‘Why is Hillel here?’ San Francisco university denounces antisemitism after Jewish group blasted

San Francisco State University student slams Jewish campus group Hillel as “an extremist organization,” prompting Hillel staff member to leave campus meeting.

By Dion J. Pierre, The Algemeiner

San Francisco State University (SFSU) issued a statement denouncing antisemitism earlier this month after a student criticized the participation of a Jewish nonprofit member in a virtual campus meeting.

“Why is Hillel here?,” the student, whose identity remains unknown, said on March 9, The Jewish News of Northern California reported on Thursday. “They’re an extremist organization.”

The outburst prompted the Hillel staff member to whom the remark was directed to leave the meeting immediately, Jewish News continued. Later, Roger Feigelson, the group’s executive director, received “within an hour” a communication from the university’s vice president, Jamillah Moore, who assured him that the university would denounce the student’s actions.

“It was reported that during the meeting, a member of a student organization articulated they did not want SF Hillel members collaborating on the event and made anti-Zionist statements,” Moore later wrote in a letter to the campus community. “We want to make clear that San Francisco State University, Associate Students, and the campus community denounce antisemitism in any form. The words go against our values and our mission of creating a safe and inclusive campus community in which we all feel safe and welcomed.”

In response to the incident, on March 30, the university will hold an event titled “Responding to Antisemitism,” which will feature the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) assistant regional director Alystar Sacks. Feigelson told Jewish News that he is “super impressed” with the steps the university has taken to heal any lingering wounds.

“The partnership between SF Hillel and SF State is so strong now,” he continued. “We’re on top of this and addressing it together.”

SFSU has been accused of excluding Hillel before. In 2018, two Jewish students sued San Francisco State University, accusing it of harboring “institutionalized antisemitism.” The suit cited a time when Hillel was allegedly prohibited from participating in a “Know Your Rights” information fair in Feb. 2017.

Nearly three months later, in May, Ollie Ben, Hillel’s former director, complained in an op-ed that the university “keeps the organized Jewish community at arm’s length, excludes our students from participating in campus events, allows speakers we invite to be shouted down and refuses to publicly stand against intolerance when it’s directed at the Jewish community.”

SFSU in 2019 settled the suit out of court before it went to trial, agreeing to hire a coordinator of Jewish student life and spend $200,000 on “educational efforts to promote viewpoint diversity (including but not limited to pro-Israel and Zionist viewpoints).”

In 2020, during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, the university’s Department of Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies invited notorious Palestinian terrorist Leila Khaled — who twice hijacked planes carrying Israeli passengers as a leading member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) — to speak during a virtual event. Several internet media companies eventually prevented the event’s streaming on their platforms, which led to a row between the university and the professor, Rabab Abdulhadi, who invited Khaled.

The post ‘Why is Hillel here?’ San Francisco university denounces antisemitism after Jewish group blasted appeared first on World Israel News.

US Politicians Urge Biden to Send Cluster Bombs to Kiev

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article …

The post US Politicians Urge Biden to Send Cluster Bombs to Kiev appeared first on Global Research.

A ‘resistance’ coup just defeated Israeli democracy – analysis

A false narrative about Netanyahu’s “judicial coup” may achieve its goal of toppling him. But more than that, the consequences for future governments and U.S.-Israel relations are ominous.

By Jonathan S. Tobin, JNS

After months of increasingly strident mass protests against his government’s plans to reform Israel’s out-of-control and highly partisan judicial system, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have given in to the pressure. He said he was going to be “delaying judicial reform to give real dialogue a chance.” But it’s highly doubtful that this will merely be a timeout that will help his supporters regroup and enable opponents to calm down and accept a compromise on the issue.

On the contrary, Netanyahu is waving the white flag on judicial reform—and everyone knows it. And since the ultimate goal of the protests was not just preventing legislation from being passed but to topple the government, it’s far from clear whether the prime minister can long stay in power after this humiliation since his allies are shaken and his opponents won’t be satisfied until he’s ejected from office.

Whether that will happen remains to be seen. But the one thing that is clear is that the consequences of the events of the last months go far beyond the future of the Israeli legal system.

Netanyahu’s announcement is leading to celebrations on the Israeli left as well as among their foreign supporters, especially in the Biden administration and liberal Jewish groups. And they have good reason to celebrate. The anti-Bibi resistance was able to sell the world a false narrative about their efforts being nothing more than a successful effort to defend democracy against the efforts of would-be authoritarians who wanted to create a fascist theocratic state.

