Displaying posts published in

October 2017

MEDIA, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The EU Lectures Journalists about PC Reporting by Bruce Bawer

By on October 25th, 2017

Nor, we are told, should we associate “terms such as ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’… with particular acts,” because to do that is to “stigmatize.” What exactly does this mean? That when a man shouts “Allahu Akbar” after having gunned down, run over with a truck, or blown to bits dozens of innocent pedestrians or concertgoers, we are supposed to ignore that little detail?

But that is what this document is all about: advising reporters just how to misrepresent reality in EU-approved fashion.

It is interesting to note that while many people fulminate over President Trump’s complaints about “fake news,” they are silent when an instrument of the EU superstate presumes to tell the media exactly what kind of language should and should and should not be used when reporting on the most important issue of the day.

“Respect Words: Ethical Journalism Against Hate Speech” is a collaborative project that has been undertaken by media organizations in eight European countries – Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, and Spain. Supported by the Rights and Citizenship Programme of the European Union, it seeks, according to its website, to help journalists, in this era of growing “Islamophobia,” to “rethink” the way they address “issues related to migratory processes, ethnic and religious minorities.” It sounds benign enough: “rethink.” But do not kid yourself: when these EU-funded activists call for “rethinking,” what they are really doing is endorsing self-censorship.

In September, “Respect Words” issued a 39-page document entitled Reporting on Migration & Minorities: Approach and Guidelines. Media outlets, it instructs, “should not give time or space to extremist views simply for the sake of ‘showing the other side.'” But which views count as “extremist”? The report does not say – not explicitly, anyway. “Sensationalist or overly simplistic reporting on migration,” we read, “can enflame existing societal prejudices” and thus “endanger migrants’ safety.” Again, what counts as “sensationalist” or “overly simplistic”? That is not spelled out, either. Nor, we are told, should we associate “terms such as ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’… with particular acts,” because to do that is to “stigmatize.” What exactly does this mean? That when a man shouts “Allahu Akbar” after having gunned down, run over with a truck, or blown to bits dozens of innocent pedestrians or concertgoers, we are supposed to ignore that little detail?

Or perhaps we should entirely avoid covering such actions? After all, the document exhorts us not to write too much about “sensationalist incidents involving migrants,” as “[v]iolent individuals are found within every large group of people.” If, however, we do feel compelled to cover such incidents, we must never cease to recall that the “root causes” of these incidents “often have nothing to do with a person’s ethnicity or religious affiliation.” What, then, are those root causes? The report advises us that they include “colonialism, racism, [and] general social inequality.” Do not forget, as well, that there is “no structural connection between migration and terrorism.”

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY, ISRAEL Comments turned off

Move the Embassy to Jerusalem and Promote Peace Such a move would make clear that the U.S. supports Israel’s claim to the city’s western part. By Daniel B. Shapiro See note please

By on October 25th, 2017

Mr. Shapiro was the Obama administration’s ambassador to Israel…..This column promotes the notion of an embassy move facilitating a two state dissolution of Israel. his peace processing should be viewed cum granu salis…..rsk

President Trump, like his three predecessors, has so far waived the 1995 law requiring the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. This month he told Mike Huckabee on the Trinity Broadcast Network that he will delay the move further to give his nascent peace initiative “a shot.”

But Mr. Trump has created the perfect opportunity to combine his unveiling of a U.S. peace plan with an announcement that he will be moving the embassy to the Israeli capital.

The administration indicates Mr. Trump will announce his peace proposal later this year. To gain approval from Palestinians and Arab states, it will need to include an explicit endorsement of a Palestinian state. He will need to be clear that such a state must commit to live in peace alongside Israel, accept provisions to ensure Israel’s security, and recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

That is consistent with Israeli policy. According to U.S. officials, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in closed conversations, has reiterated his commitment to his 2009 Bar-Ilan speech that supports “a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.” And foreign diplomats report that U.S. officials have confirmed they understand a two-state solution must be included in any viable U.S. peace plan.

Packaging the unveiling of a U.S. peace plan with an announcement of the embassy move could ensure that the latter reinforces the former. But Mr. Trump must be clear on two points: The embassy will relocate to West Jerusalem, the area of the city under undisputed Israeli sovereignty. He also must explain that East Jerusalem’s status will need to be negotiated, and the U.S. expects the outcome to include a Palestinian capital in the city’s Arab neighborhoods, as part of a unified city.

This approach has two advantages. First, it reorients U.S. policy toward a two-state solution. Second, it punctures myths that both sides use to deceive themselves and delay progress. Palestinians will see that the U.S. strongly supports historic Jewish and Israeli claims to Jerusalem, and Israelis will hear from their ally that to end the conflict they need to acknowledge a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem.

There are signs of openness on both sides. Arab states, which already acknowledge Israel as a strategic partner, will be able to help persuade the Palestinians that they will gain from the U.S. endorsement of a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem. In advance, it will be necessary for the U.S. to discuss these ideas with Arabs and the Palestinians to help prepare them for the embassy move.

In Israel, there is recognition from surprising quarters that the Jewish state’s own interests require a new approach on Jerusalem. As Ben Caspit reported in al-Monitor, Anat Berko, a Likud member of the Knesset, handpicked by Mr. Netanyahu, has presented a plan that would transfer control of most East Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods from Israel to the Palestinian Authority. That would help ensure a stable Jewish majority in Israeli Jerusalem. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman has long expressed concern about the demographic balance in Israel. His position logically suggests that Israel has no interest in absorbing the more than 300,000 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem. As growing numbers of Arab residents accept Israel’s offer to apply for citizenship, the Israeli Interior Ministry seems to be having second thoughts.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The FBI’s Political Meddling Mueller is the wrong sleuth when his ex-agency is so tangled up with Russia. By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

By on October 25th, 2017

Let’s give plausible accounts of the known facts, then explain why demands that Robert Mueller recuse himself from the Russia investigation may not be the fanciful partisan grandstanding you imagine.

Here’s a story consistent with what has been reported in the press—how reliably reported is uncertain. Democratic political opponents of Donald Trump financed a British former spook who spread money among contacts in Russia, who in turn over drinks solicited stories from their supposedly “connected” sources in Moscow. If these people were really connected in any meaningful sense, then they made sure the stories they spun were consistent with the interests of the regime, if not actually scripted by the regime.

The resulting Trump dossier then became a factor in Obama administration decisions to launch an FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign, and after the election to trumpet suspicions of Trump collusion with Russia.

We know of a second, possibly even more consequential way the FBI was effectively a vehicle for Russian meddling in U.S. politics. Authoritative news reports say FBI chief James Comey’s intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter was prompted by a Russian intelligence document that his colleagues suspected was a Russian plant.

OK, Mr. Mueller was a former close colleague and leader but no longer part of the FBI when these events occurred. This may or may not make him a questionable person to lead a Russia-meddling investigation in which the FBI’s own actions are necessarily a concern.

But now we come to the Rosatom disclosures last week in The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress.

Here’s another story as plausible as we can make it based on credible reporting. After the Cold War, in its own interest, the U.S. wanted to build bridges to the Russian nuclear establishment. The Putin government, for national or commercial purposes, agreed and sought to expand its nuclear business in the U.S.

The purchase and consolidation of certain assets were facilitated by Canadian entrepreneurs who gave large sums to the Clinton Foundation, and perhaps arranged a Bill Clinton speech in Moscow for $500,000. A key transaction had to be approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Now we learn that, before and during these transactions, the FBI had uncovered a bribery and kickback scheme involving Russia’s U.S. nuclear business, and also received reports of Russian officials seeking to curry favor through donations to the Clinton Foundation.

This criminal activity was apparently not disclosed to agencies vetting the 2010 transfer of U.S. commercial nuclear assets to Russia. The FBI made no move to break up the scheme until long after the transaction closed. Only five years later, the Justice Department, in 2015, disclosed a plea deal with the Russian perpetrator so quietly that its significance was missed until The Hill reported on the FBI investigation last week.

For anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russia meddling story.

The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy. More recently, if just one of two things is true—Russia sponsored the Trump Dossier, or Russian fake intelligence prompted Mr. Comey’s email intervention—then Russian operations, via their impact on the FBI, influenced and continue to influence our politics in a way far more consequential than any Facebook ad, the preoccupation of John McCain, who apparently cannot behold a mountain if there’s a molehill anywhere nearby.

Which means that Mr. Mueller has the means, motive and opportunity to obfuscate and distract from matters embarrassing to the FBI, while pleasing a large part of the political spectrum. He need only confine his focus to the flimsy, disingenuous but popular (with the media) accusation that the shambolic Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →