Middle East

"[T]housands of new settlements are being constructed...you saw tens of thousands of settlements being constructed"
Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser, December 23, 2016


On December 23rd, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2344 was passed 14-0 with one abstension --  the United States. One of the key points of that resolution was the clear declaration that Israeli settlements are illegal. Not "illegitimate", as per US policy in the past, but "illegal". The settlements were described as an impediment to peace that must be removed.

Are There Tens of Thousands of Israeli Settlements... Or 228?
That same day, Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy security advisor, gave an interview to Judy Woodruff.

Recall that Rhodes is noted for having bragged about his manipulation of the media in creating the narrative that made the Iran deal possible, despite both popular and congressional opposition. He boasted at the time about the media's lack of knowledge of world events:
Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing...We created an echo chamber...They [the seemingly independent experts] were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.
Now, in his interview to Judy Woodruff on the PBS Newshour, quoted above, Rhodes claimed that Israel had built literally thousands of settlements -- and then he doubled down on that claim and asserted that actually tens of thousands of settlements had been built.

White House deputy security advisor Ben Rhodes. Source: Youtube

CAMERA easily rebutted what Rhodes said by pointing out that according to Peace Now there were a total of 228 settlements altogether, 131 settlements and 97 outposts, a far cry from the tens of thousands of settlements that Rhodes claimed, unchallenged.

With the Rhodes embellishment disposed of, we can turn to Secretary of State John Kerry.

3 Settlements Built in 22 Years
In a speech following passing of the UN resolution, Kerry claimed:
We’ve made countless public and private exhortations to the Israelis to stop the march of settlements.But have there really been a steady building of new settlements that would constitute a "march" as implied by Kerry?

Again, all we have to do is just take a look at the Peace Now website.

In April 2012, they posted an article with the headline: For the First Time Since 1990 – the Government is to Approve the Establishment of New Settlements:
According to reports, Prime Minister Netanyahu stated this week that the Government will approve the establishment of three settlements (Bruchin, Sansana and Rechalim), in the upcoming cabinet meeting on Sunday, April 22.That's it. Three settlements.
In 2012.
And no new settlements built since.
And for this Kerry is "exhorting" Israel about stopping the "march" of settlements.

The White House is not alone in exaggerating a growth in settlement construction.

The Media Plays Along
Over the years, the media has conflated building settlements with building houses within the settlements, adding to the confusion and aiding in the creation of this false narrative.

CAMERA has noted the media's sloppiness confusing houses with Israeli settlements:
Whenever Israel approves plans for new housing units in preexisting West Bank settlements, or in established Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem beyond the pre-1967 Armistice Line (the Green Line), it seems there's always at least one major media outlet which wrongly states that Israel is building "new settlements."That time, the article in question appeared in Christian Science Monitor with the headline:
"Why New Israeli Settlements Draw Ire".
As a result of CAMERA contacting them about the error, the headline was changed to:
"Why New Building in Israeli Settlements Draws Ire" -- with a note at the end of the article noting the correction.

Other examples of similarly incorrect headlines:

• Israel Advances Plans for Settlements in the West Bank, Despite UN Resolution to Stop
  Agence France-Presse, December 27,2016
  Only by reading further does the article admit:"Israel could advance plans this week for thousands of more homes in settlements in annexed east Jerusalem in defiance of a landmark UN resolution demanding an end to such activity."[emphasis added]
  
  
• Israel plans to approve new East Jerusalem settlements in defiance of U.N.
  USA Today, December 27, 2016
  Again, you have to read the actual article to find out "Israel plans Wednesday to approve construction of more than 600 housing units in East Jerusalem..." [emphasis added]
  
  
• Israel Pressing Ahead With Settlements Despite UN Resolution
  Huffington Post, December 27, 2016
  In the first paragraph, the impression in the headline is corrected: "The Jerusalem municipality, undeterred by a U.N. anti-settlement resolution, is due to consider on Wednesday requests for construction permits for hundreds of new homes for Israelis in areas that Israel captured in 1967 and annexed to the city." [emphasis added]
  
  
• Israel okays East Jerusalem settlement just before Kerry's peace visit
  CNN, June 27, 2013
  This time, CNN just compounds its error again: "Israel approved Wednesday the construction of a settlement in East Jerusalem just before U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is to visit the country on a peace mission."
  And again: "Wednesday's approval of a 69-unit settlement in East Jerusalem..."
  
  In this case, you have to go to The New York Times to get the story straight: "The chief Palestinian negotiator condemned Israel on Thursday for moving closer to constructing 69 apartments in a Jewish neighborhood" [emphases added]

So now it is clear that Israeli settlements are not the issue here.
Housing Construction in Settlements is Down
Having established how few settlements have been constructed, we have to assume that everyone is actually referring not to construction of settlements, but rather to construction inside the settlements, that is, the construction of houses.

Back in 2014, President Obama claimed in an interview
 "If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction -- and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we've seen in a very long time." [emphasis added]At the time of Obama's claim about "aggessive settlement construction", Evelyn Gordon rebutted Obama's claim with the following facts:
During those five years [2009-2013], housing starts in the settlements averaged 1,443 a year. That’s less than the 1,702 a year they averaged under Ehud Olmert in 2006-08, who is nevertheless internationally acclaimed as a peacemaker (having made the Palestinians an offer so generous that then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice couldn’t believe she was hearing it). It’s also less than the 1,652 per year they averaged under Ariel Sharon in 2001-05, who is similarly lauded internationally as a peacemaker (for having left Gaza); the fact that even Sharon out-built Netanyahu is particularly remarkable, because his term coincided with the second intifada, when demand for housing in the settlements plummeted. And it’s far less than under Ehud Barak, who is also internationally acclaimed as a peacemaker (for his generous offer at Camp David in 2000): One single year under Barak, 2000, produced more housing starts in the settlements (4,683) than the entire first four years of Netanyahu’s term (4,679). [emphasis added]Haaretz, a fan of neither of Netanyahu nor the settlements, looks at houses built from 2009 to 2014 and still comes to the same conclusion: fewer houses have been built under Netanyahu than his predecessors:
According to data from the Housing and Construction Ministry, an average of 1,554 houses a year were built in the settlements from 2009 to 2014 — fewer than under any of his recent predecessors.

By comparison, the annual average was 1,881 under Ariel Sharon and 1,774 under Ehud Olmert. As for Ehud Barak, during his single full year as prime minister, in 2000, he built a whopping 5,000 homes in the settlements.There has been no aggressive increase in Israeli settlements.
There has been no aggressive increase in Israeli houses within the settlements.
Maybe the issue is the increase in the settlement population?

The Number of Houses Built in Settlements Don't Even Meet the Need
Sure enough, that is exactly what the Associated Press claimed in 2014: Netanyahu Years See Surge in West Bank Settlements

But again, the headline is misleading. The reference is actually to the population in the settlements and the impression you get is that the comparison is with the years before Netanyahu started his term in 2009. But if you make it to the 6th paragraph, you find out that the story is very different:
The rate of settler population growth slowed slightly under Netanyahu, from 31 percent during the previous five years under his predecessors Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. Olmert especially took relatively little heat for the settlements because he was seen as a moderate. [emphasis added]The surge referred to in the article is not based on past years. Instead, the surge is based on a comparison with the increased population of Israel as a whole, noting that the increase in the settlement population is more than double that in the country as a whole -- and that population growth itself has actually slowed, not surged.

So let's go with that comparison between the settlement and national populations, keeping in mind that the Haaretz article quoted earlier notes that 74% of the increase in the settler population from 2009 to 2014 was due to the birthrate and not an influx.

In an article in the Jewish Press in 2014, blogger Joe Settler followed the AP's lead and compared the growth of populations in the settlements and compared it to Israel as a whole.

He found that the construction of houses in the settlements lags behind the rest of Israel:

• Since 2010, under Netanyahu, the settlements’ share of housing completions has declined.
  
  
• From 2010 to 2013, while the settlement population grew by about 50,000 people, the total number of new homes built was only 6,062 – falling short of the population’s needs.
  
  
• From 2010 to 2013, settlers averaged 4.19% of the national population, yet only represented 3.23% of national house starts and 4.1% of national housing completions.
  
  
• In 2013, the settlers were 4.28% of the national population, but only 3.37% of national construction was completed in Judea and Samaria.
  
  
• Bottom line, under Netanyahu, settlements did not receive their fair share of new homes in comparison to the rest of the population.

Construction Completions: Comparing Judea and Samaria to the National Average 2010 - 2013.
Credit: Joe Settler, based on Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics 
-----
Population Sizes: Comparing Judea and Samaria to the National Average 2008-2013.
Credit: Joe Settler, based on Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics 
The increase in the number of settlers is a natural increase, and the number of  houses that are being built do not even meet the demand.

Settlements Take Up Only 1% of the "West Bank"
That brings us to another misconception.

With all the talk by both the White House on the one hand and the media on the other, just how much land do the settlements take up in the "West Bank / Judea and Samaria?

Not a lot.

In 2002, the settlements took up less than 2% of the West Bank
B'Tselem claimed that settlements took up 1.7% of the area
Peace Now claimed settlements took up 1.36% of the land

And in 2011, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, claimed settlements took up 1.1% of the West Bank.

So again, why the fuss?

Peace Now's Argument Debunked
According to Peace Now, that 1% is deceptive:
The "one percent argument" is a classic example of how supporters of the status-quo use a fraction of the truth to misrepresent the truth on the ground in the West Bank. Yes, the actual built-up area of West Bank settlements takes up only a little more than 1% of the West Bank. But the settlements' built-up area is just the tip of the settlements iceberg. The impact of the settlements goes far beyond this 1%.

...In total, more than 40% of the West Bank is under the direct control of settlers or settlements and off-limits to Palestinians, regardless of the fact that only a small portion of this land has been built on by settlers.Let's put aside that in 2010, Dani Dayan, then chairman of the settlers council, countered that settlements control only 9.2 percent of the West Bank.

The point Peace Now is making is that settlements and the control they have over land is an impediment to peace.

Blogger Elder of Ziyon counters that recent history demonstrates that the argument by Peace Now is a red herring:
Somehow, the 40% Israel controls didn't stop Barak and Olmert from offering nearly the entire West Bank for a Palestinian state. If they could offer it, so could the current Israeli government. So the 40% figure is a red herring, meant to obscure the fact that the intransigent party is the Palestinian side.Settlements did not stand in the way of Netanyahu's predecessors from offering major concessions in the interests of peace -- offers that fell through not because of the settlments but because the Palestinian Arabs, including Abbas, have turned down the offers.

So Why All The Fuss Over the Settlements?So far, we have seen:

• There has been no aggresive growth in the number of settlements built
• The number of houses built has decreased and don't meet the need
• The growth in the number of settlers is due to the natural increase of the birthrate
• The settlements take a little more than 1% of the area
• The settlements have not stood in the way of peace deals being offered in the past.
• The reason Israel has not offered a peace deal recently is because Abbas refuses to negotiate.

So why all the fuss over the settlements?
Evelyn Gordon again offers an answer:
In short, if settlement construction were really the death blow to the peace process that Obama and his European counterparts like to claim, Netanyahu ought to be their favorite Israeli prime minister ever instead of the most hated, because never has settlement construction been as low as it has under him. The obvious conclusion is that all the talk about settlement construction is just a smokescreen, and what really makes Western leaders loathe Netanyahu is something else entirely: the fact that unlike Rabin, Barak, Sharon and Olmert, he has so far refused to offer the kind of sweeping territorial concessions that, every time they were tried, have resulted in massive waves of anti-Israel terror.At issue is more than just the sloppy confusion of settlements, houses and settler population. The hyperbole used by both the White House and the media pushes an agenda that clouds what is at stake and puts responsibility for peace on one party alone - Israel.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Settlements and Abbas and Media_Bias.

In the aftermath of Obama's support for UN Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli, reactions have not been short in coming -- and there are cogent arguments against the resolution.

Beyond what is being said about Obama and his motives or against the United Nations itself and the way the resolution was carried out, the fact remains there are reasons why the UN resolution may have many results -- but none of the ones it claims to support.

Here are some of those arguments being made:


Israeli Settlements Are Not What Is Preventing Peace
UN Resolution 2334 focuses on Israeli settlements. As I've mentioned before on this blog, Obama sabotaged Middle East peace talks early on by letting Abbas know that the President of the United States would unilaterally pressure Israel on the settlements. So its not surprising that in 2014, Abbas Sabotaged American-Sponsored Peace Talks just as Abbas rejected discussing Olmert's offer in 2008.

Now, in its editorial following passage of the resolution, The Washington Post was explicit on this point when it came out with an editorial that The Obama Administration Fires a Dangerous Parting Shot. The Washington Post is no fan of Israeli settlements, but points out that
Nevertheless, settlements do not explain the administration’s repeated failures to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas proved unwilling to negotiate seriously even during the settlement freeze, and it refused to accept a framework for negotiations painstakingly drawn up by Secretary of State John F. Kerry in 2014. In past negotiations, both sides have acknowledged that any deal will involve the annexation by Israel of settlements near its borders, where most of the current construction takes place — something the U.N. resolution, which was pressed by the Palestinians, did not acknowledge or take into account.The UN sole fixation on Israeli settlements merely picks up where Obama's failed foreign policy leaves off

Peace -- Abbas-style, 2013-2014. Credit: The Israel Project
The UN Resolution Removes Any Reason for Abbas to Negotiate
David Gerstman, writing for The Israel Project's The Tower, explains how Anti-Israel UN Resolution Would Undermine Peace Talks
If the resolution passes, it will signal that the international community has abandoned one of the most important underpinnings of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks: the idea that peace can only come through direct negotiations.

...Passage of the Security Council resolution will mean that the United Nations has rewarded Mahmoud Abbas, the increasingly authoritarian president of the Palestinian Authority, for his refusal to negotiate with Israel and his internationalization of the conflict. Abbas admitted that his plan was to expand legal warfare against Israel in a 2011 New York Times op-ed. “Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one,” he explained. “It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.”Abbas knows which way the wind is blowing. Credit: Jewish Business News
The UN Has Proven Itself To Not Be An Honest Broker
Prior to the resolution, Senator Charles Schumer noted that the UN was unfit to discuss peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs:
“Whatever one’s views are on settlements, anyone who cares about the future of Israel and peace in the region knows that the UN, with its one-sidedness, is exactly the wrong forum to bring about peace,” the New York Democrat said in a statement.

“I have spoken directly to the Administration numerous times … and in the strongest terms possible urged them to veto this resolution. I am strongly opposed to the UN putting pressure on Israel through one-sided resolutions. An abstention is not good enough. The Administration must veto this resolution,” the statement said.
Unilateral Demands That Leave Palestinians Out of the Equation Cannot Bring Peace
AIPAC came out against the resolution, but was not opposed to the supposed goal -- just the means:
By adopting this resolution, the United Nations has once again served as an open forum to isolate and delegitimize Israel—America’s lone stable, democratic ally in the Middle East. The Palestinian leadership has refused to return to talks with Israel and has continued to incite violence. Today’s destructive UNSC resolution only rewards this negative strategy and undermines efforts to truly pursue a lasting peace.

The best way to further the peace process with the goal of a two-state solution—which we support—would have been for the international community to do everything in its power to persuade the Palestinians to return to direct, bilateral negotiations without preconditions with Israel. Unfortunately, the UNSC today irresponsibly adopted a ruinous resolution that can only make the goal of peace even more elusive. [emphasis added]
The UN Resolution Singles Out Israel With Demands That Cannot Be Met
The Israeli government of course is opposed to the resolution. Opposition leader Yair Lapid noted that the UN resolution that denied Israel its indigenous connection to the land:
Lapid added that there was “no coalition or opposition” in the Israeli government when it came to this issue, as the entire political establishment holds similar views. He noted that the resolution condemns Israeli activity in eastern Jerusalem, where the Western Wall and Temple Mount are located, and “there is no Israeli government, ever, that can accept that.”
The UN Resolution Ignores Israel's Legal Claim to Both Gaza and the West Bank
Richard L. Cravatts, past president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) writes about
Defective law and moral incoherence in the UN Security Council vote on the Israel settlements
More to the point, it is erroneous to overlook the fact that not only all of the land that is current­-day Israel, but also Gaza and the West Bank, is part of the land granted to the Jews as part of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which recognized the right of the Jewish people to “close settlement” in a portion of those territories gained after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. According to Eugene V. Rostow [in Legality of the Israeli Settlements], the late legal scholar and one of the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 written after the 1967 war to outline peace negotiations, “the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors,” something which Israel’s intransigent Arab neighbors have never seemed prepared to do.

Moreover, Rostow contended, “The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created,” and “the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live there.” The Six Day War of 1967, in which Israel recaptured Gaza and the West Bank, including Jerusalem, resulted in Israel being cast in another perfidious role—in addition to colonial usurper of Arab land, the Jewish state became a brutal “occupier” of Arab Palestine, lands to which the Jews presumably had no right and now occupied, in the opinion of many in the international community, illegally. But that “unhelpful” view again presumes that parts of the territory that may someday comprise a Palestinian state is already Palestinian land, that the borders of the putative Palestinian state are precise and agreed to, and that Jews living anywhere on those lands are now violating international law.

When did the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem become Palestinian land? The answer is: never.
The UN Resolution Fails to Address Israeli Security Concerns
Elliott Abrams, former deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration and Michael Singh, managing director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy write that by ignoring Israeli concerns, The United States Just Made Middle East Peace Harder:
Yet the resolution is conspicuously silent on Israeli concerns. There is no call for other states to recognize Israel’s existence — much less its status as a Jewish state — and end the conflict against it. On incitement and terrorism, it strikes a false balance by calling on “both parties” to refrain from them, despite the fact that Israel prosecutes its citizens who resort to terrorism while the Palestinian Authority lionizes them.
The UN Resolution Plays to Its One Strength: Encouraging Antisemitism
Writer Phyllis Chesler notes that Resolution 2334 amounts to nothing more than another UN resolution that encourages Antisemitism:
The UN has been unable to stop--or to effectively prosecute--a single atrocity, including genocide, that member nations have committed since the UN came into being. It has never even attempted to punish those who practice gender and religious apartheid. The most barbaric Muslim-on-Muslim violence and Muslim-on-infidel violence has never been addressed by the United Nations.

Indeed, as I have written many times, the UN has been effective in only one thing: Legitimizing and legalizing Jew-hatred in the world."Keep a Close Eye on Them" Cartoon by Patrick Mellemans, The Israeli Cartoon Project
The issue of UN Resolution 2334 is not about Obama's revenge against Netanyahu or the failures of his foreign policy. The point is that when examinging the UN resolution on its own merits, the resolution itself does far more harm than good. UN Resolution 2334 puts the peace that it claims it is designed to achieve that much further out of reach.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and United Nations and Israeli Settlements.

The messages the West sends to the Middle East matter.

Just ask President Obama -- or better, ask Jackson Diehl, Deputy Editorial Page Editor of The Washington Post. Back in 2010, Diehl described How Obama sabotaged Middle East peace talks:
So why does Abbas stubbornly persist in his self-defeating position? In an interview with Israeli television Sunday night, he offered a remarkably candid explanation: "When Obama came to power, he is the one who announced that settlement activity must be stopped," he said. "If America says it and Europe says it and the whole world says it, you want me not to say it?"

The statement confirmed something that many Mideast watchers have suspected for a long time: that the settlement impasse originated not with Netanyahu or Abbas, but with Obama -- who by insisting on an Israeli freeze has created a near-insuperable obstacle to the peace process he is trying to promote. [emphasis added]
Abbas had a point -- why bother to get involved in negotiations with Israel that would require concessions on both sides, when Obama telegraphed to the Arab world that a major demand of the Arab world could be forced out of Israel by Obama without Abbas ever having to come to the table? If Obama was signalling to the Arab world he would do their work for them, why not just sit back and wait?

Abbas -- no time for negotiations. Credit: Flash90Even when Netanyahu agreed to suspend building in the settlements for 10 months, as an opening concession to bring Abbas to the negotiating table, Abbas waited until the last month before showing up -- and then demanded an extenstion. When he didn't get it, he left.

Obama thought the message he was sending to the Arab world would strenghen his street cred with the Arab world and bring Abbas to the negotiating table.

It had the exact opposite effect.

Enter MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Source: Elder of Ziyon
Matthews is upset with the idea of moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as per President-elect Trump's promise. Matthews claims:
Why are we moving the embassy to — to Jerusalem at a time that the whole place over there could blow up? Why do we something that's right in the face of the Palestinians, right in the face of the Jordanians, the Saudis, the Egyptians. The one thing they say is leave you know, the Dome of the Rock alone, leave our — the hopeful capital of a Palestinian state alone. Don't desecrate it by saying it's the capital of Israel at this point?Elder of Ziyon points out that when you take away the emotionalism of his outburst, Chris Matthews doesn't have much of a reason not to move the US embassy to Jerusalem

Note that Mathews

• does not argue there is a legal reason not to move the embassy
• does not argue the move would violate Islamic law
• does not seem to realize the US embassy would be moved to the part of Jerusalem that has been under Israeli control since 1948

Instead, what Matthews argues is nothing should be done that might make the Arabs angry, and that assumed anger should dictate the actions of both Israel and the US.

And that is the problem -- the pre-conceived assumption that moving the US embassy to Jerusalem would infuriate the Arab world.

But that is all it is.
An assumption.

Elder of Ziyon points out:
I just did a quick search in Arabic news sites to see if there is any anger over this possible move of the embassy. There is very, very little. For the most part, this is not even a story, although some Arab news outlets are covering it dispassionately.

Of all the things for Arabs and Muslims to worry about in an impending Trump administration, moving the US embassy from one part of Israel to another part within the Green Line is not even on their radar.Matthews is making a bigger deal out of the US embassy move than the Arabs are.
Of course, Matthews is not the only one predicting an angry Arab response.

Aaron David Miller is a former advisor to Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli negotiations, and he feels the same way. When he describes Why Trump’s Plan to Move the U.S. Embassy in Israel Is Unwise.

Miller writes that the move would damage US interests and credibility -- though one might argue that seeing the US pursuing the interests of an ally might increase credibility, given the novelty of the idea of the US standing behind its allies after 8 years.

He also argues that such a move could "chill" or "kill" efforts by a Trump administration to pursue peacemaking in the area. Even Miller recognizes the current comatose state of negotiations. He just doesn't want to kill it outright. Fair enough, but just how long should decisions and actions by Israel and the West be held hostage, waiting for Abbas to show willingness for honest negotiations?

Finally, Miller believes that moving the US embassy would undercut Israel's recently improved relations with several Arab states. Those improved negotiations are a result of Israeli initiatives and years of preparation. If Israel feels that it is worth the potential Arab backlash for the US embassy to be in Jerusalem, with the political validation it brings to Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, then let Israel make the choice.

The message Matthews and Miller are sending, like Obama's hint to Abbas that the US would force concessions from Israel, serves to strengthen the hand of those Arab leaders who exert influence by doing nothing, and letting the fear of their potential angry response keep the West in line.

The West has worked hard not to upset the apple cart.
There are those in the Arab world who do not share philosophy.
The current situation in the Middle East is the result.

Strenghening Democratic allies might not be such a bad idea after all.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jerusalem and US Embassy and Chris Matthews.

That is the question that arises based on a post by Elder of Ziyon that Hamas offers to export Qassam rockets to any Arabs willing to shoot them at Israel:
Hamas official Fathi Hammad said that the terror group is s ready to export Qassam rockets to Arab armies in order "to fight the Zionist entity."

Hammad said that the rocket is comparable in quality to those produced by other international military rocket factories.Speaking of quality, just what kind of quality do these Arab customers of Hamas have a right to expect?


Hamas rocket crashes into Gaza -- see video below
Breitbart reported back in 2014 that Scores of Hamas Rockets Fall Short in Gaza, Killing Innocents. On Wednesday, July 30th, for example, Hamas terrorists fired 140 rocket into Israel, of which 81 hit Israel and 9 were intercepted by Iron Dome. However 50 of those rockets fell short and landed inside Gaza itself -- that's 36% of Gazan rockets hitting Gaza.

And this was not a one-time thing either.

Among other examples of Hamas misfires:

• July 28: When Hamas terrorists fired rockets at Israel from a highly populated area, two of the rockets hit a hospital and refugee camp inside Gaza, killing over a dozen Palestinians.
  
  
• July 13: A rocket fired by Hamas successfully hit Israel -- but ending up a power plant, knocking out power for over 70,000 Gazans.
  
  
• February 2008: When a Qassam missile was launched near a home in Gaza, flying shrapnel killed an infant.
  
  
• December 2008: A Hamas rocket fired towards Israel hit a house in Gaza and killed a 5-year-old girl and her 12-year-old cousin.

Similarly, Amnesty International issued a report in 2015 that Palestinian rockets killed more Gazans in 2014 war. According to the report, rockets aimed at Israel in that July 28 attack fell short and killed at least 13 civilians in Gaza, 11 of them children.

The reaction of Hamas was to claim the report was biased and accuse Amnesty International of being a "Zionist organization".

The BBC also reported on Hamas rockets crashing into Gaza -- and had it on video:




Maybe it would be a good idea for any Arab country or terrorist group interested in taking Hamas up on their offer to get a written guarantee that the rockets they buy won't stop short and crash near where they are launched.

And after they get that guarantee, they better cross their fingers.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas.

It looks like J Street is at it again.

You really have to admire how a group that claims to be dedicated to Israel can find the time to involve itself in petty politics.

This time, J Street is taking a stand on where the Conference of Presidents can celebrate Hanukkah:
TELL CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENTS MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS: DON'T CELEBRATE HANUKKAH AT TRUMP HOTEL.

The Conference of Presidents purports to speak for the American Jewish community. Tell its member organizations: Speak out and make it clear that the Trump Hotel is an inappropriate place to celebrate Hanukkah.

It’s almost too outrageous to believe: An umbrella group that claims to represent the American Jewish community plans to host its 2016 Hanukkah Party at Trump Hotel.

Trump's campaign rhetoric and policy positions are an affront to some of the most core values of American Jews. To hold a Hanukkah party under the Trump banner is shocking in its wrong-headedness.


That's right. The same J Street that defends Keith Ellison and accuses those who bring up his past statements and actions of being guilty of smearing -- that same J Street is getting a head start on what may very well be its strategy, for the next 4 years, of driving a wedge between a President Trump and the Jewish community. Consider this a preview.

This is the same Donald Trump who, unlike Ellison, actually has proven his support for Israel. Trump

• won an Israeli poll about which presidential candidate would best represent Israel’s interests
• has won awards from the American Jewish community for his contributions to Israel and American Judaism
• was the grand marshal of a Salute To Israel Parade

But then again, this is not the first time J Street has put personal politics before the welfare of the Jewish community.

Back when it was trying to make a name for itself in 2008, J Street decided the best way to get street cred was to keep Sarah Palin from speaking at an event organized by major Jewish organizations to protest Iran's Ahmadinejad's speaking at the UN:
STOP SARAH PALIN AT NON-PARTISAN IRAN RALLY
September 18, 2008

Sarah Palin is scheduled to headline Monday’s rally in New York of Americans Jews concerned about the threat Iran poses to the United States and Israel.

Sarah Palin at a rally to unify American Jews on Iran? Really?

Palin stands diametrically opposed to the majority of American Jews on nearly all issues – including on Iran. With just a few days left before the rally, we have no time to lose.The superficiality of J Street's attack on Palin to silence her is revealed in the statement by its online director at the time that "Sarah Palin’s views on abortion, the environment, and just about every other issue are out of step with the American Jewish community." [emphasis added]
So its better to take a potshot at a Republican and draw attention to J Street than it is to draw attention to an issue of concern to Israel?

Similarly, J Street at the time did other work on behalf of the Democratic party in order to silence Republicans -- J Street ran a campaign to keep newspapers from running ads from the Republican Jewish Coalition:
A dovish pro-Israel group launched a campaign to get Jewish newspapers not to run some Republican Jewish Coalition ads.

J Street revealed the campaign after a number of U.S. Jewish newspapers were blasted Tuesday with letters urging them not to run the ads attacking the Democratic presidential candidate, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) The vast majority of the papers had not run such ads.

A listserve of Jewish journalists revealed that J Street was behind the campaign and mistakenly had provided software to its members that blasted all the newspapers instead of a select few that had run the ads. So there really is nothing new here. J Street is just going back to doing what it does best -- working on behalf of the Democratic Party to silence and undercut Republicans.

Its a dirty job, but J Street is ready to do it.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and J Street and Hanukkah and Donald Trump.

MR. KELLY: I mean, we’re not – but it’s – we are less than a year into this Administration, and I think we’ve accomplished more over the last year than the previous administration did in eight years.

QUESTION: Well, I – really, because the previous administration actually had them sitting down talking to each other. You guys can’t even get that far.
Daily press briefing, November 17, 2009, with State Department spokesperson comparing accomplishments on Israel-Palestinian peace

It's only natural that the Obama administration would want to sell what it thinks is the superiority of its policies. As his term in office wore on, Obama certainly got better at it -- to the extent that he was able to push through a deal with Iran, despite opposition by Congress and a majority of Americans.

But drawing opposing parties like Israel and the Palestinian Arabs into an agreement has proven to be far more difficult than merely running roughshod over native opposition.

Just ask John Kerry.


John Kerry having one of those...years Credit: AP
Making the Iran deal a reality turned out to be only the beginning. Since then, every effort has been made by the Obama administration to maintain the agreement by overlooking the Iranian violations, ignoring its aggressive behavior, and conceding to Iran's hostage demands.

This has turned out to be something of a pattern. As journalist Eli Lake describes in Secretary of State John Bolton Would Be the Anti-John Kerry, for the past four years Kerry has been bending over backwards in order to meet America's adversaries halfway.

The results?
As he finishes up his tenure, Iran tests missiles, arrests Americans and still demands new concessions from the U.S. China builds artificial islands in the South China Sea. And Russia continues to bomb civilians in Syria. Meanwhile, the Israelis and Palestinians are further away from a negotiated settlement than they were when Obama took office.And speaking of Israel and the Palestinians, David Horovitz examines Why John Kerry failed to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace, noting the growing turmoil in the Middle East during Obama's terms in office -- turmoil that only got worse during Kerry's tenure as Secretary of State:

• Terrorist groups gained footholds in Syria, Jordan, and Iraq
• Iran has grown emboldened -- and richer
• After Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was allowed to fall from power, his successor, Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, was not supported in his battle against Muslim extremism
• The US failed to intervene effectively in Syria -- even after Assad crossed Obama's red line and started gassing his people
• The millions who fled Syria in turn added to the refugee crisis in Europe

The difference with Israel appears to be in part that Israel is an ally -- and while Kerry has shown a unique ability to bend over backwards for our enemies, friends are another matter.

At the Saban Forum last week, Kerry did not hesitate to criticize Israel.

The question though is whether those criticisms were even accurate.

In response to Kerry's comments, Joe Settler writes about John Kerry, Straw Men and the Saban Echo Chamber in The Jewish Press.
I was honestly baffled at Kerry’s absolute insistence that an Israeli peace with the other Arab countries, including Egypt and Jordan, is predicated on peace with the “Palestinians.”

Kerry insisted that while the Arab countries need Israel’s expertise in areas like agriculture, technology and finance, they refuse to take it because of the “Palestinian” conflict.But, as the article notes, Kerry's comments just do not fit the reality:

• Jordan takes Israel’s water, its parliament just approved a natural gas deal with Israel and Israelis manage agricultural farms there
• Egypt is discussing major cooperation projects with Israel, where Israel will provide aid to Egypt in such areas as solar energy, agriculture, desalination, and expanding tourism
• Kurdish controlled Iraq provides oil to Israel
• Turkey's Erdogan is making deals with Israel, especially regarding Israel’s natural gas.

As for other Arab countries which are nowhere near to having peaceful relations with Israel:
Lebanon, for as long as it remains controlled by the Hezbollah terrorist organization and the Islamic regime in Iran, will never make any peace.

Syria, doesn’t exist anymore as a country, and no one is rushing there to eat Hummus in Damascus.

Iraq? Yemen? The Islamic State of Iran (who aren’t even Arabs, and don’t care about “Palestinians”)?

We already have quiet business happening with some of the Gulf states.

That pretty much just leaves Saudi Arabia, and personally, besides overflight permission for El Al, I could pass on them.If anyone is wondering why Kerry applied only the carrot and not the stick to Iran, it seems to be because he was too busy using it on Israel. But the inaccuracies in his criticisms of Israel are part of the reason why taking Kerry as a serious negotiator has been problematic, just as the willingness of the Obama administration to appease just about everybody else led to the Arab world not taking it seriously.

In his closing weeks, Obama will try to trumpet his triumphs, but many will not take him seriously.
As for Kerry, the one accomplishment which might arguably be called a success -- the Iran deal -- is even now, before Donald Trump assumes office, showing signs of unraveling.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and John Kerry and Obama.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar.
The Life and Death of Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare Act III, Scene II
Fidel Castro is dead, leaving it to the leaders of world democracies to say a word or two.

John Avlon of The Daily Beast reminds us of some of Castro's accomplishments as Fidel Castro Finally Dies, But His Apologists Live On

History will not absolve Castro for repeated assaults on freedom clothed in populist garb. Whether it was torturing and executing political opponents, rounding up homosexuals, creating neighborhood networks to spy on fellow citizens, or encouraging the Soviet Union to nuke the United States, he was a bully and a thug: the latest in a long line of self-interested opportunists who rule through fear and pretend that it is love.

...His apologists will soon look as foolish as those folks who praised “Uncle Joe” Stalin and Mao’s Great Leap Forward, always arguing that “you’ve got to break a few eggs to make an omelet”—while skipping over the fact that the eggs in this equation were people.Che Guevara (left) and Castro, photographed by
Alberto Korda in 1961. Source: Wikipedia
While it is true that Castro took power by toppling a dictator, his rule was itself a dictatorship.
While it is true that Castro took measures that benefited his people, there is a context to those actions.
It is true that Fidel Castro raised literacy rates across Cuba. It is also true that he severely restricted what the people could read.— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) November 26, 2016The singular statement by Obama leaves it to the reader to decide whether Castro is destined for hell or for sainthood:
At this time of Fidel Castro’s passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people. We know that this moment fills Cubans - in Cuba and in the United States - with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation. History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him. Obama's claim that relationship between the US and Cuba "was marked by discord and profound political disagreements" seems more apropo as a description of my home growing up.

Similarly, in his statement the president of the European Commission European Commission,
Jean-Claude Juncker, leaves much about Castro to the imagination:
Fidel Castro was one of the historic figures of the past century and the embodiment of the Cuban Revolution. With the death of Fidel Castro, the world has lost a man who was a hero for many. He changed the course of his country and his influence reached far beyond. Fidel Castro remains one of the revolutionary figures of the 20th century. His legacy will be judged by history.On the other hand, Canada's Justin Trudeau statement about Castro was more straightforward, if less honest:
“While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”.And then there was Donald Trump.
Trump took a different approach in remarking on Castro's accomplishments:
"Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. Fidel Castro's legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights," Trump said in a statement.

"While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve," he added.Whether he will be quite as outspoken as president remains to be seen.
Whether political exigencies will temper a President Trump is a question yet to be answered.

But in the meantime, Donald Trump's comment  does make for an interesting contrast with other world leaders -- especially with Obama who claims that paying billions to a leader in global terrorism like Iran lines the path to peace and stability in the Middle East.

In the meantime, Cubans in Little Havana, who celebrated Castro's death by popping Champagne, finally get the last word:



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Fidel Castro and Cuba.

From the looks of the election season just passed, it seems we are returning to our Puritan roots -- labeling and seeking to ostracize those guilty of Antisemitism.

Or maybe its more like the Salem witch trials, using arcane tests to divine Antisemitic intent from articles and quotes on the one hand and the testimony of an ex-wife on the other, revealing membership in the cult of the alt-right.

Welcome to 2016.

It seems the usefulness of the "Nazi" comparison has its limitations.
Calling someone a racist in general or saying they are bigoted against African Americans and women - that works.
But labeling someone an antisemite, now there is something that has really caught on.

Who knew there were so many, who were so eager to be on the lookout to protect the Jewish community!?
From the screams of the media, you might be forgiven for thinking that antisemitism had disappeared -- and has now suddenly returned.
But we know that isn't true.

That is why Rabbi Mordechai Lightstone asks incredulously, Anti-Semitism is Back?
Being “woke” only when it’s convenient merely addresses a symptom of anti-Semitism, while letting the root cause fester. Be it from the far-right, or the left, hate in its myriad grotesque faces stems from ignorance and darkness.

President Elect Donald J. Trump. Wikipedia
Speaking of convenience, we were inundated with news that President-elect Donald Trump was supposed to be not only a racist but also an antisemite. Actually, we don't really hear as much about Trump's alleged antisemitism. Maybe that is because people have noticed, as per Slate Star Codex in You Are Still Crying Wolf, that Trump

• won an Israeli poll about which presidential candidate would best represent Israel’s interests
• has a daughter who converted to Judaism
• has won awards from the American Jewish community for his contributions to Israel and American Judaism
• was the grand marshal of a Salute To Israel Parade

Or maybe the reason is that there are easier targets.

Steve Bannon, Counselor Designate to the President Wikipeda
Steve Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, was appointed by Trump to be his chief White House strategist. And that is when the media really got excited. It wasn't long before they decided that Bannon was an antisemite too. The initial proof for the accusation initially came from a claim made by his ex-wife during his divorce, that he didn't want to send his children to a school that had Jews in it. But the media didn't have much trouble finding support for their claims that he was an antisemite, a racist, and other things to boot.

The Wall Street Journal took the apparently novel approach of actually interviewing Bannon about his views and about the Breitbart website in an article about Steve Bannon on Politics as War:
Anti-Semitic? “Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States of America. I have Breitbart Jerusalem, which I have Aaron Klein run with about 10 reporters there. We’ve been leaders in stopping this BDS movement”—meaning boycott, divestment and sanctions—“in the United States; we’re a leader in the reporting of young Jewish students being harassed on American campuses; we’ve been a leader on reporting on the terrible plight of the Jews in Europe.” He adds that given his many Jewish partners and writers, “guys like Joel Pollak, these claims of anti-Semitism just aren’t serious. It’s a joke.”But just how serious is the media about uncovering and uprooting Antisemitism in America -- how wide a net are they casting?

Based on whom the media has since attacked for their apparent antisemtisim -- not very.

Ira Stoll writes about The Borking of Bannon by The New York Times and imagines what an article might look like if Hillary Clinton had won the election -- and had then decided to appoint New York Times Company chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. as counselor to the president.

Among the possible antisemtic actions of Sulzberger and The New York Times that Stoll's article come up with are that:

• Sulzberger’s New York Times repeatedly dwells on the Jewish background of criminals
• It has called for cutting aid to the Israeli military, a position far to the left of the political mainstream
• The New York Times recently apologized after likening a drug dealer to a rabbi
• It described a character in a news feature as a “decorous Jew”
• Sulzberger's newspaper editorialized against accommodating Orthodox Jewish women in New York public swimming pools by complaining about their “strong odor.”

And this is in addition to articles and events at the New York Times that reflect bias against women and African Americans as well.

Media, heal thyself!

Actually, the media has been selective in whom they tar with the antisemitic label as well. For example, it has been silent about Keith Ellison, who is in the running to become the new chair of the Democratic National Committee. Politico reports that opposition to Ellison has started to grow -- because he has not stated that he would quit his position in Congress in order to take on the job as chairman of the DNC full-time.

Congressman Keith Ellison - Next DNC Chairman? Wikipedia
What has not been focused on by the media are the charges of antisemitism that have surrounded Keith Ellison ever since he ran for Congress in 2006:

• Keith Ellison has accused Israel of being an apartheid state
• Ellison voted against funding Israel’s Iron Dome, claiming that Israel’s ability to shield its civilians from Hamas terror prevents dialogue
• Ellison has had ties to CAIR and has accepted financial help from them
• Ellison has made 3 claims, each debunked by Powerline in Keith Ellison for Dummies:
• That his involvement with the Nation of Islam lasted only 18 months around 1995
• That he was unaware of the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitism
• That Ellison left the Nation of Islam when he became aware of it

When can we expect the media to take a serious look Keith Ellison's positions and associations?

There is nothing wrong with the media pursuing and reporting on allegations against political leaders -- after 8 years of the media handling Obama with kid gloves, that would actually be a welcome change. However, the media seems to have already forgotten that the reason it has been losing the faith and trust of its readers is its partisanship.

If the media would have us believe that it is truly concerned about the rise of antisemitism -- not only on college campuses, in protests and in the media -- but also in American politics, then it is going to have to start covering it honestly, across the political spectrum.

Or become even more irrelevant.


-----

If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Trump and Antisemitism and Media Bias and Steve Bannon.

I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a[n Iranian] regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness.
Roger Cohen, Iran's Days of Anguish June, 2009.
Roger Cohen writes in The New York Times about Why Israel Refuses to Choose -- an odd title, really, considering that in his entire piece, the only one who explicitly refuses to choose is an Israeli Arab who will not choose whether they see themselves as Israelis, Palestinians, Muslims, Arabs, or something else.

The implication of the title though is that Israel refuses to choose peace, a position that Cohen supports by offering his opinion of Israel and Netanyahu.

Yet, in castigating Israel and the Netanyahu government, Roger Cohen is reduced to taking a quote of David Ben-Gurion out of context. Cohen claims:

In a sense, then, Israel has won. David Ben-Gurion was right when he observed in 1949 that, “When the matter is dragged out — it brings us benefits.” Policy since then has been pretty consistent: Create facts on the ground; break the Arabs’ will through force; push for as much of the biblical Land of Israel between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River as possible.However, he leaves out the context of the complete quote, and by doing so twists what Ben-Gurion actually said. In his book The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, Avi Shlaim gives the more complete quote:
"It is true that these things should not prevent us from accelerating the peace, because the issue of peace between us and the Arabs is important and it is worth paying a considerable price for it. But when the matter is dragged out--it brings us benefits, as the mufti helped us in the past." [emphasis added]David Ben-Gurion. Credit: Pinn Hans, Wikipedia

Avi Shlaim is a critic of Israel who will never be accused of whitewashing its actions - past nor present. When you cannot quote Shlaim in context because it puts Ben Gurion -- and Israel -- in a positive light, you  have a problem. But then again, Cohen is not looking for balance.

So he writes:
Greater Israel is what Israelis know; the smaller Israel west of the Green Line that emerged from the 1947-49 war of independence is a fading memory. The right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with its contempt for Palestinians and dissenting voices in general, prefers things that way, as the steady expansion of settlements demonstrates.
The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, headed by President Mahmoud Abbas, has lost the legitimacy, the cohesion and the will to do much about it. The cancellation of municipal elections in the West Bank and Gaza that had been set for this month was another sign of paralyzing Palestinian infighting.Put aside how Cohen has belittled the thousands of rockets out of Gaza as "sporadic Hamas rockets" while stating his indignation at "the steady expansion of settlements." Expansion is being concentrated on building homes inside the settlements, and from 1990 to 2012 Israel had approved just 3 settlements, according to Peace Now. Similarly, Haaretz reported in 2015 that an average of 1,554 houses a year were built in the settlements from 2009 to 2014 — fewer than under any of Netanyahu's recent predecessors. And don't forget that in a goodwill gesture in December 2009, Netanyahu issued a 10 month moratorium on building in the settlements to bring Abbas to the negotiating table -- but Abbas squandered the opportunity. He waited till September 2010 before sitting with Israel and promptly insisted that Israel must extend the freeze.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Credit: Twitter Page

And what about Abbas? Is Roger Cohen right that Abbas has "lost the will" to do anything about settlements? Not according to Jackson Diehl. In a meeting with the Palestinian leader in May 2009, Abbas made it clear he was content to sit back and let Obama pressure Israel:
Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze -- if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. "It will take a couple of years," one official breezily predicted. Abbas rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession -- such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees.

Instead, he says, he will remain passive. "I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements," he said. "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." [emphasis added]Mahmoud Abbas. Credit: Wikipedia

Cohen does admit that Abbas is "marking time," but he fails to see that this has been the default position of Abbas for years and is not a new development.

This lack of perspective is similar to his analysis of Iran.

Back in March 2009, Cohen defended the repressive regime of Iran, writing that:
Iran is an un-free society with a keen, intermittently brutal apparatus of repression, but it’s far from meeting these [totalitarian] criteria. Significant margins of liberty, even democracy, exist. Anything but mad, the mullahs have proved malleable.Iran: un-free, brutal and repressive -- but not totalitarian! Small comfort.

A month earlier, going even further, Roger Cohen praised the Iranian government's treatment of its Jews:
Still a mystery hovers over Iran’s Jews. It’s important to decide what’s more significant: the annihilationist anti-Israel ranting, the Holocaust denial and other Iranian provocations — or the fact of a Jewish community living, working and worshipping in relative tranquillity.

Perhaps I have a bias toward facts over words, but I say the reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran — its sophistication and culture — than all the inflammatory rhetoric.It was not until June of that year that Roger Cohen finally admitted he had been mistaken about Iran:
I’ve also argued that, although repressive, the Islamic Republic offers significant margins of freedom by regional standards. I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness.How long will it be before Roger Cohen will finally recognize the incitement of hatred and support of terrorism against Israel by the Abbas regime?


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Abbas and Netanyahu and Roger Cohen and New York Times.

The big news in Chess last month was the decision by FIDE (Federation Internationale des Echecs), which resulted in headlines that Female Chess Players Forced to Wear Hijab as Governing Body Awards World Championship to Iran:
The world's top female chess players have reacted with horror after being told they must compete at next year's world championship wearing a hijab.

Within hours of Iran being revealed as its host country, the prestigious event was plunged into crisis as it emerged players taking part face arrest if they don't cover up.
A hijab is a veil covering the head and chest.

Iranian woman wearing a hijab.
Source: Wikipeda
In response, the US women's champion, Nazi Paikidze (pronounced “nah-ZEE.”), responded by saying she will boycott the tournament, both because of what she sees as sexual discrimination as well as because of the travel warning issued by the US State Department, advising against travelling to Iran because US citizens risk being unjustly imprisoned or kidnapped because of their nationality.

Nazi Paikidze, the US women's champion
Credit: Zuma Press, Inc. / Alamy. Source: The Telegraph
Putting aside the Iranian proclivity for taking hostages, the issue of FIDE putting women in a position where they have no choice about wearing the hijab in a fundamentalist Islamic state should remind us of an outspoken woman who took the opposite approach.

Oriana Fallaci, an Italian journalist, author, and political interviewer, was famous for her interviews with world leaders during the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. She was also well known for being outspoken. Among those she interviewed was Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1979.

Oriana Fallaci. Source: Wikipedia
For the internview, Fallaci was told she would have to  wear a chador, an open cloak worn by many women in Iran, during the interview,

Which she did.

Oriana Fallaci, wearing the chador.
Source: Wikipedia
For a while.

During her interview with Ayatollah Khomeini, Fallaci called him a "tyrant," removed the chador, and threw it to the ground:
OF: I still have to ask you a lot of things. About the "chador", for example, which I was obliged to wear to come and interview you, and which you impose on Iranian women.... I am not only referring to the dress but to what it represents, I mean the apartheid Iranian women have been forced into after the revolution. They cannot study at the university with men, they cannot work with men, they cannot swim in the sea or in a swimming-pool with men. They have to do everything separately, wearing their "chador". By the way, how can you swim wearing a "chador"?

AK: None of this concerns you, our customs do not concern you. If you don't like the Islamic dress you are not obliged to wear it, since it is for young women and respectable ladies.

OF: This is very kind of you, Imam, since you tell me that, I'm going to immediately rid myself of this stupid medieval rag. There!The argument whether FIDE requiring women to wear a hijab is an issue of discrimination or a question of respect for a different culture continues -- though Paikidze's protest is gaining support. In fact, as of this past Monday, the petition Paikidze is circulating has exceeded its goal of 15,000 signatures.

The petition notes that in its handbook, The World Chess Federation explicitly states that it:
rejects discriminatory treatment for national, political, racial, social or religious reasons or on account of gender.No matter how you view the issue, the difference in attitude between Fallaci and FIDE is striking, especially given Iran's poor human rights record.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Iran and Chess and Hijab and Oriana Fallaci.

In the media coverage of Sunday's Palestinian terrorist attack, we are reminded yet again that the Palestinians are They Who Must Not Be Named:


Two people dead after drive-by shooting at Jerusalem tram stop https://t.co/XW7yF7IfK8— The Guardian (@guardian) October 9, 2016




Jerusalem shooting leaves at least four injured https://t.co/EGRgXPP4qJ— The Independent (@Independent) October 9, 2016

But its not only the media that cannot bring themselves to identify who murdered a 60 year old woman and a police officer who was recently married.

The EU condemned what happened, but other than identifying that it happened in Jerusalem, they could not bring themselves to say that it was not just a terrorist attack, but a Palestinian terrorist attack.

@EUinIsrael Appreciate the condemnation. But why not mention whom it was carried out by? Was member of Palestinian Hamas ICYMI.— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) October 9, 2016

Even Dan Shapiro, the US Ambassador to Israel, could not tell you who the terrorist was -- in fact, unlike in the other tweets above, Shapiro did not even make it clear that the attack happened in Jerusalem.


Absolutely no justification 4 the taking of innocent lives. We also condemn the statements glorifying this reprehensible & cowardly attack.— Dan Shapiro (@AmbShapiro) October 9, 2016Also, like The Independent, Shapiro refers to the victims of the terrorist as being "killed" instead of being "murdered". The word "kill" is generic and just refers to causing a death. On the other hand, Wikipedia defines "murder" as "the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought." But to be fair, the media doesn't refer to terrorism in general as murder either. Is it because of the value judgement implicit in the word?

What are they afraid of?

Now, we know that back during the 1970's Switzerland 'made secret deal with PLO' after bomb attacks, but surely these days the general whitewashing of Palestinian terrorist attacks by the media, Europe and even the United States is not because of fear.

And the same ones who are so squeamish about mentioning Palestinians when they carry out acts of terrorism, have no trouble mentioning Palestinians in their equally strong condemnation of Israel for the act of building houses.

Maybe the problem is not so much an issue of how they feel about the Palestinian Arabs than of how they feel about Israel, whom many seem to think should just roll over and give the Arabs whatever they want -- as if that will solve most (if not all) of the world's problems.

In Harry Potter and The Sorceror's Stone, Dumbledore advises: “Call him Voldemort, Harry. Always use the proper name for things. Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.”

Even assuming that it is not fear preventing the identification of the terrorists as Palestinians, the failure to use the proper name for Palestinian terrorism only increases the acceptance of Palestinian -- and by extension -- other forms of Islamist terrorism as well.

Dumbledore - A word to the wise

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Terrorism and Harry Potter and Media Bias.

At least that is how Iran felt 10 years ago, back in 2006.

Reuters reported at the time that Iran demands apology for German soccer cartoon:
The Iranian embassy in Germany has demanded a written apology from a Berlin newspaper that printed a cartoon of Iranian soccer players dressed as suicide bombers and threatened legal action if none is forthcoming.

The sketch, published on Friday by Der Tagesspiegel, shows four moustachioed soccer players wearing Iran shirts with explosives strapped to their chests next to four German soldiers in a soccer stadium.

A caption above read: "Why the German army should definitely be used during the soccer World Cup!", referring to a debate in Germany about whether to use troops to help with security during the month-long tournament which begins June 9.
Iranian soccer players wearing suicide belts in cartoon by Der Tagesspiegel
Ten years later, would the Iranian government still demand an apology?

Maybe.

In that same year, Iran demanded an apology from Hollywood for the film 300 because of the negative way they were characterized in comparison with the Greeks.

Then in 2008, Iran wasn't too crazy about the movie The Wrestler either -- on account of the scene below (starts 3:35) where "The Ayatollah" starts choking the main character with an Iranian flag, who then pulls the flagpole away, breaks it over his knee and tosses it into the crowd.



When Iran has its yearly cartoon contest mocking the Holocaust, Iran likes to claim that actually they are doing it in the spirit of free speech and debate. The movies may not fall into that category, but the issues raised by the cartoon about the threat of Islamist terrorist attacks were important in 2006.

And they are even more important today.
And Iran is still in the middle of it.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran and Terrorism and Free Speech.

Earlier this month, The Economist encouraged us to be Learning to live with it -- apparently with the threat not only of lone wolf terrorists, but of lone wolf bathtubs as well:
Barack Obama was correct when he said earlier this year that the danger of drowning in a bathtub is greater than that of being killed by terrorists. Baths are a one-in-a-million risk. Even if the terrorism deaths in San Bernardino and Orlando were doubled to give an annual death toll, the risk would still be about one in 2.5m. Yet the president was lambasted for his otherworldly complacency.Well, far be it that we should be complacent about either of these dangers, but when The Economist -- and Obama -- make this comparison, are they really pushing an apples to apples comparison?


First of all, are there any lone wolf bathtubs that the rest of us don't know about, plotting on drowning people?

On the other hand, contrary to arbitrary, random bathtub drownings, there are Islamist terrorist groups that, if not actually planning specific targets, are encouraging attacks in areas most likely to spread terror in furtherance of a specific goal.

Comparing the numbers for bathtub accidents and terror attacks is just not an apples to apples comparison.

Also, in a bathtub, you are responsible for your own safety - if you are lackadaisical about it, you have only yourself to blame.

However, Islamist terrorism is something we rely on the government to prevent - if they seem lackadaisical about identifying threats, will the government take responsibility when random luck does not stop the terrorists?

Maybe this is the dangerous bathtub Obama and the media had in mind?
Source: Liberty First News
Of course, comparing bathtubs and terrorists is not something new that The Economist picked up on.

Back in January, The Washington Free Beacon had an article on New York Times: Bathtubs More Dangerous Than Terrorism
Americans who fear they might die while taking a bath are more rational than Americans who fear a terrorist attack, according to the New York Times.

“Americans are more likely to die in a car crash, drown in a bathtub or be struck by lightning than be killed by a terrorist,” wrote the Times’ Peter Baker on Monday. “The Islamic State does not pose an existential threat to the United States.”Which threat is less under our control, and causing more fear?
Source: Washington Free PressAgain, what actually makes this claim about rational fear true is that car crashes, drowning in bathtubs or being struck by lightning are either to a large degree under a person's own control or are random acts of nature. Preventing terrorist attacks is something out of the individual's control. Instead it is something the government claims to be working to prevent -- and when we read about the Obama administration playing down the threat or avoiding addressing it by name, is it any wonder people are afraid?

In the New York Times article, Peter Baker writes that Obama admitted at the beginning of the year that he did not see ISIS -- which uses proxies to carry out terrorist attacks in other countries  -- as a threat to the US. As we approach the end of the year, how have events borne out Obama's assurance?

In The Great Bathtub Hoax of H. L. Mencken, you can read about a hoax fabricated by H. L. Mencken back in 1917 about the history of the bathtub in the US and its danger, a hoax that was perpetrated in other newspapers:

One of many newspaper features perpetuating Mencken's hoax.According to Mencken, the article, which he called “a tissue of somewhat heavy absurdities, all of them deliberate and most of them obvious,” had no other purpose than “to have some harmless fun in war days,” although there are those who think maybe the old codger had a bit more in mind.

Wendy McElroy, in The Bathtub, Mencken, and War, notes: “Through his hoax, Mencken demonstrated to himself and to selected friends that the American public would believe any absurdity, as long as it appealed to their imagination or emotions.”Would even a cynic like Mencken have thought to make the comparison between bathtubs and terrorists that both government and media is trying to foist on Americans today?

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!


Technorati Tag: Terrorism and Bathtubs and Obama.

The answer, of course, is a necklace.

But no, not just any necklace -- you can get them this necklace, available on Palestine-Shirts.com:


Obviously, this is a very special necklace, as the site itself points out:

One Palestinian mil, made on the year 1927, 1937, 1939, 1940, 1942 depends on what we have in the stock.
Now You can show your friends and tell them that we had a Palestinian currency for the state of Palestine, before the Israeli occupation 1948 to Palestine. Palestinian currency in your hands. Palestine 1-Mil Necklace.Palestinian currency?
Palestinian state?

Take a closer look:


Below the name "Palestine" in Arabic and in English, there is the word Palestine in...Hebrew, followed by the abbreviation in Hebrew for Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel.

The fact of the matter is, the name "Palestine" before 1948 had no association with Palestinian Arabs, let alone with any kind of Arab state.

So when Time Magazine had an article in 1937 about The Palestine Symphony Orchestra -- its members were Jews:
As a full Palestine moon rode one evening last week over Tel Aviv, exclusively Jewish city, the Hebrew Sabbath ended and thousands of Jews began to move toward the Levant Fair Grounds. There they packed the Italian Pavilion to capacity to hear great Arturo Toscanini lead Palestine's first civic orchestra through its first performance. Sir Arthur Grenfell Wauchope, the British High Commissioner, brought with him a party of notables. Open-shirted German immigrants gathered in rowboats on the adjacent Yarkon River. A few Arab fishermen paddled quietly toward shore, listened respectfully outside the pavilion walls which are still pitted by Arab bullets.

...Huberman, a Polish Jew, was impressed by the attendance and enthusiasm of natives & exiles who came to hear his violin concerts. He determined to build for them an orchestra at Tel Aviv, their brave new cultural capital, and resigned his Vienna teaching post to do so. Already in Palestine, or easily available all over Europe, were scores of refugee Jewish musicians.

...The Palestine Symphony Orchestra now numbers 72. Germans make up about half the number, the rest are Poles and Russians. Six are natives of Palestine which has several competent music schools but welcomes the new orchestra as its only permanent symphony. So many first-desk musicians are playing in it that critics expect the Palestine Symphony to rank soon among the first four orchestras in the world. [emphasis added]Another example of the Jewish side of Palestine before 1948 is the soccer team they had -- a team that today's Palestinian Football Association still tries to take credit for as being Arab:
British Mandate of Palestine Official Games 1934-1948

Until the establishment of the state of Israel, on 14/5/1948, its national team played 5 international games under the name of British Mandate of Palestine. These games are recognized by IFA and FIFA as official games.
Note that also the (current) Palestinian FA recognizes these games as their 5 first internationals. However the national anthem that was played before the games was the Jewish one (later Israel national anthem) and all the players of British Mandate of Palestine in these games were Jewish, so this decision of the Palestinian FA looks little strange...Elder of Ziyon has a post that includes Jewish-Palestinian stamps, tourist posters, trade fairs and a Jewish-Palestine exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair in New York.

So what this necklace handily illustrates is that there was no Palestinian currency and no Palestinian state before 1948. Throughout history, the closest the Palestinian Arabs have ever gotten to either of these is today, with the control of the "West Bank" by the Palestinian Authority.


Hat tip: Seth Frantzman on Twitter
Hat tip: Elder of Ziyon

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestine.

Last week it was Mahmoud Abbas against the world as Abbas decries pressure from the US, Russia and the Arab world:
“Our relations with everyone must be good, but no one will dictate to us any position or idea...Therefore, let us think as Palestinians. I will think about Palestine, not Washington or Moscow”President Abbas speaks to Israeli journalists in Ramallah, January 21, 2016.
 of Israel (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)What is going on here?


It turns out that while Abbas has repeatedly resisted US pressure to make peace with Israel,  and has refused to modify his position on Israel as a Jewish state, there may be something different about the kind of pressure Abbas claims to be feeling now.

You may have noticed that the Saudi Arabian press has been coming out with articles favorable to Jews and Israel -- decrying Antisemitism and suggesting that the Arab world can learn from the successes of the Jewish state. Even granted that a great deal of this change in attitude is the threat of Iran, the fact remains that common interests and not affection form the basis for the relations of any two countries.

Saudi Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Anwar Eshki (center with striped tie)
with Israeli Knesset members (Image: Haaretz.com, July 23, 2016)
This goes beyond the Saudis. In an article about Israel's new friends, Bloomberg's Eli Lake notes there other countries in the Middle East with improved ties with Israel. Recently, Turkey normalized its ties with the Jewish state. Dore Gold, the director general of Israel's Foreign Ministry told Lake about the negotiations he has conducted with the Gulf monarchies and that he believes "his diplomacy with the Arab states resembles the dynamics that created the predecessor of the European Union after the end of World War II."

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, president of Turkey 
It is no wonder that The New York Times' concern about Israel's new diplomatic initiatives go beyond just the question of Can Israel and the Arab States Be Friends? While it agrees that improved relations between Israel on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states on the other mean "better relations among these neighbors could put the chaotic Middle East on a more positive course. They could also leave the Palestinians in the dust, a worrisome prospect."

Abbas likely feels the same.

Meanwhile, outside of the Middle East, Israel has steadily improved its relations with both China and Russia. For example, Israel has bombed targets in Syria despite Russian missile-defense system there, an indication of a degree of coordination and common interests between the two countries that goes beyond what the Obama Administration has been able to accomplish.

And of course Russia is trying to arrange their own peace summit with direct talks between Abbas and Netanyahu.

One can begin to understand the new kind of pressure that Abbas may be feeling as the neighborhood is warming up to Israel.

That neighborhood extends to Africa, where Abbas has apparently drawn the line and has decided to fight back. Back in July, The Jerusalem Post reported on Israel, Palestinian Authority in African diplomatic battle:
Israel is continuing to make inroads into Africa, as Chad – which has suddenly found itself on the front lines in the battle against Islamic extremists – is expected to be the next majority-Muslim African state to reestablish ties with Jerusalem, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

Guinea and Israel announced the reestablishment of ties on Wednesday, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who visited four East African countries earlier this month – said that another African country would soon follow suit.

...But while African countries seem to be warming up to Israel, Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki announced this week that the PA and Sudan were coordinating to “restrain Israeli movements” in Africa.Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold (left) meets with the president of Chad,
Idriss Déby (right), in the presidential palace in the city of Fada, July 14, 2016.
(Courtesy Foreign Ministry) Credit: Times of Israel
Diplomacy between Israel and Africa should not come as a surprise. Back in 1959, Golda Meir described the common interests behind her push as foreign minister for improved ties with Africa as stemming from "the drive toward universal self-determination and international justice which lies at the heart of my socialist Zionist values...we share with the African peoples a memory of centuries-long suffering" [Yehuda Avner, The Prime Ministers, p.104-105]

Today, the African countries who seek better ties with Israel have more pragmatic interests in common with Israel:

• African countries want to benefit from Israel's expertise on how to fight radical Islamist terrorism, especially tapping into counter-terrorist training and accessing Israel's intelligence and technology.
  
  
• Israel's established security ties with Egypt and Jordan, along with the improving relations with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, means African countries no longer have to fear Arab pressure against developing ties with Israel.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Japan, Israel upgrade relations as Arab oil influence wanes, though Japan is also interested in Israeli technology.

Whether Europe with take a hint from Africa and Japan and dial down their antagonism towards Israel may be another story.

The bottom line is that the way Israel is perceived by its neighbors is beginning to change. Even in the best of times, Arab countries that claimed to support the Palestinian Arabs failed to follow up on the millions they pledged to the the Palestinian Authority. This new development of improving relations between Israel and put the lie to the claim that Israel is isolated. It serves as a counter to Abbas' recent successes in the UN and Europe towards recognition of a Palestinian state while avoiding his obligations to negotiate with Israel as laid out in the Oslo Accords.

Now with Russia pushing the idea of direct talks between Abbas and Netanyahu it is no wonder Abbas is feeling cranky

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Abbas and Saudi+Arabia and Turkey.

The BDS Movement has demonstrate over and again its dedication to free speech -- its own free speech -- to the extent of protesting against pro-Israel speakers and events, with the goal of hindering or preventing those speakers and events.

And depriving them of their free speech.

For example, here is a video of anti-Israel members of the Palestine Solidarity Committee at the University of Texas at Austin last November during an event held by the Israeli Studies Department:






Sometimes, instead of waiting for the invited speakers to arrive, these BDS groups bully their way to have the speakers uninvited.

Legal Insurrection recently had a piece about an Israeli filmmaker disinvited at Syracuse U: “BDS faction on campus will make matters very unpleasant”, when Israeli filmmaker Shimon Dotan was coming to Syracuse University next March to screen his film "The Settlers" -- a film that is critical of Israel.

Shimon Dotan. Credit: Legal Insurrection
Prof. M. Gail Hamner, who initially invited Dotan, wrote him a letter dis-inviting him, writing in part:
I now am embarrassed to share that my SU colleagues, on hearing about my attempt to secure your presentation, have warned me that the BDS faction on campus will make matters very unpleasant for you and for me if you come. In particular my film colleague in English who granted me affiliated faculty in the film and screen studies program and who supported my proposal to the Humanities Council for this conference told me point blank that if I have not myself seen your film and cannot myself vouch for it to the Council, I will lose credibility with a number of film and Women/Gender studies colleagues. Sadly, I have not had the chance to see your film and can only vouch for it through my friend and through published reviews. [emphasis added]Clearly, a significant reason for Hamner backing down is the pressure of the BDS group and the "unpleasantness" that group will cause.

Over the few years, about a dozen states have passed legislation banning government employed contractors from supporting boycotts against Israel -- and other states are also considering such bill as well.

Back in June, New York Governor Cuomo went a step further, signing an executive order ensuring that no state agency or authority promotes boycotts of Israel and New Jersey recently did the same.

In response, those supporting BDS are crying foul and claim that their first amendment rights to free speech are being infringed upon.

Marc A. Greendorfer addresses this issue directly, writing in the Cardozo Law Review about The Inapplicability of First Amendment Protections to BDS Movement Boycotts.

He compares the issue of anti-Israel boycotts with the case of the Longshoremen who in 1970 took the US government's partial boycott of the USSR, following its invasion of Afghanistan -- and decided on their own to expand it.

In his paper, Greendorfer concludes:
Congress and various states have made it clear that foreign boycotts of Israel cannot be tolerated. Enforcement of these laws clearly supersedes any First Amendment rights that may be claimed in connection with participation in the BDS Movement. As the Longshoremen court noted, the prohibition on boycotts does not leave individuals with no voice to express opinions about foreign affairs. However, engaging in activities like the promotion of foreign boycotts that interfere with government policy and the free functioning of commercial markets is not protected by the First Amendment.

Regulation of BDS Movement boycotts in the United States has ample precedent, with the Longshoremen case being most analogous.

Moreover, regulation of these boycotts is necessary to preserve the federal government’s exclusive power over the conduct of foreign affairs and to protect the integrity and efficient functioning of American commercial markets.There are 3 parts to his rebuttal to boycotters who claim their freedom of speech is being interfered with by this new state legislation:

• The legislation in question addresses their actions, not their right to express their opinions
• First Amendment rights are not protected when they are used to interfere with commercial markets
• First Amendment rights do not entitle boycotts which impinge upon the federal government's power to conduct foreign affairs

Eugene Kontorovich, a Northwestern University Law Professor who has advised lawmakers on drafting anti-BDS bills, explains why boycotts are not an issue of free speech:
He distinguished between biased speech and activity. The new legislation “is not about the viewpoints a company holds. This is about discriminatory activity. A company can hang a banner saying ‘long live Palestine, out with Israel,’ and if it’s not actually engaging in discriminatory conduct” by boycotting Israel, then it’s fine, he said. “None of these statutes prohibit any speech by anyone,” said Kontorovich. “But when a state deems certain conduct discriminatory, even if it’s not illegal, they can say they don’t want to contract with it.”Eugene Kontorovich. Source: Twitter Page
In another article, Boycotting Israel isn’t free speech, Kontorovich goes deeper in explaining the limitations of protected free speech. He notes that:

• The First Amendment protects speech, not conduct. Thus in Rumsfeld vs. FAIR, The Supreme Court held that the government can deny federal funding to universities that boycott military recruiters. The fact that the boycott was based on political considerations, did not automatically make it protected speech -- and the US Government could take action against the conduct.
  
  
• In the same way, the act of boycotting Israel does not in and of itself express any political viewpoint. When a company boycotts Israel, it may be doing so for any of a number of reasons: to prevent further harassment from the BDS movement, to curry favor with Arab states or because of anti-Semitism. Without the company explaining its actions, those actions have no message -- and that is why a refusal to do business does not constitute speech.
  
  
• In fact, bans on boycotts against Israel already exist. Federal law bans participation in certain kinds of boycotts of Israel — those sponsored by foreign countries — and no one questions the constitutionality of those bans.
  
  
• The state anti-boycott bills do not actually criminalize or prohibit any conduct, let alone speech. The First Amendment allows states to place conditions on companies that want to do business with them. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that conditioning government money on compliance with anti-discrimination policies does not violate the First Amendment.

Not that the fact of law will have much impact on the BDS Movement. We still read about anti-Israel groups, especially on college campuses, who have no problem disrupting pro-Israel events and denying speakers their right to free speech. It is unlikely such groups will recognize the legal limitations to their efforts to boycott Israel. But in the meantime, it is long overdue for college and university administrations to take the steps necessary to protect the rights of those being bullied and harassed by anti-Israel haters.

But that is a separate topic for another time.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and BDS and Free Speech and First Amendment.

Here is am image that made the rounds on Twitter earlier this year:

أصيب في العدوان الصهيوني
الطفل الغزاوي "وسيم (٧ سنوات).. ابتسامة "الإرادة" تتجاوز "الإعاقة" (صورة)#غزة pic.twitter.com/l6EUJyemlR— برق (@barq_news) February 28, 2016
The translation (via Google Translate) reads:
Wounded in the Zionist aggression
Child Ghazzawi "handsome (7 years) .. smile" will "exceed" disability "(picture)


This week, the image has resurfaced, this time on Google Plus:



It may very well be that the person who posted this was taken in by this hoax.

When you look in the lower right hand corner, you can see that the photo comes from The PCRF - The Palestinian Children's Relief Fund. But the story they are telling is much different form the one making the rounds.

Here is how The PCRF is describing Waseem Shalouf on Twitter:
Waseem was @PCRF_Washington's first kid from #Gaza. He'd never walked in his life and left with new legs to walk on. pic.twitter.com/5nccJoy1zL— The PCRF (@ThePCRF) August 12, 2016

It turns out that Waseem has a congenital deformity, something he was born with and actually has nothing to do with Israel. The Palestinian Children's Relief Fund is making no secret of this, and even posted about this on YouTube:



So it turns out that this really is a story with a happy ending all the way around.

Too bad that there are those who want to exploit Waseem's story to attack Israel.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Waseem Shalouf and Pallywood.