the socio-economic status of the immigrants as secondary to saving lives, famously arguing with mainstream Zionists that a mass influx was necessary to build a Jewish majority and establish a sovereign state.Chaim Weizmann (Mainstream/Labor Zionism)Weizmann, leading the World Zionist Organization and aligning closely with Labor Zionists, took a much more measured approach.Character of Immigration: He favored “selective immigration” based on strict ideological and physical screenings. The mainstream movement prioritized young, healthy, trained pioneers (halutzim) who could build the socialist/collectivist agricultural foundations of the future state.Philosophy: Weizmann favored a gradual approach tethered to Palestine’s “economic absorptive capacity” and British policy. He feared that the unselective influx of destitute refugees would recreate the economic dependencies and vulnerabilities of the European diaspora within the nascent state.The Climax of the DebateAs the threat from Nazi Germany escalated and Great Britain moved to restrict all immigration via the White Paper of 1939, the divide became a tragedy. While Weizmann continued to navigate diplomatic channels and promote building the land incrementally, Jabotinsky and his followers organized Aliyah Bet, clandestine and illegal immigration operations to rescue as many European Jews as possible, as fast as possible.To explore the primary historical documents and archival resources surrounding this clash, visit the Jabotinsky Institute or the Yad Vashem World Holocaust Center.

        • @Rafi

          You are mixing subjects.

          No, I just recognize that the subjects can not be separated from the man you are voting for, which in this case would be Eisenkott.

          If the various subjects were not all tied to Eisenkott at once, then yes, I think his policies on immigration would bear an important consideration, but since it is tied to his person, I have to recognize the role which voting for him would play in facing down the re-emergence of the TSS, as well as his military prowess of calling to surrender half way thru the war with Gaza, To be honest, The issue of immigration is critical to Israel’s future, but these other issues are critical to Israel’s survival as we stand in a period of war and look towards a future of regional realignment. Simply put, in such a time as this, the issue of immigration reform can not take the lead over security matters, IMO of course..

          And yes, I am fully aware of the egregious problems which exist in the immigration hurdles which are humiliating, and in many instances completely arbitrary. Notably, as Sebastien wisely notes this is not the first time this conversation on the priorities of immigration has been raised, but we have to secure the state so that the correct immigration policy might be pursued, not the other way around…again, IMO. The best outcome would be to not choose at all, but to support someone who can pursue both security and a fair immigration process, but such a man is not Eisenkot I would argue.

    • @Peloni
      @Rafi

      Weizmann advocated for gradual, selective settlement in cooperation with the British, whereas Jabotinsky demanded immediate, mass immigration to forcefully establish a Jewish demographic majority.

      AI overview