Displaying the most recent of 92838 posts written by

Ruth King

ISRAEL Comments turned off

Jerusalem Already Has Plenty of Embassies—Just Not to Israel Eylon Aslan-Levy

By on March 10th, 2017

The West has for decades displayed a diplomatic double standard when it comes to its consulates: refusing to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, but holding diplomatic missions to the Palestinian Authority in the very same city.
Much has been made in recent months of President Donald Trump’s pledge to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and its possible repercussions. The public conversation has generally concentrated on the potential diplomatic and political fallout, especially the possibility of a new outbreak of Palestinian violence. Lost in all the controversy, however, is the fact that the U.S. is one of nine countries that already has a de factoembassy in Jerusalem. But these are all embassies to the Palestinians, not Israel.

The U.S. embassy in Israel is located in Tel Aviv, but much less well known is that the U.S. consulate-general sits in Jerusalem, just around the corner from the Prime Minister’s residence—and it handles diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority. It is one of nine consulates-general in Jerusalem, all of which serve the same purpose. Five of them—the UK, Turkey, Belgium, Spain and Sweden—are in eastern Jerusalem. The consulates-general of the US, France, Italy, and Greece are in western Jerusalem. The European Union also has a representative office in eastern Jerusalem, and the Holy See has an Apostolic Nunciature there, alongside the Palestinian offices of several international agencies.

None of the countries that have consulates in Jerusalem recognize Israeli sovereignty over the city. Consequently, their official embassies remain in Tel Aviv. Their consulates in Jerusalem are, almost uniquely, accredited to no state. And none of the consuls seek an exequatur, the diplomatic authorization required by international law. Nevertheless, the Israeli Foreign Ministry treats them for all intents and purposes as if they were normal consulates accredited to the State of Israel. Their jurisdiction covers the whole of Jerusalem, as apart from Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Why do nine countries refuse to operate embassies in Jerusalem on the grounds that they do not recognize Israeli sovereignty there, while maintaining diplomatic missions to the Palestinians in the very same city? None of the relevant foreign ministries was willing to publicly justify the situation. Indeed, the story of this diplomatic anomaly is one of a situation that no country designed or consciously desired, but that no one today has the will to change.
The consulates-general in Jerusalem predate the State of Israel itself: the U.S. Consulate-General has been on Agron Road since 1912 and the French Consulate-General nearby opened its doors in 1929. Many of these consulates trace their roots as far back as the Ottoman period, and under the British Mandate, Jerusalem hosted many other consulates that were subsequently abandoned.

When the UN General Assembly recommended the partition of Mandatory Palestine into two states in Resolution 181 in November 1947, it also recommended that Jerusalem become a corpus separatum: a territory administered by the UN’s Trusteeship Council itself, belonging to neither side. This resolution, of course, was never implemented: the Arab states waged war to defeat it, and consequently Jerusalem was divided between Israel in the west and Transjordan in the east.

The UN refused to let the idea of the corpus separatum die, despite accepting that its earlier border proposals were now defunct. In Resolution 194 of December 1948, the General Assembly resolved that Jerusalem “should be accorded special and separate treatment…and should be placed under effective United Nations control.” Consequently, foreign states began establishing their embassies to Israel in Tel Aviv.

Continue reading →
WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

BLASPHEMY CHARGES IN DENMARK by Mark Movsesian

By on March 10th, 2017

The New York Times reports that a local prosecutor in Denmark has brought a blasphemy charge against a forty-two-year-old man who burned a copy of the Quran in his backyard and posted a video of the act on his Facebook page. The Danish penal code makes blasphemy, defined as “publicly insulting the tenets of faith or worship” of a recognized religious community, a crime punishable by a fine or up to four months’ imprisonment. This prosecution, which the country’s attorney general had to approve, is the first of its kind in decades. The last successful blasphemy prosecution in Denmark occurred in 1946.

This is a truly singular occurrence. Many European countries, including Denmark, have hate-speech laws that prohibit speech that denigrates or threatens persons on the basis of certain characteristics, including religion. (Here in the U.S., courts consistently have ruled hate-speech laws unconstitutional.) But this is not a hate-speech prosecution. The defendant in this case evidently did not insult or threaten Muslims as people. Instead, he publicly insulted Muslim belief, especially Muslim belief in the sanctity of the Quran. And that, according to the prosecutor, merits punishment under Danish law.

The ironies abound. Blasphemy prosecutions are not so unusual in Muslim-majority countries, where they often serve as pretexts for the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities. In fact, this month marks the sixth anniversary of the murder of Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian Pakistani politician who had criticized that country’s blasphemy laws; his murderers called Bhatti “a known blasphemer.” But blasphemy prosecutions are vanishingly rare in the West. In America, the Supreme Court ruled blasphemy laws unconstitutional in 1952. Most European countries have abolished their blasphemy laws; where such laws continue to exist, they are dead letters.

Moreover, Western countries have made opposing blasphemy laws a major international human rights cause. At the U.N. Human Rights Council, America and its European allies have objected strenuously to so-called “Defamation of Religion” resolutions introduced in recent years by Muslim-majority countries, on the ground that such resolutions encourage local blasphemy laws and stifle free expression. Since 2011, American and European diplomats have convinced proponents to accept a compromise resolution, one that condemns discrimination and the incitement of violence against persons on the basis of religion—a resolution protecting believers, rather than beliefs as such.

Continue reading →
ISRAEL Comments turned off

David Friedman Approved as US Amb to Israel by Senate Comm David Friedman’s nomination as US Amb. to Israel is voted up and out of US Sen. Committee. By Lori Lowenthal Marcus

By on March 10th, 2017

The controversial – because so ardently pro-Israel – nominee to become the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Thursday morning.

The contentious hearing on Friedman’s nomination took place back in mid-February. Since then, Friedman and his supporters have been biting their nails, waiting for the committee to vote on the nomination.
In the month between the committee hearing and Thursday’s vote, many U.S. organizations which deal with Israel worked actively to encourage Senators to vote in accordance with those organization’s values.

J Street, the prog-elite organization highly critical of Israel and especially Israel’s security efforts, worked overtime in an effort to derail Friedman’s nomination.

Firmly pro-Israel organizations such as Americans for a Safe Israel, EMET, Iron Dome Alliance, Jews Choose Trump, ZOA, COPMA and JCC Watch hand-delivered a letter to all members of the SFRC urging them to vote in favor of the nomination.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) did not take a position on Friedman’s nomination.

The vote in favor of Friedman went almost strictly along party lines. Almost, because Democrat Sen. Bob Menendez (NJ) once again voted his conscience and refused to be intimidated by party leadership. Menendez voted “aye” when his name was announced during the roll call vote on Thursday morning. The New Jersey Senator had also voted against approving the Nuclear Iran Deal which had become a highly partisan issue.

Committee member chair Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) spoke briefly before the vote. His endorsement was read without emotion from a prepared statement. Next to speak was the ranking committee member Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), who had already announced that he was going to vote against the nomination.

Cardin said the words Friedman had used in various op-eds which were extremely negative suggested to him that Friedman would not prove to be the “unifying force” needed in the region. The Maryland Senator was also critical of Friedman’s statements in opposition to the “Two State Solution.”

Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) also spoke against Friedman’s nomination. Both Senators took umbrage at Friedman’s past written criticisms of far left organizations and members of the U.S. government, including former President Barack Obama.

The four brief statements were then followed by a roll call which resulted in the voting out, with approval, of Friedman’s nomination.

The nomination now awaits a vote by the full Senate.

Continue reading →
MEDIA, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Robert Murray: An Age of Decrepitude

By on March 10th, 2017

Melbourne’s former broadsheet, once a splendid newspaper, now delivers interminable, paint-by-number epistles about racism, refugees, multiculturalism, climate change, victmised Aborigines, male chauvinism and, of course. the loathsomeness of conservatives. Trees die for this. How sad.
After almost a lifetime of reading the Age, Melbourne’s 162-year-old morning news­paper, I am debating whether to cancel my subscription. This is not so much about digital technology as, in the words of a veteran ex-subscriber friend, because the paper is “biased and boring”.

A lot of people around Melbourne are saying the same thing and, in a way they would not have a few years ago, dismiss the Age with disdain. They agree with the description of the late Peter Ryan, in one of his last Quadrant columns, that it has become a “feeble and foolish newspaper”.

How could a once very good newspaper fall so low? The financial squeeze of recent years has affected it severely, but there is much more at work. In a few words, it is over-managed and under-edited, puts process before product—a common complaint about management everywhere—and, worst of all, it is bizarrely politically correct. Politically correct in this context means censoring the news at the expense of reader interest and thus circulation and accurate public debate.

Similar complaints are made about its 185-year-old Fairfax Media stable-mate the Sydney Morning Herald, but this is more specifically about the Age newspaper version and excludes specialist pages such as sport and finance.

The circulation of both has been falling at 7 to 8 per cent a year, twice the rate of their tabloid competitors and is now, at 96,000 for the Age and 102,000 for the SMH, around half that of earlier in the century. The rival tabloid circulations have declined only about half as much. Digital versions partly explain the falls but in my observation widespread reader dissatisfaction is also part.

It goes back a long way. The weaknesses have been seeping in over more than forty years, but have become marked in the past decade. Questions arise about how suited a conventional public company with no dominant shareholder is to owning a newspaper.

Until about 1970 family dynasties, going back to the mid-nineteenth century, controlled both organisations: Fairfax in the case of the SMH and the David Syme family company for the Age. Neither was ideal, but they offered commitment and collective memories of how to do things going back generations. The management bureaucracies were small, close, fairly decentralised among the operating units, and administrators often had spent their entire careers there. Management usually tried to bring up future administration and editorial executives from within.

The SMH was the most respected newspaper in the country, and while the Age had been rather stolid it was a substantial and readable paper of record. When Graham Perkin, with his flair, energy and drive, became editor in 1965, with Syme support he soon turned it into a very good newspaper.

By around 1970, however, financial pressure and family changes pushed David Syme & Co into merging with Sydney’s stronger John Fairfax & Sons. The old intimate simplicity of both was weakened in a much bigger public company, while 1970s radicalism began asserting itself among journalists, bringing a certain lofty preciousness. The notion of journalism being about opinion and questioning rather than plain reporting was creeping into society generally.

Continue reading →
ISRAEL, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

UNFRIENDLY SKIES: AIRLINES OMIT ISRAEL FROM THEIR MAPS

By on March 10th, 2017

Academic Study: Middle Eastern Airlines That Omit Israel From Route Maps Appear to Be Playing to Antisemitic Prejudices of Customer Bases by Barney Breen-Portnoy

Airlines that omit Israel from their route maps — as well as those that don’t offer kosher meal options — appear to do so to play to the prejudices of their customer bases, a new academic research paper reported on by The Economistthis week found.

According to the study, authored by Joel Waldfogel and Paul Vaaler of the University of Minnesota, carriers that leave solely Israel off their maps — making clear it was an intentional move — include Flydubai, Kuwait Airways, Middle East Airlines, Qatar Airways and Saudia.

Israel is also not found on the maps of Emirates and Ethiad Airways, but they also do not include several other countries they do not serve, making these carriers what the authors called “plausible deniers.”

“Israel map denial is more likely for airlines with likely customers from countries exhibiting greater anti-Semitism,” the paper’s opening abstract says. “Likely owner tastes also matter: denial is more likely for state-owned airlines in countries that do not recognize Israel. Kosher meal options on online menus follow similar patterns, suggesting anti-Semitic rather than anti-Zionist motivations.”

Furthermore, according to the study, such discrimination by these companies does not deter other major international carriers from entering into codesharing alliances with them. This is because, the paper said, there are “few airline alternatives to choose from in the Middle East.”

In 2015, Kuwait Airways shut down its New York-London route following a US Transportation Department demand that the airline stop illegally discriminating against Israelis through its policy of refusing to sell them tickets.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Crying Wolf: The Attempt to Delegitimize the President Alex Grobman, PhD

By on March 10th, 2017

Attempts to delegitimize President Donald Trump by characterizing him as an antisemite are fatuous, repulsive and demonstrates little or no understanding of what constitutes antisemitism. The failure of the administration to recognize Jews in the Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day produced a torrent of criticism.

The administration’s slow condemnation of the desecration of the Chesed Shel Emeth Cemetery in St. Louis, Missouri as soon as the vandalism occurred, caused additional angst. It should be noted, Vice President Mike Pence strongly denounced the wave of antisemitic acts, and visited the cemetery to assist in repairing the damage.

By not immediately condemning the bomb threats against Jewish Community Centers and offering reassurance that steps would be taken to protect the Jewish community were viewed by a number of Jews as a dangerous sign.

To a reasonable observer, it appeared that the president’s response to Jake Turx, a haredi reporter for Ami Magazine, who asked how his administration will handle the increase in antisemitic acts in the US, was defensive and rushed. Rather than allowing the journalist to finish his question, the president attempted to disarm what must have seemed to him to be another hostile reporter. While clearly coming to the wrong conclusion, this degree of insensitivity, and the corresponding initial reluctance to speak out against antisemitism caused concern. Yet none of these examples indicate whatsoever that the president is antisemitic or supports antisemitism. The idea is so ludicrous that it defies all logic.

Before accusing someone of being antisemitic, one should have an actual basis for making such a serious allegation. Indiscriminate labeling an individual an antisemite distorts the gravity of the accusation and becomes the equivalent of crying wolf.

Defining Antisemitism

How then do we define antisemitism? Efforts to define what historian Robert S. Wistrich called “The Longest Hatred,” have been attempted since the German journalist Wilhelm Marr first coined the term in 1870. On January 28, 2005, the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), arrived at a definition, which remains the accepted standard for evaluating expressions of antisemitism.

Continue reading →
HOMELAND SECURITY, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Could You Prevent Big Brother Watching? By Rachel Ehrenfeld and Stephen Bryen

By on March 10th, 2017

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described the protagonist, Winston Smith’s efforts to find a way to prevent Big Brother from watching his expressions:

“The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”

Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer, though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing.”

In 1949, when Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was first published, one could have evaded Big Brother’s watchful camera under the cover of darkness. Today, however, “Night Vision” technologies can penetrate darkness.

Today, according to Wikileaks latest stolen documents release, the United States Intelligence Agency (CIA) together with the British domestic Intelligence agency- MI5, joined in developing televisions (especially Samsung’s Smart TV), smartphones, cars, and other computerized devices into spying machines.

So, what do you do to stop any Big Brother from invading your privacy, spying on all your activities everywhere? Watching you and listing to your conversations? Even to your snoring?

Stephen Bryen offers the following:

What do you do if all your devices are open to hacking? –Android and iPhone phones and watches, Bluetooth, WiFi, “Smart” TVs, laptops, tablets, GPS, car stereo, computers, Alexa and Google Home, home alarm systems –in other words, everything?

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Leave Steve Bannon Out of Your Shpiel Purim is an occasion for humor—but choose your targets with some care. By Tevi Troy *****

By on March 10th, 2017

As Jews celebrate Purim this Saturday night, a surprising figure could be making an appearance in some synagogues: Steve Bannon. What might the controversial presidential adviser have to do with the Jewish holiday?

Purim celebrates the deliverance of the Jews of ancient Persia from death at the hands of an evil government official named Haman. The story, told in the Book of Esther, shows how the beautiful Esther, with her cousin Mordechai’s guidance, became queen and helped turn the tables on Haman. Esther opened King Ahasuerus’ eyes to Haman’s designs and thus saved the Jews. Purim is a classic Jewish holiday. As the old joke goes, “They tried to kill us. We won. Let’s eat.”

But there’s more to Purim than eating. Jews are required to hear the tale read from the Book of Esther, to give gifts of food to at least two other Jews, and to participate in a festive meal that includes certain holiday-specific blessings. Many Jews also dress in costume and attend a humorous play at their synagogue.

This performance, known as Purim Shpiel, has a long history. In Europe it often parodied bits of rabbinical literature. Today the Shpiel mocks current events, celebrities or well-known community members. One can order prewritten Shpiel scripts and songs, with titles like “Oyklahoma” and “Middle East Side Story.”

The Shpiel often includes a playful recreation of the Purim story, with new individuals filling in as some of the main characters. Haman has evolved as the ultimate evil, a villain driven by hatred to destroy the Jewish people. According to Holocaust survivor Solly Ganor, a 1945 Purim Shpiel in the Dachau concentration camp alluded to Adolf Hitler as Haman. In the 1990s, Saddam Hussein earned the Haman designation during the Gulf War, when he was firing missiles at Israel.

Some Shpiels last year featured then-candidate Donald Trump as Haman. New York Jewish Week’s Gary Rosenblatt predicts even more such comparisons this year, albeit with the roles tweaked. As president, Mr. Trump will likely stand in as King Ahasuerus. Mr. Bannon, a close adviser, would take the role of Haman. Anyone considering these designations should reconsider.

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

EPA Chief Questions Agency’s Right to Regulate Carbon Emissions Scott Pruitt also says in speech that agency to take more cues from states By Christopher M. Matthews and Erin Ailworth

By on March 10th, 2017

The new head of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency called into question that agency’s legal right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, a signature effort by the Obama administration.

In a speech Thursday to a room full of energy executives in Houston for CERAweek by IHS Markit, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said there is a “fundamental question” about whether Congress gave the agency the authority to “deal with the Co2 issue.”

“It’s a question that needs to be asked and answered,” Mr. Pruitt said.
In an interview earlier Thursday, Mr. Pruitt said carbon dioxide emissions weren’t the primary cause of global warming.“I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Mr. Pruitt told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.
In an interview earlier Thursday, Mr. Pruitt said carbon dioxide emissions weren’t the primary cause of global warming.

There is consensus in the scientific community that carbon dioxide, a bi-product of burning fossil fuels, and other greenhouse gases are a significant driver of climate change. Mr. Pruitt said further analysis and debate on the subject are needed.

Mr. Pruitt’s statements mark a dramatic shift from Obama administration policies, which sought to use agencies like the EPA to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Environmental activists quickly condemned his comments.

“This is like hearing the head of NASA saying the Earth is flat,” said Vera Pardee of the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s absolutely terrifying that the man in charge of the EPA denies fundamental facts about climate change.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

GOP Health Plan Advances After Clearing Two House Committees Republican-led panels approve measures to alter the Affordable Care Act, but opposition remains strong By Siobhan Hughes, Stephanie Armour and Kristina Peterson

By on March 10th, 2017

WASHINGTON—Republicans advanced legislation through two House committees on Thursday as part of their goal to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, but signs of discord spread around the capital as conservative lawmakers warned this version of the health-law overhaul won’t pass.

On party-line votes, the committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means approved measures repealing major parts of the 2010 health law, known as Obamacare, with the goal of holding a floor vote later this month.

Conservatives fired warning shots at Republican leaders in an open challenge to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), who said Republicans could either line up behind the House bill or renege on their promise to repeal the law.

“It really comes down to a binary choice,” Mr. Ryan said. “This is the chance, and the best and only chance we’re gonna get.”

Conservatives disputed that assessment, going public with concerns that their leaders’ approach would create a new entitlement program centered on refundable tax credits and saying the bill should instead aim at reducing premiums and other costs. The first warning flare of the day was sent up Thursday morning by Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), who wrote on Twitter that the current House bill wouldn’t pass the Senate.

“To my friends in House: pause, start over. Get it right, don’t get it fast,” Mr. Cotton tweeted. “What matters in long run is better, more affordable health care for Americans, NOT House leaders’ arbitrary legislative calendar.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →