Friday, February 4, 2022

The Scientist Who Challenged Fauci Over AIDS - Lloyd Billingsley

 

by Lloyd Billingsley

Right from the start, Dr. Doom was a bust on medical science.

 


In his home office, Dr. Anthony Fauci sits facing a life-sized portrait of himself that falls short of his actual self-image. The Biden advisor, a government bureaucrat since 1968, now claims “I represent science,” therefore those who criticize him are criticizing science itself. That invites a look at  Dr. Charles A. Thomas, the first biomedical scientist to challenge Fauci, and what that means for embattled Americans in 2022.

Charles Thomas, who preferred to be called “Charlie,” earned a chemistry degree from Princeton and a doctorate in physical chemistry from Harvard. Thomas taught physics at the University of Michigan then Johns Hopkins tapped him as professor of biophysics. Harvard then brought back Thomas as professor of biological chemistry, and after 11 years he became chairman of the cellular biology department at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California.

Thomas and his colleagues were the first to demonstrate that virus particles contained a single molecule of nucleic acid. His work showed that viral DNA molecules were terminally repetitious, beginning and ending with the same sequence of nucleotides. Thomas’ work also centered on the unusual structures formed by telomeric DNA sequences. The background of Dr. Anthony Fauci is somewhat different.

Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree in 1966 but if he ever practiced medicine it was only for a short time. In 1968, to avoid treating wounded American soldiers in Vietnam, he hired on as “yellow beret” with the NIH. Fauci’s bio showed no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry, vital for the study of virology. Even so, in the early 1980s Fauci became the government’s point man on AIDS and claimed the cause was a retrovirus known as HIV.

UC Berkeley molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, an expert on retroviruses, found no evidence for that cause. Neither did Nobel laureates Walter Gilbert and Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction. Neither did Charlie Thomas, a successful entrepreneur who founded several biotech companies. Free from dependency on government funds, Thomas launched the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, with Mullis, Duesberg, Robert Root-Bernstein and many other medical scientists signing on.

Dr. Fauci claimed HIV “overexcites some immune signaling pathways, while eluding the detection of others. And though the main target of the virus appears to be the famed helper T-cells, or CD-4 cells, which it can infiltrate and kill, the virus also ends up stimulating the response of other immune cells so inappropriately that they eventually collapse from overwork or confusion.” 

Thomas and Mullis responded that “no other virus is credited with such a dazzling repertoire of destructive skills.” HIV was “a conventional retrovirus with a very simple genetic organization,” and had not been shown to damage the immune system. In other words, Dr. Fauci had no clue what he was talking about. Mullis, who earned his PhD in biochemistry at UC Berkeley, went on record that Fauci “doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine. He shouldn’t be in a position like he’s in.” But he was.

That position was director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the division of the NIH in charge of vaccines. Dr. Fauci’s remedy for AIDS was AZT (azidothymidine) a DNA chain terminator rejected for cancer treatment because of cytotoxicity. There was no evidence that AZT, marketed as Zidovudine, would cure or prevent AIDS. Even so, Fauci subjected foster children and pregnant women to trials of AZT and other dangerous drugs.

Charles Thomas believed “it was a matter of civic duty” to get involved, because “real fabrications”  were taking place. “Nowhere has such a morally destructive scam by self-interested scientists been permitted,” Thomas told The Harvard Crimson. “$7.35 billion is being spent on AIDS research and education based on the HIV hypothesis. These dollars should not be taken from the taxpayers.” But they were.

Dr. Fauci’s prediction that AIDS would ravage the general population was hopelessly wrong,  yet Fauci remained at the helm of NIAID. Fauci’s wife Christine Grady, whose 1995 The Search for an AIDS Vaccine is a classic of casuistry, is now head of bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, nepotism on a whole new level. Whatever Dr. Fauci wants to do, dutiful wife Christine will tell him it’s ethical. True to form, Dr. Fauci wants infants as young as six months to get vaccinated.

Anthony Fauci lacks the qualifications and experience of distinguished biological scientists such as Charles Thomas, Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis, and many others. Instead of debating the facts with epidemiologists Jay Bhattachyra (Stanford), Martin Kulldorff (Harvard) and Sunetra Gupta (Oxford), authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Fauci launches a smear campaign against them.

Fauci funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and lied about it to Congress. When Sen. Rand Paul called him out, Fauci attacked Paul as a liar.  The NIAID boss claims “I represent science” and looks up at a life-sized portrait of himself. Behold a man in love with himself and his power.

Dr. Fauci lays out public health policy and with a NIAID budget of more than $6 billion, controls the purse strings on medical research. Those who challenge Dr. Fauci can find their funding at risk and their careers on the line.

That is what happened to UC Berkeley molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, a pioneer in cancer research. As a forthcoming article will show, the consequences proved disastrous for health and science alike.

 

Lloyd Billingsley

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/02/scientist-who-challenged-fauci-over-aids-lloyd-billingsley/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Palestinians lost confidence in 'corrupt' leadership, PLO official tells Post - Khaled Abu Toameh

 

by Khaled Abu Toameh

The Palestinian Authority leadership is accused of disregarding the decisions of Palestinian institutions to suspend all ties with Israel.

 

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY leader Mahmoud Abbas addresses PA officials in Ramallah.  (photo credit: FLASH90)
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY leader Mahmoud Abbas addresses PA officials in Ramallah.
(photo credit: FLASH90)

Veteran PLO official Bassam Abu Sharif criticized the Palestinian Authority leadership for disregarding the decisions of Palestinian institutions to suspend all ties with Israel.

Abu Sharif, who previously served as a senior adviser to former PLO leader Yasser Arafat, told The Jerusalem Post that the PA leadership has turned the decisions into “toilet paper.”

He held the PA leadership responsible for “rampant corruption.”

Abu Sharif’s remarks came on the eve of a meeting of the Palestinian Central Council (PCC), a key decision-making body, scheduled to take place on Sunday.

The PCC, which consists of various Palestinian factions, is expected to approve the appointment of two senior officials – Hussein al-Sheikh and Rouhi Fattouh – to senior positions in the Palestinian leadership.

PRO-PALESTINIAN supporters demonstrate across the street from the Israeli Consulate in New York City. It is unreasonable to expect Jewish students to check their support for Israel at the door. (credit: CARLO ALLEGRI/REUTERS) PRO-PALESTINIAN supporters demonstrate across the street from the Israeli Consulate in New York City. It is unreasonable to expect Jewish students to check their support for Israel at the door. (credit: CARLO ALLEGRI/REUTERS)

Sheikh is expected to replace the late Saeb Erekat, who died in 2020, as secretary-general of the PLO Executive Committee.

Fattouh is expected to replace Salim Zanoun as chairman of the PLO’s legislative body, the Palestinian National Council (PNC).

Sheikh and Fattouh have close links to PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

The PCC is also expected to approve the appointment of another Abbas loyalist to replace Hanan Ashrawi as a member of the PLO Executive Committee.

Ashrawi, who resigned in 2020, accused the Palestinian leadership of marginalizing the PLO Executive Committee and excluding it from decision-making.

Commenting on the upcoming PCC meeting, Abu Sharif said that the Palestinians have lost confidence in the Palestinian leadership.

“No one expects Abbas to implement any of the decisions taken by Palestinian institutions,” he said. “The results of the meeting will not be different from previous decisions, which were never implemented. The Palestinian leadership is continuing to mislead the people.”

In its last meeting in 2018, the PCC recommended that the Palestinian leadership suspend recognition of Israel until it recognizes Palestine as a state, suspend security coordination with Israel, and endorse a multilateral international approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Abu Sharif and other Abbas critics said the Palestinian leadership should focus on ways of “restructuring” and “reforming” the PLO, and restoring its status as “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”

Abbas’s Fatah is the largest and most dominant faction in the PLO.

Abu Sharif said that he and many Palestinians are opposed to security coordination between the PA and Israel.

“The Palestinian Authority has become a servant of Israel,” he charged. “The people want resistance [against Israel], but the Palestinian Authority is helping Israel to stop the resistance. Our people are suffering greatly as a result of the corruption of the Palestinian leadership and the measures taken by the Israeli occupation.”

 

Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-695428

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why GOP senators must reject Biden's 'diversity hire' Supreme Court justice nominee - Rajan Laad

 

by Rajan Laad

[T]he Constitution is being violated to fill a position whose function it is to defend the Constitution.

Last week, Joe Biden declared that he intends to nominate "the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court."

Joe Biden had reportedly promised House majority whip Jim Clyburn during the 2020 campaign that he would nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court.

So what does one make of this declaration?

It is a grave affront to any candidate for any position to be openly declared as a "diversity" hire because it means that the primary criteria for her selection are genetics and not merit.

Besides being anachronistic, Biden's public declaration is an insult to the nominee.  History will always recognize her as one who secured the position because of her race and sex, which are an accident of nature, and not because of her record, which is a product of her work.

As Professor Dershowitz and others argue, Biden's racial and sex test for office is unconstitutional.  The 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 19th Amendment to the Constitution states:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

In 1978, in the Regents of University of California v. Bakke case, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of racial "quotas" for its selection process is unconstitutional. 

Hence, the Constitution is being violated to fill a position whose function it is to defend the Constitution.  Biden's commitment is an act of discriminating against all those who are not Black.

Why would any self-respecting individual accept a position that is an insult to her achievements, an act of discrimination against others, and unconstitutional?

A recent ABC News/Ipsos poll showed that 76 percent of Americans wanted "all possible nominees" to be considered, while just 23 percent want only Black women for the nomination.

When a sitting president fails in his duties toward the Constitution, it is the job of lawmakers to step up and defend the Constitution, which affirms the founding principles of the nation.

That responsibility is in the hands of Republican senators.

Currently, the Supreme Court comprises six conservative justices and three liberal judges.  But justices do not always rule based on their ideology or the tenets of the Constitution.

Conservative justices Roberts and Kavanaugh are known to vote with the liberal bloc.  They recently voted in favor of vaccine mandates for health workers.  Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments and in practice usually remain in their position for at least two decades.  The impact of their rulings and votes can be permanent.  This makes the appointment of a Supreme Court justice vitally important.

Judging by the other his other appointments, Biden's candidate is likely to be a Marxist masquerading as a moderate.

The White House has acknowledged that South Carolina federal Judge J. Michelle Childs is under consideration after Jim Clyburn signaled that at least two Republican senators see her as Biden's best bet.

When conservatives Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh were up for nomination, the Democrats led a prolonged rancorous trial by media on baseless allegations of sexual harassment.  Despite the fact that the allegations were unproven, liberal commentators still state them as if they were facts.

This could be payback against Biden, who is the founder of toxicity and rancor during the judicial confirmation process.  It was Biden who smeared Robert Bork, Supreme Court nominee from 1987, as a racist, and Biden also led the attack against Clarence Thomas.

But the GOP can do this without stooping to the level of the Democrats.

Biden's nomination can be rejected on principle because the Supreme Court justice nomination based on racial and sex quotas is in violation of a Supreme Court ruling and the Constitution.  Thus, the nomination makes a mockery of the entire system.

By making an explicit mention of his selection criteria based on race and sex, Biden has admitted to an act of discrimination.  This is another valid reason for the Republicans to reject the nominee.

In addition to that, they can also summon various individuals who have suffered as a result of the unjust rulings of the nominee.  Perhaps she was lenient with criminals who eventually committed bigger crimes.  A case can then be made that the individual is a staunch ideologue, which makes her unfit for the position.

The nominee could be questioned about her acceptance of the nomination as a diversity hire and asked to condemn Biden's act of discrimination.

At this juncture, Biden, owing to his myriad catastrophes, is struggling in the polls.  Even his propagandists are unable to cover him favorably. 

Biden could have nominated a Black woman without an explicit declaration of such criteria. 

The criteria were stated because Biden's handlers see this as a win-win situation.  A confirmation could revive his presidency and may improve the chances for Democrats during the midterms.  If the nominee is rejected, the GOP will be called racist, which the Democrats think will help them in the midterms.

Opposing this nomination would be an opportunity for the GOP to embrace popular revulsion for an explicit race- and sex-based test and further weaken Biden for 2024 and annihilate the Democrats in the midterms. 

How have the Republicans reacted thus far?

Republican senators Lindsey Graham (obviously) and Tim Scott from South Carolina have praised potential nominee Judge Childs.

Republican Sens. Burr of North Carolina, Cassidy of Louisiana, Collins of Maine, Murkowski of Alaska, Romney of Utah, Sasse of Nebraska, and Toomey of Pennsylvania broke party lines to convict President Trump for the occurrences of January 6, 2021.  Perhaps they too will support Biden's nominee?

A majority of the rest are probably mortified of being called a racist or sexist in the media.

The GOP should not forget that they have on their side both principles, in the form of a Supreme Court ruling and the 14th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution, and popular opinion based on a rejection of Democrat policies and a poll that opposes discrimination.

The GOP should remember that the race card has been played for so long that it has no impact.  The GOP should learn to fight back and call out Democrat racism.

Photo credit: Sunira Moses, CC BY-SA 3.0 license.

 

Rajan Laad

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/02/why_gop_senators_must_reject_bidens_diversity_hire_supreme_court_justice_nominee.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

I wouldn't exactly call Biden's oil and gas policies treason - James Mullin

 

by James Mullin

[A]s Sherlock Holmes once sagely said, when you eliminate all possibilities, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

This weekend, I heard Congresswoman Comrade Tlaib's trial balloon that Biden needs to reinstitute (Obama's) restrictions on U.S. oil and gas exports.  As the sheer insanity of that platform permeated my brain, I took a step back and thought about what this past year of Democrat left policy-making has wrought in the energy/financial sector alone.

The phrase cui bono kept coming to mind on a geopolitical scale.  It is certainly the stuff of conspiracy theorists to think that the Democrat left is a wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow/Beijing, Inc., but it is worthwhile to ponder the following:

I. On his very first day in office, Biden issued an executive order killing the American/Canadian Keystone Pipeline, along with other orders restricting drilling, fracking, exporting.  And don't for a second assume that this was Biden's executive order.  You'll be guilty of not seeing the strings, whether from within his administration or without.

A. A lower world supply of fossil fuels immediately causes higher prices for both oil and everything that depends on it — which means everything in America:

1. That includes 50% higher payments to/profits for Russia for its oil/gas than in 2018.  Venezuela and Iran profit as well.

2. Canadian oil now starts moving west to Vancouver and the Far East, not south to U.S. refineries and export terminals.

3. Increased oil prices, combined with the federal government printing money in virtually unlimited quantities, means that crippling inflation returns to the U.S. after a nearly 40-year absence.


Image: Internet meme.  Source unknown.

II. While Biden doesn't want America to have oil, he removed all sanctions on a Russian pipeline to Germany.

A. Western Europe is now dependent on (more expensive) Russian oil and gas — and Western European politics begins to reflect this reality as Germany waves goodbye to Ukraine.

B. Ukraine's geopolitical significance diminishes as the transit point for Russian oil moving west because the Nord Stream II pipeline doesn't need Ukrainian transit.

III. Biden's administration is doing everything possible to spur on the use of battery-operated electric cars and trucks, as well as solar panels in the United States.

A. China — the largest lithium battery manufacturer in the world (and lithium batteries are the lynchpin in the New Green Energy) — benefits immensely.

B. The largest rare-earth mining nations benefit, too.  Included in this list are China and Afghanistan.  You remember Afghanistan.  Biden literally gave away that country, both to the Taliban and to China, just as he was able to use the American government to put Green insanity into high gear.

C. Americans now will be intensively dependent on the electrical grid for transportation — an entity that all of our adversaries have in their crosshairs.

So that's where we are: even as the totalitarians are on the move, Biden's policies have made the West financially poorer, whereas those same totalitarians have their income streams sharply reinvigorated.

I never advanced for one second that the Biden family's dealings with China, Ukraine, and Russia have anything to do with what is described here.  Coincidences occur in life and do not equal causal connections.  But as Sherlock Holmes once sagely said, when you eliminate all possibilities, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.  And I find myself wondering more and more: who were those citizens of ancient Troy who argued for bringing that wooden horse inside the city gates?

 

James Mullin

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/02/i_wouldnt_exactly_call_bidens_oil_and_gas_policies_treason_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Only Ones Banning Books are Critical Race Theorists - Daniel Greenfield

 

by Daniel Greenfield

When censors pretend to be free speech activists.

 


After spending the last few years banning Dr. Seuss and literally burning copies of Harry Potter novels in bonfires, and denouncing classic children’s literature like Little House on the Prairie and Mary Poppins as racist, leftists are now accusing conservatives of “banning books”.

When a Minnesota school district removed The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird from its curriculum because it made students "uncomfortable", the NAACP, which has been trying to ban Huck since at least the 50s, cheered. So did the media which celebrated the effort to remove "racist language" that “triggered students of color” from the classroom.

The removal of Mark Twain's authentically anti-racist masterpiece was carried out by anti-racists in school districts from Burbank, California to Lawrence, Kansas. In 2016, a Virginia school district, now at the center of media fear mongering about book bans after parents succeeded in reclaiming schools from CRT bosses, banned both books because of all the "racial slurs".

Now the censors want to reclaim the mantle of free speech. The media, which described school districts “removing” or “replacing” books on reading lists when leftists were doing it, now calls the removal of books, whether they’re racist critical race theory texts or Maus, as “bans”.

Much like erstwhile liberals went from celebrating Jefferson and Lincoln to toppling their statues, their educational counterparts who had once vocally championed Huck and Mockingbird, and shouted down any effort to keep them out of the classroom, now just as vocally want them out and replaced with the deranged hateful ravings of Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi.

Yet instead of being honest about that (or anything else), they duck into a phone booth, doff their censor togs and dress up as free speech crusaders, and then rush back and throw off their free speech tights to go back to burning books. Even by the standards of a movement that is so pathologically Orwellian that it describes protests against vaccine mandates as “authoritarian”, this is a bit much. But the only books they believe should be in school are those whose politics they like, at any given moment, before deciding that they’re hate speech and purging them.

Removing books from a school curriculum isn’t a ban. If it is, then lefties have been banning books forever. It’s not just Huck Finn, there’s hardly a single classic book that hasn’t been denounced for thoughtcrimes. The Wind in the Willows? Rarcist. Narnia? Islamophobic. The Lord of the Rings? Also racist. Any book written by a white man? Systemically racist.

Recently, a university added a trigger warning to 1984 by George Orwell.

The worst offenders are the proponents of critical race theory, now suddenly crying about censorship, when they had been urging schools, publishers, and readers to stop buying, publishing, and displaying books by white men in the name of racial and gender equity.

A few years ago they were touting a proposal that every racist illiterate stop reading books by white men for a year. You can still find headlines like, "I Read Books by Only Minority Authors for a Year" from the Washington Post, and more explicit posts at book sites like, "Why I'm No Longer Reading Books by White Men", "A Year of No White Men", "The Year I Stopped Reading White People". The crybullies at Goodreads, which is to young adult books what TikTok is to videos of crying teens changing gender on camera, bullied publishers into canceling books and forced writers to unpublish their own books to the wild applause of the media.

Now lefties are subjecting us to their self-righteous pearl clutching about censoring books.

Parents have a right to determine what their children are reading in school. They have an absolute right to reject the real racism of Ta-Nehisi Coates or Ibram X. Kendi, who dehumanize white people as a group, or, for that matter, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, if they don’t want their children reading racial slurs, or Maus, if they don’t want them exposed to curse words. Parents don’t need a ‘good reason’ to keep a book off the reading list. Being the parents of their children is good enough to give them veto power over what their children are taught.

But there is a world of difference between taking a book out of a school and banning it.

When you harass publishers and authors into removing a book from sale, you’re banning the book. When you pull classic books from sale and then ban their resale, as the Seuss Foundation did, under pressure, and eBay chose to do on its own, that is an actual book ban.

People who believe that men can become women by wishing hard enough have the right to burn their own copies of Harry Potter, but there’s no mistaking the message of hate and intimidation that sends. There’s a reason the Nazis loved burning books. It’s an act of violence that serves as a temporary substitute for destroying the authors and readers behind them.

Anyone can and should be able to read any book they want. The proponents of critical race theory are the biggest opponents of that idea. They don’t just want books they dislike out of schools, but they want them removed entirely from existence. That’s why they don’t just refuse to read them, or even just burn them, they pressure publishers into eliminating them.

They don’t just do this because they hate the books themselves, but as a show of power.

Books have been banned for a whole lot less than racial slurs or accurately describing the world as it was at the time. Beloved classic children’s books like Wind in the Willows had messages read into them. Racial lenses have been placed over classics like Lord of the Rings. And contemporary teen books were forced out of existence for the mere crime of having ‘black’ or ‘slave’ in the title even when they were set in fantasy kingdoms and had nothing to do with race.

This Salem Witch Trial of literature isn’t even about the context of the text, but the hateful power of the social justice censors who are getting high on the fumes from the burning paper.

After all this, the book burners, statue topplers, and crowdsourced censors suddenly want to act like they’re the champions of free speech because parents don’t want critical racist texts, underage pornography, and the other garbage that the Left currently champions (before deciding a decade from now that it also needs to be banned) taught to their children.

The old liberals of the ACLU had some personal credibility when attacking censorship, the postmodern identity politics leftists who live and breathe censorship have less than none.

Much of lefty politics is built on wearing liberal skins and echoing liberal ideas in between illiberal bouts of destroying everything they don’t approve of and demanding that everyone swear allegiance to their politics. Sometimes it fools the declining population of Boomer liberals.

Just ask Obama.

The very last people who should ever don the mantle of free speech are critical race theorists who believe that everything is racist and should be banned unless it was made by them. They are obsessed with “whiteness” in architecture, art, and literature the way the Nazis were obsessed with finding trace elements of Jewishness in Einstein’s theories and Strauss waltzes.

Banning books isn’t just something you do: it’s central to how you think of the world.

Parents trying to determine what books their children are exposed to aren’t trying to control the world, but critical race theory is concerned not with individuals, but all of society. Leftists believe that they should control not just what they read, but what everyone reads and believes.

This is the authoritarian totalitarian impulse that moves them to both ban and compel books.

Reading to them is not an individual choice, but a collective one. The mass production of books and the transformation of reading from a public activity to a private one made individualism possible. Even in totalitarian societies, people smuggled books and read them secretly. In those stolen hours, seeing words by candle light, they won the freedom of the soul.

Today, Big Tech and their Big Publisher allies want people reading on Kindles and on digital platforms where books are not truly owned, but allocated by digital rights management lurking in the cloud which can delete any book at any time, making its words and the ones and zeros behind them disappear. Turning a private act into a public one, controlled by monopolies, and policed by the politically correct is a technosocial ecosystem that destroys individual reading.

Critical race theory proponents are coming for our books, they’re coming for our culture, and our souls, and even as they burn and loot our intellectual heritage, they claim to be the victims.

In a perversity that would have stunned even Orwell and Swift, the book burners claim that they’re fighting censorship, the censors insist that they’re defending themselves against painful words, and the racists declare that they’re imposing racism in the name of anti-racism.

And if you doubt that they’re the victims, they’ll burn you too.

 

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

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/02/only-ones-banning-books-are-critical-race-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel needs the resolve to fight Arab crime despite criticism - Douglas Altabef

 

by Douglas Altabef

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan 

Galut Syndrome is the term for a behavior that implicitly recognizes one’s own powerlessness and lack of free determination.

 

LIKUD MK Yoav Gallant speaks at a conference in Tel Aviv last week, which he and Im Tirtzu organized, that dealt with Israel’s domestic security challenges. (photo credit: Hodaya Shai)
LIKUD MK Yoav Gallant speaks at a conference in Tel Aviv last week, which he and Im Tirtzu organized, that dealt with Israel’s domestic security challenges.
(photo credit: Hodaya Shai)

I recently had the opportunity to attend a conference organized by MK Yoav Gallant and my organization, Im Tirtzu, that focused on an assessment of Israel’s current security situation. The security under consideration was not the threat from Iran but the threat from within.

The news was not good. There was unanimous concern about the deteriorating internal security picture, given the widespread riots in mixed cities throughout Israel this past May, and continued aggressive and criminal behavior by Bedouin in the Negev and Arabs in the Galilee.

The conference was not a finger-pointing exercise; rather, it was a candid admission of an increasingly dire state of affairs and a clarion call for addressing and redressing the situation. There was a strong sense that we had lost our willingness to exercise our sovereignty, to exert control and to make sure that all who live in Israel understand the rules of the game.

This was not a partisan exercise of blaming the current government, even though the two leading speakers, Gallant and MK Avi Dichter, are both senior Likud members and highly experienced government officials. It has been a long process in development, reflecting a time-honored Israeli propensity to kick problems down the road in the name of maintaining the appearance of calm.

What is different now is that the calm has proven to be deceptive, and the price for it was an accrued determination to disrupt, to usurp and to assert power by those seeking to rend the fabric of our society as a generous and humane Jewish and democratic state. So, the question has been called, the issue has been raised, and the problem has been clearly identified.

Murder scene in Rama where Education Ministry adviser Sahar Ismael was shot dead on Sunday, August 15, 2021.  (credit: ISRAEL POLICE SPOKESMAN) Murder scene in Rama where Education Ministry adviser Sahar Ismael was shot dead on Sunday, August 15, 2021. (credit: ISRAEL POLICE SPOKESMAN)

The real issue going forward is what kind of resolve and determination will there be to address and to tackle the matter at hand. While there were meritorious suggestions about increased manpower, and the use not just of the police but also the IDF and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), the more important consideration will be the willingness to follow through.

Here, I suspect, is where the real challenge lies, because the challenge is internal. The challenge is for us to take steps that we know will be looked at by the usual detractors abroad as (and you can supply your own indictments) discriminatory, one-sided, heavy-handed and consistent with apartheid, colonialism, etc.

The problem is that we allow these narratives and these indictments to inform and to sway us. We forget that no other sovereign country feels the need to ask permission or gain the approval of outside forces for the exercise of the rule of law within its own country.

We implicitly doubt ourselves, and by extension, we have internalized the criticism, condemnation and negative judgments coming from Western powers. Above all, we have implicitly accepted that somehow Israel is subject to a unique double standard that other countries would scoff at and pay no attention to.

I am no social psychologist, but to me, this appears to be the national manifestation of Galut (Exile) Syndrome, of the unending desire to be accepted, to be approved. We somehow need to have the approval, if not the imprimatur, of those who will never ever provide it.

Galut Syndrome is the term for a behavior that implicitly recognizes one’s own powerlessness and lack of free determination. It is manifested in the acceptance and the embrace of this reality, which in turn informs every decision one makes. While this was traditionally a manifestation of individuals, it has had a remarkably durable history in the halls of power and in the institutions of the State of Israel itself.

Why are we letting the European Union provide millions of euros for illegal construction in Judea and Samaria? Why are we caving in the face of knee-jerk disapproval for any steps designed to reinforce rather than to compromise our control and sovereignty, both within 1949 Israel and without?

Ironically, it is Israel’s Western immigrants, those who have the least direct influence and impact within our state by virtue of their relatively recent arrival, who have the clearest vision and perspective about this.

Why? Because they know the internal weakness of the places that they have left; they understand the “paper tiger” aspects of much of Western political power, the knee-jerk willingness to sanctimoniously condemn, but the ineffectual inability to actually do anything about it.

Here is a simple suggestion, an experiment as it were. What if we were to exercise the judgments and take the actions that we believe we need to undertake without any reference to international reactions, positive or negative?

What if these were nonfactors where the only considerations would be what is likely to be most effective, durable, impactful and fair? And then, when the inevitable condemnation arrived, what if we just deflect it; better yet, we ignore it? So much of the condemnation we get is obligatory; we could supply it before it even reaches us.

So why not just say, “Thank you for your concerns. We will take it under advisement,” and then just keep doing what we think we need to do? What do we think will actually happen? If your answer is, little or nothing, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Ultimately, there is not the willingness to confront us when we act with conviction and with determination.

Our problems are manifest but addressable. We can only help ourselves by turning off the spigot that internalizes criticism, which never has our good at heart. We can only help ourselves by being true to our vision of what our humane and just society requires.


Douglas Altabef is chairman of the board of Im Tirtzu, a grassroots Zionist watchdog organization, and director of the Israel Independence Fund.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-695318

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Amnesty tries to distort my Arab identity and dismantle Israel - Yoseph Haddad

 

by Yoseph Haddad

Palestinians live under the control of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank or under the control of the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza. What about Israeli Arabs?

As an Israeli Arab who grew up in Nazareth, Amnesty International’s recent report tries to distort my identity. The 211-page document constantly refers to an “apartheid” against “Palestinian citizens of Israel,” making no differentiation between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. 

Palestinians live under the control of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank or under the control of the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.

What about Israeli Arabs like me? We live under the democratically elected government of Israel with equal rights like any Jewish citizen. No matter how many times Amnesty International tries to erase my identity for trying to advance their political agenda, that doesn’t make it the truth.

I was born an Israeli, and I will remain an Israeli. I am entitled to all the same rights as any citizen of Israel. I was a soldier in Israel’s Defense Forces protecting the north of Israel, where most of the Israeli-Arab community lives, from terrorist rockets attacks by Hezbollah. 

Not only that, but I was also a commander of dozens of Jewish soldiers. What kind of an “apartheid” would let Arabs give orders to Jews? The non-existent kind.

A recent report by the NGO Israel Democracy Institute showed that the majority of Israeli Arabs do not, in fact, identify as Palestinian but as Arab or Israeli Arab. Only 7% of those surveyed even identify as Palestinian. A subsequent poll showed that 81% of Israeli Arabs prefer to live in Israel over living in the US or in any other Western country. I guess life isn’t that bad under “Israeli domination,” contrary to the lies Amnesty spreads about our lives in the only democracy in the Middle East. 

Amnesty’s report includes numerous falsehoods and cherry-picks incidents that fit its narrative to delegitimize Israel. For example, Amnesty repeatedly mentions physical segregation between Arabs and Jews. Their “researchers” should visit an Israeli hospital where a Muslim Arab woman can receive the best care from a Jewish doctor, or an ultra-orthodox Jewish child can be treated by an Arab doctor. 

In our Arab-Israeli community, the majority of citizens want to live in peace with Jews. Many want to be, and already are, an integral part of Israeli society. Instead of promoting cooperation and a vision for a better future, organizations like Amnesty International delegitimize the only democratic state in the Middle East, trying to brand it as an “apartheid” state.

Apartheid is defined as a system of discrimination or oppression based on race. So, let’s talk about it. Israel’s basic laws explicitly state that they protect against all discrimination and preserve the status of the State of Israel as being a Jewish and democratic state. Not Jewish, not democratic, but Jewish and democratic. That means that, since its establishment, this country has specifically protected the rights of religious and ethnic minorities by law.

Does that mean there’s no racism in Israel? Of course not, like in any other country – Israel has its problems that need fixing. In this sense, Israel is no different than any other Western democracy, like the US, France and the UK, which all try every day to do better and fix racial, economic and educational disparities. 

As for the Palestinians, the status-quo of occupation is problematic, but still, it’s not based on racial discrimination, but rather on national conflict. A conflict that Israel has proven it would like to end on several occasions when it offered generous solutions for peace, before the Palestinians rejected them. If Israel has a racial issue with Arabs, why did we then make peace with Morocco, UAE, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain? Why then are there so many Arabs who are part of Israel’s government, making decisions that impact every Israeli? Why are there Arab judges deciding on the fate of Israeli citizens in court?

I’ve been to South Africa myself, and I’ve seen with my own eyes how disgusting and soul-crushing the crime of Apartheid is. This is part of the reason why I can’t stand by and let these lies be spread by organizations like Amnesty International for its own political gain. The accusation of “apartheid” is a serious one and should never be used as a political tool to demonize a country that you don’t like.

Amnesty International, stop disrespecting the history and victims of the actual Apartheid regime in South Africa, and let’s instead work together with Arabs and Jews to resolve these conflicts in a peaceful way, instead of adopting the ideologies and lies that are repeated by extremists who don’t believe that Israel, the only Jewish-democratic state in the world, has the right to exist at all.

This op-ed is published in partnership with a coalition of organizations that fight antisemitism across the world. Read the previous article bny Sacha Stawski.

 

Yoseph Haddad is an Israeli rights activist. He is the CEO of the NGO Together - Vouch for Each Other, which aims to create a better understanding and cooperation between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-695337

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden Should Be Ashamed of His Treatment of the UAE - Con Coughlin

 

by Con Coughlin

At the very least, therefore, the Biden administration should make amends for its ill-conceived decision to lift the terrorist designation against the Houthis, and provide the Emiratis with the sophisticated weaponry they require to defend themselves

  • "After the terrorist designation was lifted, it is clear the Houthis believed they could resume their terrorist operations because no one was prepared to stop them." — A senior Gulf security official, to the author, January 2022.

  • Emirati leaders have publicly called on US President Joe Biden to reimpose Washington's terrorist designation against the Houthis, a move Gulf officials say would ultimately disrupt Iranian attempts to supply the rebels with sophisticated weaponry.

  • In addition, Washington should also pay heed to the Emiratis' request, and that of other oil-rich potential targets in the Gulf, for enhanced defence capabilities to counter the Houthi threat.

  • At the very least, therefore, the Biden administration should make amends for its ill-conceived decision to lift the terrorist designation against the Houthis, and provide the Emiratis with the sophisticated weaponry they require to defend themselves against the deadly threat posed by the Iranian-backed rebels.

  • The continuing escalation by Iran and the Houthis is -- as most likely is their intent -- threatening to destabilise the region. If they are not stopped, and quickly, the Biden legacy, along with its catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, will consist of appeasing and emboldening groups that draw on terrorism -- such as the Houthis, the Palestinians and possibly the Taliban -- as well as hostile regimes, including Russia, China and Iran.

Emirati leaders have publicly called on US President Joe Biden to reimpose Washington's terrorist designation against the Houthis, a move Gulf officials say would ultimately disrupt Iranian attempts to supply the rebels with sophisticated weaponry. Washington should also pay heed to the Emiratis' request for enhanced defence capabilities to counter the Houthi threat. The United Arab Emirates' defences currently rely on the US-supplied Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile interception system. Pictured: UAE airmen inspect a THAAD battery at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. (Photo Credit: U.S. Army)

The Biden administration should hang its head in shame over its February 2021 decision to lift the terrorist designation imposed on Yemen's Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, in the wake of the deadly attacks launched last month against the United Arab Emirates (UAE), one of Washington's key allies in the Gulf.

Ever since US President Joe Biden made his controversial decision to lift the Houthis' designation as a terrorist organisation shortly after he took office last year, there has been a marked escalation in the Houthis's terrorist activities.

Gulf security experts say the Houthis have increased their attacks against the Saudi-led coalition, of which the UAE is a key member, since the terrorist designation was lifted. These have included the use of missiles and drones supplied by Iran, which has emerged as the Houthis' main military backer.

"After the terrorist designation was lifted, it is clear the Houthis believed they could resume their terrorist operations because no one was prepared to stop them," a senior Gulf security official explained to me during a recent visit to the region.

In recent weeks, the Houthis have demonstrated their growing military sophistication - which is mainly due to the steady stream of weapons they are receiving from Tehran -- by launching a series of terror attacks against the UAE.

Three people were killed and six injured when the Houthi rebels launched a series of missile and drone attacks last month against several UAE targets, including Abu Dhabi International airport. This was followed by another rocket attack against the UAE, which was foiled after the Houthi missiles were intercepted and destroyed by the UAE defences.

Then, in the most recent terrorist operation, UAE security officials announced on Monday that the Emirates had intercepted a ballistic missile fired by Houthis as the Gulf state hosted Israeli President Isaac Herzog on his first visit to the region since the Emirates signed the Abraham Accords with Israel in 2020.

The dramatic escalation in attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthis, which comes at a time when Iran is supposed to be engaging in diplomatic efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal in Vienna, has prompted the UAE and the international community to renew calls for the Biden administration to take a firmer line in dealing with the terrorist movement.

Emirati leaders and others in the Gulf have publicly called on Mr Biden to reimpose Washington's terrorist designation against the Houthis, a move Gulf officials say would ultimately disrupt Iranian attempts to supply the rebels with sophisticated weaponry.

Just last December, the US Navy seized two large caches of Iranian weapons from two vessels in the Arabian sea, which Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) intended to ship to the Houthi militia in Yemen, according to the US Justice Department.

According to a draft UN Security Council report circulated in January, Iran has been exporting thousands of weapons from the Iranian port of Jask, on the Sea of Oman, to Yemen.

The recent upsurge in Houthi attacks against UAE targets has prompted the Emirati embassy in the US as well as Arab and Muslim countries in the region to call on the Biden administration and Congress to support the re-designation of the Houthi militia as a foreign terrorist organisation.

In addition, the UAE's influential ambassador to the US, Yousef Al-Otaiba, has called on the Biden administration to provide his country with enhanced military support to deal with the mounting threat posed by the Houthis, as have others who are apparently anxious about the Middle East soon becoming destabilized.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece written together with Lana Nusseibeh, the UAE's permanent representative to the UN, Mr al-Otaiba called on the US to provide the UAE with better anti-missile and anti-drone capabilities to protect the Gulf state from further attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis.

The upsurge in Houthi violence against the UAE is certainly extremely embarrassing for the Biden administration, which took the decision to lift the terrorist designation against the Houthis in the hope that it would persuade them to drop their terrorist activities. Mr Biden also hoped removing the terrorist designation would be seen as a gesture of goodwill by Iran, the movement's primary backer, and persuade Tehran to adopt a more constructive approach to the nuclear talks in Vienna.

Instead, the opposite has been the case, with Gulf security officials identifying an instant increase in Houthi terrorist activity the moment the terrorist designation was lifted last year. In addition, Iran has shown little interest in reaching a deal on its nuclear programme at the talks currently taking place in Vienna, to the extent that US officials are publicly warning that the negotiations are set to end in failure if a breakthrough is not forthcoming in the next few weeks.

In such circumstances, it is therefore vital that the Biden administration acknowledge that it has made a fundamental error by lifting the terrorist designation against the Houthis, and take immediate action to place the movement back on the list of designated terrorist organisations.

In addition, Washington should also pay heed to the Emiratis' request, and that of other oil-rich potential targets in the Gulf, for enhanced defence capabilities to counter the Houthi threat.

In a recent interview with CNN, Ms Nusseibeh revealed that top-level security discussions, believed to include senior members of the Emirati National Security Council, were taking place in Washington about improving the state's defences, which currently rely on the US-supplied Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile interception system.

"Our ability to intercept and deflect these attacks is world class," she said. "There can always be upgrades and improvements and... additional intelligence co-operation and I think these are the fields we're looking at with our partners."

At the very least, therefore, the Biden administration should make amends for its ill-conceived decision to lift the terrorist designation of the Houthis, and provide the Emiratis with the sophisticated weaponry they require to defend themselves against the deadly threat posed by the Iranian-backed rebels.

The continuing escalation by Iran and the Houthis is -- as most likely is their intent -- threatening to destabilise the region. If they are not stopped, and quickly, the Biden legacy, along with its catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, will consist of appeasing and emboldening groups that draw on terrorism -- such as the Houthis, the Palestinians and possibly the Taliban -- as well as hostile regimes, including Russia, China and Iran.

 

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

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18201/biden-uae-treatment

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Holocaust, Rwanda, Nanking, Critical Race Theory, and Whoopi Goldberg - Daniel Greenfield

 

by Daniel Greenfield

Reducing all bigotry to white people being evil is a theory of history so dumb that you literally have to know nothing to believe it.

 


Whoopi Goldberg encapsulated the idiocy and ignorance of critical race theory when she insisted that the Holocaust wasn't about racism because she assumed that the Germans couldn't tell the Jews apart because they were both "white".

Never mind that the Nazis didn't think so and that Jews were a recognizably distinct population.

Genocides actually tend to happen more often among "similar" groups that live together rather than the facile imperialism and colonialism nonsense that Colbert trotted out in his softball chat with Whoopi. 

The Rwanda massacres happened between the Hutu and the Tutsis, both "black" in Whoopi's worldview, but who saw themselves as members of different races, and who were able to recognize, hunt, and kill each other.

Or the Nanking massacre that the Japanese committed against a Chinese population, to Whoopi's worldview, all Asians. (But yes, the Japanese could tell the Chinese apart.)

Genocides frequently happened against a related population, whether it was the Islamic conquests or any of the above examples.

Critical race theory is a subset of Marxism and thus has to treat racism as a matter of power relations while rolling in imperialism and colonialism. 

Racism and hatred of another group so extreme that it leads to persecution and then genocide does not require black and white visual differences. That's an American leftist fallacy. History makes it clear that's nonsense. Related peoples can hate each other, as much or more. 

Reducing all bigotry to white people being evil is a theory of history so dumb that you literally have to know nothing to believe it.

That's why getting critical race theory out of our educational system is a basic prerequisite for education. 

 

Daniel Greenfield

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2022/02/holocaust-rwanda-nanking-critical-race-theory-and-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thursday, February 3, 2022

Amnesty International Wants to End the Jewish State - Richard Kemp

 

by Richard Kemp

Amnesty is based in the UK and the UK police should now investigate it for spreading these grievous antisemitic lies.

  • Unfortunately for the inveterate peace-processors and their followers, the Arab world has moved on from their own opposition to Israel. They see the country for what it is: a source of stability and prosperity in the region. They understand the dangers of continuing Palestinian intransigence and animosity and have denied them a veto on progress — a veto that Amnesty and its fellow Israel rejectionists want to see reinstated.

  • This report will also provoke increased violence, abuse and boycotts against Jews in Israel and Jews who support Israel in the diaspora, in an era where antisemitic attacks are already at a high point and on the rise. That may not be Amnesty's aim in producing this twisted document, but they cannot be so blind as to fail to see its bloody consequences, which have played out over decades following similar distorted reports, debates, resolutions and media fabrications.

  • The definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) includes: "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor". The British government has signed up to the IHRA definition. Amnesty is based in the UK and the UK police should now investigate it for spreading these grievous antisemitic lies.

The latest grotesque exhibition of anti-Israel vitriol among NGOs is this week's publication of a report by Amnesty International that recycles tired, repeatedly disproven yet deliberately provocative antisemitic tropes and accusations of racism. This from an organization that was itself last year branded as "systemically racist". Pictured: Agnes Callamard (left), Secretary General of Amnesty International, at a press conference in Jerusalem, Israel, on February 1, 2022. (Photo by Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP via Getty Images)

The latest grotesque exhibition of anti-Israel vitriol among NGOs is this week's publication of a report by Amnesty International that recycles tired, repeatedly disproven yet deliberately provocative antisemitic tropes and accusations of racism. This from an organization that was itself last year branded as "systemically racist".

The title of the report, "Israel's apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and crime against humanity", is not only a blatant and unsubstantiated lie but also an insult to black South Africans who suffered so horrifically under a genuinely apartheid regime. Few will read this 200+ page diatribe of falsehoods, distortions and half-truths, but many will see and absorb its title, which has already been plastered greedily across left-leaning newspapers and disseminated to millions in social media. The BBC, for example, trumpeted "Israel's policies against Palestinians amount to apartheid" in an online article, giving full weight to Amnesty's claims, quoting several people who support them, but allowing only the briefest opposing view from the Israeli government at the end.

What is provoking NGOs such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, who published a similar discredited report last year, to ever-greater excesses of anti-Israel propaganda? Why has the United Nations General Assembly just approved an unprecedented permanent commission of inquiry into Israel by the UN Human Rights Council? The problem for these anti-Israel lobbies is that things are not going their way. Tactically, their over-arching intent to drag Israelis into the dock at The Hague seems to be faltering, with a seemingly less enthusiastic Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court. Strategically, far from the desired retrenchment and eventual termination of the Jewish state, it is getting stronger and stronger with increasing global diplomatic and economic outreach; and there has been an abject failure by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to make any impact on the Israeli economy despite years of poisonous efforts.

Above all, the historic Abraham Accords have been a red rag to a bull to all these bodies — waved in their faces again last week by Hatikva playing as Israel's president was received at the Royal Palace in Abu Dhabi by Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed. This was not in the script, which demanded continued unrequited concessions to the Palestinians by Israel, leading to the imposition of an Islamic state on Israeli territory, before any wider peace could be achieved with the Arab world. Unfortunately for the inveterate peace-processors and their followers, the Arab world has moved on from their own opposition to Israel. They see the country for what it is: a source of stability and prosperity in the region. They understand the dangers of continuing Palestinian intransigence and animosity and have denied them a veto on progress — a veto that Amnesty and its fellow Israel-rejectionists want to see reinstated.

The previous draft of the report, obtained by NGO Monitor and hastily amended, inadvertently revealed the true motive behind Amnesty's anti-Israel campaign. It included the words: "The system of apartheid originated with the creation of Israel in 1948". As the Anti Defamation League puts it, the report's allegations that "Israel's crimes go back to the sin of its creation in 1948, serve to present the Jewish and democratic state as singularly illegitimate at its foundational roots."

According to NGO Monitor:, the purpose of the report is "to characterize the right of Jews to sovereign equality in their historic homeland as a violation of the [international] legal order."

Let us be in no doubt, this report is not a criticism of the State of Israel. It is a chillingly clear manifesto pronouncing Israel an illegal entity with no right to exist. Page after page, it shows a deeply-troubling obsession with righting the supposed wrong of 1948. It calls for Israel to be flooded with generation after generation of descendants of Arabs who left in 1948, and who expected to return after five invading armies had wiped Israel off the map. Such an influx of so-called refugees would be unprecedented anywhere in the world. It would mean the termination of the State of Israel, a condition of perpetual conflict between Arabs and Jews under a single Palestinian state, and the end of the Jewish people's right to self-determination.

Presenting Israel as a racist endeavour, as other left-wing NGOs and international institutions also seek to do, brings us full-circle. The strident and vicious opposition to Jews in the land, opposition that in modern times dates back to the 1920s, was based on pure racism. It was the Islamic doctrine that no other peoples could be sovereign in land that had ever been dominated by Muslims. Therefore Jews, indigenous to the territory, could never be allowed their own state and had to be fought to subjugation or death. As I explained in the article, "Exposing the Lie of Israel Apartheid", the religious-racist nature of the conflict was transformed by the Soviet Union into an imperialist-nationalist struggle, to gain greater acceptance and support in the democratic world. And now we are back to a trumped-up inversion of the original racist conflict.

As the Soviets understood, accusations of racism rightly incur abhorrence among civilised people. Hence the attraction of Amnesty and their fellow travellers to portraying Israel as an apartheid state. As international lawyer Eugene Kontorovich explained this week, Israel = Apartheid is no more than a slightly updated spin on the Zionism = Racism mantra driven by the Soviet Union and immorally adopted by the UN in 1975 before being repealed.

Again like the Soviets, Amnesty's prime target is not the Arab world, it is the West. Like the propaganda of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, the intention is to provoke outrage across the West, to isolate and vilify Israel among world governments, international bodies, universities and businesses.

This report will also provoke increased violence, abuse and boycotts against Jews in Israel and Jews who support Israel in the diaspora, in an era where antisemitic attacks are already at a high point and on the rise. That may not be Amnesty's aim in producing this twisted document, but they cannot be so blind as to fail to see its bloody consequences, which have played out over decades following similar distorted reports, debates, resolutions and media fabrications.

The definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) includes: "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor". The British government has signed up to the IHRA definition. Amnesty is based in the UK and the UK police should now investigate it for spreading these grievous antisemitic lies.

 

Colonel Richard Kemp is a former British Army Commander. He was also head of the international terrorism team in the U.K. Cabinet Office and is now a writer and speaker on international and military affairs. He is a Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18199/amnesty-international-israel

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden is leading from behind in Russia-Ukraine conflict - August Pfluger

 

by August Pfluger

Vladimir Putin is acting now because he senses an environment of weakness

 

 

When Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014, I was an Airman advising NATO on AirPower issues. Now, nearly eight years later, I traveled to Kyiv, Ukraine as a lawmaker. On the trip, I had the opportunity to speak with the top Ukrainian officials: President Zelensky, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov, and others. 

The message is clear: Vladimir Putin is acting now because he senses an environment of weakness. 

RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT: SATELLITE IMAGES REVEAL EXTENT OF MOSCOW’S MILITARY BUILDUP

Weakness in the Biden administration’s approach to energy; in their countless failures (most importantly the tragic Afghanistan evacuation); and in their lack of commitment to law and order at the U.S. southern border.

The United States used to negotiate from a posture of peace through strength. The Biden Doctrine is crisis through weakness. 

President Zelensky told me that European dependence on Russian energy—bolstered by Nord Stream II—has undermined their national security and enabled the current crisis to occur. Some European countries have decided to cozy up to Russia and have allowed Putin to become the primary supplier of energy to Europe—supplying 40% of Europe’s natural gas.

I, along with many of my Republican colleagues, have repeatedly criticized President Biden for refusing to fully condemn Nord Stream II, knowing the potential power and leverage it carried. President Biden’s overall weakness in foreign policy has handed Putin a major win in his quest for control of energy flows. 

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WORKING TO HARDEN UKRAINIAN CYBER DEFENSES AMID WARNING OF POTENTIAL RUSSIAN CYBERATTACKS 

Our adversaries are closely watching the crises of Biden’s first year as president unfurl. Most importantly, they watched President Biden execute the most heartbreaking disaster of his tenure: the tragic and chaotic Afghanistan evacuation when a United States President turned his back on hundreds of American citizens and thousands of our Afghan allies.

President Biden’s countless mistakes leave our adversaries and allies questioning his resolve. The president promises to impose severe sanctions on Russia should Vladimir Putin invade Ukraine. 

But are these threats empty? President Biden seems to be leading from behind and now our enemies are testing us.

Why would Russia expect the Biden administration to respect the borders of Ukraine when they refuse to secure our own borders? Border security matters, and that begins here at home. President Zelensky told me directly that his borders matter and he will defend them.

Ukraine is a test for the West. If Russia is allowed to invade a sovereign country and destroy Democracy in Ukraine—China, Iran, and North Korea will certainly be taking notes. 

We need a president who is strong and capable of securing the United States and standing firm with our allies. One who understands the importance of both energy security and sovereign borders—in America and abroad.

If President Biden won’t act, Congress must. I will be working to impose strong sanctions on the Nord Stream II pipeline and will continue championing policies to secure the U.S. border. We need Democrats and Republicans alike to come together in the face of tyranny.

Weakness has bred nothing but crisis. We must return to peace through strength.

 

August Pfluger represents Texas' 11th Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives. He is a member of House Foreign Affairs Committee and ranking member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-russia-ukraine-conflict-rep-august-pfluger

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter