Saturday, October 2, 2021

Is it ever OK to praise the ‘truth’ of an anti-Semitic blood libel? - Jonathan S. Tobin

 

by Jonathan S. Tobin

The vice president not only failed to challenge a student who smeared Israel, but praised her instead. What does this say about campus culture and politicians who see the hard-left as their party’s base?

 

Vice President Kamala Harris at George Mason University. Source: Screenshot.

Does it matter if politicians let lies told by people they meet publicly go unanswered? That’s the question that many in the Jewish community, especially the majority who regularly vote for Democrats, are asking this week in the wake of an incident this week involving Vice President Kamala Harris.

After giving a brief talk at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., advocating her party’s position opposing the passage of what Republicans believe to be voter integrity laws and that Democrats claim are “voter suppression,” Harris took questions from students. One of them, who identified herself as “half-Iranian and half-Yemeni,” launched into a diatribe where she contrasted the “protests and demonstrations in astronomical numbers” on behalf of “Palestine” with the fact that Congress had passed funding for the Iron Dome missile-defense system for Israel. “That hurts my heart,” the student said, because Israel’s existence is an expression of “ethnic genocide” and the same thing “that happened in America.” She went on to say that instead of funding Israel’s ethnic genocide, the money should have gone to health care.

As the student spoke, the masked vice president listened quietly and nodded. But rather than push back against that false and libelous characterization of the Jewish state—and why Israel has a right to self-defense and that it is America’s obligation to stand with a fellow democracy—Harris responded with a lecture about pluralism and the need for activism.

“Your voice, your perspective, your experience, your truth cannot be suppressed, and it must be heard,” said Harris.

The vice president, whose performance to date in the undefined and generally non-challenging role of veep, has gotten generally poor marks from political observers for her lack of engagement and poor messaging on a number of issues, such as focusing on the border crisis. But instead of diffusing a difficult moment that she may have feared would provoke unnecessary controversy, she did the opposite.

The video of the confrontation, broadcast live on C-SPAN, went viral and led to an avalanche of criticism, largely from Republicans and Israelis, who regarded Harris’s refusal to express any disagreement with the student and her nodding along as she said those things as tantamount to agreeing with her.

It would be a full two days later, as comments about the incident began to intrude on the news cycle, when the vice president, through her spokespeople, said that she disagreed with what the student had said.

Reaching out to liberal groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the partisan Democratic Majority for Israel, and then to various news outlets, the vice president’s office said that she “strongly disagrees” with the student and sought to claim that she has always supported Israel.

At that point, the Democratic spinners also sought to point out that the video of the incident seen by most viewers had cut off before Harris replied to the student: “The point that you are making about policy that relates to Middle East policy, foreign policy; we still have healthy debates in our country about what is the right path, and nobody’s voice should be suppressed on that.”

That last part is true. America is still a free country, and those who wish to debate U.S. support for Israel, even by making false and defamatory arguments, should be allowed to do so.

That still begs the question as to why Harris felt the need to validate the student’s point of view in some way. It also leaves open the matter of why, if the vice president was such a strong supporter of the Jewish state, she didn’t think it appropriate to preface her entirely superfluous defense of the right to dissent with even a hint that the views being expressed were not only wrongheaded but dangerous. That’s especially true since the protests in May the student was referring to, which took place as the Hamas terror organization was launching missiles into Israeli population centers, were largely a defense of the right of Palestinians in Gaza to kill Jews. Such sentiments, in the United States and elsewhere, led to anti-Semitic violence on campus and off.

The likely correct answer to these questions is both prosaic and provides an illustration of what it means to be a “progressive” in 21st-century America.

Not everyone is always ready with the right response or quip in the moment when it’s needed. A lot of us have to think a bit before we realize what is happening in a conversation and then only come up with what should have been said until much later. But Harris—a quick-witted veteran attorney, prosecutor and politician—is actually known for her sharp tongue and readiness to use it on anyone with whom she disagrees. That was something made abundantly clear by her conduct on the Senate Judiciary Committee during televised confirmation hearings.

It’s also true that politicians are generally not in the business of telling people “no.” They love to be loved and generally seek applause wherever they go. Even when confronted with disagreement, protest or hecklers, most respond gently, even if something roils them.

There have also been politicians who take it as their obligation not just to engage and please voters, but to chide them when they are wrong. The late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is remembered for his willingness to scold those who made disparaging remarks about former President Barack Obama, his opponent in the 2008 presidential election. While some Republicans look back on this and say this proves the old baseball adage about “nice guys finishing last,” it was more than an example of his honesty and devotion to fair play. It was also a reflection of his belief that those in the public service were not obligated to pander to the lowest common denominator in their search for votes.

Yet in order to understand the significance of an incident that loyal Democrats insist is a meaningless kerfuffle, ask yourself this question.

What would Democrats have said if former Vice President Mike Pence had responded with the same sort of blather about diversity and pluralism if he was confronted with a question by someone who expressed racist views disparaging African-Americans or Hispanics?

After all, Jewish liberals spent the four years of the Trump administration insisting that the coarse and imprecise language used by Pence’s boss was somehow responsible for a rise in anti-Semitism, even if his policies were the most pro-Israel in history, and he had taken strong stands against Jew-hatred.

More than an example of liberal hypocrisy, what happened at George Mason was likely an expression of the dynamic that currently exists on the political left these days.

Harris went to the school to generate support for her party’s positions from student activists. She had no interest in a Sister Souljah moment in which she would demonstrate either her moderate chops or her pro-Israel bona fides. Speaking up for the Jewish state under those circumstances would have undermined the whole point of the appearance and alienated the very leftist base that is the cutting edge of Democratic Party activism these days. Her instincts were to stay silent because that is what she and many others in her party think are in their best political interests. It was only later when the incident blew up that she and her handlers came to a different conclusion, though it’s likely they still gauge that criticism from pro-Israel groups is a smaller price to pay than the blowback they would have gotten from party activists had she rebuked the student as she should have.

Instead of being a meaningless kerfuffle, more evidence that Harris isn’t up to the challenges of being veep or even the perils of living in a 24/7 news cycle in which no gaffe goes unnoticed, what happened at George Mason University gave us some insight into the lamentable state of discourse on the left about Israel.

 

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/is-it-ever-ok-to-praise-the-truth-of-an-anti-semitic-blood-libel/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden lacks mandate to get Bernie Sanders's domestic agenda through Congress - Emma Colton

 

by Emma Colton

He's struggling to pass his progressive domestic policy agenda in Congress

Biden meets with House Dems to push infrastructure bill

White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich discusses the Biden Administration’s push to pass the infrastructure bill despite rising opposition on ‘Special Report’ 

As President Biden struggles to pass his progressive domestic policy agenda in Congress, the battle is a reflection of his top legislative priorities deviating from his mandate as a moderate. The mega-spending reconciliation bill puts the progressive wing in the driver seat – and finding the political capital to get it passed has proven difficult. 

Biden campaigned in 2020 on a moderate platform, handily defeating socialist competitor Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, who won seven states to his 42 in the primary, and knocking Kamala Harris, the most left-wing senator at the time, out of the race before New Year’s celebrations rang out in 2020. Pete Buttigieg, who also campaigned on a moderate platform, managed to snag one state in the primary, while Biden captured the rest of the country. 

He continued aggressively pitching himself to moderate voters as he competed against former President Donald Trump, heralding that he would unite the country. 

​​HANNITY: BIDEN'S PLEAS FOR 'SOCIALIST' TAKEOVER IS PROOF HE 'DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOUR KIDS, GROCERY BILL, JOB'

On Inauguration Day, he preached unity, promising to bring the country together after a polarizing four years under President Donald Trump. 

However, Biden’s top legislative priorities now hang in the balance. Moderates, progressives and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are battling over a $1 trillion infrastructure deal and a $3.5 trillion social spending package, which Bernie Sanders – chair of the Senate Budget Committee – played a pivotal role in crafting. The bill includes progressive programs such as tuition-free community college, expanded Medicare, a universal preschool program. 

Progressives flexed their muscles this week, holding up the bipartisan infrastructure deal until they get a vote on the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. The power move spurred Pelosi to twice pull a vote on infrastructure, and admit "more time is needed." Democratic moderates, Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, continue railing against the high price tag, saying they will never support a bill over $1.5 trillion. 

"Within the next several months congress will be voting on the most consequential piece of legislation for working, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor since Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal of the 1930s," Sanders said shortly before heading off to moderate strongholds Indiana and Iowa in August to champion the progressive agenda. 

 

Sanders and his progressive allies must win over reluctant moderates, with midterms just around the corner, if they want to pass the reconciliation bill where it stands now.

House Democrats hold their slimmest majority in decades after Republicans managed to flip 15 seats in 2020. Democrats flipped three, despite their robust confidence of a blue wave sweeping the country. The push for the far-left agenda threatens to tank much-needed policy victories after a summer fraught with multiple crises.

COVID COVER: BIDEN ISSUES NEW POLICY TO DISTRACT FROM MULTIPLE CRISES, CRITICS SAY

Poll numbers for Biden have also dropped, which was sparked by his botched handling of Afghanistan withdrawal this summer, coupled with the border crisis and rising prices. He hit a 50% approval rating this week, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, after snagging 54% approval in August and 59% in July. 

As Biden tries to court moderates in Congress to get on board with his agenda and the Democratic infighting rages, he’s struggling to get legislative victories. He notched a win when the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan passed earlier this year, but his focus has overwhelmingly now been on infrastructure. 

Former President Donald Trump snagged his first legislative victory in 2017 when the Republicans’ tax-cut bill passed. While former President Barack Obama had similar victories early in his presidency, most notably in 2010 with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. 

BIDEN VACATIONS AT DELAWARE BEACH HOUSE AFTER WEEK OF HEAVY LOSSES

Biden's push for progressive legislation after running as a moderate has not been lost on his Republican critics.  

"The bait was he was going to govern as bipartisan, but the switch is he’s governed as a socialist," House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy said in April. 

"I’m hard pressed to find anything moderate about the Biden Administration, which is why Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are so excited about this new administration. He talks like a moderate, but is governing to satisfy the far left," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has added. 

Biden has meanwhile vowed to get the job done on his domestic policies, striking an optimistic tone on Friday as confusion and infighting on Capitol Hill raged. 

"We're going to get this done," he told reporters Friday. "It doesn't matter when. It doesn't, whether it's in six minutes, six days, or six weeks -- we're going to get it done."

 

Emma Colton

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-congress-infrastructure-mandate-bernie-sanders-progressives

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hunter Biden and the Art of Corruption - Peter Schweizer

 

by Peter Schweizer

It is genius-level corruption, an ethical nightmare for the White House, and a masterpiece of congressional and media dereliction of duty.

  • It is the latest in a string of scams Hunter Biden has undertaken. First, it was his being named, with no expertise whatsoever in either Ukraine or the oil and gas business, to the board of directors of Burisma, a Ukrainian oil and gas company under investigation for fraud. Then it was the deluxe payday in 2012 for his Rosemont-Seneca real estate investment partnership, which was bankrolled to the tune of more than $1.5 billion by Chinese investors with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

  • It is genius-level corruption, an ethical nightmare for the White House, and a masterpiece of congressional and media dereliction of duty.

  • Bergès himself has said he is eager to expand his business into the Chinese market. Who will know if China's art-loving billionaires, all connected deeply to the Communist Party and in some cases to the Chinese military, are Hunter's benefactors?

  • Are we really supposed to believe that the anonymity of the buyers will remain a tight secret, and that Chinese government-connected buyers will not somehow let the Bidens know they are Hunter's newest and biggest fans?

  • Money-laundering in the art market is nothing new. A Senate Homeland Security and Government Oversight committee report last year identified the art market as the "largest legal, unregulated market in the United States" and a significant weakness in the nation's sanctions and anti-money laundering regimes. Simply put, art transactions are not covered under what's known as the Bank Secrecy Act, which require financial institutions to maintain anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing controls.

  • Is there any reason to doubt that the proceeds from Hunter's artistic payday will somehow once again find their way into the Biden family estate?

  • Why are they failing to scrutinize what is so obviously a back-door scheme to funnel money to the president's son from foreign sources? Every American who cares about transparency in government should be outraged.

President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, has now plunged into the world of international art. Apparently, Hunter's paintings might sell for as much as $500,000 to various anonymous aficionados, according to Hunter's new art dealer, Georges Bergès. It is the latest in a string of scams Hunter Biden (pictured) has undertaken. (Photo by DNCC via Getty Images)

They say the beauty of art is in the eye of the beholder, but does that apply to corruption as well?

President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, has now plunged into the world of international art, with a New York gallery owner brokering art sales for the rare, emerging talent. Apparently, Hunter's paintings might sell for as much as $500,000 to various anonymous aficionados, according to Hunter's new art dealer, Georges Bergès.

It is the latest in a string of scams Hunter Biden has undertaken. First, it was his being named, with no expertise whatsoever in either Ukraine or the oil and gas business, to the board of directors of Burisma, a Ukrainian oil and gas company under investigation for fraud. Then it was the deluxe payday in 2012 for his Rosemont-Seneca real estate investment partnership, which was bankrolled to the tune of more than $1.5 billion by Chinese investors with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Hunter had little or no experience in private equity, either, but he had just arrived in Beijing aboard Air Force Two with his father the Vice President, just two weeks before that enormous deal was announced.

And now, once again with no real experience or any formal training in art, Hunter has become an artiste, whose dabblings with collages and mixed-media creations might command top-dollar from international collectors. One might wonder: Is he any good?

Chris Cilizza of CNN asked that of Sebastian Smee, the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize–winning art critic, who likened what he saw to "a cafe painter."

"By which I mean, you see a certain kind of art in coffee shops, and some of it is OK and a lot of it is bad, and sometimes it's surprisingly good. But you wouldn't, unless you were related to the artist, spend more than $1,000 on it."

The New York Times gently described Hunter's work as "leaning toward the surreal." Smee explained, "People sometimes say 'surreal' when they mean 'random.'"

But there's nothing "random" here. It is just yet one more blatant scam by Joe Biden's son. It is genius-level corruption, an ethical nightmare for the White House, and a masterpiece of congressional and media dereliction of duty.

The obvious problem is that even though the White House has said the identities of the purchasers of Hunter's art will be anonymous, there is no way to know. Walter Shaub, the former head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, said in July:

"There's no mechanism for monitoring, no mechanism for notifying the public if confidentiality is broken, no mechanism for tracking if buyers get access to [the government]."

My investigative team at the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) has the 30,000 emails contained on Hunter Biden's laptop, and the corroborating email records that establish their authenticity. We have been going through these emails by hand and have identified concrete examples of Hunter Biden paying bills for his father while the latter was Vice President. As I said on Maria Bartiromo's Fox News program recently, that is illegal.

We at GAI have seen this kind of thing before. The story of the Clinton Foundation that we broke in 2015 was full of this kind of "bank-shot" influence-peddling and corruption. Companies seeking to influence Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State under President Barack Obama were, inexplicably, suddenly donating enormous sums of money to her family's charity. We were able to identify the donors and their real interests through tax and corporate records, even as the Clinton Foundation itself would not reveal all of its donors. We could, as investigative journalists, corroborate the coincidences through public records with a lot of digging.

No such thing will be possible when Hunter Biden's artwork is peddled by Bergès through his private gallery, especially if the purchasers are foreign interests from countries where tax laws are not so rigorous. Bergès himself has said he is eager to expand his business into the Chinese market. Who will know if China's art-loving billionaires, all connected deeply to the Communist Party and in some cases to the Chinese military, are Hunter's benefactors? Are we really supposed to believe that the anonymity of the buyers will remain a tight secret, and that Chinese government-connected buyers will not somehow let the Bidens know they are Hunter's newest and biggest fans?

They have done it before, as we have demonstrated.

Even if the key figure of this ridiculously obvious ploy for cash payments were not the son of the U.S. president, this story shines the spotlight on the other problem with international art sales – its exemption from the kinds of disclosure laws and money-laundering preventatives that financial institutions such as banks must follow.

Money-laundering in the art market is nothing new. A Senate Homeland Security and Government Oversight committee report last year identified the art market as the "largest legal, unregulated market in the United States" and a significant weakness in the nation's sanctions and anti-money laundering regimes. Simply put, art transactions are not covered under what's known as the Bank Secrecy Act, which require financial institutions to maintain anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing controls. The large auction houses such as Christie's and Sotheby's do this voluntarily, but smaller, private sellers are under no obligation to do so.

Private art sales, which accounted for 58% of the U.S. art market by value in 2019, are unregulated. One private dealer with 30 years of experience in the art market explained to the committee that she relied on the advice of lawyers, an awareness of potential "red flags" and her "gut" to self-regulate.

Our investigation uncovered a text message from Hunter Biden to his daughter, in which he complained about paying the bills for the rest of the Biden family. We know, for example, Hunter's businesses were paying contractors at Joe Biden's Delaware home and also paying $300 per month phone bills for private phones used by the Vice President. Is there any reason to doubt that the proceeds from Hunter's artistic payday will somehow once again find their way into the Biden family estate?

Why is this not being scrutinized? The ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. James Comer, (R-KY), has sent letters to Bergès demanding the complete documentation of transactions involving Hunter's art sales. Comer is unlikely to get it: only the Democrat majority on the committee can authorize subpoenas to compel those records. As the Wall Street Journal noted in a recent editorial, the committee's chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), seems uninterested in doing so. Why are they failing to scrutinize what is so obviously a back-door scheme to funnel money to the president's son from foreign sources? Every American who cares about transparency in government should be outraged.

 

Peter Schweizer, President of the Governmental Accountability Institute, is a Gatestone Institute Distinguished Senior Fellow and author of the best-selling books Profiles in Corruption, Secret Empires and Clinton Cash, among others.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17811/hunter-biden-corruption

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Nuclear Armed Iran More Dangerous Than North Korea - Majid Rafizadeh

by Majid Rafizadeh

Once such leaders have weapons of mass destruction, it is far more costly in life and treasure to try and stop them. Iran might not even need to use its nuclear weapons; the threat should be more than enough.

  • General Hossein Salami, the chief of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has made the Iranian regime's plans vehemently clear: "Our strategy is to erase Israel from the global political map," he stated on Iran's state-controlled Channel 2 TV in 2019. Supreme Leader Khamenei, in 2015, also published a 416-page guidebook, titled "Palestine", about destroying Israel.

  • "The mission of the constitution is to create conditions conducive to the development of man in accordance with the noble and universal values of (Shiite) Islam." The regime's constitution goes on to say that it "provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the revolution at home and abroad."

  • There is the dangerous likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Iran's proxy and militia groups, or that the Iranian regime will share its nuclear technology with its proxies and allies such as the Syrian regime or the Taliban in Afghanistan.

  • If this is how Iran's leadership treats its own citizens, what makes anyone think they would treat their perceived adversaries any better? As others have asked: If Hitler had acquired a nuclear weapon, do you think he would have hesitated to use it?

  • Once such leaders have weapons of mass destruction, it is far more costly in life and treasure to try and stop them. Iran might not even need to use its nuclear weapons; the threat should be more than enough.

The Iranian regime is nearing an atomic milestone in acquiring nuclear weapons. General Hossein Salami, the chief of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has made the Iranian regime's plans vehemently clear: "Our strategy is to erase Israel from the global political map," he stated on Iran's state-controlled Channel 2 TV in 2019. Pictured: Salami speaks in Tehran's Enghelab Square on November 25, 2019. (Photo by Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)

The Iranian regime is nearing an atomic milestone in acquiring nuclear weapons. In the meantime, the Biden administration does not seem to have a clear agenda to prevent the mullahs from going nuclear. Even the New York Times reported that the Islamic Republic is "within roughly a month of having enough material to fuel a single nuclear weapon".

Ever since the Biden administration assumed office, the Iranian regime has been accelerating its enrichment of uranium to "near weapons grade". As the International Atomic Energy Agency pointed out:

"Since 23 February 2021 the Agency's verification and monitoring activities have been seriously undermined as a result of Iran's decision to stop the implementation of its nuclear-related commitments".

The threats of a nuclear-armed Iran must not be underestimated. First, the regime has frequently threatened to wipe a whole country -- Israel -- off the map. One of the core pillars of the Islamic Republic has been destroying the Jewish state. It is also one of the religious prophecies of the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, as well as his successor, the current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that Israel will be eventually erased from the face of the earth.

General Hossein Salami, the chief of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has made the Iranian regime's plans vehemently clear: "Our strategy is to erase Israel from the global political map," he stated on Iran's state-controlled Channel 2 TV in 2019. Khamenei has also published a 416-page guidebook, titled "Palestine," about destroying Israel.

Second, the theocratic establishment of the mullahs is anchored in prioritizing the pursuit of its revolutionary ideals, which include exporting its Islamist system of governance to other countries around the world. The mullahs, in fact, incorporated this critical mission into its constitution. The preamble stipulates: "The mission of the constitution is to create conditions conducive to the development of man in accordance with the noble and universal values of (Shiite) Islam." The regime's constitution goes on to say that it "provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the revolution at home and abroad."

Since 1979, by deploying its IRGC and its elite branch, the Quds Force, Iran's leaders have managed to expand Tehran's influence throughout the Middle East from Yemen to Lebanon, Syria, and the Gaza Strip through its proxy groups, including the Houthi militia, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a conglomerate of more than 40 militia groups in Iraq.

Third, there is the dangerous likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Iran's proxy and militia groups, or that the Iranian regime will share its nuclear technology with its proxies and allies such as the Syrian regime or the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The Iranian regime has already been setting up weapons factories abroad, and manufacturing advanced ballistic missiles and weapons in foreign countries, including in Syria. These include precision-guided missiles with advanced technology to strike specific targets.

As Iran's regime is already supplying advanced weapons to its proxies, what would stop it from sharing its nuclear technology to empower its proxies and militia groups, to undermine its perceived adversaries' national security interests and to expand its reach? The latest UN annual report revealed this year that the Houthis have been receiving significant amount of weapons from the Iranian regime: "An increasing body of evidence suggests that individuals or entities in the Islamic Republic of Iran supply significant volumes of weapons and components to the Houthis."

Iran has for years been designated by the US Department of State as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism". One of Iran's diplomats, Assadollah Assadi, is on trial in Europe for a failed terror bombing plot in Paris, France, where a "Free Iran" rally was held. Iran continues to use undercover agents or dispatch troops. Several countries, including Kuwait, have detained more than a few Iranians trying to infiltrate their country. Tehran has been found using its embassies and diplomats in foreign countries for such purposes.

Just as telling, Iran does not treat its own citizens particularly well. In Iran, as recent reports document:

"Security forces used unlawful force to crush protests. The authorities continued to arbitrarily detain hundreds of protesters, dissidents and human rights defenders, and sentenced many to imprisonment and flogging. Women, as well as ethnic and religious minorities, faced entrenched discrimination as well as violence. Enforced disappearances, torture and other ill-treatment were committed with impunity on a widespread and systematic basis. Judicial corporal punishments amounting to torture, including floggings and amputations, were imposed. Fair trial rights were systematically violated. The death penalty was used as a weapon of political repression. Executions were carried out, one in public and some others in secret. Those executed included people aged under 18 at the time of the crime. The authorities continued to commit crimes against humanity by systematically concealing the fate and whereabouts of several thousand political dissidents forcibly disappeared and extrajudicially executed in secret in 1988. Mass graves believed to contain their remains were subject to ongoing destruction."

If this is how Iran's leadership treats its own citizens, what makes anyone think they would treat their perceived adversaries any better? As others have asked: If Hitler had acquired a nuclear weapon, do you think he would have hesitated to use it?

If the predatory regime of Iran's mullahs obtains nuclear weapons, one can only imagine how much more hostile and emboldened it will become. Once such leaders have weapons of mass destruction, it is far more costly in life and treasure to try and stop them. Iran might not even need to use its nuclear weapons; the threat should be more than enough.

 

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17825/nuclear-armed-iran

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hunter Biden and the Muslim Brotherhood - Daniel Greenfield

 

by Daniel Greenfield

Only a Biden could bring Communist China and the Brotherhood together.

 


While Vice President Joe Biden was in the White House, his son Hunter was allegedly trying to cut a huge deal with a $2 million payment and a possible 5% success fee as high as $750 million. All it would take was bringing together Communist China and the Muslim Brotherhood.

And who but a Biden could pull that off?

The UN Security Council sanctions that had been slapped on the Libyan Investment Authority during the civil war between Gaddafi and the Islamists were still in place years later because the Arab Spring had left the country in the throes of a permanent civil war with the Islamists.

The LIA's wealth fund, now worth an estimated $68 billion, had been part of a deal cut between the Libyan dictator and the Bush administration. When Gaddafi abandoned his WMD program, and sanctions were dropped on Libya, the LIA quickly became one of Africa's largest wealth funds, and bought big, investing in American companies, banks, and bonds.

Including billions in treasury bills.

When Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood stabbed Gaddafi in the back and went to war to support the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Libya, tens of billions in LIA assets were frozen. And as the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists have continued to battle the remnants of Libya’s military for power, the sanctions have remained in place costing the LIA some $4 billion.

When Sam Jauhari, a Democrat donor, sent the email, indicating that Hunter wanted $2 million to lobby on the deal, his father had long been seen as the gateway to all that wealth.

Jauhari, who had plowed $80,000 into the Obama campaign, and tens of thousands more into the Democrat machine, was allegedly an associate of Imaad Zuberi, a Pakistani who had been working on Libya with Biden’s body man and close friend. Earlier this year, Zuberi was sentenced to 12 years in prison for funneling foreign money into political campaigns in the United States. Among his alleged employers was the Qatari Islamic terror state and a prosecutor alleged that "U.S. policy was changed to align with Qatar’s interests.

Prosecutors say that Zuberi received $9.8 million from the Qatari state sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood. He had also allegedly funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Saudi Muslim tycoon to the Obama inauguration. His WhatsApp messages have him mentioning, "I need to get the 5 to 6 Clinton donation done by tomorrow" and “You want billions unfrozen. This is nothing. Iranians spent $150 to get $25 billion released."

His recipient complains, "I spent 2.6 million before. What did I get?"

The names of the Libyan officials have been censored, but the deal appeared to involve the Tripoli government. At the time the deals were being discussed, the Tripoli government was largely dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Control over LIA had been a top Muslim Brotherhood priority and the LIA allegedly includes at least one Brotherhood board member.

The first email about retaining Hunter Biden was sent in January 2015. In 2012, a Muslim Brotherhood alliance had conspired to take power through fraudulent elections in Libya. In 2014, the Brotherhood alliance, after repeatedly using Islamist militias to terrorize its rivals in Tripoli, lost new elections and declared that it would continue to govern anyway.

When the Hunter Biden emails were being sent, Libya had two rival governments, the Muslim Brotherhood in Tripoli and a more moderate coalition in Tobruk. The rival governments also staked their own claims to Libya’s wealth whose crown jewel were the LIA’s investments.

While the released court documents of Zuberi’s WhatsApp chats were censored to remove the names and identities of any of the players, he asks at one point, "Does the Libyans want me to introduce them to Turkish president?" Turkey was a strong backer of the Tripoli regime. It’s highly unlikely that political figures in the Tobruk government would have been looking for an introduction to their worst enemy. The Muslim Brotherhood however was backed by Turkey.

The Biden email however provides an even bigger clue when it notes that Hunter “said he has access to highest level in PRC, he can help there.”

The Muslim Brotherhood had gotten Obama and Hillary Clinton to intervene in Libya. That illegal invasion enabled them to take power, but as part of the crisis, sanctions had been imposed by the United Nations. And Obama and Hillary were not able to unilaterally lift those sanctions.

The sanctions had been imposed by the UN Security Council. And could only be lifted by it.

The People’s Republic of China had been a major player in Libya. When the civil war arrived, it sided with Gaddafi and once he was overthrown, Chinese oil companies were frozen out. Getting China to support lifting some sanctions would require a quid pro quo arrangement that would let the PRC’s oil companies and other businesses back into Libya.

Hunter Biden’s ties to CEFC China Energy and the gift of an eighty thousand dollar diamond have already been widely reported. A CEFC executive would later be accused of plotting to provide weapons to Qatar and Libya. Qatar was a major backer of the Brotherhood.

Even without Hunter's diplomatic talents, China and the Islamist government came to terms.

But the China factor explains why the Libyans considered Hunter Biden as an intermediary at all. The Biden family was a perfect halfway point between the Muslim Brotherhood and the People’s Republic. Both the Islamists and the Communists had invested in the Biden clan.

What was really at stake here was a quid pro quo oil deal in exchange for the LIA lockbox of billions that had to be negotiated through the White House and UN Security Council members. It was a thorny problem which the Libyans still don’t seem to have cracked, and it’s unlikely that Hunter Biden could have managed to appease all the different interests if he had gotten the job.

The Zuberi messages mention that, "the negotiation is towards 3.5 to 4% or it will not fly... they said that they have 190 billion outside and they will not give 5%." It’s not clear whether Hunter would have seen any part of that 5%, or whether the WhatsApp messages refer to any deal involving him at the time, but either way there was a whole lot of money at stake.

The Libyan civil war was not just ideological, but economic. The Arab Spring had become a vehicle for not only Islamist theological ambitions, but the economic agendas of its backers.

"Hey read the book Clinton Cash," Zuberi told an associate. "This is how America work. How Washington work."

It’s certainly how the Bidens work. In an already fetid swamp, the Bidens added a new layer of treasonous greed. Only the Bidens could have been up for potentially being hired by the Muslim Brotherhood to cut a deal with Communist China.

As long as the money from America’s enemies was right.

 

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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/10/hunter-biden-and-muslim-brotherhood-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Americans' Shifting Views on the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict - Eytan Gilboa

 

by Eytan Gilboa

Turning Israel's struggle for survival upside down—with aggressors turned into hapless victims and vice versa—the fake Palestinian narrative of unblemished victimhood has made inroads into American public opinion.

The positive favorability rating of Israel among Americans is likely related to views on the Israeli and Palestinian political systems. While Israel is a thriving liberal democracy, the PA is a corrupt, ineffective, and failed dictatorship.

As the worldwide mass demonstrations during the latest war between Israel and Hamas vividly illustrate, every conflict is fought twice: first on the battlefield, then in public opinion. Having failed to destroy the State of Israel upon its birth and in ensuing decades of terrorism, the Palestinians waged a sustained propaganda battle to win over Western hearts and minds, especially in the United States, the foremost world power and Israel's staunchest and most longstanding ally.

Turning Israel's struggle for survival upside down—with aggressors turned into hapless victims and vice versa—the fake Palestinian narrative of unblemished victimhood has made inroads into American public opinion. This has been especially true since the onset of the Oslo "peace process," which transformed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) overnight from the world's leading terror organization into a (supposed) peaceable political actor.

Yet, examination of American attitudes toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict over the past two decades, as reflected in national public opinion surveys during this period, reveals stable and highly favorable feelings toward Israel, albeit not without some widening fissures, and unfavorable, if somewhat improving, attitudes toward the Palestinians. Indeed, even the foremost indicator of the improving Palestinian image—the growing support for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the framework of the two-state solution—is not only a corollary of pro-Palestinian sentiments but also of the widespread belief that, as the only (perceived) road to peace, such a move is in Israel's best interests.

Trends and Issues

Favorability. General feelings toward peoples and nations influence opinions on specific issues and policies, and surveys use the term "favorability" to gauge such feelings. Over the past two decades most surveyed Americans held positive opinions of Israel, with its favorability rate rising from 62 percent in 2000 to 74 percent in 2020 (an average 64 percent rate in 2000-10, and 71 percent in 2011-20). By contrast, favorable opinions of the PLO-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA), established in 1994 by the Oslo accords as the official governing body of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip's Palestinians, remained conspicuously low (and virtually unchanged) over the past two decades: 21 percent favorability rate in 2000 and 23 percent in 2020.

Apart from the numerous, mutually beneficial aspects of the longstanding U.S.-Israeli relationship (e.g., military, intelligence, and technological collaboration), this substantial favorability gap is probably related to the diametrically opposed nature of the Israeli and Palestinian political systems. While Israel is a thriving liberal democracy, the PA is a corrupt, ineffective, and failed dictatorship. During its 27-year existence, it has been headed by only two leaders: Yasser Arafat until his death in November 2004, and Mahmoud Abbas ever since (despite the expiry of his presidential term in early 2009). Similarly, the PA held parliamentary elections only twice—in January 1996 and January 2006—after which it effectively ceased to function as Abbas would not allow Hamas, which won the 2006 elections by a landslide, to run the PA. This drove the Islamist terror organization to eject the PLO violently from Gaza in 2007 and to establish its own repressive rule there.

Nor has the PA ever established an independent media and judiciary or respected basic human rights including freedoms of life, liberty, opinion, expression, assembly, and women rights.[1] And while the PA regularly blames its ineptness and failures on the "Israeli occupation," the truth is that this "occupation" ended in January 1996 when Israel withdrew its forces from the West Bank's populated areas, with the exception of Hebron where redeployment was completed in early 1997, while withdrawal from the Gaza Strip's populated areas had been completed by May 1994. Since then, 95 percent of the West Bank and the Gaza Palestinian population have lived under the rule of the PA (and since 2007, under Hamas's rule in Gaza), which have turned these territories into repressive dictatorships.[2]

Another cause of the negative view of the PA (and Hamas) has been its persistent use of terrorism—from Arafat's tacit encouragement of Hamas's and the Islamic Jihad's 1990s suicide bombings; to its four-year-long terrorist war (September 2000- February 2005), euphemized as the "al-Aqsa Intifada"; to the firing of thousands of rockets from the Gaza Strip on Israeli population centers; to the "pay and slay" policy of remunerating convicted terrorists imprisoned in Israel. Indeed, whenever Palestinian terrorism seemed to be abating, there was a spike in the PA's favorability image among Americans, notably in 2005 when the "al-Aqsa Intifada" withered away following Arafat's death and Israel's successful counterterrorism measures.

There is a historic trend of greater American sympathy with Israelis than with the Palestinians.

Sympathies. As with the favorability factor addressing attitudes toward Israel and the PA as political entities, the "sympathy" factor, exploring sentiments toward Israelis and Palestinians as national communities, has evinced a historic trend of greater American sympathizing with Israelis than with the Palestinians (or other Arabs for that matter). Examples include: the overwhelming U.S. public support for the establishment of a Jewish state before the passing of the November 1947 U.N. partition resolution when 65 percent of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll supported the idea[3]; the wall-to-wall sympathy for Israelis and censure of Arab aggression during the 1967 Six-Day War (56 percent vs. 4 percent),[4] and a figure of 64 percent in sympathy with Israelis during the 1991 Gulf War, compared to 7 percent with the Palestinians.[5]

There has, of course, been the occasional fluctuation from this pattern in accordance with regional vicissitudes. After the September 1982 killing of hundreds of Palestinians in the Beirut refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila by a local Christian militia, for example, the gap between sympathy for Israelis and Palestinians narrowed to its slimmest point (32 percent vs. 28 percent). Conversely, Palestinian support for Saddam Hussein's brutal occupation of Kuwait and his unprovoked missile attacks on Israel led to a record sympathy gap of 57 percent in favor of Israelis. But on the whole, the "sympathy index" during the latter part of the twentieth century reveals a substantial and stable gap in favor of Israelis.

This pattern stayed virtually unchanged in 2000-20, with American public opinion remaining vastly more sympathetic to Israelis than to Palestinians. Thus, the sympathy gap between the two groups grew from 35 percent in 2001 to 48 percent in 2010 (51 percent vs. 16 percent and 63 percent vs. 15 percent respectively) before narrowing to 37 percent in 2020 (60 percent vs. 23 percent). This shows that the increase in sympathy for the Palestinians did not come at the expense of sympathy for Israelis, with the average gap in their favor over the past two decades standing at 41 percent, being slightly wider in 2020 than in 2001: 37 percent vs. 35 percent.[6]

As in previous decades, there were some fluctuations from this general pattern of stability, mainly in the extent of sympathy for the Palestinians: the greater their political intransigence and physical violence, the less public American sympathy there was for their cause and the reverse. Thus, for example, the outbreak of the "al-Aqsa intifada" widened the sympathy gap in favor of Israelis from 30 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2003 with this gap narrowing to 38 percent in 2007 with the abating of this war of terror.

Paradoxically, the sympathy gap in Israelis' favor widened noticeably during Barack Obama's two terms in office (from 41 percent in 2009 to 47 percent in 2016) and narrowed by the same ratio during Donald Trump's presidency (from 43 percent to 37 percent). Obama took an unabashed, anti-Israel stance. He told Abbas, "You will never have an administration as committed [to the Palestinian cause] ... as this one."[7] The Palestinians likely took this as a carte blanche for shedding all pretenses of seeking a settlement and left the negotiating table with Israel. Similarly, Hamas exploited Obama's anti-Israel stance by transforming the Gaza Strip into an ineradicable terrorist bastion that rained thousands of rockets and missiles on Israel's population centers, triggering four ferocious wars (in 2008-9, 2012, 2014, and 2021). By contrast, Trump's staunch support for Israel generated a timid Palestinian policy for fear of retribution by the unpredictable U.S. president as vividly illustrated by the relative calm along the Gaza-Israel border, the low-key response to recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, or to the move of the U.S. embassy to the city. All this occurred in stark contradiction of widespread apocalyptic predictions that these moves would trigger a regional conflagration.

The Two-state Solution

Since Jordan's renunciation of its claim to the West Bank in July 1988, and the PLO's feigned acceptance four months later of Security Council Resolution 242 that created the land-for-peace formula, the resolution has been reinterpreted (or rather misinterpreted as it makes no mention of the Palestinians) to imply a two-state solution. It has been considered the cornerstone of a future Israeli-Palestinian peace, based on an Israeli state and a newly-established Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip living peacefully side by side.[8]

This misinterpretation gained further momentum with the 1993 launch of the Oslo process, which was widely seen as geared toward that goal though none of the agreements signed within this framework spelled it out. And while the PLO remained highly evasive, supporting the two-state solution while addressing foreign audiences and prophesying Israel's demise to its own Palestinian constituents, all Israeli prime ministers during the Oslo years (with the exception of Yitzhak Rabin who envisaged "an entity short of a state")[9] publicly endorsed the two-state solution.

Against this backdrop, very few American public opinion polls during the 1990s directly addressed the two-state solution, likely because it was generally assumed to be the only possible option. The issue resurfaced following the seeming collapse of the Oslo process after the launch of Arafat's war of terror in September 2000. In subsequent years, the American public's support or opposition to the idea fluctuated in line with the vicissitudes in the ferocity of Palestinian terrorism and the extent of their political intransigence.

Thus, for example, support for the two-state solution dropped from 53 percent in 1999 to 40 percent in 2000—its lowest point in the subsequent twenty years—before leaping to 58 percent in 2003—the highest level ever since.[10] This was due to Israel's highly successful counterterrorism campaign that broke the backbone of the Palestinian war of terror and enabled President Bush to make his June 2002 historic speech espousing the creation of a Palestinian state headed by "new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror" and predicated on "entirely new political and economic institutions based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism."[11] And while this change of Palestinian leadership failed to materialize, support for the two-state solution remained steady for the rest of the Bush presidency, sliding gradually over the years to 52 percent in 2008 (with opposition rising from 22 percent in 2003 to 29 in 2008) as peace hopes faded after Hamas's January 2006 landslide victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections and its violent takeover of the Gaza Strip the following year.[12]

During Obama's two terms in office, support for the Palestinians and the two-state solution dropped.

Just as American public sympathy for the Palestinians dropped noticeably during Obama's two terms in office, so did support for the two-state solution, and for the very same reason: Public opinion polls showed the strength of support for the creation of a Palestinian state to be dependent on the PA's recognition of Israel's right to exist and its determination to fight terrorism and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the territories under its control.[13] But with the most pro-Palestinian president in the White House since Jimmy Carter, the PA hardened its intransigence in the hope that Obama would deliver Israel on a silver platter, and American public support for the two-state solution dropped.

Thus, when in June 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state and five months later announced a 10-month construction freeze in the West Bank aimed at reviving "meaningful negotiations to reach a historic peace agreement that would finally end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians," the PA's chief peace negotiator Saeb Erekat warned that the prime minister "will have to wait 1,000 years before he finds one Palestinian who will go along with him." In addition, Fatah, the PLO's largest constituent organization, reaffirmed its commitment to the "armed struggle" (the standard euphemism for terrorism) as "a strategy, not tactic ... in the battle for liberation and for the elimination of the Zionist presence."[14] With this rejectionist mindset persisting through the Obama years, accompanied as it was by rocket and missile barrages from Gaza on Israeli towns and villages, American public support for Palestinian statehood declined from 52 percent in 2008 to 44 percent in 2016 while opposition to the idea grew from 28 percent to 37 percent.[15]

This trend seemed to persist during Donald Trump's first year when the gap between support and opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state reached its narrowest point (46 vs. 42 percent)[16] due to the president's amenability to both the two-state and the one-state solution. "I can live with either one," he told Netanyahu in a White House meeting. "I'm very happy with the one that both parties like."[17]

When the PA responded with a more restrained policy, American public support for a Palestinian state grew steadily.

Yet, this approach was quickly reversed as the PA responded to Trump's staunch pro-Israel approach—manifested, among other things, in his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and the move of the U.S. embassy to the city—and adopted a more restrained policy in an attempt to weather the storm until the arrival of a friendlier administration. As a result of this lull, American public support for the establishment of a Palestinian state grew steadily, surging after the January 2020 release of Trump's long-awaited "Deal of the Century" peace plan to its highest level since Bush's 2002 speech, with opposition to the idea dropping to its lowest level (55 percent vs. 34).[18]

Political Attitudes

Republicans vs. Democrats. For decades, Israel enjoyed strong bipartisan political support in Washington. Spread almost evenly among Republicans and Democrats, this bipartisanship helped Israel promote favorable legislation in Congress and secure high levels of military aid. By the early 2000s, however, this pattern had fundamentally changed with Republicans sympathizing more strongly with Israel than Democrats. This partisan divide widened substantially over the next decades as growing numbers of Republicans sympathized more with Israelis than with the Palestinians (86 percent in 2020 compared to 59 percent in 2001) while the level of sympathy for the Jewish state among Democrats remained virtually unchanged (42 percent in 2001 compared to 44 percent in 2020). Thus, while in 2020, nearly 9 of 10 Republicans sympathized more strongly with Israelis than with Palestinians and only 5 percent had greater sympathy for the Palestinians, Democrats sympathized almost evenly with both sides: 44 percent vs. 38 percent.

The decline in sympathy for Israelis was the sharpest among liberal and/or progressive Democrats: in 2014-16, the share of liberals/progressives sympathizing with the Palestinians over the Israelis shot from 21 percent to 40 percent. This downward shift in sympathy for Israel was most pronounced during the Trump presidency as the progressive wing of the party became increasingly powerful and vociferous.[19]

Republicans and Democrats also differed on the establishment of a Palestinian state with support for the idea consistently stronger among Democrats. The gap between the parties was at its narrowest during the Bush presidency, so much so that in 2003, under Bush, Republican support for Palestinian statehood even surpassed that of the Democrats (60 percent vs. 55 percent). This was despite the fact that Democratic support for the idea grew at a far higher rate during the Bush presidency than during the Obama years (14 percent compared to 2 percent). The fact that Democrats' support for Palestinian statehood remained virtually unchanged under a staunchly pro-Palestinian Democratic president while significantly growing under a Republican president inimical to the PLO and PA (especially after being lied to by Arafat about his personal involvement in terror activities)[20] was due to Israel's suppression of Arafat's war of terror (2000-05), on the one hand, and the sustained rocket attacks on Israel's population centers attending Hamas' Gaza takeover in 2007.

Indeed, even during the Trump presidency, support among Democrats for the creation of a Palestinian state grew at a higher rate than under Obama's watch: from 61 percent in 2017 to 70 percent in 2020 (while Republican support for the idea grew by a whopping 19 percent: from 25 percent in 2017 to 44 percent in 2020). Thus, paradoxically, Trump's "Deal of the Century" produced strong bipartisan support for Palestinian statehood for diametrically opposed reasons: among Democrats, as a means to subvert the deal, which they considered an obstacle to Palestinian statehood, and among Republicans, as a means to promote the two-state solution.

Religious Attitudes

American Jews. For obvious reasons, American Jews have always felt attached to Israel, and this trend continued in 2000-20 with more than two thirds of surveyed members of this community feeling affinity and closeness to Israel, sympathizing much more with Israelis than with Palestinians (93 percent in 2001-14, dropping to 86 percent in 2015-19).[21] According to a 2019 survey, 80 percent of American Jews considered themselves pro-Israel (despite being critical of government policies) while 67 percent felt an emotional attachment to the Jewish state.[22]

As for the establishment of a Palestinian state, American Jewish support remained rather static during the Bush and Obama's presidencies (growing from 49 percent in 2002 to 52 percent in 2016), before gaining considerable momentum during the Trump years: from 52 percent in 2016 to 64 percent in 2020. This corresponds to the pattern of Democratic support for Palestinian statehood during the Trump years (hardly surprising given the historic Jewish identification with the party), with the notable exception that the rise in Jewish support for the idea during this period was more dramatic than that of Democrats and the general public (a 12 percent rise compared to 8 percent and 6 percent respectively). This is most likely due to the addition of the qualification "demilitarized" to the description of the Palestinian state in the American Jewish Committee Poll, on the one hand, and to the bipartisan nature of the Jewish community, on the other. As such, support for Palestinian statehood was both an anti-Trump statement by Democratic Party supporters (still the vast majority of American Jewry) and a vote of confidence in Trump and his policies by the growing number of American Jewish Republicans.

Christian Denominations. Religion has been a significant predictor of attitudes toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with devout Americans significantly more likely to sympathize with Israel than their less devout counterparts and vice versa. Aggregate Gallup data for 2000-19 shows that 66-71 percent of Americans who attended church weekly or almost weekly sympathized with Israel compared to 46-49 percent of those who never attended religious services (and who were twice more sympathetic to the Palestinians: 26 percent vs. 13 percent respectively).[23] The sympathy gap was at its lowest among those with no religious affiliation, with 38 percent sympathizing with Israel and 29 with the Palestinians.[24]

Devout American Christians are more likely to sympathize with Israel than their less devout counterparts are. Among Christians, Evangelical Protestants' support for Israel has intensified most over the past two decades.

As such, religiously unaffiliated Americans were most critical of Trump's Palestinian-Israeli policy with 47 percent thinking he favored Israel too much and 38 percent saying he struck the right balance between Israelis and Palestinians. By contrast, only 26 percent of American Christians thought Trump was overindulging Israel while 59 percent (72 percent of Evangelical Protestants) believed he struck the right balance. Interestingly, criticism of Trump's supposed indulgence of Israel was significantly higher among American Jews than among their Christian compatriots (43 percent vs. 26 percent), echoing the moderate or conservative voice of the Democratic party, as opposed to its liberal-progressive wing, which overwhelmingly believed Trump favored Israel too much (66 percent).[25]

Broadly speaking, sympathy or favoritism of both Israelis and Palestinians among American Christians grew substantially and rather symmetrically over the past two decades: from 41 percent sympathetic to Israelis vs. 13 percent sympathetic to Palestinians in 2003 to 69 percent vs. 41 percent in 2019: thus, a sustained 28 percent sympathy gap in favor of Israel during this period.[26] In terms of denominational affiliation, Mormons sympathized most strongly with the Israelis (79 percent vs. 11 percent with the Palestinians), followed by Protestants (66 percent vs. 13 percent) and Catholics (50 percent vs. 18 percent).[27]

Yet it was evangelical Protestants, sometimes called "Christian Zionists," whose staunch and consistent support for Israel has intensified most impressively over the past two decades. In 2003, 55 percent of white Evangelicals sympathized with Israel and only 6 percent with the Palestinians (compared to 41 percent vs. 13 percent of all surveyed Christian religious groups)[28]; by 2016, this ratio had grown to 79 percent (5 percent sympathized with the Palestinians). Support among evangelical Republicans was even higher—85 percent, compared to 69 percent of all Republicans.[29]

Even as American public attitudes toward the conflict became increasingly polarized during the Trump years, with Democrats more favorable for the first time toward Palestinians and the PA (58 percent vs. 57 percent) than toward Israelis and the Israeli government (27 percent vs. 26 percent),[30] evangelical support remained undaunted. Some 79 percent of Evangelicals had a favorable view of Israelis (compared to 35 percent of Palestinians), and 61 percent viewed the Israeli government positively—while only 13 percent had a positive view of the Palestinian Authority, and 79 percent viewed the authority negatively.[31]

Conclusion

While surveys of American public opinion show steady and consistently stronger sympathies for Israel and Israelis than for Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority in 2000-20, these attitudes have grown increasingly partisan over the past decade, culminating during the Trump presidency in Democrats sympathizing more with the Palestinians and the PA than with Israelis and the Israeli government. This shift was primarily a corollary of the relatively low level of Palestinian political and military militancy during the Trump years. Indeed, more than any other single factor, it is the intensity of Palestinian violence and intransigence that has determined the way Palestinians and the PA were seen by Americans and the extent of support for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Supporters of Israel and the Palestinians meet. The intensity of Palestinian violence and intransigence has determined the extent of American support for the establishment of a Palestinian state. (Photo: Ted Eytan)

As a result, public sympathy with the Palestinians was less, even among Democrats, during the Obama presidency than during the Bush and Trump years as the PA and Hamas interpreted Obama's anti-Israel bias as free rein to walk away from the negotiating table and to subject Israeli civilians to years of sustained rocket and missile attacks. This Palestinian pattern seems to be repeating itself with the Biden administration's eagerness to reenter the Iran nuclear deal; its cold shouldering of America's longstanding regional allies; and its restoration of the Palestinian problem to the top of its agenda. These policies have already enticed Hamas into a war with Israel and triggered mass violence in the West Bank and by Israel's Arab citizens.

Though Palestinian violence and intransigence are almost certain to intensify in tandem with the Biden administration's increased pressure on Israel, this may not necessarily dampen public sympathy for the Palestinians as in past decades since several key developments seem to be working in their favor. For one thing, the fervent polarization of American politics, alongside the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism and the continued movement to the left of Democratic constituencies, may have made segments of American society less sensitive to anti-Jewish and anti-Israel violence. For another thing, with twice as many sympathizers among non-white Americans (33 percent in a 2020 survey vs. 18 percent of whites) as opposed to Israel's predominantly white sympathy base (68 percent in the same survey vs. 43 percent non-whites),[32] the Palestinians have successfully cast their fight to destroy Israel as a liberation struggle by a colonized indigenous people against a "privileged white oppressor."

Small wonder that as Hamas was deliberately perpetuating the wanton war crime of raining thousands of missiles on Israel's population centers, the Black Lives Matters movement tweeted its "solidarity with the Palestinians," adding a thinly veiled wish for Israel's demise: "We are a movement committed to ending settler colonialism in all forms and will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation. (Always have. And always will be)."[33]

Israel and its allies in the United States must endeavor to restore the traditional, bipartisan support of Republicans and Democrats.

In light of the above polls, if Israel and its allies in the United States wish to maintain its still significant support vis-a-vis the Palestinians in American public opinion (60 percent vs. 23 percent in 2020),[34] they must address any liberal-progressive criticism, strengthen the bond with the American Jewish community—especially its younger segments—and endeavor to restore the traditional, bipartisan support of Republicans and Democrats.

Eytan Gilboa is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and International Communication at Bar-Ilan University and a senior research associate at the BESA Center for Strategic Studies. His publications include books and numerous articles on American-Israeli relations including The American Public and Israel in the Twenty-First Century (BESA, 2020).


[1] Bassem Eid, "Confronting Human Rights Abuses in the Palestinian Authority: An Essential Step for Progress in the Region," The Henry Jackson Society, London, 2016.

[2] Efraim Karsh, "The Oslo Disaster," Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Mideast Security and Policy Studies, no. 123, 2016, pp. 21-2.

[3] Efraim Karsh, The Tail Wags the Dog: International Politics and the Middle East (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), p. 56.

[4] Eytan Gilboa, American Public Opinion toward Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1987), pp. 47-8.

[5] "American Sympathy toward Israel and the Arabs/Palestinians, 1967-2020," Jewish Virtual Library, Chevy Chase.

[6] "Republicans and Democrats Grow Even Further Apart in Views of Israel, Palestinians," The Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2018.

[7] Ben Birnbaum and Amir Tibon, "The Explosive, Inside Story of How John Kerry Built an Israel-Palestine Peace Plan—and Watched It Crumble," The New Republic, July 20, 2014.

[8] "Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967," S/RES/242 (1967), U.N. Security Council, New York.

[9] The 376th session of the 13th Knesset, Oct. 5, 1995.

[10] Lydia Saad, "Americans Closely Split Over Palestinian Statehood," Gallup, Washington, D.C., Feb. 24, 2015.

[11] "President Bush Calls for New Palestinian Leadership," White House archives, Washington, D.C., June 24, 2002.

[12] Lydia Saad, "Americans Still Doubt Mideast Peace Is in the Cards," Gallup, Washington, D.C., Feb. 27, 2014.

[13] See, for example, "Israel and the Palestinians," PollingReport, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2020.

[14] Karsh, The Tail Wags the Dog, pp. 170-1.

[15] Saad, "Americans Closely Split Over Palestinian Statehood," Feb. 24, 2015; Saad, "Americans Still Doubt Mideast Peace Is in the Cards," Feb. 27, 2014.

[16] Lydia Saad, "Majority in U.S. Again, Support Palestinian Statehood," Gallup, Washington, D.C., Apr. 22, 2020.

[17] Politico (Arlington, Va.), Feb. 15, 2017.

[18] Saad, "Majority in U.S. Again, Support Palestinian Statehood," Apr. 22, 2020.

[19] Samantha Smith and Carrol Doherty, "Five facts on how Americans view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C., May 23, 2016; "Republicans and Democrats Grow Even Further Apart," Jan. 23, 2018; Lydia Saad, "Americans, but Not Liberal Democrats, Mostly Pro-Israeli," Gallup, Washington, D.C., Mar. 6, 2019.

[20] Douglas J. Feith and Lewis Libby, "How the Trump Plan Makes Peace Possible," Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2020.

[21] Frank Newport, "American Jews, Politics and Israel," Gallup, Washington, D.C., Aug 17, 2019.

[22] "American Jewry Position Survey," White Papers and Research, Ruderman Family Foundation, New York, Dec. 2019.

[23] Frank Newport, "Religion Plays Large Role in Americans' Support for Israelis," Gallup, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2014; Newport, "Americans' Views of Israel Remain Tied to Religious Beliefs," Gallup, Mar. 19, 2019.

[24] Smith and Doherty, "Five facts," May 23, 2016.

[25] Gregory Smith, "U.S. Jews Are More Likely than Christians to Say Trump Favors the Israelis Too Much," Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C., May 6, 2019; "Half say Trump is 'striking about the right balance' in dealing with Israelis and Palestinians," Pew Research Center, Apr. 24, 2019.

[26] "American Evangelicals and Israel," Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C., Apr. 15, 2005; "Evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics express more favorable views of Israelis than Palestinians," Pew Research Center, May 6, 2019.

[27] Smith and Doherty, "Five facts," May 23, 2016; Newport, "Religion Plays Large Role in Americans' Support for Israelis," Aug. 1, 2014.

[28] "American Evangelicals and Israel," Apr. 15, 2005.

[29] Smith and Doherty, "Five facts," May 23, 2016.

[30] "U.S. Public Has Favorable View of Israel's People, but Is Less Positive Toward Its Government," Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C., Apr. 24, 2019.

[31] Smith, "U.S. Jews Are More Likely Than Christians to Say Trump Favors the Israelis Too Much," May 6, 2019.

[32] "Gallup News Service Gallup Poll Social Series: World Affairs—Final topline," Feb. 3-16, 2020.

[33] Twitter, Black Lives Matter, May 17, 2021.

[34] Saad, "Majority in U.S. Again, Support Palestinian Statehood," Apr. 22, 2020.

 

Eytan Gilboa is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and International Communication at Bar-Ilan University and a senior research associate at the BESA Center for Strategic Studies. His publications include books and numerous articles on American-Israeli relations including The American Public and Israel in the Twenty-First Century (BESA, 2020).

Source: https://www.meforum.org/62604/americans-views-on-the-palestinian-israeli-conflict

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter