Friday, June 17, 2022

Palestinians: The House Demolitions and Land-Grabs No One Talks About - Khaled Abu Toameh


​ by Khaled Abu Toameh

While Hamas has been trying to present itself as the defender of the Bedouin citizens of Israel, it is targeting the Palestinian Bedouin living under its control in the Gaza Strip by demolishing their homes and confiscating their lands, according to Egyptian author Ali Rajab.

  • The raid on the village came after the Hamas-controlled Land Authority in the Gaza Strip ruled that the residents must be evacuated because they had built their homes on "state-owned" lands.

  • Sources in the Gaza Strip said that there are 28 more villages slated for demolition by Hamas on the pretext that they were illegally built on public lands.

  • "The Hamas security forces prevented the ambulances from entering the village.... That's why we had to take the injured to hospital in our cars." — Yahya Abu Thariyeh, a resident of Umm al-Nasr,, June 11, 2022

  • While Hamas has been trying to present itself as the defender of the Bedouin citizens of Israel, it is targeting the Palestinian Bedouin living under its control in the Gaza Strip by demolishing their homes and confiscating their lands, according to Egyptian author Ali Rajab.

  • Hamas's ongoing efforts to raze entire villages in the Gaza Strip is seen by many Palestinians as.... part of widespread corruption in Hamas, whose leaders want to seize lands for their personal use.

  • By turning a blind eye to the atrocities of Hamas, the journalists and human rights organizations are once again engaging in a dangerous double standard. Their obsession with Israel allows Hamas to persist in committing violent crimes against the Palestinians without receiving negative media coverage -- much less being held accountable for pillaging and devastating Palestinian communities.

On June 9, hundreds of Hamas security officers raided the village of Umm al-Nasr to destroy several houses, as part of the terror group's attempt to evict the residents from the area. Hamas claims that the village was illegally built on "state-owned" land. The village was established nearly 80 years ago, long before Hamas was founded in 1988. Pictured: Bedouin children in Umm al-Nasr, in the Gaza Strip, on August 25, 2005. (Photo by Awad Awad/AFP via Getty Images)

While the international community and media continue to condemn Israel day in and day out about a host of grievances, including the demolition of houses built without proper permits, no one seems to be interested in the ongoing human rights violations against Palestinians by the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas.

The United Nations and many foreign journalists are so obsessed with Israel that they have paid no attention to the latest crime committed by Hamas against residents of the Bedouin village of Umm al-Nasr in the northern Gaza Strip. The village was established nearly 80 years ago, long before Hamas was founded in 1988.

On June 9, hundreds of Hamas security officers raided the village to destroy several houses, as part of the terror group's attempt to evict the residents from the area. Hamas claims that the village was illegally built on "state-owned" land.

The raid on the village, the first of its kind since Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007, triggered clashes between the residents and the officers. The residents threw stones at the officers, who responded by firing live ammunition at the protesters.

At least 25 villagers were injured during the clashes, eight of them from gunfire. Sources in the Gaza Strip said that at least one Hamas officer was injured.

After the violent clashes, Hamas security forces arrested 85 villagers.

The raid on the village came after the Hamas-controlled Land Authority in the Gaza Strip ruled that the residents must be evacuated because they had built their homes on "state-owned" lands. Emad al-Baz, head of the Land Authority, accused the villagers of "transgression" on the disputed land.

Sources in the Gaza Strip said that there are 28 more villages slated for demolition by Hamas on the pretext that they were illegally built on public lands.

Yahya Abu Thariyeh, a resident of Umm al-Nasr, said that dozens of Hamas officers in uniform and civilian clothes who raided the village managed to demolish one house before the violent clashes erupted there. He accused the Hamas officers of using excessive force and raiding several houses without a court order, intimidating the residents, including women and disabled children. "The Hamas security forces prevented the ambulances from entering the village," Abu Thariyeh recounted.

"Although the [Hamas] security forces brought with them an ambulance, its team refused to provide medical treatment to the injured. That's why we had to take the injured to hospital in our cars."

The Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights (ICHR) said that it views with great concern the events that took place in the village of Umm al-Nasr, "which led to the injury of a number of citizens and damage to a number of houses."

The human rights group revealed that members of Hamas's military wing, Ezaddin al-Qassam, took part in the raid on the village. The force also stormed several houses in the village and arrested 40 civilians, according to ICHR.

An investigation conducted by the human rights group concluded that the Hamas security personnel used excessive force during the confrontations with the villagers.

The group stressed that it is not acceptable for Hamas officers in civilian clothes to participate in such raids.

ICHR called for the immediate release of all the detainees and for launching an investigation into the actions of the Hamas security forces. It also called for holding accountable the security personnel who fired shots and gave instructions to deal with the incident in a violent manner.

While the international community remains silent towards this latest assault by Hamas on its own people, many Palestinians have denounced the terror group.

Hussein Hamayel, a senior official with the Palestinian Authority's ruling Fatah faction, condemned the raid on the village as a "crime." He accused Hamas leaders of seeking to lay their hands on lands in the Gaza Strip and divide them among themselves and their loyalists. "Hamas's actions are aggravating the humanitarian and social crises in the Gaza Strip," Hamayel said.

Palestinian journalist Hisham Sakallah pointed out that "the violence and oppression perpetrated against the Bedouin villagers reflect a small part portion of what happened 16 years ago when Hamas carried out a coup against the Palestinian Authority and seized control of the Gaza Strip.

Sakallah was referring to the violent clashes that erupted in the Gaza Strip in 2007, during which Hamas men executed Fatah rivals, blew up homes and dragged the body of a senior Fatah member through the streets. They also threw Fatah gunmen from the roofs of tall buildings.

Sakallah praised social media users for shedding light on the Hamas crimes against the residents of Umm al-Nasr. "What bothered and provoked me the most was that the official spokesmen for Hamas did not issue statements," he remarked.

An unnamed resident of Umm al-Nasr was quoted as saying:

"What happened is a barbaric and brutal Hamas-Iranian attack on the poor people in the Gaza Strip, who have been very patient with the killings, poverty, and hunger resulting from the policies of Hamas. The people of the Gaza Strip have paid with their blood as a result of the policies and practices of Hamas."

Egyptian writer Ali Rajab pointed out the hypocrisy of Hamas in dealing with the Bedouin communities in Israel and the Gaza Strip. Rajab said that while Hamas has been trying to present itself as the defender of the Bedouin citizens of Israel, it is targeting the Bedouin living under its control in the Gaza Strip by demolishing their homes and confiscating their lands.