But the notion that an uprising of the “people” has stopped a “coup” by Netanyahu and his allies is pure projection. What the world has just witnessed was itself a soft coup. Fueled by contempt for the nationalist and religious voters whose ballots gave Netanyahu’s coalition a clear Knesset majority in November and imputing to them their own desire for crushing political opponents, the cultural left has shown that it has an effective veto over the results of a democratic election.

In exercising that veto, they have given Israel’s enemies, who don’t care how much power the courts have or who the prime minister of the Jewish state is, ammunition that will make their international campaign to isolate their country more effective.

More importantly, they’ve broken rules and set precedents that will impact future Israeli governments no matter who is leading them. They’ve shown that not even an election can be allowed to break the left’s stranglehold on effective power via a system of courts and legal advisors that have effectively made Israel a juristocracy rather than a country ruled by the representatives of the people. That sends a dangerous message to the people whose votes determined the outcome of the election—that their views don’t matter and that they should lose faith in the ability of political action to have an impact on society.

The opposition didn’t play by the rules

Netanyahu and his fellow coalition members made a lot of mistakes in the last few months. The prime minister was inhibited by an outrageous ruling from the attorney general that effectively silenced him on the most important issue facing his country. Still, by concentrating most of his efforts on trying to rally reluctant Western nations to face up to the threat of Iran, he was distracted from what was going on at home.

He had been criticized for trying to force fundamental change to the justice system via a relatively narrow partisan majority without a national consensus. But those who say this are hypocrites. A left-wing Israeli government forced the disastrous Oslo Accords with an even narrower majority. Democrats like President Joe Biden, who make the same claim, also seem to be forgetting that the Obama administration he served did the same thing with health care despite the lack of a consensus or even making minimal gestures towards compromise.

Given the way his opponents have been willing to go to any length to defame or delegitimize him and even to drag him into court on trumped-up flimsy charges of corruption, Netanyahu underestimating his opponents is hard to fathom. Having broken a three-year-long political stalemate by gaining 64 seats in the Knesset to form the first clear majority since he won in 2015, the prime minister somehow thought his foes would play by the rules and let him govern.

He failed to understand that—like the willingness of the American political left to do anything to defeat former President Donald Trump, even if meant dragging the country through three years dominated by the Russia collusion hoax—his opponents were prepared to set the country on fire, destabilize its economy and even weaken its national defense to throw him out. The notion that restraining the power of the court—something that opposition leader Yair Lapid used to support before he realized that latching on to the resistance would give him a chance to erase his defeat last year—was the point of the protests was always false. The same could be said of the claim that preventing the courts from selectively exercising unaccountable power without any basis in law was the end of democracy or the first step towards the creation of a theocratic state.

With the chaos in the streets—with the financial, legal, cultural, media and academic establishments joining with the left-wing opposition—the prime minister already had his back to the wall. But the widespread refusal of many reservists, especially among those with skilled positions such as pilots, to refuse to report for reserve duty threatened the country’s national security. Along with general strikes that forced closures at airports and shutdowns of medical services, that proved to be the last straw and led already shaky members of the coalition to lose heart.

The coalition was slow to mobilize its own voters, who, after all, did outnumber the opposition in the recent election. The government’s supporters were forced to watch impotently as their leaders faltered, feuded among themselves and failed to act decisively to fight the battle for public opinion.

Going forward in the face of a resistance that was ready to trash even the most sacred of Israeli civic traditions involving national defense in order to gain a political victory became impossible. And with his own party losing discipline, and the U.S. government and many leading institutions of American Jewish life similarly backing the opposition, Netanyahu had no choice but to try and prevent any further damage.

Netanyahu has made a career out of repeatedly proving wrong those who have written his political obituary. Still, if the protests continue—and there is no reason to believe they will fully stop until a new election date is set—the government can try to reset the debate as being one about the left’s appetite for power and not their supposed devotion to democracy.

Whether they succeed is not as important as the implications of a political battle in which large numbers of people were prepared to sabotage the country in order to preserve the establishment’s power to determine policy regardless of who wins elections.

Implications for the future

Will that happen every time the right wins an election from now on? Probably. That means not only will the juristocracy defend its power, but its supporters are permanently committed to thwarting the will of voters who may continue to outnumber them in the future.

And how will a theoretical government of the left—assuming, as many now do, that Lapid and his allies can win the next election—react if large numbers of right-wing opponents try to play the same game? If the debate over the disastrous Oslo Accords and the 2005 Gaza withdrawal are any gauge of their behavior, they will crack down on their opponents in ways that Netanyahu hesitated to do this year with widespread jailing of dissidents. Dismissals from the army of those who refuse orders rather than the gentle lectures the anti-Bibi refuseniks got will also be likely.

While the left threatened violence against their opponents and even civil war if they didn’t get their way about judicial reform, who really believes they will hesitate to initiate one if they are in power and the right rises up in the streets the way we’ve just witnessed?

Similarly, the implications for Israel’s foreign relations are equally ominous. The opposition has essentially legitimized American involvement in Israel’s domestic politics even on an issue that had nothing to do with the questions of territory and peace. That weakens the country’s independence at a dangerous time when, as Netanyahu has been trying to point out, the threat from Iran is growing.

What’s more, Netanyahu’s opponents have (whether they realize it or not) also legitimized arguments aimed at denying that Israel is a democracy. While his foes think that this will only apply to times when the right wins elections, they may come to realize that to the antisemites who assail the Jewish state in international forums and in American politics where the intersectional left is increasingly influential, that will also apply to governments led by parties not named Likud.

Ultimately, Israel’s citizens—whether through democratic elections or mob actions that break governments and Knesset majorities—will determine their own fate. And those who look on from abroad must accept the outcome of these struggles and continue to support the Jewish state against its enemies.

Yet far from defending Israel from authoritarian forces, the protesters have established a precedent that will haunt future governments of all kinds and shake the foundation of its democracy. Whether that damage can be undone remains an open question.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate).

The post A ‘resistance’ coup just defeated Israeli democracy – analysis appeared first on World Israel News.

Jordan hosting incendiary ‘Nakba tours’ in Jerusalem: report

“The existence of [Jordanian] tours in western Jerusalem that are promoting the false Palestinian narrative…is extremely troubling from a sovereignty perspective,” says Maor Tzemach, CEO of Zionist NGO Your Jerusalem.

By World Israel News Staff

A Jordanian government body is providing a “Sins of the Nakba” tour in Israel’s capital city, framing the establishment of the Jewish state as a disaster for the Palestinian people and promoting an inaccurate version of military history.

According to a Facebook post by a group affiliated with the Waqf – the Jordanian-controlled body that serves as the Islamic guardian of Al-Aqsa Mosque within the Temple Mount compound – guests may participate in a tour of the city, which is mostly focused on the Katamon neighborhood.

Some points of interest in the free tour, which presents a distorted version of events biased towards the Palestinian narrative, are located just hundreds of meters away from the Prime Minister’s Residence, Walla News reported.

The Foreign Ministry told Walla News that it was unaware of the tours and that an investigation into the matter has been opened.

Maor Tzemach, CEO of Zionist NGO Your Jerusalem, told World Israel News (WIN) that the tours have major implications regarding Israeli sovereignty over the city, as well as signified blurred lines regarding Jordan’s authority within Jerusalem.

“Jordan is crossing serious lines, diplomatically. The only authority that Jordan has is over the Temple Mount, and Israel should be questioning whether or not Jordan is handling that responsibility appropriately,” Tzemach told WIN.

“The existence of [Jordanian] tours in western Jerusalem that are promoting the false Palestinian narrative… is extremely troubling from a sovereignty perspective. We expect the Foreign Ministry to clarify matters, [and make it clear] that Jordan only has authority regarding the Temple Mount, and nothing more than that.

“Beyond that, Jordan’s incitement towards Israel in and of itself is extremely problematic.”

Although Jordan has maintained a peace agreement with Israel since 1994, the country has a long history of hostile rhetoric towards the Jewish State.

The country’s parliament recently voted to withdraw the Jordanian ambassador to Israel, though follow-through on that motion appears unlikely to happen.

Jewish and Israeli visitors to Jordan, even those simply transiting through its airports, have been subject to harassment by customs agents and seen their sacred prayer objects desecrated.

The post Jordan hosting incendiary ‘Nakba tours’ in Jerusalem: report appeared first on World Israel News.

UN Complicity in Terrorism – The Case of Nicaragua

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article …

The post UN Complicity in Terrorism – The Case of Nicaragua appeared first on Global Research.

Joe Biden’s Rightward Pivot Isn’t Increasing His Popularity

After two years of touting his presidency as progressive and transformational, Joe Biden appears to be returning to form and moving rightward. It’s not only the wrong thing to do — according to the latest polls, it also isn’t winning voters over to him.

Joe Biden speaks at the Finishing Trades Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on March 9, 2023. (Hannah Beier / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

In recent weeks, US president Joe Biden has signed on to a familiar gambit. As his presidency has struggled after he sabotaged his own policy agenda, Biden is taking a page from the classics with a preelection right-wing turn.

At the start of the year, Biden replaced outgoing, progressive-curious chief of staff Ron Klain — who showed some inkling he understood we were living in different times from his and Biden’s heyday and felt the need to give progressives at least a token seat at the table — with former private equity maven Jeff Zients, maybe best known for his disastrous spearheading of the administration’s pandemic response. Given that Zients’s resume was defined by his love of austerity and corporate favors, it was a foreboding hint that the president may have tired of the progressive warrior image he had stoked for the first half of his term.

That hint seemed to have been confirmed by several recent moves by the administration. First, Biden abruptly reversed his pledge to oppose a GOP bill aimed at the District of Columbia’s recently passed rewriting of its criminal code, in the kind of classic tough-on-crime posturing that Biden himself helped pioneer several decades ago. The reality of the rewrite was nowhere near the portrait painted by cynical, fearmongering Republicans. But no matter: Biden folded quickly in the face of right-wing pressure and joined the GOP’s opposition to the rewrite. Long gone was the Biden of summer 2020, who saw political benefit in sharing photos of himself kneeling with black protesters and promising to “listen.”

Around the same time, the administration announced new, harsher immigration rules as he fended off similar Republican attacks on what they termed his “open borders” policy, turning away Venezuelans, Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans who cross the US border from Mexico, even those seeking asylum — a violation of US law that Politico accurately described as “Trump-esque.” Even more Trump-esque was the administration’s headline-grabbing possible restarting of a literal Trump policy, that of detaining families that illegally cross the US border, something the president had also once condemned. That Biden, too, is gone.

And so, it seems, is the one who pledged to “put us back into the business of leading the world on climate change,” having vowed as part of this ambitious plan “no more drilling on federal lands, period.” Biden had already severely disappointed anyone hoping for a habitable Earth through several scandalous fossil fuel industry giveaways that directly broke this promise. But he upped the ante this month by approving the $8 billion Willow oil project in Alaska over copious objections. The largest such project on public lands, it will pump more than 260 million metric tons of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Labeled “recklessly irresponsible” by no less than Al Gore, it’s partly a sop to Alaska’s conservative congressional delegation, one of whom openly says it was motivated by “political interest.”

It’s not hard to see the logic, since it’s the same one Democrats like Biden have stuck to their entire careers: when you’re under attack from the Right, move to the center and adopt right-wing policies, giving yourself political cover while at the same time peeling off conservative voters.

How has this worked out? The answer comes in a recent, major poll, one conducted over March 16–20 — the precise period after which these high-profile right-wing pivots were announced and allowed to sink into public consciousness. Far from getting a polling bump, Biden has seen his approval rating plummet, from 45 percent to 38 percent, his second-worst rating in the AP-NORC poll, after the nadir of 36 percent recorded last July.

Worse, the strategic logic driving the White House’s rightward shift hasn’t been remotely borne out. Democratic voters, the group that should be most horrified by these policies, continue to support the president in high numbers, albeit vastly lower than at the start of his term. And Republican voters, the group meant to be won over by these moves, gave Biden a dreadful approval rating of 4 percent, which itself is an eight-point drop from a similarly dreadful GOP rating last month.

The problem, as ever, is the economy, whose impressive-sounding headline numbers — high growth, low unemployment, persistent job creation — mask what is in reality a slow-burning crisis that people are struggling through in the face of not just inflation, but the ongoing, long-term US economic precarity that Biden failed to reform. According to the same poll, a full 75 percent of respondents have a negative view of the economy, as high a number as it’s ever been in the poll, while 47 percent describe their personal financial situation as poor, the highest figure since at least June 2019.

Nevertheless, Democrats are continuing to stick with Biden as their “best bet” to win reelection in 2024. Any opposition has been completely neutralized, with even progressives rallying behind the president and his sole challenger coming from outside the party, ensuring he can continue to move rightward over the coming months without consequence.

Yet if this polling is any indication, those Democrats giving their assent to this strategy because they view Biden as the most likely to deliver the party victory next year shouldn’t just be asking themselves at what cost they’re doing so. They might want to ask if he’ll even deliver.

Under Humza Yousaf, the Scottish National Party Has a Choice Between Revival and Decline

Humza Yousaf narrowly won the SNP leadership contest against a conservative challenger. If Yousaf doesn’t follow through on the left-wing policies in his campaign agenda, his party and the wider cause of Scottish independence face the prospect of decline.

Newly appointed leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), Humza Yousaf, speaks following the SNP Leadership election result announcement at Murrayfield Stadium in Edinburgh on March 27, 2023. (Andy Buchanan / AFP via Getty Images)

Yesterday, Humza Yousaf narrowly beat Kate Forbes in the race to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as leader of the SNP. Today, Yousaf is being confirmed as Scotland’s sixth first minister since the dawn of devolution twenty-four years ago and its first from an ethnic minority background.

The new leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) — and of Scotland — is a thirty-seven-year-old Muslim, a self-described “republican” and “socialist” whose primary political objective is the break up of the British state. Under his leadership, the SNP and the wider cause of Scottish independence faces a stark choice between revival and decline.

Down to the Wire

Yousaf’s grandparents arrived in Scotland from Pakistan in the 1960s. His father, an accountant, became an SNP activist on the south side of Glasgow. Yousaf was sent to an elite Scottish private school — Hutchesons’ Grammar — in the 1990s and studied politics at Glasgow University, where he agitated against the war in Iraq and for Palestinian independence.

The symbolic power of the moment was not lost on Yousaf in his acceptance speech:

As Muhammad Yousaf worked in the Singer Sewing Machine Factory in Clydebank, and as Rehmat Ali Bhutta stamped tickets on the Glasgow Corporation Buses, they couldn’t have imagined, in their wildest dreams, that two generations later their grandson would one day be Scotland’s first minister.

And yet, for all the apparent potency of Yousaf’s candidacy — Scotland’s population is more than 95 percent white — the race was far closer than it should have been.

When the leadership results were tallied on Monday, Yousaf had edged out Forbes by less than three thousand votes. A third of the SNP’s seventy-thousand-strong membership didn’t vote at all. After the redistribution of Ash Regan’s third-place ballots, the percentage breakdown was 52 to 48 percent in Yousaf’s favor — an ill-fated figure in British political numerology.

Right-Wing Revolt

Yousaf’s victory staved off an unexpectedly forceful right-wing revolt. He was the overwhelming favorite of the party hierarchy and had the support of SNP legislators in Edinburgh and London, as well as the tacit approval of Nicola Sturgeon herself — who remained officially neutral throughout the contest.

Yousaf’s victory staved off an unexpectedly forceful right-wing revolt grouped around Kate Forbes.

Forbes, meanwhile, seized on her status as a political outsider. Her most enthusiastic backers were Blairite commentators — the New Statesman’s Chris Deerin issued one oddly breathless endorsement after another — and sections of Britain’s reactionary press. Forbes claimed to be the candidate for “change,” while Yousaf promised Sturgeonite “continuity.”

And the strategy very nearly worked. The SNP considers itself a party of the center left, but it also desperately wants to win elections (or to go on winning elections: it has been in power at Holyrood for the past sixteen years). The crux of Forbes’s campaign pitch was that she was better placed than Yousaf to convert conservative and unionist Scots to the independence cause. A surprisingly large chunk of the SNP’s base agreed.

Had she won, however, the party might well have split. Forbes is a member of the fundamentalist Free Church of Scotland. Her hard-line social views on abortion and trans rights echo what the late Tom Nairn once called the “rough-hewn sadism” of the SNP’s provincial, traditionalist wing. Under her leadership, urban millennials would have fled — and taken their disproportionately high levels of enthusiasm for Scottish self-government with them.

But by electing Yousaf, the SNP — after a decade and a half of incumbency — has given itself a shot at progressive reinvention.

Yousaf’s Agenda

During the five-week election campaign, as Forbes railed against Scotland’s “over-regulated” economy, Yousaf rolled out a raft of reforming social democratic policies, including the introduction of windfall taxes, wealth taxes, and the public ownership of Scottish renewables. His inaugural act as first minister, he told the Daily Record on March 26, would be to convene a summit of anti-poverty organizations in Edinburgh.

To this ostensibly left-wing agenda, Yousaf added flashes of populist rhetoric. In February, he warned Forbes against a “foolish” lurch to the right that would cede vital electoral ground to Keir Starmer’s resurgent Labour Party. In March, he said he wanted to ditch the British monarchy — the SNP’s current policy is to retain Charles III as Scotland’s head of state after independence.

There are the stirrings of a semi-radical platform here, anchored in Yousaf’s stated willingness to use the economic powers of the Scottish Parliament to their fullest extent. Crucially, unlike Forbes, Yousaf will also honor Sturgeon’s coalition arrangement with the Scottish Greens, which means maintaining the current pro-independence majority at Holyrood and bolstering demands for an accelerated Scottish transition to net zero.

But there are reasons to be wary, too. First off, Yousaf is Sturgeon’s heir, and Sturgeon, above all, was a gifted manipulator of Scottish public opinion who regularly gestured at social change but never delivered on her transformative potential.

The statistics tell their own story. At the start of her first ministerial tenure in 2014, child poverty rates in Scotland stood at 24 percent. Last week, as she prepared to exit Bute House, child poverty rates in Scotland still stood at 24 percent. Sturgeonism was a political management project cloaked in a careful performance of social concern.

Likewise, despite his youth, Yousaf is a long-term career politician who has been active in the upper echelons of the SNP for more than a decade. He worked as a parliamentary aide at Holyrood before being elected as an MSP, at the age of twenty-five, in 2011. He then became a junior minister in Alex Salmond’s second administration in 2012.

After that, Yousaf climbed the ranks of the Scottish cabinet, rising from Europe minister in Sturgeon’s government to health secretary in the space of seven years. Nothing in his professional biography indicates a willingness to meaningfully challenge the Scottish political order.

New Generation, New Challenge

Instead, Yousaf’s first task will be resetting the SNP after a stinging succession battle. The narrowness of the result has revealed the scale of the party’s internal cultural fissures. For the first time since the 1970s and ’80s, Scottish nationalism has an identifiable “left” and an identifiable “right.”

For the first time since the 1970s and ’80s, Scottish nationalism has an identifiable ‘left’ and an identifiable ‘right.’

Forbes’s hostility toward “woke” politics and her deregulatory economic vision now have a visible foothold inside the movement and could serve as a disruptive counterweight to Yousaf’s — already imperfect — political authority in the months ahead. The rank-and-file demand to reinvigorate an independence campaign that looks increasingly marooned may compound the sense of crisis.

One of the interesting features of Sturgeon’s resignation is that it has abruptly — and, perhaps, prematurely — ushered in a new generation of nationalist leaders. Yousaf is not yet forty. Forbes is thirty-two. The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Stephen Flynn, is thirty-four. His deputy, Mhairi Black, is twenty-eight.

This is a cohort of Scots that grew up after the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 and shares an instinctive belief in the inevitability of Scotland’s independence. They watched as the SNP surged from strength to strength, first under Salmond and then under Sturgeon, insouciantly defeating its unionist rivals from one election to the next.

There will be nothing insouciant about the Yousaf era for the SNP. Whatever the optics, however pleasing, it will be an era of revival or decline.

‘WATCH’: Nashville shooter who murdered 3 kids, 3 adults, was ‘planning to die’ – Why?

Former FBI special agent Jonathan Gilliam joined ‘Fox & Friends First’ to discuss the latest on the investigation into the tragic Nashville school shooting on Monday that left three nine-year-old children and three adults in their 60s, dead, including the head of the private Christian school.

The post ‘WATCH’: Nashville shooter who murdered 3 kids, 3 adults, was ‘planning to die’ – Why? appeared first on World Israel News.

WATCH: Fracture much deeper than judicial reform – What really divides Israelis?

The big debate in Israel that has been brewing for decades has finally come to the fore: Is Israel first a Jewish state and then a liberal democracy, or is it the other way around?

The post WATCH: Fracture much deeper than judicial reform – What really divides Israelis? appeared first on World Israel News.