Roy Moore: Allegations about 14-year-old girl ‘completely false and misleading’

Posted November 11, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Claims of sexual misconduct, Judge Roy Moore
Tags: ,

Roy Moore: Allegations about 14-year-old girl ‘completely false and misleading’, Washington Examiner, Al Weaver, November 10, 2017

He also said he suspected that the story was written to take down his campaign.

“Why would women say these things if they are not true?” he said. “I can’t fully answer that because as much as I have disagreed vehemently on political issues with many people over the years, I cannot understand the mentality of using such a dangerous lie to try to personally destroy someone.”

“This woman has waited over 40 years to bring the complaint four weeks out of an election. It’s obvious to the casual observer that something’s up,” he told Hannity.

*****************************

Judge Roy Moore defended himself Friday by saying accusations that he sexually assaulted a teenager more than 30 years ago are “politically motivated,” and that he never had any interaction with the woman who accused him of sexual misconduct when she was 14.

“These are allegations are completely false and misleading,” Moore told Sean Hannity on his radio show.

He went further by saying he agrees that anyone who abuses a 14-year-old girl should not run for the Senate, and said he is not guilty of any such activities.

“Nobody that abuses a 14-year-old at age 32 or age 17, it doesn’t matter,” he said. “If you abuse a 14-year-old, you shouldn’t be a Senate candidate, I agree with that. But I did not do that.”

Leigh Corfman is the 14-year-old who accused Moore of wrongdoing, but Moore said he didn’t know her at all.

“I don’t know Ms. Corfman from anybody,” he said. “I’ve never talked to her. Never had any contact with her. Allegations of sexual misconduct are completely false. I believe they are politically motivated. I believe they are brought only to stop a very successful campaign and that’s what they’re doing. I have never known this woman or anything.”

Moore did say he recognized two of the other women who have come forward: Debbie Wesson and Gloria Thacker. He said he dated “a lot of young ladies” after ending his stint in the military, and couldn’t rule out that he may have dated some women in their teens, even though he said he didn’t “generally” date women that young.

He also said he would not have given wine or alcohol to underage women because he lived in a “dry county,” and said he doesn’t remember dating any girl without the permission of her mother.

Moore repeated his denials in a written statement released Friday.

“I have never provided alcohol to minors, and I have never engaged in sexual misconduct,” he said. “As a father of a daughter and a grandfather of five granddaughters, I condemn the actions of any man who engages in sexual misconduct not just against minors but against any woman.”

He also said he suspected that the story was written to take down his campaign.

“Why would women say these things if they are not true?” he said. “I can’t fully answer that because as much as I have disagreed vehemently on political issues with many people over the years, I cannot understand the mentality of using such a dangerous lie to try to personally destroy someone.”

“This woman has waited over 40 years to bring the complaint four weeks out of an election. It’s obvious to the casual observer that something’s up,” he told Hannity.

Moore also asserted that his campaign has gathered some “evidence of some collusion,” but is not ready to releases it to the public yet. He didn’t say what that evidence might show. “This is a completely manufactured story meant to distract this campaign,” he continued.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that he initiated a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old when he was 32. Since then, several Republican senators have said Moore should drop out from the race if the report is true, such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and some have said he should drop out regardless of what happened.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, one of the five GOP senators to endorse him, asked for Moore to remove his image from a fundraising ad he was running. Along with him, other key supporters have also called for him to exit the race if the report is true, including Sen. Ted Cruz, R- Texas, and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.

Moore is running against Democrat Doug Jones to fill the remainder of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ seat. Moore defeated Sen. Luther Strange, R-Ala., in the primary runoff to take on Jones back in September.

Comments: Be the first to comment

Kristallnacht, and Our Modern-Day Approach to Antisemitism

Posted November 11, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Europe, Germany, Kristallnacht
Tags: , , , ,

Kristallnacht, and Our Modern-Day Approach to Antisemitism, Algemeiner, Vladimir Sloutsker, November 10, 2017

(Please see also, Family History by our own Anne in PT. She focuses on the Kristallnacht and later experiences of members of her family who were living in Germany. Here is a short video documentary on Kristallnacht:

— DM)

A store damaged during Kristallnacht. Photo: German Federal Archives via Wikimedia Commons.

Kristallnacht is another important reminder that the Holocaust did not begin with the death camps; that’s where it ended. Rather, it began with words, the singling out of one group of people and far too many in society looking the other way in the face of such hatred. Nobody is born to hate; they learn to hate.

Third, we must recognise that oppression is not a uniquely Jewish problem, and that what starts with the Jews, seldom ever ends with the Jews. When we consider the predicament of other minorities, racial or religious, hatred and bigotry is rarely far behind. The Jewish community should consider itself a partner in a wider struggle, and cooperate with other faith groups in the battle for their right to exist peacefully.

***************************

Seventy-nine years ago, Nazis across Germany and Austria razed synagogues, smashed windows and murdered almost 100 innocent Jews in a violent pogrom. Kristallnacht — or the “Night of Broken Glass” — is so named to describe the shattered glass that littered the streets the next morning. In the weeks that followed, approximately 30,000 Jews were transported to concentration camps — a sorrow foreshadowing of what would soon ensue.

On Kristallnacht’s 79th anniversary, I am compelled to address the rising tide of antisemitism sweeping Europe, reaching levels not seen since the end of the darkest chapter in Europe’s history.

In the first half of 2017, some 767 antisemitic attacks were recorded in the UK alone. This represents the highest figure since monitoring began in 1984 — and, staggeringly, was a 30 percent increase from 2016. In the meantime, violent assaults on Jews this year have risen 78 percent compared with the same period in 2016.

The above figures are broadly replicated in other major Jewish communities throughout Europe, including France and Germany. Even in the U.S., according to a recent survey by the ADL, there has been a significant spike in antisemitism across the country.

Kristallnacht is considered by many to represent the transition from the harassment of Jewish communities to outright violence against them.

Seventy-nine years later, many Jews across Europe are once again singled out because of their race — with Jewish property, institutions and even cemeteries, coming under assault.

Clearly, a new way to combat this tide of hatred is required.

Until now, the international community has focused attentions on ‘minimizing’ the problem. This is inherently problematic; it enables us to label a reduction in antisemitism as a ‘success.’ What is needed is the eradication of antisemitism completely. To achieve this, we must be more proactive, smarter and more creative.

As I have said before, I believe that there are five key areas of focus for which all global citizens, not just the Jewish community, should pursue.

First, we must adopt a universal definition of antisemitism in Europe. The Israeli Jewish Congress (IJC) — an organization I co-founded to support Jewish communities —  has advocated for this for some time. Defining the problem is the first step to eradicating it.

In this regard, I commend European countries, including the UK, Germany, Austria, Romania and Bulgaria, for adopting the all-encompassing International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This definition accepts that the delegitimization of Israel and attacks on Zionism can also manifest as antisemitism. If we cannot define what we are trying to defeat, how can we defeat it? Therefore, I would call on all IHRA Member States to adopt this definition of antisemitism.

The second necessity is that we promote the value of education in understanding the scale of the problem. This program should not solely focus on the history of antisemitism, bigotry and the Holocaust; we should also touch on the vital contribution of Jewish people and texts to the wider cultural and economic prosperity of Europe.

Kristallnacht is another important reminder that the Holocaust did not begin with the death camps; that’s where it ended. Rather, it began with words, the singling out of one group of people and far too many in society looking the other way in the face of such hatred. Nobody is born to hate; they learn to hate.

Third, we must recognise that oppression is not a uniquely Jewish problem, and that what starts with the Jews, seldom ever ends with the Jews. When we consider the predicament of other minorities, racial or religious, hatred and bigotry is rarely far behind. The Jewish community should consider itself a partner in a wider struggle, and cooperate with other faith groups in the battle for their right to exist peacefully.

Fourth, recognizing that antisemitism and online hatred represents a major challenge today, we need to develop communications strategies that are fit for the digital age. Whilst social media channels are used as platforms for inciting racial hatred against the Jewish community, these platforms can also be used to reach new audiences — and encourage them to be advocates. We must develop engaging and comprehensive strategies to use these tools effectively.

Fifth, we need to energize the global debate on the roles and responsibilities of large technology firms to prevent the sharing of hateful commentary. We can utilize the pre-existing legal frameworks across Europe, as well as supporting modernization efforts to ensure that legislation is fit for the digital age. But the internet knows no state borders, and so our work with technology firms must be conducted at the international level.

In a landmark address before the European Parliament last year, former UK chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, described antisemitism as a “mutating virus.” Containment is not enough. It is high time we find an antidote.

Kristallnacht was a murderous example of the capacity of humans to escalate from harassment to violence. Yet the EU was built on a foundation of tolerance and openness. For this reason, it is the responsibility of European governments — and European people — to reconcile this foundation of tolerance with an unequivocal commitment to eradicating harassment and violent antisemitic racism at its source.

Vladimir Sloutsker is the president and co-founder of the Israeli Jewish Congress (IJC).

Comments: Be the first to comment

U.S. General: Missile Targeting Saudi Capital Was Iranian

Posted November 10, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia, Houthi use of Iranian missiles, Iranian missiles, Yemen
Tags: , , ,

U.S. General: Missile Targeting Saudi Capital Was Iranian, Washington Free Beacon, , November 10, 2017

Supporters of the Shiite Huthi movement raise their weapons during a gathering in the capital Sanaa, Yemen / Getty Images

The top U.S. Air Force official in the Middle East said Friday that the ballistic missile fired by Yemeni rebels and intercepted by Saudi Arabian forces late last week originated from Iran and bore “Iranian markings.”

Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, who oversees the Air Force’s Central Command in Qatar, said an investigation of the Saudi capital-bound missile’s remains uncovered evidence proving “the role of [the] Iranian regime in manufacturing” the missile, according to CBS News.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry said it also found similar evidence regarding Iranian manufactured missiles after a July 22 launch from Yemen.

CBS News noted French President Emmanuel Macron similarly said the missile was “obviously” Iranian earlier this week.

Harrigian made his comments during a news conference in Dubai on Friday following the most recent strike near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, but declined to mention any specifics on what type of missile they believe it was.

Saudi Arabia reported it shot down the missile on Nov. 4 near Riyadh’s international airport, the deepest location to date for a rebel missile to reach.

The country has long has accused Iran of providing weapons to the Shiite rebels, known as Houthis, and their allies.  In turn, Tehran has long denied supplying the missiles.

Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute For Near East Policy who previously worked in Yemen, said in an analysis Thursday that “it is not a stretch” to believe Iran is supporting Houthi rebels.

It is “not a stretch to believe that Tehran is supporting the Houthi missile program with technical advice and specialized components,” Knights wrote. “After all, the Houthis have rapidly fielded three major new missile systems in less than two years while under wartime conditions and international blockade.”

Comments: Be the first to comment

Endless Accusations Cloud the Truth

Posted November 10, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Claims of sexual misconduct, Hypocrisy, Judge Roy Moore, Media and sexual claims, Republican establishment
Tags: , , , ,

Endless Accusations Cloud the Truth, PJ Media, Andrew Klavan, November 10, 2017

(Righteously demanding that Judge Moore step down, based on three decade old claims never previously ventilated, pursued or even now substantiated, seems to be an acceptable species of virtue signaling. I dissent. — DM)

Roy Moore

I can only see one rational moral response to this: If it’s true, he should step down; if it’s a political frame-up, he should fight it.

What bothers me about the story is I have absolutely no idea which is the case. No clue. Even before the allegations were made, I had been thinking about how easy it would be to set someone up in the current climate. Get a few women together. Say something happened too long ago to check. No one reads past the headline, and everyone’s done something at some point they shouldn’t have, so it’s a slam dunk smear.

In this particular case, too, everyone in establishment politics hates Moore. (I mean, he is kind of a loony-tune, but if that disqualified you to work in the capitol, the place would be empty.) So no one will come running to his defense.

Or… maybe he’s just guilty. I really don’t know.

**********************************

I have to write this quickly because any minute now, Senate candidate Roy Moore might quit or be cleared or might simply be blown out of the headlines by some fresh violent atrocity that the media will either attempt to exploit in an effort to destroy our second amendment or attempt to distort so we don’t notice that every killer involved happened to be named Mohammed. At my back, I always hear the news cycle’s winged chariot drawing near.

I’m in a hotel in New York, and this morning over my covfefe in the lounge, I looked up at a television and saw a Chyron announcing that someone I’d never heard of was finally going to “break her silence.” And I thought, “Oh, please don’t.” Silence has become a precious commodity and we need as much of it as we can get. Otherwise, it’s all noise and outrage and outrage at the noise and noise about the outrage. As far as I’m concerned, you should only break your silence in case of emergency.

But so far, my words have gone unheeded. And now controversial and kind-of-hilarious Senate candidate Roy Moore has been accused of sexual contact with a 14-year-old girl back in 1979 when he was 32. He’s said to have carried on with a couple of other young-but-legal girls as well. The contact with the child wasn’t forced but, of course, she was too young to consent to it and he was old enough to be responsible, so it’s bad.

I can only see one rational moral response to this: If it’s true, he should step down; if it’s a political frame-up, he should fight it.

What bothers me about the story is I have absolutely no idea which is the case. No clue. Even before the allegations were made, I had been thinking about how easy it would be to set someone up in the current climate. Get a few women together. Say something happened too long ago to check. No one reads past the headline, and everyone’s done something at some point they shouldn’t have, so it’s a slam dunk smear.

In this particular case, too, everyone in establishment politics hates Moore. (I mean, he is kind of a loony-tune, but if that disqualified you to work in the capitol, the place would be empty.) So no one will come running to his defense.

Or… maybe he’s just guilty. I really don’t know.

I blame feminists and the media for this cloud of confusion, mostly because I hate feminists and the media, but also because they do bear some of the blame. For instance, the New York Times, a former newspaper, now has a tip line where you can complain about something sexual someone famous did to you back in the day. How is that not going to lead to abuse? Liars will flock to it. And if someone calls up and complains about Barack Obama, and someone else calls up and complains about Rush Limbaugh — which one do you think the Times will follow up on? Me too.

And then hideous feminists (a redundancy, I know) with their snarling hatred of men and masculinity start shrieking about how it’s an outrage that any male should be considered innocent until proven guilty or that any one event should be judged less egregious than any other. With that kind of attitude, things can get very Salem-y very fast.

USA Today has a running list of Hollywood sexual offenders and I was reading through it and came upon the charges against Dustin Hoffman. The now 80-year-old Hoffman is accused of talking dirty to one woman and inviting another woman on a date some 30-odd years ago. And you know what? I don’t care. Not even a little. I think Harvey Weinstein, assuming he’s guilty, should go to prison for what he did and I think what Hoffman allegedly did shouldn’t even be mentioned in the papers. When they’re both on the same list, the whole list becomes a moral blur.

Human life is complicated. Sexuality is one of the most complicated parts of human life. Some people make errors, other people corner you in the basement and bang off in front of you, and still other people tell lies. If any voice can be raised against any man and illicit the same level of outrage, all voices will eventually blend into a silence of obscurity and indifference — and that’s a kind of silence that’s very difficult to break.

 

Comments: Be the first to comment

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in France: October 2017

Posted November 10, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: France, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation of France, Multiculturalism
Tags: , , ,

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in France: October 2017, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, November 10, 2017

Article 57 of the French Civil Code states that the name chosen by parents must be in “the best interests of the child.” If the public prosecutor thinks the name “Jihad” is contrary to the law, he can ask a judge to order the name to be changed. If the parents are unable or unwilling to choose a new name, the judge has the right to choose a name.

Of the 1,900 French jihadists fighting with the Islamic State, as many as one-fifth have received as much as €500,000 ($580,000) in social welfare payments from the French state, according to Le Figaro.

Henda Ayari, in an interview with Le Parisien, gave detailed public testimony accusing Tariq Ramadan of sexually assaulting her in Paris. She said that Ramadan believes that “either you wear a veil or you get raped.”

October 1. A 29-year-old illegal immigrant from Tunisia stabbed two women to death at the central train station in Marseille. Witnesses heard the assailant shout “Allahu Akbar” as he lunged at the women with a 20-centimetre (eight-inch) knife before threatening soldiers, who shot him dead. The man, identified as Ahmed Hanachi, was using seven different identities and had a long criminal history. He had been arrested in Lyon for shoplifting just days before the attack, but those charges were dropped due to a lack evidence. He was released, despite not having the documents needed to live in France. Why he was never deported remains unclear.

October 2. Five people were arrested in Paris after police found four makeshift bombs at a building in the 16th arrondissement, one of the city’s most exclusive neighborhoods. Police said there was no one living in the apartment block who might be considered a target for jihadists. Interior Minister Gérard Collomb surmised that the bomb was simply meant to create fear: “Blowing up a building in a posh neighborhood shows that no one is safe…that it could happen anywhere in France.” He added: “This shows that the level of the threat in France is extremely high…yes, even if the Islamic State has suffered military setbacks, we are still in a state of war.”

October 2. The trial began of Abdelkader Merah, the 35-year-old brother of Mohamed Merah. In March 2012, Mohamed in March 2012 had gone on a nine-day shooting spree in southern France, killing three soldiers and gunning down a teacher and three children at a Jewish school before being shot dead by police. Abdelkader stands accused of “knowingly” helping to facilitate the “preparation” of the attack, in particular by stealing the scooter used for the three separate shootings. He appeared alongside 34-year-old Fettah Malki, accused of giving Mohamed Merah a bulletproof jacket, an Uzi submachine gun and the ammunition he unloaded on his victims. Abdelkader Merah faces a possible life sentence while Malki could get 20 years in prison.

October 5. Six gas canisters attached to a “crude detonator device” were found under several trucks at a cement company in Paris. The trucks, parked in the French capital’s northeastern 19th arrondissement, belonged to Franco-Swiss cement company Lafarge-Holcim. Lafarge is being investigated over claims that it paid taxes to the Islamic State and other armed groups in Syria to keep a plant running in a war zone. The company admitted that it resorted to “unacceptable measures” to continue operations at a now-closed cement factory in northern Syria in 2013 and 2014, after most French groups had quit the war-torn country.

October 6. A French woman who travelled three times to Syria in support of her jihadist son was sentenced to 10 years in prison for being part of a terrorist conspiracy. Christine Rivière, 51, was sentenced for her “unfailing commitment” to jihad and for helping a number of young women travel to Syria to marry jihadists, including her son, Tyler Vilus. Rivière, a Muslim convert who was nicknamed “Mama Jihad,” said of her son: “I didn’t want to push him to die a martyr, but that could happen. Then he would be in heaven, near Allah.”

October 6. French prosecutors charged three men in connection with a makeshift explosive device made of gas canisters, placed inside an apartment block in western Paris. Amine A, his cousin Sami B, and Aymen B., were charged with “attempted murder in an organized group in connection with a terrorist enterprise” and placed in pre-trial detention. All three were arrested on October 2, two days after the device was found in the exclusive 16th arrondissement. Amine A., 30, and Aymen B., 29, are both on the terror watch list.

October 9. French police and intelligence services are surveilling around 15,000 jihadists living on French soil, according to Le Journal du Dimanche. Of these, some 4,000 are at “the top of the spectrum” and most likely to carry out an attack.

October 10. President Emmanuelle Macron announced a plan to open immigration offices in Niger and Chad to identify persons eligible for asylum on lists provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and bring them directly to France. The stated aim is to “better prevent an influx of economic migrants” who are not eligible for asylum. In all, France will take in 10,000 people, not only from Niger and Chad, but also from Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, by October 2019.

October 11. Interior Minister Gérard Collomb announced the dismissal of the central government’s top representative in the southern Rhône region, after a report criticized “errors of judgement” and “serious faults” in handling foreigners whose papers are not in order. The report was commissioned after 29-year-old Tunisian Ahmed Hanachi stabbed two women to death at the central train station in Marseille on October 1.

October 11. A 20-year-old woman was arrested in Rouen on suspicion that she may have played a role in a jihadist attack on a church in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray. On July 26, 2016, two jihadists had broken into the church and murdered Father Jacques Hamel while he was celebrating mass. While leaving the church, they were shot dead by the police. A few hours later, the Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack. Police say that shortly before the attack, the woman had been in contact with one of the jihadists.

October 12. A French intelligence agent accidentally sent a text message to the mobile phone of a jihadist, inadvertently warning him that he was under surveillance and being monitored, according to M6 television. The target, a “proselytizing Islamist” living in Paris, responded by directly calling the agent and informing him of his mistake.

October 12. The interior ministry announced that France will maintain border checks with its European neighbors until April 30, 2018, because of “persistent” terror threats. The 1985 Schengen Agreement ended passport checks and other protective measures on borders, but after the jihadist attacks in Paris in November 2015, France resumed them.

France recently announced that it will maintain border checks with its European neighbors until April 30, 2018, because of “persistent” terror threats. France resumed passport checks and other protective measures on borders after the November 2015 jihadist attacks in Paris. Pictured: French border and customs police control vehicles at the France-Italy border. (Photo by Murielle Gander Cransac/Getty Images)

October 15. A groundbreaking ceremony was held in Strasbourg to expand the Eyüp Sultan Mosque. The 32 million euro ($37 million) project will make the mosque one of the biggest in Europe. The 15-acre site will include a school, a library, conference rooms, restaurants and boutiques, as well as a prayer room for up to 3,000 worshippers. The mosque, which will be redesigned according to Ottoman architecture, will have 28 domes and 44-meter-high (145-foot) minarets. Local officials say the mosque will contribute to the religious, architectural and cultural diversity of Strasbourg.

October 16. President Emmanuel Macron pledged to deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes in France. He said that even without new legislation, “we can take tougher measures” and expel illegal immigrants if they commit a crime, “whatever it may be.” He added: “We are not taking all the steps that should be taken. Well, that’s going to change.” He was speaking after it emerged that a Tunisian who stabbed two women to death in Marseille had been arrested in Lyon two days earlier for shoplifting.

October 18. President Emmanuel Macron unveiled a plan to bolster France’s domestic security. A key promise was to hire 10,000 extra police and gendarmes during the next five years. He also proposed to create a new “daily security police” (police de la sécurité du quotidian, PSQ) which would be deployed in “priority neighborhoods from the point of view of insecurity.” The PSQ, community police charged with fighting crime at the local level, will be tested in about fifteen localities in early 2018. In addition, Macron announced a plan to combat radicalization and to reform of asylum procedures to bring them in line with those of Germany. Finally, he promised to speed up the deportations of illegal immigrants who commit crimes in France. “We don’t welcome people well; our procedures are too long; we don’t integrate people properly and neither do we send enough people back,” Macron said. “We should take our fair share, but we can’t just welcome in all the world’s poor people.”

October 20. Prosecutors in Toulouse launched an investigation after receiving a report that a couple in nearby Léguevin named their newborn son “Jihad.” Article 57 of the French Civil Code states that the name chosen by parents must be in “the best interests of the child.” A justice ministry memo on the topic states that local registrars must inform the public prosecutor if a name appears to be contrary to the law. If the public prosecutor thinks the name “Jihad” is contrary to the law, he can ask a judge to order the name to be changed. If the parents are unable or unwilling to choose a new name, the judge has the right to choose a name.

October 20. Henda Ayari, a former Salafist who is now a Muslim feminist activist, accused prominent Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan of sexually assaulting her in Paris. Ramadan, a grandson of the founder of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, denied her accusations. Some of his supporters criticized Ayari on social media, insinuating that if the assault did take place, it was her own fault because Islam forbids an unmarried woman to be alone with a man. Others claimed that Ramadan is a victim of “international Zionism” and that the charges were “fabricated by Jews.”

October 22. Eight people, including three minors, were charged with “criminal terrorist conspiracy” for plotting to attack left-wing politicians, migrants and mosques. An investigation found that the group, led by Logan Alexandre Nisin, a 21-year-old far-right activist based in Provence, planned to buy weapons, organize paramilitary training exercises and conduct shooting practice.

October 23. An official inquiry cast doubt on allegations that the French police had abused migrants in the northern port city of Calais. Human Rights Watch had accused police of a disproportionate use of force against migrants as well as aid workers when the notorious Calais migrant camp, known as the “jungle,” was dismantled in October 2016. The inquiry said that some abuse was “plausible” but that there was no proof it had occurred. It added that accusations that police had used pepper spray against migrants while they were sleeping were “without foundation.” The report found that many of the injuries sustained by migrants were due to brawls among migrants. “There is no evidence to prove the most serious allegations made,” Interior Minister Gérard Collomb said.

October 24. France issued an arrest warrant for Redouane Sebbar, a 25-year-old Moroccan man being held in Germany and suspected of helping plan an August 2015 attack on high-speed train traveling from Amsterdam to Paris.

October 26. Of the 1,900 French jihadists fighting with the Islamic State, as many as one-fifth have received as much as €500,000 ($580,000) in social welfare payments from the French state, according to Le Figaro.

October 30. Henda Ayari, in an interview with Le Parisien, gave detailed public testimony accusing Tariq Ramadan of sexually assaulting her in Paris. She said that Ramadan believes that “either you wear a veil or you get raped.” Ramadan denied the accusations as a “campaign of slander.” Since Ayari’s original allegation, two more women have filed sexual assault complaints against Ramadan.

October 30. President Emmanuel Macron formally signed a new counter-terrorism law that gives prefects, police and security forces wide-ranging powers — without the need to seek prior approval from a judge — to search homes, place people under house arrest and close places of worship. The measure also authorizes police to perform identity checks at French borders. The new law, adopted by the French Senate on October 18, makes permanent many of the previously exceptional measures imposed under a two-year-old state of emergency, which was introduced after the jihadist attacks in Paris in November 2015. That state of emergency was slated to expire on November 1. Macron said the new law strikes the right balance between security and respect for civil liberties. Hardliners countered that it does not go far enough, while human rights groups complained that it will leave France in a permanent state of emergency.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.

Comments: Be the first to comment

ISIS last stronghold in Syria Abu Kamal falls to Hizballah-Iraqi Shiite force

Posted November 10, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Abu Kamal, Hezbollah and Iran, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Iraqi Shiite Popular Mobilization Forces, Syria war
Tags: , , , ,

ISIS last stronghold in Syria Abu Kamal falls to Hizballah-Iraqi Shiite force, DEBKAfile, November 9, 2017

Since both Hizballah and the PMU were fighting under the same officers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, their victory presented Tehran with full control over the central segment of the Syrian-Iraqi border. One of its prime strategic objectives in Syria has been to open up an overland bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean via Iraq.

*****************************

The Syrian town of Abu Kamal was captured from ISIS Thursday, Nov. 8, by a non-Syrian army – a combined Hizballah-Iraqi Shiite militia force fighting under Iranian command, DEBKAfile’s military sources report.

The last push into the fallen ISIS bastion was conducted by Hizballah units, which first crossed the Syrian border and headed east into Iraq to fight jihadist targets in the Iraqi province of Anbar.

Crossing in the opposite direction, from east to west into Syria, were the Iraqi Shiite Popular Mobilization Forces (PMU). They joined Hizballah and together mopped up the last remnants of ISIS resistance in the Syrian-Iraqi border area (which bisects the Euphrates Valley).

Hizballah played the dominant role in this operation. A Syrian commander in the eastern sector praised Hizballah as “the foundation in the battle of Abu Kamal.” He also attested to the hundreds of elite troops of the Iran-backed Shiite group who took part in the battle.

While the commander hailed Syria’s victory over the Islamist terrorists, he refrained from spelling out the fact that the Lebanese Hizballah constitutes 80 percent of the fighting strength in the east. Our military sources report that this force consists of the Lebanese Shiite group’s Al-Amin Brigade and Radwan Elite Force.

Since both Hizballah and the PMU were fighting under the same officers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, their victory presented Tehran with full control over the central segment of the Syrian-Iraqi border. One of its prime strategic objectives in Syria has been to open up an overland bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean via Iraq.

Israeli leaders, who declare tirelessly that Iran and its proxies will not be permitted to deepen their military grip on Syria, made no effort to thwart this achievement and have yet to respond.

Our military sources note that the Abu Kamal victory has placed the Hizballah terrorist organization’s feet on the Syrian-Iraqi border in the east as well as the Syrian-Lebanese border running through the Qalamun range in the west. (see map.) Hizballah now acts as doorkeeper on two of Syria’s borders.

The attached map also depicts how Iran and its Hizballah and Iraqi militias now stand foursquare along the central segment of the Syrian-Iraqi border

Comments: Be the first to comment

UK Will Be ‘Colony’ of EU if It Wants Brexit Trade Deal, Taunts EU Official

Posted November 10, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: BREXIT, European Union
Tags: ,

UK Will Be ‘Colony’ of EU if It Wants Brexit Trade Deal, Taunts EU Official, Breitbart, Liam Deacon, November 9, 2017

The UK will be a “colony” of the European Union (EU) after Brexit day in 2019, as securing a trade deal is “impossible” in two years, EU officials have claimed.

EU officials taunted the UK, claiming Brits would be “forced” to abide by the bloc’s laws, without any say over those laws, as they battle for a trade deal on the EU’s terms.

Article 50 rules insisted the UK must negotiate the terms of its withdrawal, to be ratified by all 27 remaining members, within a strict two year period.

“We should not be pressured or rushed. They really should come up with the money,” one senior EU diplomat told euronews.

A European Parliament official dealing with Brexit added: “It is impossible to get any bespoke trade deal in two years or so. And for all that time, the UK would be an EU colony – forced to accept our laws with no say.”

Prime Minister Theresa May has already hinted the UK will pay the EU’s demanded 50 billion euro ‘divorce bill’ and give all migrants the right to stay, after the European Commission’s chief Brexit negotiator said he would not move “one iota” from his mandate.

Breitbart London @BreitbartLondon

Brexit Secretary Says Talks Will ‘Probably Favour’ EU
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/01/brexit-secretary-talks-probably-favour-eu/ …

The Tory Brexit secretary has bluntly said Britain’s Brexit withdrawal agreement will “probably favour” the European Union (EU).

Despite this, the launch of talks on a post-Brexit relationship and trade deal could be delayed until next year, some claim.

“They should not think they are sailing ahead into the next phase,” one EU official told reporters.

“While the transition and the future relationship were formally on the agenda, what ambassadors focused very much on was real concern that the UK does not realise that the EU27 are deadly serious on the need to meet the ‘sufficient progress’ mark on the three first-phase issues.”

“The focus was very much on the here and now and the fact that the UK is so far away from meeting the sufficient progress point and that we are rapidly running out of time,” they added.

Comments: Be the first to comment

When Clinton Donors Prosecute And Judge Trump Associates

Posted November 10, 2017 by Joseph Wouk
Categories: Uncategorized
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268367/when-clinton-donors-prosecute-and-judge-trump-daniel-greenfield

This is what a rigged system looks like.

November 9, 2017
Daniel Greenfield
142

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

In May, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed a lawsuit by the families of the victims of Benghazi against Hillary Clinton. Judge Jackson decided that the families couldn’t sue Hillary either for wrongful death or for defamation. That isn’t too surprising as Jackson is a former Clinton donor who had been appointed by Obama. And a Clinton donor should never have been ruling on a Clinton case.

But now Judge Jackson will be presiding over the Paul Manafort case.

Presiding over Manafort’s indictment is Judge Deborah A. Robinson. Judge Robinson’s most prominent previous case was the Berger trial. Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s former National Security Adviser, stole classified documents about the terror failures of the Clinton administration, hid documents under a construction trailer, lied about taking them and destroyed some of them.

People have gone to jail for doing a whole lot less with classified documents. But not Clinton associates.

Sandy Berger was sentenced to two years of probation, 100 hours of community service and a fine.

Judge Robinson had presided over the “Scooter” Libby indictment. Libby was sentenced to 30 months in jail. Robinson may have had little to do with that final outcome. And may have had limited control over the eagerness of some in the DOJ to give Sandy Berger a pass. If nothing else, Robinson did end up raising the fine that Berger had to pay. But Berger still got a slap on the wrist and Libby didn’t.

FBI Director Christopher Wray had announced the slap on the wrist for Berger in his former capacity as Assistant Attorney General.  And had declined to discuss the investigation while in progress. President Bush had wanted action, but the FBI had cheerfully dismissed the seriousness of the investigation.

And that’s just the way that it seems to go for Democrats and the way that it is for Republicans.

It’s not hard to see why. Take Judge Beryl Howell.

Howell is an Obama appointee and a former Leahy adviser. Beryl and her husband are both Dem donors. She’s also a pal of Obama’s former DOJ boss, Lorretta Lynch. And of Andrew Weissmann.

Weissmann, an Obama donor, is a key member of Mueller’s team.

And Judge Howell gave Mueller his grand jury and decided that Manafort wasn’t entitled to attorney-client privilege. It was an extraordinary and troubling decision. And its legitimacy can’t help but be questioned when it comes from a partisan Dem figure.

It was seemingly Weissman, Howell’s old friend, who decided to shred Manafort’s attorney-client privilege. And Weissman has been described as being very friendly with Loretta Lynch.

“Absent the good will of his friends Loretta Lynch and Bob Mueller, it is inconceivable that his DOJ or FBI career would be have been resuscitated,” a former prosecutor was quoted as saying.

Manafort may be guilty, but it’s not hard to see the problem with an opposition party, prosecuting, trying and convicting its political opponents while exonerating its own operatives.

The Mueller team already includes no shortage of Clinton and Obama donors. Jeannie Rhee is a Clinton donor who represented the Clinton Foundation. Aaron Zebley had represented Justin Cooper, a senior Clinton adviser, who helped run Hillary’s email server. James Quarles, Rush Atkinson and Elizabeth Prelogar are Hillary donors. Andrew Weissmann and Brandon Van Grack are Obama donors.

We now know that the Trump dossier that got the ball rolling originated with the Clinton campaign. The charges against Manafort have nothing to do with Trump, yet Trump is the reason for the entire affair. The investigation and the trial are the end products of an investigation touched off by the Clintons, that is being managed by Democrats and is being overseen by Clinton and Obama loyalists.

There is no possible way that such proceedings won’t be seen as fundamentally tainted.

The only way to have conducted a legitimate investigation in a partisan atmosphere would have been to minimize the role of partisan figures. Instead their presence has been maximized. And that’s the kind of behavior that people associate with rigged cases. As the latest DNC revelations show, the Clintons are no strangers to rigging the game in order to win. And their fingerprints are all over this.

It’s no secret that the endgame of this investigation is Trump’s impeachment. The Democrats have made it clear that impeachment will happen as soon as they get their majority. Whatever the investigation turns up will be used as grist for impeachment proceedings. That makes the investigation the third leg of the tripod that began with the Clinton campaign’s Russia dossier, that continued with Obama’s eavesdropping on Trump officials and that has now evolved into criminal proceedings.

The tripod’s legs may point in different directions, but they began in the same place. They’re all efforts by Clinton and Obama associates to rig the election and, when that failed, to overturn its results.

There’s a term for unelected officials deciding to remove elected officials from office. It’s a coup.

If the Dems really thought that their investigation was legitimate, they wouldn’t have needed to stack the deck with their people. Nor would they be utilizing crude and ruthless tactics that are completely out of proportion to the offenses in question. By rigging the game, they are guaranteeing that the majority of Republicans will not accept the outcome. But that doesn’t matter to them.

What matters is winning.

The Dems have decided that they want to win elections at any cost. They are willing to win them at the cost of eavesdropping on their political opponents and forcing them out of office with criminal investigations. And they are clever enough that these tactics may be technically legal.

The Obama version of Watergate was so cleverly executed that few, if any laws, were probably broken. Mueller’s investigation will produce results that will probably fall apart on appeal, but will deliver immediate material to his political allies who are trying to achieve regime change any way they can.

But the technical legality of these tactics doesn’t change their inherent destructiveness.

Your neighbor may find a technical legality for seizing your house, but that doesn’t mean you are likely to accept the fairness of his actions. Individuals have limited recourse against technically legal, but blatantly unfair abuses of power. The same isn’t true of half the country’s voters.

Democrats have spent so long being the government party that they have lost sight of the limitations of government power and the resentment that the possession of it stirs up outside Washington D.C.

Rather than understanding Trump’s victory as a backlash against establishment power, the political establishment is trying to squelch it with even more abuses of power. And it imagines that half the country will accept the outcome because the establishment is playing by its own rules.

That may prove to be its worst mistake yet.

Countries are run by consensus. People accept laws that are the product of the consensus. They will overlook abuses in the system as long as they feel that they have some sort of voice. Trump’s win was the backlash of people who felt that they no longer had a voice. Establishment figures depriving them of their voice through underhanded tactics will only prove them right. And lead to a far worse backlash

 

 

Comments: Be the first to comment

Is the GOP establishment behind the Roy Moore hit?

Posted November 10, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Allegations of sexual misconduct, Judge Roy Moore, Republican establishment
Tags: , ,

Is the GOP establishment behind the Roy Moore hit? American Thinker, Brian C. Joondeph, November 10, 2017

(Please see also, Even Roy Moore Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

If we are now going to demand that men lose their livelihood and reputations because they have their names placed on an “abuser list,” if we’re going to begin treating mere news reports, second-hand stories, and unsubstantiated allegations as fact, then we might has well admit that we are no longer a free and civilized nation. We are a nation ruled by a mob that wants instant verdicts in the court of public opinion, instant action, and instant punishment.

Please also see, Monumental McCain hypocrisy on Roy Moore:

Yesterday, Sen. McCain called on Judge Roy Moore to “immediately step aside” after unproven allegations of sexual impropriety were published in a liberal newspaper. No waffling about “If true…”.

That is a standard that Senator McCain did not apply to himself under similar circumstances. During his 2008 presidential bid, the New York Times published a story alleging sexual misconduct with a female lobbyist. McCain fought it.

Why not allow Roy Moore the same consideration, Senator?

— DM)

Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore is the latest famous guy to be accused of sexual assault.  The Washington Post reported that Moore initiated a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old girl, at a time when Moore was 32 years old.

Is this a hit piece to derail his candidacy, or is he truly a bad guy?  The story will play out over the next few days, making the answer clearer.  What’s suspicious is the timing.

With choreography on par with Olympic synchronized swimming or figure skating, members of the GOP establishment are dancing in unison.  Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers would be jealous.

Hours after the Washington Post piece went viral, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell joined the dance, calling for Moore to withdraw from the Alabama Senate race “if these allegations are true.”  No pause.  No circumspection.  No waiting until the facts are in before rushing to judgment.

It’s reminiscent of President Obama immediately concluding that the Cambridge police acted “stupidly” after the Henry Gates incident or jumping on the “hands up, don’t shoot” bandwagon before the facts were known.

McConnell’s dance partner, Senator John McCain, was quick to the microphone, not even considering whether the allegations against Roy Moore were true, saying, “The allegations against Roy Moore are deeply disturbing and disqualifying.  He should immediately step aside and allow the people of Alabama to elect a candidate they can be proud of.”

It is just like when senators also wanted Clarence Thomas to step aside based on disturbing allegations that could not be substantiated.

Senator McCain, judge, jury and executioner.  He and McConnell are moving faster on this than they ever have on a piece of legislation.  Too bad they couldn’t move even half as quickly on tax cuts or Obamacare repeal.

Other senators piled on, echoing McConnell’s view that Moore should step down if the allegations are true.  NeverTrump National Review’s David French jumped in as well, cautioning, “Conservatives, be careful.  Don’t dismiss the claims.”

Such coordination and synchrony.  It’s almost as if this was planned ahead of time, with all the key players given advanced notice so they would have their statements ready to go within hours of the story breaking.  It’s been faster than the condemnation of Harvey Weinstein.  Or Anthony Weiner.

What could be the motivation?  Moore was not the nominee of choice of the GOP establishment.  Instead, McConnell and the establishment favored his primary opponent, Senator Luther Strange.  Voters felt otherwise, sending the establishment candidate packing.

That’s what voters did to Representative Eric Cantor, too, a few years ago – and now, at least through polls, to Senators Jeff Flake and Bob Corker.  These are the same voters who elected Donald Trump over establishment darlings Jeb Bush and John Kasich.

What good is Senator McConnell as majority leader if he can’t keep his donors and lobbyists happy?  What if he allows the voters to gain the upper hand over the NeverTrump crowd, who claim to know better than the voters?

It’s bad enough that Trump was elected, and that he remains in office despite the going-nowhere Russian collusion hoax that was meant to cripple his presidency – a hoax John McCain interestingly played a part in facilitating.

McConnell clearly doesn’t want Roy Moore in the Senate.  Is it a stretch to believe that McConnell, or someone on his behalf, hired an opposition research firm to dig up dirt on Moore?  Just as the GOP establishment hired Fusion GPS to look for scandal on then-candidate Donald Trump?

So what if it throws the Alabama Senate seat election into chaos?  The GOP establishment would rather lose the seat to a Democrat than see it won by an anti-establishment candidate, even if of their own party.  It’s the same reason so many of them opposed Trump – and do to this day.

Some, like George H.W. Bush, actually, voted for Hillary Clinton instead.  With such hatred toward Trump and what he represents, and his supporters and voters, it makes perfect sense that the Republican establishment would eagerly destroy Roy Moore before he could ever get to the U.S. Senate.

If Moore is guilty as charged, then he should slink off and disappear.  But give the man his due, and don’t pronounce him guilty based on a Washington Post story.  After all, how many of their previous stories turned out to be false?  Plenty.

But the speed and choreography of the responses from McConnell, McCain, and other NeverTrumps within hours of the story’s release suggest that this was a planned and coordinated attack.  Too bad the Senate can’t approach legislation with the same alacrity and enthusiasm.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS, is a Denver-based physician and writer.

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump’s Jewish nominee for Civil Rights Office smeared by Arab groups

Posted November 10, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Antisemitism and the left, Antisemitism in academia, Antisemitism in America, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education, Jewish Voice for Peace, Kenneth Marcus, Muslim Students Association, Palestine Legal, Students for Justice in Palestine
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Trump’s Jewish nominee for Civil Rights Office smeared by Arab groups, Israel National News, Dr. Richard L. Cravatts, November 9, 2017

(Please see also, Trump’s Latest Education Nominee Steps into the Maelstrom. – DM)

No sooner had President Trump nominated Kenneth Marcus, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law, to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, then extremist anti-Israel groups began to mount an aggressive campaign to derail the appointment.

This is a remarkable affront to a civil rights lawyer who has spent his career fighting for the rights of women, the disabled, and members of many minority groups: African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians, as well as Sikhs, Arabs, and Muslim Americans. Marcus’s prior tenure at the federal Office for Civil Rights was widely lauded for effective leadership and support for the rights of all students. For this reason, most civil rights groups have thus far refrained from subjecting Marcus to the vituperation that other recent Trump nominees have faced. 

Some extremist anti-Israel groups have broken ranks, however, attacking the administration’s Jewish civil rights nominee with reckless and malicious falsehoods.

One of these groups, Palestine Legal, whose mission is to bolster the anti-Israel movement by challenging efforts to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism, immediately issued a letter smearing Mr. Marcus as an “Anti-Palestinian Crusader” and opposing his nomination in terms of the so-called Livingstone Formulation. Under that formulation, as identified by British sociologist David Hirsch, anti-Semites accuse Jews of fabricating anti-Semitism claims in order to silence decent people who are concerned about Israel’s supposed human rights violations.

In this way, Palestine Legal’s director, Dima Khalidi, levels the spurious charge that “Marcus is the architect of a strategy to abuse civil rights law to suppress campus criticism of Israel.” In other words, she contends that Marcus’ campaign to ameliorate campus anti-Semitism is not based on a virtuous desire to end bigotry but is a disingenuous attempt at “shielding Israel from scrutiny,” consistent with the “Livingstone Formulation.”

Part of that notion is “the counteraccusation that the raisers of the issue of anti-Semitism do so with dishonest intent, in order to de-legitimize criticism of Israel. The allegation is that the accuser chooses to ‘play the anti-Semitism card’ rather than to relate seriously to, or to refute, the criticisms of Israel.”

Of course, those who refuse to acknowledge that their speech or behavior may, in fact, be anti-Semitic normally resist such designations, but the allegation of Palestine Legal against Mr. Marcus is particularly odious because it seeks to impugn his integrity as someone fighting anti-Semitism, suggesting instead that his true motive, carefully hidden from view and masked as benign activism, is actually to serve the interests of Israel by trying to delegitimize and libel its campus critics.

Moreover, Palestine Legal claims, in order to shield Israel from scrutiny, to insulate its policies and state behavior from critique, Mr. Marcus, they say, pretends to be interested in anti-Semitism but is actually creating a smokescreen to shield Israel “at the expense of civil and constitutional rights.”

In addition to the Livingstone Formulation, these groups are also going after Marcus with the classic charge that Jews are attempting to use gain control of government power for nefarious purposes. “Marcus has no business enforcing civil rights laws when he has explicitly used such laws to chill the speech activities and violate the civil rights of Arab, Muslim, Jewish, and other students who advocate for Palestinian rights,” Khalidi charged.

It is not coincidental, of course, that a group dedicated to undermining efforts to fight anti-Semitism would have been aware of the efforts of Mr. Marcus and his colleagues as they attempted to identify the causes and corrosive impact of campus anti-Semitic speech and behavior.

For at least the last decade the primary source of anti-Zionist, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic activism on campuses has been anti-Israel individuals and groups, including the Muslim Student Association and the radical Students for Justice in Palestine, among others. So, even as Ms. Khalidi would have one believe that Mr. Marcus launched a campaign to silence pro-Palestinian activists merely as a tactical ploy to insulate Israel from critique and condemnation, the anti-Israel activism which she so ardently defends has regularly spawned instances in which agitation against Israel has included speech and behavior which has been considered, and in fact often was, anti-Semitic.

Of great concern to those who have observed the invidious byproduct of this radicalism is the frequent appearance of anti-Israel sentiment that often rises to the level of anti-Semitism, when virulent criticism of Israel bleeds into a darker, more sinister level of hatred—enough to make Jewish students, whether or not they support or care about Israel at all, uncomfortable, unsafe, or hated on their own campuses.

That is precisely the type of “hostile environment,” created by generating hostility toward Jewish students over their perceived or actual support of Israel, that may violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the legal tools Mr. Marcus has used and may well continue to use in his new role to help insure that universities take steps to ameliorate situations in which such prejudice-laced campus climates are allowed to develop.

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), another anti-Israel group that also, not insignificantly, supports the BDS movement, published an open letter denouncing the choice of Mr. Marcus for the OCR appointment, as well, repeating the spurious charge that the use of Title VI statutes, and such guidelines as the U.S. State Department Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, would have the perverse side effect of suppressing the free speech of “pro-Palestinian” activists.

And despite Palestine Legal’s fear that the conflation of “criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism    . . .  has really serious consequences for those who advocate for Palestinian human rights and are being condemned and censored and punished as a result of the enormous pressure being placed on universities by the likes of Marcus and dozens of other Israel advocacy groups,” the truth is that not human rights advocates behave in civil ways, and the fact that “pro-Palestinian” activists support a minority group does not justify their misbehavior and extremism, even for what they clearly believe to be a noble cause.

But pro-Palestinian advocacy on campus—the very activism Palestine Legal is so intent on preserving—has been shown to correlate directly to an uptick in anti-Semitic speech and behavior. For example, in two studies it conducted of anti-Semitism on U.S. campuses, the AMCHA Initiative, an organization that investigates and documents anti-Semitism at U.S. universities, found that “Schools with instances of student-produced anti-Zionist expression, including BDS promotion, are 7 times more likely to have incidents that targeted Jewish students for harm than schools with no evidence of students’ anti-Zionist expression and the more such anti-Zionist expression, the higher the likelihood of incidents involving anti-Jewish hostility.” This “anti-Zionist expression” and “BDS promotion are,” of course, the central aspects of Palestinian activism.

That is the issue here, and why it is necessary and important that, in the effort to promote the Palestinian cause, another group—Jewish students on American campuses—do not become victims themselves in a struggle for another group’s self-determination.

Richard L. Cravatts, PhD, President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, and the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews, is also a member of the board of directors of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law and the AMCHA Initiative.

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »