Saturday, January 7, 2017

UN Security Council Res. 2334: A Victory of Jihadism - Bat Ye'or




by Bat Ye'or

No European nation protested against the Islamic colonization of Jewish-Palestinian areas, the expulsion of their Jewish inhabitants and the seizure of their belongings, or against the persecution of Jews in Arab countries.

  • Led astray from their primary mission, these international organizations have become tools of corruption or terrorism, reinforcing global Islamic power. Those who vote are heads of state, motivated by interests and ideologies that are often criminal, and not all of which represent the opinions of their people whom they tyrannize, including those from European "democracies".
  • In 1948-49, Egypt seized Gaza, Syria stood their ground on the Golan, and Transjordan colonized Judea, Samaria and the Old City of Jerusalem. Their Jewish inhabitants were killed or driven out by the Arab colonists, who seized their homes and destroyed their synagogues and cemeteries. Fighting ceased on armistice and cease-fire lines, there was no peace and no international borders were recognized.
  • Europe rushed to adopt the French position in 1973 and, along with the OIC, planned political measures designed to destroy the Jewish State by denying its sovereign rights and its cantonment on an indefensible territory. Resolution 2334 is now the icing on the cake of this policy, which forms the basis for a Euro-Islamic policy to merge in all EU political and social sectors, as well as in promoting globalism and the enforcement of the UN's supranational decision-making powers.
  • In 1967, once again, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan invaded Israel to destroy it, but this time Israel took back all the land that had been lost in 1949, that had become Judenrein [free of Jews], Arabized and Islamized. These were areas from which the Palestinian Jews had been driven out, and that Europe referred to as Jewish colonies. They are called Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
  • No European nation protested against the Islamic colonization of Jewish-Palestinian areas, the expulsion of their Jewish inhabitants and the seizure of their belongings, or against the persecution of Jews in Arab countries.
  • An artificial Palestinian Arab "people" was created in order to replace the people of Israel. A European army of forger-historians and Arab Christian dhimmis transferred the historic characteristics of the Jews onto them. Names of towns and regions were Islamized: Jerusalem was called Al-Quds and "the West Bank" replaced Judea and Samaria.
  • Israelis, guilty of existing, were expected to apologize for that, humbly to maintain their enemies and suffer their terrorism without protesting or defending themselves. Their crime? They refused to mingle with and disappear into dhimmitude by giving up their rights and their history to the people created by the Euro-Arab alliance to replace them.
  • It is the turn of Europeans to see a replacement population be created in their countries, with all the rights that are being taken away from them. It is their turn to be forced to renounce their national, historic, cultural and religious identity, to apologize and take the blame for existing. It is their turn to be forced to monitor their borders and guard their airports, their schools, their trains, their streets and their cities with soldiers. European governments that contemplated the destruction of Israel worked together with the enemies of Israel to destroy their own people, their sovereignty, their security and their freedoms.
  • The recognition of the legitimacy of Israel's return to its homeland is the essential condition of Islamic peace with the world, because it will abolish the jihadist ideology.
UN Security Council Resolution 2334, adopted on December 23, 2016, politically reinforces UNESCO's resolution that erased the history of Israel in its historical homeland in order to replace it with the Koranic version of the Bible.


A vote at the UN Security Council (illustrative). [Image source: U.S. State Department]

This UN resolution once again proves that there is Islamic control over the politics and culture of international institutions. Led astray from their primary mission, these international organizations have become tools of corruption or terrorism, reinforcing global Islamic power. But let us not forget that those who vote are Heads of State, fully conscious and responsible individuals, motivated by interests and ideologies that are often criminal, and not all of which represent the opinions of their people whom they tyrannize, including those from European "democracies". Their latest resolutions not only confirm the victory of jihadism and illiteracy: they also express the success of the years of effort made by this post-war Europe that continues to destroy, defame and delegitimize the Hebrew State in the name of Islamic justice. The beginning of this long journey dates back to 1967, in France.

So what are these Israeli "settlements" that obsess nations so much? Are they vast territories thousands of kilometers from Israel, across seas and oceans? How did this so few people "conquer" them? Let us remind ourselves of the facts: in 1948, the Arab League declared jihad to destroy the Jewish State. The armies of five Arab States crossed the borders of Palestine, where the San Remo Resolution (1920) had recognized the legitimacy of a Jewish National Home. Egypt seized Gaza, Syria stood their ground on the Golan, and Transjordan colonized the Judea and Samaria Area and the old city of Jerusalem. Their Jewish inhabitants were killed or driven out by the Arab colonists, who seized their belongings and homes and destroyed their synagogues and cemeteries. Fighting ceased on armistice and cease-fire lines (1949), there was no peace and no international borders were recognized. But, to the great disappointment of millions of Nazi Europeans and their collaborators, Israel was not wiped out. It also welcomed most of the million Jews who had been robbed and driven out of Arab countries. No European nation protested against the Islamic colonization of Jewish-Palestinian areas, the expulsion of their Jewish inhabitants and the seizure of their belongings, or against the persecution of Jews in Arab countries. Between 1949 and 1967, the Israelis who had been brought together in a confined area without any international borders endured endless jihadist attacks from their neighbors.

In 1967, once again, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Transjordan invaded Israel to destroy it, but this time Israel took back all the land that had been seized in 1949, and that had become cleansed of Jews [Judenrein], Arabized and Islamized. These were areas from which the Palestinian Jews had been driven out, and to which Europe referred as Jewish "settlements" when in reality they became Arab colonies. They are called Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

The 1967 war ended with an Arab defeat. Once again, the Arab camp refused peace, and armistice lines separated the fighters. UN Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) recommended the solution of two waves of refugees – both Arab and Jewish - and the conditions of a peace, to be negotiated between Israel and the Arab States that had occupied and colonized Palestinian territories, expelling or killing all its Palestinian Jewish inhabitants in 1949. It did not mention the Palestinians Arabs as a distinct people: they did not exist at that time. The Arabs, determined to destroy Israel, rejected this resolution.

Israel's lightning victory in 1967 humiliated France, which, after its deadly decolonization wars and the loss of countless Muslim colonies, was keen to move closer to the Arabs by playing the anti-Semitic card. Resolution 242 had been written in English, and France translated it into French, falsifying it in the process, by inserting the word "the" before "territories", a word that had been bitterly fought against during the negotiations to make explicit that not all of the disputed land was to be included. It is this French mistranslation that has now been imposed.

France had close links with the Palestinian leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and an ally of Hitler and the Vichy government. This alliance created the "Palestinian people", invented by Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat, the nephew of the Mufti and the representative of the PLO. France, which had saved the Mufti from the Nuremberg trials by hiding him, was the first to recognize Arafat in 1969 and impose him on the still-reticent European Community. To secure recognition on an international stage, the "Palestinian people" used terror - by innovating airplane hijacking, by taking civilians hostage and by terrorist attacks in Europe.

In October 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel once again and sustained another defeat. But this time the OIC declared an oil boycott on all countries that did not recognize Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and that would not support Arab causes (Declaration of the Arab Summit Conference at Algiers November 28,1973). Europe rushed to adopt the French position in December 1973 and, along with the OIC, planned an agenda of political measures designed to destroy the Jewish State by denying its sovereign rights and its cantonment on an indefensible territory. Resolution 2334 is now the icing on the cake of this policy, which has developed in several stages and forms the basis for a Euro-Islamic policy to merge in all European Union political and social sectors, as well as in promoting globalism and the enforcement of the UN's supranational decision-making powers.

To begin with, an artificial Palestinian Arab "people" was created in order to replace the people of Israel. A European army of forger historians and Arab Christian dhimmis [non-Muslims who have surrendered to living under Islam] transferred the historic characteristics of the Jews onto them. Made the symbol of salvation from the purported Occupation and the Colonization symbolized by Israel, the Palestinians were compared to Jesus, crucified on the cross of a supposedly "Zionist Nazism." The French Islamophiles and anti-Zionists, Louis Massignon and Jacques Berque, were the promoters of this role-reversal between the Jewish victims of Nazism and the Nazi persecutors, assisted by their Muslim allies on the battlefields and in the extermination camps, under the guidance of the Mufti.

Names of towns and regions were Islamized: Jerusalem was called Al-Quds and the West Bank replaced Judea and Samaria. Jihad and dhimmitude became taboo words. The OIC and its satellites, including Europe, had ordered the planned elimination of Israel. No argument could hinder its condemnation and the hateful campaign, by subverting words and language, that justified it. There was no point in pleading. Neither truth nor morality would change this verdict: Israel was the cause of the war, the terrorist attacks, injustice, all the evils suffered by the Islamic world and Europe, victims of jihadist terrorism - which it attributed to the existence of Israel. The fight to eliminate Israel was referred to as a just cause, a fight for peace.

The Euro-Arab alliance did its best to criminalize the Israelis for having restored their State to their historic homeland. The Israelis' national sovereignty, their cultural and historic roots, their survival, their successes and spectacular military victories earned them reproaches and denigration. Reinvigorated by Palestinian hatred, the post–war Nazi-Islamic alliance did its best to neutralize the success of the Jewish State on a political level, to make sure it remained unstable and insecure. Endlessly harassed by European governments and their armies of dhimmis, the Israelis, guilty of existing, were shamed for it, forced to apologize for it, and expected humbly to maintain their enemies and suffer their terrorism without protesting or defending themselves. Their crime? They refused to mingle with and disappear into dhimmitude by giving up their rights and their history to the people created by the Euro-Arab alliance (Eurabia) to replace them.

The PLO was the jihadist arm of the Ummah [the Islamic community], the embodiment of its theological ideology which justified Islamic expansion and its appropriation of all spaces, while wiping out the previous cultures and people, imposing its law, its customs and its beliefs everywhere.

Heads of state, European ministers, the clergy, dhimmi Christians who had become its courtiers, offered it their help, more than happy to collect its gold, while sweeping away the debris of people and history before its feet, obstacles to its progress as they finally managed to rid it of Israel. And – so they believed – they would rid them of nothing but Israel, and thereby achieve a Holocaust that began in Europe so that at last a world, a humanity, would emerge, without Israel. The dream of Hitler and the Mufti would be realized.

The European governments, allies of the Palestinian anti-Israeli terrorists, whom they called a "just cause" - thus feeding them spiritually and funding them - believed that they were safe. But guess what? This Ummah policy against Israel, actively supported by its European and dhimmi courtiers, was unleashed against the people of Europe. Did terrorists attack Israelis during their festivities? Now it is the Europeans who have to celebrate their festivities protected by an army of soldiers. It is the Europeans' turn to see a replacement population being created in their own countries, with all the rights that are now being taken away from them. It is the Europeans' turn to be forced to renounce their national, historic, cultural and religious identity, to apologize and take the blame for existing as they are. It is the Europeans' turn to be forced to monitor their borders and guard their airports, their schools, their trains, their streets and their cities with soldiers. Ironically, the European governments that contemplated the destruction of Israel worked together with the enemies of Israel to destroy their own people, their own sovereignty, their own security and their own freedoms. The OIC pandered to their unconfessed hatred of Israel, blinding them with its gold and unwaveringly led the cowards and the fainthearted, under the whip of terrorism, towards dishonor and oblivion.

Resolution 2334 is the culmination of this policy, but it is not the last chapter of the story. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Libya no longer exist, Egypt is scarcely hanging on. In its cauldron, jihad is burning Muslims who once dreamed of carrying it out against Jews and Christians. Arab dhimmi clergy and intellectuals, who inspired the Euro-Arab alliance against Israel and the Palestinian falsification, are seeing their communities decimated by their own lies. In a ruined Europe, butchered by hostile "sectarians," the people are rising up to send the zealous servants of the OIC to the scrap heap of history. Worried about popular anger, ministers no longer dare to lie and are forced to recognize jihadism and blame the terrorism on it instead of on Israel.

The future may well include the reconciliation of populations based on the recognition of the legitimacy of Israel's return to its homeland. Because this recognition will bring with it the quashing of the jihad against Christians and all non-Muslims. The recognition of the legitimacy of Israel's return to its homeland is the essential condition of Islamic peace with the world because it will abolish the jihadist ideology. Peace with Israel guarantees Islam's peace with the world's diversity. Maybe this is the mission of Israel's return to its birthplace as it battles alone at the bloody crossroads of nations.
Bat Ye'or, author of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, and of Europe, Globalization and the Coming Universal Caliphate (winner of a price in London, 2012) received a prize in Israel (1986) for her study on Oriental Jewry, and a price for the Courage of Free Speech in Paris (2015) and in Bologna (2015) for her book Comprendere Eurabia (2015). Her forthcoming book, Understanding Eurabia, will be published by Gatestone Institute and RVP Publishers in 2017.
Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9725/security-council-resolution-israel

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Jew-Hate at Middle Tennessee State University - Ari Lieberman




by Ari Lieberman


Officials turn a blind eye toward blatant anti-Semitism.




On its website, Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) boasts its commitment to diversity, respect for individual differences and commitment to the principles of nonviolence and peaceful conflict resolution. These and other lofty values are incorporated in MTSUs “True Blue Pledge” that incoming students take at convocation. Unfortunately, MTSU has failed to abide by its own principles and has turned a blind eye toward hate speech and incitement to violence.

The Muslim Students Association maintains an active and pernicious presence at MTSU. Much has been written about the MSA and its nefarious origins and activities but briefly; the MSA is an Islamo-fascist organization with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, the MB has described the MSA as one of its organizations. The MSA has received financing from various extremist elements, subscribes to an extremist ideology that incorporates elements of Wahabism and has been described by law enforcement as an “incubator for radicalization” and a “virtual terror factory.”

The MSA has attempted to present a moderate face in its dealings with outsiders who are believed to possess clout or are otherwise deemed useful. Thus, the MSA has frequently paired with other radical, non-Muslim groups in an effort to piggy-back off the grievances of others even when those groups possess views that are not necessarily congruent with Islamic teachings. Homosexuality is banned in Islam and is punishable by death in many Muslim countries, including Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. Yet it is not uncommon to witness MSA members and their offshoots partnering with radical LGBTQ groups in bizarre symbiotic relationships to espouse shared hatred of Israel.

But for all their attempts to hide their malevolence and outright anti-Semitism, MSA members find it difficult to contain their racist ideology. Try as they might, anti-Semites cannot control themselves and social media outlets provide an excellent forum for them to spew their rancid hate.

Anti-Israel shills often claim that they have nothing against Jews, and their grievances rest with Israel exclusively. But a series of revealing Judeophobic tweets from former and current MTSU students who were also MSA members belies this claim and shamefully exposes the MSA for what it truly is – a malevolent collection of rabid racists who frequently invoke anti-Semitic memes and revel in talk of death to Jews.

Canary Mission, a watchdog group that has performed an admirable job in compiling, cross-referencing and cataloguing anti-Semitic hate speech on college campuses has profiled several current and former students at MTSU who were also affiliated with the MSA through membership and action.

On July 19, 2016 Shaden Hamdulla, a biochemistry major at MTSU and MSA member tweeted the following; “Y5rib bat el yahood,” which translates to “May Allah destroy the Jews.” In another gem authored by Hamdulla, she hopes for Hitler’s revival and the rounding up of Jews into concentration camps.

On July 14, 2014 Dana Swaies, an MTSU student, majoring in Industrial and Organizational Psychology and a prolific Twitter user tweeted the following; “Falasteen bladna wel yahood klabna!!! Allah yakhdak!”  [Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dog!!! May Allah annihilate you!]. Swaies also tweeted support for Hamas, a group listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department and tweeted conspiracy theories linking the 9-11 attacks to Jews. According to Canary Mission, Swaies was an organizer for the MSA.

Rounding off the trio of misfits is another MSA member and MTSU student named Dareen Ahmad whose Twitter feed was liberally sprinkled with anti-Semitic pejoratives that would have made Joseph Goebbels proud and included pleas to Allah to “annihilate” the Jews, references to Jews as “dogs” and appeals for Hitler’s revival.

Once exposed, Swaies and Hamdulla closed their Twitter accounts while Ahmad protected her account so that only those carefully vetted by her can view her tweets. The cowardly racists likely recognized that their social media postings could adversely impact future employment and therefore, hurriedly rushed to cover their tracks. Fortunately however, their posts have been archived and preserved for all to see.

The salient question however, is why did MTSU officials fail to address the issue and take disciplinary action against the offenders and what if any action was taken against MTSU’s MSA chapter? Presumably, publicly calling for the death of a group of people because of their ethnicity would violate some provision of the University’s code of conduct and trigger some disciplinary action.

I posed this question in an email to University president, Sidney McPhee who responded with the following;
At Middle Tennessee State University, we emphasize a set of shared values that include honesty and integrity; respect for diversity; engagement in the community; and commitment to reason, not violence. When we say “I am True Blue,” we reaffirm those values.
We are aware of recent statements circulating on the Internet regarding social media posts containing anti-Semitic language authored by a currently enrolled student and two former students. It is important to note that our university does not condone or support hateful speech, which we feel is inconsistent with our values. However, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, no matter how abhorrent, just as it guarantees the right of others to object to that speech. Federal privacy laws prohibit the University from disclosing information about specific student-related matters.
Also, the Internet statements conflated ties between MTSU’s Muslim Student Association and national organizations. The Muslim Student Association declared in its registration as a student organization that it is not affiliated with a national, state or other off-campus organization. On Wednesday, the organization’s faculty advisor reaffirmed that declaration, disavowed the posts and said the posts are individual acts that do not represent or speak for the organization.
McPhee’s banal explanations fall flat. The offending comments, which were publicly broadcast, were therefore both threatening and disruptive to the learning environment and thus actionable under the University’s student code of conduct. This would be true even if the students did not post while on campus or otherwise use campus resources to broadcast their hate (It is unclear whether MTSU ever conducted an investigation to determine whether University resources were used to disseminate hate speech). MTSU’s student code of conduct extends jurisdiction to off campus malfeasance, “when the conduct impairs, interferes with, or obstructs any Institutional activity or the mission, processes, and functions of the Institution.”

Moreover, there is ample precedent for the University to take disciplinary action against the offenders. Other colleges and universities when confronted with similar or lesser forms of hate speech have invoked disciplinary measures. At Belmont College, a student was expeditiously expelled for posting overtly racist comments on Twitter. At Texas State University, campus police instituted an official investigation following a racist tweet. At Quinnipiac University, a student who posted a racially offensive tweet was expelled following a school investigation. The latter case did not involve any overt threat to person or property.

In the foregoing examples, the victims of the racist comments were African American. MTSU’s victims were Jews. Aside from that, the fact patterns were the same. Yet Belmont, TSU and Quinnipiac all took action whereas MTSU apparently did nothing to remedy or address a very disquieting situation. The troubling question is, why?


Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor who has authored numerous articles and publications on matters concerning the Middle East and is considered an authority on geo-political and military developments affecting the region.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265365/jew-hate-middle-tennessee-state-university-ari-lieberman

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Scorched Israel - Deborah Weiss




by Deborah Weiss

Obama sets a diplomatic fire to the Jewish State as he departs the Oval Office.




Literally weeks prior to Obama’s departure from the Oval office, his Administration makes a series of moves that light a diplomatic fire to Israel on his way out the door.

Last week, UN Security Council Resolution 2334 passed, condemning all settlement activity on what the resolution referred to as "occupied territory" in Israel, asserting that such activity is a “flagrant violation of international law.”  The Obama Administration abstained from the vote, parting from a long historical precedent of the U.S. opposing anti-Israel resolutions.  America’s refusal to protect Israel through its veto power, paved the way for an anti-settlement resolution to pass for the first time in decades. 

This resolution has all kinds of ramifications including but not limited to the following: 1) the territory in Judea and Samaria can now be referred to as "occupied territory" rather than its proper legal status which is “territory of undetermined permanent status”;  2) it can potentially lead to Israel being called to the International Criminal Court and prosecuted for settlement building; 3) Israel can potentially now be sanctioned for its settlement activity; 4) it sets the stage for rampant boycotts against Israel by the UN and 5) makes it acceptable for EU countries to mark on their products where the products were made so people can boycott companies in the West bank. 6) Most importantly, this resolution takes off the negotiating table, the possible transfer of land for peace in potential discussions between the so-called "Palestinians" and the Israelis.  Instead, it pressures the Israelis to capitulate to Palestinian demands while getting nothing in return.  It leaves no incentive for the Palestinians to put a halt to their terrorist activity or for Hamas leadership to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.

In keeping with the spirit of former agreements, the UN should refrain from trying to create a state of Palestine absent face to face negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Though UNSCR 2334 focuses on condemnation of Israel, it is the Palestinians, and not the Israelis who refuse to engage in bilateral discussions and instead are trying to make an end run around face to face negotiations.

In recent days, UK officials claim credit (or blame, depending on one’s viewpoint), for negotiating the language of the resolution and influencing its passage, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer assert that they have indisputable evidence that it was the U.S. who worked behind the scenes directly with the Palestinians to orchestrate this diplomatic attack on Israel.  Either way, the U.S. cannot claim to be merely a disinterested observer, given its power on the UN Security Council, and in light of Secretary Kerry’s staunch criticism of Israel, delivered in his speech following passage of the resolution. 

I hope all the "pro-Israel" Democrats, especially if Jewish, are happy that they voted for Obama based on delusional claims by the New York Times and the MSM that Obama was “pro-Israel”.  The rest of us knew that Obama was not a friend of Israel’s from the onset.  He is in fact, the most anti-Israel president we've had since Jimmy Carter, with exactly the mindset that should be expected from someone who was schooled in Kenyan Madrassas and whose half-brother is a leadership member of the Islamic Da’wa organization in Sudan, a radical pro-Sharia organization in Africa. 

On the same day that UNSC Resolution 2334 passed, the UN got busy to work creating a blacklist of companies that do business with any Jews in Judea, Samaria as well as East Jerusalem.  And though the Obama Administration opposed the creation of this list, once the list was a fait de complete, the Obama Administration voted for the resolution that passed the proposed budget in the UN General Assembly which included funding to maintain a data base of the blacklisted companies.  There is also a small budget for a staffer to maintain the data base.

Subsequent to passage of UNSCR 2234, State Secretary Kerry made a speech condemning Israel and defending the U.S.’ official position.  But the damage isn’t done yet.  On January 15, 2017, there will be an international gathering of 70 countries, supposedly to discuss the way forward to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.  Though the conference is called the “Paris Peace Conference”, ironically, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will be present.  It’s unclear whether Kerry will be in attendance personally, but the U.S. will undoubtedly have official representation.

Three “working groups” within the conference will be addressing issues that are purportedly designed to enable the international community to take actions that will induce the relevant parties toward a peace plan down the road.  Each country can determine which group it wants to join.  The three working areas are: 1) civil society and institution building (which focuses on perceptions on the ground of both sides and the facilitation of dialogue) 2) capacity building (which Palestinians have suggested should constitute recommendations for “border crossing and infrastructure” and 3) economic aid which is going to be directed to Palestinians.

Statements by Netanyahu and other pro-Israel proponents express anxiety that the results of the conference will lead to more harm to Israel.  Subsequent to the conference, many fear that the Middle East Quartet which includes the U.S., Russia, the UN and the EU will draft another UN resolution for the US Security Council, which will lock in the proposals suggested at the Paris conference.  There is great concern that if this happens, the outcome will be detrimental to the State of Israel and difficult for the next Administration to undo.  Security Council resolutions, unlike General Assembly resolutions are legally binding and therefore potentially have more dire ramifications.

It can be no coincidence that all of this is occurring just days prior to the commencement of the incoming Trump Administration.  Obama himself waited until the last weeks of his presidency to reveal his true anti-Israel colors.  He needed to wait until after he was re-elected, his two terms were almost complete and the next presidential election was over so his faux pro-Israel stance was no longer necessary.  Expressing his true anti-Israel sentiments earlier simply wouldn’t have been expedient or politically feasible.  Though the Obama Administration claims that its position on UNSC Resolution 2334 was consistent with prior Democrat and Republican positions in the past, apparently Congress disagrees, and is working on a bi-partisan congressional resolution condemning the UNSC resolution’s passage.

Obama is wrecking the house on his way out of office. He no longer needs his pro-Israel political chips.  During the last days of his presidency, he is proving to do a lot of damage to Israel (and other foreign policy fronts) and there’s still time for him to do more.  In my view, he is sticking it to Israel for two reasons: first, the views expressed now are what he always believed and he no longer has to hide it.  His true colors are coming out.  Second, he is doing everything he can on foreign policy matters to make things as difficult as possible for Trump when he becomes President. 

Despite all this, it is worth noting that Trump --- you know, the guy the Left is calling Hitler, is the only one standing up for Israel, and indeed portends to be one of the most pro-Israel presidents that the US has ever seen.


Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to Frontpage Magazine.  She is also a contributing author to the book, “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network”, the main researcher and writer for “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation” and the author of “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech.”  Her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265373/scorched-israel-deborah-weiss

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Over a million Arabs plan to leave Israel - Chana Roberts




by Chana Robert

[Editor: Not many articles with content similar to this one have been published, and the sources for the data in this article are not mentioned, so a bit of skepticism is probably advisable. But here is another article, with solid data and sources, about encouraging demographic trends in Israel.

Arab emigration (from Judea and Samaria) would be the dream solution. No blood, no death, no threats, no compulsion, defeat or humiliation. The Arabs will go to a place where they can have a better life and the Jews will be left to live in peace in our land.]

More Arabs are leaving Judea and Samaria every year reported an Arab48 journalist, referring to Areas A and B, under Palestinian Authority control.

"A guy named Ahmad told me there were 44 kids in his high school class, all of them from Kfar Ramon. Only four of them still live there, the rest moved to the United States," the journalist said.

"There are no more celebrations, because there are no more young people. What will they celebrate, who will put people on their shoulders? In our village, there used to be 14,000 people, but 10,000 emigrated to the US, 2,000 emigrated to Jordan, and there are only 2,500 people left (sic)."

Most of those who emigrate are under 30, single, and jobless. 90% are Muslim Arabs, and the other 10% are Christian Arabs. And only 27% of Arab youth consider themselves to be politically active.

The vast majority of Arabs who leave Israel emigrate to either the United States or South America.

However, a large percentage visit Israel during the summers and vacations.

Both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas do not make ensuring their residents have adequate access to education, jobs, and medical centers a priority. Most of the international aid funneled to Gaza and the PA goes into financing rockets and terror tunnels, paying terrorists and their families salaries, and lining the pockets of corrupt PA politicians and terror leaders. 

As a result, there is large gap between rich and poor, with much of the Arab public in these areas impoverished and uneducated. According to the Arab48, even those who do complete college and find jobs often earn between 1500 NIS to 2500 NIS each month working in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas. Those working for Israelis enjoy a higher income by far, but Israeli firms in Judea and Samaria that employ Palestinian Arabs, such as Soda Stream and those in the Barkan Industrial Park, are subject to boycotts and other threats.

Israeli Arabs are highly educated, in contrast and can be found in every sphere of economic activity earning good wages, including doctors, pharmacists, nurses, construction workers, bus drivers, repairmen and other fields. For unskilled workers, the minimum wage in Israel is approximately 5000 NIS per month.


Chana Roberts

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/222894

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

How Iran Got Stuck in the Syria Quagmire - Heshmat Alavi




by Heshmat Alavi

Iran’s ultimate objective is to completely restructure the region’s entire fabric

Iran, known for its unbridled sectarian meddling in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon, is currently facing an unwanted quagmire and dead-end in the Levant. We cannot limit Iran’s role and its meddling across the Middle East to 2016 alone. There is an ongoing war in the region, resulting from Iran’s escalating interventions.

Iran’s ultimate objective is to completely restructure the region’s entire fabric, pursuing a truly destructive and very dangerous policy in this regard. The war in Syria is one of the pillars of this initiative, also continuing in Iraq and Lebanon.

Former Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, known for his close relations with Tehran, was the byproduct of Iran’s policies in that country. Iraq under Maliki back in 2010 was oppressing the Sunni community, leading to a major revolt by this vital sector of Mesopotamia. Iraq continues to suffer from such atrocities.

Iran sustained its warmongering and expansionist ambitions in lands far away, such as Yemen. This initiative is also facing major difficulties, with Oman -- known for its warm relations with Iran -- recently joining the Saudi-led coalition against the Iran-backed Shiite Houthis in Yemen.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei sought to deliver serious blows to Saudi Arabia, using the war in Yemen as the necessary medium. However, Yemen cannot and will not remain the Houthis’ hostage, and this country will not witness a repeat of the Hizb'allah scenario in Lebanon.

The Syria Swamp

Syria, despite the heavy Iranian influence, is now becoming a colossal challenge for Tehran. As U.S. President Barack Obama failed to live up to expectations, Russia and Turkey have taken the helm, sidelining Iran as a result.

While Syria comprises the backbone of Iran’s expansionist adventure in the region, one cannot truly claim Tehran has made significant advances. The Aleppo war made it clear Iran’s aim is to occupy Syria. There is no Assad army in Syria and Iran-backed Shiite militia groups are rampant across the country.

By falling to Russia’s knees to intervene in Syria, Iran accepted the harsh reality of Assad no longer governing what is left of the country.

Currently Iran is no longer considered Russia’s partner in Syria. Moscow has its own interests, not necessarily in line with those of Tehran.

The Free Syrian Army, a major wing of the Syrian opposition, suspended its participation in the Astana negotiations in response to continuous military attacks by Iran and Assad against the Wadi Barda region near Damascus.

This has prompted Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu to demand that Iran rein in the Shiite militias and Assad from violating the so-called ceasefire.

“Turkey is working with Russia on the question of sanctions for those who violate the ceasefire deal, which was brokered by Ankara and Moscow,” Reuters reported citing Cavusoglu.

This is a vivid show of how Iran has been sidelined in Syria. It is quite obvious that Iran has no intention of allowing a political solution evolve and reach tangible results in Syria. Iran thrives on lasting crises and this is the mullahs’ very policy to maintain Assad as their puppet in Damascus.

Tehran is furious over the fact that Russia and Turkey signed an agreement with a variety of armed Syrian opposition groups, inviting them to the Astana talks. To add insult to injury, Ankara has made demands “requiring all foreign forces to withdraw from Syria, before a diplomatic solution is reached or even discussed.”

Of course, Iran giving in to such demands is highly unlikely after feeling shelved in the wake of the recent Ankara/Moscow initiative. It has, is and always will be in Iran’s nature a continued desire and need to inflame the entire region in turmoil. This is a vital lifeline for Iran.

Following close to six years of disastrous warfare, nearly half a million innocent Syrians killed and more than 11 million displaced, it is high time to reach a final and lasting solution.

“The regime in Tehran is the source of crisis in the region and killings in Syria; it has played the greatest role in the expansion and continuation of ISIS. Peace and tranquility in the region can only be achieved by evicting this regime from the region,” said Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi, President of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the main NCRI member, has played a pivotal role in alerting the global community of Iran’s human rights violations, terrorism, and meddling across the region, and the mullahs’ clandestine nuclear weapons drive. These revelations have further plunged Iran into its current crises.

After decades of appeasement by the West have proven a dismal failure, Tehran must be approached by a determined and firm international community.

Heshmat Alavi

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/how_iran_got_stuck_in_the_syria_quagmire.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Islamists Find Willing Allies in U.S. Universities - Andrew Harrod




by Andrew Harrod

-The actions and pronouncements -- of American-educated Middle East studies scholars -- lend a veneer of legitimacy to Erdogan’s dictatorial policies, including mass purges and arrests of academics and teachers throughout Turkey.

Two graduate students and two undergraduates recalled personally experiencing the July 15, 2016 coup attempt against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government at a December 7, 2016, Georgetown University panel, before a youthful audience of about fifty. As crews from Turkey’s TRT Haber television network and Anadolu Agency (AA) filmed/recorded, the panelists praised the coup’s popular foiling as a democratic victory, irrespective of Erdogan’s dangerous Islamist policies.

Such willful blindness mirrors that of other American-educated Middle East studies scholars whose actions and pronouncements lend a veneer of legitimacy to Erdogan’s dictatorial policies, including mass purges and arrests of academics and teachers throughout Turkey. Erdogan’s personal spokesman is Ibrahim Kalin, a George Washington University Ph.D. who serves as a senior fellow at Georgetown’s Saudi-funded Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. He joined Juan Cole of Michigan, Cemil Aydin of UNC Chapel Hill (Harvard Ph.D.) at an October 2016 conference in Istanbul even as innocent educators languished in prison or faced academic ruin.

Islamism certainly colored the experiences of the panel’s two graduate students, Harvard University Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations doctoral student Rushain Abbasi and his wife Safia Latif, who were in Istanbul during the attempted coup. Abbasi is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)-affiliated Muslim Students Association and a former teacher at the Boston Islamic Seminary, an affiliate of another MB group, the Muslim American Society. His previous writing stereotypically attributed Islamist violence to the “histories of colonialism, imperialism, and economic exploitation that still plague the non-Western world,” maintaining, “[i]t is not the texts of Islam . . . that are in need of reform.”

Latif, a Boston University doctoral student in religious studies who earned an M.A. in Middle East studies from the University of Texas, was like-minded. She previously participated in a conference chaired by the notorious Islamist and UC-Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian at California’s Zaytuna College. Having witnessed Egyptians in 2013 overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood-led government of President Mohamed Morsi, she despaired of the same thing happening in Turkey. “To see another democratically elected government with an ostensible Islamist president fall was almost too much to bear. My first reaction was a religious one; I took to the prayer mat and I began praying for the Turkish people.”

Latif blasted the “shameful Western reactions to the coup,” such as media reports of its popular support and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump tweeting that Turks are “taking their country back!” She complained that after the coup, a “lot of the media focus was on political grievances against Erdogan, him consolidating [sic] power, [and] his authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorial nature,” all of which are, in fact, critical concerns under Erdogan’s Islamist rule. Instead, she blamed the West, claiming that it “doesn’t support democracy and freedom overseas, especially when Islamists are in power,” as “it seems to threaten the universality of the West and its political hegemony.”

Abbasi agreed: “If the coup was successful, we would be very happy” in America. In contrast to reporting on coup casualties, “all the headlines the next day I had seen were about freedom of speech and Erdogan. What are we talking about?” he asked, implying that free speech is trivial.

His comments about the American-based Turkish Muslim leader Fethullah Gülen, who is widely considered (albeit without any evidence) in Turkey and among the panelists as the coup instigator, were intriguing. Many of his friends became religious through the Gülen movement, but left after having “realized the cult nature of the group” and “the hidden motivation, essentially setting up a parallel state, which was displayed on that night” of the coup. The Gülen movement has a “nice veneer to it, but there is very kind of dark underside to a lot of it, in the same way that so many colonial regimes set up schools,” he said, referring to the movement’s worldwide private school network.

Unanimously expressing relief at the coup’s failure, the panelists showed a misplaced optimism in Turkey’s future under Erdogan, whose threats to democracy remained unmentioned. Latif gushed about seeing “Turks defeat the coup across the entire political and religious spectrum” without the slightest indication of dissent from or dissatisfaction with Erdogan. Likewise, after the coup Abbasi emailed to his friends worldwide that “we are essentially going out every night and partying with Turks” amid a “huge sense of camaraderie and brotherhood.” Social media reports demonstrated to him that “every single person was inspired that night in other Muslim countries,” although it’s unclear whether a supposed victory for liberty or for Erdogan’s Islamism was the inspiration.

The Georgetown panel, sponsored by the university’s Turkish student organization, marked another chapter in the hagiographic apologetics for Erdogan’s Islamism prevalent in American Middle East studies. Hypercritical of the West’s established democracies but indifferent about majority-Muslim countries like Turkey rapidly losing any remaining vestiges of democracy, the panelists exposed their pious confidence in Islamism. They were oblivious to why some informed observers, including Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes, rooted for the coup.

Abbasi described his visit to a mosque the morning following the rebellion. The “salawat, the prayers of the prophet, were being sent out from all the mosques, and it was a very inspiring feeling.” Yet any attempt to combine the panelists’ faith with freedom in countries like Turkey, Egypt, and Abbasi’s native Pakistan will require critical self-reflection, not disdain for the West and its freedoms.


Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a J.D. from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project. Follow him on Twitter at @AEHarrod. This essay was sponsored by Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/islamists_find_willing_allies_in_us_universities_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

UnCorked: Ireland's Pseudo-Academic Anti-Israel Hate-Fest - Denis MacEoin




by Denis MacEoin

This conference is an outright attack on everything academic work is about.

  • This will not be an academic conference in any real sense of the word. It is, from the outset, a hate-fest of international anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric and distortion. It is totally without balance.
  • Some of those 45 participants will be more vehement in their criticism of Israel, but none, so far as is known, is wholly without some degree of association with bias. How do we know this? First, because a significant majority of the participants have made no secret of their support for the boycott of Israeli academics.
  • For more than 3,000 years, the "original 'aboriginal' inhabitants" were the Jews" – along with Ethiopians, Nubians, Carthaginians, Phoeneicians, and eventually the Romans, Christians and eventually several Arab Muslim imperialists, culminating in the Ottoman Turks. The Jews were the people who inhabited Canaan; the Jews are why Judaea is named Judaea. An Arab "Palestine", bluntly, never existed. If the Jews do not belong in Israel, then the Europeans do not belong in New Zealand, Australia or North and South America.
  • Prominent at Southampton, and again planning to address the conference, were some of the leading academic activists working both in the universities and outside for the destruction of Israel, regardless of whether that means the expulsion or genocide of the country's Jewish population.
  • In "Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust," Richard Falk compared some Israeli policies with regard to the Palestinians to the Nazi record of collective punishment, warning (unbelievably) that Israel may be planning a Holocaust in the same way Nazi Germany did. It is arguable that he has done more than any other figure to inspire loathing for Israel worldwide.
  • This conference is an outright attack on everything academic work is about. Many are already protesting in the hope that UCC can be persuaded to recognize the threat to scholarship that such a conference poses for academic teachers and researchers everywhere.
The passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 on December 23 2016 has upset more than one apple cart.[1] By declaring that Israeli settlements have no legal validity and are a "Flagrant Violation of International Law", the resolution has handed the Palestinians a weapon as powerful as any they have used against the Jewish state in their many physical attacks upon it for more than a century. Lawfare has for many years now replaced warfare (although not terror) as the Palestinian method of choice for the long-term elimination of Israel; this new resolution, even if only advisory, is a major step along the way to declare, not just the settlements but the entirety of Israel itself as illegal.

Almost all countries in the world, along with the UN, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Arab League and the Socialist "Left" now consider the Zionist project to create a living space for Jews to be a colonialist conspiracy against the "aboriginal" inhabitants of a legendary state of "Palestine". They are conveniently "forgetting" – with a significant dose of anti-Semitism – that for more than 3,000 years, the "original 'aboriginal' inhabitants" were the Jews – along with Ethiopians, Nubians, Carthaginians, Phoenicians, and eventually the Romans, Christians and eventually several Arab Muslim imperialists, culminating in the Ottoman Turks. The Jews were the people who inhabited Canaan; the Jews are why Judaea is named Judaea.

An Arab "Palestine", bluntly, never existed. If the Jews do not belong in Israel, then the Europeans do not belong in New Zealand, Australia or North and South America.
It seems that US President Barack Obama, along with the UN, the OIC and much of Europe – especially France – would like to destroy Israel, and in its place create yet another mangled Syria out of whatever is left, fought over by a mixture of sects, terrorist organizations and political factions.

The truth is that the resolution is itself a violation of international law as it has existed since 1920, when a resolution of the League of Nations conferred on the Jewish people the right to establish a permanent homeland in the southern portion of the former Ottoman province of Syria, temporarily re-named "Palestine". Since then, numerous agreements and UN resolutions have confirmed that Israel has rights to territory in the West Bank and that far from all of its settlements are illegitimate at all – as this new resolution pretends.

There can be no doubt, however, that this malicious and legally questionable resolution takes lawfare to a new level and that it will form the basis of all future attempts to cancel out the very right of Israel to exist or for the Jewish people to hold on to their ancestral homeland – a direct and inflammatory contradiction of the right to self-determination for the world's peoples since the late eighteenth century and enshrined in international law within the Charter of the United Nations.

Israel's legality as a sovereign state is now threatened by a deep misapprehension and distortion of the law as much as it was challenged by the wars and intifadas waged against it since 1947/1948. This means that the peace process, through direct negotiations between the chief parties, will be consigned to the dustbin of history. Resolution 2334 has handed the Palestinians all they want without their having to lift a finger. Instead of balanced negotiations, they will now entrust their case to the international lawyers and academics at a biased United Nations.

A major impetus for this spawning debate within international legal circles, a debate that will be deeply informed by Resolution 2334, will be given early in 2017 over three days at a conference at University College Cork in the Republic of Ireland – a country already well known for the strength of its anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic sentiment.[2]


University College Cork, in Ireland. (Image source: Bjørn Christian Tørrissen/Wikimedia Commons)

This upcoming conference is not a tiny affair in a minor college in a little-known university.[3] Titled, "International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism", it is a thoroughly international gathering of, for the greatest part, academics who are also anti-Israel activists. Speakers will come from around the world: 18 from the United Kingdom, 8 from the United States, 8 from Israel and the West Bank, one each from Qatar, Lebanon, Austria, the Netherlands, Australia, Singapore, and Canada, and just two from Ireland itself.

This will not be an academic conference in any real sense of the word. It is, from the outset, a hate-fest of international anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric and distortion. It is totally without balance. Out of a list of 47 participants, only two (Professors Alan Johnson and Geoffrey Alderman from the UK) have a record of support for Israel and the Jewish people. That makes 45 to two. Some of those 45 will be more vehement than others in their criticism of Israel, but none, so far as is known, is wholly without some degree of association with bias. How do we know this? First, because a significant majority of the participants have made no secret of their support for the boycott of Israeli academics. A boycott that in itself strips from the conference any semblance of academic neutrality.

The three-day conference (March 31 to April 2) is, in fact, an attempt to bring back to life an earlier conference bearing the same name that was planned to take in Southampton University in the UK in April 2015. Despite protests from many academics and Jewish organizations, the Southampton conference would have gone ahead; but it was argued that Zionists might descend in large numbers and create havoc (even though no such physical protest had been planned). This led to concerns about security, leaving the conference organizers to foot a high bill for private security measures. The conference was then cancelled by the university on security grounds, and not on concerns about anti-Semitic prejudice or academic balance.

Here is the purpose of the conference as set out in 2015. Its one-sidedness is visible in every word:
This conference will be the first of its kind and constitutes a ground-breaking historical event on the road towards justice and enduring peace in historic Palestine. It is unique because it concerns the legitimacy in International Law of the Jewish state of Israel. Rather than focusing on Israeli actions in the 1967 Occupied Territories, the conference will focus on exploring themes of Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism; all of which are posed by Israel's very nature.
Speakers and panels:
The conference aims to explore the relatedness of the suffering and injustice in Palestine to the foundation and protection of a state of such nature and asks what role International Law should play in the situation.
It is clear that speakers intended to question the very right of Israel to exist, meaning that they would question the very right to self-determination of the Jewish people. As David Collier, author of the "Beyond the Great Divide" blog and one of Britain's outstanding researchers and commentators, put it: "the conference is likely to be a disgusting, pre-written, anti-Semitic diatribe". Collier himself put in an inordinate amount of work investigating the conference itself and its proposed speakers, work that revealed the true nature of the enterprise and the anti-Israel careers of most of those listed for the panels. Everyone involved in the response to the conference remains deeply grateful to his endeavours.

Prominent at Southampton, and again planning to address the conference, were some of the leading academic activists working both in the universities and outside for the destruction of Israel, regardless of whether that means the expulsion or genocide of the country's Jewish population. Most readers will recognize at least a few of the names, each one being notorious internationally for their role in harrying Israel and Israelis.

The first name on the program for the Cork conference is none other than Richard Falk of Princeton and the University of California. Here is David Collier's assessment: "[Falk] has compared Israel's policies to the Nazis' and wrote an article called 'Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust'. Actively supports the boycott, calling it a 'civic duty'."

In "Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust" (2007), Falk compared some Israeli policies with regard to the Palestinians to the Nazi record of collective punishment, warning (unbelievably) that Israel may be planning a Holocaust in the same way Nazi Germany did.
Collier provides a link to a very detailed and well-sourced article about Falk on Wikipedia. Here we may find information on Falk's repeated influence on the UN Human Rights Council (for whom he acted as a Special Rapporteur), accusing Israel of apartheid, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. It is arguable that he has done more than any other figure to inspire loathing for Israel worldwide.

After Falk on the Cork program comes Ilan Pappé, notorious for his writings on Palestinian refugees and the wrongdoings of Israel. Based in Britain's University of Exeter, he has taken serial advantage of the academic freedom he enjoys there to promulgate his one-sided accounts. According to Collier, Pappé "Hardly needs an introduction, also described as an activist. He is the author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006). Firmly believes Israel is racist, apartheid, an ethnically cleansing state and so on. Actively supports the boycott."
Another participant with extreme views is Dr. Anthony Löwstedt of Webster University, Vienna. Collier describes him thus:
Lowestedt claims that 98% of all gross human rights violations so far committed in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are sole responsibilities of the Israeli Jews, and talks of Israeli apartheid. In that piece Lowestedt claims that "the Israel lobby does not take it well that students are still to some extent being told and taught the truth about Israel and Palestine". He references "The Israeli state death squads" and claims that "In many cases, it is enough for a Palestinian to get killed if s/he even looks at a military installation or a soldier the wrong way". He claims "the supreme goal is to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from Palestine" although while in Israel he "did not get to discuss this matter in detail with Israelis". Riddled with inaccuracies such as "you must be a Jew to serve in the Israeli army and if you are not a Jew you cannot serve in the army", distortions and statistical headstands, these pieces show that Lowstedt's opinion is driven fiercely by his internal clock rather than through some academic process of research.
Professor George Bisharat of the Law University of California is on much the same level. Collier describes him as follows:
Bisharat is a Palestinian-American professor of law who clearly supports a one state solution. He believes Israel is committing war crimes and calls for a boycott of Israeli apartheid. Bisharat continually uses Nazi references, talks of massacres and master plans and frequently addresses complex historic events with simple sound bites, one sided propaganda, and outright distortions.
One of the key organizers of the event, Professor Oren Ben-Dror of Southampton University, is described by sources cited in Wikipedia as follows:
Ben-Dor is a former Israeli, born in Nahariya in northern Israel. He has supported academic boycotts of Israel universities, writing that those on the Israeli "left" who oppose it are "sophisticated accomplices to the smothering of debate." He has written about alleged apartheid in Israel, bias in Israel's education system, the ethical and legal challenges facing Palestine, and the use of violence by the Israeli state.
As a contributor to the newsletter CounterPunch, he has written against Israel's role in the 2006 Lebanon War and in the Gaza War of December 2008 to January 2009. Criticizing Israel's tactics against Hamas, Ben-Dor wrote that "assassinating individual members of Hamas, even toppling the organisation, destroying its infrastructure and buildings, will not destroy the legitimate opposition to the arrogant and self-righteous Zionist entity." In 2007 he joined a number of intellectuals and activists in signing a "One State Declaration" which calls for one democratic state in the whole of Israel and Palestine. He has supported that alternative in public debate. Ben-Dor has engaged in academic debate with Oren Yiftachel in the journal Holy Land Studies regarding the one-state solution.
A full list of participants from Southampton, most of whom will reappear in Cork, is provided by Collier here, along with comments on their political views and actions.
The conference that is planned for University College Cork can by no description be called an academic conference. Its gross imbalance, the presence of an overwhelming number of outright political activists, its association with organizations like the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the participation of so many academics who support the boycott of Israeli academics (itself a direct rejection of genuine academic values including academic freedom), and its creation of a highly-charged atmosphere into which many bona fide academics, the present writer included, would fear to enter – all these are clear indications of the event's total lack of credentials for academic standing. This conference is an outright attack on everything academic work is about. Many are already protesting in the hope that UCC can be persuaded to recognize the threat to scholarship that such a conference poses for academic teachers and researchers everywhere. Like its predecessor, the Southampton Conference of 2015, it deserves to be cancelled.
Dr. Denis MacEoin is an Irish academic specializing in Middle East and Islamic studies and pro-Israel advocacy, and is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Gatestone Institute. He lives in the North of England.

[1] For a thorough, learned, and precise refutation of the resolution, see UN Watch's long letter to US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power.
[2] By "anti-Semitic" I mean the setting of double and unfair standards for the State of Israel as defined in the U.S. State Department's Definition of Anti-Semitism and the similar Definition by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, recently adopted by the United Kingdom.
[3] The National University of Ireland (Ollscoil na hÉireann) has four constituent universities and three constituent colleges. UCC is the five-star constituent university.


Denis MacEoin is an Irish academic specializing in Middle East and Islamic studies and pro-Israel advocacy, and is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Gatestone Institute. He lives in the North of England.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9701/ireland-conference-israel

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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