The Real Meaning Of ‘Pro-Palestinian’ by Bassam Tawil

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19532/meaning-of-pro-palestinian

Inviting Hamas and PIJ officials to participate in such events shows that the real aim of the so-called pro-Palestinian groups is not to help the Palestinians, but to incite and spread hate and libels against the only democracy in the Middle East: Israel.

[I]t sends a message to the Palestinians that the students and professors at the universities around the world support terrorism as a means to kill Jews and destroy Israel.

The participation of the terror leaders in the “Israel Apartheid Week” shows that the real intention of the anti-Israel groups on campus is not to criticize Israel, but to eliminate it.

If the “pro-Palestinian” groups really cared about the Palestinians, they would be speaking out against the repressive measures and human rights violations perpetrated by Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

It is hard to see how support for a mass murderer such as Soleimani and Iran’s proxy terror groups – Hamas, PIJ and Hezbollah – does anything good for the Palestinians. On the contrary, those who are empowering these terrorists are doing a massive disservice to the Palestinians, especially those who continue to suffer under the rule of Hamas and PIJ in the Gaza Strip.

Instead of building schools and hospitals for their people, Hamas and PIJ are investing millions of dollars in smuggling and manufacturing weapons and digging tunnels that would be used to infiltrate Israel and kill Jews. Instead of improving the living conditions of their people, Hamas and PIJ leaders are imposing new taxes and leading comfortable lives in Qatar, Lebanon and other countries. Instead of bringing democracy and freedom of speech to their people, the terror groups are arresting and intimidating journalists, human rights activists and political opponents.

All these violations are, needless to say, of no concern to the so-called “pro-Palestinian” students on the campuses. Have these students ever denounced Hamas for suppressing public freedoms and depriving its people of a good life? No. Will these students ever call out the Palestinian leadership for the financial corruption and persecution of political opponents and critics? No.

The “pro-Palestinian” individuals and groups might also understand that by siding with Hamas and PIJ, they are harming, not helping, the same people — the Palestinians — they claim to support.

The silence of the “pro-Palestinian” students towards these arrests actually causes harm to Palestinians: it allows Hamas to continue its brutality without having to worry about negative reactions from the international community.

The real “pro-Palestinian” advocates are those who want to see a good life for the Palestinians, not those who encourage them to embrace terror groups.

[T]he “pro-Palestinian” activists should, for example, wage campaigns to demand democracy and freedom of speech for the Palestinians living under the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

These activists should be defending the rights of women and gays in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. That is the way to be a real “pro-Palestinian” activist. Being “pro-Palestinian” does not necessarily mean that one has to be anti-Israel.

Instead of calling for boycotts and sanctions against Israel, the “pro-Palestinian” students should invite Israelis and Palestinians to their campuses to build, not destroy, bridges between the two peoples. If these students want Palestinians to boycott Israel, they should offer the Palestinians jobs and salaries, not more messages of hate.

An anti-Israel group called Palestinian Solidarity Forum (PSF) on March 20 invited officials from the Iranian-backed Palestinian terror groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) to speak at an event at the University of Cape Town in South Africa.

Soft War for Chaos Francesco Sisci

http://www.settimananews.it/news/soft-war-for-chaos/

As Russian failures on the Ukrainian battleground emerge more starkly by the day, so former successes of Russian propaganda in the West become more naked and are being exposed daily. China’s TikTok, whose CEO was recently grilled at a U.S. Congressional hearing, apparently is not faring much better. Still, perhaps we must step back to gain some perspective on this.

According to some Cold War stories, perhaps America’s significant blow to the renewed ambitions of Soviet politics, galvanized by the students’ protests in America and Europe after the 1960s, was favoring a strategy of chaos. It moved the rebellious proto-revolutionaries in the West to compete and rebel against each other.

Another element then was undermining the leftist high discourse. The systematic penetration of derision, levity, astrologers, beauty counselors, fashion shows, and makeup artists was a mine under the feet of leftist ideology’s high and noble discourse.

Putin’s systemic weakness

In the last ten years in the West, Russian President Vladimir Putin has possibly used American lessons against America. He supported the left as pro-communist and backed the right as a champion of the defenders of betrayed traditional values. He turned everything against everyone through the easy and cheap new tool of the internet.

Who Owns the University? The megalomania of the current crop of students, faculty, and administrators at our radical universities blinds them to the claims of their generations of benefactors. By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2023/03/26/who-owns-the-university/

The most recent shout-down debacle at Stanford’s law school, one of many such recent sordid episodes, prompts the question: “Who owns our universities?” 

The law students who are in residence for three years apparently assume they embody the university. And so, they believe they represent and speak for a score of diverse Stanford interests when they shout down federal Judge Kyle Duncan, as if he were an intruder into their own woke private domain. 

After all, Stanford, like most of the Ivy League universities, is a private institution. Are then its board of trustees, its faculty, its students, and its administration de facto overseers and owners? 

Not really. 

In the case of public institutions of higher learning, there is no controversy: The people own the university and, through their elected representatives, pay for and approve its entire budget. Again, through their selected regents and overseers, the taxpayers adjudicate the laws of these universities.  

But private universities, while different, are not really so different.  

Take again Stanford as a typical example. It receives about $1.5 billion per year in federal taxpayer grants alone to its various faculty, labs, research centers, and programs. 

Its annual budget exceeds $8 billion. If Stanford accepts such huge federal and state direct largess, do the taxpayers who provide it have some say about how and under what conditions their recipients use their money? 

Second, the university also has accumulated a $36 billion endowment. At normal annual investment returns, such an enormous fund may earn well over $2 billion a year.  That income is almost all tax-free, based on the principle that Stanford is a nonprofit, apolitical institution. 

But is it? 

One could imagine what would have happened had, say, a radical abortion proponent been shouted down at Stanford Law School. Further, conceive that conservative law students had called her scum and wished for her daughters to be raped. Envision obscene placards flashing in her face—before she was stopped speaking entirely by a conservative Stanford dean who hijacked her talk and informed the pro-abortion speaker that she more or less asked for such a mob reception. The perpetrators, we know, would have been expelled from the law school within 24 hours, and the dean fired in 12. And, alternately, had the architects of this real, vile demonstration faced an open hearing, where evidence of the event was presented, and had been found guilty of violating university policy and then had been expelled and ostracized from the law school, even after much chest-thumping and performance-art braggadocio, it is unlikely the debacle would be repeated. 

A Cunning Plan to Help Trump Win? Christopher Carr

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/america/2023/03/a-cunning-plan-to-help-trump-win/

What is widely reported to be the impending indictment of Donald Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg provides an example of many things — politically motivated prosecution, for starters, and, intriguingly, perhaps a hidden agenda. Here is a Democrat operative of the progressive Left, a man whose rise has been financially supported by George Soros, who turns hundreds of serious criminal offenders free without bail every month, yet who zealously pursues a matter other agencies have examined and rejected as a triviality unlikely to result in conviction.

Yes, we can reasonably suspect that Trump lied about a liaison with Stormy Daniels. Bragg’s case, such as it is, posits that a sex scandal would have hurt his chances of being elected to the White House, therefore the $130,000 allegedly paid to Ms Daniels to secure her silence counts as an unreported campaign expense. It is as doubtful that anyone but a candidate named ‘Trump’ would ever have become the target of such a grand jury inquisition as it is that such a scandal would have hobbled Trump in the least. Had it been, say, George W. Bush credibly accused of cavorting with a porn actress, then the shock would have been real — it’s just not W’s style. But there would have been no dropped jaws about Trump’s covert horizontalism coming to light, none whatsoever. This is, after all, the man who boasted on the front page of the New York Post of having left first wife Ivana for “the best sex I ever had” with soon-to-be second wife Marla Maples. Go on, DA Bragg, pull the other one.

Even from the distance of half a world away it all looks very much like the further partisan weaponising of American justice and, most worryingly, suggests an accelerating descent into the sort of Third World legal bedlam that would do Malaysia proud.

The Real Reason China is Arming Russia in Ukraine by Con Coughlin

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19527/china-arming-russia

Just as Iran has used Ukraine’s brutal war to test the effectiveness of its drone and missile technology, so China’s emerging industrial-military complex is reportedly looking for opportunities to conduct a rigorous evaluation of its new weapons systems; Chinese arms manufacturers are reportedly keen to test the effectiveness of their new weapons systems in Ukraine.

Chinese drones, which reports say are due to be delivered to the Russian Defence Ministry next month, would enable the Russians to deliver warheads weighing between 35 and 50 kilograms.

China’s People’s Liberation Army is in the midst of a massive military build-up, outspokenly aimed at making China the world’s dominant military power by the middle of the century. Global defence spending fell by 1.7 percent in 2021, and the US defence budget for 2024, with a supposed increase of 3.2 percent, after factoring in an inflation of 6 percent, is actually a net cut. Meanwhile, Chinese defence spending grew by 5.1 percent to $293 billion.

As part of its military build-up, which began in 2013, Beijing is aiming to integrate artificial intelligence in its command and control structures by 2035. In addition it is investing heavily in new fleets of warships and warplanes.

The Chinese military is said to be actively preparing to launch a military offensive to capture Taiwan, most likely before or during the US presidential election in November 2024, while the US is still under the administration of President Joe Biden, regarded worldwide as stunningly weak, and while the country is likely to be distracted.

Biden’s repeated statements that he seeks “competition not conflict” with China, and that “We don’t want a conflict” with Russia, can only be viewed as pleas not to escalate, rather than as a thundering deterrence.

“[T]he entire military must… concentrate all energy on fighting a war, direct all work toward warfare and speed up to build the ability to win.” — Chinese President Xi Jinping, to China’s armed forces’ operational command center, Fox News, February 15, 2023.

The Growing Power of the China-Iran Alliance Thanks to the Biden Administration by Majid Rafizadeh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19520/china-iran-alliance

The deal grants China significant rights over the Iran’s resources and help to Iran in increasing its oil and gas production. Leaked information revealed that one of the terms is that China will be investing nearly $400 billion in Iran’s oil, gas and petrochemicals industries. In return, China will get priority to bid on any new project in Iran that is linked to these sectors.

China will also be able to pay in any currency it chooses.

The Biden administration’s failure to lead is effectively handing the US over to China, Russia and Iran on a platter, actively creating a new world order with China at the top and the US potentially wherever China wants.

Where is our commitment to a “Manhattan Project” to strengthen our defense? Why is the requested defense budget for 2024 only 3.2% higher than the 2023 budget? This means in real terms, factoring in the current inflation of 6%, that the current defense budget is a cut. Worse, it comes in below the budget increases planned for the Environmental Protection Agency (19%), Department of the Interior (12%), and Department of Veterans Affairs (5.4%). In 2022, US defense spending as a percentage of GDP was 3.1%, compared to the 8% of GDP it was in 1970.

Thanks to the monumental serial ineptitude of the Biden Administration, China’s President Xi Jinping, backed by his troika of oil suppliers — Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran — doubtless feels on the verge of fulfilling his fondest dream: Displacing the US as the world’s leading superpower. The saddest part is that the reason is us: Why are we deliberately not protecting our Republic?

In a Dutch Election, Globalists Lose Big A timely reminder to the elites that rural deplorables exist. by Bruce Bawer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/in-a-dutch-election-globalists-lose-big/

During the year or so between my first visit to the Netherlands, in August 1997, and my move to Amsterdam from New York, I not only put myself through a one-man crash course in Dutch; I also read every book I could find about Dutch history, society, art and culture, customs and character. But one key fact that I somehow missed entirely, and that only recently found its way onto my radar, is that the Netherlands is, after the U.S., the world’s largest exporter of agricultural products.

At first blush it seems impossible. Yes, the U.S. being #1 is a no-brainer: nobody has anywhere near as much first-class farmland. But the Netherlands, which is 1/231 the size of the U.S.? Really? To travel across the Randstad, the crescent-shaped urban conglomeration that contains most of the major cities, is to imagine that this little land must be a significant agriculture importer. How, then, can it possibly beat out giants like Russia, Canada, Brazil, Indonesia, and Australia? Well, as it happens, most of those giants are near the top of the export list: Brazil for coffee; Indonesia, palm oil; China, rice; Canada, oats. But if they’re not at the very top of the list, it’s because Russia and Canada are largely tundra, Brazil and Indonesia mostly jungle, and Australia almost entirely desert.

But the Netherlands? What’s the secret? One word: innovation. Which shouldn’t come as a surprise. Much of its current farmland wouldn’t exist if not for the reclamation of land from the sea – a practice that is now some seven hundred years old and that, thanks to extraordinary technological innovations during the previous century, has more than doubled the country’s area.

Last year, in an article for Dutch Review, Jesse Rintoul summed up some of the more impressive recent examples of innovations in Dutch farming. The University of Wageningen, thanks to “an alternative soil composite made of coco peat and rock wool,” managed to grow bananas in the Netherlands’ not-exactly-banana-republic climate. A company called Nijsen/Granico produces “about 90,000 tons of animal feed a year entirely from human food waste.” And in Rotterdam, there’s a “floating farm” that feeds cows “with leftovers from local restaurants.” The Dutch, notes Rintoul, have sought to “produce twice as much food using half as many resources.”

The Real Insurrection, and the Dirty Politics of Jan. 6 By Frank Miele

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/03/27/the_real_insurrection_and_the_dirty_politics_of_jan_6_149032.html

The Democrats say that Jan. 6 was the worst attack on American democracy since the Civil War. They call it an insurrection, but if it was indeed the worst since 1865, no one but a fool would dare claim it even remotely approached the scale of the bloody war between the states.

And if you weren’t a fool, you might conclude that Jan. 6 was nothing like an insurrection. It wasn’t violent in the sense of an armed rebellion. It wasn’t organized. And it didn’t seek to overthrow the government, but to protect the Constitution. In more ways than not, it was a defense of American democracy, not an attack on it.

In every particular, Jan. 6 was a pale shadow compared to the Civil War. To start with, it lasted less than six hours, whereas the Civil War lasted four long years. The war between the North and South cost the lives of 620,000 soldiers and another 50,000 civilians. The Jan. 6 incursion at the U.S. Capitol, on the other hand, claimed the lives of just two women protesters, Ashli Babbitt and Roseanne Boyland. Among the defenders of the Capitol, police officer Brian Sicknick died after suffering two strokes the next day, but without a direct known connection to the riot. Two other protesters died of natural causes during the siege, and four law officers died by suicide in the months following the attack. If you count all of those as legitimate casualties of Jan. 6, then the total comes to nine compared to a minimum of 670,000 in the Civil War.

It would be impossible to exaggerate the stark differences between Jan. 6 and the Civil War.

The Consequences of Talking About ‘Climate Doom’ for 30 Years By Rick Moran

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2023/03/25/the-consequences-of-talking-about-climate-doom-for-30-years-n1681447

They’re called “climate doomers” and the Washington Post says that their belief in the unstoppable and inevitable end of human civilization is even more dangerous than climate “deniers.”

In essence, the doomers have given up on humanity’s ability to survive. Some have become preppers but most appear to be satisfied to feed their paranoia by immersing themselves in the end-of-the-world cult online.

“It’s fair to say that recently many of us climate scientists have spent more time arguing with the doomers than with the deniers,” said Zeke Hausfather, a contributing author to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

What else is to be expected after more than 30 years of pronouncements that climate change would destroy civilization unless we stop the engines of industry and outlaw automobiles? The fact that these hysterical predictions of doom haven’t come true doesn’t appear to matter. The doomers simply shrug off the errors and make new, even more hair-raising predictions.

One such “climate scientist” is the University of Arizona’s Guy McPherson who said in 2017, “I can’t imagine that there will be a human left on the Earth in 10 years.”  The video has 328,000 views and more than 2,500 comments. A sample:

“I generally feel very lonely as most people don’t understand the situation we are in, nor do they want to know the truth. I find great comfort in your video’s [sic] and I would like to thank you for your work.”

Finding “great comfort” in videos about the end of mankind is pathological. And that describes the climate doomers perfectly.

AOC goes viral on TikTok with video against banning app Shawna Chen

https://www.axios.com/2023/03/25/aoc-tiktok-ban-viral-video

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) first and only TikTok video has gone viral — and in it, she outlines her case against banning the Chinese-owned social media app as its fate hangs in the balance.

Why it matters: With more than 150 million monthly active users in the U.S., TikTok is one of the most popular smartphone apps in the country. Lawmakers are pressing forward with bipartisan efforts to facilitate a ban in the U.S. amid scrutiny surrounding the firm’s relationship with the Chinese government.

State of play: Critics have highlighted the fact that Chinese law requires China’s companies to share information with the government.

TikTok has repeatedly said it operates independently and works with Oracle to ensure its algorithms and content moderation models aren’t manipulated by Chinese authorities.

What she’s saying: The video begins with Ocasio-Cortez listing concerns about Chinese surveillance. She then says that the discussion “doesn’t really address the core of the issue, which is the fact that major social media companies are allowed to collect troves of people’s personal data.”

Adding that the U.S. is one of the “only developed nations in the world” without data privacy protection laws, she argues that the solution is not to ban an individual company but to “actually protect Americans from this kind of egregious data harvesting that companies can do without your significant ability to say no.”
She also pointed out that the U.S. has never banned a social media company from operating within its borders, and that Congress hasn’t received a classified briefing on potential risks even though that’s protocol when it comes to national security issues.
“This case needs to be made to the public,” she says. “Our first priority should be in protecting your ability to exist without social media companies harvesting and commodifying every single piece of data about you without you and without your consent.”

The big picture: Ocasio-Cortez is one of several progressive members of Congress mounting a defense of the app. Her video garnered over 2.2 million views in 15 hours.