Displaying posts published in

December 2016

ISRAEL Comments turned off

Donald Trump Taps One of His Lawyers as Ambassador to Israel David Friedman makes reference to moving U.S. embassy to Jerusalem By Damian Paletta

By on December 16th, 2016

WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday said he would nominate his longtime friend and lawyer David Friedman to be the U.S. ambassador to Israel, assigning a key confidant to a central diplomatic post.

Mr. Friedman, in a statement, said he was honored by the appointment and he looked “forward to doing this from the U.S. embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”

That statement is certain to reverberate throughout the Middle East. The existing U.S. embassy in Israel is in Tel Aviv. Mr. Trump has said he wants to move it to Jerusalem, a pledge that former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also made during their campaigns but eventually backed away from.

Liberal-leaning U.S. Jewish groups quickly lined up against the nomination. The lobbying group J Street said it “vehemently opposed” Mr. Friedman’s nomination and warned that he lacked any diplomatic or policy credentials and is “beyond the pale” of American views in the Middle East.

“This nomination is reckless, putting America’s reputation in the region and credibility around the world at risk,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the group’s president.

Palestinians have warned that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would make it more difficult to broker a resolution between the Israelis and Palestinians, and it has been perpetually delayed since a 1995 congressional legislation authorized the embassy to be moved there.

But Mr. Friedman’s selection could signal that Mr. Trump is planning to take a more assertive posture with the Palestinians. Mr. Friedman is known for making provocative statements about issues in the Mideast, even making an unsubstantiated claim in October that Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Many Republicans have repudiated this claim, but it became a popular accusation on social media and was embraced by Mrs. Clinton’s opponents.

Mr. Friedman is a founding partner of the law firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, specializing in bankruptcy law. He had his bar mitzvah in Jerusalem 45 years ago, the Trump transition team said.

Continue reading →
MEDIA, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The Media Game: Creating the Hound Pack of the Day by Yves Mamou

By on December 16th, 2016

To be published on the front page of your own newspaper, to open the news on your own television program, you must bring the “kill news”, the news that kills all others, and – more importantly – the news that all other media will copy and paste.

Journalists are obsessed with creating the hound pack of the day and then enjoying lead hound status. In hound-pack logic, there can be only ONE news item a day – repeated and reprinted infinitely.

Poverty can make a headline when data is officially released, but who cares about what poor people think?

The problem begins when people not on the radar screen become the majority of the population and when this majority of the population become “dissidents”. Then, when the invisible people (in the media sense of the term) engage themselves in the democratic process and protest with a vote, it sounds like a bomb: No one saw it coming! No one could have predicted it!

According to the media, the only poor who need help, support, audience are immigrants. Other people who are poor, especially the whites, do not, for the media, exist. And if they did protest, presumably they would have no right to….

“Representing the middle and working classes as “reactionary,” “fascist”, is very convenient. This avoids asking critical questions. When someone is diagnosed as fascist, the priority becomes to re-educate him, not to question the economic organization of the territory where he lives.” – Eric Guilluy, Le Point

Trump understood this disconnect [of the people from the media] well. During the campaign, in fact, Trump spoke to very few of the media: He made himself a media – tweeting every day, obliging mainstream media to amplify his words. The more the lying media treated him as a liar, the more he was trusted.

Sulzberger also launched an appeal to the “loyalty” of Times subscribers – because thousands of people abruptly cancelled their subscriptions. The disaffection with biased information is growing, and fewer and fewer people are ready to subscribe to propaganda, especially when the facts on the ground so visibly contradict it.

Do you know why Google is investing millions of dollars in perfecting a self-driving car? Not for safety, not for easier driving; they are doing it because it is stupid to let millions of people concentrate on a road instead of on surfing the internet.

It is a “zero sum” game: each second on Facebook is stolen from a newspaper or television station.

Democracy depends for its survival that journalists do correctly the job for which they are paid: reporting facts and not stigmatizing people who do not resemble themselves. It is not the “noble” duty of journalists to prevent things from happening. Just report facts and propose analyses, and let people think for themselves.

New media are appearing on the web: Breitbart in the US, Riposte Laïque in France and many dozens in Europe. Their audience consists of millions of readers.

Continue reading →
WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

To the Muslim Brotherhood: Quit Shouting Islamophobia and Quit Attacking Muslim Families by Saied Shoaaib

By on December 16th, 2016

Islamists, including Majzoub, have a long history of dragging prominent people and organizations into their arguments about extremism, terrorism and radicalization. These Islamists do not use their influence to drain the resources of Islamic terrorism in Canada and elsewhere, nor do they seek to stop young Canadians from joining ISIS. They do not use their knowledge or money to dismantle the infrastructure of extremism, nor do they attempt to dismantle the historical and religious arguments in favor of terrorism. Rather than do any of this, they instead make it their priority to intimidate, harass or sue those who speak out against Islamist extremism and its accompanying terrorism.

The prevailing religious interpretation of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its adherents is that anyone who objects to their interpretation of Islam is to be considered a disbeliever. Because of their disbelief, they deserve to be killed in the present life and should then suffer the punishment of Allah in the next life. If killing them in this life is not an option, then spreading hate and anger against them is acceptable.

The other main problem the Parliamentary action against “Islamophobia” is that it gives the false impression that groups such as the Canadian Muslim Forum or the Muslim Brotherhood can speak for Muslims. In fact, they do not. In the UK, it was recently revealed that only about 2% of UK Muslims feel that the Muslim Council of Britain represents them.

It is not just that they have extremist literature in Canadian schools and mosques, it is that in some instances they have nothing but extremist literature. The Ottawa Public Library, for instance, has nothing but extremist literature in its Arabic language collection.

The first victims of this will be secular and modernist Muslims who oppose extremism — and their families.

Islamist front groups in Canada and the West have dragged the media and the political “elites” into their extremist messaging. Rather than learning about why extremism and terrorism come out of their religion, Islamists instead concentrate on preventing the victims of their violence from speaking out. They do this by shouting “Islamophobia” at every opportunity, and do so most loudly at modernist or secular Muslims.

The Parliament of Canada, for example, passed an “anti-Islamophobia” motion on October 26, 2016. Samer Majzoub, the president of the Canadian Muslim Forum, was the person behind the Parliamentary petition against “Islamophobia”; it generated some 70,000 signatures. The sponsor of the motion in the House of Commons was MP Frank Baylis.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

FBI: American Jews Most Targeted Minority for Hate Crimes in 2015

By on December 16th, 2016

American Jews account for a shockingly disproportionate number of hate crime victims, according to 2015 FBI statistics. The Bureau defines a hate crime as “an offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or gender identity.”

The FBI reported that of the 1,244 reported victims of hate crimes last year, 664, or 53.4%, were Jewish. By comparison, there were 257 victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes, or 20.7% of the total figure.

Indeed, in 2015 there were more Jewish victims of hate crimes in the U.S. then all of the other victims of religious groups combined

Yet, this conclusion is not reflected in U.S. news media coverage—or popular perception—of hate crime victims. Mark Perry, a scholar at the Washington D.C.-based think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), noted:

“According to a Google news search for the term ‘hate crimes’ along with the name of each of those three groups [Muslims, Blacks and Jews], there are 164,000 results for ‘hate crimes’+black, 134,000 results for ‘hate crimes’ + Muslims and only 36,400 results for ‘hate crimes’+Jews.”

“Based on news reports,” Perry stated, “you would think that blacks were 4.5 times more likely than Jews to be victim of a hate crime and that Muslims were almost 4 times more likely than Jews to be a hate crime victim.” However, “adjusting for the population size of each group (42.75 million blacks, 5.7 million Jews and 3.3 million Muslims), the hate crime victimization rates last year per 100,000 population were 11.6 for Jews, 7.8 for Muslims and 4.1 for blacks… . Therefore, American Jews were nearly three times more likely than blacks to be a victim of a hate crime last year, and 1.5 times more likely than a Muslim to be a hate crime victim.”

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Smart technology can get us to the 21st-century infrastructure we need :Chuck Brooks

By on December 16th, 2016

America has a history of creating infrastructure milestones that have led to significant prosperity and national advantages. Dating back to the advent of the transcontinental railroad and moving forward through the Rural Electrification Act, the Interstate Highway System to the deployment of the ARPANET, these milestones have created competitive advantages that continue to this day.
During the 1950s and 1960s, our nation was transformed by explosive growth in our nation’s public infrastructure ecosystem. That ecosystem allowed America to prosper by bridging communities and creating regional pockets of innovation. Coupled with the Space Race with the Soviet Union, the 20th-century infrastructure ecosystem helped make America a technological superpower.

Continue reading →
ISRAEL Comments turned off

l What Is an NGO? How Do They Demonize Israel? By Alex Grobman, PhD

By on December 16th, 2016

Articles about Israel frequently mention the term nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which play an inordinate role in shaping the way Israel is portrayed in the media. Few people know why NGOs exist, how they function, the underlying motivation of each organization or how they are funded.

The UN uses the term to differentiate between government institutions and private organizations. An article published by Harvard University Law School described some of the positive contributions NGOs have made: the collapse of apartheid regime in South Africa, the overthrow of the dictatorship in Chile, the political revolution in the Philippines, the demise of the Communist governments in Central Europe;, the establishment of an international treaty outlawing land mines and the creation of an international criminal court.

Gerald M. Steinberg, the president of NGO Monitor, which documents questionable funding and actions of many Israeli NGOs, explains that NGOs are established ostensibly to focus on human rights and legal, environmental and media issues. Those involved in Israel have clear political agendas, with legal NGOs using lawfare having the most profound influence.

The NGOs are in the vanguard of the organizations demonizing Israel such as BDS and Breaking the Silence and promoting anti-Semitism. In their reports and public statements, and with their clout in the UN, the media and the academic and diplomatic world, many NGOs misrepresent facts to advance their objectives without any external accountability.
Lawfare

Lawfare is a weapon used in U.S. and European courts to initiate civil law suits and criminal investigations to thwart Israel’s ability to fight terror by accusing her of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” Brooke Goldstein, director of the Lawfare Project notes, “The object is as much to win a public relations victory as a court case.”

By framing political attacks in legal terms, Steinberg and Anne Herzberg, NGO Monitor’s Legal Advisor, assert that NGOs attempt to create “a veneer of credibility and expertise for their claims. Since 2001, this process has repeated itself numerous times—Jenin in 2002, the ICJ [International Court of Justice] case against Israel’s security barrier in 2004, the 2006 Lebanon War and the 2010 Gaza flotilla.”

Continue reading →
ISRAEL, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

J Street freaks out over Trump’s excellent pick for ambassador to Israelby Paul Mirengoff

By on December 16th, 2016

When J Street expresses outrage at your choice for ambassador to Israel, there’s very good reason to think you made a good pick. So it is with David Friedman, Donald Trump’s selection for that post.

Friedman, a bankruptcy attorney, is a long-time friend of the president-elect. He served on Trump’s Israel advisory committee during the campaign.

Friedman’s views on Israel are sound and will be a breath of fresh air. He does not believe Israeli settlements are an obstacle to peace (they are an excuse) and he says that a “two-state solution” is not a priority for the U.S. (why should it be?).

Friedman predicts that, as ambassador to Israel, he will be working from Jerusalem. He calls that city “Israel’s eternal capital.”

Presidential candidates routinely speak in favor of moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It is, after all, Israel’s capital and therefore the seat of its government.

No president has moved the embassy. Donald Trump seems prepared to do so. His selection of Friedman reinforces this impression.

Here is a 16-point position paper that Friedman co-wrote for the Trump campaign. I can barely find an unsound sentence in it.

Highlights include:

A Trump Administration will ensure that Israel receives maximum military, strategic and tactical cooperation from the United States, and the MOU will not limit the support that we give. Further, Congress will not be limited to give support greater than that provided by the MOU if it chooses to do so. Israel and the United States benefit tremendously from what each country brings to the table — the relationship is a two way street [note: and it ain’t J Street].

The U.S. should veto any United Nations votes that unfairly single out Israel and will work in international institutions and forums, including in our relations with the European Union, to oppose efforts to delegitimize Israel, impose discriminatory double standards against Israel, or to impose special labeling requirements on Israeli products or boycotts on Israeli goods.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Teen made up story about anti-Muslim attack on subway By Tina Moore and Shawn Cohen

By on December 15th, 2016

The Muslim teen who claimed three drunks taunted her as a “terrorist” on a Manhattan subway train now admits she lied to cops — and was arrested on Wednesday.

Yasmin Seweid, 18, is charged with obstructing governmental administration and filing a false report, according to a high-ranking police source.

Both charges are misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in jail.

Seweid, who lives in Nassau County, had claimed the hateful drunks shouted, “Trump! Trump!” and called her a “terrorist” as they tried to steal her headscarf. “Go back to your country!” she said they shouted during the supposed Dec. 1 attack.

But when cops tried to confirm her story by checking surveillance video, they determined that her story didn’t add ups

Hate-crimes investigators called the Baruch College business major in on Wednesday to work on another sketch of her “attackers,” and confronted her with the inconsistencies, another source said.

That’s when she cracked, admitting she had been out late drinking with friends and made up the attack story to distract her angry father, sources said.

Seweid had been having problems with her strict-Muslim Egyptian family in North New Hyde Park because she is becoming “westernized,” one source said. Those problems were aggravated when they learned she was dating a Catholic, the source said.

Seweid was released without bail early Thursday morning after her arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court.
Modal Trigger
Yasmin Seweid leaving court.Photo: Steven Hirsch

She left with her father and escorted by court officers.

A young man threw a dark jacket over her head — with her once-long hair shorn by a buzz cut — and then helped her into a black SUV before they drove off.

Neither Seweid nor her Legal Aid attorney, Benjamin J. West, would comment, and she did not speak inside the courtroom either.

Continue reading →
WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

German leader ‘insults’ Saudi Arabia by refusing to wear hijab By Jamie Schram

By on December 15th, 2016

Germany’s defense minister refused to wear a traditional head covering during her visit with a Saudi Arabian prince, arguing that women have as much right as men do to wear whatever they choose.

Ursula von der Leyen declined to wear a hijab — a veil traditionally worn by Muslim women — or an abaya, a full-length robe, when she met with Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al Saud in the Saudi capital of Riyadh last Wednesday,according to Sputnik International news.

“The right to choose your own clothing is a right shared by men and women alike. It annoys me, when women are to be pushed into the Abaya,” Das Bild reported Leyen as saying.

When pictures of Leyen, minus a hijab, hit social media, some Saudis went on Twitter to blast her.

“The German Defense Minister: not wearing the hijab in Saudi was deliberate. This is an insult to Saudi Arabia,” read one tweet.

Leyen, decked out in a crisp dark pantsuit, said she “respects the customs and traditions of the country. [In Germany] one is free to choose his or her attire accordingly,” Sputnik reported.

The incident comes after German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently called for a ban on wearing burkas in her country.

“With us, the rule is: Show your face, that’s why the full veil is not appropriate, it should be banned,” Merkel has said.

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

Has Trump Nominated Too Many Military Leaders—Or Not Enough? Choosing military men for top cabinet spots is not unprecedented, nor is it foolish given how Washington insiders have performed. By Victor Davis Hanson

By on December 15th, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump is being faulted for supposedly appointing too many retired generals to cabinet-level jobs and “militarizing” the government.

Former lieutenant general Michael Flynn is slated to be national security adviser. Retired Marine general James Mattis has been nominated as defense secretary. Retired Marine general John Kelly is Trump’s nominee for secretary of homeland security. High-ranking officers such as General David Petraeus and Admiral Michael Rogers have been rumored for other positions in the Trump administration.

All are retired as well as seasoned veterans. They have been previously entrusted with the lives of thousands of soldiers, and they have traveled around the world and met many of the key leaders in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

Most of the criticism of the Flynn, Mattis, and Kelly nominations is politically created hysteria, like past contrived bouts of partisan frenzy over subjects such as the “war on women” or the “climate of hate.”

Why, after reaching a high military rank before retirement, should a nominee earn more scrutiny than an ex-banker, ex-politician or ex-lawyer?

Did anyone complain when Barack Obama appointed five retired generals and one retired admiral to either Cabinet posts or high-ranking positions in his administration? In fact, Flynn and Petraeus were first appointed to high office by Obama.

Under Obama, Petraeus became CIA director. Flynn served as Obama’s director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Retired general Eric Shinseki was head of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Retired general James Jones was national security adviser. Retired admiral Dennis Blair and retired general James Clapper served as successive directors of national intelligence.

Ronald Reagan also appointed a number of retired and acting generals to cabinet positions or other high offices, including Al Haig as secretary of state, Colin Powell (while on active duty) as national security adviser, and Vernon Walters as ambassador to the United Nations.

Retired generals and admirals as administration secretaries, officers, directors and advisers are nothing new. In the 20th century, most of the stars of the American effort in World War II later served in the executive branch.

President Harry Truman appointed General George Marshall (of Marshall Plan fame) secretary of state and, later, secretary of defense. General Omar Bradley was head of the Veterans Administration while still on active duty.

Dwight Eisenhower, without prior elected office, proved a most-effective Republican president.

The chief complaint about Trump’s appointments is that too many generals will mean too great a likelihood of war. Historical evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Generals were not the proverbial “best and brightest” who argued for military intervention in Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or the bombing of Libya in 2011.

In a famous example of a civilian-military paradox, President Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright, scolded Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell in 1993 for not being more eager to send troops into the Balkans. “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Albright asked Powell.

Traditionally, retired generals and flag officers have no desire to see their own troops killed in what they see as optional wars abroad. Their occasional harangues about building up military power are predicated on notions of peace-through-strength deterrence: The more powerful the military is perceived abroad, the less likely it will be need to be used.

Continue reading →