The Abuse of Political Correctness in the Eyes of Two Comics

If nothing else this political season, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson to an extent, should be owed a debt of gratitude. This does not translate to a blanket endorsement of all their ideas, however. Without them, would the matter of "political correctness" have truly been brought into the open? More particularly, what it has turned into. And how it has affected society in a negative and potentially dangerous way.

It's akin to multiculturalism, a good idea run amok, until it becomes more important to achieve than the havoc it creates. The divisive concept of identity politics. Leave it to intellectuals enamored by theory to completely misjudge the reality of humankind.

It's also akin to issues like human rights, where the idea and aspiration is kidnapped on the international level by abusers, using it as a political sword and shield.

So why this post?

I was surfing and led to this video of John Cleese, and his apt words, "If people can't control their own emotions then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior."


and from that to this from George Carlin:



Of course, it's easy to find more like these. But since they expressed the point quite well, after I watched I decided to make this post and here it is.

It goes beyond the infantile, sincere belief there should be "safe spaces," however, particularly in matters of expression. Too often it has become a safe space to practice intolerance. The Yale Halloween costume episode comes to mind, but there is also the insidiousness when it is used to justify academic boycotts, or quash speech and stigmatize. Kirsten Powers's recent book, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech, is replete with examples of wrongful behavior.

Perhaps the need to control comes from a fear that people, hearing something else, might actually see a different truth, one based in reality, and to realize hypocrisy going on in the form and practice of repressive tolerance, a construct of critical theory. But that's a topic for another time.

Diversity in Mainstream Media

From 1975 to 2015, Marc Rosenwasser worked as correspondent for The Associated Press and as a writer and producer for ABC News, NBC News, CBS News and PBS. He was the co-creator and, for its first two seasons, executive producer of PBS NewsHour Weekend.

Today, Rossenwasser penned a post, Does TV News Need Its Own Brand of Affirmative Action?

What prompted him were Facebook posts from fellow journalists, past and even present, that "routinely mock the Republican candidates, particularly Donald Trump, They portray him as a buffoon and all of his millions of supporters as ignorant yahoos, or, worse, haters."

His concern is that too many journalists come from similar backgrounds, have the same orientation, and hold similar world views. As the New York Times public editor wrote about its newsroom four years ago, it is overwhelmingly progressive, politically and culturally. To correct this imbalance, newsrooms need people with diverse backgrounds and different perspectives. "That will help us understand — and better explain — the complexities of the nation and the world that we cover."

This brings back memories of Matti Friedman's 2014 article, "An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth" in Tablet Magazine. Dealing with a different topic, journalism about Israel, a similar happenstance among journalists is presented. Friedman shows how a collective mindset conspires to achieve an purposeful political end, as it obscures objectivity.

A monolithic media often gets things wrong. Friedman illustrates:

And there was the Spanish civil war: “Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which do not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. … I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what had happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines.’ ” That was George Orwell, writing in 1942.

Orwell did not step off an airplane in Catalonia, stand next to a Republican cannon, and have himself filmed while confidently repeating what everyone else was saying or describing what any fool could see: weaponry, rubble, bodies. He looked beyond the ideological fantasies of his peers and knew that what was important was not necessarily visible. Spain, he understood, was not really about Spain at all—it was about a clash of totalitarian systems, German and Russian. He knew he was witnessing a threat to European civilization, and he wrote that, and he was right.

Perhaps we could do with some affirmative action to allay suspicions that journalists in the mainstream media have some sort of political agenda to advance when they show up for work. After all, voters are deeply divided, yet most journalists seem to come down on the same side of the political spectrum every time.

Some Words from the Republican Debate

Don't know who will be the next president, but it won't be Ben Carson. Unlike the others, he has no record to fall back on as a means to impress. Who wants to hear about the intricacies of surgeries he has performed?

This post is not to tout Carson as a candidate. However, it's not as if he has nothing to offer to the general debate. It would be nice to excise the best qualities and ideas from each candidate and create a perfect leader. The stuff of fiction.

One place where Carson struck a chord that should resonate among all is seen in the following question and answer at the Republican debate on January 16 in South Carolina:

BARTIROMO: Dr. Carson, one of the other candidates on this stage has brought Bill Clinton's past indiscretions. Is that a legitimate topic in this election? And what do you think of the notion that Hillary Clinton is an enabler of sexual misconduct?

CARSON: Well, there's not question that we should be able to look at past president whether they're married to somebody who's running for president or not in terms of their past behavior and what it means. But you know, here's the real issue, is this America anymore? Do we still have standards? Do we still have values and principles?

You know, you look at what's going on, you see all the divisiveness and the hatred that goes on in our society. You know, we have a war on virtual everything -- race wars, gender wars, income wars, religious wars, age wars. Every war you can imaging, we have people at each other's throat and our strength is actually in our unity.

You know, you go to the internet, you start reading an article and you go to the comments section -- you cannot go five comments down before people are calling each all manner of names. Where did that spirit come from in America? It did not come from our Judeo-Christian roots, I can tell you that. And wherever it came from we need to start once again recognizing that there is such a thing as right and wrong. And let's not let the secular progressives drive that out of us.

The majority of people in American actually have values and principles and they believe in the very things that made America great. They've been beaten into submission. It's time for us to stand up for what we believe in.

Wish more people would heed these wise words. These roots are not necessarily about religion, but a way of living together in a state of general tolerance. It's far from perfect, but it is a key to why Western society is so successful and, dare I say, progressive!

And speaking of the question posed to Carson in the debate, Kirsten Powers raises an interesting question about changing norms in matters of alleged of sexual abuse in our absurd political environment, where cognitive dissonance reigns.

Obama's Last State of the Union

Disappointed, not surprised, and here's why.

One sense I never get from Obama is a genuine desire to compromise. It makes his clarion call that we are all in this together ring hollow. He has acted to divide and alienate using identity politics as a touchstone. He decries power and money in politics and society, yet takes full advantage of it when it benefits his desires. It makes the rhetoric Orwellian.

In the speech, he saw fit to lecture. As if many in the audience are ignorant about what is actually important, or care less than he does. It is condescending and arrogant, and not the way to bring people together. Yet he consistently uses mockery and puts his opponents down, not to mention the occasional abuse of power, the "Chicago" way.

Reading comments from the people he alienates is very sad, too. Hate is everywhere these days. It pours out even at the slightest attempt to distinguish. Why bother trying to engage in discussion, only to be impugned. It does not matter if it's an Obama hater or sycophant, the methods are the same. If words or ideas can be misconstrued, they will be misconstrued.

Unlike talking heads or bloggers, Obama's duty as president, is to serve "We the People," as he mentioned. However, too many Americans believe he does not recognize or respect their voices, but only those that agree. And when he allows his prejudice to show it allows his proponents to show theirs. It would be nice if Obama would walk the walk, despite what others may do or say, because of his unique role in representing all Americans. 

His view of the world also seemed skewed. The existential threat he denied is already exposed. ISIS spreads to more states. Europe's culture is increasingly stressed by multicultural relativism. He thinks these will not be of more immediate and dangerous impact than climate change. He seems convinced that all people share values, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is universal. He is sorely mistaken. His normative projection of what should be conflicts mightily with what is.

Recognizing this reality does not vitiate a desire for harmony. To insinuate it does is a form of demonization that is too often heard. What is worse is that these theories of human nature, of what should be, applied, often fail miserably, while the elite proponents do not feel the effects of what they impose to better the rest of humanity.

Of course, it all seems to be spinning out of control. The ease at making white noise and manipulating through social media and disinformation does not portend improvement until after things get worse. It should not be that way, should it?

Welcome 2016!

It's a new year. An election year. And it may be as tumultuous as 1968.

So here's a new try at this blog, with a different approach, and we'll see what happens.

What Anti-Israel progressives need to hear, but won't

They need to hear, as well, the fact that being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist is much too often used as a screen to put forth views that are antisemitic.

This includes when Israel is singled out in discriminatory fashion, held to a standard of perfect conduct, while actors much worse are held to no basic standard at all. 

Thanks to Pat Condell for painting the picture, in spoken words, of amorality from people that pretend to be the opposite.

Israel and what the Obama contingent stands for

Interesting to see Obama's former best friend, Erdogan, reveal once again his fascist, Jew hating heart. Taking away his "Profile in Courage" award would be poetic justice.

And why is Obama trying to use the Hamas framework for an agreement?

Has he, or Kerry, ever imagined that interference can also make things worse?

And why is Obama tying funding for Iron Dome to the US border funding measure?

And why not speaking out over the wave of antisemitism in Europe?

Just what does Obama stand for? All he seems to do these days is attend functions where the audience nods in full appreciation as he spreads negativity about those who don't agree with him. He is in a bubble of adulation. When offered the opportunity to speak strongly about world conflict, he equivocates. Many are confused and many are emboldened.

Democrats increasingly do not like Israel. Far too many secular Jews, besides their overall ignorance and indifference, let their bleeding hearts reject the Jewish "Zionist" narrative, the one that is factual and based on the very liberal principles they claim to follow. Instead, they fall for the fake orientalist version where Arabs reject ANY responsibility for their fate. It is ALL the fault of the white West, as the situation deteriorates. What a canard.

Will these secular Jews ever wake up to the fact that even as they reject the Jewish religion, they will remain targeted just because they are Jews? It takes little energy for the tyranny of the majority to show its true self when it comes to Jews. Israel and Zionism and settlements are merely subterfuge for their intentions. When will they see that the people they listen to present an incomplete story that cannot see the difference between aggression and the response thereto?

I wonder what progressives have to say about this ignorance and apathy of support among them for Israel, and America, in favor of the most illiberal type of forces on Earth. Why is this growing among them and whether/how it should be confronted?

As the USA evacuates Libya, one of Obama's greatest disasters, the odd approach the Administration adopts, whether it interferes or withdraws, seems to contribute to every situation growing worse.

A few things the USA can do concerning Gaza

Lift the FAA ban. It singles out and punishes Israel economically while Hamas claims victory. One might argue it was intentionally to pressure Israel, rather than support our ally.

Investigate the UN role, particularly UNRWA, with regards to corruption, the weapons found at its schools (returned to Hamas), and the "humanitarian" use of cement to build tunnels for terrorism rather than infrastructure for peace.

Move to change the definition of a Palestinian refugee to exclude descendants and to turn over jurisdiction to the UNHCR. When we speak of "disproportionate" we need look no further than how much aid is given to Palestinians "refugees," as if their suffering has greater meaning than others in far greater numbers and more dire situations.

Work to get the ICC prosecutor to commence an investigation of the leaders of Hamas, especially Meshaal, for the undisputed war crimes and crimes against humanity it engages in, admitted by the Palestinian representative to the Human Rights Council.

Yes, some of these things may fail, but sometimes it is important to place things in the sunlight, force the wrongdoers to defend their abuses, and expose the malice they intend.

Past time for America, like Canada, to show without equivocation which side it is on.

Feel free to add your own ideas in the comments.

Torossian Channels Zabotinsky and Dylan about Israel and the Jewish People

originally posted at Israel Thrives

Read today a post by Ronn Torossian at FrontPage entitled, "To Roger Waters of Pink Floyd & Other Israel Haters."  It's a post I highly recommend, especially for those who reflexively disparage FrontPage as extremist and not to be included in discussion. Yes, these people do exist.

Although Torossian directs his post to Roger Waters and the Israel haters, so many of whom profess allegiance to human rights, yet act like imposters, the message he relates through those he quotes, may have greater applicability to the indifferent, ignorant and apathetic among us. They, too, bear responsibility for the state of what has been, what is, and most importantly what will be.

Ze’ev Zabotinsky said that Jews have nothing to prove to our critics. If anyone needs to apologize for overt persecution and continued bigotry and discrimination still practiced, is it the Jews, and by extension Israel? The critics tolerate conduct by others that make Jewish misdeeds seem paltry. Can they explain why?

Bob Dylan is no firebrand like Zabotinsky, and universally recognized in the eyes of the the indifferent, ignorant and apathetic among us. Dylan cannot be demonized and therefore dismissed like Zabotinsky, even as he communicates a similar message, in his 1983 song "Neighborhood Bully," unknown to this writer until today. Using a poetic form that the indifferent, ignorant and apathetic among us can relate, he provides a context and reality where nothing has changed.

Dylan's lyrics are partially quoted by Torossian, but are worth reading in full.

Well, the neighborhood bully, he’s just one man
His enemies say he’s on their land
They got him outnumbered about a million to one
He got no place to escape to, no place to run
He’s the neighborhood bully

The neighborhood bully just lives to survive
He’s criticized and condemned for being alive
He’s not supposed to fight back, he’s supposed to have thick skin
He’s supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in
He’s the neighborhood bully

The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land
He’s wandered the earth an exiled man
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn
He’s always on trial for just being born
He’s the neighborhood bully

Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad
The bombs were meant for him. He was supposed to feel bad
He’s the neighborhood bully

Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he’ll live by the rules that the world makes for him
’Cause there’s a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac
He’s the neighborhood bully

He got no allies to really speak of
What he gets he must pay for, he don’t get it out of love
He buys obsolete weapons and he won’t be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side
He’s the neighborhood bully

Well, he’s surrounded by pacifists who all want peace
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease
Now, they wouldn’t hurt a fly. To hurt one they would weep
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep
He’s the neighborhood bully

Every empire that’s enslaved him is gone
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon
He’s made a garden of paradise in the desert sand
In bed with nobody, under no one’s command
He’s the neighborhood bully

Now his holiest books have been trampled upon
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health
He’s the neighborhood bully

What’s anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin’, they say. He just likes to cause war
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed
He’s the neighborhood bully

What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers? Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill
Running out the clock, time standing still
Neighborhood bully

Copyright © 1983 by Special Rider Music

Those who judge the Jews, and by extension Israel, and particularly the people who live by the double standard, like Waters and other imposters, should look at themselves and take accountability, first, by making full recognition that the non-Jewish world has, in fact, behaved far worse against the perceived "Neighborhood Bully" and telling us why they allowed this to happen.

The "Jewish Incinerator" comes to America

originally posted at Israel Thrives

There are many people, too many, more than can be counted, that don't acknowledge the extent to which Jews are subjected to bigotry in society.

Among the non-believers are those who say claims about antisemitism are only made for political purposes, to silence criticism of Israel, often from themselves, often with antisemitic effect. That does not mean they refrain from being political when it suits their needs, as the use of "Islamophobia" is rampant to chill the slightest criticism in the face of Muslim violence, toward women, homosexuals, non-believers, or even other Muslims (see here and here).

Much present day strategy of antisemitism comes from people who claim to be THE voice of human rights. Opposing Jew-hatred, to them, seems not included in the protection of human rights, and Jewish advocacy is merely a ploy to support Israel and perpetuate Zionism, the external self-determination for Jews.

A main strategy adopted by illiberal humanitarians in the name of human rights is based on a model used in the case of South Africa, to help eliminate Apartheid, an international crime. To these selective, even sanctimonious arbiters of morality and justice, Zionism is also an international crime. The strategy was largely developed in South Africa, in 2001, a few days before 9-11. As a result, the Durban Conference of 2001 (see here and here), never received the notoriety it deserved. It was a reiteration of the infamous 1975 declaration that Zionism is racism (see here and here), a malicious concept that persists to this day, under different cover, particularly on college campuses (see here and here) where activities like Israel Apartheid Week and BDS occur.

Most of these illiberals are a lost cause. Yet they are outnumbered by others that are well-intentioned, insulated from the fray, whose ignorance or misinformation becomes evident on discussion. How many who believe antisemitism is not a real problem know anything about Durban? Or the agenda of those that seek to delegitimize Israel, which happens to be the ONLY Jewish state, but no other states? As if that in itself is not antisemitic in principle and in effect. To all of these people on the periphery: WAKE UP! 

It is not just over Zionism or at the universities, however, pronounced as these are. Here we find the case of the "Jewish Incinerator." It has been reported (also here and here) that at a Chicago high school, a Jewish student was verbally attacked by classmates for months. His mother finally contacted school officials after discovering some of the students were further attacking her son and all Jewish people through a popular video-game app called Clash of Clans, and even created an antisemitic gaming group to play. In her words:

So I look down, I see it says Jewish Incinerator with their one goal is to gather all the Jews, put them in an army camp and dispose of them. I’m 42-years-old. I’m not new to this world. I didn’t become Jewish yesterday. I felt naive and shocked. We are in the year 2014. Really? At a school that my son has gone to? And I shake because I watched this group grow literally from four. Kids were just joining and joining.

In Europe, it is now common to see violence directed to Jews (see here and here and here). Hopefully the USA will never evolve so far down this road. Vigilance is necessary to weed out the poison because we have seen where it has lead. Which is why it is important not to act as if there is no problem, when evidence is seen almost every day that antisemitism, often posing as something else, remains a persistent evil, not a phobia. This is so even if some Jewish friends say it's all about Israeli actions like the "expansion" of settlements on Arab land, when construction is almost entirely the addition of housing units in what already exists. Before that Arabs, not to mention Christians, were Jew-lovers, don't you see?

Government Competence and Faith in Illusion

Jeff Jacoby is a critic of Barack Obama. To some, that ends the matter. To foster some notion of "tolerance" means whatever he may say is simply not worthy of utterance or consideration. Same for Daniel Greenfield, who is cited below. Actually, this type of dismissive attitude seems to foster ignorance.

Not much more to add other than to recommend Jacoby's latest column, Obama fails to show his vaunted ‘competence.' It is a critique that encapsulates in stark terms the obvious disconnect between the image and the reality, the type of disconnect that many Obama supporters, fueled with rage for Republicans, largely ignore.

Perhaps because they believe more in the image, what it presents, and what it says about themselves? As Greenfield said in a recent piece, Obama, Hillary and Kim Kardashian, also recommended:

[W]anting to do something is what makes you a good person. It doesn’t matter if what you’re doing does any good. It doesn’t matter if you succeed. ... [It is] less concerned with changing the world than with being good people by wanting to change the world. That’s what Obama received his premature Nobel Peace Prize for, not for what he did, but for what he talked about doing.

In the matter of competence, the disconnect seems apparent to many, but not to progressives that tout science as the final word yet engage in a long held messianic faith (see here and here). The ability to make the government work for people is what people need from an administration, not illusion that it is doing so, reinforced by appearances on Ellen and hashtag diplomacy, or staged events in front of pre-screened supporters that now qualify as transparency in government.

As John Stuart Mill famously said:

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

Rather than predictable preemptive rejection of the likes of Jacoby or Greenfield, their ideas should be duly considered, even if then refuted. Overemphasis on a mentality forged in an echo chamber may lead not only to a narrow intolerance, but false perceptions where theory runs afoul of result.

Yet another "teacher" mouths off (Updated)

In 1915, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) set forth principles for university teachers with regard to controversial matters:

The university teacher, in giving instruction upon controversial matters, while he is under no obligation to hide his own opinion under a mountain of equivocal verbiage, should, if he is fit for his position, be a person of a fair and judicial mind; he should, in dealing with such subjects, set forth justly, without suppression or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigators; he should cause his students to become familiar with the best published expressions of the great historic types of doctrine upon the questions at issue; and he should, above all, remember that his business is not to provide his students with ready-made conclusions, but to train them to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials which they need if they are to think intelligently….The teacher ought also to be especially on his guard against taking unfair advantage of the student’s immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher’s own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own. It is not the least service which a college or university may render to those under its instruction, to habituate them to looking not only patiently but methodically on both sides, before adopting any conclusion upon controverted issues.

Thankfully, even in political science classes, it is hard to recall any professor that used the teaching platform for crass political indoctrination and disparagement such as what is heard in the following audio, in an Introduction to Creative Writing class, no less!

"--Racist, misogynist, money-grubbing people that have so much power over the rest of us. And want things to go back -- not to 1955 or 1855. There a re a lot of people out there that do not want black people to vote, do not want Latinos to vote. Do not want old people to vote, or young people to vote. Because generally, people like you are liberal. You want equality. You want racial equality, you want financial equality. You want to be able to use your education and go out in the world and make it better, but you'd also like to be able to get a job. All these things point toward being a liberal. Because this election, it's absolutely possible that Republicans will take over the Senate as well as the House. And we will live in a very, very, very different kind of country if that happens. I mean, colleges will start closing up if they, if these people have their way. They don't think money should go to giving you people dangerous ideas about how the world should be run."

Of course, he is not the only one, as can be seen here and here and here.

An academic pursues knowledge and lives by competing ideas and explanations. An activist pursues political and social goals that involve specific actions based on a pre-determined ideological truth. As such, one might say that activism is fundamentally un-academic.

A genuinely academic thinker must be able to believe for a moment that his own preferred explanation is wrong, so that he can look very hard at the case for other explanations, but that is almost a psychological impossibility for the political or social activist.

The above quote from a 2012 report A Crisis in Competence: The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California, authored by the conservative California Association of Scholars. Some activists will dismiss the report, rather than give it any consideration, as if it has no place in the marketplace of ideas, even as similar effects become commonplace, as here and here, only two more recent examples of the fruits of activist education run amok.

It is downright scary to think that people taught by these type of activists will be making decisions for us all based on the truth of their knowledge, or should I say their cause.

UPDATE: Connecticut Prof Apologizes for Anti-GOP Bashfest

What a lovely partner for peace! Yet again.

Back in January, I reported here.

Now, straight from Palestinian Media Watch. A member of Fatah. A very close associate of Mahmoud Abbas. Preaching words of peace and harmony as only Jew haters can.

Why must we pretend, like too many others, that these Palestinian leaders do not mean what they say, and that they and the Palestinians they control are a true partner for peace?


There are many that lecture the rest about peace and humanitarianism, and are convinced that it's all about Israel, requiring dangerous Israeli concessions when, in fact, it has not taken anything by force. Yet, these same folks ask virtually nothing from Israel's adversaries, blind to their genocidal intent so clearly seen in the video.

You "humanitarians" may believe that showing concern for Palestinians, at the hands of Israel, absolves further action in support of people in far more dire straits, but every day come increasing numbers that see right through the double standards you employ that enables the abuse of human rights, despite that you claim to further it.

Too few like Ali Salim. Way too few.

And too few that can hear what he offers. Not afraid to mince words, which allows him to get to the essence of the matter. He is one of my favorite essayists because of the insight he provides into the Arab mind and the courage he exhibits. In a way, he reminds me of Barry Rubin, who died today, in his positivist approach to the state of things.

I wish more of those who are uninformed and indifferent, yet take strong positions nonetheless, would be exposed to Salim. He repudiates voices that now hold disproportionate influence, seeking "social justice" as they obscure a lust for power that justifies suppression of immoral defenders of the system that supports a state like Israel.

Ironically, the system provides these activists opportunity and freedom to resist it, abuse it and seek its transformation into a nihilistic utopia. And in the effort to promote others that will offer them no such liberty, but submission.

Without further ado, Why the Palestinians Refuse to Recognize Israel as a Jewish State.

Scarlett Johansson Rocks!!!

For more about Soda Stream, see my post from last year here, along with a really good video.

But this post is just for Scarlett!

PS -- She is stepping away from Oxfam, too.

What a lovely partner for peace!

Don't you think?

Yes, I am being facetious.

Designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization on March 27, 2002, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB) is composed of an unknown number of small cells of Fatah-affiliated activists.

Fatah is headed by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Fatah publicizes threats to bomb Tel Aviv on its official Facebook page



Perhaps it's time to realize that peace is not the object, but the destruction of Israel is.

Thanks to Palestinian Media Watch for exposing this atrocity from Israel's designated peace partner.

The full video is eight minutes long and shows footage of masked men in military training, arsenals of weapons, missiles being launched, as well as footage of Israelis running for shelter during missile attacks.

Hopefully, more people will come to see that they are being duped, that those they enable, if capable, will treat them no better than what they intend for Tel Aviv.
 

Speaking about the United Nations (with an Update)

Recently, in the context of a discussion about indigenous rights and whether Jews are an indigenous people in Israel, I stood up for the notion of the UN, and international law, having positive effects in areas that people can easily overlook.

But not to be misconstrued, the UN has a very dark side.

The most recent example is the cancellation, days before opening, by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, of a landmark exhibit at its Paris headquarters this Monday on “The 3,500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel,” curated together with the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

According to UN Watch, whose blog is one worth following:

The surprise here isn’t that UNESCO chief Irina Bokova surrendered to the Arab League’s protest, rudely cancelling an event for which invitations were already sent out, and which involved painstaking work over two years by renowned Hebrew University scholar Robert Wistrich.

***

For anyone who knows anything about UNESCO — the first UN body, in November 2011, to deem “Palestine” a state — surrender to Arab pressure on this matter was inevitable.

When it comes to UNESCO:

Despite the repeated claims of the Obama Administration that UNESCO is God’s gift to the Jews, and to humanity, the opposite is true: it is arguably the most anti-Jewish body in the entire United Nations.

If the notorious UN Human Rights Council dedicates a full 50 percent of its resolutions to demonizing the Jewish state, at UNESCO the numbers are 100 percent.

That’s right: all of UNESCO's condemnatory resolutions are against Israel.

Check out the complete post. And for those who may feel surprise by the behavior of UNESCO described by UN Watch, learn more about the situation at UNESCO, an intergovernmental UN organization that by all appearances has strayed far from its mandate defined by education, science, and culture, and traveled down the road of politics and abuse that many sensible and peace loving people plainly see. And they see right!

UPDATE: Here is a link to the letter from UNESCO to the Wiesenthal Center concerning the cancellation.

The Humanitarian Racist has a Cousin (with an Update)

Recall the humanitarian racists, largely brought to attention by Manfred Gerstenfeld.

Humanitarian racists believe that non-white, oppressed people cannot be held to laws of humanity and requirements of the public conscience recognized in international law long ago. These "victims" are simply not advanced enough. As such, there must be a scapegoat to account for their actions because they cannot even be racist. Contemporary problems caused by the colonialism and imperialism of the Western developed world excuse the victims from any responsibility for their acts and allow humanitarian racists to look away as often as possible, even to the commission of major crimes.

Richard Cravatts is the creator and founding director of Boston University's Program in Publishing at BU's Center for Professional Education and current president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, an organization with over 40,000 academic members on more than 3200 campuses worldwide.

Cravatts references another breed, a cousin of the humanitarian racist, the moral narcissist. His recent essay, "Moral narcissism and the MLA’s obsession with Israel," is definitely worth reading.

Moral narcissism is based, not according to actual viability or justice of a cause, but on how moral narcissists feel about themselves by committing to a particular cause or movement. They live in self-approval bubbles where mutually agreed moral gestures and self congratulation constitutes a perfect and sufficient engagement with an imperfect world.

Cravatts refers to Jay Gaskill, a California lawyer who served as the Seventh Alameda County Public Defender from 1989 to 1999 who chose to devote more time to his writing projects.

Gaskill says that moral narcissists adopt a camouflage strategy to escape the moral disapproval of others by cloaking their narcissism in the trappings of ‘social justice positioning’.

These are members of “club narcissist” who live in an unspoken social compact, the first tenet of which is “We are not narcissists because we care”.  The second tenet consists of a commitment to sign onto a shifting list of approved ‘humanitarian’ positions and stances with the unspoken understanding that these will require little more than gestures - bargain basement humanitarianism, of you will.

Thus the moral narcissists create an artificial a moral universe where ‘standing for’ is the equivalent of ‘doing for’.

***

Moral narcissists are easily controlled and manipulated by political elites, ideologues, and corrupt political predators.  Moral narcissists are immune from the teaching effects of authentic dialogue.  Moral narcissism is the disease of the modern mind. 

Looking at moral narcissists in the context of anti-Israel activity, Cravatts says:

The lure of Palestinianism has proven to be positivity irresistible to left-leaning humanists and literary scholars who burrow into Western thought to uncover the dark underpinnings of imperialism, militarism, colonialism, oppression, racism, and, as a result of one of the MLA’s notorious past presidents, Edward Said, the theory of “Orientalism,” a mode of thought which claimed to reveal the inherent racism and imperialism imbedded in Western scholarship and politics. The fascination with Third-world victimism, identity politics, and multiculturalism, coupled with harsh critiques of both the U.S. and its proxy in the Middle East, Israel, have all led academics like those in the ASA and the MLA—whose fields are, in a normal world, unrelated to these issues—to involve themselves aggressively in answering calls for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions solely against the Jewish state.

Activists like those in the MLA and ASA, and too many others of the academic left, believe their worldview is the correct one simply because it seeks to create a world in which social justice will be realized against the forces of the imperialistic, racist, militaristic oppressors.

Cravatts provides examples to show MLA lack concern for the welfare of oppressed, such as students and women, revealing a double standard. He concludes:

Of course, the MLA’s Radical Caucus is silent on all of these obstacles to education and the free exchange of ideas, both in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and the wider world of Israel’s neighbors. It is easy to demonize Israel, and certainly it requires no bravery in academia, where moral narcissists console each other in an echo chamber of good intentions, willing to sacrifice academic integrity, true scholarship, and vigorous, honest debate in the process.

What is also tragic is that these "intellects" cannot see that their blatant singling out of the sole Jewish state is an exercise in antisemitism, irrespective of how they try to justify the discrimination they practice, reckless and oblivious to the effect. As they are quick to tell the rest of us, only they care about humankind.

UPDATE: The MLA just concluded its 2014 Convention, with mixed results regarding the anti-Israel efforts. A watered down non-binding resolution was adopted, arguably to save face. An attempt to pass an “Emergency” Resolution to denounce supposed attacks on supporters of the American Studies Association boycott resolution was soundly rejected. See here and here, as reported at the blog Legal Insurrection by Professor Jacobson and others.

One might argue that civil and political communities are showing signs of awakening, as it becomes clear how extreme and activist the humanitarian racists and moral narcissists have become, caring not at all about the stated missions of their associations, but their political agendas and contorted views of social justice.

Opportunty in Israel's Neighborhood

Is the Arab-Israel conflict changing? A column by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post suggests so, and it's worth thinking about.

Is Israel's strategic challenge of contending with pan-Arabism, which was invented at the same time that the nations of the world embraced modern Zionism, no longer central in a  new era where people from North Africa to the Arabian Peninsula have gone back to identifying themselves by tribe, religion, ethnicity, and non-Arab national identity?

Intra-Arab fighting these days has nothing much to do with Israel, except if a scapegoat is necessary to incite hate and create diversion. Arabic speaking minorities in Israel, even Muslims, cannot be blind to the opportunities inside Israel to live a good life, particularly compared to record the rest of the neighborhood.

In her column, Glick refers to Gabriel Nadaf, a Greek Orthodox priest from Nazareth who calls for Israeli Christian youth to serve in the IDF, as a symbol of what is taking place, a movement where some Christians identify more as Israelis than members of the Palestinian Arab nation.

It is because they see what is happening to their co-religionists in the post-pan-Arab Middle East that more and more Israeli Christians realize they will lead safer, more prosperous and more fulfilling lives as Christian citizens in the Middle East’s only democracy than as pan-Arabs battling the Zionist menace.

Much of the argument made by Glick is based on an article by Ofir Haivry, vice president of the Herzl Institute, in Mosaic online magazine, entitled, Israel in the Eye of the Hurricane, and should be read in its entirety by anyone interested in a more in depth analysis.

If Glick is correct,

The post-pan-Arab Middle East exposes the truth that has been obscured for a century. The Jews and their Jewish state are a natural component of our diverse neighborhood, just like the Kurds, the Christians, the Druse, the various Muslim sects, and the Arabs. The demise of pan-Arabism is our great opportunity, at home and regionally, to build the alliances we need to survive and prosper.

Perhaps the Arab-Israeli conflict as we know it is ready for a paradigm shift. Glick is surely advocating the Israeli government should change its orientation toward the Arab world away from powers based on Pan-Arab structures in favor of natural alliances based on mutual interests, the kind that most often stand the test of time.

45 Seconds of Enlightenment

Courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch, this video is for those that claim that all Palestinian Arab refugees, including descendants, have a human right to return to Israel because they were ethnically cleansed from their homes by Jews.



For more enlightenment, see here or here.

To those that make such claims, behind a mask of morality, we should ask: Why should anyone listen to pontifications of people who act as if they know all, but know hardly at all?