Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Mark Leshkevich
[REGNUM] On March 17—Forgiveness Sunday—1861, Alexander II's manifesto on the abolition of serfdom was read out in St. Petersburg and Moscow. The emperor himself announced his will in the capital's Mikhailovsky Manege.
The manifesto's preamble stated that serfdom was "abolished forever," and that peasants and house servants were granted "the rights of free rural inhabitants." The "will" was read out in provincial and district towns for another month.
The Tsar's decision had already become known in the capitals at the beginning of the year. A former serf and "literate scholar" named Fyodor Bobkov left a diary entry about a banquet at the Assembly of Nobility, hosted by the liberal professors of Moscow University on Tatiana's Day. Fyodor served at the table. The progressive historian Mikhail Pogodin (himself the grandson of a serf freed by a kindly master) accepted the glass of champagne offered by Bobkov and proposed a toast:
“The dawn is rising, dear sirs, despite the clouds that occasionally run across the horizon... To the health of our most pious sovereign, Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich!”
The learned peasant Bobkov recalled:
A loud 'hurrah' echoed through the hall... My thoughts were mingling with the same desires and hopes... Suddenly, an unexpected nudge in the side knocked me down to earth and made me remember I wasn't a student, but a waiter. Kuzmich (another waiter) nudged me and said, "Gather up the silver. And be careful no one steals the two bottles of champagne I stole."
From the memoirs of Fyodor Bobkov it follows that for his fellow class members this was “somehow not the same” will.
"TEMPORARY DUTY" FOR 44 YEARS
It is commonly believed that the Tsar's manifesto affected the majority of the population of the Russian Empire. This is not true.
The Manifesto affected just over 23 million subjects of Alexander II. That's how many serfs there were in Russia, according to statistics from 1861. They didn't constitute the majority of the empire's population—34.3% of the 67 million inhabitants.
In Siberia, Pomorye, and the Cossack south, farmers were mostly free—in Vyatka Governorate, serfs accounted for 2.64%, and in Stavropol Governorate, even less—2.41%. But in the densely populated provinces of European Russia, serfs were indeed a significant part of the population: in Smolensk Governorate, over 69%, and in Tula Governorate, 68.9%.
The co-authors of the manifesto—the “liberal bureaucrat” Comrade (Deputy) Head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Nikolai Milyutin, the Slavophile Yuri Samarin, and the Moscow Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) —tried to take into account the interests of both farmers and landowners.
The freed serfs received the rights to participate in contracts, courts, trade and property, and they were granted the freedom to marry without the permission of the landowner.
In exchange for the allotment of land allotted to the master, the peasant was required to perform his duties "either through labor or money." Until the termination of this obligatory relationship, they were called "temporarily obligated."
165 years ago, the state gave serfs personal freedom, but retained land dependence, duties, redemption payments, and, for a “transitional period,” the supervision of the landowner and the patrimonial police.
Russia only saw the final abolition of serfdom under Nicholas II. Part of the 1905 reforms included the abolition of redemption payments.
But in 1861, the desire to solve a long-standing problem, which had been approached even under Alexander I, and at the same time maintain social peace, was a difficult task.
DON'T TOUCH THE GROUND
For the nobility, the reform was a shock and the subject of a fierce internal struggle. Most landowners resisted the abolition of serfdom or wanted it to be carried out under the most favorable terms for themselves.
Their letters, notes, and speeches at noble assemblies are filled with anxiety. Land was the main nerve of the dispute.
One of the texts from those years expressed this almost cynically accurately: “Don’t touch the ground during liberation, and everything will calm down.”
The merchant class, on the whole, was more enthusiastic about the reform than is commonly believed. The millionaire entrepreneur Vasily Kokorev openly rejoiced at rumors of emancipation, saying he saw the inconveniences of serfdom every day. This was the voice of the business class, for whom serfdom was a hindrance both economically and morally.
The clergy found themselves in a difficult position. The higher hierarchy often viewed the reform with caution. The parish clergy lived among the people and were the first to sense the peasants' anger, mistrust, and confusion. It was through the church that the manifesto entered the village. Therefore, the church grounds became both the site of the official declaration of freedom and the site of the first peasant doubts.
The attitude of the main “addressees” of the reform was extremely complex.
"THE COURTYARDS ARE BECOMING BOLD"
Even before 1861, rumors of impending "freedom" were circulating in the villages. A document submitted to the editorial committee by nobles from three provinces (Kharkiv, Tver, and Yaroslavl) stated that the hope of gaining freedom and all the land belonging to the landowners "had become a belief that had embraced the entire people, young and old."
In the spring of 1856, there was talk that freedom would be granted at Alexander's coronation. At the end of 1856, the decree "On the procedure for registering peasants when landowners release them to the rank of state peasants" was perceived among peasants as almost a document of universal emancipation.
It was sold out, passed from hand to hand, and retold. In St. Petersburg, according to contemporaries, about 150 people were arrested and flogged for spreading such rumors.
In October 1857, one of the gendarme officers reported from the Nizhny Novgorod province: "Rumor among the common people about the abolition of serfdom has increased. They speak of it openly and it is the subject of the most impatient anticipation."
The servants, he added, "are becoming insolent." The landowners are afraid to remain in the villages.
Another document, compiled by officials of the Third Section on January 5, 1860, already conveys the irritation among the peasants: one can hear “anger at the landowners,” talk about how the peasants “have been deceived with their freedom for three years now,” and if the sovereign does not take decisive measures, “the peasants have only one way out.”
And finally, here comes the long-awaited will. It was immediately deemed a forgery.
THE RISEN ABYSS
According to contemporaries, this scene was not uncommon: the parish priest gathers the "peasant world" in the church and reads the manifesto. Before this, the district police chief and the marshal of the nobility demanded that he proclaim the law precisely and reassure the people.
But the people are grumbling, there is talk that true freedom means land without redemption, the end of corvee (without any temporary measures), the departure of landowners from the village, the transfer of all the land to the “world.”
There are known cases when the priest answered that there was no other paper; they did not believe him, but did not touch him, believing that “the priest is also in bondage.”
According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in 1861 there were 784 unrests in 2034 villages, and in 449 cases it was necessary to call in the troops.
The peasants refused to work, demonstrated disobedience to the patrimonial administration, and were unwilling to accept the charters. They protested against the land parceling and demanded the entire landowner's estate or at least the preservation of the pre-reform allotment.
The aides-de-camp reported from the field: in the Vitebsk province, peasants agreed to work for the landowner for only two weeks, after which they wanted to take ownership of the land and forests, citing the will of the sovereign.
In the village of Bezdna in the Kazan province and Kandeevka in Penza they demanded all the land and the abolition of duties.
In Saratov Governorate, they insisted on transferring land, estates, and forests to the peasants. In Samara Governorate, they wanted to preserve the land they had used before the reform. In Tula Governorate, a typical narrative of the era circulated: the land and forests, "God's and the Tsar's," would become peasant property in two years.
BOUND BY ONE CHAIN
The law relieved landowners of responsibility for the provision and care of former serfs, and placed responsibility for food, taxes, and zemstvo and secular duties on the peasants themselves.
Nikolai Nekrasov reflected this new situation in the post-reform village in his poem "Who Lives Well in Russia." One of the characters, a landowner, says:
“The great chain has broken—
Now we don’t beat the peasant,
But at least it's fatherly
We do not pardon him."
The peasant gained freedom along with the burden of state and social obligations. Instead of the patriarchal authority of the master, the "little peasant" faced the bureaucratic apparatus directly. That's why Nekrasov's peasants complain:
“The great chain has broken,
It broke and fell apart
With one end towards the master,
"Others need a man."
In the 1870s and later, it was precisely this difficult everyday life that would become one of the reasons for the persistent dissatisfaction of the village with the entire post-reform order.
The state abolished serfdom from above, hoping to maintain order. The peasant, however, measured reform from below: with his arable land, his farmstead, his forest, his hay harvest, his corvee day, the amount of his quitrent, and his right to remain where he was.
Russia's most numerous class saw its own, the peasant question, as unresolved. And this problem would come back to haunt them in 1917. The Socialist Revolutionaries, and later the Bolsheviks, who had adopted the slogan "Land to the peasants!", did not aim for balance and consideration of the interests of all classes in the country. The peasants became an instrument of the revolution and one of its main victims.
Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin
[ColonelCassad] My article for TASS regarding the deployment of additional US troops in Romania under the pretext of a "war against Iran."
Following the launch of the US-Israeli operation against Iran and the subsequent collapse of plans for a blitzkrieg to overthrow the Iranian government, Washington was faced with the urgent need to formulate a new plan for a war that could drag on for months. Among the various proposed adjustments, a notable episode was the decision to deploy additional US military forces in Romania. The formal pretext for this is "supporting operations against Iran."
Why is this particularly important for Russia? This is not the first sign. These actions have a certain prehistory. Even during the de facto dismantling of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaties and the deployment of US systems in Romania, Washington repeatedly stated that this was being done specifically to "counter Iranian ballistic missiles threatening Europe and NATO." Moscow, for its part, argued that this was a false pretext—the deployment of a missile defense system in Romania was part of US and NATO strategic pressure on Russia and the eastward expansion of alliance forces.
Under George W. Bush, the foundation was laid with an agreement on access to military facilities in Romania, and under Barack Obama, missile defense systems were installed in Deveselu under the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) program. Construction of the missile defense base began in 2013 and was completed in December 2015. The Aegis Ashore system was deployed there, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system, which, among other things, poses a certain threat to Russian missiles, was also deployed on a rotational basis. These steps were initially viewed by Russia's military-political leadership and the expert community as part of Washington's strategy aimed at undermining nuclear missile parity and achieving US strategic superiority over Russia in strategic weapons.
After the start of the West's proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, the base began to be positioned as an important tool for "containing Moscow." And the formal cover of "defense against Iranian missiles" was effectively abandoned. As for "manpower," fairly large contingents of US Army troops (including heavy armored vehicles and various missile systems) began appearing in Romania on a regular basis in the second half of the 2010s. All of this was part of various multinational NATO exercises, which, admittedly, usually immediately had an anti-Russian "cover story." Furthermore, US fighters and bombers, including strategic ones, began to fly into Romania with increasing frequency.
INCREASINGLY
After 2022, Bucharest became closely involved in the conflict support system in Ukraine. Specifically, the country was used as a logistics hub for the transshipment of military supplies across the Danube and along the Romanian Black Sea coast for the Kyiv regime. Operations of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) related to the battle for Zmiynyi Island, as well as strikes against ships and vessels of the Black
Sea Fleet, were supported through Romania. It is no secret that the goal of several operations—particularly those conducted through Romania—is to maintain Kyiv's control over the remaining portion of the Black Sea coast.
Furthermore, in 2022, a larger deployment of US and NATO ground forces began in Romania. Up to 4,000 soldiers and officers from the elite 101st Airborne Division, units of the 82nd Airborne Division, and the 2nd Cavalry Regiment began to be based there. In addition, various auxiliary units, intelligence structures, airspace monitoring systems, etc. are stationed on the country's territory. Romanian airspace has been regularly used by US and NATO reconnaissance aircraft (B-52, B-1B Lancer), F-35 fighters, and unmanned reconnaissance drones.
And just in 2025, a whole series of military exercises took place on Romanian territory: Steadfast Dart (approximately 10,000 personnel), Sea Shield (more than 2,500), Dacian Fall (more than 5,000), and Saber Guardian (approximately 6,000).
Since the fall, Romanian territory has been actively used by the US and NATO to conduct the anti-Russian "Eastern Sentinel" exercises. On September 14, 2025, Bucharest, without evidence, accused Moscow of "the arrival of a Russian drone over Polish territory" and used this as justification for the active participation of NATO troops in training exercises on Romanian territory aimed at "containing Russia."
The Mihail Kogălniceanu Military Base plays a crucial role today. According to announced plans for its expansion and modernization, it is slated to become the largest US and NATO base on the bloc's eastern flank. Located 26 kilometers northwest of the country's largest seaport, Constanta, it enjoys a privileged geographic location. Aircraft stationed there have the operational range of most of the Black Sea region, including both Ukraine and Russian regions. This airbase began being used by the US and NATO back in 1999 and played a crucial logistical role in supporting the aggression against Iraq in 2003.
From 2010 to 2018, a rotational contingent of up to 500 US Army soldiers and officers was stationed there. Since February 2017, a battalion of an armored brigade combat team has been stationed at the base on nine-month rotations. Furthermore, during this period, helicopters from the 1st Combat Aviation Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division were stationed at the base. These are generally standard levels of presence and rotation cycles, but their mere presence in this area cannot fail to provoke a reaction. This is especially true given that since the start of the Second World War, there has been a systematic increase in the American military contingent at this base.
In addition to American forces, paramilitary representatives from Britain, Germany, Italy, and several other NATO members are stationed at the Mihail Kogălniceanu base. While the number of NATO contingents at this base was estimated at 4,000-5,000 by 2024, according to strategic plans, by 2040 the total number of military and support personnel at the base will reach 25,000-30,000. This represents a fundamental and dramatic expansion of the base's territory, including the construction of additional runways, basing and storage infrastructure, barracks, new access roads, bridges, and so on. Mihail Kogălniceanu is expected to be 1.5 to 2 times larger than the largest American bases in Germany. The total investment in the project will exceed $4.5 billion.
In my opinion, these sums and the planning horizon clearly indicate that the United States intends to establish itself in the Black Sea region for the long term.
THE NEED FOR REDEPLOYMENT
Moreover, according to recent statements, an additional contingent of 500 soldiers, officers, and specialists is planned to be stationed at the Mihail Kogălniceanu airbase for operations against Iran. It is believed that, given Tehran's destruction of a number of American airbases in the Middle East, as well as the British Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus (attacked by Hezbollah drones from Lebanon), the "outpost" in Romania is intended to be used to deploy Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker air tankers. These tankers play a crucial role in supporting airstrikes against Iran. Based in Romania, they will be able to provide in-flight refueling for American aircraft attacking from Syrian and Iraqi airspace. To date, the US has lost one such tanker in Western Iraq, and six more have been damaged in Iraq and Saudi Arabia (during Iranian strikes on the Prince Sultan military base).
A key factor in Romania's official authorization to use the Mihail Kogălniceanu airbase against Iran is Tehran's declaration that any US base anywhere would be a legitimate target if it launched an attack on the Islamic Republic. Thus, the Romanian leadership is exposing its territory to attack.
Iran, however, possesses ballistic and hypersonic missiles that are quite capable of reaching Romania—if launched northwest and flying over Armenia and Georgia, which have extremely limited missile defense capabilities and would be unable to intercept them. These missiles include the Shahab-3, Sumar, and Sajil-2, with a range of over 2,000 kilometers. They can strike targets throughout Romania, including the Mihail Kogălniceanu airbase and the Deveselu missile defense base. Essentially, it is not Iran that poses a threat to Romania, but rather the actions of the US and the Romanian government. Iran does not necessarily strike Romania, but the likelihood is increasing.
I would also like to point out that such a scenario of drawing Bucharest into war would hardly have been possible without the rigging of the presidential elections in Romania. As a reminder, Călin Georgescu was removed from office in December 2024. In particular, he held strongly sovereigntist positions, criticized the deployment of a missile defense base in Deveselu, calling it a "disgrace to diplomacy," and questioned the advisability of Romania's NATO membership in its current form.
Thus, his views clearly jeopardized plans to use Romania as an anti-Russian springboard. The United States has publicly condemned Brussels' behavior, which constantly and openly interferes in the elections of both EU and NATO members. But Washington has not hesitated to exploit the acquiescence of the Romanian leadership, effectively appointed by Brussels, which is willing to continue to provide the country's territory for "containing Russia," to draw Romania into the Middle East adventure.
MOSCOW IS NOT SLEEPING.
It's important to understand that the threat posed by the US and NATO (despite all the rhetoric and attempts to reach a peaceful settlement in Ukraine) to Russia (including from Romania) has not diminished under the current US administration. Statements continue to be heard about plans to deploy NATO troops to Ukraine, including from Romania, to establish control over Odessa and the Odessa region. Not only have the problems not disappeared, but they have entered the phase of a direct threat of escalating the conflict along the lines of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Ideas for annexing Moldova and incorporating it into Romania are also making their presence felt.
Therefore, the retention of large US and NATO contingents in Romania, possessing air and missile defense systems, as well as a wide range of different strike platforms, makes this a systemic threat to Russia. Therefore, any increase in military capabilities in Romania can and should be interpreted as a potential increase in threats to Russia, regardless of the pretexts used.
Russia's military-political leadership has repeatedly called on Brussels, Washington, and Bucharest to cease cultivating military threats and move toward the formation of a new, unified and indivisible European security system. This includes, in particular, various treaty restrictions that would reduce the likelihood of conflict, including in the Black Sea region.
However, all these proposals have been consistently rejected by the West and the Romanian authorities, which only confirms a deliberate course of escalation. Russia is responding with a range of military-technical measures—continuing to expand its strike capabilities in the Black Sea region, where the Russian Armed Forces possess a wide range of cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic missiles (which, incidentally, have performed admirably in the Second World War in Ukraine, including against Western air defense systems identical to those deployed in Romania). The Iskander-M, Tsirkon, Kinzhal, and Onyx missile systems pose the greatest threat to the enemy. Furthermore, unmanned systems capable of striking NATO targets in Romania from Crimea or the Caucasus continue to develop. Furthermore, active work is underway to develop unmanned boats for operations in enemy coastal zones.
Essentially, Romania is currently simply not a sovereign state capable of making independent decisions, and Washington and Brussels are quite deliberate in their actions regarding the use of its territory against Russia. The fact that it could still be used against Iran only confirms the "value" of Romania's militarization in the eyes of those who champion a "rules-based order."
However, as the war against Iran demonstrates, intoxication with success can lead to dire consequences for both the architects of aggression and for those countries that have ceded their sovereignty to external control.
[Tommy's PodCast] Transcript running on the side, snippet below: Caution: Barracks language.
0:00Hey guys, thanks for watching the show.
0:011 secondThe best way to support the podcast are the links in the description. Uh the locals in the Patreon, I do daily videos behind the scenes like fiveminute videos
0:099 secondsor Kofi, which is buy me a coffee. Uh Cash App and PayPal. Those five are the best way to support the show. A dollar donation a month legitimately makes a
0:1717 secondsdifference. The show makes the show needs about $5,000 a month to run on. The majority of that is from YouTube,
0:2222 secondsRumble, and uh Spotify, which is bad because if any one of those go south,
0:2727 secondswhich they have in the past, the podcast is left hanging. Right now, the show gets about $1,500 a month from fans. I want to get that up to 5,000 so that the rest of them can just go pound sand. So,
0:3737 secondsif you can, please go to one of those links in the description. Genuinely, a dollar a month. A dollar a month makes a difference. Or you can get Sport Drink,
0:4545 secondsthe sports drink uh company that sponsors me. Use promo code Tommy's podcast. or you can get Heaven's Harvest Prepper Food, promo code TPC. Both those links are in the description. And if you
0:5454 secondscan't or don't want to do any of that, I would ask that you go to ARC, the Association for Recovery of Children,
0:5858 secondsARC. It's in the description. It's a bunch of special forces guys that don't take salaries. And once a month, about that's about how long it takes. They.....
Two hours and change of discussion.
People who talk with their hands and stare out the window. If they come for us, these people will not be permitted to board. Please someone, delete this so that others may be spared.
Kent's current wife, Heather Kaiser, has written for the Grayzone, an anti-war publication that has a pro-Assad and pro-Russia editorial line. The website's managing editor reportedly received payments from the Iranian state-run news network PressTV, according to the Washington Post.
The article also discusses Mr. Kent’s close ties to Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes.
#5
As I commented on a string earlier; the "quiet professional" method of handling it would have been to announce a departure to another agency or firm and continue to march.
But NO! A statement had to be made. Sorry, the statement gave him away.
"... I read probably a lot more intelligence than he did, because they don't have a law enforcement function, the National Counterterrorism Center. They're an analytical clearinghouse."
They're valuable. However, I had access to just about everything. And how you could come to the conclusion that the Israelis did it and there was no imminent threat here? Really? What about the anti-ship ballistic missiles, the drone program, 440 kilograms of 60 percent enriched nuclear material, their constant death-to-America chant? I mean, you know, that's called evidence. In some limited circles, we call that, you know, a clue. I mean, I don't know at what point you thought this wasn't an imminent threat, after you've read a lot of the stuff I read.
"And by the way, that's just the open-store stuff we can talk about on the air," the former deputy FBI director added. "I promise you, the president—I promise you—has a bevy of material that if he could do the men-in-black thing and erase your mind tomorrow, if he told you right now, you would come to the imminent threat conclusion in a snap."
#11
Resigning is one thing. Tossing a grenade through the door as you are departing is yet another. There's always the chance he was headed toward a 'for cause' dismissal and 'jumped the shark' in advance of what may have been pending.
Chris Cuomo says Joe Kent’s narrative that Israel forced President Trump into war with Iran collapses for what he claims is the most obvious reason — “If it were true, he’d be saying it right now.”
Amb. Mike Huckabee in video message to ADL's 2026 Never is Now conference: "Let's be clear, this [war with Iran] isn't about Israel—this is about all of the free world."
"It's certainly about Jewish people, it is about Israel, but it's about the United States, and a lot of... pic.twitter.com/5FuRAZjKsm
…and a lot of Americans don't seem to understand that for 47 years the Iranian regime has threatened 'Death to America'—and they mean it!"
"They twice hired people to assassinate the president…"
"This is not a conflict in which the United States is doing something for Israel, this is that the United States is doing something for Americans—and I hope people understand it."
"The rise of anti-Semitism [is a cancer in our country]. When we say, 'No, Never Again,' we need to mean it… It needs to be a lifestyle…"
Posted by: Omans Slath8956 ||
03/18/2026 03:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1766 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Have noticed several major MeMe sites are producing a disproportionate number of Anti-Jewish, Anti-USA-Israel memes.
Originally published in Washington Jewish Week By Stephen M. Flatow
In recent weeks, former Fox News host and current podcast Tucker Carlson has been asking a series of questions about the joint U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. Why did America strike? Who pushed the United States into the conflict? Could the war somehow be tied to Israel’s religious aspirations regarding the Temple Mount in Jerusalem?
Carlson insists that he is merely asking questions. His defenders argue that criticism of foreign policy — specifically, American involvement in Middle Eastern wars — is entirely legitimate. On that point, they are correct. Americans have always debated foreign policy, and vigorous disagreement is healthy in a democracy.
But there is something about Carlson’s line of questioning that should sound familiar to students of American history.
The pattern is not new.
In the early 1920s, industrialist Henry Ford used his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, to publish a series of articles later compiled as “The International Jew.” The publication presented itself as investigative journalism. Week after week, it raised some “questions” about Jewish influence in banking, politics and world affairs. The articles suggested that Jews manipulated governments and pushed nations into wars that served their interests.
Ford didn’t always make direct accusations. Instead, he initiated suspicions. He hinted and prodded. He invited readers to draw their own conclusions.
The result was one of the most influential antisemitic propaganda campaigns in American history.
A decade later, the Catholic priest Charles E. Coughlin reached tens of millions of Americans through his radio broadcasts. Like Ford before him, Coughlin framed his attacks on Jews and “international bankers” as populist criticism of elites and foreign entanglements. He claimed that he was defending ordinary Americans against hidden forces manipulating the country’s policies.
Coughlin also insisted he was simply raising questions.
Today, the technology has changed, but the rhetorical strategy remains remarkably similar.
Carlson’s podcast and streaming programs reach millions of listeners. His influence rivals that of major television networks. When he repeatedly asks why Israel supposedly benefits from American military action or suggests that hidden actors are pushing the United States into war with Iran, the implication is clear, even if it is never stated outright.
The technique is simple and effective: raise provocative questions while avoiding direct claims.
“Could this be about rebuilding the Third Temple?” Carlson recently asked.
No evidence is offered. None is required. The power of the insinuation lies precisely in its vagueness. Once such ideas are planted, they circulate widely across social media, detached from the context in which they were first raised.
None of this means that criticism of Israeli policy is antisemitic. It is not. Israelis themselves engage in vigorous debate about their government’s decisions every day.
Nor is isolationism inherently antisemitic. Americans have long debated whether the United States should intervene abroad or focus primarily on domestic concerns.
However, there is a clear line between legitimate debate and the revival of a familiar historical trope: the suggestion that Jews — or the Jewish state — are manipulating great powers into wars for their own purposes.
That accusation has a long and ugly history.
It was used against Jews in Europe for centuries. It surfaced in America during debates over World War I and World War II. It animated the propaganda of figures like Ford and Coughlin. And it helped fuel antisemitic movements on both sides of the Atlantic.
History shows that once this narrative gains traction, it rarely stops with criticism of Israel. It inevitably expands into suspicion toward Jews more broadly.
For those of us who have experienced Iran’s terrorism firsthand, the current debate has an additional dimension.
My daughter Alisa was murdered in a 1995 terrorist bombing in Israel carried out by terrorists who were funded and trained by the Iranian regime. In the years since her death, I pursued legal action against Iran in U.S. courts and obtained judgments recognizing its responsibility for sponsoring terrorism that killed Americans.
Iran’s leaders openly call for Israel’s destruction and have spent decades funding terrorist groups across the Middle East. Confronting that regime is not some mystical religious crusade or geopolitical conspiracy. It is a response to a government that has made violence against Americans and Israelis a central pillar of its policy.
Americans are free to debate how best to confront that threat. Reasonable people can disagree about strategy, diplomacy and military action. But history teaches us to pay attention when influential voices begin framing those debates through insinuations about Jewish motives or Israeli manipulation.
A century ago, Henry Ford used the pages of his newspaper to raise similar questions. A decade later, Father Charles Coughlin used the new medium of radio to spread the same suspicions to millions of Americans.
Today, the medium is podcasts and social media. But the formula hasn’t changed.
The insinuation is familiar. The questions sound the same. And history warns us where such questions can ultimately lead.
Stephen M. Flatow is president of the Religious Zionists of America. He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995.
#1
The irony is that nowadays as unions - particularly ones like NAGE and SEIU - are filling up with Muslims, the leaders of these unions - broken glass Democrats all - are attacking the banking class again.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/18/2026 11:34 Comments ||
Top||
[Townhall]Yet, some people want you to believe that we’re losing. We’re not.
And for Al Jazeera to admit that - and not any U.S.-based outlet - speaks to the level of rot within our newsrooms. The former is bad, which peddles terrorist propaganda daily, but not even they could mask what’s going on in Iran. It’s an a**-whooping. From the missile arsenal to the Strait of Hormuz, all the liberal talking points against this war were laid to waste...by Al Jazeera:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Townhall]Yet, some people want you to believe that we’re losing. We’re not. 
