Hospitals have to focus on building customer loyalty and brand recognition. Business plans and marketing strategies must address changes in consumer expectations and customer service, reimbursement procedures, rates of heads in beds, sources of payments for care, workforce management and working conditions, changing demographics in hospital catchment areas, and evolving doctor-patient-hospital relationships.

Many hospital CEOs adapted to the shifting sands before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became effective in 2010. Smaller and undercapitalized hospitals are merging with or selling to larger facilities and national operators. Bankruptcy looms for others surviving into the twenty-first century who may not make it past the second decade.

In the end, like any business, for profit or not-for-profit, survival is all about money. Money is one of two important tools in commercial survival, and I forget what the second is. A University of Alabama-Birmingham study released in 2014 under the direction of Amy Landry, reports no one factor determines hospital solvency and survival, but unrecognized or unmanageable trends lead to bankruptcy.

Two factors are worth examining more directly: the first is leadership turnover; the second is denial management. Business leadership studies generally confirm rapid change at the top destabilizes companies. Other team members leave, priorities change, and there is a trickle-down effect of uncertainty. One study reports shareholder return drops 3.5 percent in the year following a CEO’s resignation. Ousting a CEO creates tremors resulting in four times the plunge in shareholder value.

According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a Chicago-based global outplacement and career transitioning firm, health care and financial services led the CEO turnover sectors in 2014. Health care has just under a 20 percent annual turnover rate, and many hospitals lack what one hospital association executive describes as “robust succession planning.” Reducing CEO turnover and crafting viable succession plans for CEOs and department heads are where hospitals need to engage outsourcers. In-house staff maintains too much “baggage” to undertake these tasks in a meaningful manner.

The other factor to consider for hospital solvency and survival is the institution’s denial management program. On average, commercial insurers inaccurately process 20 percent of claims filed. If a hospital experiences a higher percentage of claim re-filings, it is likely cash on hand and accounts receivable are a financial drag on the institution. Cash ratio to debt is too high for good credit ratings, raising the cost of borrowing. Bad debt as a percentage of patient revenue is high. The IT system is outdated or broken.

Frank Irving, reporting for Healthcare Finance News (Oct. 22, 2014), quotes a medical services CEO who claims his denial management strategy prevents revenue loss and cuts receivables by 50 percent. Reimbursement denials and delays are mostly caused by not predetermining patient eligibility, medical necessity, and proper coding of services. The IT department must be as energetic about attention to detail as the medical staff is to patient care.

The Stanly Regional Medical Center in North Carolina uses a Six Sigma approach to denial management: define by prioritizing select projects, mobilize total commitment to the program from the entire organization, measure performance of defined parameters, analyze data from key process determinants, improve claims submissions, and institute controls to hold the gains by reducing process variations.

The results are not staggering, but they are impressive and point in the direction all facilities must move to remain solvent and survive. SRMC cut the denial ratio from 5.47 percent per month to 4.12 percent, resulting in savings of over $132,000 monthly. SRMC also saved money not having to rework as many claims.

SRMC advises others to recognize denials management is a big project consuming staff time and resource commitments. Weekly meetings of the Revenue Cycle Team continue throughout the project. Everyone must be current on frequent insurance change to maximize revenues. The right team will generate a significant return on investment by tracking denials, enforcing accountability, and keeping staff apprised of improvements because their jobs, pay, benefits, and bonuses depend on reducing denials.

Dr. Goldmeier was a Research and Teaching Fellow at Harvard University, where he received his Doctorate in Education. He is a former consultant to the US Surgeon General on federally funded Maternal and Child Health programs. Currently, he teaches international university students and serves as a business analyst and development consultant for companies and nonprofit organizations. His new ebook on Amazon is Healthcare Insights: Better Care Better Business.


My first background article addressing the wonder chemical graphene for Seeking Alpha cautions investors to the high risks involved:

· There are few publicly traded companies.

· They are in the R&D stage of development, or in

· Mining minerals that carry heavy baggage from governments

· Seed stage of developing with unconfirmed products for commercial and healthcare applications, and

· Companies are hindered by high costs and first stage technology for producing graphene in mass quantity.

Unending Growth Potential

Nevertheless, it is the most exciting new industry since the digital revolution.Materials & Chemicals Market Research News just released a report affirming, “We expect that China’s graphene market size will grow at a compound annual rate of over 90% in 2016-2020.” It also lists more than a dozen companies engaged in mining minerals, R&D, and commercialization of graphene.

My biochemist educated son forwards science articles to me practically every day. Articles about graphene awakened me to the ways graphene will change our lives. The potential for graphene commercialization is seemingly unending, a sui generis.

Information about new applications of graphene in science publications out in the few short weeks since my article in Seeking Alpha detail applications for graphene having the potential to detect cancer cells, improve 3-D printing, make ammunition and guns more efficient and effective, produce a super-strong silk that conducts electricity, helps other materials handle 1,000 times more current than regular materials, build better, safer and longer lasting lithium ion batteries (demand is growing 20% per year), fuel cells, and nuclear reactors.

How to Proceed with Investments


You can read this also @ The Times of Israel 


By Dr. Harold Goldmeier

Jan. 3, 2017


2016 is best characterized as a paean to the politics of humiliation. America’s candidates for president didn’t hit on issues as much as the characters of one another. It’s been no different in Israeli politics, at least since I moved here. I worked for more than two decades in the campaigns and administrations of US governors and one Senator. I don’t recall the current perverse name-calling subsuming political discourse in both countries.



Biggest Losers of 2016

The messengers are the biggest losers. Print and broadcast media are “reporting” with unrelenting partisanship and mean-spirited incredulity. Pundits are enervating journalism, as if opinion is news.


Another big loser is social media. Once a harbor for fun, silliness and information, the content is sinister beset by fake news organizations promoting fake news. Worse still are revelations about intentional manipulations of news stories and sites by social media moguls. They employ algorithms that censor content to conform to their biases resulting in calls for government regulation, political censorship and in Israel government dominion.


Israel Supporters launched an onslaught of hateful name-calling against President Obama following his “New Beginning” speech in Cairo, 2009, making enemies among African Americans, young liberals and young liberal Jews supporting Sanders regardless of his pro-Palestinian agenda. The apparent favoritism of the right wing Israel government and its supporters for Donald Trump widened the American rift.


Hatred for President Obama morphed into a pandemic of taxonomic epithets. Hitler and Amalek (a Biblical enemy of the Jews who slaughter women, children and stragglers as the Hebrews marched to the Promised Land) are heard frequently along with racist sobriquets. They relentlessly scream Barak HUSSEIN Obama unashamedly.


It is de rigueur since the John Kerry speech explaining America’s UN vote abstaining on the resolution condemning Israel and settlements. Both Kerry and Obama are anti-Semites, enemies of the Jewish people. A designated appointee of Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu portrays Obama and Kerry as incarnations of “modern anti-Semitism…(and Kerry’s) mental age doesn’t exceed 12.”


When the Democrats rise from ashes of the 2015 election, as they surely will one day, Israel’s right wing supporters may never again influence Democratic-party platforms. Ideologues never forget.


Winners from the Kerry Speech

Donald Trump, is the modern day redeemer like Alexander the Great. Israel advocates (certainly not all) see Trump riding into Jerusalem not on his steed but on tweets blasting messages of hope and salvation. Trump is ginning up them and Israel’s leaders. Predictably, there will be a slew of Jewish newborns given the name Donald.


Prime Minister Netanyahu withstood the insults and bad behavior of Obama over the years beefing-up Netanyahu’s image as a tough guy. For example, French President Sarkozy, in November 2011, lamented to President Obama in an open microphone that Prime Minister Netanyahu is a liar, petulant and ungrateful. Instead of defending Netanyahu, Obama decried the daily phone calls from Netanyahu producing an unbearable ennui.


The home front reaction was ballistic. Netanyahu’s image as no pushover, but a relentless advocate for Israel’s security was extolled. The more Netanyahu pushes-back against Obama the more frequent and loud are the charges Obama is anti-Israel.


Losing the vote on the Iran deal enhanced the admiration of Israel’s leading commentator: Netanyahu achieved a “triumphant victory,” she wrote. Though Netanyahu (and presumably Mr. Trump) persuaded Egypt to withdraw the recent anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution indefinitely, Netanyahu failed again to out-maneuver Obama. It was introduced on Friday night, and passed unanimously. Chastising President Obama, Netanyahu deflected his loss with a stern finger-pointing message, “Friends don’t take friends to the Security Council.”

President Barak Obama is a winner at home. He is portrayed as a victim of Jewish racist attitudes and Israel’s unending demands for financial support. He is the victim of Israel’s powerful Jewish lobby, and Jewish control of the media. President Obama is showing “them” who is the boss.


Obama is leaving office with an image among most Americans as a statesman alongside Tony Blair, Jimmy Carter, and Desmond Tutu. They are moral guides and peace-seekers. A relatively young Obama is replacing Democratic-party leadership lurching toward senectitude. He alone has the years ahead and gravitas to reshape the party and its platform in his image. That began at the 2012 Democratic convention when the party failed to renew its support for the Jewish state and Jerusalem as its capital. Obama’s constituency as party leader is the Sanders’ party young and minorities demanding progressive social policies, human rights for Palestinians, and weaning Israel off American support.


Jimmy Carter and Foreign leaders (e.g., Scandinavia, the Dutch, South Africa, Germany, and France) are winners. The Kerry speech justifies their years of vilifying Israel, calling her the apartheid state, and a demonic violator of human rights. Kerry casts them as true guardians of the world’s moral compass, Godly, and on the right side of history.



Palestinians are losers once again. They never miss a chance. They are delusional believing the UN resolution and Kerry’s speech are a sockeroo, and “the world is standing with us.” They call Israelis murderers and criminals. I call them dead men walking.


Democrats Supporting Israel are fearful if not hopeless. Israel faces a future sans bipartisan support. We will be homeless if the party has no place for Israel supporters. Democrats simply considering a Louis Farrakhan acolyte for DNC Chair exacerbate the fears. Israeli politicians and advocates pandering to the notion of a Republican chiliasm will rue the day. A writer and Israel lover writing in the Huffington Post laments, “We’re done… BDS may be rapidly becoming the default political position of many of the young, Bernie Left.”


Diaspora Jewish leaders are facing a young generation with only ephemeral attachment to Israel. “Jewish” is seldom on their minds. Campus Hillel and Chabad university centers draw miniscule numbers of students. Israel advocacy programs fare little better.


Diaspora Jewish leaders need Israel to keep their leadership relevant, exciting and engaging young Jews. It’s not belief in God or the camaraderie of Friday night dinners that excite young people consciously Jewish. It’s ultimately only the Jewish state. Loosing that raison d’être leaves Jewish leaders in the lurch. I asked my daughter to justify her vote for Sanders. “Free education and free healthcare,” was her response. What about his anti-Israel platform? “Israel is strong and arrogant enough to support itself.”



In sum, we are in an age unlike the dishonesty and blunt force of the 1930s and 40s, or the age of dirty tricks prevalent in the 1960s and 70s. Ours is an age when you know a person’s position on most issues when you know their position on any one. There is no effort in politics to conceal folly, blunders or political incorrectness. Today, intelligence and substance are drowned by the screams of wailing keeners engaging in the politics of humiliation.





Followers of my blog, LinkedIn posts and articles… I write for Seeking Alpha, USGreenTechnologies, & others…3d-kidney know I believe the wonder chemical GRAPHENE and 3D printing are going to change medicine, healthcare and life in the coming decades. Here’s another report of hope:

I limit posts to healthcare and  business matters, but the headlines now, even about business futures, are consumed by matters relating to the Presidential election. Americans are being played for fools and it is the powerful destroying our democracy:

Here’s a point made in a new book by the CIA agent (Debriefing The President: The Interrogation Of Saddam Hussein, by John Nixon, is published on December 29 by Bantam Press) who interrogated Saddam Hussein. President Bush blamed the CIA for his administration’s failures in Iraq: “In his 2010 memoir, Bush wrote: ‘I decided I would not criticise the hardworking patriots of the CIA for the faulty intelligence on Iraq.’ But that is exactly what he did. He blamed the agency for everything that went wrong and called its analysis ‘guesswork’ while hearing only what he wanted to hear.”

Sounds similar to President Obama blaming the CIA for faulty intelligence: And now we are supposed to believe them when they try to derail the last US election? If the American people can’t believe our Presidents, the media is full of fake news, and newspapers & tv news stakeout partisan positions, they are destroying democracy not the people.

It reminds me of a quip from my four-years-old granddaughter when asked ,”Who spilled the milk?” She ruefully responded, “Not me!”


This innovative technique has been used to cure blindness….

The original article I wrote for GreenPoint Global, an international business consulting company

The direction of health care in advanced countries is driven in the twenty-first century by three forces:

  • financing,
  • technology, and
  • consumer  access and service on demand.

Do administrators with medical training make the best leaders? Is it time to be changing the light in the attic by preparing health-care leaders for a new age in new ways?

Health-care financing is a much simpler discussion than newspaper stories and editorializing talking heads on TV make out. Government-funded health and medical care is going to continue to expand with an ever-shrinking contribution from private carriers and self-payers.

New financing pathways and technology commix for patients spending less time in hospitals and more recuperation and rehabilitation time at home and rehab facilities. Wearables, robotics, digital medicine, the Internet, and health-care education lead to greater patient self-awareness about body image and health status.

Finally, patient demands are shifting. The wealthy want on-time access to their physicians and are willing to pay concierge fees for personal attention 24/7. Government funding is bringing more people into the health-care system, and though not able to pay as much as other patients, they still demand reasonable access and quality care.

Enormous growth is occurring in the demands for elective plastic and cosmetic surgery usually not covered by insurance. In 2014, there were more than eleven million cosmetic surgical and nonsurgical procedures performed by board-certified physicians. This is a 12 percent increase over procedures performed in 2013. The revenues exceed $12 billion annually. Liposuction and breast augmentation are the procedures most in demand. These figures do not include cosmetic dentistry and implant procedures

A young phlebotomist working in the county hospital tells me she only performs procedures on written work orders from physicians. She is stunned in her new job in an upscale hospital located in a wealthy suburb to find it not uncommon for patients to bring their doctor work orders then proceed to tell the phlebotomist what additional blood tests they want. They usually get what they want without much argument.

Here are some of the shifts in backgrounds of health-care leaders: Hospitals are seeking leaders with MBAs in financing and accounting. Two-thirds of hospital CEOs hired in 2014 are estimated to come from non-health-care backgrounds. Hospitals are using outsourcing firms to complement and support this shift from industries like venture capital, private equity firms, banking, technology, marketing, and pharma/biotech.

In the area of clinical leadership, one study of UK senior health-care leaders finds doctors in training to be very involved in clinical leadership. They see their role to make the best use of resources and harmonize the leadership in public health-care delivery (Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 107(7): 227-286. July 2014).

Preparing health-care leaders, some institutions are looking at nurses in new ways for leadership positions. They bring clinical experience and perspective about patient care, demands, workloads, everything decision makers need to know about the architecture of the infrastructure, customer service and satisfaction ingredients, interdisciplinary collaboration, and information flow. They have unique insights into the departments of medicine, nursing, housekeeping, dentistry, pharmacy, and social work.

New health-care leadership is bringing into the system backgrounds in health systems research, data management, organizational behavior management, leadership training and interpersonal skills, health-care policy and economics, business management, human resources management, and ethics.

Centuries ago, Alexander Hamilton offered his vision of organization management. Nathan Raab brings it to our attention in a Fortune article “Alexander Hamilton’s 10 Tips to Organizational Management,” Sept. 23, 2014. Changing the light in the attic does not necessarily mean abandoning what history has to teach. Hamilton’s ten management rules are: communicate consistently and regularly, make it easier for your employees to communicate with you, your people on the ground are your eyes and ears and can help you evolve, expect the unexpected, listen to all criticism, ask for input, fix problems at ground level, encourage innovation and experimentation, set clear expectations early, and collect and analyze data and use it.


Dr. Harold Goldmeier
You can purchase my ebook Healthcare Insights @

Health Minister Litzman, are you listening?

My wife and I made aliyah (moved to Israel) four years ago following which I began a series about our acculturation and assimilation. Much in Israel mimics life in advanced Western countries, leaving an Anglo oleh feeling welcome and snuggly. We promised ourselves the new challenges living in the Middle East are not to be mocked but can be risible. Kudos to the change in Israel bureaucrats, their current personal demeanor and helpfulness is a great leap forward in customer service since we began visiting Israel nearly two decades ago.

It’s a stimulant ginning up confidence in delving deeper into Israel society. But peeling back the onionskin, there are distinct differences. Below are the good ones:

Doctors, nurses and many aides speak English, Russian, and some French. It’s comforting for new-to-Hebrew olim, because medical jargon is not learned in ulpan or picked up in general conversation. Second, access to general care providers is pretty easy. Third, direct costs for prescriptions and office visits are largely manageable. Primary care is seldom problematic.

Per the bigger picture, the financial costs to patients with good kupa (insurance) coverage are minimal compared to prices in America. There is the same high quality of care. Israel is a small country only a short time out of the pioneer stage of development spending a lot of money on hi-tech self-defense. Nevertheless, it is continually expanding its healthcare budget basket of treatments, drugs, and availability of medical technologies each year.

Studies reveal young and healthy citizens in every country make little use of their healthcare system. They cannot appreciate the anguish a poor or middle class sick person in need of serious medical care for chronic and acute conditions experiences. My suggestions may fall on deaf ears, but Rabbi Kook knew; he said it best, “And if I am weak of body, shall my soul also suffer? And if my flesh oppresses me a thousand times, should my spirit also be oppressed?”

And dealing with the health and medical care system in Israel, despite its above-mentioned positive aspects, makes me feel edgy and anxious because there are holes in the fabric.

Here’s an update one year later (November 2016) after my wife suffered a severe stroke. My wife is experiencing headaches and lethargy, so our family physician referred us to a neurologist. The wit for him to see her is four weeks, so I offered to pay for a private consultation that cost me out-of-pocket nis600 (@$165 plus another $5 for him to read the results of a CT scan he ordered). The scan fee is @$8. She only had to wait 2 days for a private  appointment with the same neurologist. The scan order was approved by the government insurance, and took place a few days hence. However, though the scan is on a disk (which they gave us to hand carry to the neurologist) ergo on computer, the “official” results were not available for another 8 days. Two weeks later, we still do not know the test results of her brain scan, because the neurologist is too busy to look at the results and call my wife either to reassure her or suggest further treatment and care. The system is broken.

Here are some suggestions for cementing over the holes in the Israel health and medical care system. A primary care doctor’s diagnosis leads to a referral for care by a specialist, perhaps a cardiologist. It might take two to four weeks to see the cardiologist on the kupa list that makes the appointment for the patient. Unless one goes for private care (at extra cost), it might demand a two-weeks to months long wait to see the specialist if the family doctor recommends a specific specialist. Hafnaya (permission slip) in hand, one must get approval from the kupa to get appointment for follow-up tests or treatments. Another few days or even a week is added to the waiting time for the hafniya. (On the other hand, on some plans, one is allowed to choose and make an appointment with a specialist on the kupa list without a hafnaya at the cost of about 100 IS three times a year.)

If tests like an MRI or CT scan are ordered, or if one needs a heart monitor, or echocardiogram, it is likely to take a month or more for appointments in non-emergency cases. Perhaps two months have passed. Once the tests are completed, results can take anywhere from one to three weeks before being sent to the specialist. Since the patient does not know when the results will be sent, an appointment for follow-up assessment and treatment can be delayed another few weeks.

The primary care doctor of my colleague found a lump on her breast. She waited three weeks to get an appointment with the specialist. A biopsy was ordered and done ten days later. She waited three weeks for the test results, and another week to get an appointment with the specialist to discuss the results and settle on a treatment plan. Besides the threat to her life from delays, she was depressed, anxious, and her work suffered. She told me, “My life is on hold” during the dark days of know-nothing.

Another woman suffered a stroke. She spent five days in the hospital’s neurology department, but they were unable to identify the cause. They handed her a sheaf of papers with orders for a range of cardiac tests as an outpatient. Weeks passed before seeing the local specialist. More weeks passed before tests were completed. More time passed before test results were available.

Desperate that another stroke might occur the patient “went private.” She personally paid to see a cardiac surgeon for speedy repair of the medical cause of the stroke. The surgeon had to use the influence of his good office (protectsya in Hebrew) to get results from ten days old heart monitoring test.

When asked why the neurology department did not order cardiac tests while the patient was in their care though neurology obviously suspected a cardiac cause of the stroke, one doctor simply shrugged and sheepishly observed there’s not a lot of good communication between specialty departments in too many hospitals.

The importance of communication to patient safety cannot be downplayed. All medical tests are recorded on computers and results can be transmitted instantaneously to specialists. Delays are playing Russian roulette with the lives and well being of patients.

Kudos to Minister of Health Litzman recognized as the most admired minister in the government. Minister Litzman, use the power of your good office, the weight of your personal recognition, and good name to fill these holes. Technology is only as useful as the people using it for better patient care.

Dr. Seuss knows it all comes down to people, not drugs, machines and devices. On the whole, the Doctor concludes there is not much chance people will ever “live without doctors, with nary a care.”

The Contemporary Left is noisy, thorny and disruptive, but not an existential threat to Jews and Israel. The Jewish press aggrandizes the influence and numbers of the Left, scaring the wits out of Israel advocates.

The Contemporary Left was crushed but hardly knocked out by the election of Donald Trump. They will hunker down, reorganize and advocate for their political agenda with renewed fervor and passion. They will turn up the heat on Israel and the Jews on behalf of Palestinians, uniting the “leftie luvvies,” as one journalist calls them.

To understand why, consider the Justice Holmes axiom: “In understanding a problem a page in history is worth a volume of logic.” The recent death of a major leftist got me to return to the book From Ambivalence To Betrayal: The Left, the Jews, and Israel, by Robert S. Wistrich (University of Nebraska Press, 2012). It is the quintessential historical reference book for serious students of antisemitism and anti-Zionism.

Tom Hayden died October 23, 2016. His story personifies how the 1960s New Left changed America’s mission, politics, legal system and culture. Hayden was a leader, inciting the social turmoil of the time in collaboration with others whom I came to know through my work. Members were fanatically unified and dedicated to eradicating extant wicked inequities and government malfeasance. They put aside “getting on with their lives” to change society. The New Left dragooned the non-violent anti-War, free speech, civil rights and nascent feminist movements to introduce change through ferocious and physical confrontation.

Hayden described himself as “Jefferson in terms of democracy… Thoreau in terms of environment, and Crazy Horse in terms of social movements.” He proved his salt, as one the infamous Chicago Seven arrested for conspiracy and inciting riots outside the 1968 Democratic Party convention. Hayden co-founded Students for a Democratic Society, and authored its 25,000- word manifesto calling for a “radically new democratic political movement.” Hayden and his wife-to-be, Jane Fonda, spearheaded the anti-Vietnam War Movement, toppling the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

The New Left changed the mission and culture of America, rebuilding a nation on integration, the peace movement, great society and war on poverty. The New Left was an existential threat to old America, mobilizing masses of democrats, students and unionists. It found sanctuary and robust support on college campuses.


Some New Left groups expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause in the 1960s with the rise of antinomianism: free love, flower power, pot smoking and Stokely Carmichael’s populist Black Power Movement.

The Palestinians were redefined as oppressed people of color under the jackboot of America’s lackey, Israel.

The impression gained momentum following Israel’s monumental 1967 annihilation of three Arab armies in six days.

Hayden and Fonda on the other hand visited Israel in 1982. They condemned the PLO’s refusal to recognize the Jewish state. They initially supported Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, but expressed concern about civilian casualties. When the occupation of Lebanon dragged on and peace between Israel and Palestinians appeared elusive, Hayden wrote in 2006, “I didn’t share the animus of some on the American left who questioned Israel’s very legitimacy. I was more inclined toward the politics of Israel’s Peace Now and those Palestinian nationalists and human rights activists who accepted Israel’s pre-1967 borders as a reality to accommodate.”

Wistrich details in 600 pages of small print: the origins of historical antisemitism; the morphing image of Jews from victims to victimizers; the origins of antisemitism and the new euphemism, “anti-Zionism”; the tenacious web of envy, religious, economic and political Jew-hatred resulting in the Contemporary Left denying “the rights of the Jewish people to live as an equal member within the family of nations”; the reasons Jews are disproportionately sympathetic to the Left.

It’s hardly a fireside read. The book is a primer for Jews and Israel advocates seeking arguments against antisemites. It deserves to be read in modern political science classes, and on library shelves. It is a classic tome for understanding the onslaught against Jews, Zionists and Israel by a toxic stewpot of European and American leftists, academics, students and journalists.

The 19th and 20th centuries Old Left (Goldman, Marx, Sigman, Dubinsky) flourished as a conglomeration of Socialists, Marxists, Anarchists, Wobblies and Communists. The unifying message was repressive governments protect capitalism and robber barons by subjugating workers. Organizing unions was their strategy.

The New Left (Rudd, Rubin, Hoffman, Friedan, Steinem, Abzug, Schwerner, Goodman) organized on college campuses that became their academic incubators and sanctuaries.


The Contemporary Left is also campus based, but without the academic reasoning of the New Left. Their enervated causes are like a “feather for every wind” (safe spaces, animal rights, Black Lives Matter, gender-race intersectionality). However, they are united in calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, and will continue to be so.

Wistrich exposes how the Contemporary Left dismisses human rights repression, torture, mass murder of innocents and extra-judicial murder by Arab regimes; how they ignore the perfidious application “of sharia law, censorship, female genital mutilation, honor killings, suicide bombings, or making the world safe for Allah’s rule,” while depicting Jews and Zionist as demagogues, demons and Nazis.

“The anti-Zionist left is guilty of betraying core principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity,” the exact opposite position, I suggest, to that which Hayden dedicated his life to. They collaborate with old time religious-based antisemites including Presbyterian and Methodist churches, “fundamentalist mosques, conservative nationalists, professors, the ‘chattering classes’ in Western Europe and the more militant protesters on the streets who scream ‘Death to Israel’.”

They are noisy, thorny and disruptive, but not an existential threat to Jews and Israel. On campuses their minions are unable to mobilize more than small numbers: a hundred anti-Israel students disrupt a speech at a major British university with an enrollment of 174,000; a few hundred Students for Justice in Palestine attack Jewish students and Israel at University of California, Irvine where the enrollment is almost 31,000.

It’s the Jewish press that aggrandizes the influence and numbers of the Left, scaring the wits out of Israel advocates.

Frustrating the Contemporary Left is the modern Jewish persona forged in Holocaust Hell. The new Jew no longer mirrors fathers of the past, the victims, the meek, subject to the whim of haters and self-haters.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned them in a Washington, DC, speech: “The days when the Jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilating us, those days are over. Today we have a voice” – and an army.

The writer was a Research Teaching Fellow at Harvard, worked for four governors, and teaches business and politics in Tel Aviv.

Unbelievable explanation of Leonard Cohen song


and here’s a link to the song

%d bloggers like this: