Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rashid Khalidi, US presidential campaign 2016
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:18 PM
3 comments
From January 2009 to the present, the conflict between Israel and the United States has never been connected to any real chance of peace or ending the conflict in a manner that is consistent with American pledges about ensuring the Jewish state’s security. At this point, it is time for even those that have rationalized and apologized for Obama’s penchant for attacking Israel to face up to the fact that his behavior requires a better explanation than an alleged desire to save it from itself. Nor is the argument about Iran enough to justify what we are witnessing. Nothing about the current argument can be traced to U.S. security needs. Rather, its motive seems more about personal anger and vague ideological assumptions about Israel and the Palestinians that have no connection to reality.
That is a sobering thought that should motivate even those Democrats who are no fans of Netanyahu to begin speaking up against an administration policy that seems rooted in spite, not strategy.Or maybe not so vague.
Where does Israel fit into this? It seems that Victor Davis Hanson got it partly right when he wrote:I've been telling you all for eight years that the company a politician keeps matters. We could all have figured this out eight years ago (I did). What could go wrong?
Does Team Obama really believe that a murderous autocratic cabal like Hamas is merely different from a democratic constitutional republic like Israel? At best we have naiveté at the helm (Obama thinks he can mesmerize misunderstood killers), at worst, a genuine feeling that Israel is an aggressive, Western imperialist power exploiting indigenous people of color who simply wish to be free--in other words, the Rev. Wright-Bill Ayers-Rashid Khalidi view of the Middle East.If D'Souza is correct (and what he writes is certainly plausible), it should be clear that Obama views Israel - like the United States - as a post-colonial country that is "an aggressive, Western imperialist power exploiting indigenous people of color who simply wish to be free." But Hanson got one detail wrong. Obama doesn't look at us that way because of Wright, Ayers and Khalidi. They just reinforced the view of Israel that Obama already had in his blood from his Kenyan father.
Labels: anti-colonialist, Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Ayers, fierce moral urgency, Jeremiah Wright, Palestinian state, Rashid Khalidi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:17 AM
3 comments
According to the [David Horowitz Freedom] Center, Columbia University is listed first because it is home to the “most well-known antisemitic professors in the nation such as Rashid Khalidi and Joseph Massad, who has been accused of harassing Jewish students on multiple occasions. In addition, it is home to a highly active SJP chapter that has recently brought BDS founder Omar Barghouti and disgraced antisemitic professor Steven Salaita to campus.”
The Center also cited a number of offending events held at Columbia University in 2014, such as Israeli Apartheid Week and a protest with signs that read “Call to Action: Stand with Gaza.”My friend Professor Jacobson's campus, Cornell, comes in second.
Cornell University came in second place followed by George Mason University, Loyola University Chicago, Portland State University, San Diego State University and San Francisco State University. Rounding off the list was Temple University, University of California Los Angeles and Vassar College.Kind of surprised not to see Brandeis or UC - Irvine on the list.
Labels: American college campuses, Bir Zeit on the Hudson, Brandeis University, Cornell University, Edward Said, Joseph Massad, Muslim anti-Semitism, Rashid Khalidi, University of California at Irvine
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:07 PM
4 comments
Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, well-known for his anti-Israel rhetoric, slammed J Street, an organization which claims to be pro-Israel, for failing to adequately oppose Israel's military actions in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge.
Speaking at the "Open Hillel" conference, Khalidi said that J Street "needs more radical critique...if it wants real change,"Jeremy Pressman wrote on Twitter. One Jewish Voice for Peace activist noted that Khalidi stated to J Street that "if u [sic] call Israel's attacks on Gaza 'self defense' you can't be agents of change." Khalidi's remarks were met with strong applause.
...
According to one attendee, J Street U members in attendance huddled together at the conclusion of the speech, were "visibly upset" and could be overheard reassuring each other not to worry about Khalidi's demands.Is Obama getting ready to throw J Street under the bus?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, J Street, J Street U, Jewish Voice for Peace, Rashid Khalidi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:25 PM
4 comments
Labels: anti-Semitism, Barack Hussein Obama, Bernadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, campaign 2008, Jeremiah Wright, John McCain, Louis Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:37 AM
1 comments
Students of a Jewish modern orthodox upscale high school in New York City are demanding that the administration permit its political society to host the noted Palestinian-American academic Professor Rashid Khalidi after the head of the school barred his appearance.
The controversy erupted earlier this week when the anti-Zionist blogger Mondoweiss reported that the Ramaz day school had nixed an appearance by Khalidi, who was invited to the Manhattan campus by the student-run political society.
The move angered some students, who were moved to circulate an online petition that called on the Ramaz headmaster, Paul Shaviv, to reverse his decision.
...
In a statement issued to JTA on Friday, Shaviv said he was working with students to “navigate a delicate political situation, respecting their wish for open exchange of ideas, but also being mindful of multiple sensitivities within our varied school constituencies.”
The statement from Ramaz said, “The issue is not whether or not students should hear another view – they should. Our question was: ‘Is this the appropriate program?’”
The school’s administration said it believed the controversy would “massively overshadow any conversation and would make an educational experience impossible,” and that Khalidi was not the right partner for dialogue with high school students. Shaviv said he met with Khalidi and amicably explained the situation to him, and Ramaz’s statement said the school is “working with the politics club to arrange an event that will provide the program content they originally envisaged.”
Khalidi, a professor at Columbia University, was born to a Saudi-Palestinian father and a Lebanese mother. According to the Jewish Telgraph Agency, Khalidi was an adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization during the Madrid peace negotiations in the early 1990s. Khalidi has generated controversy in the past for stating that the Palestinians were legally entitled to resist Israel’s occupation by targeting soldiers.
Prior to taking up his current post as the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia, Khalidi also taught at the University of Chicago and Georgetown University.Not mentioned: Khalidi is a close friend of President Hussein Obama. When Khalidi left Chicago, there was a going away party at which it was rumored that the future President made anti-Semitic comments. The videotape of that party has never been released.
Labels: American Jews, Barack Hussein Obama, Leftist Jews, liberal Jews, Rashid Khalidi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:26 PM
2 comments
1) Is there any hope left for Mideast honesty in the New York Times
A few people have pointed out that I missed an op-ed by Rashid Khalidi, Is Any Hope Left for Mideast Peace? One paragraph really stuck out.
Until 1991 most Palestinians, although under Israeli military occupation, could nonetheless travel freely. Today, an entire generation of Palestinians has never been allowed to visit Jerusalem, enter Israel or cross between the West Bank and Gaza. This ghettoization of the Palestinians, along with the unrest of the second intifada of 2000-5 and the construction of seemingly permanent settlements and of an apartheid-style wall, are the tragic fruits of the so-called peace process the United States has led.Khalidi mentions the second intifada and the travel restrictions (which aren't as total as Khalidi writes) and the security barrier as if they are unrelated. Of course the intifada - which was orchestrated by Yasser Arafat - is the reason that Israeli had to impose travel restrictions and build a separation barrier.
Later Khalidi writes:
If Mr. Obama decided to devote energy toward resolving the conflict — a big if — it would not be easy. The Palestinians are deeply divided between supporters of Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction, which governs the West Bank, and Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza. An even bigger obstacle is Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing government, hellbent on territorial expansion."Right-wing?" Really? Hamas isn't a militant organization but a terrorist organization. It is devoted to destroying Israel. It has stockpiled weapons to threaten much of southern Israel. And the Israeli government is a bigger obstacle to peace? Who does Khalidi think he's kidding.
Jerold Auerbach critiques the Khalidi op-ed and two others at The Algemeiner:
Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi wants President Obama to guide a peace process that any Palestinian would applaud: an end to Israel’s “intransigence,“ “illegal” settlements, “apartheid-style wall,” and “ghettoization” of Palestinians, with a government “hellbent on territorial expansion.” The Israeli “occupation” must end, and settlements must be removed. What Palestinians must do is not mentioned.2) Will apartments sink peace?
From their quite different perspectives Friedman, Shavit and Khalidi reach the shared conclusion that surely pleases Times editors: the absence of peace is entirely Israel’s fault. And, no surprise, Jewish settlers are primarily responsible. Not a word about the Palestinian terrorism that led to the “apartheid-style wall” separating Israel from the West Bank. Nor about Israel’s 10-month settlement freeze two years ago that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas pointedly ignored. Nor about the vast Hezbollah accumulation of rockets in south Lebanon that probably exceeds what Hamas has stored in Gaza. Nor about the absurd claim, echoed by Khalidi, that “5 million” Palestinians live “in a state of subjugation or exile” for which Israel implicitly bears responsibility.
It is highly unlikely that the Times would publish three op-eds in a decade, no less in a single day, that even mention, no less defend, the right of “close settlement” west of the Jordan River enjoyed by Jews ever since the League of Nations approved the Mandate for Palestine nearly a century ago. That right has never been rescinded. Or that UN Resolution 242 following the Six-Day War called upon Israel to withdraw its military forces from “territories,” not from “the” territories or “all” the territories that it had gained from Arab aggression. Or, even in passing, that there already is a state (now known as Jordan) with a Palestinian population majority, in Palestine as originally defined by the League of Nations. Or that settlement in the Land of Israel is what Zionism has always meant. Might the Times recognize that the largest Jewish settlement in the Middle East, endlessly calumnied in its own pages, is the State of Israel?
On Saturday, Jodi Rudoren reported New Apartments Will Complicate Jerusalem Issue:
With President Obama scheduled to visit this week, the government has postponed action on several East Jerusalem projects, to make sure there are no awkward events like when Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. arrived in 2010 and was greeted by an announcement of 1,600 new units.While many (experts) imagined Jerusalem being divided, Yaacov Lozowick has presented an extensive case why Jerusalem can't and shouldn't be divided.
Those more traditional, government-financed settlements may be delayed, but The Jerusalem Post has for weeks been running advertisements promoting Maalot David and another new apartment block, Beit Orot — both privately owned and developed — as a “dream come true” for their proximity to the Old City and the 3,000-year-old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
While most experts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have long imagined Jerusalem as ultimately being divided, with Jewish neighborhoods remaining part of Israel and Arab ones joining Palestine, these new buildings make such a plan more complicated if not impossible — which may be exactly the point.
The article has one egregious error. Also as Yisrael Medad shows, Rudoren reports facts but doesn't seem to comprehend the significance of them.
Unlike Rashid Khalidi, or Ben Ehrenreich or Joseph Levine, I don't think that Jodi Rudoren is informed by hostility to Israel. Still, her reporting fleshes out the arguments made by the others. If one is anti-Israel, Israel's actions must also be suspect.
Towards the end of the article Rudoren writes:
After Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier kidnapped in the Gaza Strip, was released in late 2011 in exchange for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, Mr. Zaghal said, some Jews threw stones and water at people celebrating in the street, and made a big sign declaring, “One Jew is Worth 1,000 Arabs.”Rudoren faithfully reports Dr. Zaghal's complaint about the bad behavior of "some Jews." But would she ever report that the "moderate" leader of the Palestinians celebrated the memory of a terror supporter? In the New York Times it seems that not only is Israel wrong, nothing much it does is right either.
“Everyone knows they don’t love us and we don’t love them,” Mr. Zaghal, 32, said. “They think that this is their place and this is their land, but this is not the case. We are here and we are staying here, but they won’t. There are people here who won’t let them.”
3) A Thomas Friedman postscript
The other day, I dumped on Thomas Friedman. I'm not alone in my assessment of the columnist. Recently, Elder of Ziyon interviewed Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, head of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs in the Prime Minister's office. In their second interview, Gen. Kuperwasser asks why Thomas Friedman can't admit that he's been wrong about the Middle East.
Labels: Jerusalem construction, Jodi Rudoren, Middle East Media Sampler, New York Times, Rashid Khalidi, Soccer Dad, Tom Friedman
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:20 PM
0 comments
Labels: Ali Abunimah, Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Ayers, Campaign 2012, Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Robert Malley, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, US-Israel relationship, Zbigniew Brzezinski
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:42 AM
1 comments
Good question. Don't expect the Times to answer,There is nothing fantastical about suggesting that the reason that the Times didn’t originally report Obama’s words at the event, or the more radical words of the evening, was to protect their beloved presidential candidate. Given the Times’ track record of Obama defense, it’s the only rational conclusion to draw.But Rainey’s condescension continues. “In what will doubtless be a vain attempt to quell the bleating from the political fringe, I offer here a review of the trust history of the ‘Khalidi tape,’” he writes. What was that history that would shed light on the Times’ non-transparency? Not much. He rehashes the original Peter Wallsten story labeling Obama a quasi-moderate, without evidence to support that view. He then states:In the case of the Khalidi video, the unnamed source agreed to share the illuminating bit of video evidence with Wallsten, but only with the understanding that the reporter could not reproduce or rebroadcast the images. The journalist had to make a decision: Do I agree to that condition and get to see evidence that no other reporter has seen of Obama meeting with Palestinian Americans? Or do I insist on a full public release of the video, with the likely outcome that the source would share nothing?...
Well, then, where’s the transcript? Why is it that the source was comfortable divulging the video to the Times, but not to a less Obama-friendly source like Breitbart News for far more money? Asking the Times to hand over a transcript, and asking the source to hand over the tape, is far from “fringe.” It’s an attempt to vet a candidate that the Times clearly had little interest in completely vetting.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, campaign 2008, Campaign 2012, liberal media bias, Los Angeles Times, mainstream media, Rashid Khalidi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:32 PM
0 comments
And what about the other secret video, the one the media has chosen to suppress and guard for all these years? It apparently shows a mutual admiration society of Chicago terrorists, supporters of terrorists, communist revolutionaries, Islamists, anti-Semites, and Barack Obama (as featured speaker), gathered to celebrate a prominent spokesman for anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian propaganda. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.
One last note. In this age of domestic surveillance drones, "domestic terror" accusations against Tea Party conservatives, and the Obama administration's reluctance to say that it will never criminalize speech criticizing a religion (see here), ought not this Romney "secret video" story give one pause? This video was shot behind closed doors, in a private home. The leftist mouthpiece media has been tripping all over itself to publicize it as quickly and widely as possible. There is a message here, whether intended or otherwise: watch what you say -- anywhere, in any company, even in the privacy of your own home. No place, no context is above public monitoring and revelation.
Your "private" thoughts are not your own. And the public entity explicitly assigned the task, in a free society, of defending you against the potential corruptions of power is now the willing servant of that power, and the eager vessel of those corruptions.
...Unless, of course, your private thoughts express sympathy with Islamic terrorists, and show you, as an elected official, cavorting with avowed enemies of the American system of government. Then you will be accorded the full protection of the LA Times.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Campaign 2012, Mitt Romney, Rashid Khalidi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:30 PM
0 comments
I will be traveling much of the day today but will try to check in again before the Sabbath starts (I am heading back to Boston). If things go well, I might actually be there mid-day.1) Room for Debate -Supporting Israel
In its ongoing feature, Room for Debate, The New York Times now asks Has Support for Israel Hurt U.S. Credibility?
The contributors are Aaron David Miller, Rashid Khalidi, Michell Dunn, Daoud Kuttab, Daniel Gordis, and Dylan Williams. For the full answers and association of the authors check out the links.
The U.S. Can Still Pursue Peace by Aaron David MillerBoth are wrong. The reality is that the pro-Israeli community in America does have a powerful voice but not a veto. And a strong American president with a smart strategy and buy-in from the Arabs and Israelis can trump domestic politics every time.Miller argues that American support for Israel does not diminish America's influence in the Middle East.
America Has Shown Which Side It’s On by Rashid KhalidiIsraelis know it. Palestinians know it. The whole world knows it. The absence of any American sense of fair play where Palestinian-Israeli issues are concerned is no secret. In fact, it will keep the U.S. from ever being a disinterested intermediary in the Middle East.Well I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Israel and the U.S. Are Natural Allies by Daniel GordisIn Palestinian discourse, even the Temple is “alleged.” Compare that stance to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s politically risky acknowledgement of Palestinian rights to a sovereign national homeland. The peace process is utterly dead not because of America’s values, but because of the Palestinians’. Only when American presidents of both parties insist that the Palestinians take responsibility for their future will we know that America has gotten serious about playing a constructive role in the Middle East.This is the best answer. It turns the question around. The problem isn't American ties with Israel as assumed by the questioner, but the failure of the United States to live up to its principles.
Obama’s Fumble Cost the U.S. Its Standing by Michelle DunneThus an ill-considered effort to gain greater influence in the Middle East by distancing the United States from Israel left the president in a position in which Israelis neither love nor fear him. Arabs, to boot, are extremely disappointed in Obama and inclined not to take him seriously. If Obama wins a second term, he will have to try to rebuild his credibility in the Middle East. Meanwhile, whether or not to strike Iran, or to support Israel in doing so, is not a decision that the United States should back into simply because the Obama administration has mishandled Israel.Dunne got the sequence of events wrong in the previous paragraph, but insists that it's the daylight the Obama administration put between it and Israel that hurt America's influence.
Obama’s Promise, Broken Time and Again by Daoud KuttabObama’s backsliding began three months after the Cairo speech. After having demanded a total Israeli settlement freeze, the U.S. president buckled under pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and left the Palestinian leader hanging.Kuttab defends Abbas's instransigence and of course blames the Israel lobby. Obama eventually got a more extensive freeze than any previous president had gotten and Abbas still refused to negotiate until the freeze was nearly over. This is cynical and misleading.
An Ally to Israel, but Not Unquestioning by Richard LandAmerica can exert significant influence in the Middle East and may be the only “honest broker” with sufficient trust from both sides and the power to make any agreements reached enforceable.Land's arguing that the United States needs to be an honest broker and seems to be saying that it is and has been.
However, the Islamists who want to erase Israel’s existence will forever find America unalterably opposed to their goal.
Pro-Israel Groups Limit the President’s Options by Dylan WilliamsSome U.S. pro-Israel advocacy groups whose policy positions are now markedly to the right of most American Jews are leveraging decades of political relationships to convince policy-makers that no progress can be made on the Israeli-Palestinian front until all concerns over Iran’s nuclear program are fully resolved. The result is to tie the president’s hands, taking powerful diplomatic options off the table that could significantly enhance multilateral pressure on Iran.This is kind of interesting. Does the title suggest that J-Street (Williams' organization) is not pro-Israel? Williams' argument is a straw man. As former General Yaalon tweeted yesterday, "Anyone who thinks there's a connection between the Iranian issue and the Palestinian issue is mistaken and misleading."
Of seven essays, only two argued America's alliance with Israel hurt American interests. It's actually a better result than I would have expected from the New York Times. Only one participant though argued that the Times was asking the wrong question. Maybe I should just be happy that a clear majority argued "no."
2) The secular settlers
Last week, Jodi Rudoren of the New York Times wrote a flattering portrait of Dani Dayan, A Settler Leader, Worldly and Pragmatic.TOURING the settlements with Mr. Dayan is like attending a family reunion with a proud patriarch. At a plastics factory where Jewish and Arab workers take occasional field trips together, he said, “We are much less prejudiced toward Palestinians than Israeli society as a whole.” Leaving the college in Ariel, Mr. Dayan declared, “This is exactly what I want for Judea and Samaria: it’s a university that has some ideological tone, but it’s 21st-century, and it’s integral to the fabric of Israeli society.” Sampling robust reds at the Psagot winery, he mused, “This is my dream: to make a combination of mission, ideology, good life — that’s what makes life here permanent.”Dayan sees his residence in the Shomron as a factor in protecting his secular and cultured way of life.
Standing on a lookout point in Elie, Mr. Dayan surveyed his empire, the red-roof settlements that dot the hills in every direction.
“When I hear Israeli politicians say there are isolated settlements that should be removed, I know they have never visited here,” he said. “I got to fulfill the dream of 100 generations. Today, it’s a day-to-day fact.”
I don't know if it's a coincidence but this week The Algemeiner interviewed Ayelet Shaked, who is secular but is running for a position in the Ha-bayit Ha-Yehudi primaries. (h/t Jewtastic) Ha-bayit Ha-Yehudi is the newest iteration of what used to be the National Religious Party. When asked how she would react to someone who objected to a secular Israeli's presence in the leadership of a religious party, this is how she responded.YM: If one of them were to contact you, what would you say to him?3) Questions of Iran
AS: First of all it’s his right and I respect that. Even though we may have different views we need to respect each other. Nevertheless I would tell him that if we want to have a large party to the right of Netanyahu, one that is based on the Bible and Jewish values, then the party needs to be opened to secular and traditional Jews that identify with the values of the religious Zionist community.
I truly believe that if they open their heart and open their mind to cooperate with other people that share the same values, then we can have a big party. Otherwise the party will continue with three mandates.
A week and a half ago Shmuel Rosner published The analytical approach to deciding if you support an Israeli attack on Iran. Though I guess that Rosner is a skeptic about attacking Iran he seemed to have covered most bases.
Charles Krauthammer uses the Cordesman criteria to address some of the questions. Krauthammer begins his column with:Either Israel is engaged in the most elaborate ruse since the Trojan horse or it is on the cusp of a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.Given that an essential aspect of a strike on Iran is surprise, I've wondered the same thing. If Israel attacks Iran no one will be surprised (except in the context of the paradox of the unexpected hanging) and if the planes are detected while on their way, the attack would have to be aborted. However unlikely it is, it makes me wonder if Israel has a plan to disable or destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities without a direct military attack.
Krauthammer summarizes Cordesman's approach:1. “Clear U.S. red lines.”Former head of Israel's military intelligence, Amos Yadlin (who also was one of the pilots who destroyed the Iraqi reactor in 1981) offers different criteria.
It’s time to end the ambiguity about American intentions. Establish real limits on negotiations — to convince Iran that the only alternative to a deal is preemptive strikes and to persuade Israel to stay its hand.
2. “Make it clear to Iran that it has no successful options.”
Either its program must be abandoned in a negotiated deal (see No. 1 above) on generous terms from the West (see No. 3 below), or its facilities will be physically destroyed. Ostentatiously let Iran know about the range and power of our capacities — how deep and extensive a campaign we could conduct, extending beyond just nuclear facilities to military-industrial targets, refineries, power grids and other concentrations of regime power.
3. Give Iran a face-saving way out.
Offer Iran the most generous possible terms — economic, diplomatic and political. End of sanctions, assistance in economic and energy development, trade incentives and a regional security architecture. Even Russian nuclear fuel.Only by framing a nuclear-armed Iran as an impermissible threat to the national interests of the United States and its allies in the Persian Gulf can President Obama bridge this gap between Israeli creed and need. He must convince Israel, Iran, Russia and even Saudi Arabia that the U.S. military option is credible and effective.Yadlin offers a total of five actions for the United States to take, but only agrees with Cordesman on the first about establishing a nuclear Iran as an American red line. That might be because Yadlin's focus is more about reassuring Israel than in challenging Iran.
A gesture directly from Obama could do it. The U.S. president should visit Israel and tell its leadership -- and, more important, its people -- that preventing a nuclear Iran is a U.S. interest, and if we have to resort to military action, we will.
This message, delivered by the president of the United States to the Israeli Knesset, would be far more effective than U.S. officials' attempts to convey the same sentiment behind closed doors. The administration should also take five immediate steps to convince allies and adversaries alike that military action is real, imminent and doable - which are key to making it less likely.
Labels: Aaron David Miller, Barack Hussein Obama, Daniel Gordis, Iranian nuclear threat, J Street, Middle East Media Sampler, New York Times, Rashid Khalidi, revenants, Soccer Dad, US support for Israel
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:11 PM
0 comments
Breitbart News hereby announces a $50,000 reward to whomever can provide the complete video recording of the 2003 farewell party for radical Palestinian academic and activist Rashid Khalidi, at which then-state senator Barack Obama spoke--and which the Los Angeles Times has refused to release since reporting the event in April 2008.I really hope this works. That video could have made a huge difference in 2008 (assuming it contains what it's said to contain), and it could make an even bigger difference in 2012.
...
In further attempts to locate the tape or determine its whereabouts, Breitbart News has contacted the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) in Chicago, which Khalidi founded and which Obama provided with money while serving on the board of the Woods Fund with Bill Ayers. However, a request for comment received no response, despite verbal assurances from AAAN that a response would be forthcoming.
Breitbart News also attempted to contact blogger and activist Ali Abunimah, who served on the board of AAAN at the time and wrote in early 2007 about his disappointment with then-U.S. Senator Obama's alleged abandonment of the Palestinian cause. No response was received.
The occasion for the farewell party was Khalidi's departure from the University of Chicago for Columbia University in New York. His provocative advocacy for the Palestinian cause had created controversy in Chicago, and would do so in New York as well. Obama's participation in a special event in Khalidi's honor reflected not only the friendship between their two families, but also the eagerness with which Obama attempted to win support from left-wing constituencies in advance of the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in 2004.
The $50,000 reward is contingent on Breitbart News being able to obtain independent authentication of the video recording, as well as verification that the video recording contains Obama's complete remarks at the event.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Rashid Khalidi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:51 AM
2 comments
A few days ago, I published a piece by Bret Stephens that suggested that President Obama's views of Israel have been mostly influenced by radical Leftist Jews, particularly one rabbi, Arnold Wolf. Sunlight points me to this piece by Martin Kramer from 2009, which indicates that Wolf alone cannot be blamed and that attempting to do so is sweeping Rashid Khalidi under the rug.But how is it possible to mention Wolf and not Rashid Khalidi, Obama’s University of Chicago colleague? Not only did Obama famously have his own “conversations” with Khalidi, but Wolf attested that his own conversations with Obama on Israel and the Palestinians were three-way, involving Khalidi. A journalist who interviewed Wolf last year wrote this:Wolf apparently passed away sometime around 2008.Wolf has impressions about Obama’s initial views on Israel more than specifics, and the impression was one of sympathy for the views that he and their mutual friend, Palestinian advocate Rashid Khalidi, expressed to him on Israel—views including the need to pressure Israel to give up the West Bank. In retrospect, he believes that Obama was carefully considering their perspective rather than endorsing it. “When he was listening, we had his ear, but he didn’t come down on our side,” he reflects. “I think he was listening and learning and thinking.”“Our side,” no less. It makes no sense to invoke Wolf’s influence without even mentioning Khalidi, because on the question of the West Bank, they were a tag-team.
That’s why writing Khalidi out of the story of Obama’s view of the settlements is absurd.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Leftist Jews, Rashid Khalidi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:30 PM
0 comments
Remember that videotape of Barack Hussein Obama at Rashid Khalidi's going away party? You know, the one that the LA Times has locked up in a vault and refuses to release? Lauri Ragen writes that we all should be screaming from the rooftops that the networks should be spending their time finding the video instead of broadcasting prurient video interviews with the ex-wives of Republican candidates. For good measure, she also asks why the media is pushing for Republican tax returns and not for Obama's college transcript. The public will never understand that the Islamists taking over the Mideast are not moderate, will not promote democracy, are not friends of the United States, and wish the ultimate destruction of the West if the public reads and relies upon only The New York Times, L.A. Times, MSNBC, or similar tools of the left for its "news" and information. Americans will not understand the implications of four more years of a pro-Islamist president if they do not understand what Islamism is all about. And they will not know who is sitting in the White House making policy decisions based on personal biases if the media continues to promote Obama's agenda rather than investigate and report.Read the whole thing. If anyone has any clever ideas to get the tape released, please let me know.
So why is the videotape of such paramount importance? Simon quotes from an article published in the L.A.Times discussing the tape and its contents:[A] young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."Furthermore, rumors abound regarding additional messages that may or may not have been openly shared at the dinner in Obama's presence. Ted Belman reported at Israpundit that he has a reliable source that "the audio tape clearly picks up the toast 'death to Israel'." Did Obama drink to the death of an American ally that he has been actively intimidating, browbeating, and dissing since he phoned Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on his first day in office? Does Obama liken Israelis living in the West Bank to Osama bin Laden, whose death he claims as his greatest foreign policy accomplishment?
One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."
Simon concluded his article with a request that readers send in suggestions on how to make the contents of the tape public. Apparently Donald Trump missed this request when he wasted the media's energy pushing for the release of Obama's birth certificate -- something with which Obama is still having fun as he mocked the birthers at the Golden Globe awards last week.
But I highly doubt that the POTUS, who had his worldview formed while sitting in the pews of Israel-bashing Jeremiah Wright and at the dinner table of anti-Semite Khalidi, will be mocking people who care enough to properly vet his credentials by urging the release of the tape. And I venture a guess that if the videotape is released, Barack Obama will be packing his bags at the end of this year. But that is a big "if" because until the media stops obsessing over the infidelities of the GOP candidates and starts doing its job, Barack Obama's chances of a second term continue to scare the living daylights out of those who understand its implications.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, Rashid Khalidi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:27 AM
5 comments
Obama buddy Rashid Khalidi has criticized Illinois Democratic Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. for joining 80 other members of Congress and visiting Israel during the Congressional recess (Hat Tip: UncleWalterK via Twitter). Among the 81 who went on this "Magical Mystery Tour" was Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. While there, the Democratic congressman met with Israeli and Palestinian leaders but clearly deemed it unnecessary to undertake any real fact-finding, choosing instead to stick to the scripted tours laid out by lobbyists for Israel.If 'lobbyists for Israel' are scripting these meetings, why are any 'Palestinians' included on the schedule?
According to David Kreizelman, who leads AIPAC's Israel office, "The question isn't so much going away with a different attitude, it's going away with more information. They have to go back to their constituents who are saying, 'We want (government help) and you are voting to give money to Israel.'"The 'billions' are a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions of wasteful spending that the Obama administration has incurred in the last two and a half years. Cash for clunkers. Obamacare. Quantitative enhancement. The jobs that each cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to create and pay almost nothing. Michelle's vacations. Date night in New York. Need I go on?
Is that really what Jackson will do? Return home and tell his constituents that Israel should be getting billions from U.S. taxpayers while infrastructure and schools decay and unemployment rises in his district? Adding insult to injury, instead of going to Americans hard-hit by the economic downturn, this money is used by Israel to subjugate, humiliate and segregate millions of Palestinians.
One thing is certain: Rather than spend his time touring Israel, and seeing what the flacks for Israel wanted him to see, Rep. Jackson could have stayed home and met with constituents facing difficult times. Instead, he followed the lobbyists to the Holy Land, where he urged Palestinian leaders to recognize Israel "as the homeland of the Jewish people." Absent in his statement was any demand for Israeli recognition of the rights of Palestinians in what they also regard as their homeland.Congressional fact-finding missions are routine. And maybe Jackson felt that given that ISRAEL has recognized the 'Palestinians' 'rights' to a homeland, there was no need for him to say anything about that, while given the 'Palestinians' continuing refusal to recognize Israel's right to a homeland, there was a need to say something about that.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's repeated insistence that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state is entirely at odds with the principles of the modern-day United States and a throwback to an era in which the U.S. was considered a white state. Recognition of Israel as the Jewish state formally reduces Israel's 1.4 million Palestinian citizens to second-class citizenship. It's as if Jackson thinks that none of the goals and principles of the civil rights or anti-apartheid movements should apply to Israel, and instead that Israel should be allowed to lift its Jewish citizens above its Palestinian citizens — to say nothing of Palestinians in the occupied territories living under illegal occupation.Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and Islamic Republic of Mauritania. How come you don't object to any of those Rashid? Why are those okay, but a Jewish state is not?
If the congressman had chosen to stray from the well-worn partisan path laid out by AIPAC, he certainly would have drawn different conclusions than those included in a peculiar opinion piece he wrote for the Jerusalem Post earlier this month.And maybe he wouldn't have because AIPAC told the truth.
Jackson explicitly lectured Palestinians for not using nonviolence, ignoring a long tradition of nonviolent resistance by occupied and disenfranchised Palestinians. In so doing he also implicitly placed blame on Palestinians for their miserable lot, apparently forgetting that it is they, not the Israelis, who are subjugated.Non-violent, Rashid? Non-violent?
Jackson also approvingly quoted Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who has called for the forcible transfer of Israel's Palestinian citizens and whose stances have regularly been criticized internationally for their thinly veiled bigotry. The day that a prominent African-American and the son of a civil rights icon embraces a man like Lieberman for the sole purpose of greasing wheels in Washington is a sad one for anyone who cares about equality and justice.Lieberman never called for the forcible transfer of
Labels: AIPAC, Avigdor Lieberman, Barack Hussein Obama, Jesse Jackson Jr, Rashid Khalidi, United States Congress
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:35 PM
3 comments
It's been just four days since I last discussed the infamous videotape of Rashid Khalidi's 2003 departure party from Chicago at which anti-Semitic and anti-Israel remarks were made in front of a young Illinois Senator and Khalidi friend named Barack Hussein Obama.Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Noam Chomsky, Rashid Khalidi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:22 AM
2 comments
You will recall that during the 2008 US Presidential campaign, the Los Angeles Times had, but would not release, a tape of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi's going away party when he left Chicago for Bir Zeit on the Hudson. It is alleged that at said party, much hostility toward Israel was expressed, and that one Barack Hussein Obama - then a State Senator from Illinois - was present and a part of the festivities.Perhaps because I live in L.A. and know the LAT well, have written for it on occasion, I am far less optimistic than Stanley that such a revelation would occur. Though better written than the lefty blog, the L.A. Times is barely three degrees to the right of the Daily Kos and many times more stodgy. The Times admits mistakes less often than Markos Moulitsas. And I suspect their editorial board would rather see the return of the McNamara Brothers, who dynamited the Times building in 1910, than do anything that might possibly harm the reelection of Barack Obama.What could go wrong?
This is true even though the L.A. Times seems to have had little problem with Wikileaks or in disseminating their leaked information. It’s not just the Palin emails. Blabbing is fine as long as it’s on the proper side.
Meanwhile, Peter Wallsten, the man who received the clandestine tape from a mysterious donor and wrote the original attenuated LAT article on the Khalidi party (“Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama“), has moved on from the Los Angeles Times to the Wall Street Journal and, now, the Washington Post and he isn’t talking. (At least to me. I called him some time back, but the moment I broached the subject he essentially hung up.) These days he’s cheerleading for Obama at the WaPo with “daring” articles like “White House seeks to connect with young voters” with smiling photos of you-know-who.
No, in all probability, the only way we will ever see the tape or read even a redacted version of the transcript is courtesy of one of the better second story men on the West Coast or a retired KGB agent. (The Mossad need not apply. They will be blamed anyway.)
This is a shame because events are conspiring to make the production of this tape increasingly important, if only to clear the air. Among the soi-disant activists backing the second flotilla currently revving up to bring supposedly needed supplies to allegedly impoverished Gaza is one Rashid Khalidi. He has been raising money in support of one of the vessels with a familiar name:This year’s American vessel, named The Audacity of Hope after US President Barack Obama’s best-selling book, is being organized by an American group called “US Boat to Gaza.”
Obama links to the Audacity do not end there, however. Prof. Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and a friend from Obama’s time in Chicago, is among the supporters of an appeal launched by the group last week.
“We must raise at least $370,000 in the next month,” a statement on US Boat to Gaza’s Web site read indicating it doesn’t have the money needed to sail yet.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Los Angeles Times, Peter Wallsten, Rashid Khalidi, Roger Simon, Sarah Palin
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:26 AM
0 comments
You will recall that in October 2008, the Los Angeles Times suppressed a tape it has in its possession of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi's departure party from Chicago. Among those present at the party were Billy Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Barack Hussein Obama. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, what went on at that dinner would have taught us a lot about the current President of the United States. A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.But the Times refused to release the videotape in the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election. Could that videotape have influenced the 2008 election? We'll never know for sure.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.
And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.
At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."
One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."
...
At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.
The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, liberal media bias, Los Angeles Times, Rashid Khalidi, Sarah Palin
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:45 AM
1 comments
The American entry into the Gaza flotilla of fools is financed by Obama confidant Rashid Khalidi and named after the title of one of Obama's books. But the Audacity of Hope can and should be stopped from participating in the upcoming Gaza flotilla.The marine venue in which AOH will operate makes this situation different from that of US citizens engaging in civil disobedience on another nation’s territory. There exists no “right” to operate a ship under the flag of the United States. Doing so is entirely a matter of privilege conferred by the US government, including conformity with US laws and the international conventions recognized by the US.Read the whole thing.
The concept of a “flag state’s” responsibility for the behavior of ships operating under its flag is by no means fully developed in explicit law, but it is a longstanding convention, codified in both the Geneva Conventions on the High Seas of 1958 and the UN Convention on Law of the Sea of 1982. (Most discussions of this topic revolve around national responsibility for the behavior of fishing vessels, and for pollution and emission control.)
It is not clear what Israel could hold the flag states of the ships in the next flotilla accountable for, under international conventions – but what is clear is that there is a responsible way for the flag states to handle the problem, and an irresponsible – cynical – one. It is not a responsible approach to stand by and allow Americans to attempt to break a blockade – commit a hostile act – under the US flag, without the authorization of the US government and indeed in contravention of its own policy.
But what can be done? Andrew McCarthy offered an answer in the summer of 2010, shortly after the plans for AOH were announced by the Free Gaza Movement in the US. The possibility of Americans trying to perpetrate unauthorized actions at sea was foreseen by US lawmakers a long time ago, and that is why Title 18 of the US Code contains Section 962, which makes it a crime to “furnish, fit out, or arm” (or “attempt to furnish, fit out, or arm”) a vessel that will be used to “cruise or commit hostilities” against a nation with which the United States is at peace.
McCarthy suggested using Title 18 Section 2339B as well, which makes it a crime to provide support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations. As McCarthy and others have laid out in detail, the Free Gaza Movement has extensive ties to Hamas (designated a terrorist organization by the US government); whenever Free Gaza attempts to break the blockade that hampers Hamas’s arms pipeline, it is providing support to Hamas. McCarthy points out that the laws he cites make the attempt a crime, as well as the accomplishment of the prohibited acts.
Other commentators have also pointed out that the US could take action against the funding sources of the Free Gaza Movement, given its terrorist ties. One step would be revoking the 501(c)(3) status of the American Educational Trust (AET), through which tax-deductible donations to Free Gaza can be made.
Labels: Audacity of Hope, Barack Hussein Obama, flotilla of fools, Rashid Khalidi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:56 AM
1 comments
Stanley Kurtz revisits the issue of President Obama's ties with pro-'Palestinian' radicals, and concludes that we all should have listened three years ago when we were warned about this (well, I did listen and wrote about it extensively but didn't convince enough people). During his time in the Illinois state senate, Obama forged close alliances with the most prominent Palestinian political leaders in America. Substantial evidence also indicates that during his pre-Washington years, Obama was both supportive of the Palestinian cause and critical of America’s stance toward Israel. Although Obama began to voice undifferentiated support for Israel around 2004 (as he ran for U.S. Senate and his national visibility rose), critics and even some backers have long suspected that his pro-Palestinian inclinations survive.Read the whole thing.
The continuing influence of Obama’s pro-Palestinian sentiments is the best way to make sense of the president’s recent tilt away from Israel. This is why supporters of Israel should fear Obama’s reelection. In 2013, with his political vulnerability a thing of the past, Obama’s pro-Palestinian sympathies would be released from hibernation, leaving Israel without support from its indispensable American defender.
...
The record is clear. Obama’s heritage, his largely hidden history of leftist radicalism, and his close friendship with Rashid Khalidi, all bespeak sincerity, as Obama’s other Palestinian associates agree. This is not to mention Reverend Wright — whose rabidly anti-Israel sentiments, I show in Radical-in-Chief, Obama had to know about — or Obama’s longtime foreign-policy adviser Samantha Power, who once apparently recommended imposing a two-state solution on Israel through American military action. Decades of intimate alliances in a hard-Left world are a great deal harder to fake than a few years of speeches at AIPAC conferences.
The real Obama is the first Obama, and depending on how the next presidential election turns out, we’re going to meet him again in 2013.
Labels: Ali Abunimah, Barack Hussein Obama, Bernadine Dohrn, Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:25 PM
0 comments
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
Like what you see? Please hit my tip box below!
Jerusalem |
 |
 |
