RUTHFULLY YOURS

This is not just some dumb Joe’s opinion…alas, it has become the “doctrine” of the letftish Democratic party….rsk

In this Thursday, April 7, 2016 photo, Vice President Joe Biden speaks at an event in Las Vegas. Biden acknowledged “overwhelming frustration” with Israel’s government on Monday, April 18, and said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration has led Israel in the wrong direction, in an unusually sharp rebuke of America’s closest ally in the Middle East. (AP Photo/John Locher)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged “overwhelming frustration” with Israel’s government on Monday and said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration has led Israel in the wrong direction, in an unusually sharp rebuke of America’s closest ally in the Middle East.

Biden, in a speech to the pro-Israel, pro-peace advocacy group J Street, offered a grim outlook for peace efforts, reflecting dim hopes for progress during the remainder of the Obama administration. Although he said Israelis and Palestinians shared blame for undermining trust and shirking responsibility, he was emphatic in his critique of Netanyahu’s government, suggesting his approach raised “profound questions” about how Israel could remain both Jewish and democratic.

“I firmly believe that the actions that Israel’s government has taken over the past several years — the steady and systematic expansion of settlements, the legalization of outposts, land seizures — they’re moving us and more importantly they’re moving Israel in the wrong direction,” Biden said.

He said those policies were moving Israel toward a “one-state reality” — meaning a single state for Palestinians and Israelis in which eventually, Israeli Jews will no longer be the majority.

“That reality is dangerous,” Biden added.

Critics have taken to calling the leftist agitators who are running roughshod over university campuses hypocrites. The reasoning is that these self-described social-justice warriors, by shouting down speakers, silencing dissent on social media, and forcing resignations from those they accuse of “injustice,” are betraying the very toleration that allows them to speak freely. Unfortunately, the charge mischaracterizes, not just campus crybullies, but also campuses themselves. Agitators from various radical campus groups, like their predecessors of the 1960s, are not pursuing or even advocating tolerance as a core value (though they may take advantage of those who offer it to them). Rather, they are pursuing power. What is more, those expecting toleration to bring sanity back to campus are placing their faith in the wrong principle. Toleration is a highly useful tool for ordered liberty, but it is far from sufficient for ordered liberty. In practice, toleration is what those in authority give to dissenters; it is not a condition of equal respect for all opinions. Indeed, all societies value some perspectives over others, and to pretend otherwise is to leave the door open for the most radical among us to tear down our society in the name of “progress.”

The progressive myth of an ever-expanding openness to diversity of opinion always has been at best unrealistic and at worst a falsehood uttered in bad faith. The idyll it presents is perfectly suited for the preening of progressive academics, who see their campuses as, properly, neutral spaces within which Truth is pursued by calm, civil, rational individuals concerned only with testing ideas and hypotheses for improving society. The idea is that one can have a community in which there are no orthodoxies, only the free exchange of ideas. Of course, the myth of a neutral square is a particularly false and dangerous orthodoxy, for it puts debate into the straightjacket of scientism (a false sense of what empirical reason, divorced from first principles, can accomplish) and leaves the public square less neutral than open to explosions of emotivism. By pretending that the public square can do without authority, those who actually exercised it for several decades—progressive rationalists—undermined their own already suspect legitimacy, opening the way for the latest round of radicalization.

Our universities abandoned tolerant, civil discourse long ago in favor of a soul-numbing emptiness. The emptiness was sold to us as “free inquiry,” but actually was an attempt to eliminate traditional norms in favor of a caricatured version of the scientific method that purports to value reason above all else. As it has succeeded, this campaign has been replaced by a more vigorous movement to replace supposedly value-neutral faux-scientism with raw emotion and politics. Today’s students and their enablers among professors and administrators seem far more dangerous than their scientistic predecessors. But in truth they are their logical successors and are no more intolerant than those who paved the way for their ascendance.

The problems begin at home, and so do the solutions,” concludes Elliott Abrams in his trenchant analysis of why growing numbers of American Jews are drifting apart from Israel. He most certainly is correct: the drift described in his essay tells us far more about the internal dynamics of American Jewish life than about Middle Eastern realities.

Abrams might have added: ’twas ever thus. Israel has always been a canvas upon which a good many American Jews have projected both their aspirations and their insecurities. That was the case during the early years of statehood when American Jews saw themselves as indulgent patrons of their somewhat primitive Israeli clients. It was so when American Jews drew strength and pride from the military prowess of the Israel Defense Forces, in whose feats of battle they did not have to shed an ounce of blood. It has been true more recently as Birthright Israel has sent over a half-million young Jewish adults on free trips to Israel in order to help them reconnect with their Jewish identities and return as more engaged Jews in America. And—alas—it continues to be the case today, when, absorbing the hostility directed at Israel by journalists, academics, and other elites, growing numbers of Jews have found it harder to summon positive reasons for identifying with the Jewish state.

And why, after all, should they? Does any other group in America identify as strongly with the inhabitants of a foreign country? True, when an earthquake or other catastrophe strikes abroad, altruistic Americans send money and supplies to help the victims. But the longstanding preoccupation of sizable numbers of American Jews with the Israeli condition is probably without parallel in the American historical experience.

Such unnatural concern can only be driven by powerful convictions: a shared religious faith, a deep grasp of the common fate binding all Jews, and an intuitive understanding of the profound link between the two countries’ shared values and interests. Fortunately, a majority of Americans of all faiths partake of that last-named intuition. Unfortunately, growing numbers of American Jews, as Abrams observes, have become so deracinated that they no longer associate themselves with any of these convictions.

For my part,I would distinguish among different types of dissenters. It is evident from opinion research that growing numbers of American Jews are enamored neither of Israel’s present prime minister nor of specific policies formulated by Israel’s government. I am not especially put off when American Jews debate the merits of particular Israeli policies; Jews, after all, are a notoriously contentious and verbal people. What makes the contentiousness worrisome is not disagreement but the breakdown of civil conversation in communal circles.

The misnamed “State” of Palestine is preparing another assault on Israel at the Palestinians’ favorite “international” venue, the United Nations. The Palestinian Authority circulated a completely one-sided draft Security Council resolution to UN diplomats earlier this month.

The Palestinian draft resolution demanded that Israel “cease all settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem.” While condemning “all acts of terror” and expressing “serious concern over continuing violence against civilians,” the draft resolution blames specifically only Israeli settlers for “acts of terror, violence, destruction, harassment and provocation.” There is not a single word about the constant violence committed by Palestinians against Israeli civilians.

The draft reportedly has the support of enough members of the Security Council to be adopted, absent a veto by the United States. In an effort to forestall such a veto, the Palestinian drafters focused the resolution on Israeli settlements, which the Obama administration has routinely condemned.

In addition, the Palestinian drafters incorporated some sweeteners in their proposed resolution, no doubt intended to persuade the Obama administration to at least abstain. For example, the draft refers positively to the Middle East Quartet, of which the United States is a member. It calls on “all parties to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process” according to terms endorsed by the Quartet. The draft calls upon both parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law,” and to “refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric.” The draft encourages “a genuine commitment to the two-State solution,” referencing in particular the Arab Peace Initiative. The Arab Peace Initiative, which President Obama has praised, offered Israel normalization of relations with its neighbors in return for Israel’s complete withdrawal from the “occupied territories” (“including East Jerusalem”) to essentially the pre-1967 lines and a “just settlement” of the Palestinian refugee problem based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Resolution 194 stated that any refugees “wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.”

Big Green is big business. The global renewable energy market is estimated at over $600 billion. Obama’s stimulus boondoggle alone blew around $50 billion on green energy. Annual spending is somewhere around $39 billion a year and that’s just the tip of the Big Green iceberg.

California carbon auctions are climbing into the billions. And the endgame is a national and a global carbon tax that will allow Big Green to take money out of the pockets of every single human being.

Environmentalism isn’t a hippie with a cardboard sign. It’s multinational corporations and big banks. It’s environmental consultants padding the bill for every government project. It’s subsidies that get carved up ten different ways into highly profitable investments at taxpayer expense. It’s brand greenwashing and useless recycling programs. It’s a dime, a dollar or a hundred dollars added to every bill.

Big Green is booming business. But it can’t succeed on its own. Without public policy based on the hoax that the planet is going to be destroyed unless Big Green gets more green cash, the scam collapses.

Even as the science behind the conspiracy theory that claims humans are warming the planet continues to fall apart, Big Green is escalating its crackdown on climate science. If you are going to falsely claim that 99.99% of scientists agree with you, the best way to ensure that is by criminalizing scientific dissent.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called for punishing and imprisoning dissenters. Bill Nye endorsed such a call just last week. And while it’s easy to dismiss Kennedy and Nye as famous crackpots, Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted that there had been discussions about prosecuting climate dissenters. And that materials had been passed along to the FBI.

False moral equivalence is one of a series of major fallacies. False moral equivalence comparing Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis was used by several prominent social-democratic politicians, including French President François Mitterrand, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme and Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou.

Another example of false moral equivalence is calling Israel an Apartheid State. Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter made this comparison in his 2006 book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid — which incorporates the false moral equivalence in its title.

The false comparison between Zionism and racism has been repeated countless times through United Nations and UN-sponsored declarations and conferences.

Another category of moral equivalence pretends that the intended murder of innocent civilians is equal to the accidental deaths of civilians in targeted assassinations. For instance U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry compared the three civilians murdered in the 2013 Boston Marathon to the nine activists who had planned violence and were killed by Israeli soldiers they attacked on the Mavi Marmara ship in 2013.

Among the many tools mobilized for the demonization of Israel, one frequently used is a mode of argument known as false moral equivalence. The term “moral equivalence,” originates from a 1906 address by American philosopher William James.[1] It is the claim that there is no difference between two actions of greatly varying character. It is frequently used to emphasize similarities between two otherwise dissimilar acts. False moral equivalence undermines norms and values in a society, blurring the lines between good and evil also right and wrong.

False moral equivalence comparing Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis was used by several prominent social-democratic politicians, including French President François Mitterrand,[2] Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme[3] and Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou. [4]

When two dissimilar realities are linked such as Israel and Nazism, use of one side of the equivalence will eventually automatically bring to mind the other – however distorted the comparison may be. Subsequent repetition results in an acceptance, where the false moral equivalence is no longer countered or questioned.

False moral equivalence should not be confused with moral relativism. The latter lends itself to the justification of behavior by claiming that they are acceptable in a certain culture’s values or were common practice during certain periods of history.[5]

Moral equivalence embodies comparisons, defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as: “The act or process of comparing: as the representing of one thing or person as similar or like another, or the modification of an adjective or adverb to denote different levels of quality, quantity, or relation.”[6] Comparisons innately lend themselves to frequent abuse.
CATEGORIES OF MORAL EQUIVALENCE

False moral equivalence used against Israel may be categorized into nine main groups, shown below. These groups are:

The false moral equivalence between Israel and Nazi Germany;
Israel and South African apartheid;
Zionism and racism and its sub-categories Zionism and colonialism/imperialism, as well as Zionism and fascism, the Holocaust and the Nakba (Arabic for “The Catastrophe,” of 1948.)
False moral comparisons of murder and accidental death, comparisons of targeted killings of terrorists with intentional murder of civilians;
Equivalencies drawn between kidnapping of soldiers and imprisoning terrorists;
Presenting moral equivalence between Israel’s actions as a legitimate sovereign state and the illegitimate actions of terrorists.
A ninth category, “others,” includes demonization of Israel in ways which do not fit into the above categories, such as the moral equivalence drawn between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and the perceived parallels between Nazi brutality and the actions of their Allied opponents.

CATEGORY 1: ISRAEL AS A NAZI STATE

Heather Hackman of the Hackman Consulting Group apparently is a big deal in educational circles concerned with denouncing “white privilege.” School districts all over the country spend big bucks sending teachers and administrators for indoctrination into White Privilege Theory. The St. Paul public schools, for instance, have spent millions of dollars on this mission.

Blake Neff of the Daily Caller News Foundation has been attending the 17th Annual White Privilege Conference in Philadelphia, where Hackman enunciated a set of ideas that sound suspiciously close to white supremacy, and which made explicit the notion that teachers in government schools are now expected to be political indoctrinators more than teachers of any useful knowledge and skills.

A professional education consultant and teacher trainer argued at the White Privilege Conference (WPC) in Philadelphia that great teachers must also be liberal activists, and described in detail her goal for destroying the “white supremacist” nature of modern education. (snip)

On Friday, Hackman was given a platform at WPC to deliver a workshop with the lengthy title “No Freedom Unless We Call Out the Wizard Behind The Curtain: Critically Addressing the Corrosive Effects of Whiteness in Teacher Education and Professional Development.” The long title masked a simple thesis on Hackman’s part: Modern education is hopelessly tainted by white supremacy and the “white imperial gaze,” and the solution is to train prospective teachers in college to be activists as well as pedagogues.

In fact, Hackman argued teachers shouldn’t even bother teaching if they aren’t committed to promoting social justice in school.

TEL AVIV—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a cabinet meeting in the Golan Heights for the first time on Sunday, declaring that Israel would never return the territory to Syria.

As another round of peace talks aimed at resolving the five-year Syrian conflict continued in Geneva, Mr. Netanyahu said it was time the international community recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel.

“The time has come for the international community to recognize reality,” he said at the meeting’s opening. “Whatever is beyond the border, the boundary itself will not change.”

The international community doesn’t recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and as in the Palestinian territories, considers settlement-building there illegal.

Mr. Netanyahu said he had spoken by phone Saturday with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to offer Israeli support for the United Nations-mediated talks as long as their outcome doesn’t threaten Israel.

A spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv declined to immediately comment on Mr. Netanyahu’s comments.

Western officials recognize the Golan Heights’s elevated position as strategically advantageous to Israel’s security as it overlooks Israeli towns and villages. Israel captured the roughly 500 square-mile territory from Syria in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, and formally annexed the land in 1981. It also captured the Gaza Strip from Egypt in the war, ceding control in 2005, and East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan.

Mr. Netanyahu, who used the special cabinet meeting to mark the first anniversary of his re-election, said more than 50,000 people now live in the Golan Heights, including thousands of members of the Syrian Druse minority who don’t recognize Israeli sovereignty over the land. CONTINUE AT SITE

Bethlehem’s Christian Arab leaders lobbied Israel against transferring the city to the Palestinian Authority. Thus, in 1993, on the eve of signing the Oslo Accord, the Christian mayor of Bethlehem, Elias Freij, urged Israel’s Prime Minister Rabin to annex Bethlehem into Greater Jerusalem – as it was under the Ottoman, British and Jordanian rule of the area – predicting that “transferring Bethlehem to the Palestinian Authority would relegate it to a town of many churches, but devoid of Christians.” Before Oslo, the Christian mayor of Beit Jala – Bethlehem’s twin town – Farah al-Araj, told the NY Times syndicated columnist, William Safire: “The PLO will force a wave of Christian emigration, making Belize in Central America a home for more Beit Jala Christians then left in Beit Jala.” In 1967, shortly following the Six Day War, then Christian Mayor of Bethlehem, Elias Bandak, warned Israel’s Defense Minister, Moshe Dayan: “An Israeli failure to annex Bethlehem into Greater Jerusalem would doom the city’s Christian character.”

Since the 1993 establishment of the Palestinian Authority, the Christian majorities of Ramallah – Mahmoud Abbas’ headquarters – Bethlehem and Beit Jala have been transformed into insignificant minorities, due to physical, social, economic, legal and political intimidation. More Christian emigrants from these towns reside in Latin America than Christians remaining there.

The violent discrimination of Christians has been a systematic feature of the Muslim/Arab societies. For instance, in Saudi Arabia, Christians were murdered, expelled or converted until the tenth century. Currently, non-Muslims cannot become Saudi citizens and Christians working in – or visiting – Saudi Arabia are not allowed to worship, or display Christian items (Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, etc.), openly. While the Egyptian President, General Sisi, has attempted to minimize the traditional intimidation of Egypt’s Coptic Christian (10%) minority – which possesses ancient Pharaonic roots – the abduction of Coptic females has been routine and Copts face deep-seated discrimination in all walks of life. Moreover, conversion to Christianity is prohibited under Islam. While physical assaults on Coptic communities were a daily occurrence during the brief rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, it has become a monthly event under General Sisi.

In scathing letter, Israeli legal watchdog Shurat Hadin warns Rockefeller Brothers Fund that its support of groups that advocate boycotting Israel could cause the fund to be “considered complicit and as a participant in these groups’ illegal activities.”

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has given anti-Israel BDS organizations hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to the Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center.

In a scathing letter to the RBF earlier this month, the Israeli legal watchdog group warned the RBF that its support of groups that advocate boycotting Israel could cause the fund to be “considered complicit and as a participant in these groups’ illegal activities.”

The fund, which belongs to the Rockefeller family, donates especially large sums of money to various institutions in Israel and abroad, which according to the allegations include Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups that publicly support the BDS movement.

Shurat Hadin claimed that in 2015 the RBF granted $140,000 to Jewish Voice for Peace; $20,000 to Zochrot; $50,000 to the American Friends Service Committee’s Israel program; and $100,000 to the Al-Shabaka organization.

In its letter to the RBF, Shurat Hadin wrote: “The BDS movement’s efforts constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of national origin, race, and religion under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (‘Anti-Racism Convention’) and numerous U.S. federal and state statutes, including New York law. Funding organizations that promote BDS raises serious legal issues for RBF. Accordingly, we strongly advise you to consider whether RBF should continue to provide financial backing to these hate groups who promote BDS against Israel and Israeli companies, individuals, and products.”