Saturday, October 31, 2015

Academic Freedom Opposed by "Who"? - Douglas Murray



by Douglas Murray

Do students in any British or  American university have to be held responsible for the actions of the  British or American armed forces in Northern Ireland or Iraq? Would we  not think it the grossest ignorance, not to mention bad manners, to  think they should be?

It is that time of year again. News arrives of 343 "university teachers" who signed a letter pledging that henceforth they will not cooperate with Israeli academic institutions. Their joint letter took up a full page today in Britain's left-wing Guardian newspaper (where else?) and has caused almost no stir in Britain. It comes days after a letter signed by 150 leading British writers, musicians and others -- including JK Rowling, Simon Schama and Hilary Mantel -- opposed any and all such boycotts against Israel, and pointed out that in the eyes of most people, intellectual and cultural exchange is a good thing.


JK Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, is one of 150 leading British writers, musicians and others who have signed a public letter opposing boycotts of Israel. (Image source: White House video screenshot)

The anti-boycott letter was signed by some of Britain's leading intellectuals. The main response to the pro-boycott letter, however, may well be, "Who?" Who knew, for instance, that Israel -- or any state -- would be diminished if it could not gain from the wisdom of Professor Alex Callinicos, one of Britain's most obscure Marxist academics? He is the author of numerous interminable tracts; his efforts to bring his thoughts into mainstream politics reached their summit during his involvement with the Socialist Worker's Party, an entity too extreme even for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party. As almost nobody in Britain wants Prof. Callinicos's thoughts, why would anybody in Israel be begging for them?

Or consider another figure on the letter, one Professor Jane Hardy who teaches at the University of Hertfordshire. It would come as a great surprise to most people in Britain -- and possibly to many people in Hertfordshire -- that such an institution exists. But a quick internet search reveals that it does, and that until 1992 it was known as "Hatfield Polytechnic." So what are the students in Israel unilaterally going to lose the right to know, thanks to the stance taken by Professor Hardy? Well, her own profile page says, "My research and publications on regional development, and the gender and class impacts of change have been underpinned by a concern with the lives of ordinary people and how they have contested neoliberalism." One tries to be polite, of course, but it is worth pointing out that this kind of "study" has never been helpful in finding a place in the job-market for British students (apart, possibly, in furthering their studies in low-grade academia). Why the withdrawal of Prof. Hardy's research on regional development, gender and class in a Hertfordshire context should be such a loss to students in Israel, one is at a loss to guess.

Others on the list comprise a list of the even more obscure and unknown. Perhaps their families know who some of them are? The majority are from Britain's second or third tier universities, former polytechnics misguidedly rebranded as universities, which have lowered the coinage of universities as a whole. Of course, there is, as usual, the requisite smattering of Jewish names, brought to the fore by the petition's organizers in an attempt to cover over the latent bigotry and racism of their letter. But what a chorus of presumption and self-importance is there.

Just consider the reasoning behind the letter and you will see that it shows the tragically low bar now needed in Britain to qualify as an academic.

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, for instance, speaking for the organizers of the boycott letter, says, "Israel universities are at the heart of Israel's violations of international law and oppression of the Palestinian people." Is that really true? Take one of the hardest measures that the Israeli state has ever had to carry out against those who carry out suicide terrorism against its people: home demolition (in which the home of a terrorist is destroyed after the case has gone through the courts, because it is hard to find many ways to dissuade someone from doing something if they are willing to die in the process: but what happens to their family home afterwards can provide a disincentive). Does anybody know how Prof. Rosenhead has come to the belief that home demolition of suicide bombers is work carried out by the universities of Israel? Ordinarily it would be the IDF or other security forces that would carry out such regrettable work. Does Prof. Rosenhead really have evidence that it is in fact Israeli academics who are sent to carry out such an order? It seems vanishingly unlikely. And even if one academic somewhere in Israel had been involved, why should that affect somebody studying literature at a university in Tel Aviv? Do students in any British or American university have to be held responsible for the actions of the British or American armed forces in Northern Ireland or Iraq? Would we not think it the grossest ignorance, not to mention bad manners, to think they should be?

Prof. Rosenhead's view of what ordinary academics are up against appears to be skewed at home as well as abroad. At the launch of his racist petition he announced, "These signatures were all collected despite the pressures that can be put on people not to criticise the state of Israel." I do not know where he thinks such pressure comes from. To my eye the only people who exert any pressure not to sign boycott letters are a couple of small Zionist organisations in the UK. It is hard to believe that this comprises a force that is feared by these brave signatories unless the idea that the organizers are in fact playing into is that there is always some price to pay for standing up to "Jewish interests" and "Jewish power." Racism like that has not been heard in Britain for many decades. How unpleasant to hear it bubbling up again from the obscurest backwaters of academia.


Douglas Murray

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6784/academic-freedom-opposed

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

AIPAC’s Devastating Decision - Caroline Glick



by Caroline Glick

The pro-Israel advocacy group's disturbing turn promoting anti-Israel politicians.


Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

Democratic Senator Chris Coons from Delaware betrayed his backers and his voters when at the end of the summer, as the Senate returned from recess, he announced that he was supporting President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.

Coons announced his decision in an address at the University of Delaware. There Coons acknowledged that the deal was terrible for America. He detailed all the ways the deal harms US national security and places US allies, including Israel at grave risk.

"Frankly, this is not the agreement I hoped for," Coons began.

"I am troubled," he explained, "that the parties to this agreement – particularly Iran – have differing interpretations of key terms, and I remain deeply concerned about our ability to hold Iran to the terms of this agreement as we understand them.

Coons continued, "Under this agreement, Iran retains a civilian nuclear enrichment program that grows steadily in scope and the hardened underground nuclear facility at Fordow continues to exist filled with centrifuges which, while sidelined from enrichment for fifteen years, are not permanently shelved.

"Once Iran verifiably meets its obligations," he went on, "it will gain access to tens of billions of dollars in Iranian assets frozen by our sanctions. We should expect that Iran will use some of those funds to support and arm its proxies in the region - terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah that threaten and attack Israel, or to support the murderous regime of Assad in Syria and the Houthis in Yemen. Five years after the agreement, the UN’s embargo on conventional arms shipments to Iran will end, and eight years after the agreement, the UN embargo on ballistic missile technology will end."

In an interview with the Washington Post, Coons admitted that by supporting the deal, he was betraying his supporters and friends. Coons recounted to the paper how after holding a meeting with the Wilmington Jewish community, "a friend of more than 20 years told him to never speak to him again if he voted for a deal the friend believed would put Israel in grave danger because of the potential of an Iranian nuclear weapon."

Coons explained to the reporter, "This is, for them, a matter of life and death. That's not light, that's not easy."

But at the end of the day, he didn't care. Coons spit at his friend and his supporters and announced he would vote for the deal.

Coons' announcement of support for Obama's nuclear deal was a turning point in the fight to kill the deal in Congress by securing enough Senate Democrats to oppose it. With "pro-Israel" Coons' support in hand, the administration shifted its efforts from securing enough votes to uphold a presidential veto of a Congressional vote to oppose his Iran deal to securing enough senate votes to prevent a vote from even taking place.

During the battle against the deal and in the aftermath of Obama's victory among Senate Democrats, many commentators assumed that the reason Obama was able to convince lawmakers like Coons to vote against their better judgment, against US national security interests, and against their constituents' wishes was because Obama could make them a better offer of future support than AIPAC could.

It was argued at the time that Coons and his ostensibly pro-Israel colleagues like New Jersey senator Cory Booker, could afford to lose AIPAC. The anti-Israel financial backers emblematically represented by financier George Soros and his brainchild J Street, who have become the strongest forces in Obama's Democratic Party, would pick up the slack.

As it works out, Soros won't be needing to ante up. According to a report by Bloomberg reporter Eli Lake, AIPAC has decided to let bygones be bygones.

According to Lake's report, earlier this month AIPAC featured Coons at a luncheon in New York for its members from the real estate industry. As Lake explained, although the event was not a fundraiser, "Luncheons like those Coons attended…are one of the perks for pro-Israel lawmakers. The AIPAC members who attend these affairs have deep pockets and often contribute to both parties."

Sean Coit, a Coons spokesman told Lake, "I think even those who disagree with his decision on the nuclear agreement recognize that he remains a strong friend of Israel and the pro-Israel community."

Well, he's a strong friend of Israel if you consider someone to be a friend of Israel who supports a deal that his pro-Israel friends consider to be an existential threat to Israel.

In other words, he's a friend of Israel if being pro-Israel means being anti-Israel.

Democrats in general are overjoyed with AIPAC's decision to host a politician who openly admits he sold Israel down the river.

For instance, Democratic political operative and former Clinton White House staffer Steve Rabinowitz told Lake, "We're all waiting to see what the dynamics are going to be since the Iran deal vote and where AIPAC, congressional Republicans and the Israeli foreign ministry are each going to come down. I think this is great sign from AIPAC."

A great sign, indeed.

The truth is that AIPAC is in a miserable position. As Lake acknowledged, the group, which has rightly worked to secure and cultivate bipartisan support for Israel has been railroaded for six and a half years by the Obama administration. The White House has worked relentlessly to make Israel a partisan issue and has repeatedly hung AIPAC out to dry and undercut it at every turn.

And the damage has taken its toll. AIPAC and its supporters have far less influence among Democratic lawmakers than they did when Obama entered office.

AIPAC's decision to provide a platform for Coons to meet potential donors shows that at this dangerous crossroads, AIPAC is exercising bad judgment.

Obama will be gone in a year and three months. The question now before AIPAC and Americans in general is whether Obama's anti-Israel supporters will hold sway in the Democratic Party in the coming years or whether the post-Obama Democratic party will abandon his anti-Israel positions and return to its former support for the Jewish state.

By hosting Coons, AIPAC is helping Obama transform Israel into a partisan issue. If AIPAC wants Democrats to support Israel they should seek out and support Democratic candidates who will support Israel – even when the chips are down. Among incumbent Democrats, they should limit their support to those who opposed the Iran deal.

What message are Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer, Ben Cardin, Joe Manchin and Robert Menendez, who endangered their standing in their party by opposing Obama's Iran deal to take from AIPAC's embrace of Coons?

The obvious message to them is that they were stupid to stick their necks out. If AIPAC is no longer willing to limit its support to Democrats who actually support Israel then it is no longer a pro-Israel organization in any real sense. Rather, it is a partisan organization that will support Democrats regardless of their position on Israel.

And what message does AIPAC's decision to feature Coons at its luncheon for high rollers send to Republicans?

Had Republican Senator Rand Paul supported Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, he would have been vilified as an anti-Semite by his political opponents. AIPAC no doubt would have lavished support on his Democratic opponent if he or she were willing to utter a few pro-Israel platitudes.

In other words, AIPAC is saying that it exercises a double standards. Whereas the pro-Israel lobby expects Republican lawmakers to support Israel, it supports Democratic lawmakers who oppose Israel.

And, if AIPAC abandons its expectations of Republicans, as its event for Coons indicates it has for Democrats, and supports anti-Israel politicians regardless of their partisan pedigree, then AIPAC will cease to function as a pro-Israel organization at all.

Clearly AIPAC is struggling to get its arms around its loss. The $20 million its Super Pac Citizens for a Nuclear-Free Iran spent to scuttle the deal managed to secure the votes of just four Democratic senators. Today it faces the dismal reality in which Democratic lawmakers believe the upside of voting with their convictions, the will of their voters and America's national security interests is smaller than the downside of voting against Obama and his Democratic party.

But surrendering to Obama is not the answer. If AIPAC wants to remain relevant, (or reinstate its relevance) in Washington, it needs to follow a simple rule. It must support those who support Israel and oppose those who oppose Israel.

Chris Coons voted for a deal that constitutes a mortal threat to Israel and to the US-Israel alliance. He is not a supporter of Israel. And neither are his 41 Democratic senate colleagues who supported the deal.

But lots of other Democrats do support Israel. It is AIPAC's job to find them, support them and stand by them. This is must do first and foremost by exacting a price from those who failed to stand up and be counted last summer when the chips were down. 


Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit carolineglick.com.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260597/aipacs-devastating-decision-caroline-glick

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Fox News: Russia flying Iranian weapons shipments into Syria, sources say - Jennifer Griffin



by Jennifer Griffin

The flights are not registered, and are in breach of two United Nations Security Council resolutions which impose an arms embargo on Iran.





Russia has helped Iran deliver weapons into Syria twice a day over the past 10 days, western intelligence sources tell Fox News.

Those sources say Russian cargo planes transported the weapons. The planes were spotted earlier this month on the tarmac at the Russian air base in Latakia, Syria's primary port city.

The flights are not registered, and are in breach of two United Nations Security Council resolutions which impose an arms embargo on Iran.

Fox News is told the increased Russian transport of Iranian weapons is being coordinated by Qassem Soulimeini, the head of the Iranian Al-Quds force, as well as President Vladimir Putin and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. An Iranian civilian airline, Mahan Air, is flying military personnel into Syria several times each day from Tehran to Latakia.

Tehran's support has been crucial to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's survival. Besides significant financial aid to Assad, Iran has acknowledged that its Revolutionary Guard officers are on the ground in Syria in an advisory role. There have been multiple Iranian officers and soldiers killed in fighting in Syria, though Tehran denies the presence of actual combat troops in the country.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Jennifer Griffin currently serves as a national security correspondent for FOX News Channel . She joined FNC in October 1999 as a Jerusalem-based correspondent. 

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/29/exclusive-russia-flying-iranian-weapons-shipments-into-syria-sources-say/?intcmp=hpbt2

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.