It is true that over thirty states have passed laws that prohibit the government from contracting with those who engage in a boycott of Israel (read this terrific breakdown by Jack Elbaum). Boycott isolates three very different cases where plaintiffs objected to a provision often included which means that those taking on any sort of government contract have to preemptively agree not to be part of BDS. Each has its merits, and it’s important to note the reasons behind each case to understand the broad application of this law.

Bahia Amawi is a Palestinian-American speech therapist in Texas who won’t consider signing the pledge. Mikkel Jordahl is a Jewish lawyer in Arizona who was deeply moved by a trip to Israel to advocate for Palestinian rights. The one that truly stands out is Alan Leveritt, a newspaper publisher in Arkansas who doesn’t have any opinion on what’s happening in the Middle East but does not want to have his right to boycott stifled just so that he can take ad money from a state-funded university.

Boycott opens with a Republican state senator in Arkansas alleging his fierce love of the Jewish people and how he was compelled to introduce anti-BDS legislation as a show of that affection. A Democratic colleague of his is interviewed later in the film and mentions that he voted in favor of the bill without understanding that his constituents might object to it, and that he might have voted differently after finding that out. Rabbi Barry Block, who leads one of Arkansas’ nine synagogues, explains his take, which is the most level-headed and relatable perspective in the entire film: he fully supports Israel and is just as much against the idea of prohibiting people from engaging in boycotts.

Footage of speeches at AIPAC, CPAC, Christians United for Israel, and other conferences is included to highlight the extensive work by the “pro-Israel lobby” to elicit support for the campaign against BDS. The nuance that is missing in most of this documentary is that there could be a legitimate reason to not be happy about BDS, and that fighting it may not always be the same as suppressing it. In one clip, there is mention of how anti-Semitism can be embedded within the BDS movement, which singles out Israel as the target of boycott efforts without holding other offenders to account, but it’s glossed over as just another scare tactic that should be summarily dismissed.

There are comparisons made to segregation-era rulings that Black-led boycotts of white businesses were illegal, and the right to boycott is emphasized by highlighting its significance in the end of South African apartheid. A closing note explains that anti-BDS bills have been copied almost verbatim to pass similar legislation in Texas that prohibits boycotts against fossil fuels and firearms. The concept, therefore, is that banning any type of boycott is dangerous because it could be used for other nefarious purposes.

But this documentary does devote a large chunk of time to defending the case for BDS as a cause on its own, which doesn’t feel critical to its point that free speech should be permitted in all forms, regardless of its proven validity. Additionally, the emphasis on how the evangelical community’s support for Israel is often more formidable and vocal than the Jewish community’s is made but not underscored in the way that other documentaries like ’Til Kingdom Come have done, clarifying that Christian support for Israel is often aligned with a belief that Jews will need to accept Jesus or face eternal damnation.

The other question that isn’t quite answered is one that is brought up in a clip of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who made a video declaring that if someone boycotts the State of Israel, “Israel will boycott you.” The right of an institution or government to respond to a boycott is worth discussing, though admittedly requiring people to sign a pledge not to engage in anything is likely to inspire more people to protest it simply for the sake that it is mandated. This film makes its point that boycotts should not be outlawed, but fails to fully investigate certain pieces of its arguments while overemphasizing others.

The post SXSW Documentary Review: ‘Boycott’ appeared first on Jewcy.

And this won’t be the first time the pop star has performed in Israel. He put on concerts in Tel Aviv in 2011 and later 2017, filling a venue of fifty thousand.

Unsurprisingly, the singer has already begun to receive backlash for his decision to perform in the Jewish state. “Justin Bieber performing in Israel is an In’Justice’ to the people of Palestine,” one Twitter user said.

Bieber won’t be the first artist to get blowback for announcing a show in the Israel. Several artists like Lana del Rey and Lorde cancelled their shows in Israel during heightened tensions between Israel and Palestinians in 2014. After the recent conflict in May, during which countless celebrities espoused anti-Israel views on social media, the reaction is expected.

As Israel becomes increasingly polarized, performing there is a statement, whether intentional or not. But either way, we’re excited Bieber is taking another trip to the Holy Land, and with his track record, we’re positive he will not disappoint.

As for Lana, Lorde, and the others: It’s not too late to say sorry…

The post Justin Bieber Makes a Statement Announcing Performance in Israel Next Year appeared first on Jewcy.

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said that Ben & Jerry’s “has decided to brand itself as the anti-Israel ice cream,” and that the move would have “serious consequences, legal and otherwise.” 

As a part of the pressure campaign, Israel’s ambassador to the US urged states that have passed laws to combat the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement to act on them in order to essentially sanction Ben & Jerry’s. Additionally, Texas threatened to use their anti-BDS law against Ben & Jerry’s — while Arizona and Florida actually did.

Anti-BDS laws have been hotly debated ever since they began to gain traction in state legislatures across the country starting in 2015. And in the aftermath of the Ben & Jerry’s fiasco, they have taken on new importance (despite the fact it is disputable whether or not their actions actually constituted a boycott of Israel).

Anti-BDS laws have been passed in 35 states, meaning the campaign to implement them across the country has been largely successful. On its face, this sounds like an affirmative good for the pro-Israel movement. But, even if you are stridently opposed to BDS as a movement — as I am — there are still significant questions about the prudence of anti-BDS laws. In order to understand why, we first need to understand what they are.

What Are Anti-BDS Laws?

The basic goal of anti-BDS laws is simple: to discourage boycotts of the state of Israel.

In order to effectuate this goal, state governments have passed various laws which preclude certain parties from contracting with the state if they engage in such boycotts. However, not all of the laws are the same. There are two main types.

The first type of anti-BDS law mandates that the government does not contract with — or have investments in — any business that is engaged in a boycott of Israel. As a part of most of these types of laws, the state creates a list of companies that boycott Israel and prohibits the state from contracting with those on the list.

The second type of anti-BDS law requires any person or business signing a governmental contract to certify, in writing, that they do not currently, and will not, boycott Israel for the duration of the contract. For states that pass such a law, it means that a lot of people will have to sign that pledge. Just think of how many public employees there are that sign contracts with the state: school teachers, police officers, firefighters, DMV workers, etc. Under this type of anti-BDS law, each and every one of them is required to affirm in writing that they will not engage in a boycott of Israel.

The Costs

In order to assess whether a law is worthwhile, considering its benefits and drawbacks — and then comparing them — is a helpful place to start. The issue with anti-BDS laws is that while their costs are immense, their benefits are marginal — and possibly even non-existent.

First and foremost, anti-BDS laws draw a great deal of negative attention. While looking into the subject, it is impossible not to notice the vast imbalance in the coverage of them. Articles from non-profits like the ACLU, or Palestine Legal, or news organizations like Middle East Monitor or Al Jazeera often dominated the search results. Even mainstream outlets usually frame anti-BDS laws in a negative light.

This is doubly true when we realize that much of the coverage associated with these laws come from the lawsuits filed by organizations, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the ACLU, in an effort to strike them down. To date, there have been six lawsuits filed in states ranging from Arkansas, to Texas, to Arizona, to Georgia. They have mostly been filed because a public employee — whether it be a school teacher or speech pathologist — did not wish to make a pledge to the state that they would not engage in a personal boycott of Israel. These lawsuits have had varying degrees of success. 

But, whether or not any individual lawsuit is successful is irrelevant to the fact that it generates news coverage centered around the narrative that these laws are a threat to the American peoples’ First Amendment rights. With that narrative comes the covert message that the pro-Israel movement has values antithetical to those of the U.S. Constitution.

The pro-Israel movement should be fighting for the liberal democratic values that both the US and Israel hold dearly — not against them.

It is also important to note that all of this is only taking perceptions of the pro-Israel movement into account — meaning it is a somewhat limited analysis. There are also significant questions about what implications these laws have for principles of freedom of association and speech. Seriously grappling with those questions would make the case for anti-BDS laws even weaker.

The Benefits

On the other hand, if anti-BDS laws were serving a truly important purpose — and doing it effectively — then a certain amount of negative press would be a relatively small price to pay. The issue is that for all of those costs, the benefits are largely non-existent. 

First, in states where the law holds that companies that boycott Israel should be divested from and not have the ability to contract with the state, this has been applied to very few firms. Among the states with publicly available lists of companies that boycott Israel, three-quarters of them list less than 10 companies. Moreover, only one lists more than 20 companies, and zero list more than 40 companies. 

It is important to point out that the number of companies that have actually been divested from is certainly smaller than the number of companies on the list. The reason is simple: the list does not only consist of companies that the state previously had investments in. 

Next, there is no evidence to suggest that these laws have actually discouraged people from either boycotting Israel or holding anti-Israel attitudes more generally. During the most recent flare-up between Israel and Hamas, large anti-Israel protests were held across the country. Polls also show that young people (age 18-34) are dramatically less likely to support Israel than those who are 35+ and that over half of Democrats now want the U.S. to put increased pressure on Israel.

Lastly — and this may be the most important point — BDS poses no actual threat to the Israeli economy. Studies from the Brookings Institute, and even the Israeli Knesset itself, confirm this. 

So, on one hand, anti-BDS laws don’t really do much in terms of positive impact. They are not being used by states very often; they are not leading to less anti-Israel sentiment; they are not protecting the Israeli economy from actual harm. On the other hand, they are attracting a lot of negative attention to the pro-Israel movement while also creating negative perceptions of it.

The conclusion I draw from this is simple: as the Brookings Institute wrote, those who advocate for these laws are “providing more fuel to a fire that is small to begin with.”

Alternative Paths Forward

The real way to discourage boycotts of Israel is not to coerce our opponents but to make a persuasive argument against them. 

Point out that the BDS movement has strong links to terrorists. Point out that the founder of BDS, Omar Barghouti, is not interested in a peace deal where both sides concede some things; rather, he has said that he does “not buy into the two-state solution” and would like to “end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.” Lastly, simply point out the willingness of Israel to make peace — two states for two peoples — for as long as it has been a country, even while they have had no partner to make it happen.

Additionally, getting involved with various organizations is now easier than ever. Whether it be through established groups such as AJC or AIPAC, or new groups for young Jews such as New Zionist Congress, the opportunities to promote Zionism and fight against BDS are innumerable.

We should continue the good fight against BDS. But we should not get distracted by counterproductive laws.

The post The Zionist Case Against Anti-BDS Laws appeared first on Jewcy.

And yet, despite the numerous attempts to navigate this widening divide, there’s one simple, yet crucial ingredient that’s missing from the dialogue: empathy.

As an Australian Jew who indulges in far too many conversations on this issue — both with Israelis and Americans — their defining feature, time and again, is how little either side understands about the other. Indeed, both Israelis and American Jews are correct in lamenting how rarely their brethren appreciate the anxieties they suffer as a result of their communities’ unique challenges.

So let’s chart a new path for this conversation. Let’s begin at a simple, human level. “We need to appreciate the fact that each major center of Jewish life is responding in a way that is appropriate to its circumstances,” bestselling author Yossi Klein Halevi recently told me. Instead of reprimanding one another for how wrong they are, both communities would do well to ask why. Why are so many Israelis infuriated by calls to “end the occupation”? Why are so many American Jews abhorred by Israel’s lack of religious pluralism?

These two issues — the occupation and religious pluralism — among many others, are part of a long list of grievances between Israelis and American Jews; all of which have boiled over in recent years, culminating in today’s crisis. The key cause of these quarrels, however, is that rarely do Israelis and American Jews actually understand one another. To be sure, they hear the other’s argument, but seldom do they truly understand how such a conclusion was reached.

As Gordis explains, Israel and the United States are fundamentally different societies, created for radically different purposes. While “it was American universalism” that defined the United States, argues Gordis, in Israel, “it was particularism that gave the country its purpose: to save and protect Jewish lives.” The worldviews of Israelis and American Jews are, therefore, entirely different. It’s time for both communities to accept that, due to their vastly disparate histories, they naturally arrive at different conclusions for a variety of issues. And that’s okay. The problem is that they are yet to accept this reality.

If Israelis and American Jews can’t find a genuine desire to understand each other’s hopes and fears, then to hell with any hopes for healing this fissure.

And should the deteriorating relationship continue down this path, disaster is sure to follow. Be it the financial and political support that American Jewry has long provided Israel, or the way in which, for decades, the Jewish state has animated American Jewish life, it would be foolish to assume that either community would continue to thrive post-divorce. And as concerns grow around the future of Israel’s relationship with the Democratic Party — which receives the majority of the Jewish vote — American Jewish support for Israel is more important now than ever.

History has a cruel tendency to remind Jews to not get too cozy in whichever society we may be. Today, that lesson manifests itself in a warning to not assume that any one Jewish community can survive by itself.

It’s not just American Jews and Israelis who will suffer, should there be no rapprochement. The current divide is nothing less than an existential threat to the Jewish world, with Yossi Klein Halevi describing it as “one of the seminal questions for this generation.” With around 85 percent of world Jewry residing in either Israel or the United States, a permanent break in the relationship would spell an unspeakable tragedy — not just for American Jewry and Israelis, but for Jews worldwide.

This year bore witness to a global explosion of Jew-hatred like no other in recent memory. If anything, it served to remind us of the fragility of Jewish life and the consequent centrality of Jewish unity. In such times, no Jewish community can afford for our two largest and most important hubs to continue down their path toward divorce.

While having empathy for one another won’t mend divides overnight, a sincere appreciation among American Jews and Israelis for the challenges they face would help facilitate the conversations that will hopefully lay the groundwork for reconciliation. And if this relationship is to be saved, those conversations are the only hope we have left.

The post What’s Missing in the Conversation Between Israelis and American Jews appeared first on Jewcy.

Good news, everyone! For the first time in 16 years (has it really been that long?) Mandy Patinkin has recorded and released new music. But blink and you might miss the soul-searching in this album about the current state of the Jewish State.

Diary: January 27, 2018 is a bit of an experimental project for Patinkin (he calls it a “music making journey”). The album (no showtunes to be heard!) is plaintive, and bare-bones (Thomas Bartlett, also known as Doveman, was his producer and collaborator), and he covers the sort of songwriters you listen to when you need to get in touch with your own feelings— the Magnetic Fields, Teitur, and Randy Newman’s less caustic work.

But it’s when he covers Rufus Wainwright’s “Going to a Town” that he tweaks the lyrics. Specifically, he turns the song’s exhaustion with the United States into exhaustion with Israel.

“I’m so tired of America,” the original refrain goes. Now, it’s “Jerusalem” instead of America. As for the lyric about “soaking the body of Jesus Christ in blood,” it becomes, “After soaking the bodies in blood, I’m so tired of Jerusalem.”

It’s a bold choice; Patinkin doesn’t opine on any specific policies (he already messed with the syllable count enough), but he sounds as tired as he feels. (Though he still sounds great, of course.) He may be speaking as much to his identity as a committed Jew in the Diaspora as he is to anything Israel is doing; being emotionally involved the the quagmire of the Middle East can take a toll. Diary is clearly a highly personal work, not an agenda-laden one.

Patinkin has not publicly spoken about this cover, but he has long been a leftist activist in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For example, he sits on the Board of Directors for Americans for Peace Now, and has received their Yitzhak Rabin Peace Award, and has worked with Breaking the Silence. (His other advocacy work includes being ambassador for the International Rescue Committee.)

There is another “Diary” album incoming for some time in 2018. We’ll see what’s weighing on Patinkin’s spirit then.

Image via Twitter

The post Mandy Patinkin Gets Political on New Album? appeared first on Jewcy.

Inside a dark and smoky bar in Jaffa, an alcohol-infused feminist revolution is occurring. The beloved bar, Anna Loulou, which is tucked away on a nondescript side street a few blocks from Jaffa’s flea market, has started offering a happy hour for people who are menstruating. 25% off, to be exact, for all drinks, all night long– and all you have to do is tell the bartender you have your period. The name of this long overdue invention? Bloody Hour.

Bloody Hour (“A happy hour for those with the flow”) is the brain child of two longtime regulars at Anna Loulou, Moran Barir and Dana Etgar. Both Jewish Israelis in their early thirties working in the arts, the two women – shockingly! – treat their period as though it’s a normal part of their everyday lives, which means acknowledging its presence around friends, some of whom are bartenders at Anna Loulou.

“If I get my period and I’m in pain, I tell them, ‘I’m in pain, give me something that will help,'” Barir told Jewcy over the phone. “For me personally, red wine is the best medicine for period pain. It relaxes the body.”

For Barir, Bloody Hour’s cheaper prices are more than just a periodic (pun intended) perk. “When you get your period, you need to appear normal, like nothing has changed. At the base of it is the idea that there’s something wrong with having your period, that there’s something wrong with us, which is not true. So we want to normalize talking about it.”  

When they had the idea for Bloody Hour (and yes, the title is in English, even in Israel), they brought it to the bar’s owners who responded enthusiastically. Barir said, “Anna Loulou encourages people from the community to use it as a community space.”

Anna Loulou has a reputation for being a special place, a shared space for people of different identities of all kinds: Palestinians and Jews, Mizrachi and Ashkenazi, tourists and locals, and people of different genders, sexual orientations, and ages. “It enables everyone to be together, when other places don’t. It feels mixed in a challenging way and in a beautiful way,” said Barir.

After officially launching at the end of October, Bloody Hour has gotten a lot of attention. Ruben Rais, one of the owners of Anna Loulou, said that they’ve had “overwhelmingly positive reactions. People are curious and excited and interested.” They’re currently planning to host more special events in honor of the happy hour and to bring it to weekends as well (at the moment it’s only available on weeknights).

When I asked Barir how Anna Loulou ensures that customers don’t abuse the 25% discount, she responded, “It’s an honor system, of course.”

Photo of Anna Loulou by Ben Palhov

The post Welcome to ‘Bloody Hour’ appeared first on Jewcy.

David Goldstein’s sophomore book, Alley-Oop to Aliyah: African American Hoopsters in the Holy Land  tells the fascinating story of how black NBA players ended up playing on Israeli Teams. These men came to Israel with to play basketball, but ended up falling in love with the country.  

I asked my Israeli friends about this phenomenon, and they gushed about the American players choosing to play in Israel and how “they really make the team.” And while Israel is most often associated with soccer, basketball is also a hugely popular sport. To quote the first chapter of the book, “In Israel basketball matters. Sure it is just a game, but it represents so much more than that.”

For example, Maccabi Tel Aviv gave the Israeli people hope after the Yom Kippur War. Before Aulcie Perry, a black American, joined, their team had been the joke of the Euro Cup, but his arrival in 1976 turned Maccabi Tel Aviv into an international powerhouse. They went from losing the European Cup year after year to winning it– six times total.

Perry’s role in Maccabi Tel Aviv becoming a championship team inspired teams around Israel to start bringing African-American players over. But there was a small issue with loading teams with these players: a league rule limiting the number of foreign players on a team. And so, the powers-that-be solved this issue by making these elite players citizens. In the 1970’s and 80’s, players began converting to Judaism en masse so that they could use the Law of Return to become citizens. Many of them even married Israeli women, which Goldstein insinuates was to expedite the immigration process. While some Israelis claimed these acts of assimilation were ingenuine, Perry, at least, had a sincere conversion and continues to practice Judaism today.

Alley-Oop to Aliyah also highlights the love that Israeli fans have for their players. Dean Thomas, a former player for Maccabi Tel Aviv, said the following about Israelis: “The fans love you- they honestly love you, and they treat you as if you are one of their own… When I broke my leg before the 2005 Euroleague Final Four, I had (Israeli-American) fans fly from Tel Aviv to New York to visit me in the hospital. They brought their whole family!”

If that doesn’t show the deep love that the fans have for their players, what does? And not everyone plays for the blue-chip Maccabi Tel Aviv; many play in small cities and towns. Ramon Clemente played three seasons in Israel’s second league while living on a moshav. One day, a neighborhood kid approached him to ask for free tickets to the game. Of course, Clemente said yes, and even drove the kid– and six of his friends– to the game. Clemente recalls this experience as an example of the communal and supportive atmosphere of Israel.

Even if you aren’t a superfan of basketball (I’m not), there still may be something for you in Alley-Oop to Aliyah: African American Hoopsters. After all, it is also a tale of Jewishness, Israel, immigration, and belonging. You can get all that from Amos Oz, sure, or you can get it here, through basketball.

Alley-Oop to Aliyah: African American Hoopsters in the Holy Land, by David Goldstein, comes out on November 7, 2017 from Skyhorse Publishing.

Photo of Stanley Brundy with his son, Nadav. Brundy was from New Orleans, played one year in the NBA before taking his career overseas, and has primarily played in Israel, where he is now a citizen, since 1999.

The post How American Players Transformed Israeli Basketball appeared first on Jewcy.

Despite the role of Jews in comedy in America, there tend to be very few members of the Tribe hosting late-night talk shows. So kudos to Conan O’Brien for taking his show on the road, or rather, on an El-Al flight; Conan has come to Israel.

“Conan Without Borders” is an ongoing show special; O’Brien created an episode earlier this year where he visited and produced his show in Mexico. And now, he’s in the Holy Land, eating the food, seeing the sites, and meeting, God help us, Israelis.

Jewcy is on a summer residency! To read this piece, and our others for July and August 2017, go to our big sister site, Tablet Magazine!

The post Conan O’Brien’s Whirlwind Tour of Israel is Exactly What You’d Expect—and That’s What Makes It So Fun appeared first on Jewcy.

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, working with Amsterdam University, have come to an important scientific conclusion: Emojis are bad for you.

Specifically, they’re bad for you in a work setting. BGU’s new study published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science reveals that sliding in that smiley emoticon, while well-intentioned, is likely to undermine you professionally. While a real life smile is likely to make people in the workplace both like and trust you, an ersatz one made of punctuation marks can have an adverse effect. (Emojis and emoticons seem to be used interchangeably here, though traditionally, the former refers to thumbnail images you add from a mobile device, and the latter refers to putting together keyboard symbols that they seem to represent a thing or feeling.)

Jewcy is on a summer residency! To read this piece, and our others for July and August 2017, go to our big sister site, Tablet Magazine!

The post Israeli Scientists Confirm: Everyone at Work Hates Your Stupid Emojis appeared first on Jewcy.

Poor Wonder Woman. Not poor Diana of the Amazons; she can take care of herself. But seldom does a commercial film carry so much weight of larger significance as the new superhero(ine) flick. Every aspect of what the movie says about gender, and what it means for women in the media, has come under scrutiny.

And on top of it all, there’s the political aspect of its star, Gal Gadot, as an Israeli. Political, as in, the entire country of Lebanon has banned the film because of the background of its star. But on a smaller scale, Gadot’s social media posts about Hamas, the IDF, and her national identity have also sparked debate and controversy, often linked to her very visible position playing the female embodiment of justice.

But the point of the Wonder Woman film is that no humans are pure, that no adult has all the answers. The film is a coming-of-age story for Diana, princess of the Amazons, as she has to grapple with the monstrosities that occur in a human world that also fascinates her.

In the film (and the comics, more or less) Diana comes from a society that’s defined by the notion of self-defense and survival, but hasn’t had to actually had to take up arms in an obscenely long time (possibly millennia?). As their princess, Diana considers war an abomination, but also loves the idea of getting a chance to kick some ass. And whaddya know! World War I happens to be raging, and the Amazonian gets her chance to leave her island for the first time and join the fray. But of course, of all the wars in human history, the Great War is known as being particularly brutal and bloody, as well as morally and politically complicated.

Diana quickly assumes that Germany is under the corrupting influence of Ares, the god of war. But as someone raised with war as an abstract, she begins to become confused by even hints of moral relativism or nuance. Why are some British officials resistant to the Armistice? What is the point of trench warfare? Why can’t she stop and save everyone she encounters along the way to her ultimate goal of ending the war? While the film mostly avoids the trope of a physically mature woman with childlike intellect, Diana’s questions sound like a child learning about present-day conflicts, like Syria, or yes, Israel-Palestine.

Eventually, disillusioned, she comes to the conclusion that Ares is not only influencing the Central Powers, but the Allies as well. As an independent agent representing only peace and justice, how can she ally herself with either cause?

Without spoilers, you might argue that the film is a bit muddled in its resolution of the matter, but it’s fascinating that it brings them up in the first place. And seeing a former Israeli soldier at its center is poignant; now, 50 years after one of Israel’s most significant, and controversial wars, grappling with unimaginable complexity remains at the heart of political discourse about Israel-Palestine.

Every person involved in a real-world conflict would like to be Diana, and would like to be a hero facing a villain, as if the battle is no longer worth fighting without moral purity. But even Diana, through the mouth of an Israeli, comes to see that situational simplicity is, at best, a luxury.

Image via Facebook.

The post The Curious Case of Israeli Wonder Woman appeared first on Jewcy.