Friday, March 5, 2021

House Democrats pass bill to change American voting forever - Andrea Widburg

 

​ by Andrea Widburg

H.R. 1 will permanently alter voting in America by nationalizing all the changes made in blue states during 2020, opening the way to massive fraud.

If you thought the election in 2020 was bad, you'd better reach out to your senator to fight H.R. 1, which passed the House last night.  H.R. 1 takes every bad idea blue states adopted in 2020 — all with an eye to facilitating election fraud and increasing the number of otherwise ineligible Democrat voters — and nationalizes all of them.  It isn't just that this bill will mean that Republicans will have an even more uphill battle than usual in every election.  It also means that no federal election will ever be trustworthy — and an untrustworthy system is one that will inevitably fail.

John Fund says  H.R. 1 "is the worst piece of legislation I have ever seen in my 40 years reporting from Washington."  According to him, the bill, if it becomes law, "would cement all of the worst changes in election law made in blue states in 2020 and nationalize them."  He quotes Hans von Spakovsky, who summarized some of the worst aspects of the bill.  (The link Fund gives for Spakovsky is here, but it goes to a dead page.)

• H.R. 1 would make fraud easier by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration and no-fault absentee balloting

• Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by requiring states to automatically register all individuals on state and federal databases. This would include many ineligible voters, including aliens

• It would require states to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to register. Combined with a ban on voter ID, this would allow underage individuals to vote

• Require states to count ballots cast by voters outside of their assigned precincts, a recipe for election fraud

• Mandate no-fault absentee ballots, which are the tool of choice for vote thieves, force states to accept absentee ballots received up to 10 days after Election Day and force states allow 'ballot harvesting'

• Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters

• Ban state-voter ID laws by forcing states to allow individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are

• Create vague and broad language that could be used to criminally charge someone who questions the eligibility of a voter

• Destroy the bipartisan composition of the Federal Election Commission and places a partisan majority in control of every aspect of our federal elections

• Require states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison

• Force disclosure of names of Americans who donate to nonprofit organizations — thus subjecting them to political harassment

• Declare statehood for Washington DC to be 'constitutional' despite evidence it is not

• And finally, HR 1 would effectively ban nonprofits from contacting a member of Congress or their staff about pending legislation — a direct assault on the right of Americans to petition their government.

House minority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy put together a short video explaining some of the other problems with the bill:

 

Because Republicans are honorable enough (or stupid enough) to believe that election fraud is wrong, the bill is an election boondoggle for Democrats.  It is they who are constantly trying to register everyone, from the newborn babe to the murderer to the irresponsible teen to the granddad who died decades ago.  Having all those names on the voter rolls, and making them impossible to purge, creates huge vistas for fraud — something we saw happen in blue states that have already implemented many of these changes.

And allowing the election to extend indefinitely ensures that Democrats will always win.  They'll just see how many votes they need after Election Day and keep submitting more ballots.  Eventually, in self-defense, Republicans will do the same.  At that point, citizens can just stop voting at all, because elections will have devolved into battles between crooks rather than the voice of the people.

Contact your senators and make let them know that, in the interests of American democracy, you are completely opposed to steps that will weaken Americans' ability to trust the integrity of their elections.  It's not just Republicans who should care.  Democrats should, too.

In D.C., the continued presence of the National Guard shows that the Democrats are frightened.  They fear that people who feel that they don't have a truly representative government will make themselves heard by other means.  If the Democrats continue with this mad plan to destroy voter integrity, they will become increasingly fearful of the American people.  It creates a volatile situation when the government fears the people because the government knows that it has done wrong.

 

Andrea Widburg  

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/house_democrats_pass_bill_to_change_american_voting_forever.html 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

What We Know And Don’t Know About The Events Of January 6th - Charles Turot

 

​ by Charles Turot

Reading between the lines – and paying special attention to what the government refuses to say – tells us that we’ve been fed propaganda, not facts.

It takes three days after any event to find out what happened, and 30 days to find out what really happened. The dust storm of information and misinformation takes a while to settle in the perpetually-online United States. The truth lodges in fewer places now. Emigres from the 1970’s Soviet Union advised us that the only real information in Pravda lay between the lines. So it is with the bulk of U.S. media, which doesn’t even try to hide its role as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party anymore.

After 60 days, what do we, and don’t we, know about the events of January 6th? What we don’t know concerns me. When information that ought to be public isn’t, there’s a reason. It’s seldom good.

We know there was no “insurrection,” “coup,” or “sedition.” Insurrection is an organized rebellion with the intent of toppling a government. A coup d’├ętat, or “coup,” is the seizure of political power by illegal or violent means. Insurrections and coups often involve the military. Always, they involve weaponry. “Sedition” is the act of encouraging them.

No one condones the events of January 6th. I condemn them without equivocation. That said, neither an insurrection nor a coup took place, no matter how often politicians or their media sycophants parrot those words. No attempt was made to topple the government. Not a shot was fired by protesters. Of the hundreds of thousands who rallied, only a handful were arrested for bringing guns (and the FBI didn't recover any guns at all).

What should we call the terrible events of that day? I’d call it a riot, albeit a small one, but the Associated Press prohibited that term in 2020, instead mandating “unrest.” AP covered a great deal of unrest this past year, accompanied by murder, assault, arson, and looting. 700 buildings were destroyed. 28 people died. Hundreds of police officers were injured. Even when silhouetted against a skyline of flames, reporters invariably described the “unrest” as “mostly peaceful.” Following its own rules, the AP would have me call the events of January 6th the mostly peaceful unrest at the Capitol.

We don’t know how many forced their way inside. Charges have been filed against more than three hundred. We were told that would increase by an order of magnitude or more than a thousand. It will not. Because we’ve seen footage, we do know many were allowed into the Capitol calmly by law enforcement. They proceeded between velvet ropes in Statuary Hall, on camera, damaging nothing. They broke no law.

We do know the charges filed against others: trespassing, disrupting an official proceeding (as is done routinely; at the Kavanaugh hearings, roughly every ten minutes), disorderly conduct, and a few cases of destruction of property. Four windows were broken. Some will be charged with assault on officers, a serious crime, routinely ignored of late. At least one may have contributed to the subsequent death of Officer Brian Sicknick, tragically the most recent innocent victim of unrest.

There is, alas, no autopsy or official cause of death for Sicknick. We know he returned to his post after telling his brother he was “fine,” though exposed to pepper spray. His mother Gladys revealed to The Daily Mail, “He wasn’t hit on the head, no. We think he had a stroke, but we don’t know anything for sure. We’d love to know what happened.” FBI Director Wray testified on March 2nd that he still couldn’t tell her -- or us.

We don’t know why police officers let protestors in. They may have done so in defiance of orders. They may have been directed to. We’ve seen footage of the red-hatted protestor screaming at a group of riot-gear-clad officers to repel others forcing their way in: “This is the Capitol! Stop them!” They do nothing. Why? We don’t know that, either. Dozens of Capitol police are suspended and being investigated. Chief Steven Sund resigned almost immediately, but maintains his department “did not fail.”

We don’t know why the Capitol wasn’t better-defended. We know Sund begged House officials prior to January 6th for reinforcements, including National Guard. President Trump wanted to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops. All were turned down, reportedly because of “optics.” Additional law enforcement was deployed during BLM unrest last summer. We saw photos of them lining the Capitol steps, well-equipped. We’re told the disparity was motivated by racism. That claim is preposterous.

We don’t know how many agents provocateur were in the crowd. AP’s are sent by the opposition to encourage rash and illegal action during a “false flag” event. It’s a very old tactic, often employed effectively by Communists.

We do know at least three such agents were present. One, unidentified, wears a black helmet with a Trump sticker. In the video, he breaks a window with a staff. He’s wrestled down with shouts of “He’s Antifa!” Two others were John Sullivan, “Jayden X,” a left-wing activist who urged the crowd forward, exhorting them to “burn it down,” and Jade Sacker, accompanying Sullivan and filming. Both appeared on CNN under misleading premises. They were paid an extraordinary $35,000 for the film by two network news sites.

We’ve seen additional video from Sullivan’s phone. He congratulates Sacker: “We did it!” and “Is that the greatest film you’ve ever shot?” She’s concerned when she realizes their exchange is being recorded.

FBI Director Christopher Wray denies Antifa involvement. This comes as no surprise; Wray believes Antifa is only an “idea,” though Sullivan, an Antifa agent, is charged. Were there more such? We don’t know. The presence of agents provocateur doesn’t excuse criminal behavior. It does reveal there’s much more to know.

Perhaps most of all, I’d like to know why a police officer dealing with unrest could fire a fatal shot at an unarmed woman without consequence. I’d also like to know the officer’s identity. On any other occasion, we would. Police officers tell me that’s often done before they’ve finished the paperwork.

We know the unrest of January 6th was caused by a tiny percentage of radicals at a mostly peaceful protest over the disenfranchisement of 75 million-plus Americans. We know the President did not incite or encourage it. We heard his words. The unrest at the Capitol building began before he even finished speaking, a half-hour away by foot. We have highly credible evidence it was planned long before. The President was impeached by the Democrat House for inciting insurrection because he questioned the results of an election. If questioning election results qualifies as incitement to insurrection, we know our constitutional republic is lost.

Nonetheless, the chilling phrase “January 6th” is now used to brand President Trump, Trump voters, conservatives, and Republicans, as domestic terrorists, insurrectionists, and (in defiance of logic) white supremacists, a term properly reserved for fringe groups like neo-Nazis and the Klan.

The unrest of January 6th was the most fortuitous possible event for the Left, whose goal is to marginalize and silence anyone opposing their radical agenda. They will use it as a bludgeon, with the tacit approval of many.

Such events seldom happen by sheer luck. There is far too much we still don’t know about this one.

Charles Turot is a pseudonym.

 

Charles Turot  

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/what_we_know_and_dont_know_about_the_events_of_january_6th.html 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Arabs Warn Biden: We Do Not Want Another Obama - Khaled Abu Toameh

 

​ by Khaled Abu Toameh

The Biden administration was "rewarding Iranian despotism while punishing Saudi Arabia." — Emad El Din Adeeb, a prominent Egyptian businessman and famous political television show host

  • The Biden administration, some Arab writers have said, "has adopted a policy of "antagonizing allies while appeasing enemies."

  • [Syrian journalist Abduljalil] Alsaeid said he believed that former Obama administration officials, who are now part of the Biden administration, are intentionally trying to damage US-Saudi relations.

  • "The Obama wing inside the ruling Democratic Party accepts the Iranian regime and turns a blind eye to Iran's terrorism in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon." — Abduljalil Alsaeid, Syrian journalist, Al-Ain, March 2, 2021.

  • "President Biden has the right to talk about America's democratic values, but why have these values ​​not been expanded to hold Hezbollah accountable for the recent killing of [anti-Hezbollah Lebanese publisher] Loqman Slim or the slaughter of thousands of thousands of Syrians by pro-Iranian groups?" — Abduljalil Alsaeid, Al-Ain, March 2, 2021.

  • The Biden administration was "rewarding Iranian despotism while punishing Saudi Arabia." — Emad El Din Adeeb, a prominent Egyptian businessman and famous political television show host, elsharkonline com, March 3, 2021.

  • The Biden administration was dealing harshly with Riyadh "because of one crime, the killing of Khashoggi, while rehabilitating Tehran, which has carried out a million crimes worse than Khashoggi's crime." — Emad El Din Adeeb, al-ain.com, March 3, 2021.

  • Adeeb pointed out that Iran was continuing with its human rights violations while Saudi Arabia has in recent years embarked on large-scale reforms.

  • According to al-Sawafi, the release of the report on the slain Saudi journalist was a sign that the Biden administration "stands against the aspirations of the Saudi and Gulf people in achieving reform and stability.

  • "Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was right when he asserted that the Iranian regime understands only the language of force." — Zuhair Al-Harthi, Saudi columnist and political activist, Al-Arabiya, February 27, 2021.

  • The last three years of the Obama presidency were "catastrophic in every sense of this word," al-Harthi said. "Will Biden fall into the same trap? Washington's standing declined during the Obama presidency. Will Biden repeat Obama's fatal mistakes? The US dealings at the time with regional issues were a source of ridicule, as Washington delivered Iraq and Afghanistan on a golden platter to Iran and supported the Muslim Brotherhood." — Zuhair Al-Harthi, Al-Arabiya, February 27, 2021.

Prominent Arab political analysts and commentators are dumbfounded that the Biden administration has chosen to appease Iran and Islamists instead of working with Washington's traditional and long-time allies in the Arab world. Pictured: Then Vice President Joe Biden (left) speaks with then Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal (center) at the Riyadh airbase in Saudi Arabia on October 27, 2011. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)

Prominent Arab political analysts and commentators are dumbfounded that the Biden administration has chosen to appease Iran and Islamists instead of working with Washington's traditional and long-time allies in the Arab world.

In a series of articles published after the release of the US intelligence report on the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, many Arab analysts and columnists have warned that the Biden administration was harming US interests in the Middle East.

Some said they saw the decision to release the report as a kind of sequel to the Obama administration's failed policy of meddling in the internal affairs of Arab countries.

They noted that the Saudi authorities had already punished those involved in the 2018 murder of Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. The Biden administration, some Arab writers have said, "has adopted a policy of "antagonizing allies while appeasing enemies."

"The Saudi judiciary has imposed the most severe penalties on the perpetrators of this morally and legally unacceptable act," wrote Syrian journalist Abduljalil Alsaeid, referring to the murder of Khashoggi. "The Saudi leadership was keen not to politicize this case."

Alsaeid said he believed that former Obama administration officials who are now part of the Biden administration are intentionally trying to damage US-Saudi relations:

"The wing of former President Barack Obama among the Biden team considers itself in a state of hostility with Saudi Arabia because of the kingdom's diplomacy that succeeded in persuading former President Donald Trump to withdraw from the ill-fated nuclear deal... The Obama wing inside the ruling Democratic Party accepts the Iranian regime and turns a blind eye to Iran's terrorism in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon."

Alsaeid pointed out that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are opposed to a return to the old nuclear deal with Iran:

"The failed campaign of pressures on Saudi Arabia will ultimately produce an unwanted American scenario, which is to antagonize allies and appease enemies... Riyadh, like the Arab Gulf states, has very important alliances with America, and the Saudi partnership with the US extends for long decades, and has resulted in a serious fight against terrorism."

President Biden, he added, "has the right to talk about America's democratic values, but why have these values ​​not been expanded to hold Hezbollah accountable for the recent killing of [anti-Hezbollah Lebanese publisher] Loqman Slim or the slaughter of thousands of thousands of Syrians by pro-Iranian groups?

Emad El Din Adeeb, a prominent Egyptian businessman and famous political television show host, said that the Biden administration was "rewarding Iranian despotism while punishing Saudi Arabia."

The Biden administration, Adeeb warned, was dealing harshly with Riyadh "because of one crime, the killing of Khashoggi, while rehabilitating Tehran, which has carried out a million crimes worse than Khashoggi's crime."

Adeeb pointed out that Iran was continuing with its human rights violations while Saudi Arabia has in recent years embarked on large-scale reforms.

"Freedom of expression, assembly and association are prohibited in Iran," he said.

"It prevents normal social life and attacks protests, private parties and intellectual seminars. It is issues death sentences against political opponents and practices all forms of systematic torture against detainees and prisoners. The Iranian authorities also practice persecution and oppression against religious minorities."

Instead of punishing Iran, Adeeb said, "The Biden administration is seeking to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, lift sanctions, and release its assets while halting arms and spare parts shipments to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates."

"Now Washington is revoking the terror designation of the Houthi terrorist movement in Yemen, thereby encouraging it to increase its missile attacks against innocent Saudi civilians and installations. Washington is now turning a blind eye to Iran's proxies in the region."

Emirati writer Mohammed Khalfan Al-Sawafi said that one of the "calamities" that the Arabs suffered during the presidency of Barack Obama was US interference in the internal affairs of the Arab countries.

Al-Sawafi warned that Biden was repeating the "same mistake" of the Obama administration by publishing the report about the murder of Khashoggi.

"As Arabs, we do not have any problem with regional or superpower parties playing a role in the international arena... But we reject the interference of any political system or administration that believes its international status and military and financial power allow it to harm our leaders. It seems there are certain agendas that were not completed during the Obama era, and the Biden administration wants to take us back to the time when Biden was Vice President. Instead of confirming the Arab's concerns about the return of Obama's policy to the region, it would be appropriate [for the Biden administration] to respect the Arab's social and political culture, which does not accept any harm to political and religious symbols."

According to al-Sawafi, the release of the report on the slain Saudi journalist was a sign that the Biden administration "stands against the aspirations of the Saudi and Gulf people in achieving reform and stability. The Biden administration, he added, should avoid getting itself into a situation that could damage US relations with the Arab countries. "The Obama administration pushed a number of Arab countries toward rapprochement with China and Russia," he remarked. "The Biden administration is now working on the basis of: If you have a problem and are unable to solve it, complicate it or work against it."

Saudi columnist Hamood Abu Talib accused the Biden administration of handing out gifts to Iranian-backed terror groups while punishing its Arab allies, including Saudi Arabia.

Abu Talib noted that on the same day the Biden administration announced its intention to remove the Houthi militia from the US list of foreign terrorist organizations, the Yemen-based terror group fired ballistic missiles and explosive drones toward Saudi Arabia. "America is now providing free gifts to the Houthi militia," Abu Talib said.

"The false accusations adopted by the Biden administration against the kingdom and the attempts to interfere with its sovereign decisions complicate the situation and make cooperation with the kingdom more difficult. America knows well that the kingdom plays an important pivotal role in all regional issues, in addition to its political and economic weight and depth in the Islamic world and its position in the Arab world, as well as its strategic partnership as a reliable and strong ally of America for eight decades. Therefore, it would be a great folly for the Biden administration if it continues to provoke the kingdom or if it continues to support the Houthis and stand by and watch their attacks."

The Saudi columnist advised the Biden administration to avoid complicating the problems of the Middle East and "stop supporting terrorist militias that threaten the region's security, such as the Houthi militia that is supported by the Iranian regime, which is the worst terrorist regime in the world."

Another Saudi columnist and political activist, Zuhair Al-Harthi, expressed fear that the policy of Biden in the Middle East would be similar to Obama's "capitulation."

"American hesitation and inaction, interpreted by Tehran at the time [of the Obama administration] as weakness, is what tempted it [Iran] today to think in the same way and blackmail the new president... The new administration in the White House is in a state of retreat and is lacking a clear vision. The Iranian regime practiced these methods before and is applying them today with the Biden administration in light of behavior similar to that of former President Obama. The state of political numbness of the administration that we are witnessing these days does not have a logical explanation, especially when comparing it to what the administration of former President Trump did to curtail the Iranian regime. It is important for President Biden to feel the real dangers facing the Gulf states, the role of US allies, and the danger of enemies. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was right when he asserted that the Iranian regime understands only the language of force. We expected Biden to employ the sanctions that Trump re-imposed on Iran to force it to negotiate issues that were not included in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action."

The last three years of the Obama presidency were "catastrophic in every sense of this word," al-Harthi said.

"Will Biden fall into the same trap? Washington's standing declined during the Obama presidency. Will Biden repeat Obama's fatal mistakes? The US dealings at the time with regional issues were a source of ridicule, as Washington delivered Iraq and Afghanistan on a golden platter to Iran and supported the Muslim Brotherhood."

Egyptian writer Emile Amin also warned Biden against replicating the policies of the Obama administration in the Middle East, especially with regards to endorsing and "flirting with Islamic fundamentalism." Amin said that no one in the Arab world knows the reason behind Biden's rush to "fall into the arms" of Iran and Islamists.

"Looking at Washington today, and before the first hundred days of Biden's presidency have elapsed, it appears the US has not learned from its bad experiences," he wrote. "Biden's team is very close to repeating the mistakes of the past, especially concerning the Islamists."

The Arabs, in short, are telling the Biden administration: The President's first days in office have hardly elapsed and you are already putting your relations with your Arab allies in serious jeopardy. By blowing the Khashoggi case out of proportion, you are losing your friends in the Middle East. By appeasing Iran, you are emboldening Muslim terrorists. Be aware: repeating the misguided and mistaken policies of the Obama administration will not serve US interests, but considerably harm them.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

 

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17138/arabs-biden-obama 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The International Criminal Court Violates Its Statute - Lawrence A. Franklin

 

​ by Lawrence A. Franklin

Meanwhile, at least four Gulf Arab states and other Muslim-majority countries appear far more concerned, with good reason, about Iran's drive for regional supremacy, while welcoming warming relations with Israel, which will prove a most loyal friend.

  • At present... the ICC renders itself irrelevant by adjudicating "national jurisdictions" perfectly capable of doing so while refusing to adjudicate or indict the world's worst violators of human rights.

  • The ICC has already provided its critics with plenty of ammunition to question the Court's legitimacy as a consequence of additional violations of its founding statute. Neither Israel nor the United States ratified the Rome Statute (the ICC's founding treaty). The Court therefore has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the state actions of either country.

  • State parties dissatisfied with the ICC's dismal record should be encouraged to discontinue financial support for the Court or to withdraw altogether from the Hague-based institution.

  • Meanwhile, at least four Gulf Arab states and other Muslim-majority countries appear far more concerned, with good reason, about Iran's drive for regional supremacy, while welcoming warming relations with Israel, which will prove a most loyal friend.

At present, the International Criminal Court renders itself irrelevant by adjudicating "national jurisdictions" perfectly capable of doing so, while refusing to adjudicate or indict the world's worst violators of human rights. Pictured: The ICC in session, in The Hague, on July 8, 2019. (Photo by Eva Plevier/AFP via Getty Images)

The International Criminal Court (ICC), by straying far from its original purpose, has perjured itself. The ICC was established in 1998 to bring justice to victims of systematic atrocity in countries unable to do so. In its own words, "The core mandate of the ICC is to act as a court of last resort with the capacity to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national jurisdictions for any reason are unable or unwilling to do so."

At present, however, the ICC renders itself irrelevant by adjudicating "national jurisdictions" perfectly capable of doing so, while refusing to adjudicate or indict the world's worst violators of human rights.

The Court's February 5 decision authorizing the investigation of unfounded allegations of a pattern of human rights violations supposedly committed by Israel Defense Force (IDF) personnel underscores the ICC's corrupted political nature.

First, the ICC has violated its founding statute by accepting into its docket a complaint against a sovereign state (Israel) by a non-state entity (Palestinian plaintiffs), twisting international law to try to alchemize "Palestine" into a state by pointing to its observer status in some UN bodies. Close but no cigar. The Court, by trying to legitimize the Palestinian Authority's (PA) illegal briefs, therefore only confirms the views of its critics that it merely serves as an instrument of the Palestinian Arab propaganda war against Israel.

The Court further underscores these violations by treating Hamas as a legal equivalent of Israel in the terrorist group's charges against the IDF in the 2014 Gaza War.

The ICC permitting non-state actor such as the Palestinian Authority to challenge a sovereign state, Israel, is a double violation of the Court's founding statute. It has failed to indict Syria's regime for using chemical weapons against its own people, Iraqi militias for murdering civilians or Iranian-supported Houthi snipers in Yemen for slaughtering children. The most egregious omission of the ICC is its glaring failure to indict Communist China for murdering 2.5 million people by repeatedly lying about the human-to-human transmissibility of its COVID-19 virus, or its ongoing genocide of the Uighur people and other non-Han minorities in China.

Dismantlement or disempowerment of the ICC can be assured if enough of its original ratifying states decide to cancel financial support for the court or to resign from its membership. A broad-based coalition could undo the ICC's ostensible legitimacy. South Africa, Burundi, and the Gambia have already resigned from the ICC after accusing the court of focusing almost entirely on crimes against humanity perpetrated by or in African states -- possibly another reason the ICC is nosing around for any country that is not African to indict. To its credit, the ICC has prosecuted mass atrocities in Kenya, Uganda, Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, the Central African Republic, Libya and Mali. The African Union has called for a mass withdrawal of the 34 African signatory states from the ICC. Perhaps opponents of the ICC could raise the consciousness of more countries to cancel their memberships in the ICC -- particularly because of the court's silence on the reported genocide perpetrated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) against the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang province.

The ICC has already provided its critics with plenty of ammunition to question the Court's legitimacy as a consequence of additional violations of its founding statute. Neither Israel nor the United States ratified the Rome Statute (the ICC's founding treaty). The Court therefore has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the state actions of either country. According to JNS:

"Germany and Hungary join the United States and other countries—such as Canada, the Czech Republic, Austria, Australia, Brazil and Uganda, the latter five of which filed documents with the ICC as amici curiae (outside observers) providing information in support of Israel—condemning the ICC ruling."

These countries publicly confirm that the Court has no jurisdiction over a state that is not party to the Rome Statute. Both the US and Israel, in their refusal to permit the ICC to interfere in their sovereignty, are on solid legal ground. Yet the ICC seems determined to investigate allegations of human rights violations not only of the IDF in the Gaza, but also of US troops in Afghanistan. The Court's impending decision ignores the reality that both the US and Israel are rule-of-law states which already have thoroughly and impartially investigated allegations of human rights violations by members of their armed forces.

"Palestine" is not a state, and therefore, according to the Rome Statute, the Palestinian Authority has no standing to press its case with the ICC.

The Court's anti-Israeli initiative comes at a moment when several Arab countries are disengaging themselves from "the moral albatross" of being stewards of the Palestinian drive for statehood. The United Arab Emirates, cognizant of the mismanagement of funds by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), has decided no longer to fund this entity, which allocates revenues for Palestinians residing in 58 camps across the Middle East.

State parties dissatisfied with the ICC's dismal record should be encouraged to discontinue financial support for the Court or to withdraw altogether from the Hague-based institution.

Meanwhile, at least four Gulf Arab states and other Muslim-majority countries appear far more concerned, with good reason, about Iran's drive for regional supremacy, while welcoming warming relations with Israel, which will prove a most loyal friend.

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

 

Lawrence A. Franklin  

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17126/international-criminal-court-violations 

 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

ICC undermines its own legitimacy - Dror Eydar

​ by Dror Eydar

Every justice-seeking country should stand with Israel and condemn the International Criminal Court's decision to investigate alleged Israeli war crimes.

It is not justice the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda is after. Are there not enough real war crimes around the world? Hamas has sworn in its treaty to eradicate Israel down to the very last Jew. It launches tens of thousands of missiles at our citizens and uses its citizens as human shields, yet only Israel is barred from defending itself. The Palestinian Authority supports our killers with its budgets, a sort of family insurance for all those who want to harm us, but Israel is the problem. This is a moral disgrace under legal cover.

For months, the Foreign Ministry, including all of its emissaries and ambassadors, as well as the Prime Minister's Office have been working to blunt the outrageous determination by two justices at The Hague against the minority opinion of the head of the tribunal that played into the hands of a prosecutor overly eager to build her reputation at Israel's expense. Even when the court ruled it had the jurisdiction to open a war crimes investigation against Israel, and although we told policymakers in Italy that Bensouda had not yet decided to open an investigation, something that was true at the time, I said in deliberations at the Israeli Embassy in Italy it was clear she would announce the opening of an investigation precisely because Bensouda was nearing the end of her tenure. This was also the reason she chose not to handle other cases pertaining to Nigeria and Ukraine. Bensouda had to think of her next career move, and hatred of Israel has always been a good catalyst for advancing one's career.

The ICC drew its moral authority from the reason for its establishment following the atrocities of World War II and the genuine crimes carried out against our people. This decision harms its legitimacy and the reasons for which it was established because it is a politicization of the court and morality to be used against Israel.

The ICC's crude interference in Israel's affairs when Israel is not a member-state and Palestinian affairs when they do not have a state is an attempt to force the semblance of a solution on a yearslong conflict that has left cultural, religious, and historical scars. The cruel irony is that now, at a time when moderate Arab states have understood they cannot give in to the Palestinian refusal to move forward on the normalization of ties with Middle Eastern states when all that is needed is confidence-building steps, in walks the ICC and gives the warmongers who reject peace a prize.

At this time, every justice-seeking country should stand with Israel and condemn the decision, and that's exactly what we said in talks with the heads of state in Italy and central public and media figures. This – the use of the court as a tool to harm the Jewish state - is not what the founders of the ICC had in mind.

Around 3,000 years ago, a foreign prophet, who perhaps today would be called an intellectual or chief prosecutor, appeared to bless us, and through his blessing, we understood his hatred of us: "Lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations" (Numbers, 23:9).

With around 20 anti-Israel resolutions passed year by various UN bodies each year, Israel's exclusion from the family of nations through international institutions and the imposition of double legal standards on Israel is the continuation of the old anti-Semitism that exempted the Jew from the rest of society and should be treated as such. The main lesson we learned from thousands of years of wandering without defense is: No one will deter us from protecting our citizens and our fighters. For this purpose, too, we have returned to Zion.

 

Dror Eydar  

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/icc-undermines-its-own-legitimacy/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Saudi official: Netanyahu spearheads fight against Iran, we hope gov't won't change - i24NEWS and ILH Staff

 

​ by i24NEWS and ILH Staff

"We are really worried the leader of the opposition will replace him and change things," a royal tells i24NEWS in an exclusive interview.

 

Saudi official: Netanyahu spearheads fight against Iran, we hope gov't won't change
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with his father, King Salman, at a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council in Riyadh, Dec. 9, 2018 | File photo: AP via Saudi Press Agency

A source connected to the Saudi royal family explained to i24NEWS in an exclusive exchange that they are closely monitoring Israel's upcoming elections and hope that its government will not change.

The source, who asked to be unnamed, stressed that Saudi Arabia knows and appreciates Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and backs his policies with regard to ties to the Gulf states and his high-pressure tactics on Iran.

"[We] ... not only like Netanyahu but love him. He is terrific. He has the necessary charisma and he knows what he is doing. We are really worried the leader of the opposition will replace him, and change things", he said, referring to Opposition Leader Yair Lapid, head of Yesh Atid faction.

i24NEWS contacted Lapid's office for a reaction but was met with a firm, "No comment."

A separate source, similarly connected to the royal family expounded further on Saudi Arabia's preference for Netanyahu. We see him as "the spearhead in the fight against Iran," they maintained.

However, the source stressed that no Saudi Arabian official could say this openly.

"No country will say this publicly, or intervene in the elections of another country, certainly not us, and certainly not now."

Both Saudi sources told i24NEWS that there were a number of issues of particular concern to them; a potential change in government in Israel, in addition to a sharply shifting course in US President Joe Biden's administration compared with his predecessor former President Donald Trump.

Trump had a close working relationship with the Mohammed Bin Salman-controlled part of the Saudi government. In addition, the former president implemented a maximum pressure campaign on Iran, including the imposition of far-reaching sanctions.

Meanwhile, Biden has already telegraphed his stated desire to return to the 2015 nuclear deal from which Trump withdrew in 2018 and has also implemented a far colder policy toward Riyadh.

This article was first published by i24NEWS.

 

i24NEWS and ILH Staff  

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/03/04/saudi-official-netanyahu-spearheads-fight-against-iran-we-hope-govt-wont-change/ 

 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

New York Public School Urges Parents to be 'White Traitors' - Sara Dogan

 

​ by Sara Dogan

Or better yet, “White Abolitionists.”

 


To learn more about the Freedom Center's campaign to halt indoctrination in K-12 schools, please visit our website,  www.stopk12indoctrination.org.  To read the K-12 Code of Ethics CLICK HERETo order the Freedom Center’s new pamphlet, “Leftist Indoctrination in Our K-12 Public Schools,” CLICK HERE. To donate to our campaign to stop K-12 Indoctrination CLICK HERE.

A public school in New York City has provoked a firestorm of outrage by asking parents to become “white traitors” and promote “white abolition” in an effort to allegedly fight racism.

The controversial letter was sent by Mark Federman, principal of the East Side Community School in New York City. It included an “ethnography of whiteness” written by Northwestern University associate professor Barnor Hesse who ranks all whites on a color-coded scale of “The 8 White Identities” which range from “White Supremacist” to “White Abolitionist.”

““There is a regime of whiteness, and there are action-oriented white identities. People who identify with whiteness are one of these,’’ Hesse explains in an introduction above the list.

The 8 “White Identities” are then helpfully defined.

A “White Supremacist,” Hesse asserts, believes in a “Clearly marked white society that preserves, names, and values white superiority,” whereas an individual belonging to the category of “White Voyeurism” would not “challenge a White Supremacist” but still “desires non-whiteness because it’s interesting, pleasurable” and has a “fascination with culture (e.g., consuming Black culture without the burden of Blackness”).

At the other end of the spectrum, a “White Traitor” “actively refuses complicity” and their “intention is to subvert white authority and tell the truth at whatever cost.” A “White Abolitionist” goes even further by “changing institutions, dismantling whiteness, and not allowing whiteness to reassert itself.”

Principal Federman included a personal letter to parents in which he denounced conservatives, claiming that “racism and hate is often the underlying cause fueling their beliefs.” He also described former president Donald Trump as a “lying, racist, sexist, classist, hateful, science-denying bully.” 

Instead of condemning Federman for his inappropriate partisanship and racism towards whites, a New York City Department of Education spokesman defended the principal’s letter, writing in a statement that “Anti-racism and the celebration of diversity is at the core of our work on behalf of the young people of New York City, and the East Side Community School’s students, parents and staff partner together to advance equity in their community.”

“The document in question was shared with the school by parents as a part of ongoing anti-racist work in the school community and is one of many resources the schools utilizes,” the statement continued.

But parents and others see a much more sinister meaning in the terminology used in the letter.

“The language in Federman’s letter carries disturbing historical echoes,” writes Christopher Rufo, a contributing editor for City Journal who broke the story. “The Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis used the term ‘race traitor’ to describe whites who crossed the color line to work, marry, or associate with nonwhites.”

“The letter’s use of ‘white abolition’ is also troubling,” Rufo continues. “Federman and Hesse claim to want to abolish ‘whiteness’ as a cultural and social construct, but they also use the term to describe an immutable racial essence. As University of New Mexico professor Geoffrey Miller has observed: ‘Applied to any other group, this would sound like a monstrous euphemism for mass extermination and cultural annihilation.’”

Following an intense media backlash, Federman again reached out to parents at the school—but not to apologize. “I want to make it clear that I do not believe I did anything wrong,” he wrote, adding, “Please do not reply to anyone. We do not want to encourage or engage these people.”

 

Sara Dogan  

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/new-york-public-school-urges-parents-be-white-sara-dogan/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Case Against Reparations - Larry Elder

 

​ by Larry Elder

Repudiating false narratives.

 


Last week, I testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties regarding H.R. 40: Examining the Path to Reparative Justice in America. In other words, reparations. This is the first part of the statement I submitted:

"Reparations is the extraction of money from people who were never slave owners to be given to people who were never slaves."

It is also interesting that we are having this hearing at a time when racism as a barrier to success has never been so insignificant. In 1991, Black Democrat and Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson said: "The sociological truths are that America, while still flawed in its race relations and its stubborn refusal to institute a rational, universal welfare system, is now the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protection of minorities than any other society, white or Black; offers more opportunities to a greater number of Black persons than any other society, including all those of Africa."

In 1997, Time/CNN did a broad survey of Black and white teens. Asked whether racism is a major problem in America, both said yes. But, when Black teens were asked whether racism was a big problem, small problem or no problem in their own daily lives, 89% said small or no problem. In fact, nearly twice as many Black teens, compared to white teens, agreed that "failure to take advantage of available opportunities" was a bigger problem than racism.

During the 2008 race for the presidency, the major contenders were Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton; and Republicans Mitt Romney, a Mormon, and Sen. John McCain, who would have been 72 by the time he entered office, if elected. A 2007 Gallup poll found fewer Americans would refuse to vote for a Black person (5%); than would refuse to vote for a woman (11%); than would refuse to vote for a Mormon (24%); than would refuse to vote for someone who would be 72 upon entering office (42%).

In 2007, the year before he was elected president, Obama spoke at a Black church on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday. He said: "The previous generation, the Moses generation (the generation of Martin Luther King Jr.), pointed the way. They took us 90% of the way there, but we still got that 10% in order to cross over to the other side."

I thought that 10% remaining "to cross over to the other side" was a fair assessment. After all, a 2002 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 8% of Americans believed that Elvis Presley was still alive — or that at least there was "a chance." So, as to Obama's 10% remaining, I'm not sure how much more wiggle room we have left before running into the Elvis factor.

The reparations argument is based, in part, on the belief that but for slavery, America would not have become the prosperous nation it is today.

To the contrary, conservative scholar Michael Medved notes:

"It's not true that the U.S. became a wealthy nation through the abuse of slave labor: The most prosperous states in the country were those that first freed their slaves. ...

"At the time of the Constitution, Virginia constituted the most populous and wealthiest state in the Union, but by the time of the War Between the States the Old Dominion had fallen far behind a half-dozen northern states that had outlawed slavery two generations earlier."

About the difference in wealth between the North and the South, Frederick Douglass, after escaping from a plantation in Maryland to freedom in Massachusetts, wrote: "But the most astonishing as well as the most interesting thing to me was the condition of the colored people, a great many of whom, like myself, had escaped thither as a refuge from the hunters of men. I found many, who had not been seven years out of their chains, living in finer houses, and evidently enjoying more of the comforts of life, than the average of slaveholders in Maryland."

To be continued next week.

 

Larry Elder 

 Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/case-against-reparations-part-1-larry-elder/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

FBI Goes Totally Comeytose - Lloyd Billingsley

 

​ by Lloyd Billingsley

 

Christopher Wray will spearhead Dems’ offensive against Trump supporters in the wake of January 6.

 

 

“We have not to date seen any evidence of anarchist violent extremists or people subscribed to Antifa in connection with the sixth. That doesn’t mean we’re not looking, and we’ll continue to look, but at the moment we have not seen that.”

That was FBI boss Christopher Wray testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Wray claimed the FBI doesn’t care about ideology, but he left more than a reasonable doubt about how hard the FBI had been looking.

According to a January 13 FBI affidavit, self-proclaimed racial justice advocate Earle Sullivan, aka John Sullivan, “did knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, or did knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct.”

As The Intercept explained, “the FBI determined that Sullivan was not just an observer but a participant in the riot, based on a review of nearly 90 minutes of raw footage of the raid that he recorded on his phone and posted on YouTube.”  Wray likely had the FBI looking for rioters in Antifa T-shirts. On the other hand, the FBI boss is experienced at overlooking events of significance.

Back in 2019, attorney General William Barr told a Senate panel that “spying did occur” against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. As the Associated Press reported, Barr “seemed to be alluding to a surveillance warrant the FBI obtained on a former Trump associate.”

Christopher Wray disagreed, telling senators that “spying” was “not the term I would use.”  As the FBI boss explained, “lots of people have different colloquial phrases. I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity, and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes, and to me the key question is making sure that it’s done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities.” For former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, it was a joke.

“There was absolutely no reason to play this game,” Bongino told Fox News. “Christopher Wray is one of the most powerful law enforcement officials in the cosmos. He had the ability yesterday to re-establish faith in the FBI and come out and say listen, a very simple answer.” Instead he chose to play “the Comey euphemisms game.”

The “composite character” David Garrow described in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, picked Comey to head the FBI in 2013. The president also picked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to succeed him, and Comey, a longtime Clinton crony, deployed the FBI in that cause.

Clinton was laundering bribes through the Clinton Foundation and keeping classified information on an unsecured server. Those are serious criminal offenses but Comey said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against the former First Lady, who destroyed more than 30,000 emails under subpoena. It was perhaps the most blatant political fix in American history.

Comey was a key player in the Midyear Exam and Crossfire Hurricane operations and said it was “nonsense” that the FBI had spied on Trump. For Comey, there were only “mistakes and negligence” by the FBI, and nothing criminal involved.

After the report by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Wray cited the need for “thoughtful, meaningful remedial action,” not any criminal charges. And as Wray told reporters, he would not use the term “spying,” for the anti-Trump operations. Trump tweeted that “With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!”  Ivy Leaguer Christopher Wray was never one of those rank-and-file FBI agents and neither was James Comey.

Comey, FBI counterintelligence boss Peter Strzok, and high-level DOJ official spearheaded the attempt to take down a duly elected president of the United States. FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was the only one to face criminal charges, and he got off with a tap on the wrist from judge James Boasberg. As it happens, Boasberg is also presiding judge of the FISA court Democrats deployed to spy on Trump associates.

Democrats attempted to impeach Trump even after he left office, and the January 6 riot fuels their ongoing jihad against Trump and his supporters. Led by Joe Biden, Democrats have now branded them as domestic terrorists. For Biden AG pick Merrick Garland, terrorist acts are only committed during the day, like the proceedings of January 6. For his part, Wray feigns an even-handed approach.

“We don’t care what ideology motivates somebody,” Wray told senators Tuesday. “We don’t care whether it’s left, right, up, down, diagonal or any other way. If the ideology is motivating violence and violates federal law we’re coming after it.” Again Wray leaves room for reasonable doubt.

The FBI boss kept rather quiet during riots across the nation in of 2020, headed by the Antifa-BLM axis. If the live-streamed murder of police officer David Dorn drew any outrage from Wray, nothing appears in the record. On Wray’s watch, the FBI is also stonewalling the homicide investigation of  DHS whistleblower Philip Haney, gunned down last year in California.

Clinton crony James Comey spearheaded FBI operations against Donald Trump. Comey crony Christopher Wray will spearhead FBI operations against Trump supporters. Trump saw it coming back in 2019. “They’re not after me, they’re after you,” he said. “I’m just in the way.”

Lloyd Billingsley 

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/fbi-goes-totally-comeytose-lloyd-billingsley/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thursday, March 4, 2021

Bernie Sanders Castigates Israel About Vaccinating Palestinians - Hugh Fitzgerald

 

​ by Hugh Fitzgerald

But nothing is expected from Palestinians.

 


The report on ill-tempered Bernie is here: “Sanders slams Israel for not sending COVID vaccines to Palestinians,” by Sarah Chemla, Jerusalem Post, February 25, 2021:

US Sen. Bernie Sanders has criticized the Israeli government for sending COVID-19 vaccines to foreign allies before sending them to Palestinians.

Sanders was responding to a New York Times tweet stating that “Israel’s vaccine donations to faraway countries have angered Palestinians who say Israel is responsible for the well-being of Palestinians in the occupied territories, where vaccines are scarce.

But why are vaccines “scarce” for the Palestinians? Isn’t it because they did no planning, even many months into the pandemic, and chose to spend their aid money on other things? In Gaza, Hamas spends huge sums on building terror tunnels, and on arms that it hides throughout civilian areas. The terror group has also been the victim of colossal corruption; just two Hamas leaders, Khaled Meshaal and Mousa Abu Marzouk, have amassed fortunes of at least $2.5 billion apiece. In the West Bank, the head of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas, has a nest egg of $400 million. That’s all money that might have gone to the medical care of the Palestinians. And the PA spent $157 million last year on its Pay-For-Slay program, money which could have paid for enough vaccines to cover the entire Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank. It chose not to. Why doesn’t Bernie Sanders deplore the behavior of the PA? He could fulminate in the Senate: “It is unacceptable that the PA, instead of buying vaccines that would have inoculated the entire Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank, chose instead to spend its money on the Pay-For-Slay program that rewards, and incentivizes, terrorism.” Could Bernie begin to tell that obvious truth? I doubt it.

The former Democratic presidential contender claimed in a tweet that “Israel is responsible for the health of all the people under its control. It is outrageous that Netanyahu would use spare vaccines to reward his foreign allies while so many Palestinians in the occupied territories are still waiting.

Israel has been vaccinating “all the people under its control” – both Arab and Jewish citizens of the state of Israel, at the same rate, with the same vaccines. That is where Israel’s responsibility ends. Bernie Sanders has apparently not read the Oslo Accords (1995), Annex III, Article 17, paragraphs 1 and 2. They provide unambiguously for the transfer of responsibility for medical care for the Palestinians, including vaccinations, from Israel to the PA. And that transfer has been in force for a quarter-century.

ARTICLE 17

Health

  1. Powers and responsibilities in the sphere of Health in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be transferred to the Palestinian side, including the health insurance system.
  2. The Palestinian side shall continue to apply the present standards of vaccination of Palestinians and shall improve them according to internationally accepted standards in the field, taking into account WHO recommendations. In this regard, the Palestinian side shall continue the vaccination of the population with the vaccines listed in Schedule 3.

Does Sanders understand those clauses? “Powers and responsibilities in the sphere of Health in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be transferred to the Palestinian side”? On what basis does he now claim that Israel is “responsible for the health of all the people under its control”? And in fact, how can he claim that the Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank are “under its control”? The last Israeli pulled out of Gaza in 2005; its inhabitants have been under the control ever since of Hamas. In the West Bank, the PA, ruling the roost from Ramallah, controls the daily lives of Palestinians in Areas A and B. And both in those areas, and even in Area C, the Palestinian Authority has the responsibility for all medical and educational services.

As Israel began its vaccine rollout late last year, some activists and foreign media outlets criticized it for not including the Palestinians, arguing that under international law, Israel is the “occupying power” and must vaccinate them.

The Jewish state responded by pointing out that the internationally recognized Oslo Accords state that the PA is responsible for its population’s healthcare, including vaccinations.

Let’s repeat it: Israel has no obligation – none – to vaccinate the Palestinians. Those who criticize Israel for failing to do so simply want us all to ignore the Oslo Accords. Under what “international law” is Israel an “occupying power”? It is certainly not the “occupying power” in Gaza, where there is not a single Israeli. As for the West Bank, Israel cannot be accused of “occupying ” a territory that was assigned, according to the Mandate for Palestine, to the future Jewish National Home, which then became the state of Israel. Has Bernie read the Palestine Mandate, including Article 6? Does he understand that in the phrase “close settlement by Jews on the land,” which under Article 6 is to be encouraged, the “land” in question included all the land from the Golan in the north, to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east, to the Mediterranean in the west? Does he realize that the mandates system was itself part of international law? Could it be that Bernie Sanders has never read the Mandate for Palestine? Yes, I think it could.

More study needed, Bernie, please, before you again presume to lecture or hector on this matter. Please, go ahead and burn the midnight oil.

Regardless of legal matters, the government has already sent thousands of doses of coronavirus vaccines to the PA and facilitated the entry of Russian donations of their Sputnik V vaccines.

Israel had no duty to supply the Palestinians with vaccines, but nonetheless has sent 5,000 doses so that, Israel hoped, frontline Palestinian health workers could be vaccinated. There is evidence that some of those doses were used instead to inoculate Palestinian leaders, their families, and relatives.

Israel has also bought one million dollars’ worth of Sputnik V vaccines from Russia to send to Syria, so that an Israeli woman with mental problems who had strayed into Syria, would be returned.

Last week, Netanyahu said Israel and the Palestinians were “in one epidemiological range.”

We have a clear interest that we don’t want illnesses and sick people to pass through our borders from the Palestinian Authority and Gaza,” he told Army Radio.

Israel has no interest in preventing the Palestinians from being vaccinated. On the contrary: many tens of thousands of Palestinians cross into Israel for work each day; their inoculation would make them less dangerous to the Israelis among whom they work. “We have a clear interest,” Prime Minister Netanyahu insists, in making sure that the Palestinians who enter Israel are not carriers of the virus. Israel’s Health Minister, Yuli Edelstein, says that once Israel has finished vaccinating its own population, it will be sending unused doses of the vaccine to the Palestinians. I don’t think Bernie Sanders is aware of that promise.

One more thing: Sanders was exercised that Israel was sending some doses of the vaccine to countries that Jerusalem wanted to thank for their pro-Israel positions. These include: Guatemala, which has its embassy in Jerusalem; Honduras, which has said it will soon be moving its embassy to Jerusalem; and the Czech Republic, which has been a steady supporter of Israel at the U.N. and has said it will add a diplomatic presence to its office in Jerusalem.

Sanders finds this unacceptable. But why? Don’t all countries reward their friends? Doesn’t the American government extend Most-Favored-Nation status to some countries and not to others? Don’t the Americans agree to sell certain advanced weapons to countries it deems friendly, and not to others? Is it wrong to do so? Why shouldn’t Israel do what other countries routinely do? In the case at hand, that means Jerusalem has decided to reward with shipments of the coronavirus three states that have taken, or are about to take, steps that will further strengthen Israel’s position on Jerusalem. Despite the fulminations of Bernie Sanders, there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Hugh Fitzgerald 

 Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/bernie-sanders-castigates-israel-about-vaccinating-hugh-fitzgerald/ 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter