Why the Palestinian Authority Should Not Return to Gaza - Bassam Tawil

 

by Bassam Tawil

This addled and dangerous proposal amounts to expecting the Jews to support the same people who are murdering them.

 

• The Israeli government, according to reports, is being pressured by the Biden administration to send the money to the PA. This addled and dangerous proposal amounts to expecting the Jews to support the same people who are murdering them. The Biden administration has also been launching a legal and diplomatic offensive to discredit, isolate, and penalize Israel for trying to defend itself against terrorist attacks.

• Meanwhile, the PA, instead of acknowledging that it is terrified to go back to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, is trying to pressure Israel into accepting the creation of a Palestinian state and releasing the tax revenues. Unbelievably, the PA and the Biden administration apparently want Israel to grant Palestinians a state that will be ruled by the same murders, rapists and kidnappers who invaded Israel on October 7, 2023.

• Abbas might one day return to the Gaza Strip – but only when he sees that Hamas has lost all military might and is no longer in control. Meanwhile, he feels safe and secure being in the West Bank, where Israel is in charge of overall security and is fighting against Hamas and other Iran-backed terrorist proxies. He knows that without Israel's security presence in the West Bank, Hamas would have killed him and toppled the PA long ago.

• Allowing Hamas to win its war against Israel would delight two countries deeply committed to supporting terrorism. The first is Qatar, an oil-field protected by a US air base, and a country with which President Joe Biden's brother, James, according to court testimony, might reportedly have had business dealings

• The second country is Iran, repeatedly designated as the "leading state sponsor of terrorism" and currently racing toward nuclear weapons capability. The Iranian regime – which presently controls four Middle East capitals in addition to its own -- Sanaa, Damascus, Beirut and Baghdad -- wishes to take over the Middle East, as well as oil-and-mineral-rich Sudan. Iran's rulers would undoubtedly not only pave the way for more October 7-style atrocities against Israel, but also other neighbors -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and Bahrain -- especially if Iran obtains nuclear weapons.

• Abbas, fearful of being called a traitor, is reluctant to take action against the terrorists. It might mean his death. Additionally, he is most likely not pursuing the terrorists because they do not directly threaten him or the PA.

• If a Palestinian leader does not even have the bravery to condemn the unimaginable Hamas atrocities of October 7, how can one expect him to confront terrorism emanating from his Palestinian Authority?

• The Gaza Strip needs moderate and pragmatic leaders who will embark on a process of deradicalizing and reeducating Gazans to lead peaceful, prosperous and constructive lives, freed of subjugation by their leaders, who will finally prepare their people for peace in the region. At the moment, unfortunately, among the Palestinians, no such leaders exist.

Unbelievably, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Biden administration apparently want Israel to grant Palestinians a state that will be ruled by the same murders, rapists and kidnappers who invaded Israel on October 7, 2023. Pictured: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on February 7, 2024. (Photo by Mark Schiefelbein/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Those who believe that the Palestinian Authority (PA) should replace the Iran-backed Hamas terrorist group in the Gaza Strip are either gullible, badly uninformed , or living in delusions. The PA can presumably handle civilian issues in the Gaza Strip and pay salaries to civil servants, but it cannot – and will never – take on Hamas directly.

The Israel-Hamas war began more than seven months ago, and it appears that the terrorist organization's military capabilities have not yet been totally neutralized. It could realistically take months, if not years, to destroy the military infrastructure that, over the past two decades, Qatar, Iran, Hamas, and various other terrorist organizations have erected in the Gaza Strip.

Sending PA security personnel to the Gaza Strip while Hamas terrorists are still on the streets would be tantamount to the PA committing suicide. The crimes Hamas carried out against PA President Mahmoud Abbas's supporters in the Gaza Strip during the 2007 coup are still fresh in his memory. That year, Hamas terrorists killed a large number of his security officers and members of his ruling Fatah faction, by, for instance, throwing a PA official off the roof of a tall building. Hamas has already stated that under no circumstances will it allow the PA security forces to re-enter the Gaza Strip.

In early April, Hamas announced that its men had foiled an attempt by PA intelligence officers to enter the Gaza Strip under the cover of being aid workers. The PA General Intelligence Service (GIS) chief, Maj. Gen. Majed Faraj, was alleged by Hamas to have personally overseen the officers' mission. Terrorists from Hamas reportedly arrested 10 GIS officers, while some were able to flee.

"The intelligence officers infiltrated the Gaza Strip to create a state of confusion and chaos on the internal front," Hamas said. "The [Hamas] security services dealt with these elements, and 10 of them were arrested. Anyone who attempts to serve the [Israeli] occupation will be struck with an iron fist."

Hamas continues to oppose attempts by the PA to return to the Gaza Strip. Now it is preventing the PA government from entering the Gaza Strip.

Since its establishment two months ago, the new PA government, led by Mohammad Mustafa, a veteran adviser to Abbas, had for a short time been able to function in the Gaza Strip. Mustafa's government was established as part of the Biden administration's plan to "revitalize" the PA in order to take control of the Gaza Strip once the war ended.

Hamas rejected the PA government on the grounds that Abbas did not consult with it before designating Mustafa as prime minister.

Hamas already warned that establishing a new government would "deepen divisions" among the Palestinians and warned against "making individual and unilateral decisions devoid of substance and without national consensus."

Hamas and other terrorist organizations operating there also rejected the idea of sending international or Arab forces to the Gaza Strip. "The talk about forming an international or Arab force for the Gaza Strip is an illusion and a mirage," Hamas and the terrorist groups recently declared. "Any force that attempts to enter the Gaza Strip will be handled with resistance and treated as an occupying force."

Abbas is fully aware of the dangers Hamas and other terrorist organizations present. That is likely one reason he is hesitant to dispatch his loyalists to the Gaza Strip.

According to Sky News Arabic, Israel has been under pressure from the US to reopen the Rafah border crossing and hand it over to the PA. Earlier this month, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) took control of the border crossing, which had become a serious security threat. Hamas had held control of the terminal since 2007, when it overthrew the PA and seized control of the entire Gaza Strip. Now both Hamas and Egypt are opposed to reopening the border crossing because of Israel's presence on the Palestinian side.

The US and Israel offered the PA the management of the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip. The PA, however, said it would accept the offer only if Israel agreed to a plan that would result in the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

The PA has also demanded that the Israeli government release Palestinian tax revenues that are being withheld in order to stop the PA from paying murder-for hire-salaries, known as "Pay-for-Slay," to terrorists who murder Jews, and to the families of dead terrorist murderers. Abbas has repeatedly emphasized that he will never stop paying these rewards to the terrorists and their families, saying: "Even if I will have to leave my position, I will not compromise on the salary (rawatib) of a Martyr (Shahid) or a prisoner..."

"We will not cut or prevent stipends to the families of the prisoners and martyrs, as some are trying to do..." he had declared earlier. "If we are left with one penny, we will spend it on the families of the prisoners and martyrs."

The funds are also being withheld by Israel because of the PA's ongoing efforts to press the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials, for allegedly committing "war crimes."

The Israeli government, according to reports, is being pressured by the Biden administration to send the money to the PA. This addled and dangerous proposal amounts to expecting the Jews to support the same people who are murdering them. The Biden administration has also been launching a legal and diplomatic offensive to discredit, isolate, and penalize Israel for trying to defend itself against terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile, the PA, instead of acknowledging that it is terrified to go back to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, is trying to pressure Israel into accepting the creation of a Palestinian state and releasing the tax revenues. Unbelievably, the PA and the Biden administration apparently want Israel to grant Palestinians a state that will be ruled by the same murders, rapists and kidnappers who invaded Israel on October 7, 2023.

The October 7 massacre serves as a warning: many Palestinians have not given up their dream of eliminating Israel. Since every last Jew left the Gaza Strip in 2005, the entire place has been a semi-independent state, exclusively ruled by the Palestinians. The Palestinians were given the Gaza Strip unconditionally to be able to create a "Singapore on the Mediterranean." Instead, Gaza was used as a springboard for incessant terrorism over the years, and by the Islamist terrorist groups that invaded Israel on October 7.

Abbas might one day return to the Gaza Strip – but only when he sees that Hamas has lost all military might and is no longer in control. Meanwhile, he feels safe and secure being in the West Bank, where Israel is in charge of overall security and is fighting against Hamas and other Iran-backed terrorist proxies. He knows that without Israel's security presence in the West Bank, Hamas would have killed him and toppled the PA long ago.

Those who are pressuring Israel to halt the war are actually demanding that Hamas be allowed to continue ruling the Gaza Strip, rearm, regroup and repeat the October 7 attack, time and again, until Israel is annihilated, as Hamas official Ghazi Hamad said. He added that "Everything we do is justified."

Allowing Hamas to win its war against Israel would delight two countries deeply committed to supporting terrorism. The first is Qatar, an oil-field protected by a US air base, and a country with which President Joe Biden's brother, James, according to court testimony, might reportedly have had business dealings. Qatar seems never to have met an Islamist terror group that it did not support (here, here and here) or a major US university that it did not fund and indoctrinate. According to MEMRI:

"The terrorist organizations supported by Qatar include Hamas, the Taliban, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, the Al-Nusra Front, Hizbullah, and even the Houthis, with whom the U.S. is currently engaged in a battle in the Red Sea."

Qatar also runs Al Jazeera, which has been called a "terror channel", "A Hotbed of Homophobia", and "A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, Completely free of Charge." It is basically the jihadi mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose motto is:

"Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

According to MEMRI:

"The Al-Jazeera TV network is an arm of the Qatari regime. It is owned by the government and carries out its foreign policy by means of indoctrination of the Arabic-speaking masses worldwide. Al-Jazeera, therefore, should not be discussed as a means of telecommunications, but instead as an unyielding and forceful political tool of Qatari foreign policy under the guise of a mass media network."

The second country deeply committed to supporting terrorism is Iran, repeatedly designated as the "leading state sponsor of terrorism" and currently racing toward nuclear weapons capability. The Iranian regime – which presently controls four Middle East capitals in addition to its own -- Sanaa, Damascus, Beirut and Baghdad -- wishes to take over the Middle East, as well as oil-and-mineral-rich Sudan. Iran's rulers would undoubtedly not only pave the way for more October 7-style atrocities against Israel, but also other neighbors -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and Bahrain -- especially if Iran obtains nuclear weapons.

* * *

Who said that if Abbas returned to the Gaza Strip he would order his security forces to combat terrorism and prevent attacks against Israel?

Between 2005 and 2007, Abbas ruled the Gaza Strip, yet he took no action to stop terrorist groups from firing rockets at Israel. He also took no action to prevent terrorist groups from amassing a sizable arsenal in the Gaza Strip.

Despite having thousands of security officers in the West Bank, Abbas has done little if nothing to prevent armed groups from forming in the several cities and villages that fall under his jurisdiction.

Thousands of gunmen have organized terrorist groups in recent years, particularly in the northern West Bank. These groups have been responsible for many attacks against Israelis. Abbas, fearful of being called a traitor, is reluctant to take action against the terrorists. It might mean his death. Additionally, he is most likely not pursuing the terrorists because they do not directly threaten him or the PA.

If a Palestinian leader does not even have the bravery to condemn the unimaginable Hamas atrocities of October 7, how can one expect him to confront terrorism emanating from his Palestinian Authority?

The Gaza Strip needs moderate and pragmatic leaders who will embark on a process of deradicalizing and reeducating Gazans to lead peaceful, prosperous and constructive lives, freed of subjugation by their leaders, who will finally prepare their people for peace in the region. At the moment, unfortunately, among the Palestinians, no such leaders exist.

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20641/palestinian-authority-fatah-gaza

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Sen. Johnson: Recent proposals could give World Health Org. more power, threaten US sovereignty - Charlotte Hazard

 

by Charlotte Hazard

Earlier this month, all 49 Republican senators signed a letter and sent it to President Joe Biden, urging him to reject two international agreements that would increase WHO's power.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on Friday warned that recent amendments pushed by the World Health Assembly could expand the World Health Organization's (WHO) pandemic authority and pose a threat to U.S. sovereignty. 

"I think if you need evidence that you can't trust the WHO, first look at how they handled or coddled communist China when it came to the pandemic," Johnson said on a special report titled "The Emergence of WHO: The plot to allow Chinese, UN bureaucrats to decide America’s health," hosted by John Solomon and aired on Real America's Voice. 

"They didn't press them in terms of providing us the information that they had [with] the Wuhan lab," Johnson added. "So we can't trust them from that standpoint."

The global health organization is attempting to prepare for future pandemics by creating a unified policy that would allegedly help countries respond to world-wide emergencies faster than it did for COVID-19. 

"During more than two years of intensive negotiations, WHO’s Member States have shown unwavering commitment to forging a generational agreement to protect the world from a repeat of the horrors caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,” WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a press release. “I welcome the determination that all countries have shown to continue their work and fulfill the mission on which they embarked.”

One of the most controversial aspects of the agreement, which will not be a part of the draft agreement, is a "pathogen access and benefits system." The system would codify sharing material on new viruses or strains that could potentially lead to another pandemic. In sharing the material, the negotiators hope it would ensure that all countries benefit fairly from future vaccines, drugs, and tests.

Earlier this month, all 49 Republican senators signed a letter and sent it to President Joe Biden, urging him to reject two international agreements that would increase WHO's power. 

"We strongly urge you not to join any pandemic related treaty, convention, or agreement being considered" at the 77th World Health Assembly, the letter asks. 

The senators argued that if the U.S. joined such a treaty, it would require "the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate under Article I Section 2 of the Constitution."

"You can't trust these folks," Johnson said. "I certainly do look at their record in terms of responding to the pandemic as a miserable failure....... this is the last global group you'd want in charge of our national sovereignty or our personal health autonomy."

Johnson has been one of the leading senators demanding accountability from China and the government's response to the pandemic.

"May 27 through June 1 is when they'll be meeting in Geneva," Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said on the special. "You know, to give away the sovereignty of America at this particular time is so critical.....we came through the COVID debacle where they totally botched it."

According to Norman, wealth would be stolen from the American people if the U.S. agreed to expand the power of the WHO. 

"I would say probably the only purpose is taking the wealth from America," he said. "Primarily because we're the biggest giver to the United Nations, and in propping up these countries that are being dominated by China and other countries who want to take over their resources. Why should we be a part of that?"

Former Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachman said that luckily, the pandemic treaty won't be ready by May 27. 

"Last Friday the negotiations fell through on the pandemic accord treaty," she said on the special. "So the people who want to have the global pandemic treaty were hoping to actually get all of their negotiations completed, even though they were about four months too late per their rules. But the good news is chaos and confusion has reigned. That's good for all of us who love freedom."

Charlotte Hazard

Source: https://justthenews.com/world/sen-johnson-warns-recent-proposals-could-give-world-health-org-more-power-threaten-us

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

US Administration Abandons Israel, Empowers Enemies - Majid Rafizadeh

 

by Majid Rafizadeh

Biden's decision [to withhold arms from Israel] has projected an image of weakness rather than leadership, further tarnishing America's reputation as a steadfast defender of the free world.

 

• Worse, abandoning Israel sends a troubling message to U.S. allies worldwide: in times of crisis, do not rely on American support.

• The Biden administration has eroded trust and damaged U.S. credibility on the global stage even further than it already had done after surrendering Afghanistan and allowing China to kill more than a million Americans with Covid-19, or poisoning to death more than 80,000 Americans each year with fentanyl, or permitting China to commit massive espionage and intellectual property theft with no consequences at all.

• Biden's decision has projected an image of weakness rather than leadership, further tarnishing America's reputation as a steadfast defender of the free world. Instead, the Biden administration is seen globally as siding with terrorists -- the Taliban in Afghanistan, the terror-funding Qataris, the genocidal Communist government of China, and the annual winner of the world's top, largest, leading "state sponsor of terrorism," Iran.

• Such a milestone shift in U.S. foreign policy displays a concerning departure from longstanding principles of backing the Free World. Overall, the development is deeply detrimental to U.S. interests. It threatens the stability of international relations, and for the perception of America's role as a leading global power, it is nothing short of devastating.

The Biden administration's abandonment of Israel sends a troubling message to U.S. allies worldwide: in times of crisis, do not rely on American support. Pictured: U.S. President Joe Biden at the White House on April 24, 2024, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

In an unprecedented move in US governance, the Biden administration has embarked on a policy that departs from its longstanding support for Israel.

Instead, there is a discernible tilt towards policies that favor the adversaries of the United States, notably Iran and its proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as China and Russia. This strategic realignment marks a significant shift in US foreign policy and has generated a substantial risk both domestically and internationally.

On one front, the Biden administration's policy of granting sanctions waivers to Iran has bolstered its financial resources, enabling its regime to resume funding terrorism and "exporting the revolution." This influx of funds provides the Iranian regime with the means to finance, arm and support terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis; forge closer ties with Russia and supply it with weapons to attack Ukraine, and have Iran's proxies repeatedly target not only Israel, but also US troops in more than 150 recent attacks in the Middle East. The US gave Iran the funding that they used to attack it. By lifting economic restrictions, the Biden administration has empowered entities hostile to US interests and those of its allies, funded both sides of two major wars, in Ukraine and Gaza, and successfully destabilizing both Europe and the Middle East.

On top of that. President Joe Biden has orchestrated a policy shift regarding supplying munitions and military equipment that Israel needs to defend itself in a war it did not start -- while at the same time lifting weapons sanctions off two of Israel's off two of the countries that participated in trying to destroy Israel: Qatar, which has been Hamas's biggest funder since 2007, and Lebanon – which has been launching missiles and drones non-stop into Israel – a country smaller than New Jersey -- ever since October 7. Biden threatened to withhold arms supplies if Israel entered Rafah, in southern Gaza, where the last four battalions of Hamas, its leaders and possibly the Israeli hostages could are located. Bizarrely, some of the weapons withheld were precision-guided – exactly what the US had implied Israel should use in order not to fight "indiscriminately."

Such a decision undermines Israel's ability to defend itself against threats posed by Hamas and other enemies. This pause in military supplies could embolden Hamas and other terrorist groups, potentially exacerbating tensions and further destabilizing the region.

The decision to halt arms shipments to Israel has ignited a firestorm of criticism, particularly from prominent Republican figures such as US House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. Their condemnation underscores a broader discontent with the Biden administration's handling of the situation. They lamented being blindsided by the announcement, after having received assurances to the contrary from administration officials.

Expressing their dismay in a strongly worded letter addressed to Biden, the lawmakers emphasized the gravity of the situation, warning that the suspension of arms supplies poses a direct threat to Israel's security and risked emboldening its enemies in the volatile Middle East region. They called for urgent action to reverse the decision and demanded a thorough briefing to be provided. In the view of Congress and its recent vote for $17 billion in aid to Israel, the administration's lack of transparency and consultation has been deeply troubling and represents a failure of leadership, particularly in the message sent to America's allies and foes. Israel, an ally under existential threat, has been left vulnerable, while the counties posing that threat are rewarded. There is concern among lawmakers about the broader implications for regional stability and security

"If we stop weapons necessary to destroy the enemies of the state of Israel at a time of great peril," said Senator Lindsey Graham, "we will pay a price. This is obscene. It is absurd. Give Israel what they need to fight the war they can't afford to lose."

"The American people support Israel overwhelmingly," said Senator John Thune, who spearheaded a resolution condemning Biden's decision. "And they also believe that Israel needs to do what is necessary, and if that includes going into Rafah to root out the Hamas threat, then that is necessary for their very survival."

Former President Donald Trump also criticized Biden: "What Biden is doing with respect to Israel is disgraceful." The presumptive Republican presidential nominee went further. "If any Jewish person voted for Joe Biden," he added, "they should be ashamed of themselves. He's totally abandoned Israel."

The decision by the Biden administration to abandon Israel carries far-reaching implications that extend beyond the immediate geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. By withdrawing support for Israel, the administration is bolstering hostile entities such Hamas, Hezbollah, and their benefactors, Qatar and Iran.

Worse, abandoning Israel sends a troubling message to U.S. allies worldwide: in times of crisis, do not rely on American support.

The Biden administration has eroded trust and damaged U.S. credibility on the global stage even further than it already had done after surrendering Afghanistan and allowing China to kill more than a million Americans with Covid-19, or poisoning to death more than 80,000 Americans each year with fentanyl, or permitting China to commit massive espionage and intellectual property theft with no consequences at all.

Biden's decision has projected an image of weakness rather than leadership, further tarnishing America's reputation as a steadfast defender of the free world. Instead, the Biden administration is seen globally as siding with terrorists -- the Taliban in Afghanistan, the terror-funding Qataris, the genocidal Communist government of China, and the annual winner (here, here and here) of the world's top, largest, leading "state sponsor of terrorism," Iran.

Such a milestone shift in U.S. foreign policy displays a concerning departure from longstanding principles of backing the Free World. Overall, the development is deeply detrimental to U.S. interests. It threatens the stability of international relations, and for the perception of America's role as a leading global power, it is nothing short of devastating.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on X (formerly Twitter)

 
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/20642/us-abandons-israel-empowers-enemies

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hamas Top Dog Antony Blinken Sends a Stern Demand to Israel - Robert Spencer

 

by Robert Spencer

Will anyone ask Blinken to explain himself?

 

[Order a copy of Robert Spencer’s forthcoming book, Muhammad: A Critical Biography, by clicking here.]

I hate to say “I told you so” — well, no, actually I don’t mind saying it at all. On May 8, I wrote:

“Yes, we’re on Hamas’s side now. It’s as official as it can get without Old Joe Biden asking Congress for a declaration of war against Israel: the Biden regime has thrown the weight of the United States government behind the effort to save Hamas.”

If you thought that was hyperbole or hysteria, consider the fact that on Sunday, senior Biden regime apparatchik Antony Blinken made it unmistakable, issuing a demand to Israel that could have been spoken by Hamas top dog Ismail Haniyeh: “Get out of Gaza.”

The Washington Free Beacon reported that Blinken was not content to slam Israel’s defensive war against Hamas and demand that the Israelis “get out of Gaza”; he also accused the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of “violating international humanitarian law.” If you think that this isn’t the kind of language that the U.S. government has used with allies in the past, you’re right.

Blinken did couch his castigation of Israel in terms that made it seem as if it was just a bit of friendly advice about how best to conduct the war effort as if the secretary of state during the U.S.’s catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 would know anything about that, but it was a castigation nevertheless.

Blinken warned that “an Israeli military operation in Rafah” might have some “initial success,” but he said that the Israelis would not be able to sustain that success and would end up “holding the bag on an enduring insurgency.” The secretary of state in this era of America’s national humiliation explained that this was “because a lot of armed Hamas will be left, no matter what [the Israelis] do in Rafah, or if they leave and get out of Gaza, as we believe they need to do. Then you’re going to have a vacuum and a vacuum that’s likely to be filled by chaos, by anarchy, and ultimately by Hamas again.”

And so the alternative that the State Department is offering to Israel is to refrain from entering Rafah. This would allow Hamas to regroup there and strike Israeli civilians again, as its leaders have vowed to do. The Israelis reject this because they have declared that their goal is the complete destruction of Hamas. All Blinken is offering in response is defeatism, the claim that the Israelis won’t be able to destroy Hamas completely, so they shouldn’t even try.

There is no reason why this must be so. There were numerous predictions in 1945 that National Socialism (that’s what “Nazism” means, folks) would continue as an insurgency in the ashes of Germany, but no one was saying that the Allies shouldn’t enter Berlin and end the war anyway. There was indeed a small-scale insurgency after the fall of Berlin and the end of the war, but it was overcome. As long as there are believers in Islam in Gaza, there will be jihadis, but the organized and persistent jihad force the Israelis have faced in Gaza since 2005 hasn’t always existed and need not exist forever.

Blinken’s warning is of a kind that is usually issued by one’s foes in a war, not by one’s friends. And the hard-left apparatchik made it even worse: Blinken added that “it was reasonable to assess that, in certain instances, Israel acted in ways that are not consistent with international humanitarian law.”

Blinken’s timing couldn’t have been worse. The UN just cut in half the number of women and children it claims that the Israelis have killed in Gaza — figures that anyone could have seen were unreliable in the first place, since they came from the Gaza Health Ministry, which Hamas runs. There is no serious case that Israel has violated international law; if there were, it would already have been made in the International Criminal Court when Israel had to defend itself against bogus charges of “genocide.”

So why is the Biden regime so anxious to prevent Israeli forces from going into Rafah? Is it afraid of what the IDF might find there? Has U.S. support for Hamas not been confined solely to “humanitarian aid” to Gaza? The immense anxiety in the White House over this military operation is, to use a word that the media likes to use of Israel, “disproportionate.”

It’s too bad we only have leftist propagandists and not journalists in this country anymore. Someone should ask Blinken to explain himself. But no one will.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 28 books, including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad, The History of Jihad, and The Critical Qur’an. His latest book is Muhammad: A Critical Biography. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/hamas-top-dog-antony-blinken-sends-a-stern-demand-to-israel/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Gantz to Netanyahu: If you don't change course by June 8 we will withdraw from the government - Jerusalem Post Staff

 

by Jerusalem Post Staff

Gantz listed six objectives that Netanyahu must adopt or face his withdrawal from government.

 

L-R: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Minister Benny Gantz

(photo credit: FLASH90)

Minister-without-portfolio Benny Gantz gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a deadline until June 8 to come up with a more clear war program or Gantz will withdraw from the government.

Gantz listed six objectives that Netanyahu must adopt or face his withdrawal from government:

1. The return of the hostages,
2. The demobilization of Hamas and the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip,
3. Determining a governing alternative in the Strip,
4. The return of the residents of the north by September 1,
5. Promoting normalization,
6. Adopting an outline for creating a standardized Israeli national service.

"If you choose to lead the nation to the abyss, we will withdraw from the government, turn to the people, and form a government that can bring about a real victory," Gantz said in his statement.

Commenting on the unity government, he said, "We did not claim dominance. We did not demand jobs. All we wanted was to serve our country and our people. For many months, the unity was indeed real and meaningful. It prevented serious mistakes, led to great achievements, and returned home over a hundred hostages. Together, we faced the hardships of the campaign, protected the nation with a good and strong spirit - and gave the fighters on the front a feeling of being backed by a shared destiny."

"But lately, something has gone wrong. Essential decisions were not made," Gantz continued, "A small minority has taken over the command bridge of the Israeli ship of state and is steering her toward the rocks."

"I came here today to tell the truth. And the truth is hard: while Israeli soldiers show supreme bravery on the front, some of the people who sent them into battle behave with cowardice and irresponsibility."

This is a developing story.

Jerusalem Post Staff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-801652

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Legal Boomerang? Biden attempt to hide tapes to collide with precedent from past Democratic probes - Steven Richards

 

by Steven Richards

President Biden’s assertion of executive privilege could face legal obstacles established by his own party’s pursuit of Trump records.

 

President Joe Biden’s attempt to assert executive privilege over the tapes of his interview with federal investigators in his own classified documents case could run into the history of Democratic tactics to obtain information from former President Trump.

For example, recent court decisions surrounding Trump’s efforts to invoke executive privilege over subpoenaed documents by the Jan. 6 Select Committee confirmed a legitimate congressional investigation is often a strong basis for requesting documents or information from the executive. Though, Biden’s current control of the executive branch may allow him to stonewall successfully.

On Thursday, President Biden invoked executive privilege to prevent his Department of Justice from turning over tapes of his recorded interviews with special counsel Robert Hur to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. The decision came after Attorney General Merrick Garland recommended that course of action to prevent damage to future law enforcement efforts.

Executive privilege is a loosely defined tradition that has existed since the founding of the country which allows a president to protect certain communications and documents in a presidential administration from disclosure to the other branches of government. However, the seemingly broad nature of these powers have faced limits, including when the materials are requested for criminal investigations as during the Nixon-era Watergate scandal.

Both the Judiciary and Oversight Committees on Thursday voted to hold Garland in contempt for refusing to turn over the subpoenaed tapes despite the president’s assertion.

However, President Biden’s attempts to prevent the Republican-led committees from obtaining the tapes may run into case law established as a result of his own party’s pursuit of his predecessor’s records. During Trump’s tenure, and after he left office, Democrats in the House sought to obtain both personal financial records as well as memos and documents related to January 6 as part of a congressional investigation. In both of these cases, Trump attempted to invoke executive privilege to deny the investigators access to the materials.

After the January 6 riot and Trump's departure from the White House, the House Democrat’s January 6 Select Committee subpoenaed a variety of records to investigate Trump’s actions and intentions leading up the that day. The committee requested speech drafts, handwritten notes, visitor and call logs, and files of senior aides and the president.

The National Archives said it found 750 pages of records responsive to the request, but former President Trump intervened, claiming executive privilege over the documents through the often cited communications privilege.

The D.C. Circuit Court ultimately decided that the documents or requested communications could be disclosed to Congress under a subpoena if the executive reasoned a release would be in the interest of the United States, if significant interest was demonstrated—especially in extraordinary circumstances—and that a valid and duly established congressional inquiry exists. When challenged to the Supreme Court, most of the Justices agreed with the lower court in principle, but refrained from adopting all its reasoning as its own. But, for now, the ruling stands in the lower court, making it a precedent against which future claims will be measured.

In Biden’s case, the House Republicans have established a legitimate congressional inquiry after approving an official impeachment probe into the president. Their legislative purpose mirrors the January 6 Select Committee’s investigative purposes.

However, in Biden’s case, he controls the executive and therefore the court may decide whether or not the legitimate congressional inquiry outweighs the justifications Garland gave for recommending the president withhold the tapes.

Indeed, Republicans have already indicated that they will take Biden to court over his assertions of privilege.

“It's very possible that this will end up in court," Cline said on Thursday evening on the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show. "We anticipate a committee vote and then potentially a House floor vote this week.”

During Trump’s tenure, congressional Democrats also doggedly pursued the former president’s private tax returns, requesting them through two separate committees and sparking legal battles. The House Democrats ultimately received the tax returns as requested.

However, one of the attempts at securing the financial records was thwarted by the Supreme Court, which ruled the legislature’s request would have to be evaluated by a lower court for four criteria: whether there is a legitimate legislative purpose, a narrowly tailored subpoena, evidence of legislative purpose, and scrutinize the burdens imposed on the executive to ensure no “ institutional advantage” is granted to a rival branch of government.

Congressional Republicans, in their quest for the Hur tapes, may have to submit their subpoena for such evaluation by the courts. However, the Trump tax case rulings applied to requests for personal records, which the Hur tapes are not—another distinction between the scenarios.

In the upcoming legal fight, the Supreme Court may finally have to determine the limits of executive privilege in light of congressional subpoenas. The high court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of an assertion of executive privilege in this context as part of a congressional investigation, Just the News previously reported.

The last time any court considered such a claim came during the Nixon Watergate investigations, but it never reached the high court. In the case of Senate Select Committee v. Nixon, the D.C. District Court refused to enforce a subpoena from the Senate Watergate Committee, but only because it believed any disclosure of the materials to the committee would imperil the Special Prosecutor’s work—criminal investigations into the scandal. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the lower court's decision.

 
Steven Richards

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/legal-boomerang-joe-bidens-attempt-shield-tapes-could-face-precedents

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Russia, China and Iran Must Not Seize Control of Sudan - Con Coughlin

 

by Con Coughlin

The Western powers must act urgently to protect this pivotal African state from falling into the hands of hostile autocratic regimes, such as Iran, Russia and China, which seek to use Sudan as a base from which to maintain their assault of the West and its key allies in the region.

 

• Moscow has undertaken a radical change in its involvement in the Sudanese conflict, with the Kremlin now providing al-Burhan's Islamist-aligned SAF its "uncapped" military support.

• In return, Moscow is hoping the Sudanese leader will honour a deal struck in 2020 to allow Russia to establish a naval base in Port Sudan, a move that would enable the Russian navy to threaten directly Western trade routes passing through the Red Sea.

• If, as now seems likely, both Russia and Iran, together with China, succeed in deepening their foothold in Sudan, as well as gaining access to key maritime bases such as Port Sudan, they will be in a strong position to challenge the West's ability to protect key shipping routes in the Red Sea.

• Iran's presence in Sudan, moreover, will present a major challenge to Israel: it will complete Tehran's strategic encirclement of the Israelis.

• The Western powers must act urgently to protect this pivotal African state from falling into the hands of hostile autocratic regimes, such as Iran, Russia and China, which seek to use Sudan as a base from which to maintain their assault of the West and its key allies in the region.

Russia has undertaken a radical change in its involvement in the Sudanese conflict, with the Kremlin now providing General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan's Islamist-aligned Sudanese Armed Forces its "uncapped" military support. Western powers must act urgently to protect this pivotal African state from falling into the hands of hostile autocratic regimes, such as Iran, Russia and China. Pictured: Al-Burhan in Gedaref State, Sudan, on April 10, 2024. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)

A modern-day "Scramble for Africa" is taking place in war-torn Sudan, where an unholy collection of hostile autocratic states, namely Iran, Russia and China, are competing for a stake in the country's key resources, especially the all-important maritime base of Port Sudan in the Red Sea.

Back in the late nineteenth century, the original "Scramble for Africa" was the term coined to describe the efforts of European colonial powers such as Britain, France and Germany to expand their influence throughout the African continent. Their campaign of expansion proved so successful that by the outbreak of the First World War, only Liberia and Ethiopia remained free from the shackles of European colonisation.

While Europe's influence in Africa may have waned in recent decades, a new breed of foreign interlopers is today vying to consolidate their hold over key African states, with civil war-ravaged Sudan emerging as a prime target for the autocratic regimes in Tehran, Moscow and Beijing.

Sudan's precipitous decline into all-out war has proved disastrous for the long-suffering Sudanese population, with the UN estimating that at least 15,000 people have been killed during the violence of the past year, although aid agencies believe the figure is significantly higher.

In addition, more than 8.6 million people have been forced from their homes, while 25 million are said to be in dire need of humanitarian assistance, with Sudan achieving the unenviable record of having the largest population of displaced children in the world.

At the heart of the conflict is a deadly battle for power between the ruling Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo who is also known as "Hemedti", which are battling to seize control of the country.

The civil war between the SAF, which has close ties to Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and the RSF, which was established by Omar al-Bashir, the country's former Islamist dictator, is the result of a deadly power struggle between two rival military factions.

While the conflict has inflicted widespread devastation on Sudan, it has also provided an opportunity for a number of autocratic regimes to seek to expand their influence within the strife-torn country.

For many years prior to the conflict, China had been one of Sudan's most significant investment partners, with Beijing investing an estimated $6 billion in the country's energy, agriculture and transport sectors since 2005.

China has also taken a close interest in Sudanese maritime assets such as Port Sudan, which it hopes will one day become a vital cog in its Belt and Road global trade route initiative.

Russia, too, had already initiated attempts before hostilities erupted to establish a foothold in Sudan in the form of the paramilitary Wagner Group which, under its former leader Yevgeny Prigozhin, served as Russian President Vladimir Putin's private army.

Wagner mercenaries worked predominantly with the RSF, which benefited greatly from the support it received from Moscow, with Wagner reported to have supplied large quantities of weapons and equipment to Sudan, including military trucks, amphibious vehicles and two transport helicopters.

In return, Russia was given access to the east African country's gold riches, thereby enabling Moscow to circumvent Western sanctions to fund its war effort in Ukraine.

Since Prigozhin's death in a mysterious airplane crash last year, Moscow has undertaken a radical change in its involvement in the Sudanese conflict, with the Kremlin now providing al-Burhan's Islamist-aligned SAF its "uncapped" military support.

In return, Moscow is hoping the Sudanese leader will honour a deal struck in 2020 to allow Russia to establish a naval base in Port Sudan, a move that would enable the Russian navy to threaten directly Western trade routes passing through the Red Sea.

While China has tried to maintain a degree of neutrality in the Sudanese conflict, Russia's deepening support for al-Burhan and the Islamist-aligned SAF has laid the foundations for the entry of another hostile authoritarian regime into the conflict, in the form of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Given the vital support Iran has provided to Russia for its war effort in Ukraine, it was perhaps inevitable that Russia's involvement in Sudan would ultimately pave the way for Iranian military hardware to be deployed on the Sudanese battlefield.

According to recent reports, the tide of the war is beginning to turn in favour of the SAF, after it began using Iranian-made drones earlier this year.

The newly acquired unmanned aerial vehicles have been used for reconnaissance and artillery spotting during recent army victories in Omdurman, across the Nile from the country's capital, Khartoum.

Iranian officials confirmed to the Reuters news agency that the SAF have had begun using the drones in its war against the RSF. The arrival of the Iranian drones in Sudan followed last year's visit to Tehran by Ali Sadeq, Sudan's acting foreign minister, during which he met with senior Iranian security officials.

The Iranian regime has a long history of cooperation with Khartoum, with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps regularly using Sudan as a base to ship weapons to terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah during Bashir's dictatorship. Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organisation was also based in Sudan for a time in the 1990s.

The deployment of Iranian drones in Sudan, together with Russia's deepening involvement in the Sudanese conflict, should certainly be a cause for concern for Western policymakers given the country's geographical significance in the Red Sea.

If, as now seems likely, both Russia and Iran, together with China, succeed in deepening their foothold in Sudan, as well as gaining access to key maritime bases such as Port Sudan, they will be in a strong position to challenge the West's ability to protect key shipping routes in the Red Sea.

Iran's presence in Sudan, moreover, will present a major challenge to Israel: it will complete Tehran's strategic encirclement of the Israelis.

For this reason, it is vital that international mediation efforts are convened, as a matter of urgency, to bring this dreadful conflict to a close.

The Western powers must act urgently to protect this pivotal African state from falling into the hands of hostile autocratic regimes, such as Iran, Russia and China, which seek to use Sudan as a base from which to maintain their assault of the West and its key allies in the region.

Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20640/sudan-control-russia-china-iran

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hispanics and Young Voters Flee from Biden - Steve Cortes

 

by Steve Cortes

Details in the polling crosstabs show material cracks emerging in the traditional coalition of Biden voters.

 

Trump romps right now in battleground states—and wins over constituencies that have been historically crucial to Democrats in elections. In this regard, brand new polling from the New York Times validates the ongoing battleground polling from my advocacy group, the League of American Workers. Both their polls and ones commissioned through North Star Opinion Research show Trump comfortable leads in North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona and effectively tied in Wisconsin.

But perhaps even more revealing than the topline “horse race” numbers, the details in the polling crosstabs show material cracks emerging in the traditional coalition of Biden voters. The weakness for Biden is especially pronounced among Hispanics and young voters, two groups the Democrats formerly depended upon for support.

Hispanics: in our Georgia poll, the overall Trump lead for a head-to-head matchup vs. Biden surged to double digits for the 45^th president, with Trump 49%, Biden 39%, and those undecided at 12%. Amazingly, the lead among Hispanics in Georgia was even larger with Trump by +13%. Georgia is not generally regarded as a significantly Hispanic state, but it should be, with 10% of the population there now Latino.  Because of the super strong job market in Georgia, hard-working Hispanics have flocked to the Peach State. The Hispanic population doubled there from 2000-2010, from 435,000 to 865,000. Then, over 200,000 more Hispanics have been added since, getting close to 1.1 million Latinos.

These findings were echoed by the NY Times poll, which found 60% disapproval among Hispanics in battleground states and a staggering 61% of Latinos who rated their economic circumstances as “poor.” In our survey, when we asked, “Were you better off with Trump or Biden?” the former president won Hispanics by a landslide, 58-26%. Clearly, entrepreneurial, hard-working Hispanics in Georgia long for the economic prosperity of Trump.

Young Voters: Trump has earned a commanding +17% lead among likely voters aged 18-34, 49-32%, with 18% undecided. In fact, the lowly 32% take for Biden is the lowest of any age group. Interestingly, Trump also enjoys a +17% margin among young adults in a five-way presidential race that adds Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, and Jill Stein onto the hypothetical ballot.

So, young people decidedly reject Biden. Why? The first reason is Gaza. When asked about Biden’s actions and statements regarding the war there, 66% of young voters said they make them less likely to support Biden, the highest of any age group. The second reason is the economy. The inflationary “Bidenomics” reality benefits the owners of substantial assets, primarily older citizens. But young people, who generally do not hold substantial real estate or stock market assets, struggle to pay for the necessities of life in Biden’s inflationary economy. Only 30% of Georgia young voters reported that Bidenomics works well for middle class families, the lowest of any age group.

These moves are structural and could last for decades to come. For instance, in Georgia, the median Latino age is only 27 years old, a full decade younger than non-Latinos there. So, when the youthful Latino population is combined with other young voters fleeing the Democrats in droves, these trends really matter, and not just for this election. In contrast to the Marxist Democrats, the America First coalition is young, ethnically diverse, and growing.

Steve Cortes is former senior advisor to President Donald Trump, former commentator for Fox News and CNN, and president of the League of American Workers, a populist right pro-laborer advocacy group.

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2024/05/17/hispanics-and-young-voters-flee-from-biden/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Sue and defund schools that tolerate antisemitism - Jonathan S. Tobin

 

by Jonathan S. Tobin

What happened at Haverford College is a case study in how respected liberal institutions are harming Jewish students. They need to be held accountable.

 

Haverford College in the Philadelphia suburbs, May 15, 2024. Photo by Carin M. Smilk.

Haverford College is a small liberal arts school in the bucolic suburbs of Philadelphia. But its standing as an elite institution is long established. Acknowledged as among the most selective in the nation, it rejected 87.1% of those who applied for admission in 2023. Publications that rank colleges for their academic standing routinely place them among those at the top of the field. It is hardly surprising then that it cultivates an atmosphere of stereotypical smug elitism of prestigious higher education as well as a campus culture in which progressive ideologies dominate the administration, coursework and discourse.

As such, Haverford is, for all its Quaker origins and efforts to stand out as offering a unique educational experience, fairly typical of American universities in the spring of 2024. What has happened there in the seven months since the Oct. 7 Hamas massacres in southern Israel is likely not much different from what is going on at many other institutions of higher education, including those that still aspire to the sort of high standing that Haverford takes for granted.

And that’s why the lawsuit recently filed in federal district court about the school’s tolerance—and even encouragement—of antisemitic speech and actions gives us more than just a rendering of its violations of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that forbid that kind of discriminatory conduct. The accounts of what Jewish students have had to put up with at Haverford are, in and of themselves, scandalous.

They also paint a disturbing portrait of campus life that calls into question all the assumptions about the acceptance of Jews in the United States. It not only makes it clear that contempt for Jewish sensibilities and even outright hatred directed at Jews is something that is not confined to the fever swamps of extremists. Rather, it is considered acceptable in a venue where the sort of people who will run this country in the future get their college degrees.

Left-wing antisemitism on campus

Related Articles

Israel recovers bodies of Shani Louk, Amit Buskila, Yitzhak GelerenterMay 17, 2024

IDF sergeant Ben Avishay, of Nahariya, killed in GazaMay 17, 2024

South Africa is Hamas ‘ally,’ Israel says at Hague courtMay 17, 2024

What’s more, it also conclusively debunks the idea of antisemitism being predominantly, if not exclusively, a right-wing or conservative phenomenon that liberal elites consider not just normative but mandated by the dictates of contemporary academic culture. As such, it should force everyone—Jewish or non-Jewish—to confront the reality of contemporary antisemitism.

Just as important is the decision of the plaintiffs—a group of Jewish students, faculty and alumni represented by The Deborah Project, a Jewish public-interest law firm—to choose to directly sue the school. In most such instances where Jews speak up about antisemitism and violations of Title VI, they have merely reported them to the U.S. Department of Education, where they are added to the long list of pending investigations being conducted by the federal government.

Even if those investigations are not slow-walked by bureaucrats and lawyers not interested in imposing consequences on colleges violating the law, the nature of the process is such that real accountability is slow in coming, if it comes at all. Although the wheels of justice in the Haverford example may not grind as quickly as concerned citizens like, by putting the case in federal court rather than in the inbox of the Department of Education, the project is initiating litigation that arguably has a much better chance of bringing about far-reaching consequences for the school.

While a satisfactory conclusion to this fight is not a given, it raises the possibility that a verdict will be reached that could lead to the defunding of those institutions that have allowed their fealty to toxic woke ideas to unleash a storm of antisemitism on their students.

Administrators encourage Jew-hatred

The details of the lawsuit provide a harrowing triptych of academic life post-Oct. 7. At the heart of it and what makes it particularly actionable is not just the hatred for Israel and Jews expressed by students and faculty after the worst mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. It was the open acquiescence of the school administration to these incidents that constituted not merely inaction but could easily be understood as encouragement for bigotry.

Among them is the refusal of the school to allow Jewish students to set up a table at a basketball game where materials would be available to promote antisemitism awareness. Haverford dean John McKnight and the school’s athletic director, Danielle Lynch, told Ally Landau—the named plaintiff in the lawsuit and star player on the women’s basketball team—that she had to cancel the effort or else the game would be forfeited. Their reason was that the school believed that any talk about antisemitism on campus would provoke “pro-Palestinian students” and lead to a riot. While McKnight claimed that the decision to withdraw the proposal was Landau’s, she says that “is a lie.”

Other highlights of the suit include the reaction of Haverford president Wendy Raymond when she was confronted about a series of social-media posts by a professor at the college who reposted an image of a bulldozer used in the Oct. 7 attacks with the text: “We should never have to apologize for celebrating these scenes of an imprisoned people breaking free from their chains. This was a historic moment to be recorded in the history books.”

At a Jewish student event on campus, Raymond was asked whether the post by Tarik Aougab—who remains a Haverford math and statistics professor—should be considered antisemitism. Raymond answered that his statement “could be perceived in many ways.” When asked how she perceived it, she answered, ‘I hear people breaking free from their chains.’” The president of Haverford was not ashamed to admit to considering an image of the Oct. 7 orgy of mass murder, rape, torture and wanton destruction committed by Hamas and its Palestinian supporters to be something that she admired.

At stake here are not just egregious statements and actions by Haverford. It’s the blatant double standard used by the school to treat discriminatory speech and behavior.

Denying Jewish suffering

As is typical for contemporary academia, Haverford doesn’t tolerate speech and behavior considered disrespectful, let alone discriminatory, when it comes to various minority groups like African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians or those who identify as LGBTQ+. The school is notoriously intolerant when it comes to those who dissent from the current liberal fashion. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) list of American higher education ranks Haverford as 208 out of 248 schools when it comes to protecting free speech.

But as is the case elsewhere in academia, the hatred that is directed towards Jews with chants calling for Israel’s destruction (“from the river to the sea”) or terrorism against Jews (“globalize the intifada”) is defended as protected free speech. The lawsuit alleges that McKnight was asked about “the abundance of speech on Haverford’s campus that is virulently hostile to Jews and Israel,” and whether Haverford would “tolerate such speech directed at LGBTQIA students,” he said that the two groups are “not comparable.”

How is that possible?

The answer is that what goes on at Haverford is a perfect example of what happens when educators and students are indoctrinated with ideologies like critical race theory, intersectionality and the woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). That mindset seeks to divide the world into two permanently warring groups of “white oppressors” and people of color, who are always their victims. True to its Marxist roots, these toxic ideas treat Jews and the State of Israel as inherently “white” and therefore always in the wrong, thus granting a permission slip for antisemitism. Only those who believe in these sorts of concepts could possibly ignore millennia of persecution, discrimination and violence against Jews to be insignificant when compared to those who embrace alternative sexual lifestyles.

What’s more, Haverford’s much-vaunted “honor code” specifically demands that its students adhere to a standard of conduct in which “anti-racism” is treated as being as obligatory as refraining from cheating on tests.

Setting a precedent

That is why, in the words of Deborah Project legal director Lori Lowenthal Marcus, the lawsuit details “incident after incident of horrible, vile antisemitic statements, actions, activities, chants, disruptions, intimidation, harassment and oppression by members of the Haverford College community” that were “ignored, condoned or even praised” by top college administrators.

It is high time that behavior like that of Haverford’s was not just exposed but punished by demonstrating that it, as is the case in so many other colleges and universities, is in clear violation of Title VI. That ought to mean a judgment that will ensure that it loses all federal funds if it doesn’t fundamentally change its behavior.

Pushing for such an outcome is not a matter of repressing free speech. Private institutions don’t treat speech that they consider beyond the pale, such as racism against blacks and other minorities, to be protected. But they rediscover the First Amendment when it comes to antisemitism. A special carve out to protect Jew-haters isn’t just wrong, it’s a violation of the law.

The Haverford suit should therefore be treated as not just a wake-up call about terrible things going on at one privileged college. It must also serve as a call to arms for all those who care about halting the spike in antisemitism that is surging throughout the United States. It could mean the creation of a precedent that could help scare other colleges and universities into adopting policies that will prevent them from being put into the same position. In doing so, the litigation could, if successful, hasten the moment when left-wing antisemitism in the academy will truly be put on trial.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). Follow him @jonathans_tobin.

Source: https://www.jns.org/sue-and-defund-schools-that-tolerate-antisemitism/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter