Category Archives: Crisis Management

Understanding and Assessing Risk through Risk Management

Risk management is an area of business that offers a firm great savings potential when making complicated decisions. The tenets of the traditional philosophy allow consultants to bring a different kind of focus to their analysis, asking them to look for areas in which a firm might be exposed to greater risk during the course of a project or process.
At Cane Bay Partners, there is a wealth of team experience working with the identification of risk factors that can then be compared to alternative options to provide a quantified experience for managers that want to optimize their company’s performance through a different lens- success.

When Does Risk Management Apply?

As consultants, risk management work for major clients comes about through their request or through our own analysis. Because there are a multiplicity of reasons that someone would want to have risk management practices applied to their specific project, there will be times where taking the first step to identify the indicators that are necessary could be better performed by contacting us first.
We can not only provide you with means-based models that help to define your environment effectively, we can also train your staff in what to look for to determine whether or not most of the apparatus used in formal risk management actually applies well to each process or project that you are considering it for.

It goes without saying that once those factors are identified, they can be measured to provide you with a detailed analyses.

Because time is money and efficiency is another hallmark of any consulting firm, answering the question ‘When does risk management apply?’ often includes discussion of the concept of ROI or Return on Investment. Cane Partners can not only provide you with risk analysis services then, but they can also build in analysis of that analysis to show you what your return on investment is for having undertaken the journey. If you are training in-house people to recognize risk, in a short amount of time, they will have developed a data set that helps provide financial impetus for doing analyses in specific situations.

Strategic Planning using Risk Management Inputs

Another area where companies traditionally can use outside input is when risk analysis meets the strategic planning process. Moving forward cannot be done without strategic planning and utilizing the know-how and experience of a team like that of Cane Partners can help bring the type of decision-making advice prowess that has been relied upon worldwide for a number of years.

So if you feel there may be a need for risk management services in the future, consider contacting Cane Partners for a consultation.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Choices, Corporations, Crisis Management

Splitsville for JayZ and Beyoncé? It’s A Public Relations Dream Either Way

Is the marriage between JayZ and Beyoncé in need of help from a crisis public relations firm, or is the mega-couple using rumors of relationship trouble as a PR stunt to fuel ticket sales for their massive world tour?

Only time will tell.

Whispers of cracks in the pair’s relationship first surfaced in May when TMZ posted footage of Beyoncé’s sister, Solange Knowles, attacking JayZ in an elevator at The Standard hotel in Manhattan.

Concerns intensified after the Cincinnati stop of the couple’s “On The Run” tour in June when Beyoncé changed the lyrics of her song “Resentment” to seemingly make reference to JayZ cheating on her.

“Been ridin’ with you for 12 years. Why did I deserve to be treated this way by you?” she sang. The original lyrics are: “Been ridin’ with you for six years. Why did I deserve to be treated this way by you?”

JayZ and Beyoncé have been together for 12 years. They began dating in 2002 and married in 2008. They are parents to one child, two-year-old Blue Ivy.

The New York Post claims unnamed sources have told them JayZ and Beyoncé are seeing marriage counselors in an attempt to save their relationship, but they are no longer wearing their wedding rings and may part ways following the end of their tour.

However, experts agree that, even if JayZ and Beyoncé do call it quits, the money will keep rolling in.

“I don’t think this impacts their businesses in a major way,” public relations executive Ronn Torossian said in an interview with Entertainment Tonight. “They’re not kids. This is not, you know, Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez duking it out on Twitter and late night battles. Both JayZ and Beyoncé’s machines will continue to go on whether they’re married or they’re divorced.”

Heartbreak on the horizon or not, JayZ and Beyoncé are guaranteed to stick it out until the end of their world tour. Promoters have already fronted most of the money to the entertainers, and HBO is planning to film the last two concerts of the “On The Run” tour when it hits Paris, which doesn’t happen until September.

The tour is reportedly pulling in around $5 million per performance and is on pace to rake in $100 million for the year.

“JayZ and Beyoncé’s marriage is just as much a merger as it is a marriage,” Forbes senior editor Zach O’Malley Greenburg told ET.

Leave a comment

Filed under Crisis Management, Public Relations, Social Media, Technology

Bitter pill – California Counties Sue Drug Companies

health-care-public-relationsIt may be one of the most necessary “unfair” questions ever asked in a courtroom, and it certainly has people lining up on both sides of the issue. Are drug makers responsible for the “epidemic” of prescription painkiller abuse? This situation is causing quite a Healthcare PR uproar.

 According to a report in Bloomberg Businessweek, Orange and Santa Clara counties in California have filed a suit alleging that pharmaceutical companies intentionally set out to turn rarely prescribed painkillers into “commonplace remedies.” The companies, according to the suit, downplayed the risk of addiction, and promoted the benefits of “chronic relief.”The suit goes on to allege that the drug companies intentionally deceived consumers, and even tried to undermine and reverse the common medical understanding of opioid drugs.

 Both sides of the argument understand full well that this case will reach well beyond the courtroom. With expected wall to wall news coverage, the consumer PR angle is vitally important. Many people already suspect they are being treated more like consumers than patients. To find out it is literally true would create a firestorm of backlash. Whether or not the California counties “win” the case or the drug companies in question have to pay any sort of penalties, there will be an extensive and very public conversation about this case. And, whether or not the drug companies are found liable in the court, they will be held to account in the court of public opinion. Of course, they knew this, and are likely prepared, but it will be interesting to see how and when each side releases PR in an attempt to control the public opinion conversation.

 There is no doubt that this fight will get ugly, and that both sides will end up playing both offense and defense. Motives will be loudly questioned, and accusations will be leveled. Should be interesting – and informative – to watch it all unfold.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporations, Crisis Management, Media, Public Relations

When You Can Make the News Your Story, You Master Public Relations

Starbuck’s cups say “Come Together”

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz demonstrated marketing genius this week.  He took his common drink of choice for millions of Americans and turned it into the news of the day.

The biggest obstacle to generating consistent publicity for any brand is the often aggressive attack of current events that consumes the media. When war in Israel breaks out or a massacre at a shopping mall or school occurs, news channels develop heartfelt collages choreographed to a stirring musical theme to begin and end each commercial break and that item becomes the only news angle of the day, week or even month.  Take the fiscal cliff, and see how Starbucks made it their story.  (Read more here)

1 Comment

Filed under Creative Writing, Crisis Management, Media, News and Views, Politics

Juda Engelmayer of HerldPR on CBS about Lance Armstrong’s Brand and Crisis

Juda Engelmayer of HeraldPR on CBS about Lance Armstrong’s Brand and Crisis.  Amidst the doping scandal, Armstrong lost many of his key endorsement deals.  Can his brand be rebuilt and what will it take?

Leave a comment

Filed under Crisis Management, Lance Armstrong, Social Media, Sports, Video

What is George Zimmerman Thinking?

By (about the author)

opednews.com

 In invoking the “God’s plan” message, George Zimmerman and his team of public relations specialists made a critical decision.  The man who shot and killed the unarmed youth Treyvon Martin in Sanford, Florida offered an exclusive interview to Fox News’ Sean Hannity and expressed little remorse while telling America that the events leading to, and Martin’s death were part of God’s plan.  What he did do was attempt to draw support from a different direction; the usually right leaning Christian groups, who are also often strong supporters of the Second Amendment.
The natural support base for Martin comes from the African American communities, and the fact that Al Sharpton took up the cause reinforces the image of the civil rights agenda, black versus white, and the underprivileged versus the middle and upper class.  Martin’s cause became known and big, getting all the way up to the President of the United States’ bully pulpit, and millions on the left rallied behind the boy’s family seeking justice for Treyvon.  Then came the pictures of Zimmerman walking through the police station, some had him looking uninjured and others showed him with a few band-aids on his head questioned Zimmerman’s version of events that fateful night. (Continue Reading)
Juda Engelmayer is President and Partner with the NY PR agency, HeraldPR

Leave a comment

Filed under Crisis Management, Politics, Religion

Did Exremism Cause the Fall of the Second Temple?

Shammai Engelmayer • Columns

Published: 06 July 2012

The Three Weeks begin this evening, and with them once again comes the question of why Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. The standard answer is this: Jerusalem was destroyed because of the sin of “baseless hatred” (sinat chinam); the Talmud says so, so it must be true.

But the Talmud does not say so. Sinat chinam was a contributing factor, but extremism was the cause.

Actually, the Talmud offers many reasons for why Jerusalem was destroyed. In the Babylonian Talmud tractate Shabbat (119b), for example, there are several from which to choose. Among them are that “Shabbat was desecrated there,” “Jerusalemites neglected reading the Shema,” they “neglected [the education of] school children,” acted without concern for how their actions looked to others, acted as though those among them who were the most ignorant of the law were the equals of those who were most knowledgeable, “closed their eyes to the evil around them and did nothing,” and because “scholars there were despised by the general population.”

BT Yoma (9b) offers different possibilities, including sinat chinam, which is by far the most popular one: “But the second Temple… why was it destroyed? Because there existed there sinat chinam. That is meant to teach you that baseless hatred is considered even worse [a sin] than the three sins of idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed combined.”

What is absent in Yoma, however, is what is meant by “baseless hatred.” For that, we must turn to BT Gittin (55b-56a) and the infamous tale of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, which is used as the prooftext that sinat chinam was the cause of Jerusalem’s destruction and our exile. There is only one problem: The text makes no such claim. Those who cite it either have never studied the text, or deliberately cut off the tale at its knees to distort its true — and unwanted — message.

“The destruction of Jerusalem came through a certain Kamtza and a Bar Kamtza in this way,” Rabbi Yochanan explains in the text. “A certain man had a friend named Kamtza and an enemy named Bar Kamtza. He once made a party and said to his servant, ‘Go and bring me Kamtza.’ The man went and brought him Bar Kamtza instead. When the [host] found [Bar Kamtza] there, he said, ‘Behold, you are the one who tells stories about me. Why are you here? Leave.’ Said [Bar Kamtza to the host]: ‘Since I am already here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink.’”

The host said no, and all the efforts of Bar Kamtza to avoid being embarrassed proved futile. He even offered to pay for the whole party, but the host literally dragged him to the street, while all of Jerusalem’s elite reportedly stood by in silence.

“Said [Bar Kamtza], ‘Since there were rabbis sitting there and [they] did not stop him [from behaving so boorishly], I understand from this that they agreed with him. I will go to the [Roman] government and inform on them.’”

Thus, according to the testimony of Bar Kamtza, the reason for his perfidy was the silence of the rabbis, not the animosity shown to him by the anonymous host. That animosity, in fact, may not have been baseless, at all. The host cites his reason: that Bar Kamtza spread tales about him, presumably of an evil nature. Bar Kamtza does not deny the charge. Rather, he pleads not to be embarrassed in front of Jerusalem’s elite.

The story, however, is not over. Rabbi Yochanan has more to say:

“[Bar Kamtza] went and said to [the local governor, personal representative of] Caesar, ‘The Jews are rebelling against you.’ [The Roman] said, ‘How can I tell?’ Said Bar Kamtza to him: ‘Send them an offering and see whether they will offer it [on the altar].’”

Bar Kamtza, of course, had a plan. He knew that the Romans would choose a calf for the offering that was ritually acceptable. He would then see to it that the animal would not be acceptable once it arrived at the Temple. “While on the way,” said Rabbi Yochanan, Bar Kamtza “made a blemish on its upper lip, or some say that it was on the white of its eye, in a place where according to our way of thinking it is a blemish [thereby rendering the calf ineligible as a sacrifice], but according to [the Roman] way of looking at it, it is not [considered a blemish].”

Now Rabbi Yochanan gets to his point: The rabbis were prepared to allow the offering “in order to keep peace with the government,” but a rabbi named Zechariah ben Avkulas insisted that the law be followed to the letter.

And so it was. Said Rabbi Yochanan: “Because of the humility of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas, our House was destroyed, our Temple burnt, and we ourselves exiled from our land.”

For “humility,” read “extremism.” Rabbi Yochanan’s point is clear: Jerusalem was razed and the Temple set afire because one rabbi insisted that God’s law was immutable and uncompromising, and the consequences be damned.

The true lesson of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, is that consequences must be considered. If God was the ultimate author of the calamities of 70 C.E., then it was God Himself who rejected following a strict interpretation of halachah in the face of impending disaster. It was He who punished His people for not allowing a more liberal interpretation of the law to hold sway long enough to avert disaster.

Sometimes, God was saying, religious authorities must set aside their aversion to compromise. When the fate of the People Israel is at stake, they must be more accepting of other views and must be more honest in admitting that their views may not be the only ones that will please God. They can hold to their views, but they must neither demonize nor delegitimate those who think differently.

Shammai Engelmayer is rabbi of the Conservative synagogue Temple Israel Community Center in Cliffside Park and an instructor in the UJA-Federation-sponsored Florence Melton Adult Mini-School of the Hebrew University. He is the editor of Judaism: A Journal of Jewish Life and Thought.  This article was originally printed in the Jewish Standard of NJ.

1 Comment

Filed under Crisis Management, Education, Judasim, Religion

It’s the real thing: The one sided right of return

In 2001, Hussam Khader, a Fatah leader, said of Yasser Arafat’s last negotiations with then President Bill Clinton, “If Yasser Arafat or any other Palestinian leader were to relinquish the right of return, I would lead the revolt against him.” This supposed right, one sided as it might be, is the stated reason why the Oslo Accords failed, and is something that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert amazingly offered in a rejected last ditch effort to hand over 97% of Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights in exchange for peace.

The Arabs claim that the the right of return is an individual right, enshrined in international law, which no international or national leader can sign away. This right, however seems only enshrined on a one-way street for Palestinians. For Jews, there is no such right, nor any major calls for justice to be served on the behalf of Jews who were forcibly kicked out of Arab lands after the British and French Mandates created the Arab states of Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and so on, following the end of World War I.

Syrian Jews, Iranian Jews, and Iraqi Jews all lost property, assets and other valuables, but no one cries for them. There are no movements or United Nations discussions, and in fact, there is no justice in the American courts either, leading one to believe that the right of return is more of a Palestinian ploy than a real international issue applicable to all.

More recently than the end of WWI, General Abdul Nasser came to power in Egypt and ordered the arrests of Jews and confiscated their property, both personal and commercial. He deported thousands, confiscating all their assets. Most of the deportees were limited to one suitcase apiece. Being so bold, in 1964, Nasser declared that Egypt believed in the Nazi cause, saying, “Our sympathy… was with the Germans.”

Fast forward to today, for a case that few are even paying attention to; it is one that reeks of the hypocrisy of the “treasured” right of return law that Arabs so audaciously cling to. It is the illegal trespass of America’s Coca-Cola on property outside Cairo that was taken from a Jewish family by Nasser in 1962. Coca-Cola built a bottling plant in Egypt in the 1940s when it leased land and buildings from the Egyptian Jewish Bigio family, land it owned since 1929. The Bigios were later expelled from Egypt in 1965, after their property was confiscated. Egypt nationalized their property. After the Begin-Sadat talks and the 1978 Camp David Accords brought a treaty, Bigio returned in 1979 and managed to obtain a decree from the Ministry of Finance that the property “had never been legally sequestered or nationalized and accordingly remained” Bigio property.

Yet, a series of back handed deals between Egyptian insurance companies and the government caused the land to fall into the possession of the Misr Insurance Co., a government-owned entity that refused to turn it over to the family. Then, in 1993, Egypt announced the privatization of the bottling facility and Bigio notified Coca-Cola of his family’s interest in the property, but Coca-Cola closed on a deal to acquire ownership interest in the property anyway. Egypt was not going to offer justice or any right of return to the Jewish Bigio family.

Even so, there was hope that the matter could be settled by the American court system, as Coca-Cola is an American operation. Now, 14 years later and after the United States Court of Appeals has reversed dismissals of the case twice, it was shot down again on the argument that the theft was committed by Coca Cola Egypt and not by the American defendants. Fourteen years through the system; the initial suit was dismissed under the Alien Tort Statute stating that there was no jurisdiction and that the act of state doctrine barred the exercise of jurisdiction. The 2nd Circuit reversed it on appeal. The Bigios filed again in 2009, claiming “unlawful taking and exclusion of plaintiffs,” citing the trespass and civil conspiracy as well as unjust enrichment. However, the case was dismissed indicating that Egyptian law prevails. Remarkably, it also said the Bigios “have not plausibly alleged that defendants enriched themselves without just cause.” This was the same Coca-Cola Company that knowingly entered into a lease with the Bigios in the 1930s then ran to buy the land after it was confiscated from them–which they were well aware of.

This past March, the court found that Coca-Cola and its subsidiary occupied the property under a legitimate claim of right for Egyptian law and therefore their possession is not illegal. Then, in what seemed to be an act of kicking a man when he’s down, Coca-Cola filed a “Bill of Costs” to collect the printing costs of its brief from the truly impoverished Bigios. They took the land and now asked for blood.

Fortunately, Coke’s lawyers attached a bill for a completely different brief that was longer than the one Coca-Cola filed. In addition, it never filed a “Supplemental Appendix,” that they also demanded reimbursement for. Diet Coke — obviously embarrassed — withdrew its request for costs once it was revealed. Minor justice served, while the major offense remains intact.

The family now has until May 2 to request a rehearing.  Their attorney, Nathan Lewin, intends to continue the pursuit of justice all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The final outcome of the case will be interesting, because it speaks volumes of the fraudulent nature of the right of return. What cuts for Arabs, does not appear to cut the same for Jews. If Jews demanded their rights of property, assets and land from Arab countries that threw them out, and the United Nations and world leaders joined in the call for Justice for Jews, how lopsided would this world seem on that day? Perhaps a court can decide once and for all that Israeli Law applies for cases involving Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Juda Engelmayer is President and Partner with the NY PR agency, HeraldPR
This article appeared in the Jewish Star

Leave a comment

Filed under anti-Semitism, Crisis Management, Cutting Edge News, Egypt, Islam, Israel, Judasim, News and Views, War against Israel

The New York Times Plays Devil’s Advocate to God’s Messenger

Edge of Media Manipulation
The New York Times Plays Devil’s Advocate to God’s Messenger
By: Juda Engelmayer

Who is Greg Smith, and why do we care? He was an employee who quit Goldman Sachs in a public way and posted it in a New York Times op-ed. The better question is why should we care? After all, Goldman Sachs probably has had staff quit before for a whole host of reasons, from better opportunities to being disillusioned, to just not meeting the expectations or needs. Gee, I have had some really good people quit the firm where I work, and quit on me for that matter. Some wrote letters too.  It’s not news; it’s life.

Work is just that, work. Some love it, some hate it, and some find it a calling; others just work because they need to pay the bills. I work because I enjoy what I do, but also because I get bored doing nothing; and I can certainly use the money. So what is Greg Smith’s deal that so many are now paying attention?

He quit one of the biggest financial institutions and lambasted it in perhaps the single most influential media venue still in print. Yet, it’s not news. Goldman has some 30,000 people working for it, and what are the odds that Greg Smith was not the only employee to walk out that door this same week? It begs the question as to why the New York Times printed it in the first place.

(Read More)

Juda Engelmayer is President and Partner with the NY PR agency, HeraldPR

Leave a comment

Filed under Career and choices, Crisis Management, Cutting Edge News, New York City, News and Views, Obama, Politics

The Souls in the Land are the Only Reasons for the Land

Juda Engelmayer March 8th 2012
Salim Joubran
Salim Joubran

It was May 7, 2004, when Salim Joubran was given a position on Israel’s Supreme Court. The day that he became the first permanent member of the Court from the Israeli Arab community should have been the day the world realized that Israel was in fact a democracy like none other in its region. Justice Joubran knew that as well, and he also knew what Israel was why it was formed and how he managed to rise through its ranks as a Christian and not a Jew.

It would seem odd, or possibly some act of defiance, when the New York Times carried a story about Justice Joubran earlier this week, presumably refusing to sing the Israel national anthem because the words “Nefesh Yehudi homiyah,” which means “A Jewish soul still yearns,” do not apply to him.

The anthem was not new to him when he became a lawyer, nor when he became a Supreme Court judge. It may indeed be an uncomfortable concept to sing, let alone believe by one who is not Jewish. It highlights the delicate tightrope Israel walks in its pursuit of peace and prosperity through the promotion of democratic statehood.

For Jews, living in Israel ironically removes Jewish identity from the everyday life of the average Jew. Unlike most places, where for many, Jewish identity is worn on our sleeves so to speak; on our heads actually for some, but also with the often uncomfortable vacation requests at work, among the other unique aspects of Jewish life. In Israel, Jewish holidays are the State holidays and no one really feels out of place donning a skullcap. With Judaism all around, maybe the overtly Jewish words should, or maybe other ubiquitous Jewish symbolisms should be removed to make those not of one of the 12 Tribes feel as comfortable.

There is a movement among a growing group of secular Israelis, Jewish ones mostly, to eliminate the Jewishness from the State itself. The fights between the ultra orthodox and those less so have been growing to the point where they have made the front pages of some of the world’s most antagonistic-to-Israel media venues. These differences only enhance the calls by the secular Israelis, as they see the belligerence of the right toward Zionism, secularism and modernity growing, and an unyielding intransigence when it comes to economic or social contributions beyond their own communities.

In the efforts to highlight the extremist nature of Israel, as they print their political opposition to such issues as Judean and Samarian expansion and retaining defensible borders, leftist media take the truly offensive nature of the assaults on women and secular Jews by these pockets of Hareidim and promote them as the mainstream occurrences of the Jewish state.

That serves Israel’s detractors as it equates the Jewish state with the radicalized Islamic countries that purport to see her smothered. The fact is that when relatively small extremist activity perpetuated by Jews occurs it is often promoted to a grander degree and with more international disdain than the malignant fanaticism that everyday Arab men, women and children face each day in many of the countries that challenge Israel’s existence. Those nations often get a free pass from criticism, as Israel is held to a different standard. Yet, I digress into a whole other topic altogether.

Jewish identity is so prevalent in Israel through its population and character that the argument is made asserting Jewish identification markers built into its government and national themes, like the Hatikvah are not needed.

The debate rocks between Israel’s left and right. While some want to make it harder for non Jews and non-believing Jews to participate, some on the left urge making Israel more inclusive; essentially, making it nothing more than the United States on the Mediterranean.

Israel’s Declaration of Independence ensures “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” The irony, however, is that this issue was sparked over an Arab judge from Haifa who has a permanent seat on The Jewish state’s highest court. Some would argue that he has been treated as Israel declared it would. The judge, for his part, just stood quietly while others made the issue of his choice.

These are difficult considerations and the resulting answers are not clear, nor do they follow conventional logic. To be a true democracy, Israel would needs to cede its Jewish identity, but to do so, would make it impossible for Israel to remain a Jewish homeland, safe from future persecution and expulsion. As history keeps repeating, majority populations will at some point turn on its Jewish citizens.

Jews have been pushed in every location on earth, and treated as pariahs throughout history. They have been jailed, tortured, forced to renounce their religion and beliefs or just killed for being Jews. Yet, they endured as a people and have outlived their ancient enemies, and are poised to face their new ones, whoever they are.

Born from the Levant where the G-d Abram had worshiped offered to make him a great nation if he left his home and family, the Jewish religion and the specific land are unequivocally tied to one another. This makes the Jewish yearning for Israel not just a slogan, but a compulsion as strong as the belief in G-d itself. It is the main reason why when Theodore Herzl were searching for a land the Jews could emigrate to, escaping the Russian pogroms in 1905, the Seventh Zionist Congress rejected the Uganda Program, believing that only in Israel could Jews truly be free.

Israel is, therefore an anomaly and needs to be treated as one. It is not as any other country, because it is not merely about acreage and capricious borders, but an ancient calling said to be made by the G-d of the oldest monotheistic religion in the world.

Fanatical Hareidim aside, for secular Jews to feel that the religious nature of the country is too cumbersome, for non Jews to feel that the Hatikvah is too Jewish, or for both to want to make Israel a secular sanctuary, the only answer has to be no.

One can be irreligious in Israel and still be its prime minister. One can be an Arab in Israel and be a Supreme Court judge, weighing in on the most important matters affecting the internal working of the country. Yet, if the Judaism is taken out of Israel, Jews may as well be in Florida and not suffer, struggle, fight, and not remember those who died creating, defending and living in the land where Jews are destined to call home.

Israel devoid of the Soul of the Jew is nothing more than soil and sand, and certainly not worth the blood, sweat and tears of the countless who have poured all three into its building; creating the hope for the Jews and an oasis in the gloom of the Middle East.

Juda Engelmayer is President and Partner with the NY PR agency, HeraldPR

 

Leave a comment

Filed under anti-Semitism, Choices, Crisis Management, Cutting Edge News, Israel, Juda Engelmayer, Judasim