The UN, the “State of Palestine” and the Torture of Women by Khaled Abu Toameh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13561/palestinians-women-torture

This is the kind of story that the “State of Palestine” does not intend to raise during its chairmanship of the largest bloc of developing countries at the UN. It seems that, from the point of view of the Palestinian Authority leadership, Jbara’s ordeal does not fall within the category of human rights.

Jbara’s story has barely attracted the attention of the international mainstream media. As far as many foreign journalists covering the Middle East are concerned, a Palestinian woman complaining about torture in a Palestinian prison is not newsworthy. Had she been detained by Israel, Jbara would have most likely made it to the front pages of the world’s leading newspapers and magazines in a matter of minutes.

The PA regularly complains about human rights violations of Palestinians held in Israeli prison for security-related offenses. But when the PA’s own security forces detain and torture a mother of three, Palestinian leaders are found elsewhere — like at the helm of a UN bloc.

A Palestinian mother of three has accused the Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces of torturing her and threatening to rape her during the two months she was held in a PA prison in the West Bank.

The accusation by the woman, Suha Jbara, 31, came on the eve of PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s visit to New York, where he is scheduled to assume the chairmanship of the largest bloc of developing countries in the United Nations, known as the “Group of 77 and China.”

As chairman of the group, which represents 134 nations, Abbas and the “State of Palestine” will negotiate and co-sponsor proposals and amendments on various developmental, humanitarian and legal issues that are on the agenda of the UN.

Erdoğan Is Wrong on Syria. Turkey Cannot Get the Job Done. by Burak Bekdil

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13541/turkey-erdogan-syria-withdrawal

In May 2015, the secular daily newspaper Cumhuriyet published on its front page a video and photographic evidence of arms deliveries by the Turkish intelligence services to Islamist groups in Syria. A month later, President Erdoğan himself filed a criminal complaint against Cumhuriyet’s editor-in-chief and said, “He who ran this story will pay heavily for it.”

Clearly, Erdoğan’s “militarily speaking, the so-called Islamic State has been defeated in Syria. Yet we are deeply concerned that some outside powers may use the organization’s remnants as an excuse to meddle in Syria’s internal affairs” means “outside powers should not meddle in Syria but Turkey should.”

Erdoğan’s plan is merely about substituting jihadists hostile to him with ones friendly to him.

Shortly after President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to pull out U.S. troops from Syria, a move that exorbitantly pleased Turkey, Russia and Iran, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in a charm offensive, wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times, entitled, “Trump Is Right on Syria. Turkey Can Get the Job Done.”

Turkey, Erdoğan claims, is the only country with the power and commitment to perform that task of protecting the interests of the United States, the international community and the Syrian people.

This claim is grossly wrong. Despite some convergences, Turkey’s interests in the Syrian theater are widely different than those of the Western bloc of countries. Turkey’s ambitions over the future of Syria are largely sectarian (pro-Sunni) and, therefore, a good recipe for further violence in civil war-torn Syria and the potential slaughter of the Kurds, a job Turkey can get done.

Rahaf’s Saudi Family Will Never, Ever Stop Coming After Her The Saudi teen remains in real and terrible danger because she has renounced Islam. Phyllis Chesler

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272545/rahafs-saudi-family-will-never-ever-stop-coming-phyllis-chesler

Reprinted from Israel National News

Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun, a Saudi teenager, has just tried to save her own life—and in so doing, has risked death for shaming her family and her country.

Rahaf fled her family vacation in Kuwait, took a plane to Bangkok, barricaded herself in her hotel room at the airport and began posting about her plight on social media. She demanded political asylum.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. In this case, the ammunition is digital and governmental.

Via her smartphone, Rahaf claimed that she had renounced Islam and that her family would surely kill her if she was returned to them. Rahaf obtained 90,000 followers on Twitter. The media began to cover her plight.

The Thai government had been about to deport her back to the family which Rahaf claimed had beaten and imprisoned her for up to six months at a time for minor, alleged offenses. And then, it changed its mind and allowed Rahaf to meet with an official from the UN’s refugee agency (U.N.H.C.R.).

Rahaf wanted asylum in either Australia or Canada and both countries considered her request even as she was being vetted for “refugee” status.

But make no mistake. She remains in real and terrible danger. She has shut down her Twitter account due to death threats. Her family will never, ever stop coming after her.

The Media’s Trump-Russia Death Spasms By Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/14/the-medias-trump

This week’s confirmation hearings for William Barr, the former U.S. attorney general nominated by President Trump to serve in that post once again, are expected to focus mostly on the most powerful man in Washington, D.C.: Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Democrats and Republicans have signaled they will demand Barr’s loyalty to the unelected lawyer who, for the past 20 months, has politically handcuffed the Trump Administration, Congress, and, to an extent, the American people. As the investigation into whether Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 presidential election drags on, the incoming attorney general must convince the Senate Judiciary Committee that his fidelity to Robert Mueller is unwavering before he gets the nod.

According to the news reports, Barr will tell the committee in hostage-tape fashion on Tuesday, “It is vitally important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation. I have known Bob Mueller personally and professionally for 30 years. We worked closely together throughout my previous ensure at the Department of Justice. We’ve been friends since. I have the utmost respect for Bob and his distinguished record of public service.”

Well, that’s reassuring!

The Celebrated Fake Frog That Is Taking Down the Deep State By Karin McQuillan

https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/14/the-celebrated-fake

When President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the top constitutional lawyers in the country shared one predominant hope and expectation. Before the hearings, I spoke with five of the men who fought and won hard Supreme Court battles for religious freedom, property rights, and freedom of speech. All of them told me the same thing: the Kavanaugh court will take on the administrative state.

Recently, I received an email from the Pacific Legal Foundation that their hopes are coming true. It is a comic tale of frogs, mice, and deep state overreach, but far from trivial for America’s future.

President Trump, we are often told, is not a principled man, certainly not a constitutionalist. These critics mistake a habit of abstract thinking for principles. President Trump has a patriotic grasp of the essentials. He ran on the promise to appoint top quality, conservative judges, and unlike the GOP political class, he takes pride in keeping his pledge to voters over donors. Trump used the constitutional experts at the Federalist Society to draft his list of candidates, unlike the politically safe Bush appointments, which irresponsibly added to the liberal court majority.

President Trump’s appointees, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh, are now showing their mettle.

With liberals dominating the federal agencies and the courts, the Environmental Protection Agency’s power has grown decade by decade—that is, until President Trump appointed these two strong constitutionalists to the Supreme Court. The EPA is on the front lines of this battle because its rulings directly impact private property and economic freedom.

What the FBI was willing to do to take out Trump with no evidence By Jack Hellner

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/what_the_fbi_was_willing_to_do_to_take_out_trump_with_no_evidence.html

For almost three years bureaucrats from the Obama administration, including those at FBI and Justice, have tried to take out candidate and then President Trump with no actual evidence. Robert Mueller knew that Michael Flynn didn’t violate any laws by talking with a Russian after the election, knew that Comey tried to entrap Flynn, knew that FBI agents didn’t think he lied but badgered and sought to destroy and bankruptFlynn and his family until he caved to plead to perjury. Now, we learn from an article in the New York Times that the FBI started a secret investigation into whether President Trump worked for Russia even though there was no evidence that he did.

F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia

In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.

And, of course, they found nothing.

China: Dystopia in Power By Alex Alexiev

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/china_dystopia_in_power.html

This debate has become even more heated, given some disturbing changes in China of late and the emergence of an American president seemingly willing to challenge Beijing’s accustomed rapacious way of doing business with the West. What has happened in China, in short, is a remarkable strengthening of the state-owned sector and therefore communist party rule under Xi Jinping, who came to power in 2012. According to The State Strikes Back: The End of Economic Reform in China? by Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute, while in 2013, 57% of bank loans went to private companies and 35% to state-owned firms, under Xi, in 2016, these percentages were dramatically reversed to 83% for state firms and only 11% for private companies, despite the fact that most state-owned companies were loss-making and inefficient compared to private ones. Finally, in perhaps the best example of the new ascendancy of the Communist Party yet, the party changed its succession rules in 2018 to allow Xi to become president for life – a clean break with Deng’s admonition not to allow another disastrous cult of personality of the party chairman like that of Mao.

Very little of this has seen the light in America’s mainstream media, which have been happy to project yet another Trump defeat in his “trade war” with China. In this, the media are uncannily similar to Walter Duranty of the New York Times and assorted leftist “political pilgrims” who could see nothing wrong with “Uncle Joe” Stalin and his murderous regime while they starved and murdered millions. Fortunately, history cannot be falsified forever, even by the Times, and eventually, books like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago and Robert Conquest’s The Great Terror and The Harvest of Sorrow appeared to provide a measure of historical justice to the victims.

Trump’s Mideast Strategy Like Obama, he wants the U.S. to step back. Unlike Obama, he wants to contain Iran.By Walter Russell Mead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-mideast-strategy-11547509876

As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo concludes his swing through the Middle East, the Trump administration’s regional strategy is coming into view. Like President Obama, President Trump wants to reduce American commitments while promoting stability. But their strategies differ. Mr. Obama thought the best hope for a reduced U.S. footprint was conciliating Iran. Mr. Trump, by contrast, seeks to build a coalition of U.S. regional allies—even if those allies fall well short of perfection—that can provide a stable security architecture and offset Iranian strength as the U.S. steps back.

In seeking a reduced Middle East presence and retreating from expansive human-rights goals, both Team Obama and Team Trump have reacted to significant changes in American politics. Public support for U.S. military action and democracy promotion in the Middle East has all but collapsed, for two reasons. First, decades of engagement in the region have brought neither stability nor democracy. Second, as America’s dependence on Middle East energy recedes, many voters see less reason to prioritize the region. Pundits can argue that these reactions are shortsighted, but politicians must take them into account.

The Trump administration hopes that with limited American support, Israel, Turkey and the Sunni Arab countries can together contain Iran. If so, Mr. Trump can claim credit for improved Israeli-Arab ties and a more stable region even as he cuts back on American troop and aid levels. This is a sounder strategy in the abstract than the Obama team’s gamble on Iranian restraint. U.S. relations with the Sunni Arab powers, Israel and Turkey are sometimes difficult, but a policy based on continued cooperation with them is more feasible than subordinating their interests to chase after an improved relationship with the deeply hostile regime in Tehran.

The Inherent Racism of Identity Politics Peter Baldwin *****

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/01-02/the-inherent-racism-of-identity-politics/

That only white people can be guilty of racism is preposterous. Most people are aware of non-white people vilifying other ethnic groups in racial terms. Why is this not racism? Why should the perpetrators not be held as accountable? Doesn’t it imply an inability to take responsibility — a racist presumption if ever there was one?

Identity politics racist? How can that be, you might ask. After all, is not the pursuit of “racial justice” part of the very essence of identity politics? Surely all those warriors for social justice who so prodigiously level charges of racism against others could not themselves be guilty of this offence? They wouldn’t embrace a racist ideology, would they?

Sad to say, yes they would, at least if we adopt what until recently was the standard, commonsense understanding of the terms race and racism. On these understandings, a person’s race referred to certain heritable, unalterable and visible features, like skin colour, that might indicate ancestry tracing back to a particular geographical region. A racist was someone who was inclined to think ill of, or to discriminate against, a person or group solely because of such characteristics.

Towards the end of the last century it became generally accepted in societies like ours that racism so defined was both morally odious and profoundly irrational. The classic expression of this was Martin Luther King’s great civil rights speech of 1963 in which he looked forward to a day when his children would be judged by “the content of their character”, not the colour of their skin.

The basic sentiment here, shared by most people across the ideological spectrum, and certainly those who considered themselves left-wing and progressive, was that race was something we should aspire to transcend. People must not be judged according to visible surface features that reflect trivial genetic variations. We should see each other as, first and foremost, members of a common humanity, free agents possessing certain inalienable rights.

So what has changed? A great deal, as it happens, with the wide embrace of the ideology of identity politics in Western societies, and its wholesale incorporation into the worldview of those who consider themselves left-wing or progressive. On this view, we are essentially defined not by our humanity but by our race, gender or other identity category, or some intersecting set of identities.

The notion of a post-racial future is now considered an ideological heresy by the academic high-priestesses and priests of the identitarian ideology. These ideologues are nowadays absolutely obsessed about race. They strive constantly to heighten racial awareness and to perpetuate rather than resolve racial grievances. The Enlightenment vision of a common humanity is now distinctly passé, as even the late Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm lamented in a speech in 1996.

‘Live Your Truth’ By Madeleine Kearns

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/transgender-birth-certificate-law-gender-identity-legal-concept-weak/

We’re only just beginning to understand the wider implications of a new law allowing New Yorkers to declare their chosen gender on their birth certificates.

Imagine that a man walks into a courtroom and swears to tell “my truth, the whole of my truth, and nothing but my truth, so help you all.” Imagine your incredulity as, for whatever reason, he gives an outlandishly false testimony. Imagine your dismay as the judge explains that all subsequent evidence and, especially, all cross examination, must support the man’s “truth,” and as he instructs the members of the jury that they, too, must affirm it.

“You be you. Live your truth. And know that New York City will have your back,” Mayor Bill de Blasio told a cheering crowd last year. He was referring to the introduction of a bill — since passed and signed into law — that allows New York City residents to change the sex on their birth certificate to M, F, or, if they like, the gender-neutral X, in order to conform their legal status to their “gender identity.”

Unlike sex, which is an objective and observable fact, “gender identity” — one’s sense of being male, female, or something else — is entirely subjective. It is a feeling. To say so is not to be dismissive or hurtful toward individuals who experience a disconnect between their birth sex and their sense of gender identity (i.e., “gender dysphoria”). It is merely to insist that the purpose of public records, such as birth certificates, is not to affirm or reflect our feelings — however strong or distressing they may be — but to document the truth, rather than your truth or my truth, for practical, legal purposes.

Moreover, that complicated, elusive, and multifaceted feelings now form the overarching theory of “gender identity” is not, as is commonly suggested in the New York Times, the result of some recent scientific advancement. The emphasis on subjectivity is a result of the shifting cultural and political paradigms of the 20th century that have influenced the field of psychology.