What? More Links?

Yes, more links. There does seem to be an awful lot to talk about. Or maybe I'm just spending too much time on the internet.

Before we get started, don't forget about this Sunday's Walk for Israel.

And now, let's talk again about Representative Ilhan Omar, and her support for terrorists, terrorism, and Sharia-inspired governments. After all, she is supposed to be working in the best interests of her constituents, who are American:

Consistent with Islamic supremacist groups like CAIR, Omar has taken—to put it charitably—a soft line on terrorists. In a 2016 letter to a judge in which Omar pled for leniency for nine Minnesota men charged with planning to join the Islamic State, the congresswoman went so far as to claim that in effect the United States is to blame for creating jihadists. She proffered the perverse argument, favored by sophistic Islamists and their apologists, that jihad represents blowback for perceived Western sins, including those of materialism and disenfranchisement. It must be read to be believed.

In the past, Omar has exhibited a flippant attitude towards jihadist groups like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, seeming to mock those Americans concerned with the groups’ violence and barbarism.

Then there’s Omar’s support of issues and positions shared by many of her Islamist supporters, including: the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement; the thinly veiled anti-Semitic propaganda Omar parrots regarding Israel; her outright bigotry towards Jews, consistent with the pervasive anti-Semitism of her Islamist supporters; and, perhaps most chillingly, Omar and her allies’ attempts to stifle any criticism of her rhetoric, by casting herself as the victim of Islamophobic “hate speech” that incites violence. This paradigm, incidentally, has been applied to great effect in Europe by Islamists who seek to shut up their critics.

There is a clear nexus between Omar’s associations, words, and actions: She consorts—one might say colludes—with Islamists, parrots their propaganda, and has advocated for their positions as a member of Congress.

We know that in today's academic climate, speaking positively about Israel is strictly forbidden. In the name of freedom and anti-racism, only support for the Palestinian cause, which calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews (From the river to the sea Palestine will be free) is tolerated.

While “Word Crimes” is more than 20 pages shorter than the previous special issue, “Israel at 70,” which did not generate a similar controversy, it nonetheless has 150 more footnotes — 538 in total, Elman said. In the “Israel at 70” edition, “six authors don’t have a single footnote or citation,” she noted.

“What we have here are people who, if not BDS promoters, are sympathetic to it, and are trying to shut [this issue] down,” she added. “Those calling for the journal to remove the special issue are also claiming that we are trying to silence them. That’s the irony here.”

Elman — who also leads the Academic Engagement Network, which opposes BDS — added that some of the same individuals who are critiquing the special issue had also protested the decision to hold the next annual AIS conference in Israel, and mounted “a serious” though unsuccessful campaign to change the location.

“I don’t think this is about the special issue per se, there is a larger mutiny in the works,” she said.

Robinson Divine likewise stood by the special issue’s objective, saying she submitted the proposal to the journal “because I thought the idea had scholarly merit and could be sustained by logic and evidence. I still do.”

“The collection does not compile a dictionary of acceptable terms; it, instead, argues for good old-fashioned research where evidence informs narrative and not the reverse,” she told The Algemeiner.

She contested claims that the special issue aimed to promote a political narrative, saying contributors were not subjected to a political litmus test. “In fact, I have no idea what political positions are held by the various contributors since I never asked,” Robinson Divine said.

Speaking of a "political litmus test," it appears that Zionism is forbidden at Williams College - in the name of freedom and anti-racism of course:

Everyone’s welcome at Williams. Almost. With one recent exception, it’s been more than a decade since the student-run College Council turned away any group seeking recognition as a registered student organization.

It seems there is only one way to be denied recognition. Form a group “to support Israel and the pro-Israel campus community” and “to educate the College on issues concerning Israel and the Middle East.” That, it turns out, does the trick.

Late last month, the College Council at Williams voted, 13-8 against recognizing a pro-Israel club, Williams Initiative for Israel.

Some of the students who spoke against the club at a council meeting made no bones about their reasons. Your “club is pro-Israel, which means you support a state that is built on Palestinian land,” said one and made it clear that “believing in the right of Israel to exist” was a red line that no registered student organization should be permitted to cross. Israel is a “fascist state” said another. The “existence of Israel is built on the killing of Palestinians,” said a third.

In short, the open espousal of “pro-Israel” sentiment, even in the limited sense of supporting the existence of Israel, is an affront too great for some students to bear.

As a further testament to American academic rot, at the University of Massachusetts, a panel of prominent, widely publicized Jew haters will discuss how their voices are being shut down:

How can you satirize the absurdity of a leader of the Women's March, a huge rock star, a documentary maker who used to be a commentator on CNN and a sportswriter for a national publication complaining that they are being "silenced" at a public event at a major university?

“Israel, Free Speech, and the Battle for Palestinian Human Rights” is the topic of an upcoming event at the University of Massachusetts Amherst that is already drawing its own controversy, including opposition from Anti-Defamation League, or ADL, whose mission is to fight anti-Semitism. The panel, titled “Not Backing Down,” is being put on by the Media Education Foundation and will feature prominent figures who have spoken out against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza. Some of the speakers have been labeled as “anti-Semites.”

Among the speakers: Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters, an outspoken advocate for Palestinian rights who supports a cultural boycott of Israel as part of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, or BDS; Palestinian-American political activist Linda Sarsour, the co-chair of the Women’s March who also supports BDS; Marc Lamont Hill, a professor and political commentator who CNN fired last year for remarks he gave at the United Nations in support of Palestinian rights and a boycott of Israel; and Dave Zirin, sports editor at The Nation magazine who has been a vocal critic of the Israeli government.

Sut Jhally, a UMass Amherst communications professor and executive director of the Media Education Foundation, is the organizer of the event. Jhally himself has faced backlash over his film “The Occupation of the American Mind,” which “explores how the Israeli government, the U.S. government, and the pro-Israel lobby have joined forces, often with very different motives, to shape American media coverage of the conflict in Israel’s favor,” according to the film’s website.

“We’re not really intimidated anymore by this selective outrage,” said Ananya Bhasin, who is part of the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. “This event really is about silencing, so, the more silencing we get, the more it solidifies why this event needs to take place.” Zirin, who is Jewish, also takes issue with those who have said Sarsour and the other panelists traffic in anti-Semitism. That rhetoric, Zirin said, is an “old tactic that’s meant to silence debate and chill discussion.”

I'm sorry, but have any of these people been "silenced?" Have they been intimidated into not speaking their minds? These "silenced" critics of Israel - who often traffic in antisemitism as well - somehow manage to get on the front pages of major media. Their tweets get retweeted thousands of times by their fans. It is absurd.

Jewish students are still naively trying to engage in dialogue with campus Jew haters - who claim they're interested in dialogue - until the offer of dialogue is made:

From Students Supporting Israel (SSI) at Columbia:

A few weeks ago, SSI Columbia reached out to SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) and JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) with great hope and expectations of finally doing something productive about the long-debated issue of holding civil and constructive discussion on campus regarding the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. We asked nothing more than a phlegmatic setting to discuss different views and narratives, hopefully, provided by newly elected CCSC. Today, in a public statement, SJP has not only rejected our open offer but also virulently used made up claims and half-truths to justify their insistence on marginalizing and boycotting pro-Israel voices on this campus.

SSI’s invitation to host a joint event came as a result of SJP claiming that they want to promote dialogue on this issue on campus.

SSI took up SJP on their claim of wanting dialogue — and called their bluff beautifully.

SJP not only rejected the call for dialogue, but they admitted that they would never have spoken to SSI anyway:

Normally, an invitation such as this would be rejected due to SJP’s anti-normalization policy, which means that we don’t participate in collaborative events with Zionist groups on the grounds that such events do more to obscure, rather than expose, the fundamental power imbalance at the heart of the settler-colonial situation in Palestine.

Then they said that SSI was “racist,” giving examples that are not at all racist by any definition. For example — “Most recently, SSI hosted a ‘social activism’ workshop with a representative of Act.Il, an Israeli propaganda app closely linked to the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs and other clandestine intelligence organizations.” All of their examples are equally bizarre.

SJP didn’t stop there. They not only said that SSI is “racist,” but that, “We believe organizations like SSI, given their racist rhetoric and their recorded history of harassment, must be effectively deplatformed.”

It gets worse, because they say that every pro-Israel organization must be boycotted: “We call on our peers and allied organizations to boycott all pro-Israel advocacy groups and clubs…”

SJP’s own words show how intolerant they are towards anyone who disagrees with them.

As usual with anti-Israel and antisemitic organizations, they don’t want to talk or debate — because they know that they will lose on the facts. Instead, they do everything they can to silence any pro-Israel voices.

The rot seems to have spread to Seattle:

As hate crimes against Jews are on the rise both nationally and locally, Seattle activists are hosting an anti-Semitic event that one high-placed Democratic leader calls “important.”

“We were not hoping to shine a brighter light on it, but unfortunately so many people are alarmed about this event and what it purports to represent, that we’re forced to speak out,” Randy Kessler tells the Jason Rantz Show on KTTH. Kessler is the Northwest Region Executive Director of Stand With Us, a group that fights anti-Semitism.

The Thursday night panel discussion is titled “Intersectional Dialogue on Weaponizing Charges of Antisemitism,” and comes as Progressive activists defend Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) widely condemned anti-Semitic remarks.

It is an intersectional view that a Muslim woman of color, such as Omar, cannot be anti-Semitic because, after-all, Jews are just rich, powerful, white people to them. It’s, indeed, an anti-Semitic argument.

Then there is the case of Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL who seems to be condemning anti-Semitism on one hand, while supporting an unrepentant anti-Semite on the other.

Yes, we too, are confused.

Professor Jason Hill of DePaul University in Chicago wrote a very strong defense of Israel called "The Moral Case for Israel to Annex the West Bank - and Beyond," in the Federalist.

Israel made an altruistic mistake toward the Palestinian people after the 1967 defensive war with Jordan. Rather than regard them as “war settlers” or refugees or, after legally occupying conquered territory, as “illegal occupants,” they made the Palestinian people their political and moral problem.

After victory, the “war settlers” could have been seen as enemies of the state: supporters of the Fatah (Palestine Liberation Organization) Charter, which basically calls for the end of Jewry in the region. Under a malevolent and illiberal regime, they would have been regarded and treated as such, not as Israel did treat them: as human beings with specific, inalienable rights.

Under a different set of political sensibilities, the Palestinian people would have been militarily removed from the area because, morally speaking, after the 1967 war, they never belonged there. The proper response from Israel should have been to immediately annex the land and make the people there the responsibility of their original political homeland: Jordan.

There can be no such thing as legitimate “Palestinian Territory” in a geographic region legally seized in a defensive war instigated by a foreign aggressor. The purpose of war is always to vanquish the enemy. The losers of the war cannot make demands on the victors that the victors themselves would not have been put in the position of meeting had the adversary or enemy not forced the victors into making it in the first place.

Israel was forced into a war, which it won. It was then expected to renounce and repudiate the consequences of its fairly won war by capitulating to the conditions of its vanquished enemy, which included, among other self-sacrificially undertaken goals, granting statehood, autonomy, right of return, and the ultimate elimination of Jewry from the region.

Recalling the academic rot mentioned above, it's no surprise that the article didn't go over too well with campus Jew-hating groups.

The resolution was in part inspired by the reaction of the DePaul community to Hill’s article. A petition asking DePaul University to censure Hill, started by a student coalition made up of organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine and DePaul Democrats, has reached over 3,300 signatures as of Tuesday.

“As I read it, the resolution is not about limiting academic freedom — or stifling debate,” said DePaul political science professor Scott Hibbard. “[B]ut, rather, calling out a faculty member for shoddy research and for not living up to his responsibilities as [a] member of the academic community.”

According to Paeth, members of faculty council saw “the fact that students felt strongly about this and that for many of them this was not an abstract moral principle, but how they as Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians felt about this.”

“We needed to do these two things: say, ‘yes he has a right to say this, no we don’t agree with it,’” said Paeth. “And we wanted to express our solidarity with the student perspective recognizing the fact this is a complex issue and that they justifiably felt personally attacked.”

The vote will be occurring at the same time as a rally in Arts and Letters Hall advocating for the condemnation of both Hill and hate speech. The rally is organized by the same student coalition responsible for the original petition.

Of course it's not about limiting academic freedom, because we know that academic freedom is giving Judeophobic professors the right to refuse to write letters of recommendation for Jewish students to study in Israel. Attempting to shut down a professor's right to speak honestly and positively about Israel is different, because Professor Hill is still allowed to dishonestly attack Israel like SJP and other BDS groups do. I think I understand now. Have I mentioned campus rot?

And finally, another one from Minnesota, but that doesn't involve Ilhan Omar:

From Robert Mackey in The Intercept:

NEW LEGISLATION PROPOSED by Rep. Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, would ban Israel from using any of the billions of dollars in military assistance it receives from the United States every year to pay for the detention, interrogation, or torture of Palestinian children living under Israeli military occupation in the West Bank. McCollum’s bill, HR 2407, would amend the Foreign Assistance Act to prohibit funding for the military detention of children in any country, including Israel. The proposed law would also provide $19 million a year to American, Israeli, and Palestinian nongovernmental organizations to monitor the treatment of children detained by Israel’s army and offer physical and psychological treatment.

This bill is heavily influenced by "Defense of Children International - Palestine," which is promoting the bill on its website. It appears that McCollum worked with DCI-P to craft the language of the bill. Indeed, the bill quotes from a DCI-P report to "prove" how Israel mistreats children:

The nongovernmental organization Defense for Children International Palestine collected affidavits from 739 West Bank children who were detained between 2013 and 2018, and concluded that 73 percent of the children endured physical violence following arrest...

What the heck is going on in Minnesota?