Hamas's ongoing efforts to raze entire villages in the Gaza Strip is seen by many Palestinians as the terror group tightening its grip on the coastal enclave, home to some two million Palestinians. It is also seen by many Palestinians as part of widespread corruption in Hamas, whose leaders want to seize lands for their personal use.

"Hamas is trying to control all the public lands in the Gaza Strip," said Mahmoud al-Zaq, Secretary-General of the National Work Commission in the Gaza Strip. "Hamas wants the lands in order to carry out its own projects. These lands, however, should be allocated to building hospitals for the Palestinians."

Hamas's practices against the Palestinians do not come as a surprise to many Palestinians, especially those who have been living under its repressive regime in the Gaza Strip since 2007. What does continue to surprise many Palestinians, however, is the ongoing silence of the international community, human rights groups, the United Nations, and many mainstream media organizations towards the Hamas crimes.

Had the raid on the Bedouin village in the Gaza Strip been carried out by Israel, we would have seen scores of foreign journalists and the United Nations rush to the area to report about Israeli "crimes" and "ethnic cleansing."

The residents of the village are unfortunate: they are Palestinians who were attacked by a Palestinian government and Palestinian security forces. The international media, whose representatives often report about the demolition of illegal houses by Israel, are unlikely to report about the plight of the Umm al-Nasr villagers because this is a story lacking an anti-Israel angle -- no Jew was involved in the attack on the village in the Gaza Strip.

The foreign journalists and human rights organizations who continue to ignore such oppressive practices by Hamas are doing a massive injustice to the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip.

By turning a blind eye to the atrocities of Hamas, the journalists and human rights organizations are once again engaging in a dangerous double standard. Their obsession with Israel allows Hamas to persist in committing violent crimes against the Palestinians without receiving negative media coverage -- much less being held accountable for pillaging and devastating Palestinian communities.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter


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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Black South Africans Denounce UN Report On Israel and the Palestinians - Hugh Fitzgerald


​ by Hugh Fitzgerald

They know what apartheid really means.


The UN Commission of Inquiry tasked with investigating Israel for supposed “crimes” against the Palestinians, headed by the virulently anti-Israel Navi Pillay, has just issued its report, which includes, among other calumnies, the charge that Israel practices apartheid. Black South Africans who were victims of the original, South-African brand of apartheid were incensed at this charge and have answered it, citing the real situation in Israel and invoking both Martin Luther King (“When People Criticize Zionists, They Mean Jews”), and Nelson Mandela (“Israel Has The Right To Exist”). A report on their demonstration against the Pillay Report is here: “‘Nelson Mandela Would Not Approve’: South Africans Denounce UN Report on Palestinians,” by Ben Cohen, Algemeiner, June 10, 2022:

A group of pro-Israel South Africans has invoked the figure of the late Nelson Mandela, the iconic leader of their country’s anti-apartheid struggle, in a forthright condemnation of the recent UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry (COI) report that blamed Israel’s “perpetual occupation” for the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians.

How can Israel be accused of “occupying” the very territory that was assigned to the future Jewish National Home by the League of Nations in its Mandate for Palestine (1920), that included all the land “from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean sea”? Were the Jews “occupiers” in 1948, when five Arab armies invaded to snuff out the young life of the Jewish state? Were they “occupiers” in 1967, when three Arab armies, led by Egypt’s Nasser, tried to undo the “nakba” of 1948 and destroy the Jewish state, but instead lost the Sinai, the Golan, and Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the West Bank) to a victorious Israel?

In a statement issued this week by the South African Friends of Israel (SAFI), a collection of church and community leaders argued that Mandela — South Africa’s first post-apartheid president — would have rejected the report’s findings.

“We sincerely doubt that our first democratically elected president, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, would approve of a situation where the antisemitism of Hamas was put on the same moral standing as the righteous fight of black people against the white supremacy of apartheid,” the statement declared.

Signatories to the statement included Nosipho Dladla of the God’s Throne of Grace church, Klaas Mokgmole of the Africans for Peace advocacy group and Mosala Nyawusa of the Clive Nashishi Foundation.

The statement pointed out that “Mandela never sought to eliminate white people from the land of South Africa [as the Arabs wish to eliminate the Jews from “Palestine”]. Rather, he preached reconciliation, which earned him the love and respect of even his jailer on Robben Island. We ask this UN COI to consider the harm that allowing the apartheid label to be applied to Israel does to the legacy of anti-apartheid stalwarts like Madiba [Mandela’s honorific name], who wanted all South Africans to live in peace.”

The Palestinians have made clear that their goal is to “eliminate” the state of Israel, and to expel all the Jews from the land between the river and the sea. Hamas wants to accomplish this quickly, using violence – terrorism — as well as conventional warfare as its preferred instrument. The Palestinian Authority has a longer time frame; it hopes to undermine Israel through economic and political pressure, in order to squeeze “the Jews” back within the 1949 armistice lines, which Abba Eban famously described as “the lines of Auschwitz,” with a nine-mile wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea, in the hope of weakening Israel sufficiently so that the Palestinians, aided by other Arabs and Muslims, could then assault, successfully this time, the Jewish state. Hamas and the PA share the same goal. They differ only on tactics and timing.

Mandela made his feelings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict clear during a 1993 speech. “As a movement we recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism just as we recognize the legitimacy of Zionism as a Jewish nationalism. We insist on the right of the state of Israel to exist within secure borders but with equal vigor support the Palestinian right to national self-determination,” Mandela said at the time, expressing sentiments at odds with many of his colleagues in the ruling African National Congress (ANC) who endorsed the analogy between Israel and the apartheid regime.

Last year, a billboard campaign sponsored by SAFI [South Africans For Israel] in Johannesburg featured a photo of Mandela alongside his quote, “We insist on the right of the State of Israel to exist.”

Clearly, Navi Pillay and her fellows on the UN Commission of Inquiry do not share Mandela’s view. A former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, South African Navi Pillay is notorious for her antipathy to Israel throughout her tenure. The new “Commission of Inquiry” was a kangaroo court, with Israel in the dock and a pre-determined verdict of “Guilty.”

