The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
Welcome to the CBC's twisted world of woke racism.
Canada is an interesting place from a US politics perspective. In
terms of left-wing authoritarianism, it’s always been about 2-to-5 years
ahead of us Americans. As Rebel News-founder Ezra Levant told
the US Congress once: “America should care about Canada because what
happens in [] Canada soon comes—or tries to come—to the U.S… we’re a
laboratory for bad ideas.”
For this reason, I like checking in on Canada’s state news
broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I don’t think the US
will be getting officially government-sanctioned news any time soon—the
CBC was created in the 30s to counter US-dominance of the country’s
airwaves, so they’re in a special position. But Canada’s official outlet
is fascinating because it has a special mandate to provide news and
commentary to the taxpaying public (who shell out over US$1 billion per
year for it) and yet it’s a hyper-elite institution that speaks only to a
small part of the country.
Unsurprisingly then, it’s absolutely loathed by Canadian
conservatives. When political scientist Eric Kaufmann commissioned a
poll in Canada attempting to understand what the left and right most
widely disagree on, he found it was ethnic diversity, Handmaid’s Tale-author Margaret Atwood, and the CBC.
In a recent check-up of mine, I found “a story”
apparently deemed newsworthy by CBC editors involving some fool in the
Toronto suburbs who thought it a good idea to put up stickers saying
things like “It’s OK to be white” on a light post. Such an act ‘promoted
white nationalism’, according to the CBC’s headline, and supposedly
necessitated an interview with the local hate-crimes police unit—Canada
does have criminal laws against ‘inciting or willfully promoting
hatred’, although this “offense” doesn’t even come close.
Without a doubt, the “it’s OK…” meme finds resonance with combat-booted, shorn-headed types, but come on,
I thought; it’s clearly a troll-ish bit of social satire drenched in
irony. Purveyors of genuine “white nationalism” in Canada, just like
here, are treated worse than pederasts. This, I thought, is surely not that.
One good thing about having a government agency produce the news for
its subjects is that, in order to create the pretense of
accountability, it has to have things like an Ombudsman’s office. So, I
reached out to the CBC Ombudsman and put to him—a white boomer—that
labelling the sticker as ‘racist-promoting material’ didn’t quite seem
like proportionate word-choice, and that the whole thing veered very
close to alarmist sensationalism.
In his reply, instead of humbly and perfunctorily responding with
something along the lines of, ‘yes, it’s possible reporters may
overstate things from time to time’, I received a 1,300-word tirade
decrying literal Nazism. Again, this is an official spokesman for
Canada’s state media behemoth.
Before digging into the CBC’s response in detail, I should note that
I’ve been interested in memes and slogans for years and “It’s OK to be
white” (IOTBW), while not my cup of tea, is clearly brilliant on both
fronts. Just like “Black Lives Matter”, it’s facially self-evident and
rests on an unarguable premise that simply stumps the listener. When
phrased as a question, for instance, both slogans instinctually draw out
the same affirmative response. It’s why, I suppose, whenever it shows
up somewhere, it incurs an immediate and severe meltdown among woke
authoritarians. This is exactly what happened here.
In my complaint, I cited a section
of the CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices which requires that
its reporters make “vocabulary choices… consistent with equal rights”
regardless of race, etc. I also cited another section requiring them to
avoid language “that could feed prejudice or expose people to hatred or
contempt.” Clearly setting out a different set of standards for whites
(would they write up a story about “It’s OK to be Asian” or black
stickers, I asked?) doesn’t seem to be reconcilable with this principle.
For one, he said, I was wrong to treat the races the same. As he
informed, “[t]here’s no history of South Asian communities, Black
communities, Indigenous communities, etc., oppressing and exploiting the
white majority in this country through systemic racism, or advocating
the adoption of discriminatory public policies against the white
majority.” In other words, expressing pro-in-group sentiments for
minorities is fine. For the historic majority? Absolutely not. Y’know,
‘cause of history and stuff.
Such a response was as white-guilt-ridden as it was patronizing to
minorities. Regarding the latter, it was if to say: ‘we’re above lowly
parochialism, but not you guys!’
Then came the first N-bomb. As he stated, while his employer does
indeed take its commitment to equal rights most seriously, they also
have a “responsibility to report on the sudden appearance of racist
propaganda in Canadian neighbourhoods”, including “posters promoting
white nationalism” and… “neo-Nazism ideology.” So, to my original
complaint about alarmist language vis-à-vis a dumb slogan, I received…
alarmist word-choice.
IOTBW clearly is a reaction against something and finds resonance
among some people for a reason. I do not deny this includes, to
paraphrase him elsewhere, ‘malevolent bigots’, but it’s likely also
deployed by regular people as simply a bit of provocation; people of any
background who feel the current social tenor of things
(statue-toppling, ‘anti-whiteness’-training at work, intersectionality
in our elementary schools, etc.) definitely needs a bit of skewering.
And labelling those who are against white-shaming or anti-white animus as “white nationalist”, supremacists, Nazis, etc., is, in my mind, precisely something that ‘feeds prejudice or exposes people to hatred or contempt.’
In my reply, in fact, I put it to him whether it was actually possible to assert IOTBW sans Hitlerian baggage. Tellingly, he dodged the question.
Also interesting, although I didn’t even bring this up, I was
informed that ‘Black Lives Matter’ differs from ‘All Lives Matter’ and
‘White Lives Matter’ because the former “commonly describes an
anti-violence movement attempting to end all structural racism” and was
founded on “horrific misery.” The latter, however, “conveys the ideology
of white supremacists and neo-Nazis.”
While I do appreciate that words have connotations that go beyond
their literal meaning, by “commonly” here, he really means what’s the
common view held at the CBC HQ and within the other elite media circles
he occupies. I’m certain there is a wide cross-section of people who
believe ALM
and even WLM is just as permissible as BLM (or, conversely, that none
are, considering slogans should never replace actual discussion when it
comes to racial issues).
I wouldn’t be as irritated with some of these commonly heard, but
logic-free, positions if liberals applied them evenly. But they don’t.
When I put it to the Ombudsman that Black Lives Matter is just as
vulnerable to guilt-by-association claims as IOTBW is (supplying him
with numerous examples of BLM activists’ racist crimes and anti-white vitriol),
the spirit of scrutiny suddenly awoke in him and I was told “it’s
problematic to characterize the philosophy of an entire group based
solely on the commentary and/or behavior of a few individuals.” I do
agree! Finally, common ground!
George Rojas is a lawyer and contributor to American Thinker and New English Review.
It is so much easier to steal an election when you don’t have to bother to verify or validate photos, signatures, and other voter-specific information against registered voter rolls.
Democrats
and their fellow oligarchs in Corporate America demand a
bachelor's degree before granting an interview for any worthwhile job.
We live in a hyper-credentialed society. Little girls need a government-granted license to sell lemonade
at their sidewalk stands. One must provide a valid photo I.D. and be
vetted by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS)—and possibly be subject to a several-day waiting period — to
purchase a firearm. One must present a current, valid photo I.D. to cash
a check, or buy a loaf of bread, a six-pack of beer, or pack of smokes
at a grocery store. Want to board a plane? I.D. please. And probably soon, a vaccine I.D.
But
one should never have to be troubled to identify oneself to vote for
the most powerful person on earth, say Democrats. That would be racist!
So
what if presidents have the ability to start wars, drone people dead,
and significantly affect every nation’s economy? So what if they
effectively pick winners and losers by their actions? What’s the big
deal if they increasingly attempt to strip citizens of their God-given
liberties through “Executive Orders,” fiats, diktats and decrees? We
mustn’t ask people to show an I.D. in order to vote for them! That would
be, well, rude. And racist! Because all good
progressives know that Black folks and peoples of color (POC) in general
are incapable of obtaining-- and holding on to-- an I.D. I mean, even
if they do have one, they probably don’t know where it is, right? Could
be under the couch pillows or car seat, behind the toilet bowl, or in an
old coat pocket, right?
This
is all bass-ackwards… and I'm sick of it. Democrats use the system to
take power and wealth whenever and however they can get it…and then pull
up the ladder, to hell with everyone else. They aspire to keep
African-Americans on their government-run plantation and make certain
the little guy, entrepreneur, small businesswoman, and political
opponent have no chance whatsoever to seriously interfere with their
dominance. Which is precisely why they say the only time people
shouldn’t have to identify themselves is when they are voting. It is so
much easier to steal an election when you don’t have to bother to
verify or validate photos, signatures, and other voter-specific
information against registered voter rolls.
Democrats bellow: “How dare some Republicans call for voter integrity laws! Integrity? Integrity is racist!
We’ll sic our corporate sponsors on you and you’ll be sorry! We’ll
cancel any person, state or entity that dares to oppose us! And we have six ways from Sunday to destroy you.”
Democrats
are against walls, except when they are protecting their own property.
They denounce those who eschew facial masks during this “pandemic,” yet
take their own masks off the moment the camera is no longer trained on
them. They decry gun ownership, but typically have hired — and armed --
security to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property.
They are against school choice and vouchers, but almost unanimously send
their own offspring to private schools. Conservatives are demonstrably
and inarguably not guilty of “systemic” racism, intolerance and bigotry.
Quite the opposite. The Democrat party, however, was, and is.
Originally against Blacks and now against conservatives — and anyone
else who doesn’t toe the party line and revel in their infinite
wokeness. And then it has the unmitigated gall to say of any completely
fabricated “right-wing” transgression: “This isn’t who we are.”
It isn’t who we are. Unfortunately, we can’t say the same about left-wing actions and intolerance, because it is who we are at the moment, due to the hyper-tolerance, fecklessness, and timidity of those on the right.
In
America’s bicentennial year of 1976, a movie called “Network” was
released, in which a mentally unstable anchorman named Howard Beale
informed his viewers that he was “as mad as hell” and “wasn’t going to
take this anymore.”
It
is long past time that conservatives say the same. And act on that
conviction. If they don’t, there will not be a tricentennial.
"No one expected the controversy to escalate to a point where the king would order the army and the mukhabarat to raid Prince Hamzah’s palace and place him under house arrest."
A protester holds a poster of Jordan's King
Abdullah as he takes part in a human chain during a sit-in against the
annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel, in Amman, Jordan, June
27, 2020.
(photo credit: REUTERS/MUHAMMAD HAMED)
Was Jordan’s former Crown Prince Hamzah bin Hussein placed under house
arrest on trumped-up charges because of a personal dispute with his
half-brother King Abdullah, or was he indeed plotting to stage a coup
with the backing of foreign parties?
Many Jordanians
were still grappling for answers on Sunday in the aftermath of reports
that Jordanian security forces foiled an attempt by Hamzah and some of
his associates to topple the regime of King Abdullah.
Several
Jordanians expressed disappointment with their government for not
sharing enough information about the security crackdown. “We have to
rely on the foreign media to learn about events in Jordan,” complained
Amman-based journalist Ahmed Suleiman.
The
official media in Jordan has stopped short of calling the dramatic
developments in the kingdom an attempted coup. Instead, the media and
government officials continued to talk about the thwarting of a plot to
“undermine Jordan’s security.”
The
crisis will not have any impact on the kingdom’s relations with Israel,
a former Jordanian government official told The Jerusalem Post.
“This
is an internal Jordanian affair that has nothing to do with Israel,”
the official said. He confirmed that senior Jordanian security officials
contacted their Israeli counterparts over the weekend to assure them
that the situation in Jordan was “stable and under control.”
The official denied rumors that the crackdown on Hamzah and his friends was the result of a tip-off by Israel and the US.
People
around Hamzah communicated with entities calling themselves “external
opposition,” Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said Sunday. He did
not provide details about the “external opposition.”
Sixteen
Jordanians have been detained in connection with the case, including
Bassem Awadallah, a former head of the royal court, and Sharif bin Zaid,
a member of the royal family, Safadi said. He accused the detainees of
planning to “undermine the security” of Jordan.
Safadi
accused Hamzah of sending out a video message on Saturday night as part
of an attempt to “distort the facts and gain local and foreign
sympathy.”
A person with
links to “foreign intelligence agencies” contacted Hamzah’s wife and
offered to send a plane to help her and her family leave the country, he
added, without elaborating.
Jordanian officials, meanwhile, expressed satisfaction with the support the king has received from many countries.
Abdullah
received phone calls on Sunday from the kings of Morocco and Bahrain
and the emirs of Qatar and Kuwait, who expressed their countries’ “full
solidarity” with Jordan.
The
leaders also voiced support for all measures and decisions taken by
Abdullah to safeguard Jordan’s security and stability, the Jordanian
news agency Petra reported.
Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf Cooperation
Council also voiced full support for Abdullah in maintaining security
and stability in Jordan.
The dispute between King Abdullah and Hamzah has been an open secret in many circles in Amman over the past few years.
“This
is a personal dispute between the son of an English queen and the son
of an American queen,” said a Jordanian political analyst. “It’s just a
normal dispute between the king and his half-brother. But no one
expected the controversy to escalate to a point where the king would
order the army and the Mukhabarat [General Intelligence Directorate] to
raid Prince Hamzah’s palace and place him under house arrest.”
King Abdullah’s
mother is Princess Muna al-Hussein, the second wife of the late King
Hussein. She is British by birth, born Toni Avril Gardner in
Chelmondiston, Suffolk. She married King Hussein in 1961. The couple
divorced 10 years later.
Hamzah’s
mother is American-born Queen Noor. Born Lisa Najeeb Halaby to a
Syrian-American family, she was the fourth wife of King Hussein.
After the death of King Hussein in 1999, Abdullah became king, and Hamzah became crown prince.
In
2004, Hamzah was stripped of his status as heir designate. Five years
later, Abdullah named his eldest son, Hussein, as crown prince.
In
a letter to Hamzah informing him of the decision to remove him from his
post, Abdullah wrote: “Your holding this symbolic position has
restrained your freedom and hindered our entrusting you with certain
responsibilities that you are fully qualified to undertake.”
Despite
the affectionate letter, the removal of Hamzah from his status as crown
prince marked the beginning of a bitter dispute with Abdullah.
Since
then, Hamzah and Queen Noor have criticized Abdullah and accused him of
betraying his father’s wish that Hamzah become the future king of
Jordan.
King Hussein used to refer to Hamzah as “the delight of my eye.”
On
the instructions of Abdullah, the Jordanian security authorities have
kept a close watch on Hamzah over the past few years. Hamzah’s meetings
with tribal leaders, politicians and businessmen aroused suspicions in
the royal palace that the estranged prince was up to no good.
According
to conspiracy theories on Arab social media, some of Hamzah’s close
friends were directly linked to the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman.
Hamzah’s supporters, however, have vehemently denied the allegation that he was plotting to overthrow the regime.
Many
of them took to social media to voice their support for Hamzah, arguing
that he was the victim of a smear campaign waged by the king and his
son, Crown Prince Hussein, to silence critics and cover up for rampant
corruption in the kingdom. Some described Hamzah as the “prince of
hearts” and called on the king to stop harassing him.
On
her Twitter account, Queen Noor wrote in the first comment on the news
of her son’s house arrest: “Praying that truth and justice will prevail
for all the innocent victims of this wicked slander. God bless and keep
them safe.”
Most Israelis would gladly change the status quo by reaching an agreement with the Palestinians, but an agreement that would guarantee a different outcome than the one demanded by the Palestinians and their supporters.
Voting in the Israeli-Arab town of Jaffa (Noam Moskovich / CC BY-SA 2.0)
Institute for Contemporary Affairs
Founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation
No. 641 April 4, 2021
Decision-makers and opinion-shapers around the world argue that if
Israel refuses to accept a two-state solution according to the version
promoted by the Palestinians and their supporters, it will have to
choose between being Jewish and being democratic. It would inevitably
have to either integrate the Palestinian population as part of a
one-state solution and thus lose its Jewish majority and Jewish identity
or, alternatively, deprive Palestinians of full citizenship and full
rights and then lose its democratic nature.
This theory assumes that the relevant areas Israel took under its
control in 1967 are “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” This supposition
is based on a plethora of annual, legally flawed, politically-generated,
non-binding UN resolutions.
Most Israelis consider these warnings about the inevitable need to
choose between being Jewish or being democratic and the urgent messages
to Israel “to save itself” as misguided, dangerous, patronizing,
condescending, and undemocratic, as well as indicative of gross
ignorance of the situation in Israel and disregard for the rights of the
Jewish people.
Most Israelis would gladly change the status quo by reaching an
agreement with the Palestinians, but an agreement that would guarantee a
different outcome than the one demanded by the Palestinians and their
supporters. The people of Israel insist on an agreement that includes
Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish
people, as well as addressing Israel’s security concerns.
Most of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza already live
under Palestinian rule, and no one intends to dismantle the two entities
that govern them. In these areas, the PA and Hamas, respectively, make
all the political decisions, carry out elections at their own will,
issue their own laws, and care for the needs of the population.
The entire thesis of the need to transfer Judea and Samaria and
eastern Jerusalem to Palestinian control to protect Israel from losing
its Jewish or democratic identity ignores not only Israel’s justified
security needs but also the historical and legal rights and aspirations
that stand at the core of Zionism.
In his first interview as Secretary of State, Antony Blinken told Wolf Blitzer on CNN
on February 8, 2021, that President Biden strongly supports the
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since “it is the
only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, and
the only way to give the Palestinians a state to which they’re
entitled.”1
This mantra is repeatedly articulated by many leaders and
opinion-shapers around the world and especially in the United States,
Europe, and the Israeli left. If Israel refuses to accept the two-state
solution, more or less in the version promoted by the Palestinians and
their supporters, it will have to choose between being Jewish and being
democratic. This line of argument first appeared in a 1977 essay by the
late-U.S. Undersecretary of State George Ball, “How to Save Israel in
Spite of Itself,” in Foreign Affairs.2 It was prominent in President Carter’s bestselling book Palestine – Peace not Apartheid, and has been adopted by policy-makers and pundits since then as an unrefuted motif.
This judgment states that if Israel does not accept a Palestinian
state and sticks to the status quo, it would inevitably have to either
integrate the Palestinian population as part of a one-state solution and
thus lose its Jewish majority and Jewish identity or, alternatively,
deprive Palestinians of full citizenship and full rights and then lose
its democratic nature and transform into an apartheid regime. According
to this logic, since the Palestinians decline any two-state solution
that is not based on the 1967 lines with minor land swaps and eastern
Jerusalem as their capital and a solution to the refugee problem based
on their “claim of return” – without Palestinian recognition of Israel
as the nation-state of the Jewish people – then Israel must accept these
principles to escape the dangerous fate that awaits it. Only then would
the Palestinians consider accepting Israel as the nation-state of the
Jewish people.
Secretary Blinken and many of those who parrot this message do so out
of concern and friendship for Israel and also out of their conviction
that, as Blinken emphasized to his Israeli counterpart, “Israelis and
Palestinians should enjoy equal measures of freedom, security,
prosperity, and democracy.”3
They may well be convinced that this is a correct and true forecast –
or at least a highly plausible assessment – and thus feel obliged to
save Israel from such a problematic fate. Some are worried that Israel
might not understand the danger by itself because, in their opinion,
Israel is not attentive enough to the good advice they give and because
they fear that Israel is under the influence of messianic extremists at
home or powerful political forces in the United States. They feel
obliged to urge Israel to adopt these policies to save itself, and some
think that if not, pressure on Israel would have to be applied.
Some, especially among left-leaning Israeli groups, think that to
avoid such a bitter destiny, Israel should act unilaterally and not link
the end of the occupation to reaching an agreement with the
Palestinians. Even if it has to maintain some military presence in the
areas for security reasons, Israel should uproot the Jewish communities
in the West Bank as soon as possible to pave the way to ending the
occupation entirely.
Other proponents of this message are less friendly to Israel and are
motivated more by their commitment to the Palestinian cause and out of
their belief that such a solution to the conflict is required because it
is in line with what they believe to be international law. Others,
including some who consider themselves Israel’s friends, see the
Palestinian cause and the UN resolutions supporting it, such as UNSCR
2334 that was promoted by the Obama administration, as just reasons why
Israel should heed their advice.
Wobbly Legs on which the “Save Israel” Message Stands
Two weak arguments are proffered by those who seek to convince the “stubborn and self-destructive Israelis” to save Israel.
According to the first opinion, this doomsday scenario is inevitable
because, in their view, the status quo is unsustainable. They are
convinced that there is no way that Israel will be able to “control” the
Palestinians forever, not even for a short period, without facing the
need to choose between Israel’s Jewish character and its democratic
identity.
The second argument states that, regardless of how long it might take
before this choice becomes realistic, the current situation in which
Israel rules over the Palestinians is corrupting Israeli soldiers
engaged in the practice of occupation and is poisoning the soul of the
entire Israeli society, which tolerates the occupation and represses its
guilt. Therefore, the proponents of this view feel that it is in
Israel’s best interest to end the occupation with alacrity.
This logic is based on several unfounded assumptions. First, it
assumes that the relevant areas Israel took under its control in 1967
are “Palestinian territories” or, as the United Nations and many others
look upon them, as “OPT” – an acronym for “Occupied Palestinian
Territory” or “territories.” This supposition is based on a plethora of
annual, legally flawed, politically-generated, non-binding UN
resolutions adopted by an automatic majority that arbitrarily determined
that the territories are Palestinian. There is no legal or historical
basis to back up such an assumption. This postulation is also built on
the claim that the population of these areas in June 1967 was
Palestinian as if the history of these lands began only then. Another
assumption is that because Israel is the stronger party in the conflict,
it can afford to take security risks and should be the side that makes
the first move. Moreover, they claim that Israeli security concerns
could be met from within the vulnerable and exposed 1967 lines, with
some minor modifications.
A more extreme version of this logic claims that Israel has already
crossed the point where it had to decide between its Jewish character
and its democratic nature and has, in fact, already become an apartheid
state. This approach is adopted by Israel’s enemies and those who
delegitimize it, such as the BDS movement, groups like Jewish Voice for
Peace and radical groups in Israel who ostensibly claim to be human
rights NGOs, and even by some members of the left-leaning group
Commanders for Israel’s Security.
The remedy proposed by these groups is unilateral separation, namely,
uprooting most of the Israeli communities from “the OPT,” even without
an agreed settlement of the dispute. Some self-proclaimed pundits
believe that is not going to be enough, since Israel had already lost
its democratic nature within the 1948 boundaries, and especially in
light of the way it treats its Arab citizens. These sophomoric
“thinkers” see the only option as being that Israel would cease to be
the nation-state of the Jewish people and become the state of all its
citizens.
The Reaction of Most Israelis and Their Real Aspirations
Most Israelis consider these warnings about the inevitable need to
choose between being Jewish or being democratic and the urgent messages
to Israel to save itself as misguided, dangerous, patronizing,
condescending, and undemocratic, as well as indicative of gross
ignorance of the situation in Israel and disregard for the rights of the
Jewish people.
The messages of the more radical groups are seen by most Israelis as
offensive, hostile, anti-Zionist, and even anti-Semitic. Most Israeli
voters lean more and more toward parties that reject these exhortations.
This does not mean that Israelis prefer the status quo. Most would
gladly change it by reaching an agreement with the Palestinians, but an
agreement that would guarantee a different outcome than the one demanded
by the Palestinians and their supporters. The people of Israel insist
on an agreement that includes Palestinian recognition of Israel as the
nation-state of the Jewish people, as well as one that really addresses
Israel’s security concerns.
Others prefer to change the status quo with Israel becoming the
sovereign authority over much of Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley,
more or less along the principles enunciated in President Trump’s vision
for peace and prosperity. Specifically, those areas are necessary for
Israel’s security, including the Israeli communities in these areas.
Despite all of the above, virtually no one in Israel envisages a
situation where Israel takes complete control and extends its
sovereignty over the towns and other densely populated Palestinian
areas, namely Areas A and B in Judea and Samaria and Gaza, thus turning
the Palestinian population living there into Israeli citizens in a way
that threatens the Jewish and democratic nature of Israel.
This reduces as absurd and irrelevant the entire demographic calculus
often used by those concerned about Israel losing its Jewish majority.
It also renders irrational and immaterial the entire debate of how many
Palestinians live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and
how many of them live in the areas taken from Jordan in 1967 (2-3
million?) or Gaza (more than 2 million?).
Get the Facts Straight
Most of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza already live under
Palestinian rule, and no one intends to dismantle the two entities that
govern them. These two are the Palestinian Authority that functions as
the ruling entity for the Palestinians living in the areas that Israel
took from Jordan in a war initiated by Jordan in 1967, and Hamas, which
controls the Gaza Strip that Israel had taken from Egyptian military
control in 1967, and which Israel evacuated entirely in 2005 after
transferring rule over the Palestinian population to the Palestinian
Authority in 1994.
In these areas, the PA and Hamas respectively make all the political
decisions, carry out elections at their own will, issue their own laws,
and care for the needs of the population, with the exception of
decisions that may affect Israel’s security. As a matter of fact, they
are preparing to conduct elections for their independently elected
governing bodies in the coming months in their territories – if they
decide to proceed with the election process they have embarked on, which
is still uncertain.
This renders as wrong and misleading the argument often used by
Israel’s opponents, as well as occasionally by its friendly critics,
that Israel employs two different legal systems in Judea and Samaria –
one for Israeli citizens and one for Palestinians. The law in the area
retained by Israel pursuant to the Oslo Accords (specifically area C, in
which there are no sizeable Palestinian population centers) is based on
already existing Jordanian and British mandatory laws, with additional
orders issued by the Israeli military commander, who is considered by
both international and Israeli law to be the legal authority controlling
the area. Israeli citizens present in the area are subject, on a
personal basis, to Israeli law, and Palestinians living there are
subject to Palestinian laws issued by the Palestinian Authority, with
the exception of regulations that pertain to Israel’s security, which is
under Israeli responsibility, according to the Oslo accords.
The number of Palestinians living in area C under direct Israeli
control is negligible, and if Israel were to extend its sovereignty over
parts of that area, they would likely prefer to adopt the same
arrangement that applies to the Arab population of eastern Jerusalem,
namely, to become Israeli residents enjoying full rights of social
security, freedom of movement inside Israel, and all the other
advantages Israel has to offer, while at the same time remaining
citizens of the Palestinian entity.
Secondly, if a permanent status agreement cannot be reached between
Israel and the Palestinians, the existing status quo is far more stable
and sustainable than the doomsday prophecy repeated by those who try to
warn Israel. In fact, this status quo solves ongoing day-to-day tensions
between the two parties. While Palestinians may feel obliged to express
their political commitment to change such a status quo, they
nevertheless appear to realize that they cannot achieve their desired
end-state, or alternatively, they are unwilling to pay the price of
forcing a change. Therefore, they consider it to be a tolerable
situation.
What the Palestinians Want
The Palestinian Authority and Hamas aspire to see the present status
quo replaced by a Palestinian state over all the pre-1967 territories,
with an Israeli readiness to accept a “right of the Palestinian refugees
and their descendants to return to their original homes” (even if this
right would be implemented only marginally), but they are unprepared to
accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people since they are
committed to the struggle against Zionism until its demise in line with
the Phases Plan adopted by the Palestinian National Council in 1974.
While they realize that they do not have the military and political
power to impose such a solution on Israel, they have no intention of
adapting their goal to enable an agreement that may be acceptable to
Israel. Furthermore, from a domestic political point of view, they
cannot afford to make such a change after propagating this narrative to
their population for more than 100 years.
Maintaining the status quo, on the other hand, enables them to avoid
paying the heavy price that any such move – either total confrontation
with Israel or changing their narrative – may entail, and this provides
them with many benefits. It allows them to keep presenting themselves as
eternal victims who are entitled to international attention and
political and financial support. It gives them the opportunity to keep
fighting a never-ending conflict with Israel while absorbing Israel’s
limited military response that reflects Israeli reluctance to change the
status quo.
An Israeli Arab casts his vote In Jaljulia, 2006 (Moshe Milner / GPO)
Israel, too, prefers the status quo for several reasons. Even if
Israel wanted to, it does not have the political power, whether
internationally or locally, to force its conditions on the Palestinians
or to convince them to change their narrative. Israel’s leadership and
security establishment tend to refrain from risking the stability of the
Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which enables Israel to avoid the need
to govern the Palestinian population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
To a large extent, such a status quo is what former Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin had in mind when he concluded the Oslo agreements in
1993-1995. His vision, as he detailed in his last address to the Knesset
in October 1995, included a Palestinian entity that is less than a
state, that provides the Palestinians with self-rule, Israeli military
control of the Jordan Valley in the widest meaning of the term, Israeli
responsibility for its own security throughout the area, an ongoing
settlement presence, and Jerusalem as the united capital of Israel.
Most Israelis are not troubled by any moral and psychological impact
of a prolonged “occupation.” Most Israelis serve in the IDF and they
recognize it as an inevitable part of defending themselves against a
permanent and ongoing threat in their own backyard. What troubles Israel
is the military buildup of the Palestinian terror organizations in
Gaza, the hostile actions taken by the Palestinians in the international
legal and diplomatic spheres, and the ongoing incitement to terror and
hate by the Palestinians, manifested, among other things, by their “Pay
to Slay” policy of paying handsome salaries to convicted terrorists and
their families.
However, none of these Palestinian actions constitute a good enough
reason for Israel to change the status quo. Instead, Israel’s actions
are usually intended to restore and maintain the status quo and deal
with deviations from it. For example, despite the growing threat from
Gaza and the repeated indiscriminate launching of rockets against
Israeli civilian targets, Israel’s military efforts focus on
strengthening its deterrence to restore the status quo ante and not
bring about a fundamental change in Gaza. When Israel had the option of
extending its sovereignty to additional territories in Judea and Samaria
and the Jordan Valley in mid-2020, Israel ultimately chose to maintain
the status quo and preferred to establish normal relations with several
Arab states instead, because even the supportive Trump administration
was hesitant to allow a unilateral extension of Israeli sovereignty.
Clearly, Israel prefers to refrain from prejudicing the existing
status quo and replacing it with a worse situation for its security and
interests, as suggested by those who claim to be concerned over Israel’s
future.
The Importance of the Abraham Accords
The stability of the status quo was strengthened considerably by the
“Abraham Accords.” The thesis that normalization of relations with the
Arab world cannot happen until Israel makes progress towards an
agreement based on the PA version of the “two-state solution” was proven
wrong. That thesis, previously considered an essential condition that
would require Israel to change its policy and opt for an agreement based
on the Palestinian and Western/international demands, essentially
evaporated.
Once the pragmatic Arab states accepted the status quo, they realized
that linking normalization that serves their vital interests to a
solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would not materialize
made no sense and harmed their interests. They realized that any chance
that Israel would accept a change in the status quo that harmed its
interests was virtually nonexistent.
Those who are committed to changing the status quo at almost any
price are mainly those who want Israel to be erased from the map, such
as Iran and some radical Sunni players.
The American position for a long time was that a solution is
necessary and possible, and consecutive administrations tried their best
to bring the parties to agree on a two-state solution. It appears that
the Biden administration realizes that though reaching an agreement
would be an outstanding achievement, it is beyond reach, and hence it
focuses its efforts on improving the status quo with a view of keeping
the two-states option viable.
In this context, the U.S. declares that it opposes any unilateral
step taken by the parties that may harm the possibility of reaching a
two-state solution in the future and plans to focus on improving the
standard of living of the Palestinians.4
However, it is not clear how they are going to do that as long as the
Palestinians keep promoting their struggle against Israel in
international forums and support terror and, in so doing, materially
breach the Oslo agreements.
Another problem with the false threat that Israel may lose its Jewish
or democratic identity if the status quo is not changed to meet
Palestinian demands is that those who make this threat believe that it
is Israel’s responsibility to change the situation. Quite often, as
mentioned above, the proponents of this idea claim that since Israel is
the stronger party to the conflict, it should make the bigger and first
move, and it can afford to take risks.
This approach is misleading and ignores the reality that the main
obstacle to reaching a settlement to the conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians is the Palestinian narrative. According to this narrative,
the struggle against Zionism until its demise is the core identity of
the Palestinian people.
The Dangers to Israel of Withdrawal from the West Bank
Accepting the premise that Israel should withdraw from Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley is dangerous for many reasons.
Firstly, it would make defending the areas remaining under Israeli
sovereignty considerably more difficult for obvious topographic and
demographic reasons. Moreover, the new situation would be virtually
irreversible, despite Israel’s conventional military advantage. Any
claim to the contrary is unrealistic wishful thinking.
The case of Gaza is very telling in this respect, as is the case of
South Lebanon and other examples worldwide (from Vietnam to Sinai).
Fighting hybrid terror organizations which are heavily armed is not an
easy task for any modern army. With Israel’s current presence and
freedom of action in Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley, its
security forces manage to minimize the level of Palestinian terror. But
as long as the Palestinian narrative of struggling against Zionism is
unchanged, the threats that may emanate from these territories to Israel
remain considerable.
Secondly, it would be counterproductive to securing a stable solution
to the dispute in the future. Such a settlement could not be reached
without a substantial change in the Palestinian narrative that would
reflect an abandoning of their Phases Plan of 1974.
The effort to convince the Palestinians to change their narrative is
echoed in Secretary of State Blinken’s references to his expectation
that the Palestinians end the incitement and the payment of salaries to
terrorists, but it is not central to the Biden administration approach
to the conflict, “Pay to Slay,” and the ICC.
Lastly, the entire concept of the necessity to transfer Judea and
Samaria and eastern Jerusalem to Palestinian control to protect Israel
from losing its Jewish or democratic identity ignores not only Israel’s
justified security needs but also the historical and legal rights and
aspirations that stand at the core of Zionism. For the Jewish national
movement, the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland is
based on its historic sovereign presence in its land that extended over
all of the areas that were under the British mandate of Palestine. The
language of the July 24, 1922, mandate given to Britain was unequivocal,
and it still constitutes an internationally legally binding document.
It states that “recognition has thereby been given to the historical
connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for
reconstituting their national home in that country” and that “The
Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory
shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of
the Government of any foreign Power.”5
Israel does not deny that the Palestinian people have rights, and it
is ready to share the land with them, but it does not regard the lands
in question as “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” For Israel, and
according to the Oslo Accords, these are disputed lands, subject to bona
fide negotiation of their permanent status, and Israel, as the
nation-state of the Jewish people, has absolutely no obligation to
surrender its rights to these lands voluntarily or its right to live
within recognized and secure borders, as recorded in UN Security Council
Resolution 242.6
Conclusion
There is no reason to worry about Israel losing its Jewish or
democratic identities, nor does Israel need to adopt rash and dangerous
decisions to avoid such a fake threat.
Those who try to employ such arguments to press Israel to adopt a
solution to the conflict that ignores its security needs and its
fundamental and inherent legal, historical, and security rights are
either wrong or frustrated with the lack of better arguments.
4 See State Department spokesperson’s comments, April 1, 2021. https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-april-1-2021/
“We believe when it comes to settlement activity that Israel should
refrain from unilateral steps that exacerbate tensions and that undercut
efforts to advance a negotiated two-state solution. That includes the
annexation of territory. That includes settlement activity. We’ve been
equally clear when it comes to the potential actions of the
Palestinians, whether that is incitement to violence, providing
compensation for individuals in prison for acts of terrorism. That, too,
moves us further away from a two-state solution. Our goal in all of
this is to advance the prospects for that two-state solution.”
Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser is Director of the Project on Regional Middle East Developments at the
Jerusalem Center. He was formerly Director General of the Israel
Ministry of Strategic Affairs and head of the Research Division of IDF
Military Intelligence.
The hypocrisies pile upon hypocrisies in this lousy MLB virtue-signaling move
You could tell that the Major League Baseball (MLB) decision to pull its All-Star game out of Atlanta
was a deeply unpopular one, based on the ambivalent reaction of
far-left failed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. Here's the money quote from her Twitter statement:
After
all, isn't she the one who pushed through most of the fraud-enabling
laws on the books in Georgia which triggered the recent legislative
action? The blacks-are-too-dumb-to-have-voter-ID idiotic notion, so by
extension, nobody should have to show voter ID to vote, even
though everyone needs to show ID to buy a beer at an MLB game, or buy a
ticket to one? She needs to make up her mind.
So
which is it? Not wanting to see families hurt, or being all in for the
boycott of Atlanta, which certainly should affect the city tax
base? She wants to have it both ways, boycott but nobody hurt. That's
because unlike MLB, she wants to win public office, and knows that
screwing over black businesses, which will get it in the teeth with this
MLB maneuver, is going to make her unpopular.
Here's the MLB statement:
JUST IN: @MLB announces it’ll move the All-Star Game and Draft out of Atlanta due to the state passing a new elections law last week. pic.twitter.com/rBVUQ6FMJG
Abrams's
response is just the tip of the iceberg of the hypocrisy and
contradictions seen from this MLB maneuver — stiffing black-owned
American small businesses just emerging from a pandemic to protest a
U.S. law they are perfectly free to campaign for to change otherwise
through elections, or else playing the ball game without politics and
drawing a big audience. Which is it for them? And by the way, how many
of their baseball players are American citizens?
Unlike
Abrams, they chose, and chose poorly, because what they chose will
probably have some consequences for the MLB organization, given its
nuclear level of hypocrisy.
Here's
another piece of hypocrisy: will MLB now move its All-Star Game to
Delaware, Joe Biden's home state, where, unlike Georgia now, there is no
early voting at all? Will they stop advertising and selling
merchandise in that state? Or New York, or New Jersey, which also don't
have early voting as they now do in Georgia? These MLB
virtue-signalers would be hypocrites if they didn't.
Here's
the big one: MLB made a big deal about its move out of Georgia being a
human rights issue, and them being all concerned about human rights, you
see.
Can
they explain for us why they recently held a ball game in brutal
totalitarian military dictatorship of Cuba? A place Cuban ball players
flee from to freedom, which in some cases includes MLB salaries made
possible only by living in a free, democratic society that exists
already? They aren't fleeing to a hellhole, which is what MLB is now
claiming about Georgia.
Can they explain to us why they hold a training camp in China, home of the Uighur slave-labor laogai and
the broken-treaty de-democratization of Hong Kong? You'd think an
organization that concerned about voting rights that willing to disrupt
its own business and make itself politically unpopular in Georgia in the
interest of virtue-signaling on voting might just take an interest in
voting and transparency practices over in communist China.
These things to them are fine, but Georgia is an affront to their delicate democratic sensibilities.
The
hypocrisies pile up on top of the hypocrisies, and the only people who
suffer here are the little black-owned Atlanta businesses who otherwise
would get an increased payday from all the knock-on traffic from the
All-Star Game. Big businesses, such as MLB, have always been happy to
crush the little-guy upstart businesses, some of whom might grow into
competitors. That, and the press releases with fawning media coverage,
is all they end up doing as a means of feathering their nests. Leftists
have always yelled about calling corporations persons, and in this
case, they are right, corporations are not persons making personal
decisions, they are a big "it" whose decisions are always in the end
about profits.
Their
hypocrisy surrounding this maneuver to appease senile Joe Biden and all
his leftist flying monkeys circling his sorry corpus is an
outrage. Maybe a full boycott from viewers, as President Trump, who
always has his finger on the pulse of the people, is what it will take
to get that message to this big "it" which wants to have things all
ways.
'For years the Radical Left Democrats have played dirty by boycotting products'
Former President Trump suggested Saturday that
Republicans take a page out of what he sees as Democrats' playbook by
boycotting the major businesses that have condemned Georgia's new
election reform.
"For years the Radical Left
Democrats have played dirty by boycotting products when anything from
that company is done or stated in any way that offends them. Now they
are going big time with WOKE CANCEL CULTURE and our sacred elections,"
Trump wrote in a statement.
"It is finally time for Republicans
and Conservatives to fight back—we have more people than they do—by far!
Boycott Major League Baseball, Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, JPMorgan
Chase, ViacomCBS, Citigroup, Cisco, UPS, and Merck. Don’t go back to
their products until they relent," he continued.
'We can play the game better than them," Trump said.
He then repeated unproven claims that the 2020 election had been ‘rigged’ against him.
"They
rigged and stole our 2020 Presidential Election, which we won by a
landslide, and then, on top of that, boycott and scare companies into
submission. Never submit, never give up! The Radical Left will destroy
our Country if we let them. We will not become a Socialist Nation. Happy
Easter!" the former president wrote.
Some Georgia GOP lawmakers subsequently announced they would remove Coca-Cola products from their statehouse offices.
"Unfortunately,
upon the passage of 'Election Integrity Act of 2021,' your company has
made the conscious decision to perpetuate a national dialogue which
seeks to intentionally mislead the citizens of Georgia and deepen a
divide in our great State," a number of state lawmakers wrote in a
letter.
Some Georgia Republican state legislators are removing @CocaCola products from their statehouse offices after the Atlanta-based beverage giant criticized the new elections law. #gapolpic.twitter.com/leojXBGQAM
Large Georgia-based corporations like Coca-Cola and Delta issued
statements condemning the state's new legislation after activists called
for boycotts. The MLB also moved its All-Star Game and draft out of the
state to protest the bill.
Georgia
enacted sweeping election reform last week that required voter ID for
absentee voting rather than relying on signature matching for
verification, limited ballot drop boxes to one per county or one per
100,000 voters, expanded early voting days, and standardized early
voting hours to a minimum of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and a maximum of 7 a.m. to
7 p.m. The legislation barred outside groups from passing out food and
water to those in line within 150 feet.
The
law also handed more election authority to the GOP-controlled estate
legislature. It states that the General Assembly is to select the chair
of the state elections board, rather than the board being chaired by the
Georgia secretary of state. It also shortens run-offs from nine weeks
to four.
The state election board can also now investigate county
election boards and has the power to suspend county election
superintendents — though the board can only suspend four at a time.
The
law was enacted after a Democratic sweep in the Peach State, which
Trump lost to President Biden by just over 11,000 votes. Trump alleged
mass election fraud in the state, and sparred with GOP Gov. Brain Kemp
and Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s handling of
elections. Nine weeks after the November election, Republican incumbent
Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler lost to Democrats John Ossoff and
Raphael Warnock.
Thanks in part to Biden's toxic combination of lies and encouragement, the MLB franchise decided on Friday to dump Georgia as the venue for the All-Star Game
Georgia
passed a law that greatly expands people's opportunities to
vote. However, because it mandates voter ID for absentee ballot
requests, Democrats, led by Joe Biden, have announced that the bill is
the Second Coming of Jim Crow. Joe went farther and sought to destroy
parts of Georgia's economy by calling for Major League Baseball to move
its All-Star Game out of Georgia. The MLB franchise heeded that call.
One
of the highlights of the baseball season is the All-Star Game, which
was set to be played on July 13 in Atlanta. Since 1933, midway through
the MLB season, fans pick their favorites from the American League and
the National League, and then the chosen stars compete. I'm not a
baseball fan, but I'm willing to bet that, in terms of ad revenue and
merchandise sales, it's an important part of the business end of pro
baseball. And it certainly brings revenue to the city hosting it.
On
Thursday, Biden made one of his little scripted appearances, this time
on ESPN. It's worth noting that ESPN, which Disney owns, long ago
transferred its allegiance from sports to leftism with a serving of
sports on the side. Trump, who was a fine athlete when he was young,
was never allowed near ESPN.
Sage Steele, ESPN's interviewer, told Biden:
Tony
Clark is the executive director of the Major League Baseball Players
Association. He said he would, quote, look forward to discussing moving
the All-Star Game out of Atlanta because Georgia governor Brian Kemp
signed into law a bill passed by the Republican-led state legislature to
overhaul how its state elections are run. So, Mr. President, what do
you think about the possibility that baseball decides to move their
All-Star Game out of Atlanta because of this political issue?
At
this point, the president who used the word "unity" eight times in his
inauguration speech could have said something along the lines of, "You
know, Sage, baseball is America's pastime. We invented the game, and
it's a sport everyone should be able to enjoy without politics
intruding."
That's
what Joe could have said. That's not what he did say. Instead, he
urged the MLB franchise to get the hell out of Georgia. I've
interlineated a few helpful comments:
I
think today's professional athletes are acting incredibly responsibly. I
would strongly support them doing that. People look to them. They're
leaders. Look at what's happened with the NBA, as well. [Editor: Is he
talking about disrespecting the flag or selling out to China?] Look
what's happened across the board. The very people who are victimized the
most are the people who are the leaders in these in these various
sports and it's just not right. [Editor: Is Joe stereotyping black men
as good athletes? Why, yes, I think he is.]
This
is Jim Crow on steroids what they're doing in in Georgia and 40 other
states. [Editor: Again, Georgia is expanding opportunities to
vote. What really agitates Biden, et al., is a request that voters
provide some ID for absentee ballots. Nobody's getting hanged from a
tree or having a cross burned on his lawn.]
What
it's all about[.] ... Imagine passing the law saying you cannot provide
water or food for someone standing in line to vote. [Editor: This is a
lie. Politically aligned groups or people cannot use food or drinks as
bribes for people waiting in line. It's standard election law.] You
can't do that. Come on!
Or you're gonna close a polling place at five o'clock when working people just get off. [Editor: This is such a blatant lie that
the day before Biden appeared on ESPN, the Washington Post was forced
to give it "Four Pinocchios." The law actually maintains voting hours
of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and also expanded early voting.]
This is all about keeping working folks and ordinary folks that I grew up with from being able to vote.
Here's the video, if you care to watch:
Thanks in part to Biden's toxic combination of lies and encouragement, the MLB franchise decided on Friday to dump Georgia as the venue for the All-Star Game:
BREAKING: The MLB is moving the All Star game out of Atlanta in response to Georgia's election bill pic.twitter.com/CoVfrjyQVf
This
is yet another example of corporations wielding their vast power to
move the political needle left. (You can watch Tucker Carlson excoriate
both Biden's lies and this corporate that practice here.) The
only way that it's going to stop is if people hit these corporations in
their bottom line. Stop watching Major League Baseball and stop buying
the merchandise that annually sends billions of dollars to
the MLB franchises. As long as there are no consequences from them
using their market clout and goodwill to manipulate politics, they'll
keep doing it.
Remember,
there are only 30 baseball teams, but there are around 80 million Trump
voters. We can make the franchise hurt for its decision to weaponize
America's game against the integrity of America's elections. Trump
sounded the same note on Friday, urging his supporters to boycott all the woke corporations that are pushing leftist political agendas.
If you didn’t know better, you would think that even Democrat and therefore immune administrations like Ned Lamont’s are “systemically racist” based on how it’s handling of COVID vaccination is described.
The national media like the New York Times as well as small-market media like the Hartford Courant have
extensively documented the disparate impact COVID has had on
minorities. In Connecticut, the media has implied racism during Democrat
governor Ned Lamont’s tenure. If you didn’t know better, you would
think that even Democrat and therefore immune administrations like
Lamont’s are “systemically racist” based on how it’s handling of COVID
vaccination is described. To most casual observers, that may seem
counterintuitive, since it is a Democrat administration and therefore
socially conscious and progressive. But the continued coverage of this
issue, including a recent article in the Courant
(3/27/21) titled “Racial disparities in CT’s Covid vaccination rollout
are supposed to be narrowing. They’re not,” implies differently. After
all, “systemically racist” institutions, it is thought, often hide
behind anti-racist rhetoric such as when Lamont compared racism to COVID
as a “contagion” and that “there is such a small margin for error in
COVID and in racism... and if we let that door swing ajar, it’s
incredible how fast that infection can spread.”
Talk
is cheap. Even Gov. Lamont’s excessive, and by definition
nonmeritorious, success in hiring lots of women and minorities could be
seen as a smokescreen for this suspected system. When it comes to race,
one can never be progressive enough. Even a solidly Democrat base
constituency, a union, noted:
as “protests rage across the state and country... Lamont continues to
support policies that oppress American minorities in the workplace.” And
not just in the workplace -- in matters of life and death also, like
COVID. No matter the area of society, the system is at work hurting
minorities in some mysterious way -- despite all institutions being made
up of actual human beings. Lamont claims to allocate vaccines
“proportionately” to all populations. But how does one know? Are we
being fooled?
In
CT, the Lamont response to criticism has been to implement a target
meant to help close the vaccination gap between whites and residents of
color. But the disparities have grown. What accounts for this? In
today’s media -- and to some extent in the public at large -- it’s an
effect-cause easy answer: disparity equals racism, which accounts for
the perception of Gov. Lamont’s failure here. It may appear like
“progress,” but as Queen put it in "Bohemian Rhapsody," perhaps its “Bismillah...no!”
If
Lamont was not a Democrat, the current media coverage, although not
positive, would be decidedly less so – similar to how George W. Bush was
portrayed after Hurricane Katrina when he was lambasted for
carelessness caused by racism. It would probably not be quite as bad as
that, since Katrina was such a catastrophe. But a non-Democrat Lamont
would be eyed suspiciously, and likely condemned by many, of racism.
The
Lamont administration had decided to allocate vaccines in a “socially
progressive” way to benefit those in certain groups. The administration
uses the CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)
that allocates doses according to 15 criteria such as: % below poverty,
per capita income, % persons aged 25+ with no high-school diploma, %
single-parent households with children under 18, % minority, % 5 and
older who speak English less than well, % housing with 9+ units, %
households with more than one person/room, % households with no vehicle,
etc. Looking at each criterion, what do they have to do with vaccine
distribution fairness? They are designed to benefit some groups over
others. Especially when it comes to life and death, there should be no
designed favoritism by the government.
But is “systemic racism” a fabrication? It has been
embraced by many on the far left, but I suspect the majority of the
population doesn’t agree and are cowed into silence. Systemic racism --
is unseen -- it can’t be measured -- it is completely unscientific -- it
doesn’t matter! It is like the Middle Ages before the Enlightenment (The Age of Reason)
when orthodox religion, not science, ruled society. We are moving more
and more away from science and toward a new religious orthodoxy --
postmodernism. That people like Galileo who moved away from orthodox
religion and toward science were criticized/persecuted, matters not. In
fact, postmodernism, which critics say has taken over the social sciences in the last 30 or so years and is creeping into engineering and math, specifically rejects truth, objectivity, and logic.
The previous hallmarks of Western Civilization. The not-so-new thinking
is that everything is socially constructed and nothing is innate, where
everyone’s “truth” is different and “real.” I have pointed out to some
of these advocates: if that is true, then by definition everything they
say is meaningless (since it can’t be true, objective or logical) -- but
they are defensive and unmoved. You may as well shut down all the
research organizations now, according to this thinking.
Government policies that are designed to benefit one group over another should be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of
the U.S. Constitution. That clause essentially states that no State
shall make/enforce a law which abridges the privileges/immunities of
U.S. citizens nor deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process or the equal protection of the law. But freewheeling
(mostly positively-motivated -- think Supreme Court Justice Stephen
Breyer) activist judges expand on meanings of words and make them
whatever they like. So, in that light, disparity, in the absence of
evidence, is nonetheless a result of systemic racism.
However,
despite Lamont’s efforts, the administration has fallen short of its
SVI driven index of a 25% allocation to communities of color. Before the
targets went into effect,
“16% of white residents had received at least one vaccine dose,
compared with about 7% each of Black and Hispanic residents.” After the
targets went into effect, the disparities increased from 37% for whites,
20% for Blacks, and 17% for Hispanics. But the administration points
out many reasons for this, including that for a portion of those
vaccinated, race was not recorded, the state’s focus on age-based
rollout skew to the majority white older crowd, state officials have
taken steps to increase the goal beyond what is proportional, it takes
time for these systems to adjust/provide more access, there are non-race
barriers like technology, transportation, and language, a partnership
with Access Health to increase additional outreach in 10 high-risk
municipalities is occurring. If true, these are all legitimate reasons
for disparities.
The
irony is that the last thing I would want to see withheld from any
human being of any race, color, etc. is a vaccination for a serious
illness that can cause death, but therein lies the problem. If one group
is favored, by definition that means others are not. It’s a dilemma one
cannot escape from unless it is done 100% scientifically and without
favoritism.
“Blah,
blah, blah,” a systemic racism believer would say. That would be blind
indoctrination talking. Here’s a disparity for you: notice the quote
above and throughout the Courant article where “whites” is not
capitalized while “Blacks” is -- this is a “good” disparity -- nothing
to see here, move along. If one allows science/facts to be replaced by
feelings/opinion, any case can be made and never be disproven. Democrats
need to wake up and realize that these types of extremist illogical
doctrines are what got Trump elected and what surely will flip the
Congress in 2022. Mark it down.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.
Alan Calandro is the former director of the Connecticut Legislature’s
nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis and a former University of
Connecticut Chief of Staff. Twitter: https://twitter.com/APCalandro
