It's come to this: We need a Facebook page to support an IDF commander who targeted terrorists
I get asked to like Facebook pages daily, and usually I ignore the requests - no time.... This morning, I got a message from
Shy Guy (whom I actually have met in 'real life') asking me to like a Facebook page for IDF Lieutenant Colonel Nerya Yeshurun. I clicked on the
Facebook page (in Hebrew) and it has nearly 3,000 likes in three days - not too shabby. Here's why (translated from Hebrew - I'll leave the Hebrew so that the experts on translating IDF ranks into English can correct me if I got one wrong):
בימים אלו נשמעים קולות לחקור את "ירי הנקמה" שבוצע ע"י גדוד 82 בפיקודו של סא"ל נריה ישורון.
הירי בוצע על תשתית טרור לגיטימית, מרפאה לכאורה ממנה נורתה אש צלפים אשר הרגה את סרן דימה לויטס.
עמוד זה הינו בא לתמוך בסא"ל נריה ישורון, לאור הפרסומים המבישים על פתיחת חקירה בנוגע להשמדה לגיטימית של תשתית טרור!
We are currently hearing calls to investigate the 'revenge fire' by Brigade 82 under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Nerya Yeshurun. The fire was the result of a legitimate terror infrastructure, which looked like a clinic, from which sniper fire that killed Sargent Dima Levitas originated. This page is to support Lieutenant Colonoel Nerya Yeshurun in light of the disgusting publicity about the opening of an investigation into the legitimate destruction of a terror infrastructure!
Obviously, I urge you to like the page.
Based on the Google search results, the original story was pushed by
Electronic Intifada, an anti-Semitic web page that is funded by European governments (principally
Holland), and is run by President Hussein Obama's
Chicago buddy Ali Abunimah. I try not to link anti-Semitic websites, but the story is on Reddit
here.
Labels: Ali Abunimah, Barack Hussein Obama, Electronic Intifada, Gaza, Hamas, human shields, IDF, Operation Protective Edge, Palestinian terrorism
Shame upon shame
The Virginia State Bar Association is
looking worse by the hour. The bar's putrid leadership has apparently hijacked the entire organization without seeking anyone else's opinion (Hat Tip:
Leah P).
Let me make five general points:
1) I’m proud to say that many, inside the State Bar and beyond,
reacted with vigor to the timing and content of the announcement.
Several petitions have been organized, to rescind the cancellation (I
think it’s too late for that), to obtain the resignation of the VSB
president, or at least to elicit a full apology. B’Nai Brith
International, among many other groups, has condemned the State Bar for its action. Even the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates has chimed in.
Most importantly, many individual VSB members have written to the Bar
to express their outrage; several have been kind enough to send me
copies of their letters. Here’s an excellent example, from Jonathan
Schraub, an attorney in McLean whom I did not have the honor of knowing
before this episode brought us together. Mr. Schraub’s letter will be
published in the next issue of the Virginia Lawyers’ Weekly and thereby brought to the attention of every member of our state Bar:
AN OPEN LETTER TO VIRGINIA STATE BAR PRESIDENT KEVIN E. MARTINGAYLE
Re: Your decision to cancel the mid-year meeting in Israel
Dear President Martingayle
Along with many others I was shocked, outraged and deeply disappointed to receive your blast e-mail late Friday evening
announcing a previously undisclosed intention by the leadership of the
VSB to cancel the planned, mid-year meeting in Jerusalem, Israel. The
substance of the decision, the secretive manner in which it was arrived
at and the cavalier manner in which it was announced all merit
condemnation and call into question your continued ability to serve as
President of the Bar.
According to your email, the decision to cancel
the planned trip was based on “objections” by “certain members of the
Virginia State Bar and other individuals.” Neither the Bar members nor
the “certain other individuals”, presumably not Bar members, are
identified. Indeed, this entire decision is cloaked in a veil of secrecy
and opacity unbecoming of the Bar. Had you provided any measure of
disclosure regarding your decision, you would have advised VSB members
that the decision was based on a petition that, at last report, had 33
signatures. (The Virginia State Bar has over 50,000 members). The
petition, although citing reports form the US State Department regarding
border security measures in Israel, reaches inflammatory conclusions
regarding discrimination based on citations to such marginal, committed
anti-Israeli sources as the website “Electronic Intifada”.
Choosing to announce it late on a Friday evening and
without any prior hint that the matter was even being considered and
without any input from VSB members, speaks loudly to the underlying
discomfort that VSB leadership must have (and should have) felt at
adopting this position. What exactly was the influence that the 33
signatories to the petition had over the VSB leadership – not to mention
the “others” who presumably are not even constituents of the VSB? The
VSB is an arm of the Virginia Supreme Court and the Virginia
Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has a state sponsored commission to
promote the expansion of Virginia/Israeli ties (i.e., The Virginia
Israel Advisory Board). What exactly was the mandate that the VSB felt
it was under to unilaterally sever the ties of the Virginia mandatory
bar association with the State of Israel and announce it as a fait
accompli? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate, if the issue was to
be considered at all, to publicly announce it, and put in place a method
for debating and ultimately voting to secure the clear sense of the
membership of the VSB? Instead, the decision was made in secret, with
no disclosure in the letter announcing the decision as to what the
thought process (if any) had been, who had been involved and what
competing arguments (if any) were considered. Nothing. Just an
intentionally vague communique that reeked of secrecy, politics and fear
of full disclosure and debate.
Many of us are left to wonder if this decision is
intended as a deliberate endorsement of the “Boycott, Divestment, and
Sanctions” (BDS) movement targeting the state of Israel. Certain
elements—the complete lack of transparency or open deliberation, the
late Friday afternoon announcement, and the reliance on
unabashed organs of the BDS movement like “Electronic Intifada”—point in
that direction. The BDS campaign is biased, unapologetically one-sided,
naïve at best and, other than the reckless participation by an
established group such as the VSB, historically viewed as marginal,
unsuccessful and for many who promote it, anti-Semitism in a thinly
disguised, modern costume.
If endorsing the BDS campaign was your intention, then the VSB
has elected to join hands with a truly radical movement whose openly
declared ambition is the end of the state of Israel. We know that the
BDS movement has no concern for promoting any objective, fairly applied
standard of concern over “unacceptable” practices to any state or
country other than Israel and the question is always, “why is that the
case?” Sadly, history tells us that the concern is not over
humanitarian or moral issues at all but is thinly disguised anti-Jewish,
anti-Semitic and anti- Israel propaganda. And with respect to the BDS
movement in particular, there is no need to rely on historical
inference. From a resolution urging expulsion of all Jewish students at a
South African university, to the removal of all Israeli academics from a
journal in the UK, to efforts to block the appointment of a Jewish
student to a university government position in California, to
accusations that Jewish organizations were funded by money supposedly
embezzled from failing financial firms, the BDS movement has been
implicated in naked anti-Semitism on too many occasions across too long a
period for there to remain any doubt about its character. In each of
the above situations BDS defenders rushed to complain that it was only
being accused of anti-Semitism because they were “critical of Israel.”
This is nonsense. Being part of an organization like the VSB which as
you state is “an agency that strives for maximum inclusion and equality”
means having at least a minimal understanding that deciding to stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with a movement that the global Jewish community
has long warned stands as amongst the primary purveyors of anti-Semitic
hatred, is a serious, indeed defining, step for the VSB. Did you give
any thought as to whether the BDS position fairly reflects the views and
beliefs of your membership? Or were you simply pandering to the 33
members and “others” who for whatever reason had your ear?
Your letter references “unacceptable discriminatory policies and
practices pertaining to border security” in Israel. These “policies and
practices”, according to your letter, “affect travelers to the nation”
Is it really your contention (and now that of the VSB) that meetings are
not held on a regular basis in Israel by hundreds of groups – including
the ABA and academic groups with Arab participants? What did you do to
determine whether the proposed VSB meeting would, in fact, have faced
any “discrimination” with regard to access by any and all participants?
With whom did you speak before reaching your conclusion that there is in
fact “unacceptable discriminatory practices”? To whom and in what
manner is it “unacceptable”? While there is no question but that Israel
has strict policies and procedures regarding access to the country, is
it really your position (and now the position of the VSB) that such
measures are so obviously unnecessary to protect legitimate security
concerns such that they can be dismissed as a mere pretext for
discrimination? Do you similarly demand that all policies and procedures
and laws and social mores of each state in the United States and each
country overseas in which the VSB holds meetings or sponsors trips be
vetted for “objectionable” content? Or is it just Israel? Israel
remains the most vibrant democracy in the Middle East. The Arab-Israeli
political party coalition now occupies the third largest voting bloc in
the Knesset. While that society is not perfect and many of us do not
agree with the policies of the present Israeli administration (and feel
free to say so), anyone who maintains a modicum of objectivity and is
not fronting for an ideologically anti-Israel position, will recognize
that Israeli policies are borne of the real politick faced by that
country. If they are more stringent and focused than those of
Switzerland or Sweden or Canada, it is because the reality of life is
different in Israel than in most other places.
This, of course, raises the other possibility—that the
endorsement was unintentional, and that you did not realize what this
decision would mean in the context of placing the VSB imprimatur on a
global movement seeking to isolate and dismantle the world’s sole Jewish
state. This possibility, too, does not inspire confidence. Had you
simply raised this issue publicly with the Virginia Bar, deliberated
openly rather than issue a back-office decree, these concerns would have
raised and the Bar could have avoided this catastrophe altogether. To
be blunt, this is why transparency matters—so one does not blunder into
controversies that could easily be avoided, so that genuine problems can
be resolved in a manner attentive to the concerns of all the relevant
stakeholders, and so that when the decision is finally made everybody
can feel that their voice was heard and their views fairly considered.
That did not occur here, by all appearances because you knew that your
decision would be met with justified outrage.
By adopting this position, the VSB has jumped with both feet into
the most extreme edges of the political spectrum on the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Either it intended this result, or it
didn’t. Neither possibility has anything positive to say about VSB
leadership. And regardless of what your intentions were, the VSB, by
aligning itself with the BDS movement which seeks to isolate Israel –
and only Israel - has instead succeeded in isolating itself. Although
it did not have the courage to debate the issue before deciding, the
position it has taken is far removed from the mainstream of public
opinion in this country and, without any doubt that of the Commonwealth
of Virginia and the rank and file VSB members.
It is beyond sad that, if allowed to stand, this will be the
legacy of the VSB – and of the Martingayle administration in
particular. It is outrageous form the point of view that the VSB is a
mandatory membership organization. As a practicing attorney, I am
obligated to be a member. I am obligated to pay dues to support the
policies and programs administered by you and your administration. But
I, along with many others I am sure, will now do all we can to distance
ourselves from the VSB and to cease any and all participation in VSB
programs. It is simply no longer an association that merits the support
of its members.
Shame on you President Martingayle and on the very small clique
of radical supporters with whom you have chosen to throw your lot and
reputation – and by coerced reference, the lot and reputation of the
VSB.
Read the whole thing. (Yes, that's just point 1).
Labels: BDS, boycott divest sanction, boycott Israel, Electronic Intifada, lawyers, Virginia