Here are brief biographies of the three members of the COI:

Navi Pillay, appointed to head the COI, is well known for her bias towards Israel while UN High Commissioner of Human Rights in 2008-2014. In this position, she empaneled four fact-finding missions targeting Israel, more than any other country; oversaw the discredited Goldstone Report, which was later rejected by its primary author; permitted the appointment of the notoriously antisemitic Richard Falk as the Special Rapporteur for the Palestinians; and convened the 2009 Durban II conference, which was boycotted by most democracies, and provided Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad a prominent platform to disseminate antisemitic vitriol. Because of this record, on February 14, 2022, UN Watch filed a brief calling for her recusal from the COI.

Chris Sidoti has been described as a “close friend and ally” to the PA framework known as the Independent Commission for Human Rights and sits on the advisory council of AJIC, an Australian NGO that calls Israel a “settler colonial apartheid regime” and has accused Israel of committing crimes during the May 2021 conflict. His position with AJIC, a group that has taken extreme positions on matters directly under investigation by the COI, and his role with a PA entity, present clear conflicts of interest disqualifying him under UN rules and international fact-finding standards.

Nearly 20 years ago, Miloon Kothari entered Israel under false pretenses in order to prepare a UN report (also in cooperation with radical NGOs). That publication erases the context of mass Palestinian suicide bombings that killed and wounded thousands of civilians, whitewashing terrorism and other war crimes as “Palestinian resistance.” It also employs highly inflammatory rhetoric, accusing Israel of “massacring” and “ethnically cleansing” Palestinians and falsely asserting that “the basic theocratic character of the Israeli legal system establishes ethnic criteria as the grounds for the enjoyment of full rights” (report available here )/ Kothari’s troubling statements relating to Palestinian terrorism and his reliance on false NGO claims suggest he is unable to fulfill the COI mandate in accordance with UN standards.

Back to the South African statement:

The statement [of the pro-Israel black Africans] additionally attacked the comparison between Israel and the white minority regime. “As South Africans, we know what apartheid is, we lived through it and its legacy continues to blight our society to this day,” it said. “Through this evil regime, black people were denied equal access to government services; citizenship rights; property ownership, equal rights and participation in the democratic process. To claim that this is the current status of Arab Israelis is to deliberately distort reality. The truth is that Arabs in Israel hold positions of power in the judiciary, parliament, and military and are even members of the governing coalition.”

Let’s flesh out that statement about the so-called “apartheid” in Israel. Unlike the condition of blacks in apartheid South Africa, Arabs have equal rights to Jews in Israel. They have the right to vote, to free speech, to freedom of religion, have the right both to own, and to buy and sell property, have the right to equal medical care and education, and enjoy equality before the law All these are guaranteed by the Israeli state. Arabs sit in the Knesset, serve on the Supreme Court, go abroad as ambassadors. The chairman of the largest bank in Israel, Bank Leumi, is an Arab. Jews and Arabs attend the same universities, work in the same factories and offices, are treated in the same hospitals by both Jewish and Arab doctors and nurses. They play on the same sports teams – an Arab is the captain of Israel’s national soccer team – and in the same orchestras. Arabs and Jews go into business together – everything from restaurants to high tech start-ups. There is only one difference in their treatment: Jews must, while Arabs may, serve in the military. Where is the apartheid in any of this?

The Israeli government issued a full-scale rejection of the report, dismissing it as a “biased and one-sided report tainted with hatred for the State of Israel and based on a long series of previous one-sided and biased reports, [which] disregards years of murderous terrorism by Palestinian terrorist organizations against Israeli citizens, as well as the Palestinians’ long-standing obstinacy and the vicious and antisemitic incitement carried out by the Palestinian Authority and its networks.

In South Africa, some black men and women have rejected the COI’s malevolence and stood up in public to express their support for embattled Israel. In the current atmosphere in South Africa, that took courage. Let’s be grateful to Nosipho Dladla of the God’s Throne of Grace church, Klaas Mokgmole of the Africans for Peace advocacy group, Mosala Nyawusa of the Clive Nashishi Foundation, and others, little known in the great world, who have put to shame those well-known “human rights activists” Navi Pillay, Chris Sidoti, and Miloon Kothari.


Hugh Fitzgerald


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

PA pushing for UN apartheid committee on Israel, Amnesty head says - Tovah Lazaroff


​ by Tovah Lazaroff

"We need to use all possible tools to bring pressure so that the systems of oppression and domination in Israel are disestablished."


 A placard depicting former South African President Nelson Mandela hangs on a barbed wire during clashes with Palestinians and Israeli security forces, near Ramallah December 6, 2013.  (photo credit: REUTERS/MOHAMAD TOROKMAN)
A placard depicting former South African President Nelson Mandela hangs on a barbed wire during clashes with Palestinians and Israeli security forces, near Ramallah December 6, 2013.

South Africa, Namibia and the Palestinian Authority are pushing to reconvene the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid so that it could end that practice by Israel against the Palestinians, Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnes Callamard said on Thursday.

"There are serious conversations taking place right now between South Africa, Namibia and the state of Palestine to put forward a UN General Assembly resolution on re-establish the special committee against apartheid which was initially established in 1962 and to focus on all situations," Callamard said at the UN on Thursday.

"'We support that at Amnesty. We embrace it and we call for that special committee to be reestablished," she said.

"We need to use all possible tools right now to bring pressure so that the systems of oppression and domination in Israel and elsewhere are disestablished," Callamard said. 

"We need to use all possible tools right now to bring pressure so that the systems of oppression and .domination in Israel and elsewhere are disestablished."

Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnes Callamard
 Secretary General of Amnesty International, Agnes Callamard speaks at a press conference to announce the organisation's 211-page report named ''Israel's Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity'' at the St George Hotel, in East Jerusalem, February 1, 2022. (credit: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun) Secretary General of Amnesty International, Agnes Callamard speaks at a press conference to announce the organisation's 211-page report named ''Israel's Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity'' at the St George Hotel, in East Jerusalem, February 1, 2022. (credit: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun)

She spoke at a UN event in New York called, "Apartheid, International Law and the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Earlier this year, Amnesty published a report that accused Israel of the crime of apartheid for its treatment of the Palestinians.

Israel's defense

Israel has rejected that claim and argued that those who propagate it are attempting to undermine the existence of the Jewish state.

Prior to Thursday's event, Israel's Ambassador to the UN in New York Gilad Erdan wrote a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres asking him not to allow the UN to host an apartheid event on Israel.

"The facilities of the United Nation must not be used as a platform for those that seek to delegitimize Israel – the one and only Jewish State," Erdan said.

"By condoning, promoting, and allowing a poisonous event with such an inciteful title, the United Nations sends a clear message to the world – it unashamedly stands behind these false narratives that not only perpetuate the conflict, but were fabricated for the sole purpose of attacking Israel," Erdan said. 

"If this event does not cross the line, then where exactly is the line drawn?" he added. 

Israel's mission to the UN in New York had no comment on the push to reconvene the special committee on apartheid that had been created under Resolution 1761. Under the committee's rubric, the UN worked to abolish apartheid in South Africa. Those who want to reconvene the committee would like to see it similarly activated against Israel. 


Tovah Lazaroff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iranian terror attacks against Israelis in Turkey foiled - Jerusalem Post Staff


​ by Jerusalem Post Staff

FM Yair Lapid warned Israelis not to travel to Turkey and implored those already there to come home.


A Turkish flag flutters atop the Turkish embassy as an Israeli flag is seen nearby, in Tel Aviv, Israel June 26, 2016 (photo credit: REUTERS/BAZ RATNER)
A Turkish flag flutters atop the Turkish embassy as an Israeli flag is seen nearby, in Tel Aviv, Israel June 26, 2016
(photo credit: REUTERS/BAZ RATNER)

Israel and Turkey have foiled multiple Iranian attempts on the lives of Israelis in Turkey in the last few days, N12 reported on Thursday.

The joint operation revealed an extensive Iranian terror cell in Turkey that planned large attacks.

Israelis who are in Turkey have been instructed to be extra careful, hide the fact that they are Israeli as much as possible and stay in constant contact with people at home.


The threat level for traveling to Turkey was raised to the highest level on Monday, and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid warned Israelis not to travel to Turkey.

Illustrative image of a plane. (credit: REUTERS/SARAH MEYSSONNIER)Illustrative image of a plane. (credit: REUTERS/SARAH MEYSSONNIER)

Following Lapid's announcement, a number of stories arose in which the Mossad intervened in Turkey, contacting Israelis who were being targeted and picking them up to take them to safety. 

Turkey reported on Monday that the authorities had detained a number of Iranians suspected of having ties to the IRGC. 


Jerusalem Post Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ron DeSantis had a brilliant, funny response to Elon Musk's support - Andrea Widburg


​ by Andrea Widburg

It's also time to take note of the fact that some other luminaries of the left are abandoning their party.

Elon Musk, who is still a climate changista and benefited mightily from taxpayer monies, is nevertheless endearing himself to conservatives by looking at his erstwhile party and its satellites (i.e., Twitter) and seeing them for what they are: dangerously despotic.  His latest pro-conservative moment was to say he supports Ron DeSantis for president in 2024.  DeSantis came back with the perfect quip and delivered it well.  And while we're talking about Elon Musk, let's talk about some other longtime leftist luminaries who have had it with their former political home.

South African–born Elon Musk thought for a long time that he'd found his home in the Democrat party.  However, just as Trump, who was either a "conservative Democrat" or "liberal Republican" when he announced his run for office, was pushed to the right by Democrat hatred, Musk too seems to have found the same spur to move to the right.  Since his announced intention to buy Twitter, Democrats and their fellow leftists have revealed to him that his political party is narrow-minded, vindictive, and totalitarian in its desires.

That explains why Musk, having moved to Texas, cast his first vote ever for a Republican — in his case, Mayra Flores, the first Republican to win office in Texas's 34th Congressional District in 150 years.  What makes this victory so stunning is that the Mexican-born Flores won in a majority-Hispanic district.

Musk boasted about voting for Flores and predicted that she was the beginning of a Big Red Wave this fall:

But then Musk went one step farther, saying that, in the 2024 presidential election, he would like to vote for Ron DeSantis:


When the tweet made the news, a reporter asked Ron DeSantis for his response to this news.  DeSantis recycled a joke that's been around for a while, but he told it with √©lan, and he made it sound good, even as he skillfully managed to avoid saying whether he intends to run in 2024:

I happen to like DeSantis a great deal and would happily vote for him if he were on the ballot in 2024, but I also agree with him that November 2022 comes first.

But back to Elon Musk.  He's not the only one who is looking at his former political party and feeling a sense of revulsion.

One person who's making the journey rightward is Naomi Wolf, who was once a progressive stalwart.  It was she who, in 2000, advised Al Gore to wear brown to make him more appealing to female voters.  Now, though, Naomi, who's been a hippie chick her entire life, has written a long article explaining why we must protect and preserve the Second Amendment.

Another person who's being forced to abandon his erstwhile party is Glenn Greenwald.  I've never been a huge Greenwald fan because he's been hostile to Israel, and it was he who released Bradley Manning's stolen military information.

But Greenwald is nothing if not honest, and he sees in the Democrats exactly the same things he feared from the government during the Bush administration.  So he tweets out sensible stuff, writes fact-filled pieces on his Substack account, and appears regularly with Tucker Carlson to comment about the impending loss of American liberty — so much so that Bradley Manning now claims to be afraid of him.  (If you go to the Manning link, the first thing you'll notice is his bulging...Adam's apple.  He's a man with long hair and an unattractive lipstick shade.)

Meanwhile, Bill Maher keeps pointing out huge problems with Democrat policies.  The latest, most pointed one is the way Democrats are propagandizing the whole LGBT spectrum, along with his suggestion that this is not a good thing for children.  This would have been a normal message 20 years ago, but now it's dangerously transgressive, if you'll pardon the pun.  Maher still calls himself a leftist, but he seems increasingly disenchanted.

Some have castigated Wolf, Greenwald, and Maher for coming late to the parade, but I don't.  I too was a Democrat, and I know that it's hard to leave when you've always been told that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil (as opposed to merely right versus wrong).  I'm in the "better late than never" camp and hope that their courage inspires others.

Image: Ron DeSantis (edited).  Twitter screen grab.


Andrea Widburg


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Compelling Diversity and Punishing Dissent - Richard L. Cravatts


​ by Richard L. Cravatts

The misguided proposal of universities to enforce racial equity.


As more evidence that universities continue to be obsessed with race and are in thrall with the pursuit of racial “justice” and “equity,” the Board of Directors of California Community Colleges has decided that the system will now grade its employees, including, of course, faculty, on the extent to which they promote “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility.” The guidelines of a March proposal “include DEIA competencies and criteria as a minimum standard for evaluating the performance of all employees,” and, in case a staff or faculty member was disinterested in this mandatory thinking about race, the rules firmly “provide employees an opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of DEIA and anti-racist principles.”

The California Community Colleges system is not the first to mandate DEIA “competence” and adherence as a component of hiring and tenure decisions. A recent report by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) found that “DEI criteria were found in tenure standards at 21.5 percent of institutions.” 

In April, as one recent example, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign announced that it will demand diversity-contribution statements in which faculty must profess their allegiance to goals of diversity and inclusion as part of the process of tenure and promotion.

Unsurprising, UC Berkeley instated a similar policy, portentously entitled “Guidelines for Assessing Faculty Candidate Contributions to Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging at Berkeley,” which has as its broad mission to advance “diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging are responsibilities of all Berkeley faculty through their research, teaching, and/or service.”

Even if diversity and inclusion were objectives proven to have positive and productive results—which they clearly are not—a policy to compel faculty to pledge allegiance to their support is both misguided and likely violative of academic free speech—not that this consideration has prevented ideological hoards of woke students and faculty from censuring and canceling those whose views are deemed unacceptable. These forced commitments to diversity and inclusion, in fact, are reminiscent of the odious loyalty oaths demanded of faculty during the 1940s and 50s.

The campaign for diversity is based on an assumed, but unproven, assumption that diverse student populations are automatically superior to non-diverse ones, and that diversity not only benefits minority students but all students and the university as a whole. This belief is accepted by woke virtue-signaling administrators and diversocrats as a given, but it is certainly still a topic that can be questioned, critiqued, and challenged; and a faculty member has the right to not accept it as settled doctrine.

In fact, extensive research on DEI activities by two Heritage Foundation researchers, Jay Greene and James Paul, has shown that universities not only spend excessively on their DEI staffs, but that, more seriously and contrary to what would be assumed, “large DEI bureaucracies fail to make a positive contribution to campus climate.” While universities position DEI activities as signaling their commitment to minority recruitment and retention, “DEI personnel may be better understood,” the research suggested, “as a signal of adherence to ideological, political, and activist goals. Employing dozens of DEI professionals . . .  appears to work better as a jobs program subsidizing political activism than a means of improving campus climate.”

Is it reasonable that a professor seeking tenure be made to be responsible for a broad social problem—racism and inequity—when the proper and traditional role of the tenure process is based on a professor demonstrating excellence in teaching within his discipline? It is neither fair nor legal to compel a professor, as a core part of the decision on whether or not he or she deserves tenure—to commit to the vague and unproven mission of promoting diversity and inclusion, something that the institution as a whole might well have its mission but which an individual faculty member—teaching literature, business, mathematics, or biology—has no business making part of his teaching, research, and scholarship.

These new policies on hiring and tenure are troubling because they represent the institutionalization of the current dogma about race and so-called equity. We have witnessed in the past few years an odious series of purging of faculty, “cancellations,” who did not adhere to accepted and acceptable notions about race or who challenged the heterodoxy with alternate, sometimes provocative, views of their own.

In a normal culture where academic free speech and academic freedom are honored, these cancellations would not have occurred, but we are not in normal times. And demanding allegiance to DEI and to the rules set down by supercilious university diversocrats wrongly compels faculty to virtue signal their own moral compliance even if they disagree with or do not even care about it in the first place.

Moreover, like speech codes that have been struck down as unconstitutional for being overly broad and vague, policies that measure a faculty member’s commitment to racial equity are constructed and enforced in a way that is certain to chill speech; that is, when it is not enough to be merely not a racist and one is required to be anti-racist—to affirmatively fight for racial justice and equity—that expectation intrudes not only on a person’s First Amendment right to freely articulate his or her views, but also on the unenumerated right to privacy, as well, the right to be left alone and, among other things, not have to pledge support to a country, a government, or a university’s mission even if it purports to have a noble purpose in pursuit of a social good.

And junior faculty in the process of seeking tenure and building their careers should not be hobbled by their failure to adhere to diversity mandates, something outside of their disciplinary scholarship. The way senior faculty have recently suffered at the hands of the race-obsessed for thought crimes committed at various universities should provide ample warning of the type of reputational and professional damage that can be done when the woke mob punishes someone for questioning the current thinking on race.

Bret Weinstein, a white professor, for example, was punished and eventually even terminated at Evergreen College in 2017 for refusing to stay away from campus during the school’s “Day of Absence” an annual event during which Evergreen’s white students and faculty are urged not to come to campus in order to demonstrate black solidarity.

At Princeton University, self-inflicted racial guilt was so prevalent that the University’s president, Christopher L. Eisgruber, published a self-flagellating open letter in which he bemoaned the fact that “racist assumptions” are “embedded in structures of the University itself.” When Professor Joshua Katz made the mistake of questioning that alleged systemic racism and referring to Princeton’s activist Black Justice League as being “terrorists” due to their aggressive and radical activism in 2015 when they presented a list of demands and grievances, berated fellow students, and occupied university property, he was vilified on campus and recently fired.

Georgetown professor Ilya Shapiro, too, experienced the collective wrath and opprobrium of his own school when he tweeted comments criticizing Joe Biden’s pledge to nominate a black woman as the new Supreme Court justice. In a since-deleted tweet, Shapiro referred to that eventual nominee as a “lesser black woman,” which proved to be a most unfortunate choice of words. For that grave thought crime, Shapiro was excoriated by the Georgetown community and was driven to eventually resign.

Another faculty victim of the race woke mob was Charles Negy, an associate professor in the University of Central Florida’s Psychology Department. Negy’s thought-crime? “Black privilege is real,” Negy wrote in a now-deleted tweet. “Besides affirm. [sic] action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege. But as a group, they’re missing out on much-needed feedback.” For that heresy, Negy was vilified and terminated, although a court recently determined he should be reinstated.

In 2018, a similar racism frenzy erupted at the University of Pennsylvania when one of its law professors, Amy Wax, brought up one of the flaws critics see in affirmative action programs, something known as the “mismatch effect,” the result of black students gaining admission to law schools as a result of racial preferences so that their academic records and preparation are weaker than that of their non-black fellow students. Because they then must compete academically with students who are better prepared and whose educational background has equipped them for the rigors of law education, black students have chronically performed poorly when compared to their non-black peers.

The depressing reality is that professors are regularly censured and condemned for having views that contradict prevailing orthodoxies, even when they are discussing factually correct ideas, as was the case in the examples listed above, and not merely personal opinions.

The diversocrats on American campuses may recoil at the notion that their efforts to achieve racial equity have unintended, even harmful, consequences, but suppressing the speech of and punishing those who reveal some of the defects of an obsessive DEI campaign is a serious violation of academic freedom, not to mention indicative of the willful blindness of progressives who seem to care more about appearing virtuous than they do about contributing to actual constructive social change.

As demonstrated quite saliently by the experience of these professors (by in large senior professors who are protected by tenure), anyone who questions either the utility or even the moral, legal, and ethical justification by which these efforts are maintained can expect to be denounced as a racist—and especially now as the country is experiencing paroxysms of racial reckoning and atonement. To question the hypocrisy and fairness of affirmative action, for example, is to step on moral landmines.

In 1967, the University of Chicago produced what is referred to as the Kalven Report, which wisely advised against mobilizing an entire university to advance a certain ideological position, assuming that ideologies will change over time and university missions cannot and should not be absolute or inviolable. The report suggested that “a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom and inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures … and must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community.”

It also anticipated the current debate about race and the efforts to address it when it warned that the university “is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”

As many universities now seem comfortable with doing, the report cautioned against this type of effort. A university “cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy; if it takes collective action, therefore, it does so at the price of censuring any minority who do not agree with the view adopted [emphasis added].”

Combatting racism and helping to facilitate the participation of marginalized and underrepresented students in university life are noble, well-intentioned goals. But enforcing a culture of anti-racism as part of that effort, not to mention punishing and crippling the careers of faculty who fail to conform to woke doctrines about race, is both misguided and contrary to the tenets of academic freedom.

“ . . . [T]here emerges,” the report concluded, “a heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day, or modifying its corporate activities to foster social or political values, however compelling and appealing they may be.”


Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Jew-Hatred Rising: The Perversities of the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

From 'We are Hamas' to 'Death to Israel' – Same Old CAIR - Joe Kaufman


​ by Joe Kaufman

When Muslim advocacy translates to killing Jews.


According to Nihad Awad, co-founder and Executive Director of CAIR, the group was created with a goal to “combat anti-Muslim discrimination.” This, however, was merely a public face for CAIR meant to conceal its real mission: to assist in the annihilation of Israel. Nearly 30 years later, CAIR is still obsessed with ending the Jewish state. Last month, the group co-sponsored a rally in Fort Lauderdale that was billed as a way to honor deceased Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh, who was shot and killed while covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the event quickly devolved with calls for Israel’s destruction, displaying once again the true face of CAIR.

CAIR was launched, in June 1994, as a part of the Palestine Committee (in America) and under the guidance of then-global Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. The main national leaders of CAIR came to the group via the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was also a Palestine Committee member and which acted as a propaganda wing for Hamas. In 2007 and 2008, CAIR was named a party to the US federal trials against the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), another Palestine Committee member and a Hamas financier. CAIR used its websites to raise funds for HLF, and CAIR’s Texas chapter founder, Ghassan Elashi, was HLF Board Chairman.

Like CAIR-Texas, the Florida chapter of CAIR has not strayed far from CAIR’s anti-Israel and anti-Jewish fanaticism. In July 2014, CAIR-Florida co-sponsored a pro-Hamas rally in Downtown Miami, where rally goers repeatedly shouted, “We are Hamas” and “Let’s go Hamas.” After the rally, the event organizer, Sofian Zakkout, wrote in Arabic, “Thank God, every day, we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!” The following month, then-CAIR-Florida Executive Director Hassan Shibly tweeted, “God as my witness, Israel & its supporters are enemies of God and humanity…”

On May 15th, an anti-Israel demonstration was held in downtown Fort Lauderdale. Co-sponsors of the event included CAIR, Al-Awda, and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), groups that have an irrational fixation with Israel’s existence. The flyer for the rally features a large image of Shireen Abu Akleh, the Al Jazeera reporter who was recently shot and killed in Jenin, allegedly by IDF fire (though the PA has refused to hand over the bullet to Israel for forensic analysis). A known figure on Arab TV, Israel bashers have used Abu Akleh’s death as a vehicle to condemn Israel and even to call for Israel’s destruction. That appeared to be the case at the May event.

Video footage taken at the protest shows numerous participants adorned in Palestinian garb and flags. One girl, standing next to the protest leader, wore a shirt with an image of Palestinian female terrorist icon Leila Khaled clutching a rifle with the words “Resistance is not terrorism” under it. Khaled was a plane hijacker for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a US banned terrorist group. The protesters repeatedly chanted “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a Hamas and PFLP-inspired anthem calling for the complete elimination of Israel (through violent means) from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

The person filming the video was CAIR-Florida Communications Director Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, a Muslim convert from Puerto Rico. Ruiz is also legal advisor for the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA) and founded AMANA's Puerto Rico and Connecticut chapters. In July 2010, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned AMANA for promoting a "venomous" antisemitic video featuring white supremacist David Duke. AMANA’s founder/President, Sofian Zakkout, was recently thrown off the boards of two prominent anti-crime groups for supporting Hamas and al-Qaeda, promoting Holocaust denial, and labeling Jews "monkeys and pigs."

In April 2010, just three months prior to the ADL’s condemnation of AMANA, an article was published written by Ruiz vilifying the Jewish religion, titled Las fobias de mi vecino (translated “My neighbor’s phobias”). In it, Ruiz cites Justinas Pranaitis, a Lithuanian Catholic priest who was infamous for advancing a blood libel claim against Jews and who was stripped of his priesthood. In the piece, Ruiz further provides a link to, a website that contains Pranaitis’s antisemitic conspiracies and is produced by those alleging Jews are Satanic and perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

During the May 15th protest, more than three-quarters of the way through the video footage, Ruiz turned the camera abruptly toward the street and, after a brief pause, appeared to shout, in his thick Puerto Rican accent, “Death to Israel. Death to Israel.” No doubt, Ruiz, like the Islamist organizations he represents, possesses an extreme hatred for the Jewish state, regularly declaring his support for the bigoted BDS boycott movement and vindictively referring to Israel as “Apartheid Israel.”

The chants of “We are Hamas” and “Death to Israel,” at CAIR sponsored events, are proof that CAIR is still clinging to its Palestinian terrorist roots. CAIR may claim that it is a Muslim advocacy group that wishes to combat discrimination, but time after time, Israel – or more appropriately Israel’s annihilation – is what the organization cares most about. Fighting discrimination is just a veil to conceal CAIR’s sinister reality.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.


Joe Kaufmanis a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the Chairman of the Joe Kaufman Security Initiative. He was the 2014, 2016 and 2018 Republican Nominee for U.S. House of Representatives (Florida-CD23).


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The EU’s Jerusalem charm offensive - Melanie Phillips


​ by Melanie Phillips

Despite all the warm words in Jerusalem, there’s no sign that the longtime hostility towards Israel is about to ease.

(JNS) People dining this week on the charming terrace at Jerusalem’s King David Hotel were surprised to find at the next table Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission.

Given the E.U.’s long-standing hostility towards Israel, it was a bit like spotting Amber Heard knocking back the tequila with Johnny Depp in a Los Angeles bar.

That may be unfair to von der Leyen herself, who was described later that day by Israel’s prime minister, Naftali Bennett, as “a great friend of the Jewish people and a great friend of Israel.”

She had certainly come to Israel on a charm offensive. In a speech at Ben-Gurion University, where she was awarded an honorary degree, she said: “I have put the fight against anti-Semitism and fostering Jewish life in Europe at the core of the European Commission’s agenda. Our democracy flourishes if Jewish life in Europe flourishes, too. Throughout the centuries, the Jewish people have been ‘a light unto the nations.’ And they shall be a light unto Europe for many centuries ahead.”

So she pressed all the right buttons about the Jewish people. The real reason for her trip, however, was panic.

As a result of Russia’s war against Ukraine, the E.U. has boycotted Russian natural gas. This has left its energy supplies seriously depleted. Until the war, Russia was supplying some 40% of the gas that Europe consumes.

Now that Israel has emerged as a major player in the energy market, the E.U. is desperate to import Israeli gas to keep the lights on this coming winter. This week, it signed a deal that will see Israeli gas sent to Egypt, where it will be liquefied and from there shipped to Europe where it will be changed back to gas.

Von der Leyen also gushed over the planned pipeline from Israel to supply Eastern Mediterranean gas to Europe (a project from which the Biden administration has withdrawn American support). The E.U. is even siding with Israel in a row with Lebanon over Karish, Israel’s major northern offshore gas field, which Brussels agrees lies in Israeli rather than Lebanese territorial waters.

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen in the West Bank city of Ramallah, on June 14, 2022. Photo by Flash90.

Also paying a visit to Jerusalem this week was Italy’s Prime Minister Mario Draghi. He, too, was in search of alternative energy supplies to replace Russian gas. He, too, had honeyed words for the Jewish people.

Speaking at a Jerusalem synagogue, he said his government was “committed to strengthening the memory of the Holocaust and to fighting against discrimination of all kinds against Jews.”

So does this mean the E.U. is now changing its attitude to Israel? Until now, it has been hostile. It promotes the Palestinian Arab narrative that seeks to delegitimize Israel through lies about its “illegal” settlements and alleged Israel Defense Forces’ aggression; it funds NGOs devoted to harming and destroying Israel; in an aggressive move in 2015 against Israeli “occupation” of the disputed territories, it started to label products from the “West Bank.”

Despite all the warm words in Jerusalem, there’s no sign that this E.U. hostility is about to ease. For on the same day that von der Leyen was kissing up to Bennett, she stood alongside Palestinian "Prime Minister" Mohammad Shtayyeh in Ramallah and announced the transfer to the Palestinian Authority of some 214 million euros (about $224 million).

This money had previously been frozen because of the incitement against Israel in Palestinian Authority schoolbooks. Now it’s been unfrozen, even though the incitement remains.

Last week, the commission dismissed Israeli documentation showing that six Palestinian NGOs were acting on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine; it then resumed funding them.

So much for von der Leyen’s pledge to “put the fight against anti-Semitism at the core of the European Commission’s agenda.”

The Europeans are playing the double game so familiar in the West—pledging support for the Jewish people while empowering Israel’s mortal enemies. Now the global energy crisis is producing a further double game—supporting Israel when it supplies the Europeans with essentials while abandoning Israel in its defense against its existential foes.

This twin-track has long been the strategy of both Britain and America. They maintain deep ties with Israel over military and intelligence cooperation along with mutually beneficial trade links; but at the political level, they undermine Israel’s security and promote the Palestinian narrative of lies and distortion.

In part, Western leaders support the Palestinian Arabs through left-wing, “anti-colonialist” ideology and through ignorance. There’s also a significant measure of fundamental, institutionalized anti-Jewish prejudice.

But there’s also something even more twisted. The British and Europeans in particular resist acknowledging that anti-Semitism is the motor of Palestinian Arab aggression because of a neuralgic obsession arising from the collective guilt they feel about the Jews.

They refuse to acknowledge the protean nature of anti-Semitism throughout history, morphing from theological to racial to national, because their own culture was so deeply involved in this bigotry. They pay pious lip service to Jews murdered in the Holocaust. But in order to pretend that their own culture had nothing to do with how they died, they present Israeli Jews as a different breed altogether.

While the Jews murdered in the Shoah are depicted as passive and powerless, Israeli Jews are presented as militarily powerful. Because they have power, it is assumed they cannot be victims.

Since the Palestinian Arabs are viewed as powerless, it’s assumed, in turn, that they must be victims of the Israelis. Palestinian anti-Semitism must be denied because that would instead turn Israeli Jews into victims. That must be resisted.

For casting Israeli Jews instead as oppressors, thus erasing the unbroken line of anti-Semitism from antiquity to the Palestinians, gives the Europeans a free pass in their minds over the victimization of the Jews in the Holocaust in which they feel at some deep level complicit.

In this respect, another remark by von der Leyen was as revealing as it was jarring. “Europe and Israel are bound to be friends and allies,” she said, “because the history of Europe is the history of the Jewish people.”

This was an extraordinary thing to say. The history of the Jews in Europe is one of centuries of murderous persecution, mass conversions, hideous pogroms, and eventually, the Holocaust. Historically, Europe was the epicenter of anti-Semitism and was described by Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, as “the graveyard of the Jewish people.”

Yet von der Leyen implied instead that Europe had always been bound together in friendship with the Jewish people.

No less startling was that Bennett chose to agree with her. “You said Israel and Europe are bound to be friends and allies because the history of Europe is the history of the Jewish people. I could not agree more,” he said.

Was Bennett choosing to accept her revisionism in the interests of better relations with the E.U.? His eagerness for such a development is understandable. But no Jewish leader should ever connive at sanitizing Jewish persecution.

Was von der Leyen deliberately ignoring these unpleasant facts for the purposes of diplomacy? If so, that doesn’t inspire much confidence. If Europeans can’t acknowledge the crimes against the Jewish people in the past, they won’t be able to acknowledge the crimes being committed against them now or in the future.

The Europeans come and make nice with Israel’s government when they need what Israel has to offer them. They rely on Israel to do their dirty work for them in fighting off the Iranian regime.

But when it comes to acknowledging their obligation to defend and protect Israel against the enemies of the Jewish people and of civilization itself, we shouldn’t hold our breath.


Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for “The Times of London,” her personal and political memoir, Guardian Angel,” has been published by Bombardier, which also published her first novel, The Legacy.” Go to to access her work.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

When unions embrace Jew-hatred, it's time to disband them - Civis Americanus


​ by Civis Americanus

Six CUNY professors have sued PSC-CUNY for alleged anti-Semitic behavior. It's time to call the union-busters.

Unions serve their members, and society in general, when they advocate for fair wages and safe working conditions.  It's when they venture outside this traditional role into controversies like abortion; gun control; and boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) that it's time to think, "Who ya gonna call?

Unionbusters!"  There are in fact attorneys who specialize in decertification of unions.  I found this one via a Google search; his web page looks self-explanatory.  I also found the Labor Relations Institute, which has a page on how to decertify a union.  The Professional Staff Congress at City University of New York (CUNY) and the Seattle Education Association (SEA) are, among others, poster children for union-busters.

Six CUNY professors have sued PSC-CUNY for alleged anti-Semitic behavior — namely, support for the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.  PSC-CUNY admits that dozens of members have resigned, which is an easily foreseeable consequence of bringing a controversy like this under the roof of an organization whose mission relates solely to collective bargaining.  Numerous members complained, "Over the past five years, the PSC has addressed only one other foreign policy issue: a statement in support of China which opposed a U.S. policy of a 'Cold War' against China.  This despite China's well-documented human rights abuses."  Another professor complained, "I cannot financially support a union that is at odds with my security and that of my Jewish colleagues and students."

PSC-CUNY: Shill for Hamas and Communist China

PSC-CUNY plays the race card to shill for Communist China's murderous regime under color of protecting Chinese-Americans who probably immigrated to get away from the regime in question.  "[I]t is our duty to join in solidarity with Chinese fellow-workers, educators and scholars to oppose US military spending for a Cold War in China, which leads to further racism at home[.]"  Woke pigeon chess is when the pigeon knocks over the pieces, calls its opponent a racist, and says it has won.  On another note, PSC-CUNY, as you claim to have such deep concern for people of Chinese ethnicity, what do you have to say about the human rights of Hong Kong Chinese and Taiwanese?  No?  I thought not.

My position is that any person or organization that supports BDS is a stooge, dupe, or enabler for Hamas even if the person or organization does not condone Hamas's violent behavior.  I refer to them as the Hamas-American Bund.  Hamas's charter calls openly for genocide of Jews: "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"  The same charter calls for apartheid treatment (dhimmitude) of Christians, and "Palestine civil society" also engages in often-violent discrimination against peaceful Muslims, women, and LGBT people.  If PSC-CUNY is going to serve as an enabler of or apologist for Hamas and also the Communist Chinese regime, it should be treated with the same revulsion we accorded the German-American Bund in the early 1940s.

The question is therefore as to what nonviolent and lawful means are available with which to dismantle PSC-CUNY, SEA, and similar BDS-supporting unions.  While complaints to the Internal Revenue Service for ultra vires (outside the organization's charter and scope) activities have been tried for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entities like the American Studies Association, and also 501(c)(5) unions similar to PSC-CUNY, I have yet to see a tax exemption revoked on these grounds.  Even though the IRS says, "An organization must pursue the exempt activities it promised in its IRS application for exemption," its Exempt Organizations Division is shorthanded, and ultra vires is clearly not its top priority.

The most effective way to take down a 501(c)(3) organization is, on the other hand, a Form 13909 complaint for "involved in a political campaign" because this apparently goes to the top of the IRS's list.  The Political Activity Compliance Initiative (PACI) appears to fast-track these complaints; numerous 501(c)(3)s, such as the Church at Pierce Creek, have had their tax exemptions revoked for political involvement.  Black Lives Matter Global Networks, whose founder denied the right of Israel to exist, and which campaigned openly against President Trump in 2020 before it established a political action committee, no longer claims, for whatever reason, to be able to accept tax-deductible contributions.  The group was still listed as 501(c)(3) on the IRS's website when I last checked, but the group no longer claims to be tax-exempt.

Citizens United Protects 501(c)(5) Unions

PSC-CUNY's website also attempted to influence the 2020 presidential election, which would have once been a violation but is now acceptable due to the Citizens United decision.  "[O]ur country cannot survive another four years of a racist and deceitful Trump Administration.  We need an undeniable election in favor of the Biden/Harris ticket to get Trump out of the White House" would be cause for the rapid revocation of a 501(c)(3)'s tax exemption, and similarly explicit content on BLM's website, such as comparison of Trump to a Nazi with a neck tattoo, will hopefully get BLM's exemption pulled.  The issue is not what anybody thinks of Donald Trump, because comparison of Joe Biden to a house plant also would probably violate the Johnson Amendment if done prior to an election, so conservative 501(c)(3)s need to steer clear of this sort of thing as well.

This does not mean, however, that PSC-CUNY's political involvement cannot be used as a wedge to turn members against the union, encourage them to undermine the union at every possible opportunity, and call for decertification.  A lot of members clearly do not like BDS, and some have sued the union as a result.  PSC-CUNY's Facebook page also advocates gun control, which probably goes over well in New York City.  Support for abortion is, on the other hand, likely to be very offensive to PSC-CUNY's Catholic and other pro-life members.  Catholics and other pro-life people have every right to take exception to a collective bargaining organization that supports abortion regardless of what you, I, or anybody else thinks about the issue in question.

Treat PSC-CUNY and SEA as the Enemy

The German-American Bund shilled for the odious Nazi regime during the 1930s, and now we have Russian trolls who shill for Vladimir Putin on social media.  Not only do PSC-CUNY and the Seattle Education Association support BDS, but PSC-CUNY also seems to be an enabler for Communist China.  If this organization has been hijacked by political ideologues who use it as a vehicle for their own agendas, as opposed to its actual mission of collective bargaining, the proper course of action is to dismantle it with whatever nonviolent and lawful means are at hand.  If PSC-CUNY's members see a need for union representation afterward, they can create new unions whose rules forbid absolutely any activity unrelated to collective bargaining.

In the meantime, employees are in fact free to refuse to pay any portion of union dues unrelated to collective bargaining.  "Known as objectors, they are no longer union members, but are still protected by the contract."

Image via Max Pixel.


Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way.  The author is remaining anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to "cancel culture" for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter