Thursday, November 23, 2017

The Impossible Deal Of The Century - Ze'ev Begin




by Ze'ev Begin

Despite all indications on the ground, the assumption that this unique conflict can end with a formal peace agreement between the PLO and Israel continues to run around in our backyard like a headless chicken – thought has vanished; only reflexes are at work.


Can the "deal of the century" be brokered between Israel and the PLO? Some people think it is within reach. Shaul Arieli,[1] who was involved in previous rounds of peace negotiations between Israel and the PLO, recently proposed a recipe: "a compromise that fits the essential interests of the parties, based on the parameters that dictated the negotiations in Annapolis in 2008." And so, despite all indications on the ground, the assumption that this unique conflict can end with a formal peace agreement between the PLO and Israel continues to run around in our backyard like a headless chicken – thought has vanished; only reflexes are at work.

But let us remember that, back in 2008, the PLO leadership rejected the "parameters" three times: In mid-September 'Abbas refrained from responding to then-prime minister Olmert's generous  proposal; in November 'Abbas rejected the request of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to inform her that he had accepted Olmert's proposal; and in December, when President George Bush beseeched 'Abbas to tell him, in the privacy of the Oval Office, that he had accepted it, 'Abbas refused again. In her memoirs (No Higher Honor, 2011) Rice wrote: "The Palestinian stood firm, and the idea died."

Last year, adhering to the infamous PLO Charter, PLO Chairman 'Abbas stated at the UN General Assembly (September 21, 2016): "The notorious Balfour Declaration in which Britain, without any right, authority or consent from anyone, gave the land of Palestine to another people. This paved the road to the Nakba of the Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land."[2]

The political significance of this statement is clear: Palestine was plundered from its sole legitimate owners, the Palestinian Arabs. In other words, the PLO cleaves to its fundamental ideological claim that the Palestinian Arabs enjoy the exclusive right to sovereignty in the whole of Palestine. Political recognition of Israel, such as in the Oslo Accords, or even declaring the acceptance of its "right to exist," (but not as the nation state of the Jewish people,as categorically reaffirmed by Fatah's Seventh Congress in 2016) do not contradict this ideology as long as this claim is being kept alive. Therefore, the PLO is unable – and indeed has refused – to sign a peace treaty with Israel that includes the essential "end of claims" declaration as long as a sovereign Jewish entity exists in Palestine.

This position is diplomatically awkward, so the PLO masks it by stressing another issue, that of the Palestinian Arab refugees. Some Israeli politicians and scholars amuse themselves by speculating on how many refugees would have to be admitted into the State of Israel as part of a peace agreement that would satisfy the PLO and allow it to declare "an end to all claims." In 2008 Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed to accept several thousand refugees, but the PLO rejected this. Dr. Shaul Arieli[3] claimed that there is "an official Palestinian position, according to which the number of Palestinian refugees who would return to Israel – with Israel's consent – would be between 50,000 and 100,000." Professor Moshe Ma'oz claimed[4] that in 2008 'Abbas gave Olmert the figure of 150,000; Israeli peace activist Uri Avneri suggested[5]  that the magic number that would satisfy the PLO would be 250,000 refugees.

This argument about the numbers is futile, because one essential preliminary condition cannot be met. Arieli asserted in his article that "there is need for a joint [Israel-PLO] formula concerning the narrative of the refugee issue." This need has never been met. Despite all the intensive efforts, the elusive "joint formula" has not been found. Following many discussions with PLO leaders over the years, Avneri recently described the required formula:[6] "The principle [of the right of return to Israel] cannot be rejected. It belongs to the individual refugee. It is anchored in international law. It is sacred. Any future peace agreement between the State of Israel and the Palestinian State will have to include a clause confirming that Israel accepts, in principle, the right of return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. No Palestinian leader will be able to sign a treaty that does not include such a clause." This is correct, but it is equally true that no Israeli leader will be able to sign a treaty that does include such a clause.

Recently, 'Abbas was explicit and clear when he wrote: "We also reiterate that, in order to end claims with Israel, there must be a just solution for the seven million Palestinian refugees[7] based on the choice of every refugee."[8]   More than a million Arab refugees live in western Palestine, a short distance from the villages in which they lived in the past. Like 'Abbas, they hold that the only possible "solution" involves the realization of their personal right to choose between returning to their original homes and receiving financial compensation. This belief is well exemplified by the entrance to the Al-Aida refugee camp in Bethlehem, whose name means "the one who returns." The entrance is spanned by an arch bearing a large key, the symbol of return. It is the long-term PLO position that, since the application of the "right of return" is "based on the choice of every refugee," the PLO is not authorized to sign, on behalf of the refugees, any agreement that curtails this right.

This principle was vividly described by 'Abbas few days after the collapse of the 2000 Camp David negotiations:[9] "The Palestinian delegation refused to specify the number of Palestinians that would be allowed to return. Even if they had  offered us [to allow the return of] three million refugees, [we would have refused], as we told them. This is because we wanted them to accept the principle, and then we would have reached an agreement concerning the return of the refugees or compensation for those who did not wish to return." Evidently, nothing has changed since then and the PLO still maintains that no quota of "returning" refugees is acceptable. Hence, the refugees issue cannot be disentangled and the road to a final peace agreement is blocked.

The special circumstances of this unique conflict lead to a unique political conclusion: A peace agreement between Israel and the PLO is out of reach, whatever the composition of the Israeli government. And what about the future? A partial answer can be found in schoolbooks published in 2016 by the Palestinian Authority.  For example, here is what the pupils are taught in the eleventh grade: "The Green Line: an imaginary line that appeared in green on maps after the 1967 war in order to separate the Palestinian territory that Israel conquered in 1948 from the territory  it conquered in 1967." And this is what they learn in the third grade: "Let us sing and learn by heart: I swear, I shall sacrifice my blood in order to water the land of the noble ones, and I shall remove the usurper from my land, and shall exterminate the scattered remnants of the foreigners. O Land of the Al-Aqsa [Mosque] and the Holy Site, o cradle of pride and nobility, patience, patience, because victory is ours, and dawn will shine out of the darkness."[10]

Admittedly, agreements between enemies that did include an explicit end-of-claims clause have been breached in the past, but no responsible person would consider signing a peace treaty that does not include one. This clause is essential, for it expresses the distinction between a permanent peace agreement and an interim agreement – such as the 1949 armistice agreements or the Oslo Accords – that still allows the parties to entertain their plans and hopes. This is not a petty game of formalities – this small clause indicates the readiness of the other side to declare – first and foremost to its own people – that it accepts a compromise as the final settlement. In the absence of such readiness, one must conclude that the other party is not ripe for  true peace, and that it will seek to find an opportunity to renew the war.

No Israeli government, no matter what its political composition, can sign a "peace treaty" with the PLO that does not contain an explicit clause declaring an end to all mutual claims. Yet we saw above why the PLO cannot include such declaration in an agreement with Israel. All the President's horses and all the President's men cannot bridge this gap.

The picture is now clear. The PLO, with or without its Hamas partners, cannot sign a peace treaty with any Israeli government. This conclusion is the sole basis for a realistic policy by Israel and its allies.

* This article was written following a discussion that took place last month in the Israeli daily Haaretz, on the chances of a permanent Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement.
 

[1]  Haaretz (Israel), October 4, 2017.
[2]  Maannews.com, September 23, 2016.
[3] Haaretz (Israel), October 4, 2017.
[4] Haaretz (Israel), October 17, 2017.
[5] Haaretz (Israel), October 17, 2017.
[6] Haaretz (Israel), October 13, 2017.
[7] In his September 2016 UNGA speech, 'Abbas gave the number of Palestinian refugees as six million.
[9] Al-Ayyam (PA), July 30, 2000.
[10] Center for Near East Policy Research (cfnepr.com),


Ze'ev Begin

Source: https://www.memri.org/reports/impossible-deal-century

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Video: Is It True the UN Created Israel? Seventy years since UN General Assembly Resolution 181 - Amb. Dore Gold




by Amb. Dore Gold

It is often incorrectly asserted that the United Nations created the State of Israel by means of Resolution 181. That is completely untrue.



We’re now approaching the 70th anniversary of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, what is also known as the Partition Plan which was adopted on November 29, 1947. It is often incorrectly asserted that the United Nations created the State of Israel by means of Resolution 181. That is completely untrue.

UN Resolution 181 took the idea that first began to emerge around the 1917 Balfour Declaration, emerged also with the League of Nations Mandate from 1922, but now called explicitly for an independent Jewish state alongside of an Arab state. What Resolution 181 did 70 years ago was it provided international legitimacy for the Jewish claim to statehood. It was a morally significant action, but like all UN General Assembly resolutions, it was not legally binding.

But what established Israel were not the actions of the United Nations. What actually established Israel was the Declaration of Independence by Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, on May 15, 1948.  To this day, what establishes states are not actions in the UN, despite what Mahmoud Abbas might hope. If you look at recently established countries – East Timor, Kosovo, South Sudan – all of them were established by a declaration of independence of their leaders. Even more recently in Kurdistan there was no declaration of independence. They don’t have an independent state.

Resolution 181 has a very important section that calls for the internationalization of Jerusalem by creating a separate entity known in Latin as a corpus separatum. This is not just an issue for historians because the internationalization proposal contained in Resolution 181 kept resurfacing over the years. For example, on March 1, 1999, the German ambassador to Israel wrote a note verbal to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel which stated that the basis for any resolution of the issue of Jerusalem would be the corpus separatum from 1947 from Resolution 181. Germany at the time had the presidency of the European Union so it wasn’t just the opinion of one country; it conceivably could have represented all European states.

Shortly thereafter, a campaign began at the United Nations which called for reviving Resolution 181, led by the Palestinian UN Observer, Nasser al-Qudwa. Yasser Arafat actually had been at the UN headquarters visiting Secretary-General Kofi Annan. When I saw this happening as Israel’s ambassador at the time, I turned to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon for instructions – and I remember as though it was yesterday.

Sharon said to me, “Go back to Ben-Gurion’s speech in the Knesset from December 1949, because Ben-Gurion made clear that those clauses in Resolution 181 that called for the internationalization of Jerusalem were now null and void.” Why was it null and void? Why was that a proper reaction? Because the UN appeared to be taking responsibility for Jerusalem through Resolution 181, yet when Arab armies converged on the nascent State of Israel, put Jerusalem under siege, and bombarded the Old City from artillery positions near Bethlehem in the east and to the north, the UN did nothing. As Ben-Gurion stated in his speech to the Israeli Knesset in December 1949, “The UN didn’t lift a finger.”

As a result, Ben-Gurion declared, “We cannot regard the decision of the 29th of November 1947 as being possessed of any further moral force since the UN did not succeed in implementing its own decisions. He then reminded the UN, “The people which faithfully honored for 2,500 years the oath sworn by the Rivers of Babylon not to forget Jerusalem – this people will never reconcile itself with separation from Jerusalem.” Jerusalem had to be part of Israel.

Eight days later he announced to the world that “for the State of Israel there has always been and always will be one capital only – Jerusalem the Eternal.” Ben-Gurion wasn’t dealing with the location of embassies. In December 1949 he moved the capital of Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem just as the Jewish state was being reborn.


Amb. Dore Gold has served as President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs since 2000. From June 2015 until October 2016 he served as Director-General of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Previously he served as Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN (1997-1999), and as an advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Source: http://jcpa.org/video/true-un-created-israel-seventy-years-since-un-general-assembly-resolution-181/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Hague Aims for U.S. Soldiers - John R. Bolton




by John R. Bolton

The ICC constitutes a direct assault on the concept of national sovereignty, especially that of constitutional, representative governments like the United States.

For the first time since it began operating in 2002, the International Criminal Court has put the U.S. in its sights. On Nov. 3, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda initiated an investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan since mid-2003. This raises the alarming possibility that the court will seek to assert jurisdiction over American citizens.

Located in The Hague (alongside such dinosaurs as the International Court of Justice, which decides state-versus-state disputes), the ICC constitutes a direct assault on the concept of national sovereignty, especially that of constitutional, representative governments like the United States. The Trump administration should not respond to Ms. Bensouda in any way that acknowledges the ICC's legitimacy. Even merely contesting its jurisdiction risks drawing the U.S. deeper into the quicksand.


The International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. (UN Photo/Rick Bajornas)
The left will try to intimidate the White House by insisting that any resistance to the ICC aligns the U.S. with human-rights violators. But the administration's real alignment should be with the U.S. Constitution, not the global elite. It would not be "pragmatic" to accept the ICC; it would be toxic to democratic sovereignty.

The U.S. is not party to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC's authority. Bill Clinton signed it in 2000, when he was a lame duck. But fearing certain rejection, he did not submit it to the Senate. The Bush administration formally "unsigned" in 2002 before the Rome Statute entered into force. That same year, Congress passed supportive legislation protecting U.S. service members from the ICC, a law that was decried by hysterical opponents as the "Hague Invasion Act." The U.S. then entered into more than 100 bilateral agreements committing other nations not to deliver Americans into the ICC's custody.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later weakened America's opposition to the ICC. Barack Obama manifestly longed to join but nonetheless did not re-sign the Rome Statute. Thus the U.S. has never acknowledged the ICC's jurisdiction, and it should not start now. America's long-term security depends on refusing to recognize an iota of legitimacy in this brazen effort to subordinate democratic nations to the unaccountable melding of executive and judicial authority in the ICC.

Proponents of global governance have always wanted to turn the U.S. into just another pliant "member" of the United Nations General Assembly or the ICC. They know that America's exceptionalism and commitment to its Constitution were among their biggest obstacles, but they hoped to cajole Washington into joining one day. The new Afghanistan investigation demonstrates why that vision needs to be confronted now and conclusively defeated.

The U.S. has done more than any other nation to instill in its civilian-controlled military a respect for human rights and the laws of war. When American servicemembers violate their doctrine and training—which can happen in any human institution—the U.S. is perfectly capable of applying our own laws to their conduct. These laws and procedures do not need to be second-guessed by international courts, especially ones that violate basic rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, like trial by jury.

Moreover, the Rome Statute's real targets always have been not merely individual soldiers accused of war crimes, but their commanders and political leaders—all the way to the commander in chief of the global hegemon (as they resentfully see it). The White House should not facilitate these efforts to constrain and inhibit its ability to defend Americans.

The ICC prosecutor is an internationalized version of America's "independent counsel," a role originally established in the wake of Watergate and later allowed to lapse (but now revived under Justice Department regulations in the form of a "special counsel"). Similarly, the ICC's prosecutors are dangerously free of accountability and effective supervision. They are not the superhero "Justice League International."

The ICC fits into no coherent representative government structure, which does not exist internationally. It also fails a critical constitutional test—the separation of powers—in that the executive not only prosecutes but determines guilt or innocence. Decoupling executive and judicial powers is no mere constitutional nicety; it is a critical mechanism for restraining excesses.

The ICC always had dramatically different possible paths. First, it could become yet another embarrassing irrelevancy like the International Court of Justice or the U.N. Human Rights Council. That has been its lot so far. To date, the ICC has been feckless and often in disarray, acquiring the justifiable reputation from its caseload that it was a project by Europeans to prosecute miscreants in their former African colonies. Burundi recently withdrew from the ICC, and others have come close.

Second, the ICC could go rogue—which is what the potential prosecution of Americans represents. Pursuing Washington, it seems, finally became too hard for the ICC to resist (having already investigated Israel, which is once again the canary in the mineshaft).

Under the idea of "complementarity," the ICC could defer to countries that possess responsible law-enforcement mechanisms, which the U.S. assuredly does. There are plenty of real criminal states in the world to keep the ICC busy, if it had the wit to focus on them. That it doesn't speaks volumes.

America should welcome the opportunity, as in Churchill's line about Bolshevism, to strangle the ICC in its cradle. At most, the White House should reply to Ms. Bensouda with a terse note: "Dear Madame Prosecutor: You are dead to us. Sincerely, the United States." Other countries wanted the ICC; let them live with it.
This article first appeared in The Wall Street Journal

John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is Chairman of Gatestone Institute, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad".

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11411/hague-icc-american-soldiers

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Stanford University's Duplicitous Morality Police - Ruthie Blum




by Ruthie Blum

Once more, free, informed but politically incorrect speech becomes the victim of ignorance and bullying on a college campus

  • Two Stanford administrators present -- Nanci Howe, associate dean and director of student affairs, and Snehal Naik, assistant dean and associate director of student affairs -- not only nodded approvingly at the walk-out, but actively aided it, first by denying entry to many students who actually wanted to attend the event, and then by not allowing them to enter after the walkout, despite the fact that the auditorium was largely empty. They also forbade the hosts from live-streaming the talk on the Internet.
  • The reason for having to smear Robert Spencer was clear. Portraying him as someone who has led to the killing of Muslims was the way to try to have him banned from the campus, without abandoning the principle of free speech. Yet no student or faculty member produced a shred of evidence linking Spencer to violence against Muslims at Stanford or anywhere else. All they were able to produce as "proof" of Spencer's incitement was the same libelous blurb on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.
  • What De Leon, Najaer, Beckman and Fine failed to mention was that a mere few months earlier, at the end of May, the Stanford student senate voted to fund an on-campus speech by the son of Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti, serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail for orchestrating three deadly attacks.
It is no surprise that students at Stanford University disrupted best-selling author Robert Spencer's lecture on November 14. Given the lead-up to his talk -- "Jihad and the Dangers of Radical Islam: An Honest Discussion" -- the scenario was scripted in advance, with the encouragement and support of the school's administration.

As soon as the Stanford College Republicans invited Spencer, founder of the website Jihad Watch, to speak on campus -- as part of the Fred. R. Allen Freedom Lecture Series, sponsored by the Young America's Foundation -- a concerted campaign was launched to prevent him from being allowed to set foot on the premises. Stanford students, faculty members and administrators published a steady stream of articles in the student publications the Stanford Daily and Stanford Review, claiming not only that Spencer was unqualified to speak to them -- despite frequently addressing FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, military, and other government groups for years -- but also pronounced that his presence threatened Muslim students on campus; that he enabled anti-Semitism; that his message deprived Muslims of "personhood;" and that he was endangering students by replying to their attacks on his website.

When that effort failed, they employed other means to intimidate Spencer and the students who wished to hear what he had to say. Not only did hundreds of protesters cause a disturbance outside the venue, but another 150 entered the auditorium, played Arabic music loudly to drown out what Spencer was saying, and then staged a mass walk-out minutes after the event began.

Two Stanford administrators present -- Nanci Howe, associate dean and director of student affairs, and Snehal Naik, assistant dean and associate director of student affairs -- not only nodded approvingly at the walk-out, but actively aided it, first by denying entry to many students who actually wanted to attend the event, and then by not allowing them to enter after the walkout, despite the fact that the auditorium was largely empty. They also forbade the hosts from live-streaming the talk on the Internet.



According to one report of the event, published in the Stanford Review the following day:
"[T]he protest was a deliberate attempt to block students from engaging with Spencer in any capacity. If you personally do not wish to engage with the man, fine, power to you. But preventing others from doing so is shameful."

Stanford University associate dean and director of student affairs, Nanci Howe (front left), pats on the back a woman who is walking out of Robert Spencer's speech in protest.

Meanwhile, another event took place on campus -- "Stanford Against Spencer: A Rally Against Islamophobia" -- timed to coincide with Spencer's talk. In the Facebook invitation to the rally, the "coalition of concerned students and organizations that formed in response" to Spencer's lecture referred to him falsely as a "self-proclaimed Islamophobe and co-founder of two known hate groups," while lambasting him for responding on his blog to the barrage of defamation to which he had been subjected by Stanford students and faculty during the past few weeks.

In "An open letter to the College Republicans regarding Robert Spencer," printed in the Stanford Daily on November 8 -- penned by a "coalition of concerned student groups" -- Spencer is accused of being "an established Islamophobe, and "Islamophobia" is described as:
"more than just anti-Muslim sentiment, [but] institutionalized through U.S. foreign policy (the ongoing "war on terror") and immigration policy (Trump's xenophobic Muslim ban), extending its violent impact on people from and in Muslim-majority countries."
In other words, supporting the eradication of global terrorism constitutes "Islamophobia" in the eyes of the signatories of the letter, all far-left organizations -- such as Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, Students for Queer Liberation, Students Against Militarism, Student And Labor Alliance and Students for the Liberation of All People -- known for their radical views and responsible for the often violent curtailing of the free speech of anyone who disagrees with their politics at universities across the United States.

Furthermore, to justify their call on fellow students not to "engage with [Spencer], even if you are critical of [his views], because engaging in a conversation about Islam with a known Islamophobe is a contradiction," the authors of the letter referred to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as their key source of information. The SPLC, which has been discredited widely for its left-wing bias and unreliable designation of conservative groups on its "hate list," was also quoted by a Pakistani Muslim student at Stanford, who wrote about being "afraid" as a scarf-wearing Muslim on campus. Of course, this is ludicrous, as no Muslim has ever been harmed on the Stanford campus, while in the student's native Pakistan, Christians are persecuted by Muslims on a daily basis.

The reason for having to smear Spencer was clear. Portraying him as someone who has led to the killing of Muslims was the way to try to have him banned from the campus, without abandoning the principle of free speech. Yet no student or faculty member produced a shred of evidence linking Spencer to violence against Muslims at Stanford or anywhere else. All they were able to produce as "proof" of Spencer's incitement was the same libelous blurb on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.

This did not prevent four graduate students (three of them doctoral candidates) -- Joshua De Leon, Umniya Najaer, Jason Beckman, and Jamie M. Fine – from complaining that Spencer had "endangered" the life of a student, by exposing a video of the boy tearing down posters advertising the lecture. The claim was completely nonsensical, of course. In the first place, the student was the one who shared a video of himself on Snapchat removing the posters; Spencer merely re-posted the clip. Secondly, as Spencer responded to the barrage of criticism he received for this:
"I have never called for or condoned violence against any individual. If this Stanford fascist is harmed by anyone, it would be a disgrace, and the perpetrator should be prosecuted. However, [he] is not really in any danger. The College Republicans at Stanford are not neo-Nazis, contrary to the defamation in this latest Stanford Daily piece. Nor am I..."
What De Leon, Najaer, Beckman and Fine failed to mention was that a mere few months earlier, at the end of May, the Stanford student senate voted to fund an on-campus speech by the son of Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail for orchestrating three deadly attacks.

The May 25 event -- "Dignity Hunger Strike: Aarab Barghouti on Palestinian Political Prisoners' Demands for Dignity" -- was hosted by the Stanford chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and co-sponsored by many of the same organizations that protested Spencer's November 14 appearance: Jewish Voice for Peace, STATIC magazine, International Socialist Organization, Students Against Militarism, Student And Labor Alliance and Students for the Liberation of All Peoples.

It is noteworthy that one Jewish student senator at the school told the Stanford Daily why he supported giving a platform to the son of a convicted terrorist, the point of whose lecture was to blame Israel for the alleged plight of hunger-striking Palestinian prisoners:
"In the interest of full transparency, I am personally very deeply concerned with the content of [Barghouti's] speech, but I need to make sure that I afford equal access to freedom of speech to groups, even those who I deeply disagree with."
The irony did not escape Spencer, who pointed out:
"There was no uproar when Aarab Barghouti spoke at Stanford. No calls for cancellation or boycott. No statements from administrators offering support to students who found Barghouti's presence disturbing. No protests. No safe spaces opened. No hysterical attacks on Barghouti in the Stanford Daily. No calls by dorm staff to report students who put up posters advertising Barghouti's event.
"Likewise, when the SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] co-hosted an event at Stanford featuring Mads Gilbert, who supports the 9/11 jihad attacks that murdered 3,000 people, no one at Stanford got hysterical and called for cancellation, boycott, punishment of the students supporting the event, etc."
Yet Stanford's vice provost for student affairs, Susie Brubaker-Cole, and its dean for religious life, Jane Shaw, wrote a blog to reassure the anti-Spencer students that, in spite of the university's "commitment to freedom of expression," it is
"compelled to call out the fact that Mr. Spencer has a track record of actions and speech that motivate hatred towards Muslims, contradicting our university's values of inclusion and respect for all peoples and faiths. We acknowledge the emotional impact of Mr. Spencer's visit on university community members, and we are actively developing supports for the Muslim community before and after his visit."
In conclusion, they said:
"We also recognize that anti-Muslim racism and other forms of bigotry are systemic and require long-range and comprehensive approaches. We reaffirm our support for the Muslim community, and ask all to stand with us in speaking out for a mutually supportive society where all experience care and respect."
It is a travesty that Stanford's administration has no compunction about asserting that Spencer "has a track record of actions and speech that motivate hatred towards Muslims," and that "anti-Muslim racism [is] systemic." Spencer's work focuses on the way in which jihadists use the Koran and other Islamic teachings to justify terrorism and incite Muslims to violence. This is something that Muslims and non-Muslims alike should at least wish to learn about, if not embrace; they certainly should not view it as an affront.

As for the claim that "anti-Muslim racism" is rampant: the only places in the world where Muslims are slaughtered for the way in which they adhere to Islam, or are deemed not to practice it properly, are dominated by Muslims. Anyone teaching or attending an institution of higher learning as illustrious as Stanford should know that.

Ruthie Blum is the author of "To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the 'Arab Spring.'"

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11403/robert-spencer-stanford-university

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Seven Times Palestinians Rejected Peace - Jonathan R. Verlin




by Jonathan R. Verlin

The failure of Palestinian Arabs to pursue peace can be traced back 100 years with defiance to any form of Jewish sovereignty.

Earlier last week, Fox contributor John Huddy reported that the Palestinian Authority will withdraw from the peace process if President Trump closes its diplomatic mission in Washington. The failure of Palestinian Arabs to pursue peace can be traced back 100 years with defiance to any form of Jewish sovereignty. The Palestinians could have had peace and their own state had their leaders recognized Israel's overtures by bargaining in good faith, renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist but did not. They had no less than seven opportunities to do so but did not. Instead, they acted with reckless abandon to bring about the destruction of the Jewish state and Jewish people.

The first was in 1917, when the Balfour Declaration not only declared a Jewish homeland, but also mandated that nothing be done to prejudice or disrupt any exiting Arab communities. But that changed with the Nebi Musa riot in April 1920, when, in Jerusalem, Palestinians from nearby towns poured in and fomented jihad against the Jews: the mayor of Jerusalem (who is [was] himself a Muslim) was quoted as saying: "If we don't use force against the Zionists and against the Jews, we will never be rid of them." Many in the crowd shouted back: "We will drink the blood of the Jews!" The mobs vented their anger, burning, pillaging, and beating up Jews and Arab police officers alike wherever they went.

The second came in 1937, where the Peel Commission under Chaim Weizmann pressed for a two-state solution. The Jews were offered an even smaller territory on the coast from Tel Aviv up through the north, making up about one fifth of the remaining mandate territory. The Palestinians, for their own state, would take the remaining four fifths. This did not satisfy them, and they summarily rejected the plan. The Palestinians again resorted to jihad, which the British subsequently quelled. After WW2, Britain ceded authority of the mandate to the U.N.

Third, in May 1948, the U.N. recommended still another partition plan to the General Assembly. It would have divided the territory almost equally. The Zionists, in goodwill, made their acceptance known almost immediately. But true to form, the Palestinians retorted that any partition plan would be met with "rivers of blood," and the newly formed Arab Liberation Army was sent to annihilate the Jews. Thankfully, the Jews won a decisive victory, and the Palestinians ended up with nothing and became refugees. Never did it occur to the leaders of Egypt or Jordan to accord the Palestinians a state. The Jews did!

Fourth, in 1993 in Oslo, the Palestinians could have gotten everything they wanted, complete with mutual letters of recognition. Arafat proved unfaithful.

Fifth, in 2000 at Camp David, Ehud Barak agreed to borders proposed by Bill Clinton. The agreement would have established a West Bank-Gaza Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. Again Arafat proved refractory by walking out and starting the Second Intifada.

Sixth, in 2005, Israel P.M. Ariel Sharon decided that it was neither economically nor militarily feasible for Israel to govern 1.1 million Palestinians in Gaza. For his part, Sharon dismantled all settlements and recalled the Israeli army back to the 1967 borders between Israel and Gaza without land swaps while, at the same time, leaving behind donated greenhouses, which the people could have used to create an agriculture export industry to jump-start their failing economy. True to form, the Palestinians didn't comport. The Palestinians destroyed the greenhouses and proceeded to launch an interminable array of rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel to no avail.

Seventh, in September 2008, Ehud Olmert presented Palestinian president Abbas with still another partition plan – his own. It was to have been a detailed map of a future Palestinian state with what would have been mutually agreed land swaps. The Palestinians would have gotten all of the West Bank and Gaza prior to the '67 war. Olmert also proposed to divide Jerusalem. Abbas took the map of the plan back to his office for further consideration and never returned.

That was the last time negotiations were held with any alacrity. Each time, Jewish overtures were met with violence. Each time, Israel's detractors cowered behind the shields of anonymity and political correctness when negotiations failed.

History is rooted in objective fact and can be clearly discerned through an honest reading of the historical record. However Israel's detractors sympathize with terrorists and cheerlead for the destruction of Israel, they must consider that there exists no country in the Muslim world where Christians and especially Jews enjoy the same freedoms in frequency and in magnitude as Muslims do in Australia, all of Western Europe, the Americas, and especially Israel. These missed opportunities reveal the consistent manipulation of the so-called peace process through decades of malicious intent of the Arab negotiators as pretexts for hastening Israel's destruction. The economic prosperity that peace could have conferred on both Israelis and Palestinians is the biggest casualty of all.

Jonathan R. Verlin

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/seven_times_palestinians_rejected_peace.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Palestinians Won't Talk To Us Anymore, But Will Still Take Our Money - Daniel Greenfield




by Daniel Greenfield

When exactly did we adopt a homicidal Islamic terrorist group?




Bad news. The Palestinian Authority may stop talking to us. 
JNS.org – The Palestinian Authority (PA) threatened on Saturday to sever communication with the Trump administration if the U.S. follows through with a threat to shutter the office of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Washington, DC.
The Palestinian threat came after the US State Department on Saturday declined to renew the operating permission for the PLO’s office for the first time since the 1980s.
The State Department clarified that the office’s closure could be waived within 90 days if President Donald Trump “determines the Palestinians have entered into direct, meaningful negotiations with Israel.”
We'll see who blinks first. But meanwhile the PA isn't threatening to stop taking our money. It will go on taking our money. It just won't communicate with us.

Question: When exactly did we adopt a homicidal Islamic terrorist group? It's one thing to put up with this sort of behavior from one of your children. But I'm quite certain that Bill Clinton never officially adopted Arafat. But the Taylor Force Act, which would have ended funding for the PA unless it stopped funding terrorists, was neutered in Congress. (I know, big surprise.)

If the PA won't end terrorism. And is threatening not to talk to us. Why are we still funding it?


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/268480/palestinians-wont-talk-us-anymore-will-still-take-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama Donor Judge: No Sanctuary for American Victims - Daniel John Sobieski




by Daniel John Sobieski

The notion advanced by Judge Orrick that the Trump administration’s attempt to defund sanctuary cities is unconstitutional because it amounts to changing the rules at halftime is nonsense, both historically and legally.

The Constitution and the laws passed by Congress define one person who determines and executes U.S. immigration policy and U.S. District Judge William Orrick is not it. Yet Judge Orrick is once again opposing the expressed will of the American people through their elected representatives by issuing a permanent ban on President Trump’s executive order defunding sanctuary cities:
A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.
U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued the ruling Monday in lawsuits brought by San Francisco and Santa Clara counties. According to the judge, Trump can’t set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.
But is he setting new conditions or enforcing existing conditions and existing law? Federal funds, particularly federal law enforcement grants, are given out on the assumption, if not the expressed intent, that recipients are going to use that money enforcing federal law. They are not provided out of the goodness of taxpayer hearts.

As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has observed, activist judges deeply involved in politics are likely more loyal to their ideology than to the Constitution, doing great harm to the country and the American people:
“Judges who take the law into their own hands, who make up constitutional 'rights' in order to strike down laws they oppose, undermine the people's right to have their values shape public policy and define the culture.”
Certainly, President Trump and his Department of Justice are well within their authority in directing executive branch departments to enforce federal laws and programs they administer:
Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley said the judge got it wrong and was intruding on Mr. Trump’s own powers.
“The district court exceeded its authority today when it barred the president from instructing his cabinet members to enforce existing law,” Mr. O’Malley said in a statement. “The Justice Department will vindicate the president’s lawful authority to direct the executive branch.”
Judge Orrick, a key Obama donor appointed by him, has demonstrated such politically motivated activism before, having put a temporary hold on President Trump’s attempts to defund sanctuary cities in April, demonstrating a double standard when President Obama tried to withhold funds from North Carolina during the transgender restroom kerfuffle.

The fine points of federal Judge William Orrick’s ruling blocking the withholding of federal funds from sanctuary cities must have been lost on the families of Jamiel Shaw, Jr. and Kate Steinle, American citizens murdered by illegal aliens harbored and coddled by the sanctuary cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, respectively. No doubt they failed to grasp the legal logic which says cities are free to violate federal law while wrapping themselves in the U.S. Constitution.

The notion advanced by Judge Orrick that the Trump administration’s attempt to defund sanctuary cities is unconstitutional because it amounts to changing the rules at halftime is nonsense, both historically and legally. The federal government has long threatened to withhold federal funds to enforce federal policy over states rights from the federal speed limit to transgendered bathrooms. As the New York Times noted, President Obama threatened to cut off federal funds to North Carolina over its transgendered bathroom law:
The Obama administration is considering whether North Carolina’s new law on gay and transgender rights makes the state ineligible for billions of dollars in federal aid for schools, highways and housing, officials said Friday.
Cutting off any federal money -- or even simply threatening to do so -- would put major new pressure on North Carolina to repeal the law, which eliminated local protections for gay and transgender people and restricted which bathrooms transgender people can use.
Orrick ruled that the Trump administration cannot set new conditions on federal funding approved by Congress. He had no objection to Obama’s proposed defunding of unrelated matters in North Carolina. Implicit in accepting federal funding, one would think, would be the condition of obeying the laws of the United States which sanctuary city officials are sworn to uphold. The laws of the United States give the President control of immigration policy and the Constitution gives the President control of foreign policy and border security.

Title 8 U.S.C. 1324 makes it quite explicit that harboring and concealing from detection illegal aliens is a felony, whether committed by individuals or sanctuary city officials:
Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Now it may be argued that the DOJ would be better off legally prosecuting sanctuary city mayors rather than trying to withhold federal funds from their cities, but one is not exclusive of the other. Sanctuary city mayors are in clear violation of federal statute so for Judge Orrick to argue that withholding federal funds from those violating federal law is unconstitutional is, again, nonsense.

Sanctuary city officials could very well be prosecuted for breaking the law and recklessly endangering their citizens by harboring and shielding from scrutiny illegal aliens among whose number may include assorted Islamic State agents, sympathizers, and potential lone wolf recruits, along with assorted criminals, like the one charged with the murder of Kate Steinle in the sanctuary city of San Francisco. They are accomplices in crime.

That is the suggestion of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Jindal made the case on recently on Boston Herald Radio:
“Absolutely, I would hold them as an accomplice. Make them criminally culpable,” the Republican presidential candidate said when asked if he’d arrest mayors of sanctuary cities. “I’d also make them civilly liable so that families, victim’s families could sue. Especially if the prosecutor isn’t taking action or the mayor’s not changing their ways, I’d allow the families to go to court as well to recover damages.”
Again, neither Judge Orrick or any others who legislate from the bench had no problem with the Obama administration’s “guidance” to schools that sex discrimination now included sexual identity and that those that didn’t provide transgendered restrooms put their federal funding at risk. Judge Orrick may well be the poster child for politicization of the federal bench and the classic adage, follow the money. As Fox News Insider points out:
Federal Judge William Orrick III, who on Tuesday blocked President Trump's order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, reportedly bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Barack Obama….
The same judge issued a restraining order in 2015 against the advocacy group responsible for undercover videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby organs.
At the time, The Federalist found that Orrick raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated more than $30,000 to groups supporting him.
We have seen this judicial overreach before, in the ruling against Muslin travel restrictions by Friend of Obama, Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii, who graduated inthe same Harvard Law School class as President Obama. Judge Watson also ignored federal statute in his ruling on Trump’s travel ban from certain Muslim countries. The application by Judge Watson of the Establishment Clause to Trump’s travel ban, this is from some Alice In Wonderland law book. If the travel ban violates the Establishment Clause, why hasn’t 8 U.S. Code 1182 been struck down by Judge Watson or any other liberal judge? Oklahoma Attorney Robert Barnes, interviewed on Sirius XM radio, says Judge Watson is clearly wrong in extending the Establish Clause to noncitizen foreigners:
“His basis for doing so was an extraordinary interpretation of the right to travel and the freedom of association, which before, has only been associated with U.S. citizens,” Barnes continued. “Every court decision in the 200 years prior to this has said that people who are not citizens of the United States, who are not present within the United States, have no First Amendment constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn’t extend internationally to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, at any time. Instead, this judge said it did, as long as you had a university here who wanted to assert, quote-unquote, the foreigner’s rights, or you had some physical person here. In this case, it was one of the leading Muslim imams in Hawaii; he wants to bring over various family and friends from the Middle East.”
“The Hawaii judge’s decision says he has a First Amendment constitutional right to do so because he’s Muslim. It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned where the issue of terror arises from that that meant they had a special right to access the country and visit the country,” he said.
“As long as there is somebody here that wants them here, no president can ever preclude them from coming here. He basically gave First Amendment rights to everybody around the world and gave special preferences to people who are Muslim under his interpretation of the First Amendment,” Barnes summarized.
Two activist judges personally and politically close to Obama have ignored federal statute to promote an ideological agenda Obama and liberal mayors of sanctuary cities embrace. These cases may soon be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. Thankfully, Judge Neil Gorsuch, a Constitutional originalist with no discernible political agenda, now sits on a Supreme Court that may soon have a chance to restore adherence to federal law and, yes, the Constitution.


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/obama_donor_judge_no_sanctuary_for_american_victims.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

DOJ to Denaturalize Mexican, Colombian and Nigerian Child Molesters - Daniel Greenfield




by Daniel Greenfield

Obama and Clinton judicial activists have shown a willingness to ignore precedent for the sake of the #resistance.




Denaturalization is a basic tool. Unfortunately it's used all too rarely to remove the citizenship of people who should never have had it in the first place. Obama Inc. weaponized it, as it did everything else. But Attorney General Sessions is denaturalizing child molesters who failed to disclose their convictions.
The Department of Justice on Tuesday filed lawsuits to revoke the U.S. citizenship of five immigrants who pleaded guilty to sexually abusing minors in incidents determined to have taken place before they became naturalized, Fox News has learned.
“Committing fraud in any immigration matter undermines the integrity of our immigration system, and is a betrayal of the American people’s generosity,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “It is especially appalling when it also involves the sexual abuse of children.”
Jorge Luis Alvarado, 56, a native of Mexico. Alvarado became a citizen on March 9, 2000 and pleaded guilty in 2007 to committing indecency with a child by sexual contact. The DOJ says it took place shortly before filing his naturalization application.
Alberto Mario Beleno, 64, a native of Colombia. Beleno became a citizen on Feb. 26, 2001. He pleaded guilty that year to the molestation of a minor in 1993 and 1994.
Eleazar Corral Valenzuela, 49, a native of Mexico. Valenzuela became a citizen on June 15, 2000. The Justice Department said he sexually abused a minor child before he applied for naturalization and pleaded guilty to the charge in 2000.
Moises Herrera-Gonzalez, 55, a native of Mexico. Herrera-Gonzalez became a citizen on Sept. 25, 1999. He pleaded guilty in 2002 of sexually assaulting a six-year-old child in 1996.
Emmanuel Olugbenga Omopariola, 60, a native of Nigeria. Omopariola became a citizen on July 1, 2004. He pleaded guilty in 2015 to unlawful sexual contact with a seven-year-old child before he was naturalized.
Judicial activism has blocked certain traditional uses of denaturalization, for example against Islamic terrorists, and while the DOJ is on safe legal ground here, Obama and Clinton judicial activists have shown a willingness to ignore precedent for the sake of the #resistance. Still, Sessions is betting that few of them will want to protect child molesters. So these make useful test cases.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/268492/doj-denaturalize-mexican-colombian-and-nigerian-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.