Friday, October 12, 2018

Israel has exclusive rights to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, government publication asserts - Yori Yalon

by Yori Yalon

Book by Jerusalem Affairs ‎and Heritage Ministry presents arguments by some of the world's top jurists, refuting allegations that Israeli presence in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria violates international law

The cover of a compilation asserting Israeli sovereignty over 
Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria

A new government publication states, for the first ‎time, that Israel has an exclusive right to Jerusalem ‎and Judea and ‎Samaria. ‎

The book, titled "Israel's Right as of Jerusalem and ‎Judea and Samaria," is a compilation of materials ‎and lectures first presented at a Jerusalem Affairs ‎and Heritage Ministry symposium last year, which was ‎attended by some of the world's leading jurists and ‎diplomats. ‎

The symposium, led by Jerusalem Affairs and Heritage ‎Minister Zeev Elkin, was held as part of the ‎ministry's international program to bolster ‎Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital.‎

The book has been printed in several hundred copies, ‎to be distributed in Israel's missions worldwide and ‎to top foreign diplomats, jurists and leaders of ‎public opinion.‎

The ministry said this was the first time a book ‎dealing with the issue of Israeli sovereignty over ‎Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria has been published.‎

‎"For years, we have had to tolerate the false ‎message that Israel's very presence in reunified ‎Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria are a violation of ‎international law," said ministry Director General ‎Ran Yishai. ‎

‎"The world's top jurists have refuted this notion, ‎but they have been all but silenced by a pro-Arab campaign ‎using false legal arguments to justify international ‎bodies and countries' anti-Israeli policy," he said.

‎"Now, the State of Israel has put together arguments ‎by some of the world's greatest legal experts, ‎including by some who have personally shaped ‎international law, that prove Israel is in the right ‎even when faced with legal bullying in the ‎international arena," Yishai concluded. ‎

Yori Yalon


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Arab political incorrectness on the Palestinian issue - Yoram Ettinger

by Yoram Ettinger

The Arab countries have much more urgent concerns than the "Palestinian" problem.

While Iraq delivers staunchly pro-Palestinian talk, a 2017 Iraqi law has reversed Saddam Hussein’s pro-Palestinian policy, depriving Palestinians (including those born in Iraq) of free education, healthcare, travel documents and employment in state institutions.

While Jordan calls for sweeping Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and while the Hashemite regime has absorbed over one million Syrian refugees, Amman stopped (since 2012) admitting Palestinian refugees from Syria. Furthermore, the significantly enhanced trilateral Jordan-US-Israel strategic cooperation has become a major artery of the Hashemite regime’s national and homeland security.

While Egypt urges Israel to satisfy Palestinian demands, Egypt-Israel strategic cooperation, especially (but not only) in the area of counter-terrorism in the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza, has surged unprecedentedly.

While there is no progress on the Israel-Palestinian front, Saudi Arabia and all other pro-US Arab Gulf States have substantially expanded military and commercial cooperation with Israel. Riyadh has never considered the Palestinian issue a top geo-strategic priority – except its generous talk, but no walk – as demonstrated from 1979-1989 by its $1BN annual aid to the anti-Soviet Islamic campaign in Afghanistan, compared with $100MN annual aid to the PLO.  Also, while UNRWA highlighted a “$50MN landmark contribution by Saudi Arabia” on behalf of Palestinian refugees, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman put it in realistic perspective by purchasing a 440ft-long yacht for $588MN and a Leonardo da Vinci painting for $450MN. 

Once again, Middle East reality defies Western conventional wisdom.

Moreover, contrary to Western conventional wisdom, Palestinians benefit much more from Western support than from the support extended – and usually avoided – by Arabs.

Arab leaders have always showered Palestinians with an abundance of positive talk, but never with positive walk, as highlighted in the aftermath of the 1948-49 Arab-Israel War, when Jordan and Egypt occupied Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza.  Rather than transferring these areas to Palestinian control, Jordan and Egypt aggressively squelched Palestinian political and educational activities there.

Furthermore, Arab regimes have not flexed their military or economic muscles during Palestinian-Israeli conflicts, such as the 1982 Israel-PLO war in Lebanon, the First and Second Intifada (1987-1992 and 2000-2005 respectively) and the three Israel-Hamas wars in Gaza (2009, 2012 and 2014).  In fact, notwithstanding their public rhetoric, most Arab policy-makers consider the Palestinians, in general, and Hamas, in particular, as clear and present threats to regional stability and their own regimes, and wish that Israel would deal with Palestinian terrorism more decisively.

In 2018, the Palestinian issue is relegated further down the scale of Arab priorities, against the backdrop of the intensifying lethal threats – to each pro-US Arab regime – posed by the imperialistic, megalomaniacal Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and its Sunni terrorist derivatives (e.g., ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas) and Erdogan’s Turkey. These threats, which have placed a sharp machete at the throat of every Arab regime, have been unrelated to the Palestinian issue.

In 2018, there have been hundreds of televised reports from Gaza, top-heavy on Israeli military response to Palestinian terrorists, who fly fire-kites and explosive-balloons into Israeli communities. However, there have been minimal reports on Arab solidarity with the Palestinians.  Arab regimes and the Arab Street have been preoccupied with the domestic and regional tectonic, destabilizing ripple effects of the Arab Tsunami (superficially addressed as the “Arab Spring”), which have been leveraged by Islamic Sunni terrorists, as well as by Iran’s Ayatollahs in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen and the oil-rich and Shiite-populated Al-Hassa and Al-Qatif regions of Saudi Arabia.

The Arab preoccupation with do-or-die threats and challenges – not with the Palestinian issue – has been reflected in the non-realization of Arab financial assistance to the Palestinian cause, announced in bombastic forums, but has subsequently all but evaporated.

Most significantly, while the Palestinian/PLO track record has been replete with anti-Arab terrorism and anti-Arab subversion and the training of international terrorist organizations, Israel has been increasingly perceived – by the pro-US Arab countries – as the most effective life insurance agent in the region.  Hence, the unprecedented enhancement of their geo-strategic and economic cooperation with Israel.

Will Western policy-makers, academia and media learn proper lessons from past critical errors in assessing Middle East developments, or will they persist in repeating – rather than avoiding – past mistakes, which would entail severe financial and national security cost?!

Yoram Ettinger


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Syria Receives Anti-Aircraft System From Russia - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

But Israel is prepared.

On July 30, 1970 during the height of the War of Attrition between Egypt and Israel, Israeli fighter jets –Mirages and F-4E Phantoms – tangled with Soviet-piloted MiG-21s over Egyptian airspace. In the four minute dogfight that ensued, the Israeli Air Force shot down five of the MiGs while the rest of the Red formation scattered. The engagement brought Israel to the brink of war with a superpower.

Israeli-Russian relations have markedly improved since those tense Cold War years. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Vladimir Putin have developed an excellent relationship based on personal friendship and shared interests.  Netanyahu was one of only two Western leaders to attend Russia’s Victory Day Parade this year and Putin was the first Russian president to ever visit the Jewish State. In 2012, Putin returned to Israel as a guest of honor at a state dinner and inaugurated a monument to Soviet soldiers who defeated Nazi Germany. During Operation Protective Edge, Putin voiced support for Israel in its quest to protect its citizens from Hamas terrorism.

Despite the warming of ties, Israel’s military brass and political echelons viewed Russia’s military intervention on behalf of the outlaw Assad regime warily. Given the proximity of Russian forces to Syrian and Iranian positions, the Israelis were rightly concerned over the prospect of an accidental engagement between Israeli and Russian militaries. Consequently, Israel and Russia developed and effective de-confliction mechanism aimed at avoiding such unintended engagements.

For the most part, this arrangement worked well but on the night of September 17, it went disastrously wrong. At approximately 10 p.m. four Israeli F-16 Sufa fighter-bombers launched a precision strike from Lebanese airspace at a weapons-linked facility in the Syrian coastal city of Latakia, obliterating it. The attack was part of Israel’s relentless campaign of thwarting arms transfers to Hezbollah and Iranian entrenchment in Syria

The Syrians responded by wildly firing a number of anti-aircraft missiles. Syrian air defense units continued launching missiles even after the attack subsided. During the course of their unfocused response, the Syrians inadvertently shot down a Russian Ilyushin-20M “Coot-A” surveillance and control aircraft off the Syrian coast killing all 15 Russian personnel aboard. It was reported that several Syrian air defense personnel were arrested following the shoot-down.

Israel immediately expressed regret for the loss and sent a response team to Moscow to explain that fault for the downing rested squarely with incompetent Syrian air defense units. Putin appeared to accept the Israeli explanation and apology, and referred to the incident as an “unfortunate accident.” But shortly thereafter, Russia’s Ministry of Defense assumed a less conciliatory approach, which rejected Israel’s explanation and referred to the manner in which Israel carried out its strike as “criminal negligence.” The MoD even accused Israel of utilizing the Ilyushin as cover to mask the presence of IAF fighters.

The contradictory Russian response can best be explained by competing Russian political and military interests. Putin wants to maintain good relations with Israel while Russia’s MoD wants to demonstrate that it’s doing everything it can to back its overseas troops.

In response to the accident, Russia announced that it would deliver to the Syrian army the S-300 air defense system which would significantly enhance Syria’s air defense capabilities. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that the delivery, which included 49 pieces of equipment, was completed on October 1. Russia’s MoD also announced that it would take three months to train the Syrians.

The Russians, not known for their magnanimity, announced that they provided the system to their Syrian allies free of charge but it is still unclear what variant of the S-300 was delivered. According to the Russian propaganda outlet RT, it was the more advanced S-300VM model while the defense blog The War Zone suggested that it was S-300PMU-2, Russia’s export version of the S-300. In addition to the delivery of the S-300, Russia also reportedly delivered a suite of electronic warfare equipment aimed at protecting anti-aircraft sites by jamming radars.

So what do these ominous developments portend for Israel and its efforts to thwart Iranian arms trafficking to Hezbollah and Iranian entrenchment? And how will these developments affect Israeli-Russian relations?

With respect to the latter, it is highly unlikely that Israeli-Russian ties will be adversely affected by this momentary blip. Both Israel and Russia have an interest in maintaining good ties and both have an interest in seeing Iranian expansion in Syria checked, albeit for different reasons. Moreover, visits by high-level Russian leaders to Israel have not been impeded as evidenced by the fact that Russia’s deputy prime minister, Maxim Akimov, is scheduled to arrive on Tuesday. Nevertheless as General Joseph Votel, who heads the US Central Command noted, the transfer of the S-300 platform to the Syrian army represents a “needless escalation” and cover for nefarious Syrian and Iranian activities.

It is also highly unlikely that Israel will cease its operations over Syria. Israel’s quest to thwart Iranian aggression represents a paramount strategic objective. Israel has already conducted over 200 strikes in Syria and has likely carried out a number of covert operations as well. Indeed, a day prior to the September 17 attack, Israel blew up an Iranian Boeing 747 containing weapons destined for Hezbollah at Damascus International Airport.

The S-300, with its 124 mile range, advanced radar and anti-jamming systems, and ability to track multiple targets simultaneously certainly presents challenges to the IAF’s freedom of action but it is a virtual certainty that the Israelis have already developed counter-measures to this formidable weapon system. As The War Zone notes “Israel has also already gained significant insight into the capabilities of the S-300 system specifically by participating in training exercises that feature older variants in Greece.”

While the transfer of the S-300 to the Syrian army certainly doesn’t make things easier for Israel, it will not for a moment prevent Israel from acting resolutely when its security interests are threatened. This is an ongoing Israeli doctrine that is subordinate to no other interest.

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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The devastating impact of American non-Jewish Jews - Isi Leibler

by Isi Leibler

Reform Judaism is the leading denominational group within the Jewish community. Nearly all the rabbis perform intermarriages.

American Jews who are members of the Union for Reform Judaism, formerly the Union Of American Hebrew Congregations at the Western Wall in Jerusalem‏.. 
(photo credit: REUTERS) 

There is no disputing that, except for the vast majority of Orthodox Jews, American Jews and their leaders have distanced themselves from their Jewish identity.

In most cases, this reflects an indifference to global Jewish issues, and often, a deliberate display of contempt toward Israel and its security challenges and the belief that Israeli leaders are not willing to discard an “outdated nationalist ideology.”

Many express their Judaism by proclaiming a distorted version of tikkun olam, which many of their rabbis promote as an espousal of liberal and universal policies. They are totally supportive of the Democratic Party, which many Reform rabbis, in effect, promote as the contemporary embodiment of Judaism.

Much of this can be explained by the rapidly changing demographics of American Jews.

Currently, most non-Orthodox American Jews suffer from unprecedented levels of ignorance. The Conservative movement, which fought for Jewish education and sought to maintain Jewish day schools, is today a mere shadow of what it was in the 1950s. It is moving closer to Reform Judaism and the leaders frequently echo the sentiments expressed by radical Reform rabbinical leaders.

Reform Judaism is the leading denominational group within the Jewish community. Nearly all the rabbis perform intermarriages and the figures suggest that the vast majority of Reform couples include one non-Jewish partner. This is consistent with the statistics, which state that, over the past decade, about 80% of non-Orthodox unions were intermarriages.

What exacerbates matters is that the overwhelming majority of Reform Jews only attend synagogue on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. This issue is addressed in a recent brilliant article in Mosaic by Jack Wertheimer (undoubtedly the most astute analyst of trends within the Jewish community).  

Rabbis are overjoyed to have a unique opportunity on the High Holy Days to address large audiences, but many of them, instead of concentrating on Jewish themes, use the occasion to promote the anti-Trump campaign, often urging their constituents to vote in order to defeat the purported “enemy of democracy,” the “antisemitically inclined” Trump.

An ever-increasing number of these Jews now describe themselves as secular and are utterly ignorant of their Jewish heritage. Their counterparts 50 years ago were quite different. The Shoah and Jewish powerlessness was uppermost in their minds as was their pride in the struggles and achievements of State of Israel, which was providing a haven for persecuted Jews from all corners of the world. Most Jews then regarded Israel as a significant focus of their Jewish identity.

THE SAD reality is that today, the bulk of youngsters from the non-Orthodox sector are what should be described as non-Jewish Jews because their sole link to their people is through Jewish descent – frequently, from only one parent. They have little or no conception of Jewish values or interest in their Jewish heritage.

These Jews not only adhere to but are often at the forefront of the anti-Trump hysteria. Non-Orthodox Jewish organizational leaders – even traditional Zionists – remain silent or cozy up to their liberal constituencies even as President Donald Trump treats Israel better than any previous American president and, for the first time, is publicly exposing Palestinian intransigence, promotion of terrorism and the millions of dollars awarded to killers and their families. These same Jews never raised an eyebrow when President Barack Obama was uttering his outrageous statements morally equating Palestinian terrorists with Israeli defenders.

Nothing symbolized the deterioration of those describing themselves as American Jews more than when 42% of them (initially headed by Reform leader Rabbi Rick Jacobs) opposed Trump’s decision to transfer the US Embassy to Jerusalem – a decision that overjoyed Israelis. Furthermore, this year the General Assembly of Jewish Federations of North America, which when convening in Israel always meets in Jerusalem, has moved the venue to Tel Aviv.

Moreover, at the annual graduation ceremony for Reform rabbis, the guest speaker was the virulently anti-Israel Michael Chabon, who excoriated the Jewish state, stating, “Security is an invention of humanity’s jailers.” He then proceeded to express his opposition to Jewish endogamy and called for intermarriage. Hardly surprising that rabbis educated in such an environment frequently adopt negative attitudes.

More recently, Rabbi Hara Person, chief strategy officer of the Reform movement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis and publisher of its journal, pronounced her “halachic” conclusion that Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assaults had not been properly investigated and Judaism would not have approved his elevation to the High Court. Is this Judaism?

Of course, there are still a minority of Reform rabbis who are passionate Zionists and unequivocally condemn these trends. Foremost would be Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue on New York’s Upper West Side.
This extract from his Yom Kippur sermon is explicit:

“We liberal Jews never seem to speak about Jewish solidarity anymore…. Thus, for many Reform Jews, ‘tikkun olam’ implies everyone in the world except Jews. It is rare to meet an American Reform youth or activist who considers it tikkun olam to assist, say, impoverished Jews in Israel or the former Soviet Union. A Reform tikkun olam mission would more likely travel to a poor African village than a soup kitchen for Jews in Ukraine…. The growing inclination among liberal Jews to de-emphasize Jewish distinctiveness is the greatest threat to liberal Judaism…. In the modern world, those who are not committed to Jewish survival will not survive as Jews.”

There are others sharing these views in the Reform movement, but they represent a shrinking minority and of these, many are obliged to provide their congregants what they want to hear.

IN THE current atmosphere, Jewish identity is submerged by the paranoid hatred against Trump by liberal Jews who continue to mourn his election.

This is reflected by repeated anti-Trump outbursts by organizations that have traditionally assiduously avoided partisan political issues. The most notorious offender is the Anti-Defamation League, which, since the retirement of Abe Foxman, has effectively become an extension of the Democratic Party and also repeatedly criticizes the policies of the democratically elected government of Israel. At the same time, while the most outrageous anti-democratic behavior and threats of violence are launched against pro-Israel students at virtually all campuses by Muslim and far-left students, the ADL, fearing it will be accused of denying freedom of speech, imposes a curtain of silence or at best mildly rebukes those committing these outrages.

An ever-increasing number of the youth and radical students instigated by professors together with those rebelling against being labeled “High Holy Day” Reform Jews prefer to describe themselves as secular Jews. Judaism and Israel are very low in their priorities. Indeed, some find it socially advantageous to demonstrate their cosmopolitism by condemning Israel and spurning so-called nationalism or ethnic pride.

What is even more outrageous is that American Jewish leaders blame Israel for the erosion of Diaspora relations. The Reform leaders claim that the source of the problem is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s backtrack on the agreement for an egalitarian prayer section at the Western Wall.

Many Israelis were frustrated that Netanyahu caved in to the ultra-Orthodox on this issue. He did so (mistakenly in my opinion) out of fear that the haredim would bring down his government.

This became headline news in America with some rabbis even calling on their members to divest from Israel Bonds. The fact is that most Reform Jews have not even visited Israel and only a miniscule number would have been aware of the issue had their rabbis not frenziedly used this as a tool to berate Israel.

Israel cannot be blamed for the fact that American Jews, especially the younger generation, are distancing themselves from Israel. The fault clearly lies with American Jewish leaders who have failed to invest sufficient resources and have utterly neglected the Jewish education of their children. The rapidly growing number of illiterate Jews deserve to be called non-Jewish Jews.

Little can be done other than a more intensive follow-up on those returning from Birthright trips. But the lethargy of the current Jewish leadership and the reliance on liberal supporters whose paranoid hatred of Trump, even at the expense of Israel, ties their hands. I fear that despite the efforts made by emissaries from the Jewish Agency and other organizations, we should dismiss our illusions and recognize that a large portion of American Jewry is being overrun by non-Jewish Jews.

We must now focus on the significant number of American Jews who are Orthodox and traditional and the considerable number of others who recognize Israel as a crucial factor in their Jewish identity and concentrate on encouraging and strengthening them.


Isi Leibler's website can be viewed at He may be contacted at


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Stunning 85-page Google memo 'The Good Censor' leaked to Breitbart - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

Democracy dies in Silicon Valley?

If you are not worried about the power of Google to shape debate and elections according to its leftist political bias, you're not paying attention. I congratulate for the scoop, and I urge everyone – I am looking at you, President Trump and Congress – to read and ponder the fate of the Republic unless this company is defanged, most likely by antitrust action, but possibly also via civil courts. Breitbart is mum about how it came to possess the memo, but I do recall that Google is being sued over its dismissal of James Damore for insufficient adherence to its own ideology, and the discovery process in that lawsuit is almost certainly underway.

You can download and read the entire memo here. If that is too great a time investment, then read Allum Bokhari's introduction and summary here, including:
An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the "American tradition" of free speech on the internet is no longer viable. ...
[T]he 85-page briefing, titled "The Good Censor," admits that Google and other tech platforms now "control the majority of online conversations" and have undertaken a "shift towards censorship" in response to unwelcome political events around the world.
The briefing labels the ideal of unfettered free speech on the internet a "utopian narrative" that has been "undermined" by recent global events as well as "bad behavior" on the part of users. ...
It acknowledges that major tech platforms, including Google, Facebook and Twitter initially promised free speech to consumers. "This free speech ideal was instilled in the DNA of the Silicon Valley startups that now control the majority of our online conversations," says the document.
The briefing argues that Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are caught between two incompatible positions, the "unmediated marketplace of ideas" vs. "well-ordered spaces for safety and civility."

Thomas Lifson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

A Tale of Two Women - Dawn Perlmutter

by Dawn Perlmutter

The differences between Christine Ford and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Nadia Murad, an Iraqi Yazidi woman.

Hysteria was the first mental health illness attributed to women. For centuries it was considered both a common and chronic medical disorder. Female Hysteria was intrinsically intertwined with women’s sexuality and reproductive organs. The origin of the term hysteria stems from the Greek equivalent for uterus ‘hystera’. Symptoms included everything from nervousness, sexual desire, insomnia, irritability, loss of appetite, and a "tendency to cause trouble".  Hysteria was the diagnosis for everything that men found mysterious or unmanageable in women and was used as evidence of the instability of the female mind. Many women who were diagnosed with hysteria were forced into insane asylums or to undergo surgical hysterectomies. One of the major triumphs of the feminist movement was to eradicate the diagnosis and stigma of female hysteria.

After centuries of fighting against stereotypes of women as irrational emotional hysterics, Christine Blasey Ford and her cult of feminist victims reestablished the worst stereotypes of women as fragile, defenseless, erratic and unstable. When women were marching for equal rights, equal pay and equal position in society, they did not envision being represented by a woman who is the very personification of female hysteria. Christine Blasey Ford’s fragmented recovered memory of a sexual assault, her 36-year-old ongoing trauma, uncorroborated allegations, childlike affectation, feigned helplessness and alleged irrational fears are a profile in female hysteria.

The American Psychiatric Association dropped the term female hysteria in 1952. Subsequently, the classification of disorders formerly known as female hysteria have been controversially categorized in other conditions such as schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, conversion disorder, and anxiety attacks. Another condition that was formerly associated with hysteria is referred to as Factitious disorder also known as Munchausen Syndrome and related to Malingering. Malingerers commonly fake psychological disorders such as anxiety and fabricate trauma for a variety of reasons -- most often financial compensation tied to fraud. Munchausen Syndrome is a factitious disorder where people feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves. Symptoms include phobias, anxiety disorders, a history of recurrent hospitalization and dramatic, extremely improbable tales of their past experiences. The person often exaggerates or creates symptoms of illnesses to gain attention, sympathy, and/or comfort from medical personnel. In some cases, the person becomes highly knowledgeable about the practice of medicine and can recite and produce symptoms to garner more attention.

Christine Ford received a lot of attention and sympathy when she testified before Congress about her alleged assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  During her testimony, Ford frequently responded not as a victim but as a physician. When asked by Senator Feinstein about the impact the events had on her, Ford responded:
Well, I think that the sequelae of sexual assault varies by person, so for me personally, anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms are the types of things that I’ve been coping with. So, more specifically, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing.
When Senator Feinstein asked her how she was sure it was Judge Kavanaugh that assaulted her, Ford responded:
It’s — just basic memory functions. And also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that, sort of, as you know, encodes — that neurotransmitter encodes memories into the hippocampus. And so, the trauma-related experience, then, is kind of locked there, whereas other details kind of drift.
The press praised her unusual responses by characterizing her as a research psychologist who appeared as her own expert witness. The reason expert witnesses do not testify on their own behalf is that a court and jury rely on expert witnesses to be disinterested parties, who are not biased and have no motive to fabricate an issue. It never occurred to the media to question Ford's self-diagnosis as the result of a trained political operative or the manifestation of a mental disorder. In fact, people who suffer from factitious disorders often research and study symptoms and diseases, so they can better fake them. Ford has made a career out of studying mental illness, writing prolifically about the long-term impacts of trauma, including trauma related to sexual abuse. She would know exactly how to lie about the symptoms and trauma associated with sexual assault.

There is a significant difference between studying trauma and authentically experiencing it. The genuineness of Christine Ford’s choice of language, affectation and disclosures were questionable. Throughout her entire testimony there was no other person, event, detail, or evidence that corroborated her testimony. Her demeanor and body language appeared rehearsed and coached. The most obvious pretense was her speech pattern. During most of her testimony she used a deliberate and calculated childish voice to project vulnerability and helplessness. When responding to specific questions about her trauma, she spoke in the third person in the guise of an esteemed physician. Survivors of sexual assault do not describe their trauma in the third person nor do they have to read from a written script to remember the details.

One week after Ford’s testimony, Nadia Murad, a 25-year-old Iraqi Yazidi woman was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for her campaign to end wartime sexual violence and to free the Yazidi people who were captured by ISIS terrorists. Murad became the voice and face of women who survived sexual violence by the Islamic State after she escaped sexual slavery. At 19 years old she was captured from her village of Kocho. Six of her brothers and her mother were killed in the massacre. Murad was sold as a sex slave and repeatedly gang raped, tortured and beaten until she escaped. Nadia Murad is a true survivor. By definition survivors do not think of themselves as victims. The differences between Ford and Murad is evident in their own words.

The first time Nadia Murad attempted to escape she was caught and was punished by being gang raped by six of her slave owners guards. She was then subjected to even more abuse as she was passed around to other militants. She described the incident in her memoir, The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity, and My Fight Against the Islamic State:
'Nadia, I told you that if you tried to escape something really bad would happen to you,' … A moment later Morteja, Yahya, Hossam, and the three other guards walked in, staring at me. …As soon as I saw them, I understood what my punishment would be. Morteja was the first to come to the bed. I tried to stop him, but he was too strong. He pushed me down, and there was nothing I could do. After Morteja, another guard raped me. I screamed for my mother and for Khairy, my brother…... My body was covered in filth left by the men ….The bed still smelled like the men who had raped me.
Senator Leahy asked Christine Ford: “What is the strongest memory you have, the strongest memory of the incident, something that you cannot forget?” She answered, “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the laugh — the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.” Ford’s diagnostic answer of the strongest memory of her alleged sexual assault is being laughed at, while Murad remembers being covered in filth and what her rapists smelled like.

On June 21, 2016, Nadia Murad  testified before members of Congress during the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Capitol Hill. The comparison between Ford and Murad is striking. Murad is not reading from a script, nor talking in a childish voice. She does not use medical terms or repeatedly refer to herself as a traumatized victim of sexual assault. She remembers every face, name and smell of her very real multiple serial sexual assaults. She holds her head up high and states that she was raped, sold and abused but wants Congress to know that there are hundreds of other victims and that girls as young as nine also suffered that.

Nadia Murad is a true profile in courage and bravery. Christine Ford is a profile in female hysteria. Murad refused to accept the strict social codes that require women to remain silent and bravely spoke publicly about what she had suffered. She did not remain anonymous to avoid personal pain. She inspired the world to collect and preserve evidence that would allow ISIS militants to be brought to trial.

Christine ford inspired mass hysteria resulting in roving mobs of hysterical women stalking senators in the halls of the capitol screeching about rape like some primal scream group therapy session. Ford inspired women to disrupt the confirmation vote by chanting "Shame! Shame!" like the religious zealots in a Game of Thrones episode. 

Nadia Murad is a remarkable brave woman, a true survivor, a heroine fighting for justice for both men and women and the future of both women’s and human rights. Christine Ford is a professional victim, a throwback to female hysteria, the poster child for the infantilization of women, a disgrace to every woman who fought for women’s rights and an insult to every victim of sexual violence.

Dawn Perlmutter is the Director of the Symbol Intelligence Group and one of the leading subject matter experts (SME) in symbols, symbolic methodologies, unfamiliar customs and ritualistic crimes. She designed and developed Jihad-ID, a symbolic database of the signs, symbols and identifiers of global jihad.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hillary unleashes the thugs - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

Are dark days ahead?

Unless sobriety suddenly and miraculously returns to Democrats driven insane by their unexpected loss to Donald Trump, the United States is headed for a downward spiral of political violence of the sort that has destabilized democratic regimes (Weimar Germany and Taisho Japan) and led to fascism and world war. Only by the grace of God and the bravery of the Capitol Police was a mass assassination of the House Republican Caucus avoided.

That is the context in which we must understand the irresponsibility and reprehensibility of Hillary Clinton's statement to CNN's Christiane Amanpour during an interview in Britain.

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for."

The use of the word "destroy" is a deliberate attempt to portray violence as justified. If she had used the more appropriate term "oppose," the thuggish intent would be less clear. Elections are – or least have been up to the present moment – the way we determine which party's policies are followed and which are "destroyed." But now that Hillary lost her precious lifelong goal, that bulwark against might-makes-right politics is to be discarded.

The lists of incidents of violence and threats of violence against Hillary's opponents is already alarmingly long. With Maxine Waters and Cory Booker calling on their followers to harass people they disagree with, and with the mental hospitals closed and firearms available, this kind of incitement can produce horrific consequences.

Senator Rand Paul was hospitalized with several broken ribs at the hand of a neighbor of progressive bent, and his wife Kelley says she now sleeps with a loaded gun at her bedside. Antifa thugs roam the urban landscape, the "youth wing of the Democratic Party" as Tucker Carlson correctly labels them, attacking as they wish with ineffective to no pushback in liberal enclaves like Berkeley and Portland, Oregon.

Are there any Democrats with a sense of decency remaining, aside from Alan Dershowitz? The Washington Post pompously proclaims that "Democracy dies in darkness," but in fact, democracy dies in violence replacing elections as the determinant of politics.

The WaPo, shamefully, now is a denier of leftist mob violence, instead blaming the right:

The memo apparently went out, as lesser minds parroted the Party Line defined by Bezos's minions: Maxine Waters; Don Lemon; and, unintentionally hilariously, Brooke Baldwin:

We already are so far down that path that the unthinkable is possible: the loss of our constitutional republic to armed conflict.

Thomas Lifson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

A pro-Israel Nobel Peace Prize laureate - Giulio Meotti

by Giulio Meotti

The Nobel Peace Prize has gone, in the past, to people like Desmond Tutu and Yassir Arafat. This year's choice is a breath of fresh air.

The Nobel Peace Prize has never been an institution considered friendly to Israel. Just think of the South African archbishop Desmond Tutu, Yasser Arafat, former American president Jimmy Carter, Finnish politician Martti Ahtisaari, to name only a few great opponents and critics of the Jewish State.

Now the Nobel has gone instead to a supporter and admirer of Israel, the former sex slave of ISIS, the Yazidi survivor Nadia Murad.

"The Jews and the Yazidis share a common history of genocide that has shaped the identity of our peoples," said Nadia a few months ago visiting Israel, where she was welcomed at the Knesset, at the University of Tel Aviv and at Yad Vashem, the national memorial for the Shoah. "The history of the Jewish people is a unique story, yet it echoes in the experiences of my own community. Like the Jews, the Yazidis have a thousand-year-old history. And despite the persecution, both our peoples have survived".

Nadia has been helped by the Israeli humanitarian organization IsraAID and the Israeli office of the International Development Society (Sid), which helps the Yazidis see what they have gone through in Iraq recognized as genocide.

It is thanks to Israeli NGO IsraAID, which Nadia called "more effective than many governments", that Nadia was able to tell her story to the Western public. It was through IsraAID's work with the Yazidi refugees in the now-evacuated Petra camp in Greece that director Yotam Polizer understood that Israel could play an important role in the Yazidi cause.

"Unlike the Syrian refugees, who saw our logo with the Star of David and were confused, the Yazidis welcomed us with a huge smile. They said that for them it was a natural connection” said Polizer.

In traditional Jewish sources, there are references to a group known as "Amgoshim”. Some Israeli scholars, like Idan Barir, have speculated that the Amgoshim are the Yazidis and that the term is the origin of the word "magic", because both the Zoroastrians and the Yazidis are considered magicians.

The Yazidis believe that the 1941 anti-Jewish pogrom in Baghdad, the "Farhud", was the forerunner of what would happen in Iraq to religious minorities, such as Christians and Yazidis.

In Israel, Nadia has held meetings with the Knesset legislators and met with the heads of the Tel Aviv University together with Polizer, in an effort to bring Yazidi students to study in Israel. "I always wanted to come here to Israel, so many victims wanted to come and get help from the government and the people of Israel," Nadia said. And again:

"Before this genocide, I had little information about the Jewish community because we do not have many Jews in Iraq. Then I saw that Jewish communities support us. Like the Jews, the Yazidis showed resilience in the face of oppression.

"Maintaining one's identity is a force of resistance. We refuse to allow the oppressors to be stronger than us”.

This is also the story of Israel's 70 years of existence. And Zionism has been the most powerful resistance to the religious-ethnic cleansing political Islam has spread in the Middle East against its minorities. 

Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter and of "J'Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel" published by Mantua Books.. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Corbyn's minor apologies for major malice - Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

by Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

Corbyn picks and chooses what he is wiling to apologize for. Also what he refuses to apologize for.

Irene Kuruc co-authored this article

Jeremy Corbyn is probably Israel’s leading enemy in Western Europe’s political mainstream. Therefore, we should try to analyze his behavior as much as we can. One aspect of this is Corbyn’s occasional apologies for past statements and acts. This, however, only happens when he is pressed.

Once one begins to analyze his excuses, one realizes that they only concern a small part of his malice. Understanding what he claims to regret, shows how Corbyn chooses what he does not want to be identified with.

What he does not apologize for, even under pressure, shows how deep many of his despicable feelings and opinions run. A few examples will illustrate these findings.

A long series of quotations and actions demonstrate that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathizer, supporter of Holocaust distorters, an anti-Israel inciter and part-time anti-Semite.

Part of how Corbyn does not want to be seen can be gleaned from a BBC interview this September conducted by Andrew Marr. The interviewer asked the Labour leader whether he was an anti-Semite. Corbyn answered “absolutely not” and added that he was opposed to racism.

In line with that attitude were Corbyn’s apologies for his backing of an anti-Semitic mural in 2012 on an east-London street. Created by street artist Mear One, the mural depicted a group of Jewish financiers and white businessmen playing a Monopoly-style game on a board balanced on the backs of people. When attacked for his backing in 2018, Corbyn said: “I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic. I wholeheartedly support its removal.”

In 2010, as a backbencher, MP Corbyn hosted a meeting in parliament on Holocaust Memorial Day. The main speaker was Netherlands’ -- since deceased -- best-known Jewish anti-Semite, Hajo Meyer. During his speech, Meyer compared the Israeli actions in Gaza to the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust numerous times.

This apparently neither bothered Corbyn at the time or thereafter. When this was published in 2018, the Labour leader released the following response: “Views were expressed at the meeting which I do not accept or condone. In the past, in pursuit of justice for the Palestinian people and peace in Israel/Palestine, I have on occasion appeared on platforms with people whose views I completely reject. I apologize for the concerns and anxiety that this has caused.”

Occasionally Corbyn apologizes for anti-Semitic developments in Labour. In March 2018, he put on Facebook: “We recognize that anti-Semitism has occurred in pockets within the Labour Party, causing pain and hurt to our Jewish community in the Labour Party and the rest of the country. I am sincerely sorry for the pain which has been caused.”

He added “Labour is an anti-racist party and I utterly condemn anti-Semitism, which is why as leader of the Labour Party I want to be clear that I will not tolerate any form of anti-Semitism that exists in and around our movement.”

Ahead of a meeting with Jewish leaders in April this year, Corbyn said that his party had “not done enough” to tackle the problem. He also admitted that Labour’s protocol for dealing with anti-Jewish abuse was “not fully fit for purpose”.

This past August, there was more of the same. Corbyn apologized again for the hurt inflicted on Jewish people by Labour's anti-Semitic expressions.. He vowed to speed up the processing of scores of disciplinary cases. In a video message released on social media, Corbyn, said that working with the trust was a “vital priority.”

In contrast, Corbyn is far more reluctant to distance himself from his obvious sympathy for terrorists. In 2009, he invited members from Hamas and Hezbollah to Parliament and called them his friends. He also called terrorists his brothers.

In May 2016, in Parliament, then Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, asked Corbyn four times to withdraw his remarks relating to Hamas and Hezbollah. He said about the Labour leader: "He referred to Hamas and Hezbollah - are they your friends or not? Because those organizations in their constitutions believe in persecuting and killing Jews. They are anti-Semitic organizations, they are racist organizations. He must stand up and say they are not his friends."

Pro-Labour daily, The Guardian, summarized the Labour leader's reaction; “Corbyn repeatedly responded by saying Labour was an anti-racist party that would not tolerate anti-Semitism, but failed to directly withdraw his previous comments about Hamas and Hezbollah. Instead, he said that he did not approve of either organization, adding: “Anyone who commits racist acts or is anti-Semitic is not a friend of mine.”

The Daily Mail revealed that Corbyn when visiting Tunisia in 2014, was carrying a memorial wreath in his hand near the graves of terror leaders linked to the murderous terror attack on Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. When that was published, Corbyn did not apologize and the party tried to wriggle out of what the paper had exposed.  

Corbyn was asked to apologize by Labour MP Luciana Berger for paying his respects to fallen terrorists in Tunisia. He told reporters: "No I am not apologizing for being there at all."

In summation: the leader of Labour, which according to polls, has a serious chance of winning the next parliamentary election, does not want to be portrayed as an anti-Semite. Yet, he does not seem to mind that his sympathy for terror organizations and terrorists is perceived as such.

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld has been a long-term adviser on strategy issues to the boards of several major multinational corporations in Europe and North America.He is board member and former chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and recipient of the LIfetime Achievement Award (2012) of the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

51th Anniversary of Che Guevara’s Death - Humberto Fontova

by Humberto Fontova

The real story of a sadistic charlatan and mass executioner.

Fifty-one years-ago this week, Ernesto "Che" Guevara got a major dose of his own medicine. Without trial, he was declared a murderer, stood against a wall, and shot. If the saying "What goes around comes around" ever fit, it's here.

"When you saw the beaming look on Che's face as his victims were tied to the stake and blasted apart by the firing squad," said a former Cuban political prisoner to this writer, "you saw there was something seriously, seriously wrong with Che Guevara."

As commander of the La Cabana execution yard, Che often shattered the skull of the condemned man (or boy) by firing the coup de grace himself. When other duties tore him away from his beloved execution yard, he consoled himself by viewing the slaughter. Che's second-story office in La Cabana had a section of wall torn out so he could watch and savor his firing-squads at work.

Even as a youth, Ernesto Guevara's writings revealed a serious malevolence. This passage is from Ernesto Guevara's famous The Motorcycle Diaries: "My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any vencido that falls in my hands! With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!".  Robert Redford somehow overlooked it while producing a screenplay based on Guevara’s memoir.

The Spanish word vencido translates into "defeated" or "surrendered," but "the "acrid odor of gunpowder and blood" to reach Guevara's nostrils very rarely came from anything remotely describable as combat, but from the close-range murders of unarmed and defenseless men and boys.
15-year-old Carlos Machado was one of those victims in 1963 when the bullets from Guevara’s firing squad shattered his body. Carlos’ twin brother and father collapsed beside him from the same volley. All had resisted Castro and Che's theft of their humble family farm, all refused blindfolds and all died sneering at their Communist murderers, as did thousands of their valiant countrymen.

The one genuine “accomplishment” in Che Guevara's life was the mass-murder of defenseless men and boys. Under his own gun dozens died. Under his orders thousands crumpled. At everything else, Che Guevara failed abysmally, even risibly. For instance, during his Bolivian "guerrilla" campaign, Che split his forces whereupon they got hopelessly lost and bumbled around, half-starved, half-clothed and half-shod, without any contact with each other for six months before being wiped out. They didn't even have WWII vintage walkie-talkies to communicate and seemed incapable of applying a compass reading to a map. They spent much of the time walking in circles and were usually within a mile of each other. During this blundering they often engaged in ferocious firefights against each other.

"You hate to laugh at anything associated with Che, who murdered so many," says Felix Rodriguez, the Cuban-American CIA officer who played a key role in tracking him down in Bolivia. "But when it comes to Che as "guerrilla" you simply can't help but guffaw."

So, for many, the question remains: how did such an incurable doofus, sadist and epic idiot attain such iconic status?

The answer is that this psychotic and thoroughly unimposing vagrant named Ernesto “Che” Guevara had the magnificent fortune of linking up with modern history's top ‘press agent’, Fidel Castro, who -- from the New York Times' Herbert Matthews in 1957, through CBS' Ed Murrow in 1959, to CBS' Dan Rather, to ABC's Barbara Walters, to NBC's Andrea Mitchell more recently -- always had the mainstream media anxiously scurrying to his every beck and call and eating out of his hand like trained pigeons.

Had Ernesto Guevara not linked up with Raul and Fidel Castro in Mexico City that fateful summer of 1955, everything points to Ernesto continuing his life as a traveling hobo, panhandling, mooching off women, staying in flophouses and scribbling unreadable poetry.

Che's image is particularly ubiquitous on college campuses, but in the wrong places. He belongs in the marketing, PR and advertising departments. His lessons and history are fascinating and valuable, but only in light of P.T. Barnum. One born every minute, Mr. Barnum? If only you'd lived to see the Che phenomenon. Actually, ten are born every second.

His pathetic whimpering while dropping his fully-loaded weapons as two Bolivian soldiers approached him on Oct. 8 1967 ("Don't shoot!" I'm Che!" I'm worth more to you alive than dead!") proves that this cowardly, murdering swine was unfit to carry his victims' slop buckets.

Humberto Fontova


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Redemption for the NeverTrumpers? - Bruce Thornton

by Bruce Thornton

An intriguing change of heart after the Left's attempt to destroy Brett Kavanaugh.

For two years a group of Republican pundits and “wise men” have vehemently criticized Donald Trump. Their complaints range from Trump’s alleged insufficient fealty to Republican and conservative principles, to flaws of manners and decorum, and violations of “democratic norms.” As the president’s first term progressed, many critics continued to snipe at Trump’s tweets and braggadocio even when they grudgingly had to acknowledge his achievements. What started as reasonable criticism quickly turned into the neurosis of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Sober and judicious commentators turned into peevish cranks.

Now, however, we are seeing perhaps the beginning of a cure for TDS. The economic and foreign policy improvements, and particularly the success of putting a second originalist on the Supreme Court, have many NeverTrumpers walking back their scorched-earth criticism, at least for now. Maybe the Democrats’ violent, childish, and hypocritical rejection of all the “norms” of democracy and rights of the accused have been the shock-treatment needed to turn NeverTrumpers from fifth-columnists to partisans. 

Can the NeverTrumpers be redeemed?

Last week reliable NeverTrumper Matthew Continetti, after cataloguing Trump’s successes, wrote, “Donald Trump is putting the finishing touches on one of the most remarkable weeks of his presidency. For Republicans, it doesn’t get much better than this.” Red State’s Eric Erickson, a self-proclaimed “original” NeverTrump conservative, now can vote for Trump in 2020, because “he is a safe harbor in a progressive storm that seeks to both destroy my values and upend our constitutional republic.” One can ask why it took so long to realize this truth, since that progressive “storm” has been brewing since 1968.

No NeverTrumper, however, has been as obsessive and morally preening as Bret Stephens, who left the respectable Wall Street Journal for the progressives’ Pravda, The New York Times. A few examples: After Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen pled guilty to several charges in August, Stephens tweeted, “The president is clearly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. He should resign his office or be impeached and removed from office.” Given that impeachment starts in the Republican-controlled House, and tried in the Republican-controlled Senate, this wish full of begged questions served no useful purpose other than virtue-signaling, the NeverTrumpers’ consistent symptom of their disease.

Not that Stephens hasn’t given Trump his due on issues such as ditching the appeasing nuclear deal with Iran, or attacking a Syrian airfield with missiles. But for every acknowledgement of a president’s decision, there were rote condemnations of his style and manners, another tic of the NeverTrumpers. And the content of Stephens’ criticism usually comprises egregious question-begging epithets favored by the left. Before the 2016 election, for example, Stephens chastised the Republicans for ignoring “Mr. Trump’s unrelenting and apparently irrepressible bigotry, misogyny, bullying and conspiracy-mongering,” as long as Trump mouthed “pieties about appointing more Scalias to the court or cutting corporate tax rates.” In other words, Trump supporters will sell their conservative birthright for a mess of originalist and fiscal pottage.

In June of this year, in an interview with Hugh Hewitt about putting originalists on the Supreme Court, Stephens doubled-down on his rejection of Trump no matter his many conservative achievements. When asked by Hewitt, “So just to be clear, you would still not vote for Donald Trump knowing what we know?” Stephens answered, “Of course, not. I think he’s a terrible president who daily does damage to the fabric of American society.”

These examples show the fundamentally irrational flaws of the NeverTrump stance: style trumps substance, words trump deeds, feel-good clichés like “the fabric of American society” or “democratic norms” trump concrete actions that benefit the security and interests of the people the president serves. 

Such phrases, moreover, ignore the fundamental structure of the Constitution. Except for times of war, the Constitution was not concerned with bipartisan unity or “reaching across the aisle” to solve problems––the credo of the centralized, concentrated power of the technocratic oligarchy––but with dividing and balancing and checking the ambitions of self-interested factions attempting to monopolize power. The Founders knew better than to expect a flawed human nature to consistently practice the decorous deliberations and high-flown rhetoric and manners that the NeverTrumpers extoll. Except for elites, the Founders understood that the riotous diversity of America’s regional cultures, folkways, and mores made such courtly politesse impossible.

Despite Stephens’ long history of Trump Derangement Syndrome, he recently published a column that repudiates his earlier criticism of Republicans for tolerating Trump in order to get an originalist on the Court. Now he expresses his “gratitude” for Trump’s presence in the White House during the Kavanaugh auto-da-fé, even though the president “mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way,” another good example of the old virtue-signaling tic. Pointing out the gaping holes in an accuser’s charges is fundamental, not “gratuitous.”

After that throat-clearing, Stephens seems finally to be aware that the “any means necessary” imperative of the left leaves no space for gentlemanly decorum. 

I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. 

After ticking off the obvious hypocrisies and underhanded machinations of the Senate Democrats, Stephens’ concludes with yet another NeverTrump tic: He’ll “admit to feeling grateful that, in Trump, at least one big bully was willing to stand up to others.” Once again, Stephens can’t discriminate between subjectively defined rhetorical “bullying” and the malicious, bullying actions of the Democrats. Screaming protestors physically accosting and verbally abusing Senators, Dianne Feinstein’s calculated and mendacious withholding of Ford’s letter and then leaking it, the public characterization of Judge Kavanaugh as a serial rapist, and many other offenses polluting Constitutional procedure and an individual’s right to the presumption of innocence. That’s quite a difference from Trump’s transient tweets and their miniscule shelf-life.

The big question, then, to ask all these apparently “woke” NeverTrumpers is, what took you so long? The behavior of the Democrats on display during the Kavanaugh hearing was new only in its intensity. Go back to the hearings on Robert Bork’s nomination, a root-and-branch offensive characterized by lies and grotesque rhetoric from Senator Ted Kennedy. His 1987 speech against Bork, at that time one of the country’s most esteemed jurists, is much more despicable and dishonest and serious than the tantrums of Cory Booker or the conspicuous rudeness of Kamala Harris:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.
Moreover, this vile character assassination did not derail Kennedy’s career or lower his estimation in the eyes of the mainstream media, his party, or even some Republicans who put bipartisan comity and Senate cloakroom bonhomie ahead of truth and principle. 

If the Bork nomination is not ample evidence of how low Democrats will go, they repeated this display of gutter politics with Clarence Thomas’s nomination to the Court in 1991, when Anita Hill was produced at the last minute to accuse Thomas of sexual harassment. Only Thomas’s righteous anger, commanding dignity, and memorable phrase “high-tech lynching” saved his nomination. 

With those two precedents, how is it that now the similarly contrived and equally vicious attack on Kavanaugh has finally opened the eyes of the NeverTrumpers to the perfidy and ideological fanaticism of the Democrat Party? Throw in the savage attacks on Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and even sometime-heart-throb John McCain. Add a media willing to libel Republicans on behalf of the DNC, and besmirch its own journalistic ethics for political gain. Why would NeverTrumpers now be shocked, shocked that Democrats play dirty? 

Progressives are the people who preach “by any means necessary,” and better resemble Ted Kennedy’s lying catalogue of Bork’s alleged tyrannical intentions: censors of opposing points of view by enforcing politically correct taboos, purveyors of vicious libels and unconfirmed charges in the media, enablers of disruptive demonstrations and violent attack on conservative speakers and rallies, promoters of resegregation through illiberal identity politics, and practitioners of new types of bigotry like the one directed at “privileged white males,” whom one may now harass and slander and abuse with all the gusto and stupidity of a drunken Klan Klavern.

Long before Trump, the debasement of the Democrat Party had become obvious, and the two terms of Barack Obama made it crystal clear. It was embodied in the career and candidacy of Hillary Clinton, the epitome of the unholy alliance of rank careerism, socialist cronyism, and big-government tyranny. It was clear from her own words that Clinton would advance the process begun in the Sixties and culminating in Obama’s administrations. Illiberal technocracy, foreign policy retreat, globalist encroachment on national sovereignty, a more redistributionist and less productive economy, and the further erosion of the Constitution’s safeguards of political freedom and individual autonomy––all would strengthen and expand under Clinton. Those were the stakes in 2016.

Yet how many NeverTrumpers, including those now seemingly undergoing a conversion, joined the Democrats in trying to destroy Trump once he secured the nomination? Worse yet, how many publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton, preferring her crony statism to Trump’s promise of a “cowboy capitalism” freed from the dead hand of regulation? By what moral or rational calculus could Trump’s violations of some people’s notions of civility, decorum, “democratic norms,” or “acting presidential” outweighed the risks of a Clinton presidency? Are Trump supporters so out of line to think that the NeverTrump animus reflected the tastes and preferences of a bicoastal privileged elite that looked down on the cultures and mores of flyover states?

Even if the NeverTrumpers are sincere in their new-found appreciation for Trump’s willingness to fight fire with fire, they still owe those who knew the stakes of the election an explanation for how blind they were to the nature of the progressive ideology that logically led to the character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh and the defilement of the Senate’s duty to provide advice and consent. 

But more important is what happens going forward. I’m not calling for self-censoring one’s criticism of the president. He should be held to account for his policies, particularly for his indifference to the growing hurricane of debt, deficit, and entitlement spending, and for his clinging to the Israeli-Arab “peace process” and “two states living side-by-side in peace” magical thinking. But sniffing at his brash style and crude straight-talk does nothing except encourage and legitimize those who correctly see Donald Trump as the greatest impediment to their transformation of America from a democratic Republic to a “democratic socialist” tyranny. 

By their fruits ye shall know them, as the Bible says. NeverTrumpers will be redeemed by directing their energy toward protecting freedom rather than some class-bound code of manners.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter