#honestly we should all criticize the israeli government (as so many israelis do)

[glassrunner]

.

[coveredinbees]

I've been seeing some people on Twitter calling Matt Bomer a zionist, and I have thoughts. I've included a cut here, so people don't have to read my mad political rantings if they don't want to. I know people are going to get mad at me, but, well... I can't help that.

Before I start, let me just get a few points straight:

Above all else, I support Palestine. They have been subject to gross apartheid for many fucking years, and what is happening right now is not a conflict between one state and another - it is the starvation and genocide of civilian people. The state of Israel must be condemned for their actions.

I also acknowledge that we need to be careful about the language we use when discussing Israel and Palestine. Because there are antisemetic people out there who will try and piggy back on pro-Palestinian arguments, ('fellow travelers', if you will); and honestly, fuck racists. It is possible, (even necessary), to openly condemn the actions of a government, without allowing racist narratives to bleed into the conversation. But we need to check ourselves.

Yes, I agree, Hamas are a terrorist organisation and they are fucking awful.

The big question is, "Is Matt Bomer a zionist? " And the unfortunate answer is, I don't know. If it turns out he is, then y'all stand aside, and I will yeet him off the cliff myself, but so far, all I've seen him accused of is posting the Israeli flag in his Instagram stories, (undated), and I suspect he might be one of the many celebrities out there who posted their support for one side, without doing any surface-level digging beyond what he saw in the media. Maybe he isn't a zionist, you guys. It's entirely possible - nay, likely - that he is just a dumb bitch, like the rest of us.

But we do live in a cancel culture society, and we do not tend to give a lot of leeway for people to be ill-informed or make mistakes on social media. Don't get me wrong - some people should be cancelled. But what I want to encourage here is critical thinking. Don't just cancel people because of a random tweet you saw. Ask yourself, "Is this person bad, or are they misinformed?" I mean, maybe it will turn out he does support the State of Israel in their actions, in which case - fuck him. But then, maybe it will turn out that he's human and he made a mistake. The dude did just win an award for his human rights work, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, until someone can give me categorical proof that Matt Bomer supports genocide.

Weigh things objectively. Decide for yourself. I am not here to tell you what to think. But personally, I want more information before I start boycotting him, or harassing him on social media, as I see some people are already doing.

If you feel that passionately about Palestine, good. You should be passionate, what is happening is horrendous. But turning that passion into vitriol for dumb celebrities is not very practical. Donate to Amnesty International, join one of the many 'Pro-Palestine' marches happening globally, or write to your MP. It all seems so small, but every little thing we do helps.

And thank you for reading. I'm always up for discourse, if anyone wants to have a conversation about this.

[alexbkrieger13]

i honestly don’t have the energy to comment on this at the length that i could, but i feel a lot of the israel discussion here lacks nuance. football is my safe space and it has started to feel a lot less so with all of these (partly very uneducated, and i mean some anons by that) discussions around.

of course there are terrible people celebrating death and being antisemitic, and those people should be held accountable. there are however also countless people who care for the human lives of civilians on both sides who are the victims to all of this.

the palestinians never elected hamas, and they too are suffering from their terrible actions. relations in the middle east had started to calm down and stabilise, and it is hamas’ intention to cause war and instability in the region. we should not give them further leverage to do so.

similarly, it is not “unequivocally support the state of israel or you are an antisemite.” it is never that black and white. there are many jews who don’t support the politics of the israeli government, jews are not a monolith. in fact it is antisemitic to equate judaism as a whole to the israeli state. not every criticism of the israeli state is antisemitic, and it is clear that the government has mistreated palestinians for decades.

i have also spent a lot of time in my degree studying these subjects, and this is much more than just a religious conflict. it lacks extreme nuance to equate all those who feel empathy for the palestinians suffering to antisemites. this is not the place for more extensive political analysis, but i invite you to spend some time reading expert opinions.

you can condemn the actions of hamas, grieve for the israelis who are suffering and still grieve for those who are without food and water, have nowhere to flee and are bearing the cost of this terrible conflict. empathy is not that difficult.

yea it's a very complicated situation but at the end of the day be having empathy for those who are suffering should not be hard

[sylvielauffeydottir]

Hello, it is I, your friendly neighborhood historian. I am ready to lose followers for this post, but I have two masters degrees in history and one of my focuses has been middle eastern area studies. Furthermore, I’ve been tired of watching the world be reduced to pithy little infographics, and I believe there is no point to my education if I don’t put it to good use. Finally, I am ethnically Asheknazi Jewish. This does not color my opinion in this post — I am in support of either a one or two state solution for Israel and Palestine, depending on the factors determined by the Palestinian Authority, and the Israeli Government does not speak for me. I hate Netanyahu. A lot. With that said, my family was slaughtered at Auschwitz-Birkenau. I have stood in front of that memorial wall at the Holocaust memorial in DC for my great uncle Simon and my great uncle Louis and cried as I lit a candle. Louis was a rabbi, and he preached mitzvot and tolerance. He died anyway. 

There’s a great many things I want to say about what is happening in the Middle East right now, but let’s start with some facts. 

In early May, there were talks of a coalition government that might have put together (among other parties, the Knesset is absolutely gigantic and usually has about 11-13 political parties at once) the Yesh Atid, a center-left party, and the United Arab List, a Palestinian party. For the first time, Palestinians would have been members of the Israeli government in their own right. And what happened, all of the sudden? A war broke out. A war that, amazingly, seemed to shield Benjamin Netanyahu from criminal prosecution, despite the fact that he has been under investigation for corruption for some time now and the only thing that is stopping a real investigation is the fact that he is Prime Minister.

Funny how that happened. 

There’s a second thing people ought to know, and it is about Hamas. I’ve found it really disturbing to see people defending Hamas on a world stage because, whether or not people want to believe it, Hamas is a terrorist organization. I’m sorry, but it is. Those are the facts. I’m not being a right wing extremist or even a Republican or whatever else or want to lob at me here. I’m a liberal historian with some facts. They are a terrorist organization, and they don’t care if their people die. 

Here’s what you need to know: 

There are two governments for the occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza. In April 2021, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas postponed planned elections. He said it was because of a dispute amid Israeli-annexed East Jerusalum. He is 85 years old, and his Fatah Party is losing power to Hamas. Everyone knows that. Palestinians know that. 

Here’s the thing about Hamas: they might be terrorists, but aren’t idiots. They understand that they have a frustrated population filled with people who have been brutalized by their neighbors. And they also understand that Israel has something called the iron dome defense system, which means that if you throw a rocket at it, it probably won’t kill anyone (though there have been people in Israel who died, including Holocaust survivors). Israel will, however, retaliate, and when they do, they will kill Palestinian civilians. On a world stage, this looks horrible. The death toll, because Palestinians don’t have the same defense system, is always skewed. Should the Israeli government do that? No. It’s morally repugnant. It’s wrong. It’s unfair. It’s hurting people without the capability to defend themselves. But is Hamas counting on them to for the propaganda? Yeah. Absolutely. They’re literally willing to kill their other people for it.

You know why this works for Hamas? They know that Israel will respond anyway, despite the moral concerns. And if you’re curious why, you can read some books on the matter (Six Days of War by Michael Oren; The Yom Kippur War by Abraham Rabinovich; Rise and Kill First by Ronen Bergmen; Antisemitism by Deborah Lipstadt; and Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn by Daniel Gordis). The TL;DR, if you aren’t interested in homework, is that Israel believes they have no choice but to defend themselves against what they consider ‘hostile powers.’ And it’s almost entirely to do with the Holocaust. It’s a little David v Goliath. It is, dare I say, complicated.

I’m barely scratching the surface here. 

(We won’t get into this in this post, though if you want to DM me for details, it might be worth knowing that Iran funds Hamas and basically supplies them with all of their weapons, and part of the reason the United States has been so reluctant to engage with this conflict is that Iran is currently in Vienna trying to restore its nuclear deal with western powers. The USA cannot afford to piss off Iran right now, and therefore cannot afford to aggravative Hamas and also needs to rely on Israel to destroy Irani nuclear facilities if the deal goes south. So, you know, there is that).

There are some people who will tell you that criticism of the Israel government is antisemitic. They are almost entirely members of the right wing, evangelical community, and they don’t speak for the Jewish community. The majority of Jewish people and Jewish Americans in particular are criticizing the Israeli government right now. The majority of Jewish people in the diaspora and in Israel support Palestinian rights and are speaking out about it. And actually, when they talk about it, they are putting themselves in great danger to do so. Because it really isn’t safe to be visibly Jewish right now. People may not want to listen to Jews when they speak about antisemitism or may want to believe that antisemitism ‘isn’t real’ because ‘the Holocaust is over’ but that is absolutely untrue. In 2019, antisemitic hate crimes in the United States reached a high we have never seen before. I remember that, because I was living in London, and I was super scared for my family at the time. Since then, that number has increased by nearly 400% in the last ten days. If you don’t believe me, have some articles about it (one, two, three, four, and five, to name a few). 

I live in New York City, where a man was beaten in Time Square while attending a Free Palestine rally and wearing a kippah. I’m sorry, but being visibly Jewish near a pro-Palestine rally? That was enough to have a bunch of people just start beating on him? I made a previous post detailing how there are Jews being attacked all over the world, and there is a very good timeline of recent hate crimes against Jews that you can find right here. These are Jews, by the way, who have nothing to do with Israel or Palestine. They are Americans or Europeans or Canadians who are living their lives. In some cases, they are at pro-Palestine rallies and they are trying to help, but they just look visibly Jewish.  God Forbid we are the wrong ethnicity for your rally, even if we agree.

This is really serious. There are people calling for the death of all Jews. There are people calling for another Holocaust. 

There are 14 million Jews in the world. 14 million. Of 7.6 billion. And you think it isn’t a problem the way people treat us?

Anyway (aside from, you know, compassion), why does this matter? This matters because stuff like this deters Jews who want to be part of the pro-Palestine movement because they are literally scared for their safety. I said this before, and I will say it again: Zionism was, historically speaking, a very unpopular opinion. It was only widespread antisemitic violence (you know, the Holocaust) that made Jews believe there was a necessity for a Jewish state. Honestly, it wasn’t until the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting that I supported it the abstract idea too.

I grew up in New York City, I am a liberal Jew, and I believe in the rights of marginalized and oppressed people to self-determine worldwide. Growing up, I also fit the profile of what many scholars describe as the self hating Jew, because I believed that, in order to justify myself in American liberal society, I had to hate Israel, and I had to be anti-Zionist by default, even if I didn’t always understand what ‘Zionism’ meant in abstract. Well, I am 27 years old now with two masters degrees in history, and here is what Zionism means to me: I hate the Israeli government. They do not speak for me. But I am not anti-Zionist. I believe in the necessity for a Jewish state — a state where all Jews are welcome, regardless of their background, regardless of their nationality. 

There needs to be a place where Jews, an ethnic minority who are unwelcome in nearly every state in the world, have a place where they are free from persecution — a place where they feel protected. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that place being the place where Jews are ethnically indigenous to. Because believe it or not, whether it is inconvenient, Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel. I’ve addressed this in this post.

With that said, that doesn’t mean you can kick the Palestinian people out. They are also indigenous to that land, which is addressed in the same post, if you don’t trust me. 

What is incredible to me is that Zionism is defined, by the Oxford English Dixtionary, as “A movement [that called originally for] the reestablishment of a Jewish nationhood in Palestine, and [since 1948] the development of the State of Israel.” Whether we agree with this or not, there were early disagreements about the location of a ‘Jewish state,’ and some, like Maurice de Hirsch, believed it ought to be located in South America, for example. Others believed it should be located in Africa. The point is that the original plans for the Jewish state were about safety. The plan changed because Jews wanted to return to their homeland, the largest project of decolonization and indigenous reclamation ever to be undertaken by an indigenous group. Whether you want to hear that or not, it is true. Read a book or two. Then you might know what I mean.

When people say this is a complicated issue, they aren’t being facetious. They aren’t trying to obfuscate the point. They often aren’t even trying to defend the Israeli government, because I certainly am not — I think they are abhorrent. But there is no future in the Middle East if the Israelis and Palestinians don’t form a state that has an equal right of return and recognizes both of their indigenousness, and that will never happen if people can’t stop throwing vitriolic rhetoric around.  Is the Israeli Government bad? Yes. Are Israeli citizens bad? Largely, no. They want to defend their families, and they want to defend their people. This is basically the same as the fact that Palestinian people aren’t bad, though Hamas often is. And for the love of god, stop defending terrorist organizations. Just stop. They kill their own people for their own power and for their own benefit. 

And yes, one more time, the Israeli government is so, so, so wrong. But god, think about your words, and think about how you are enabling Nazis. The rhetoric the left is using is hurting Jews. I am afraid to leave my house. I’m afraid to identify as Jewish on tumblr. I’m afraid for my family, afraid for my friends. People I know are afraid for me. 

It’s 2021. I am not my great uncle. I cried for him, but I shouldn’t have to die like him. 

Words have consequences. Language has consequences. And genuinely, I do not think everyone is a bad person, so think about what you are putting into the world, because you’d be surprised how often you are doing a Nazi a favor or two. 

Is that really what you want? To do a Nazi a favor or two? I don’t think that you do. I hope you don’t, at least.

That’s all. You know, five thousand words later. But uh, think a little. Please. 

[palestinianliberator]

Can I be against the Israeli govt and the military without being against Israelis ? For example I can be against what was done to native Americans but it doesn’t make me hate all Americans, I can be against systemic racism in America and still be American , I can be critical of our foreign policy but I’m not anti American. Many of us don’t approve of what our politicians decide , so I don’t think their power should turn us against the Israeli people. I really hope for peace for both peoples but I don’t think that will happen if we constantly keep through hate around. Also I majored in conflict resolution so I’m not totally clueless

Who do you think serves in the Israeli government and military? Who do you think it is that upholds the occupation and status quo?

Israel has mandatory military service. Every citizen in one way or another has or will serve in the IDF, unless they refuse. The number of those who refuse to serve in the IDF can be counted in the hundreds and SOMETIMES lower thousands each year. That is an abhorrently low percentage.

It was also Israel that has voted for lunatic Netanyahu to rule the state for 20% of its existence.

Prior to Netanyahu, it was also Israelis who voted for Ariel Sharon DESPITE the fact that during his election, he was found guilty BY AN ISRAELI COURT of bearing responsibility for the massacres at Sabra and Shatila that saw thousands of Palestinian civilians slaughtered, with women in the streets bleeding out after having the fetuses ripped out of them. They knew what this man was responsible for, and he still won the elections to lead Israel.

Sure, you majored in conflict resolution. I've lived this my entire life, from enduring the barbarity of it all to studying every aspect from the day I first could.

This is not an "Israeli government" problem. You wouldn't go to goddamn apartheid South Africa [who Israel armed and supported by the way] and tell an indigenous person "Hey, we know this apartheid government is absolutely barbaric, but we should be blaming the white settlers and hating on them!!"

You wouldn't go to goddamn Algeria and tell the Algerian people "Hey! I know the French are slaughtering your people, stealing your land and resources, and forcing you to live as animals in your own homes! But don't hate the French people! Hate the government responsible for this!!!"

It's complete bullshit. It's detached from reality. It's a mindset that comes from believing that a settler-colonial entity and those who populate it are somehow just in any capacity.

Like lol, how could you possibly be against the "Israeli government and military" when they all serve and or are reservists in some capacity? What, do you suddenly stop hating the IDF soldier whose term is up? Do you work alongside an Israeli for peace until they're called to serve (because it's mandatory and they don't wanna go to jail ://// so they're rather subjugate and terrorize your people) and then only speak to them again when they've finished?

Like I'm genuinely trying not to be mean but honestly, you are totally clueless here.

[allegxdly]

you know as a born-muslim, i still have memories vividly of the 2008 palestine massacre. i was four and there were videos of kids my age then crying and being shot, fucking hell i am glad my dad didn't say i was young and didn't show me those, i still remember the video of a girl holding a doll and there was an awareness song going around in the middle east...

as a four year old, it terrified me that people were doing that and that i was muslim, i could be in a masjid and someone could just decide that they want this land and drop a bomb, hdkajdks trauma, it fucking horrifies me that people can still fucking say israel has the right to defend themselves when the palestinians are literally just underaged and unarmed majority of the time

i don't really know what to say, honestly. that's just terrifying, and it's terrifying yet important to think what's happening today and how that's a product of of what happened so many years ago and just what's BEEN happening for so many years... i'm so fucking terrified for the palestinians in gaza and to think that almost half are literally my fucking age scares the shit out of me.

i'm so sorry that you have to feel this way and have this trauma from how that could happen to you too. personally, i don't remember what happened in 2008 (bc i literally live in the u.s. so "hush hush israel has the right to defend shit" and i just wasn't old enough to remember) but that is just horrifying.

i'm so fucking angry at the israeli government like WHY can't they just coexist WHY does there have to be so much hatred??? like i understand hating the other side for what they did/are doing but why why WHY is that happening in the first fucking place??

and, yes, palestinians have my full support like one hundred percent but it's also so fucking important to realise you can't hate all israelis because they, like palestinians, are literally just citizens who live under these governments, like they're civilians too. like it's so upsetting to see this and then it's so upsetting to see people being anti-semitic just because the Israeli GOVERNMENT is doing this shit... like there really needs to be more people who realise that the government is separate from the people... like good fucking grIEf we CAN and SHOULD support palestine and support jewish people as a whole ALL WHILE being critical of/hating the Israeli government and it just makes me angry when people don't see that.

[rant about the u.s. gov under the cut]

i'm so fucking disappointed and upset with the u.s. government because the trend of defending israel just never stops. like, though biden is definitely so much better than trump, it really is just the lesser of two evils. and like this has been happening with the president administration ever since the "conflict" started. i'm so fucking disgusted that the biden administration can SAY that israel has the right to defend itself because they thINK hamas launched rockets first. like, good grief you HAVE TO look at the current situation just what the fuck??? like honestly they hate china/the chinese gov so much that a lot of their support for israel is just maintaining that they hate and disagree w china (who support palestine/have accused the u.s. gov of being indifferent to the suffering of palestinians which??? yes??? they really are???)

[katabasiss]

Hey you reblogged a post supporting BDS but I've heard they're incredibly antisemitic is that not true?

hello! first, the post in question for anyone interested is this [one] by @eyelidsep. Secondly, sorry for the late response anon, I was researching BDS. I don't know much about the movement, or in fact much about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and I'm not in a position to say whether or not a movement is antisemitic or not because I am not Jewish and so cannot dictate that. I urge you as such to go and listen to Jewish voices on the matter. In the original post, op cites a link to [this] article posted on 'Jewish Voice for Peace', which is an organisation run by a number of Jewish activists, and that article in particular focuses on Zionism and Israel. It is a brilliant starting point, especially concerning this issue of BDS and antisemitism, so I'd recommend you read that and other accounts from Jewish voices on whether something such as BDS is antisemitic or not. Now going forward, it’s not an excuse, but I am only 19, I do not and never have studied politics, and I am neither Palestinian, Israeli, Arab, or Jewish. If I am ignorant then please just tell me, and I will do my best to correct myself and my knowledge.

As a summary for those unaware, BDS (according to their own website which you can find [here]) stands for 'The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Movement' regarding Israel's governmental oppression of Palestinians, with the intent to mirror the anti-apartheid movement in order to challenge Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism.

According to the New York Times - which I think based off a simple google search is a Right-Wing Newspaper ?? and so should be noted as bias - (in [this] article in particular written in 2019), "many Israelis say the movement's real goal is the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state" and that the BDS movement is largely criticised because it fails the "three-Ds test" - "Does its criticism delegitimise Israel, apply a double standard or demonize it?". It's then noted that critics argue that BDS does all three, and that it "single[s]" out Israel in the treatment of its Arab citizens "when minorities in some other countries suffer far more". This in turn, is rebuked by BDS leaders arguing that "Palestinians fighting for their own rights should not be expected to give equivalent attention to abused minorities elsewhere". BDS claims to be anti-Zionist but not antisemitic, however, as noted in the article, the BDS do allow for several groups who are "designated by the United States as terrorist organisations" to "fall under its umbrella" and it is also noted that BDS doesn't actually propose a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I don’t know anything honestly about the New York Times, but as a British person speaking from what I've seen in dominating UK media, I know the right-wing Conservative party are notably vocal against BDS, which I have to admit gives me pause, considering their continuous history of racism and antisemitism themselves. Johnson himself claims to be a "proud Zionist" - of which you can see is backed up via his 2017 statement on the centenary of the Balfour declaration [here], in which he essentially appears to be arguing for partition. The UK Government has also never formally recognised the state of Palestine - something which it has received praise for from both the US and Israeli Government. It is possible that BDS contains antisemitic groups that are affiliated with it, however from what I’ve read, it largely seems more anti-Zionist than antisemitic as a movement. It is important to note that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not the same thing: something that I know UK politics at the very least, struggles to recognise. As numerous articles and academics state, it is possible to stand with Palestine and criticise the Israeli Government for the actions done against Palestinians in the name of nationalism without being antisemitic. Whether BDS has moved beyond that, and verged into actually being antisemitic, I honestly have to admit just isn’t something that I know and can pinpoint. I’ve read through a few responses to ops post that argue that the movement perpetuates antisemitism, seemingly on US University Campuses in particular. But likewise, I’ve read articles and responses arguing the opposite.

(Regarding the UK, for fellow Brits and others looking to do further research on the UK’s role and responses:

This is the official uk.gov petition calling for the Government to recognise Palestine

This contains a series of speeches, declarations, and articles from the UK Government regarding the conflict, and largely appears to be calling for a Two-State Nation

This is various written verbatim reports from both the House of Commons and House of Lords about the topic )

For more on the topic, because all I can do is urge you to do your own research and listen to both Jewish and Palestinian voices on this matter (again, of which I am neither), here are some further links which hopefully will guide you to that:

This is a carrd looking at Palestine and its history, and also contains information about BDS and where to go for further research

This is a website detailing information on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, in which it talks about numerous topics such as why the US and Israel are so friendly, and likewise provides places to go for further information to understand both Israeli and Palestinian arguments

This is an Aljazeera article which looks at Johnson and the Conservative 'anti-BDS' law, and provides links on further Aljazeera articles looking at BDS. I don't know about how Aljazeera is received in other countries, but in the UK, it can usually be noted as the most centric form of media we have, although it should be noted that it does have a left-leaning bias (but when compared to papers such as the Guardian or Daily Mail which are both very left and right wing respectively, Aljazeera is notably 'centric')

This is a Guardian article looking at the Balfour Declaration (mentioned above) and the UK Governments role in the conflict (as just said in the point above, the Guardian is a left wing British newspaper and so was written with a bias, but provides a very succinct summary with a multitude of embedded links about the topic)

And to finish with, this is a very good twitter thread providing resources, information and petitions/donation links for Palestine

To conclude anon, I have spent the last few hours researching this topic, I have found more arguing in favour of BDS not being an inherently antisemitic movement in itself. However, this is a very complicated issue, I’m not going to know the ins and outs of it. If it is antisemitic then please feel free to forward research and articles to me about it as i have done to you in kind. However ultimately, to reiterate, you are asking the wrong person. I’m not Jewish. I cannot simply state whether the movement is antisemitic or not. I can neither confirm nor deny based off simple research. There are many antisemitic dogwhistles that I am simply unaware of because I am not Jewish, and for all I know there may be said dogwhistles present in the BDS movement and website that I am ignorant of. That being said, I hope the above helps you conduct further research on your own.

[schraubd]

Collected Thoughts on Excluding Omar and Tlaib

I've got another kidney stone. It struck on Monday, and then I felt pain Tuesday, Wednesday, and today. Thursday was my only pain-free day this week, and I have to assume that was the universe balancing the scales and recognizing that the Israeli government's truly terrible decision to exclude Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) from the country was plenty enough aggravation on its own. I went on a pretty vigorous tweet storm all through yesterday. Below I bullet point most of what I expressed on that site (which, as you may know, I've taken "private"), but my main takeaway is this: There's no serious case that either Congresswoman present a security threat to Israel (I've seen some people insinuate that they might incite a riot at the Temple Mount which -- I'm not sure I can physically roll my eyes hard enough). In practice, the "risk" Omar and Tlaib present is simply that they will hear  mean things about Israel and then say their own mean things about Israel. That's the locus of the complaint about the "balance" of the trip; that's the locus of the accusation that they merely want to rabble-rouse. What people are concerned about is they will go to the West Bank, hear people saying mean things about Israel, and repeat those mean things back to American audiences. But -- and I mean this in all earnestness -- so what? So what if that's what happens? To be clear: I don't think Omar and Tlaib were coming just to say mean things about Israel. But even if they were -- there's no security threat. The state will survive (how pathetic would it be if it crumbled?). It'd be speech. It'd be discourse. That's the price of living in a liberal, free society. Sometimes people say mean things about you. Sometimes those mean things are unfair. Sometimes those mean things are entirely fair. Whatever. It comes with the territory (pun initially not intended, but I'll own it now). It's not a valid basis for a travel ban. It used to be that Israel was emphatic that "come see us and you'll think better of us". Now Israel is terrified that if people come see them--at least, see them unchaperoned, without a constant guiding hand ensuring they see only the choice parts--they'll think of worse of them. That's the sign of a society in decay. To be sure, I think Omar and Tlaib probably would come away from their visit with a rather grim appraisal of Israel's treatment of Palestinians. But then, there's ample basis to appraise that treatment grimly--there's no inherent foul there. People can come to the West Bank and be honestly appalled by what they see. Only police states confuse "people saying mean things" with security threats. A free society can survive--and perhaps even learn from--critics giving it grim appraisals. People talk a huge game about how Omar and Tlaib could "learn" from their trip to Israel and Palestine -- and no doubt they could. But the flip side is that Israel, too, can learn from the testimony of Palestinians laboring under occupation, and from efforts to bring that testimony to the fore. It is wrong -- not to mention insulting -- to treat discourse about Israel/Palestine as if it were a one-way street, where wise, omniscient Israeli/Jewish teachers dribble knowledge onto benighted, ignorant Muslims and Arabs. Below is a recap of my other collected thoughts on the matter (many but not all of which were on Twitter):

This was a terrible and unjustified decision. Let's lead off with that and give it its own bullet point all to itself.

There is no reason to think that this decision was "what Omar and Tlaib wanted" since it made Israel look authoritarian and repressive. That is projection, to avoid speaking the more uncomfortable conclusion that "Omar and Tlaib might have had a point" in suggesting Israel acts in an authoritarian and repressive fashion.

I neither think this decision was solely Trump's doing -- Israel "caving" to his pressure -- nor do I think he played no role in the decision. I think he successfully convinced Netanyahu to do something that he already kind of wanted to do in the first place, even knowing it probably was a bad idea. Trump was like the frat boy friend egging his buddy into doing another shot flight. That Bibi was probably dimly aware it wasn't the wisest decision in the world doesn't mean that he wasn't ultimately fulfilling his own desires. Ultimately, this was a decision of Israel's right-wing government and they deserve to take the full brunt of punishment for it.

I understand why everyone is calling this "counterproductive" from Israel, since it will undoubtedly give a huge boost to the BDS movement. But, as I wrote in the Lara Alqasem case, that really depends on what Israel is trying to "produce". In many ways, Bibi benefits from an ascendant BDS movement, just as they benefit from him; and he likewise benefits from a world divided between conservatives who love everything he does and liberals who loathe him. So the fact that this decision puts wind in the sails of BDS, while further lashing Israel to a purely right-wing mast and alienating it from erstwhile progressive allies, is not necessarily a miscalculation -- it's the intended and desired effect.

On that note, remember the other day when 21 Israeli MKs wrote to Congress and said that a two-state solution was "more dangerous" than BDS? Well, if you ever wanted an example of what it looks like to trade "increased BDS support" for "kneecapping two-state solution support", this was it (even though Tlaib isn't a two-stater -- Omar is -- this act was aimed like a laser at the most prominent base of support for two-stateism in America: that is, Democrats).

On the other hand, shouldn't these right-wing Israelis be more excited to welcome Tlaib than most other Congresspeople? After all, she opposes the "dangerous" two-state solution! Oh wait, I forgot: in her one-state world, everyone gets to vote. That won't do at all, will it?

I love Emma Goldberg description of how Israel will slide away from liberal democracy via Hemingway's description of how he went bankrupt: "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." And by love, I mean it gives me a sick feeling of recognition in my stomach.

Justifying the ban on the grounds that Omar and Tlaib's visit wasn't "balanced" because they weren't meeting with Israeli or Palestinian government figures, only NGOs, and these are bad NGOs -- spare me. To tell visiting U.S. politicians "you can come, but only if you speak with the 'right' people/visit the 'right' sites/speak the 'correct' words" sounds like something you'd hear from the North Korean embassy. Omar and Tlaib should be entitled to visit with whomever they want to visit, and come to whatever conclusions they end up coming to. If those conclusions are unfair, we should trust the ability to defeat them with more speech, not enforced silence. But again: we can't conflate "unfair" with "critical". It's entirely feasible that a fair-minded individual hearing testimony from West Bank Palestinians will come to a sharply critical conclusion.

Some of the attacks on the NGOs Omar and Tlaib were scheduled to meet with are the usual chad gadya (has a leader who's linked to a group which kicked the dog ....) nonsense, but there are some groups with some genuinely bad history. I've consequently seen people suggest that we need to also hold Omar and Tlaib accountable for their part in this fiasco for meeting with members of those groups. Fair enough: I'm happy to hold them accountable, weighted and prioritized in proportion to their relative culpability. In keeping with that metric, I might get around to returning to criticizing their draft itinerary sometime in 2035.

Fine, one more thing on the itinerary: Am I correct in reading it as taking Omar and  Tlaib either solely or primarily to the West Bank and East Jerusalem? If so, it's entirely understandable why they'd refer to those locales as "Palestine".

Rep. Tlaib initially applied for a humanitarian waiver to visit her family, which was approved, but then she backed out given the conditions the Israeli government was going to impose on the visit (basically, not engaging in "boycott activities"). The usual suspects are crowing: she cares less about her family than she does about boycotting! I say (a) Rep. Tlaib is well within her rights to not prostrate herself to the dictates of a foreign government seeking to humiliate her, and (b) what about the past few days gives anyone the confidence in the Israeli government's ability to fairly adjudge what qualifies as a "boycott activity"?

The argument that Israel, as a sovereign state, has a "right" to exclude whomever it wants substitutes a juridical argument for an ethical (and practical) one. Sovereign states are formally empowered to do all sorts of terrible and/or stupid things. This was one of them. Hearing nominal anti-BDS folks make this claim -- which could as easily be applied to "universities and academics have the right to collaborate (or not) with whomever they want to" is probably causing another kidney stone to develop as we speak.

The other thing is that Israel is proving itself completely incapable of exercising this "right" in a reasonable manner that distinguishes between genuine threats to national security and unhappiness that people sometimes come to Israel and then say mean things. One of the reasons we liberals seek to limit unchecked government power is precisely because of the suspicion that it won't be exercised responsibly or non-arbitrarily.

Of course, the fact that Israel also exercises the practical authority to exclude people not just from Israel-proper, but the West Bank as well, gives lie to the notion that Palestinians even conceptually could have their right to self-determination vindicated solely by voting in PA elections.

Silver lining: pretty much the entirety of the American Jewish establishment -- AIPAC, AJC, ADL, J Street, Simon Wiesenthal Center -- came out against this decision. Huzzah for that.

Tarnish on even that silver lining: the Conference of President's weak-sauce statement on the matter. "Many of the organizations expressed disagreement with the government’s decision", but "Ultimately, the government of Israel made its assessment of the countervailing arguments and acted upon their conclusion." Really, that's what you're giving us? It's amazing how the Conference doesn't care about the "consensus" of the Jewish community when that consensus is a progressive one.

When a prominent member of or institution associated with an outgroup does something awful, it is natural for members of that outgroup to feel acutely vulnerable. In part, that's because they know that this awfulness will be wielded against them; in part, that's because frequently they have feelings for or connections to the target person and institution, and it is painful to see them act in such a terrible fashion. Of course, that feeling of vulnerability needn't and shouldn't be the primary story as compared to those directly victimized by the awful behavior. But it is not per se wrong, or "centering", to acknowledge and validate the existence of the sentiment; nor is such an acknowledgment necessarily one that stands in competition with recognizing the direct damage of the instigating act.

The next time a Democrat occupies the Oval Office, I have to wonder what sort of penance is going to be demanded from the Israeli government for years upon years of insult and humiliation. It's not going to be back to as it was before. It's not even going to back as it was in the Obama administration. Democrats will -- rightfully -- insist that Israel pay a price for what it's been doing these past four (if not twelve) years. The flipside of recognizing the importance of preserving Israel as a bipartisan issue is that Israel aligning itself fully and completely with the Republican Party is going to come at a cost. It will be interesting to consider what that cost will be.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2ZcVv85

[jewish-privilege]

When academics see a problem, many respond by writing a book. Some time ago, concerned by what I perceived as a rising tide of anti-Semitism, I did just that. I devoted the past three years to Antisemitism Here and Now. In September I submitted the manuscript to my publisher. The book went to press. I was done.

Then came Pittsburgh.

I momentarily considered asking my editor if it was possible to rewrite sections of the book. (I knew it was not, but I figured why not ask.) Then, I realized that Pittsburgh, shocking as it was, didn’t really change anything. In fact, it confirmed my two central arguments: a perfect storm of antisemitism is, not just brewing, but is upon us and too many people in the Jewish community are woefully unprepared or unwilling to honestly address it.

...So why is today’s surge in Jew-hatred different – and particularly alarming? Generally, antisemitism has come from either the right or the left. But today, it comes from three different sides at the same time.

From the right, Jews are being singled out by xenophobic populists who are increasingly setting the tenor of politics in many democracies. They also face emboldened white supremacists whose conspiracy theories have been given credence by political leaders and government officials – including in the US – who use barely coded antisemitic language (“cosmopolitan,” “globalist,” obsessive talk of George Soros) that evoke a sinister, greedy, planet-running Jewish cabal.

...On the left, the intensifying attacks are becoming increasingly institutionalized. They often come from those who cannot distinguish legitimate criticism of particular Israeli policies from bigoted attacks on Jews. Some progressives deny Jews their right to a national identity, accuse Jews of being puppet masters controlling governments’ policies, insinuate that American Jews are disloyal to the US, and make such bizarre and evidence-free accusations as the fabrication that Israelis harvest the organs of dead Palestinians.

Some on the left deploy the right to criticize Israel as a cover for overt antisemitism. For example, Pulitzer Prize winning author Alice Walker, in a recent interview, effusively praised a book so laden with antisemitism that the publisher who had contracted to publish it refused to do so. (The book she enthusiastically endorsed describes the Talmud as a racist tract and contends that the world is controlled by lizard people – Jews – who engage in child sacrifice and control the economy.) Under fire, Ms. Walker employed the fallback tactic of many when accused of antisemitism: The attacks on her, she insisted, were attempts to “smear” her to prevent her from “speaking out in support of the people of Palestine.” U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has tried similar deflections after saying that “Zionists” didn’t “understand English irony” – a clear suggestion from a possible future British prime minister that Jews are not full Britons. (Yes he said “Zionists” but if you listen to his speech its clear that he meant any Jew who has any affinity for Israel.)

...To make all this worse, some Jews have politicized the fight against this torrent of hatred. Many are prone to see antisemitism only on the other side of the political transom, even as they fail to see it within their own camp. Such was the case after Pittsburgh, when a number of right-wing media pundits and media outlets took great umbrage over analysts who laid partial responsibility for the slaughter at the door of Mr. Trump’s rhetoric. Partisans asked: Isn’t Mr. Trump an ardent supporter of Israel who moved the US embassy to Jerusalem? Hadn’t he condemned this heinous crime? Doesn’t he have Jewish grandchildren? All that is true. But Mr. Trump has also engaged in constant, vociferous attacks on minorities, immigrants and critics; he has given credence to fringe conspiracy theories and retweeted internet posts that are directly linked to antisemitic groups; he had to be dragged into disavowing the support of KKK leader David Duke; he tweeted an image of a Star of David over a pile of money; and he has described neo-Nazis who march chanting “Jews will not replace us” as “very fine people.” The Pittsburgh shooter, though critical of Trump for not having gone far enough, was clearly motivated by his attacks on immigrants. There is a reason why virtually all white supremacists think he shares their view of the Jews.

Some on the left, however, are easily and rightfully appalled by misdeeds on the right while remaining oblivious to the antisemitism in their midst. They are quick to blame Mr. Trump but silent about progressives whose portrayal of the power and loyalties of the “Jewish lobby” drifts into the brackish waters of prejudice. They excoriate Jews who support Mr. Trump but stay silent on Ms. Walker or excuse the leaders of the Women’s March. (The absence of political power does not excuse the presence of prejudice.)

And when someone calls attention to the fact that Islamists have been responsible for so many violent attacks on Jews and others in Europe, some pundits on the left are quick to condemn that as Islamophobia.

Most sadly of all, Israel’s political leadership has donned blinders of its own as the threat gathers. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has praised Hungary’s illiberal Prime Minister Viktor Orban as a “true friend of Israel” committed to “the need to combat antisemitism.” But Mr. Orban has waged an overtly antisemitic campaign against George Soros even as the prime minister has denied Hungary’s role in the decimation of its Jewish community in 1944. Mr. Netanyahu has been similarly misguided and ahistorical in his outreach to Poland’s own xenophobic, right-wing government. After earnestly attacking the 2018 Polish law that rewrote the history of the Holocaust by making it illegal to accuse Poles of collaborating with the Nazis (as many incontestably did), Mr. Netanyahu’s government suddenly reversed course and, after a few cosmetic changes to the bill were made, praised the Poles for their fight against antisemitism.

Israeli officials explain these strange alignments, in part, by pointing to Hungary and Poland’s willingness to support Israel in the European Union and in UN forums, something some other democracies have been unwilling to do. But making a pact with such bedfellows is a dubious act indeed.

It is too dangerous a time to give one’s political compatriots a pass on prejudice. We need not agree with all of our political allies’ positions, but there should be no compromises over bigotry particularly when it comes to the age-old scourge of antisemitism and any other form of hatred.

And if those who are singled out for prejudice cannot recognize that, how can we expect anyone else to?

[Read Deborah Lipstadt’s full piece at The Times of Israel.]

[sparkliingdust]

My thoughts on the Red Sea Diving Resort.

There’s a lot of controversy surrounding this film. I’m not close to the subject this movie is based on at all, but am trying to do my best to listen to people who are and maintain an objective outlook.

To be honest, the film has some cringe-worthy aspects, namely in that the story mostly focuses on a dysfunctional group of agents involved in an impossible mission to save refugees. Ari (Chris Evans) is the leader of Mossad agents who uses a dilapidated resort to funnel Ethiopian refugees out of Sudan and into Jerusalem. In the background, Kebede Bimro (Michael K Williams) rallies refugees across the desert and into various camps to be picked up by Ari’s team and transported out of the country. As much as the trailers led on that the story would cover both sides of this event, the movie doesn’t focus on  Kebede and the refugees as much as it could’ve. In fact, none of the characters either Caucasian or people of color are that well-developed outside of Ari. His team follows him to save people, but we don’t know anything about them except that Michiel from Game of Thrones is still hot, Hayley still looks like J-Law, and another guy Sammy has some beef with Ari and never lets him forget it. And Ben Kingsley and Greg Kinnear pop up in their typical casting roles.

The film mostly veers towards the typical Hollywoodized version of events - showcasing heroism as well as violence, but not fleshing out the soldiers, refugees, or other community activists other than Kebede. And the story itself doesn’t explain or set-up exactly why the exodus is taking place, which would’ve added more context to its history. There is a lot going on in the film with Ari running the missions and maintaining the hotel which clueless tourists thinks is a real resort, but the film could’ve benefited by exploring more of the plight that Kebede faced instead of just Ari and his crew. Their mission contains some extreme violence, drama, suspense, and light-hearted moments, but it also doesn’t completely avoid feeling like a “white savior” film in a lot of areas. 

(I don’t want to categorize this film as “white savior” because Ari and a few members on his team are Jewish, and I don’t know what the correct identifying word would be, so I apologize if I offend anyone.)

Movie-wise, I think the film is engaging - it goes on a little too long, but it has a decent balance of tension that reminded me a lot of Argo.  Even though the script, the pacing is good. I won’t lie that I initially wanted to watch this for Evans, and as the leading star, he offers the best performance of the ensemble next to Michael. A big reason for this is because Ari is the most fleshed out character (and he’s naked a lot), but also because he was able to shed some of his Captain America mannerisms and try to build a character outside of that persona (he’s still a hero but not quite the Cap we know and love).

It’s not hard to deny that the director has a history of making Pro-Israeli movies and doesn’t include any after-credit titles about what has happened to Ethiopian Jews after being rescued. I don’t think his intention for the film are malicious given that he is Israeli and knew he wanted to make the film after hearing the story for the film. He researched people who were involved with operating the mission and refugees, but that doesn’t make up for some of the film’s shortcomings. I don’t think it’s the exploitative mess that critics are calling it, but it’s not entirely “unproblematic” either like dumb-ass dialogue, failing to eliminate cliche stereotypes, etc. 

The biggest reason the film will resonate with a lot of people now is honestly what is going on in the United States and its borders, the United Kingdom and Syrian refugees, and Jewish people in Israel right now. The timely story reminds us of what is going on in the world today and for hundreds of years, and I think making this story come to light was the genuine intention for all the actors and crew to be involved in this film.

To me, there are a genuine portion of people giving this film backlash because the story overlooks specific details of the history at the time. And that’s completely understandable. Refugees are displaced after they are moved or move away from their homeland. They face just as much if not more discrimination and violence - and that’s exactly what happened with Ethiopians who wanted to move to Jerusalem and/or had no other choice but to move. (This thread is a good explanation of why the Red Sea Diving Resort is considered problematic.) The film tries to end on a happily ever after, and I can see why - to not make the audience feel as if everyone’s efforts weren’t fruitless-  but there isn’t a footnote about what the refugees’ lives were like afterwards - whether it’s positive or negative. The film doesn’t even include that some of the Mossad agents and refugees are still in contact today, which would’ve been fascinating to know. Excluding some of these facts can easily distort history by saying everything was good and dandy because the “white” people came along to help when it wasn’t, or not showing that things did get better for refugees who left Sudan behind.

While I understand that people are saying this film is a zionist one, and went into the film trying to be aware of my limited knowledge about this event, I think many of the film’s “haters” who were not directly involved with what happened want to use history as a privilege to judge what countries/governments/agents/etc. should’ve done differently. And that’s a pretty limited perspective to have when some Ethiopian refugees have seen the film and know what it means to see a part of their story told. (Mark Ivanir who plays the head of the Mossad agents was in one of the real aerial lifts depicted in the film.) As much as we as outsiders might feel like boycotting the film, there are those closer to the story who have a positive or negative affect by being apart of it or seeing it, and maybe we should step aside and hear their stories before projecting our own hate or love for the film above everything else.

I think we forget that no country or government is without its history of oppressing its own people or immigrants.  Many will see the issue of rescuing refugees as cut and dry “people need to be saved so why not save them”, but those involved in the real acts and decisions to save refugees is more complicated than that. And often their true intentions of trying to save people is lumped together with the governments that ended up oppressing the people that were saved. When a movie gets added into the mix that’s not as balanced as it could be, everyone ends up looking bad or “getting cancelled” (looking at everyone try to cancel Chris). If we were to boycott everything based on what our own or another country did, there’d be nothing left for anyone to watch/listen/read/etc. There’s a difference between being aware of history to learn and be aware of a film’s faults (and hey not take everything at face value), and not trying to hold ourselves on a pedestal for recognizing how history should’ve played out or having our own ideas of how things should’ve been done. 

The film is okay on its own. Certainly not perfect and has moments of cringe-worthiness...but I think it’s better if people try to be aware of the history behind the main story and how it can fall into ‘selective storytelling’ rather than shame other people about watching it for whatever their intentions for watching it are.

[aymanofhisword]

Why the Jerusalem declaration is Trump’s cruelest move yet

medium.com - Ben Wolford

A father and mother are in the middle of a difficult discussion over the custody of their child. They’ve both been crying. It’s the most critical moment of their lives. Suddenly, a preposterous man sits down at the dining room table, issues a legally binding order in favor of the father and then abruptly changes the subject: “Big crowd expected today in Pensacola, Florida, for a Make America Great Again speech!”

If you can imagine the way the mother feels, you can begin to imagine how Palestinians feel today.

The U.S. conversation has moved away from Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The story was way down on the home pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. I couldn’t even find stories about it on the leftist front pages of Mother Jones and Jacobin. A Latterly contributing editor in Washington just told me that “it’s barely being discussed.”

The arrogant nonchalance is part of what’s so infuriating to Palestinians. Trump’s declaration was a gut punch to 12 million people that left them feeling sick, morose and angry in a way that’s difficult for non-Palestinians to understand. And we don’t even bother trying. Indifference is America’s ultimate act of cruelty.

But in fact, this is the worst thing the Trump administration has done. Worse than the Muslim ban, worse than repealing DACA and worse than walking away from the Paris Agreement.

Twenty thousand people assembled in downtown Amman today—and thousands more protested around the world—because one more piece of land has just been taken away from them. They did not elect the person who took it from them. The Israelis did not elect that person. And not even a majority of American voters elected that person. Fewer still among those who voted for Donald Trump know anything about the Israel-Palestine dispute or care.

Yet the images streaming out of today’s protests can give you an idea how much Trump’s 12-minute speech on Jerusalem matters.

If you think this demonstration has the look and feel of the protests that led to the Arab Spring, you’re not wrong. There’s a direct link between the way these protesters feel now and the way the protesters felt in 2011.

I’ll explain that, but first the requisite background. Jerusalem is a divided city. Both Israel and Palestine claim the whole municipality, but for now, after decades of gridlock, each side is mostly content to grasp a portion: the Israelis in West Jerusalem and the Palestinians in East Jerusalem. Palestinians wanted East Jerusalem to be part of Palestine in any two-state agreement.

Trump, by himself, for no apparent reason, has imperiled that arrangement by declaring (or rather, slurring) “Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.” He didn’t say West Jerusalem. He said Jerusalem.

Journalists yesterday tried to make David M. Satterfield, the acting assistant U.S. secretary of state for the Middle East, clarify the president’s statement. It ended with Satterfield attempting to say grammatically acceptable sentences while at the same time saying nothing at all:

QUESTION: Could you explain the distinction between recognizing the capital and not deciding anything on borders as it refers to a deal? Because if you’re saying that this is a final status issue to be negotiated at the table, how does either (a), this not prejudice a deal when Jerusalem is a final status issue, or (b), how is it not a meaningless declaration that could be negotiated at the table? It has to be one or the other.

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Elise, final status negotiations are going to deal with those boundaries of sovereignty, border questions that the president spoke to as not addressed by his recognition. The president thought it was the right thing to do for the United States, after all these years, to acknowledge the fact, the reality, that Jerusalem is the seat of government of the state of Israel, the capital of the state of Israel. That’s it.

QUESTION: But it’s — respectfully, it’s inconsistent with the idea that you would also be negotiating at the table unless you can acknowledge what we’re all trying to get you to say, which you artfully are not —

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Thank you, Elise. You may well think that. Thank you.

QUESTION: Well — but the idea that it may — that is — that Jerusalem is the capital, but perhaps in final status negotiations that it might be not the united capital.

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Elise, I will only address one more point on this. What were the words the President used? It was a very simple statement: recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. There are words you might want to put in there; he didn’t. There are words you might want to take out; he didn’t. That statement was very carefully made, as was the comment we are not prejudicing addressing by this decision final status issue.

When asked in what way the statement was carefully made, he said “I’m not going to get into a tick-tock on this.” Asked if he personally agreed with the decision, Satterfield gritted his teeth: “Oh, now. I am an employee of the U.S. government. … This is a decision which we will work our best to execute and advance.”

In the absence of any clarification from the Trump administration, Palestinians have intuited what’s going on here: The United States, which was supposed to be mediating a deal, has suddenly awarded a city it doesn’t own to a people that doesn’t deserve it, as one Amman protester put it.

The chief Palestinian negotiator told The New York Times he’d given up on hope for a two-state solution and was shifting strategy toward simply making life better for Arabs stuck under Israeli occupation. “This is the reality,” he said. “We live here. Our struggle should focus on one thing: equal rights.”

The people he represents—those thousands marching in Palestine, Jordan and elsewhere today—aren’t ready to give up. But they, too, have undergone a shift. To speak with them, it feels like more than a mere shift in strategy, though that’s part of it: They’ve steeled their hearts and clenched their fists to a new reality in which no one—not the U.S., not Israel and not the Arab leaders who govern the Palestinian diaspora—is dealing with them honestly.

Remember, this is a people that understands all of Palestine to be its territory, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea. They understand Zionists and the West to have stolen this place where Jews, Muslims, Christians and others once lived together; imposed a religious state; and subjected the local inhabitants to second-class status or worse. They understand that they will one day reclaim this land, no matter how long it takes. The dream is to establish a democracy where Jews, Muslims, Christians and others can again live peacefully—a state where they can pay taxes and elect officials that work for everyone.

Today that dream seems further away. The Palestinian Authority, a governing body set up in 1994 to manage the transition to a Palestinian state, and its Fatah party leadership are seen as failing. The alternative, a Hamas-led vision of armed struggle, begins to appear as though it were necessary all along.

“They … have been told that their only hope is to create such pain for Israelis and unrest throughout the region that their needs will have to be addressed,” writes Mitchell Plitnick, former vice president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace.

This isn’t to say that Palestinians are the violent, extremist hotheads that Israeli and American propaganda would have you believe. (For instance, the U.S. embassy here in Amman ordered the children of government employees to stay home from school on Thursday. As far as I know, this wasn’t based on any intelligence that kids were in danger. Rather, it smells more like racist fear-mongering: “Those reactionary Arabs will kill your children.”)

On the contrary, Palestinians who aspire to nationhood view—with good reason—the Israeli occupation of Palestine as a violent, military project. Therefore, right or wrong, arguments for a violent, military response are at least understandable and should not be conflated with terrorism, as the editor of The Jerusalem Post does.

Such a conflict would be devastating. More than 1,500 civilians died in the 2014 Gaza War, almost all of them Palestinian, including some 500 children. But Palestinians are willing to die for statehood. Already, I’ve just seen a report of two killed by Israeli forces in Gaza during protests.

Such demonstrations could keep growing, especially as they relate to U.S.-allied Arab dictators in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are not only repressive (in a variety of ways) but are seen as increasingly cozy with Israel as a counterweight to Iran and Islamic extremist groups. It’s in this sense that many Palestinians are calling for a second Arab Spring, in the hopes that such an uprising would spawn a dozen Tunisias. But it could also spawn a dozen Syrias.

That predictions falls at the cataclysmic end of the spectrum of possibilities. So far, the “three days of rage” Palestinian leaders called for have been mostly peaceful. There’s still plenty of room for the parties to salvage the nonviolent resolution that Trump’s action threatens to destroy. But it would be a mistake to discount Palestinians’ feelings of powerlessness—and the power such a feeling creates.

Why would Trump even want to mess with that? “It is almost impossible to see the logic,” wrote Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution. Sixty-three percent of Americans opposed the move, according to a University of Maryland poll.

Trump’s motives for anything are a mystery, and he likes to keep it that way. He prefers chaos to continuity, and he likes to do things that make him the center of attention. He’s also been the target of an intense pressure campaign by right-wing American Jewish organizations, Evangelical Christians and wealthy donors like casino owner Sheldon Adelson, who made the Jerusalem embassy relocation a focus of their lobbying efforts. It worked.

The biggest reason this was such an irresponsible decision is simple: It didn’t have to be made.

It was a cruel decision because the majority of Americans aren’t effected and don’t care, while for so many people in the street today it felt like everything.

[loudlytransparenttrash]

The Left’s Groupthink Takes Away Our Individual Rights

The right view people as individuals while those on the left lumps people into categories based usually on race but also often on gender and sexuality. Race and sex are two of the sweetheart pillars of leftist thought, they are fixated on and impose racial and gender based quotas and affirmative action demands at any given chance. When it comes to race, the usual categories are black, white, brown, and Asian. When it comes to sex, women are viewed as a minority group even though women constitute 51% of the population and many women occupy the most privileged positions in society. Refuting and stepping outside of what the left considers to be the only acceptable view which we all must hold, automatically makes you a traitor. 

Talk to a non-white conservative such as Larry Elders, Deneen Borelli, David, Webb, Thomas Sowell, Stacey Washington or Crystal Wright and you will quickly understand the way the left and many blacks banish anyone who wanders beyond the groupthink. They are vilified by everybody, guilt-ridden whites, most blacks, family members, friends and so forth. These black conservatives have committed the most unforgivable crime from a left point of view: they broke ranks with their “group.” Apparently American blacks are supposed to be Democrats so those who are not are called Oreos, race traitors and Uncle Toms and whatever they have to say will always be dismissed and ignored. They are guilty of “thought crimes” by progressive standards, which are in fact incredibly regressive.

Conservatives do not recognize these violations because they view people as individuals rather than their skin color or gender. It’s why conservatives argue against affirmative action and set equal standards for voter ID. Why are we lowering the bar for blacks and women to the point where they no longer need to work for something, they can just be handed it to them based on their race or gender while everyone else is left to get on with it. Why don’t the left hold them to the same standards and expectations as everybody else? How is this equality? I saw a video the other day where an interviewer asked liberal white students if black people should have to have an ID and most of them said, with very sympathetic and respectful intentions, most black people are too poor or don’t even know where their local DMV is. This is what happens when a group of people adopt the victim mentality of another group of people. How can this ever be considered progressive? 

The left endlessly criticize President Trump as being anti-woman because he said mean things to a woman who said mean things to him. If somebody punches you, punch them back. Equality. He also responds to men in the same way, is Trump anti-man? This level of analysis is completely foreign to the left because they see a rude comment made to one woman as a comment made to all women. Women who have worked for the Trump organization and currently work for him say that he promotes women faster than other companies and he pays them as much if not more than men. These women have made it clear there is no glass ceiling in the Trump organization and in fact, the Trump organization has more female CEOs than any other Fortune 500 company. So why does the left not take these individual accounts of women seriously and instead brands them as being lying gender traitors protecting a woman-hater? Because these women have stepped outside of the hivemind.

Obviously, the leftists believe that they have the moral high ground. They truly believe that it is ethical to judge people according to these reductionist categories. What I’d like to know is how the suppression of individuality could ever be justified. They demonize the right with the odious labels racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc in order to justify their unconscionable treatment of individuals. Only by painting the right as evil and despicable, or as Hillary said deplorable, can they justify suppressing individual thought when it conflicts with group-think.

All over the country, liberal universities are banning or blocking speakers who do not express the views of status quo liberals. Leading universities have not only banned or uninvited conservatives but also liberals who stray only slightly from the orthodox talking points. The perfect example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She ran away from Somalia due to forced genital mutilation and an arranged marriage and established herself in Holland where she learned Dutch, earned a college degree and became a Member of Parliament. She is an agnostic, black, female and a woman’s right’s activist. You would think she’d be a honey of the left. In fact, the only minority category she is missing is being a lesbian. 

However, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has spent much of her adult life with security protection due to the amount of death threats she constantly receives. She was also uninvited from Brandeis University where she was scheduled to give the commencement speech and receive an honorary doctorate degree. What happened? The Muslim Student Union and the leftists associated with it protested her upcoming speech because she is an apostate of Islam. In other words, she left Islam.

In America, people are free to join and leave religions. Yet the political left doesn’t seem to recognize this right. Rather, they demonize those who leave Islam and wish to talk about their experience honestly. They side with the radical Islamists who abuse her simply for talking about her views on Islam and her horrific experiences as a Muslim. So despite the fact that Ayaan fell neatly into every minority category trumpeted by the left, she deviated on only one item: she left Islam and no longer is forced to say cute things about Islam. Now she is a pariah and has been since denied many public speaking venues and recently was forced to cancel her visit to Australia after receiving more death threats. An individualist worldview has no problem with Ayaan’s departure from the religion of her birth or what she has to say but a collectivist worldview judges and convicts her.

We must resist this groupthink at every turn. We must continue to speak up for individuals and emphasize our natural rights, especially when it comes to speech. Conservatives understand that we will not always agree with everybody but everybody has a right to express their viewpoints without being attacked or doxxed or kicked out of their jobs or university or have their character assassinated with false claims and slurs. We need to take this even further for the sake of our civilization: push to curtail funding. If UC Berkeley does not wish to honor free speech then all taxpayer dollars need to be extricated from that institution. If Jewish and Israeli speakers are not allowed to speak at UC Davis after being threatened and hissed at by angry mobs of so-called open minded students, then UC Davis needs to have its public funds pulled. 

US Riverside suspended its Conservative Club for over a year and it was reinstated only because conservative students raised money to hire attorneys. Every club on that campus was left-leaning but they closed down the only space for conservative students. If they pull that shit again, we need to pull their funding. It’s this simple: if our public universities will not uphold our natural right to free speech and free association, then they are by definition no longer public but partisan. From a common sense point of view, what is the point of sending our youth to universities to be indoctrinated? Parents and educators send them to university to hear a wide range of viewpoints and to develop critical thinking skills to sift through the free flow of ideas. Clearly shutting down free speech on our campuses is contrary to the purpose of a university education.

The leftist professors and their administrative compadres have also created so-called safe spaces for their adult students who have been ‘harmed’ by triggers and micro-aggressions. This detritus belongs exclusively on the left. Sure, many Democrats in middle America probably opposes the institutionalization of safe spaces, trigger warnings and microagressions, but our universities are dominated by left-wing, regressive professors who train the next generation of leaders to steer the country away from individualism and from our rights.

We must not lose sight of the following. Regardless of your race, gender or sexuality, you are an individual and as such, should be judged by your character. We can criticize ideas and policies but not individual people. Ad hominem attacks like calling people racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes etc are useless for two reasons: they are typically false claims used to shut down speech by shaming and it is a lazy person’s way of avoiding the discussion of ideas. When they say that people who are opposed to abortion are anti-woman, that is not an argument, it is an ad hominem, lazy attack.

Learn about your natural and Constitutional rights and make a point to assert them. These are not collective rights but individual rights and any government agencies or political movements that do not respect our rights, especially the right to free expression, needs to be exposed and defunded. 

[maggie-and-politics]

Couple Things: Sean Spicer Edition (#1/?)

Dear Sean Spicer, I know you don't care about what I write here, but I just wtached your latest press briefing ,and if I don't get this off my chest I might explode. So here we go! First thing: the term "gypsies" As a representative of the administration of the "greatest country in the world", you have the world and, most importantly, your nation listen to you on a regular basis. So, it should be in your interest to adopt a language that entails as little offense as possible; yet in your press briefing you used the term "gypsies" multiple times. Many Romani feel that the term is derogatory and a racial slur. And while the term is included in some legislation in the UK, it might still be a good idea not to use it. Second thing: Equaling Jewish people and Israel When being asked about the fact that the Jewish people had not been explicitly addressed in President Trump's Holocaust Remembrance Speech, you resorted to pointing out all the things the Obama administration did to Israel and complained and expressed your wonder about the backlash a single speech gets compared to that. Dear Mr. Spicer, it's time to understand this: if someone is critical of Israel it doesn't mean that they are hateful or even against Jews. It has nothing to do with the religion, or even the past! It means not supporting the Israeli government and their actions to, for example, the Palestinian people! The Obama administration took actions trying to work for these people that are being wronged by another state, and many people applauded that; and these people would have acted the exact same way if the Israelis believed predominantly in the flying Spagetti monster. And I, as many others, believe that a speech about the Holocaust without a single mention of 6 million Jewish people that were slaughtered and instead simply saying "those that suffered" is a little strange. Third thing: The Ban Congratulations on keeping a straight face while pretending that the whole of America supported the ban of refugees and immigrants from those 7 could tries and ignoring the nationwide protest! Not many people could have kept a straight face. Also, congratulations on your statement that journalists can't complain about the ban being too harsh and then asking why some countries had not been added to the list. You almost seemed to believe that these two things don't go together... I would have asked different questions, like "it's nice that the President wants to be proactive, but why doesn't he fix problems that don't exist, like a vetting process for refugees that seems to work perfectly fine?", and also "The President is spending a lot of time trying to make sure that there are no people from the outside coming into the US, but what is he going to do about the Americans that constantly kill other Americans on American soil with guns purchased in America?", and other stuff like that. Too bad I'm not a journalist. Last thing: the Attitude I honestly wonder, is it you that is constantly offended by backlash? Have you possibly woken up from a coma after the election so that you didn't see the campaigns? Or has the entire Trump team been brainwashed so that you just forgot the way you, and the president in particular, conducted yourselves? The Democrats speak out against a nominee for the SC, even though the president has the right to name a candidate? I wonder where they got that idea. There are people among the members of the press that sometimes have to admit that their reporting was wrong? Just imagine there were people out there actively lying! And Chuck Schumer is a liar since he cried at a rallye? Just imagine a press secretary who always acts personally offended as if he didn't know all these things and who probably has to act his butt off to pretend that Donald J. Trump is a great president who is only being picked on...

[sylvielauffeydottir]

Hi I just saw your post about Israel and Palestinian. I don't know if you're the person to ask or if this is a dumb question but I was wondering if anyone has considered starting a second Jewish state? I was wondering because there's a bunch of Christian countries so why not multiple Jewish ones.

Sorry if I'm bothering you and Thanks for your time.

That’s actually a pretty interesting question. I am going to apologize right now, because I essentially can’t give a short answer to save my life.

I’m not a ‘Jewish Scholar,’ so while I can speak with some authority about the history of Zionism, I definitely couldn’t speak about it with as much authority as others. I mentioned in at least one of the posts I have written about the history of plans for a ‘Jewish state’ when Zionism was originally being proposed, and I can kinda of track the history of Zionist thinking for you if you are interested, though essentially it’s just about arguing where to go. But there are better scholars for this than me, so I would recommend Rebecca Kobrin, Deborah Lipstadt, Walter Laqueur … idk. Maybe just read some Theodor Herzl, honestly. With all of that said, I can speak with some authority about the post-war history of this in the Middle East. So let’s go.

In post-war times, there has really only been one serious discussion of an alternative Jewish state, as far as I know. And actually, this is part of why I find it so ironic that people are campaigning so hard to be “anti-Zionist” and to express views like “anti-Zionism” in their activism, because the Jews in Israel who are most anti-Zionist are actually the settlers of Palestinian territories, who want to secede and form a “Gaza-State” called Judeah. There's a great book about this called The Deadly Embrace by Ilana Kass And Bard O'Neill, if anyone is interested. Anyway, most of those people, who are largely Haredim (the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, though some of those settlers are semi Orthodox), have essentially been waging a “culture war” about what it means to have a Jewish state and what the identity of that Jewish state should look like basically since the 1980s.

There is a really good article about this that you can find right here written by Peter Lintl, who is a researcher at the Institution of Political Science for the Friedrich-Alexander Universitat. I’ll summarize it for the lazy people, though, because it’s like 40 pages. Just know that this paragraph won’t be super source heavy, because it is basically the same source. Essentially, the Haredim community has tripled in size from 4% to 12% of the total Israeli population since 1980, and it is probably going to be about 20% by 2040. They only accept the Torah and religious laws as the basis for Jewish life and Jewish identity and they are critical of democratic principles. To them, a societal structure should be hierarchical, patriarchal, and have rabbis at the apex, and they basically believe that Israel isn’t a legitimate state. This is primarily because Israel is (at least technically, so no one come at me in the comments about Palestinian citizens of Israel, so I’ll make a little ** and address this there) a ‘liberal’ democracy. Rights of Israeli citizens include, according to Freedom House, free and fair elections (they rank higher on that criteria here than the United States, by the way), political choice, political rights and electoral opportunities for women, a free and independent media, and academic freedom. It is also, I should add (as a lesbian), the only country in the Middle East that has anything close to LGBT+ rights.

[**to the point about Palestinians and Palestinian citizens of Israel: I have a few things to say. First, I have recommended this book twice now and it is Michael Oren’s Six Days of War, which absolutely fantastically talks about the ways in which the entire structure of the Palestinian ‘citizenship’ movement, Palestinian rights, and who was responsible for governing Palestinians changed after the Six Days War. If you are at all interested in the modern Middle East or modern Middle East politics, I highly recommend you read this, because a huge tenant of this book is that it was 1967, not 1947, that caused huge parts of our current situation (and that, surprisingly, a huge issue that quote-on-quote “started it” was actually water, but that’s sort of the primary secondary issue, not the Actual Issue at play here). Anyway, I’ve talked about the fact that Israel hugely abuses its authority in the West Bank and Gaza and that there are going to be current members of the Israeli Government who face action at the ICC, so please don’t litigate this again with me. I also should add that the 2018 law which said it was only Jews who had the natural-born right to “self-determine” in Israel was passed by the Lekkud Government, and I really hate them anyway. I know they’re bad. It’s not the point I’m making. I’m making a broader point about the Constitution vis-a-vis what the Haredim are proposing, which is way worse].

To get back to the Haredim, basically there is this entire movement of actual settlers in territories that have been determined to belong to the Palestinian people as of, you know, the modern founding of Israel (and not the pre-Israel ‘colonial settler’ narrative you’ll see on instagram in direct conflict with the history of centuries of aliyah) who want to secede and form a separate Jewish state. They aren’t like, the only settlers, but I point this out because they are basically ‘anti-Zionist’ in the sense that they think that modern Zionism isn’t adhering to the laws of Judaism — that the state of Israel is too free, too radical, too open. And scarily enough, these are the sort of the people from whom Netanyahu draws a huge part of his political support. Which is true of the right wing in general. Netanyahu can’t actually govern without a coalition government. Like I have said, the Knesset is huge, often with 11-13 political parties at once, and so to ‘govern’ Netanyahu often needs to recruit increasingly right wing, conservative, basically insane political parties to maintain his coalition. It’s why he has been so supportive of the settlements, particularly in the last five years (since he is, as I have also said, facing corruption charges, and he really can’t leave office). It would really suck for him if a huge chunk of his voters seceded, wouldn’t it?

Anyway, that is the only ‘second Jewish State’ I know about, and I don’t think that is necessarily much of a solution. I really don’t have the solutions to the Middle East crisis. I am just a girl with some history degrees and some time on her hands to devote to tumblr, and I want people to learn more so they can form their own opinions. With that said, I think there are two more things worth saying and then I will close out for the night.

First, Judaism is an ethno-religion. Our ethnicities have become mixed with the places that we have inhabited over the years in diaspora, which is how you have gotten Sephardi, Mizrahi, Ashkenazi, and even Ethiopian Jews. But if you do actual DNA testing on almost all of the Jews in diaspora, the testing shows that we come from the same place: the Levant. No matter how pale or dark, Jews are still fundamentally one people, something we should never forget (and anyone who tries to put racial hierarchy into paleness of Jews: legit, screw you. One people). Anyway, unlike other religious communities, we have an indigenous homeland because we have an ethnic homeland. It’s small, and there are many Jews in diaspora who choose not to return to it, like myself. But that homeland is ours (just as much as it is rightfully Palestinians, because we are both indigenous to the region. For everyone who hasn’t read my other posts on the issue, I’m not explaining this again. Just see: one, two, and three, the post that prompted this ask). This is different from Christians, for example, who basically just conquered all of Europe and whose religion is not dependent on your race or background. You can be a lapsed Christian and you are still white, latinx, black, etc right? I am a lapsed Jew, religiously speaking, and will still never escape that I am ethnically Ashkenazi Jewish.

Second, I think you raise a really good point about other religious states. There are many other religious majority states in the world (all of these countries have an official state religion), and a lot of them are committing a lot of atrocities right now (don't even get me started on Saudi Arabia). I have seen other posts and other authors write about this better than I ever could, but I am going to do my best to articulate why, because of this, criticism of Israel as a state, versus criticism of the Israeli Government, is about ... 9 times out of 10 inherently antisemitic.

We should all be able to criticize governments. That is a healthy part of the democratic process and it is a healthy part of being part of the world community. But there are 140 dictatorships in the world, and the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel 45 times since 2013. Since the creation of the UN Human Rights Council, it has has received more resolutions concerning Israel than on the rest of the world combined. This is compared to like … 1 for Myanmar, 1 for South Sudan, and 1 for North Korea.

Israel is the world’s only Jewish majority state. You want to talk about “ethnic cleansing” and “repressive governments”? I can give you about five other governments and world situations right now, off the top of my head, that are very stark, very brutal, very (in some cases) simple examples of either or both. If a person is ‘using their platform’ to Israel-bash, but they are not currently speaking about the atrocities in Myanmar, Kashmir, Azerbaijan, South Sudan, or even, dare I say, the ethnonationalism of the Hindu Nationalist Party in India, then, at the very least, their activism is a little bit performative. They are chasing the most recent ‘hot button’ issue they saw in an instagraphic, and they probably want to be woke and maybe want to do the right thing. And no one come at me and say it is because you don’t “know anything about Myanmar.” Most people know next to nothing about the Middle East crisis as well. At best, people are inconsistent, they may be a hypocrite, and, whether they want to admit it to themselves or not, they are either unintentionally or intentionally buying into antisemitic narratives. They might even be an antisemite.

I like to think (hope, maybe) that most people don’t hate Jews. If anything, they just follow what they’ve been told, and they tend to digest what everyone is taking about. But there is a reason this is the global narrative that has gained traction, and I guarantee it has at least something to do with the star on the Israeli flag.

I know that was a very long answer to your question, but I hope that gave you some insight.

As a sidenote: I keep recommending books, so I am going to just put a master list of every book I have ever recommended at the bottom of anything I do now, because the list keeps growing. So, let’s go in author alphabetical order from now on.

One Country by Ali Abunimah Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by Ronen Bergman Kingdom of Olives and Ash: Writers Confront the Occupation, edited by Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman The Girl Who Stole My Holocaust: A Memoir by Noam Chayut If a Place Can Make You Cry: Dispatches from an Anxious State by Daniel Gordis Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn by Daniel Gordis The Deadly Embrace by Ilana Kass And Bard O'Neill Like Dreamers: The Story of the Israeli Paratroopers Who Reunited Jerusalem and Divided a Nation by Yossi Klein Halevi Antisemitism by Deborah Lipstadt Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East by Michael Oren The Yom Kippur War: The Epic Encounter That Transformed the Middle East by Abraham Rabinovich One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate by Tom Segev Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation by Eyal Weizman

[mastcomm]

Coronavirus, Michael Bloomberg, Boy Scouts: Your Tuesday Briefing

(Want to get this briefing by email? Here’s the sign-up.)

Good morning.

We’re covering the growing repercussions of the coronavirus outbreak, the addition of Michael Bloomberg to this week’s Democratic debate, and a bankruptcy filing by the Boy Scouts of America.

Coronavirus is deadlier than flu, study finds

The fatality rate of the new coronavirus is far higher than that of the seasonal flu, according to a new analysis from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study found a fatality rate of 2.3 percent in China as of last week, though later figures suggest the rate has increased. In the U.S., flu fatality rates hover around 0.1 percent. Here are the latest updates and maps of where the virus has spread.

Yesterday: Americans flown home from a contaminated cruise ship in Japan said they were unaware until late that some evacuees were infected. “I didn’t know until we were in the air,” said Carol Montgomery. “I saw an area of plastic sheeting and tape.”

Closer look: Cambodia’s decision to let hundreds of passengers leave another cruise ship on which a person was infected could dramatically complicate the effort to contain the virus.

Another angle: HSBC, one of Hong Kong’s most important banks, said today that it would cut 35,000 jobs over the next three years, in part because of disruptions caused by the outbreak. On Monday, Apple cut its quarterly sales expectations and warned that the virus threatened global supply chains.

Related: The Tokyo Marathon, which planned to accept about 38,000 runners, will be restricted to about 200 elite participants. The race is scheduled for March 1.

Michael Bloomberg qualifies for debate

The former mayor of New York is set to appear for the first time at a Democratic presidential debate, based on a poll released this morning that showed him with the requisite support.

Mr. Bloomberg had failed to qualify for past debates in part because the Democratic National Committee had set a threshold for campaign contributions, which he is not accepting. The elimination of that requirement — a change criticized by Mr. Bloomberg’s rivals — allowed him to join Wednesday’s event in Las Vegas. Nevada’s caucuses are Saturday.

“The Daily”: Today’s episode is about Mr. Bloomberg’s history of political and charitable contributions.

Another angle: Elizabeth Warren’s supporters are convinced that her message is being ignored, but they say writing her off would be a mistake.

A ‘good war’ deteriorates, but talks go on

When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and toppled the Taliban’s government, much of Afghan society welcomed American troops.

After 18 years, that good will has long faded. Some Afghan soldiers have turned on their American partners, in so-called green-on-blue attacks. Two U.S. soldiers were killed this month in such an assault.

In September, President Trump called off peace talks with the Taliban after an attack that killed an American. This time, with an agreement near, few are talking about the continuing violence.

Yesterday: A Taliban spokesman confirmed that the insurgents had agreed to the terms of a deal and that the signing would happen this month.

Related: The gun used to kill Sgt. First Class Javier Gutierrez and Sgt. First Class Antonio Rodriguez on Feb. 8 was among hundreds of thousands of small arms that the U.S. government has issued to Afghan forces.

Another angle: President Ashraf Ghani was declared the winner of Afghanistan’s presidential vote today after months of delayed results.

Europe resists anti-Huawei campaign

The U.S. effort to prevent the use of the Chinese company’s equipment in the next generation of wireless networks has largely failed, as European leaders discount American warnings that Huawei represents a security threat.

The U.S. said it will stop sharing intelligence with any country that uses Huawei equipment, but Britain appears to be paying no price for its decision to let the company into parts of its network. Germany looks poised to follow suit.

What’s next: The Trump administration is attempting to cut off Huawei from American technology, but the company is still outcompeting its few rivals.

Quotable: “Many of us in Europe agree that there are significant dangers with Huawei, and the U.S. for at least a year has been telling us, do not use Huawei. Are you offering an alternative?” said Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Estonia’s former president. “What is it that we should do other than not use Huawei?”

If you have 6 minutes, this is worth it

Young Somalis step up

Three decades of crises have left Somalia’s government incapable of providing even basic services. So young Somalis have sprung into action as volunteer medics, road-builders, educators and more.

After a deadly truck bombing in Mogadishu in December, volunteers including Dr. Amina Abdulkadir Isack, above right, tracked the victims, called their families and collected donations. “It showed us we could do something to save lives,” she said.

Here’s what else is happening

Bankruptcy filing for Boy Scouts: Facing a surge of legal costs over its handling of sexual abuse allegations, the Boy Scouts of America filed for bankruptcy protection today. It was unclear how the process would affect the 110-year-old organization, which has 2.2 million participants.

Smaller-than-expected opioid payout: Amid talks to settle thousands of opioid-related lawsuits nationwide, lawyers say the pharmaceutical industry is likely to pay far less compensation than envisioned.

Snapshot: Above, County Road JJ outside Arcadia, Wis., where a school bus slid off the road last fall. Throughout much of the Midwest and South, the rural transportation system is crumbling, and as supersize vehicles bear heavier loads, maintenance budgets can’t keep up.

What we’re reading: This collection of letters to The Guardian. “British newspapers’ letters pages are a peculiar sort of joy,” writes Peter Robins, an editor in our London newsroom. “Recently, readers of The Guardian have been debating how old you have to be before it’s eccentric to keep boiling up your annual 18-pound batch of homemade marmalade. Bidding started at 77 and has escalated rapidly.”

Now, a break from the news

Watch: Zoë Kravitz has her first lead role, in the Hulu series “High Fidelity.” She spoke to The Times about her acting and her life.

Read: “Apeirogon,” the latest novel from Colum McCann, examines the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the eyes of two grieving fathers.

Smarter Living: Experts say the best way to form healthy habits is to tie them into existing patterns. Here’s more advice. (You can get the same tips delivered each day on Alexa smart speakers.)

And now for the Back Story on …

Somalia’s future

Abdi Latif Dahir is The Times’s East Africa correspondent. A Kenyan of Somali descent, he reports in and about several countries. We reached him in Nairobi, Kenya, to talk about his article mentioned above, about young Somalis.

This is such a powerful story of resilience and hope. How did you find it?

Late last year, there was a big attack in Mogadishu, the worst by Al Shabab in two years. And one thing stood out. Almost all the news stories mentioned that a lot of students had died, young people who wanted to be doctors or were studying other specialties that would help the country.

On Jan. 1, I flew to Mogadishu, to follow up on the attack and to write about these students and what they mean to Somalia.

My first story was about that, but also on how things had been getting so much better in Mogadishu — and it was all these young people doing it.

What else inspired you?

I went to this crisis center. They were collecting the names of the victims and reaching out to their families. I wanted to sit among them and see what it was like. They were checking in, asking the families, how are you today?

And maybe they’d hear that the hospital bill had been paid so that was OK, but the family hadn’t eaten breakfast that day. So they would corral someone to get food over to them.

I wanted to write about the chutzpah to invent these systems, to stay strong with all that was happening.

People could rattle off all these names of people they’ve known who’ve been killed. But then they would say, we want to stay here and be the ones to fix this country. They’re creating tech hubs, and restaurants and delivery services that are thriving. Because of the attacks on hotels and restaurants, it’s safer to stay home, have friends over and order a meal.

How is it being the East Africa correspondent?

I’ve had the job since November. It’s incredible. This is a dynamic, evolving region that’s changing socially, geopolitically, economically. It’s a great place to be a journalist. Honestly, you could write a story every hour.

That’s it for this briefing. See you next time.

— Chris

Thank you Mark Josephson and Eleanor Stanford provided the break from the news. You can reach the team at briefing@nytimes.com.

P.S. • We’re listening to “The Daily.” Today’s episode is about Michael Bloomberg. • Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Sound made with two fingers (four letters). You can find all our puzzles here. • Members of our Visual Investigations team recently answered reader questions on YouTube about their reporting techniques, how they choose stories and more.

from WordPress https://mastcomm.com/event/coronavirus-michael-bloomberg-boy-scouts-your-tuesday-briefing-2/

[newsnigeria]

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/assange-new-immoral-western/

Assange: A New Immoral Western Precedent

by Ghassan Kadi for Ooduarere Via Saker Blog

Every time I write about how low the West has stooped, even make predictions as to how much further it is prepared to slump, I find that my wildest imaginations are surpassed in no time at all.

The arrest of Julian Assange and the foray of charges he is suddenly facing is now reaching a point that should only be seen as a yet another precedent that the West will “use” in the near future to stoop even lower.

To make sense out of this, we have to rewind the clock to the time when the Allies won WWII.

The first immoral Western precedent was to try hard to present to the world that the defeat of Nazi Germany was ONLY due to Western efforts and sacrifices. The heavy cost that Russia/USSR has paid, up to 40 million dead, was overlooked in the news and trivialized even in history books. As a matter of fact, a recent commemorative American coin marking the fall of Hitler has totally ignored the USSR even though it was actually Russian troops that entered Berlin, defeated Hitler and forced him to “disappear”. https://sputniknews.com/world/201905231075258961-us-coin-world-war-two-anniversary/

But that was just the beginning. Back then, the West, and specifically America, had the global mastery of wealth and technology. Controlling the media was only a small part of the bigger story of success that no other part of the world could compete with; not in any manner, shape or form.

Soon after came the Communist witch-hunt. But the hunt was not restricted to Communism in other nations, but also any American with any social justice inclinations. The infamous period of McCarthyism haunted and hunted everyone, including movie stars like Charlie Chaplin. But it was the role of America outside its international borders that had its biggest toll. Any country that defied the USA formed a “security threat” and the foundation of an American anti-Communist military intervention.

The first target was Korea. A UNSC resolution was sought and granted to launch an international “police action” against Korea.

The second big target was Vietnam. The USA found a way to dodge the need for a UNSC resolution to pillage Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. It also dragged in its allies.

A few decades and many invasions later, in its ramping up of world opinion against Saddam prior to the 2003 invasion, GWB used the excuse of a “pre-emptive strike”. He fabricated the story about the WMD’s and the rest is history.

In every step of the way, as America sees that it is able to get away with a new lame excuse with total impunity, it uses less and less credible reasons and justifications the next time around. It is like a downward spiral, an anti-crescendo, in which each time a new precedent is created, the next act of audacity will require less justification.

But the precedent set in the case against Assange is a serious and dangerous new low. It is an act that defies one of the basic foundations of the so-called “free world”. It is a witch-hunt that is directed at free journalism, and unless such witch-hunts stop, the next victim could be anyone. It can be you.

Assange has many critics. Some argue that he is an Israeli asset and that this is why he never criticized Israel. Perhaps he is. The truth is that I don’t know and no one has provided damning enough evidence proving that he is. Instead of being a Mossad agent, perhaps he likes Israel. I don’t know either. Perhaps also he did not have consensual sex with the woman accusing him of rape. None of the above is excusable, but WikiLeaks has undoubtedly exposed a lot of dirt about America and specifically the Clintons; and this is good enough in this context.

If people are waiting for the perfect faultless person, a saint, before any truth can be told and any dirt can be exposed, well, they can wait. But remember, let he without a sin cast the first stone. We are all imperfect. We all have our own faults and idiosyncrasies, but this doesn’t stop those of us who care from trying to make the world a better place.

Why is it that some people single out Assange and expect him to embody and symbolize perfection in every way before they acknowledge the good things he has done?

This statement about Assange had to be mentioned as in a “pre-emptive” attempt to answer some possible comments.

Back to the main subject.

As America is losing its clout, technologically, militarily and financially, it is acting like a mad wounded beast that will not stop at anything in order to guarantee survival. In a previous article I wrote a bit over a year ago, I have expressed my views on how America sees the world and how far it is prepared to be pushed. https://thesaker.is/how-far-can-the-americans-be-pushed/

And in a previous and much older article written back in 2012, I reiterated that if push comes to shove, America can always count on its unrivaled nuclear power. http://intibahwakeup.blogspot.com/2013/09/how-far-will-desperate-radical-america.html . But a lot has changed since, and with Russia’s and China’s hypersonic defence and attack missiles (which America does not have), fortunately for the world America no longer holds that trump card anymore and is incapable of scoring a decisive victory by striking either nation first. As a matter of fact, President Putin made a clear reference to this issue in a recent speech https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-usa-missiles-idUSKCN1Q918U

All that America has left is to resort to acts of piracy, oppression and suppression. I say piracy because the way America is dealing with the issue of Iran sanctions is tantamount to piracy. As far as I know, never before in history did a nation boycott another, and then used its clout to coerce other nations to do the same.

And recently, America has been accused by laying traps for Iranian scientists, granting them visit Visas, and then arresting them at arrival. https://sputniknews.com/us/201905241075282775-US-Laid-Traps-Iranian-Academics-Visas-Arresting/ .If this isn’t piracy, what is?

Had America imposed sanctions on Iran back when Iran was issuing “fatwas” against the likes of British author Salman Rushdi, one could see a possibility for some kind of justification that can be used. But the source of terror is from perverted Sunni-based fundamentalism. All the fundamentalist organizations are based on distorted forms of Islam; Wahhabi Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood which are the versions adopted, sponsored, lived, and exported by the Saudis, Qataris and Turkey’s Erdogan, all of whom are America’s friends and allies. And those organizations are once again of Sunni affiliation, and they hate Shiite Iran’s guts. How on earth could Iran be supporting them?

And above all, it was the USA that helped establish many of those organizations and their spread in the West in the first place. Even Mohamed Bin Salman himself acknowledged this in a recent interview. https://www.rt.com/news/422563-saudi-wahhabism-western-countries/ . And the woman who rose to fame by refusing her presidential election defeat is also famous for admitting that “we” (ie American administration) created Al-Qaeda.

It goes without saying that the American-Iranian standoff is about the protection of Israel, and it would do Americans a lot of good if they openly said that Iran did not breach the nuclear deal treaty, it is not responsible for the spread of terror, and we simply want to sanction it because of its anti-Israeli stand. Such truth, crude as it may be, may give America some credibility albeit in a farcical manner.

Why don’t Trump or Pompeo openly and honestly say “America First” means that “we have to put our hands on Venezuela’s oil?” Everyone knows this is what it is all about.

But what honest excuse can America give for persecuting Assange? It cannot say we are after his neck because he has exposed our dirt, so they conjure up a whole list of accusations, 17 charges to be exact; and the citation of this is not necessary.

No, I will not put Assange on par with Socrates, but how can humanity today accept that someone is being persecuted for exposing dirt? More than two thousand years after the execution of Socrates, humanity is still ashamed. What happened to the days of Bernstein and Woodward? Do people still remember them? Well, for those of short memory, those two then unknown junior journalists gave the suffix “gate” to political scandals when they initiated their own Watergate investigation, and which eventually led to the impeachment and resignation of the then President Richard Nixon. The two journos became heroes and won medals, but Assange ends up in jail. He is not a saint, but he is definitely not a criminal, at least not by the charges they have against him. If he is indeed guilty of rape, then let them provide the evidence and charge him if proven guilty. But his political charges don’t have a foot to stand on. And the Swedish Government cannot expect the world to believe that the whole hullabaloo is about a single incident of rape in a country with a surging rape rate. What makes the positon of the Swedish Government more blatantly hypocritical is the fact that courts in Nordic countries have a very lenient stance in punishing rapists. They seem to be more compassionate towards rapists than the actual rape victims; especially after the recent rape surge that is seemingly associated with migration. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/04/rape-and-sexual-violence-in-nordic-countries-consent-laws/. So once again, why single out Assange? What a shame.

And we cannot speak of Assange without at least mentioning Bradley/Chelsea Manning. Manning does not receive the same publicity that Assange does, but her predicament is not any less.

What is more foreboding than American actions are those of EU nations. Nations like France and Germany are meant to be smart. I will leave Britain out, because Britain has strong historic and cultural links with America. But how can Germany and France be so stupid in following America’s instructions and fake accusations of Russia to justify sanctions? How can they accept an American missile buildup in Western and Eastern Europe?

And Sweden, the nation that has always represented the fair and compassionate side of politics, how can it justify its witch-hunt against Assange? This is the capital of the Nobel Prize for God’s sake. This is the nation that allegedly promotes and fosters peace. And Norway, beautiful clean peaceful Norway, is allowing the US to base missile batteries on its soil poised at Russia. Why? Have they all gone mad?

America is taking the term “unprecedented” to an unprecedented new level, and every time it commits a new unprecedented audacious act, brace yourselves for more audacity.

So ever since sidelining the role of the USSR in defeating the Third Reich, America started by ignoring facts, and moved on to exaggerating foreign threats, to fabricating evidence, to piracy and suppressing free journalism; all the while, Western nations follow like brainless sheep. Perhaps the new precedent to watch out for will be after all honesty-based, saying it as it is…. “We want to invade your country because we want your resources.”