Daily Archives: June 20, 2017
WHO WON The Trump-Fox News Feud?! HERE’S What The RATINGS Say!!
It was probably the most highly anticipated debate of this presidential election cycle, only because el Trumpo made such a melodramatic exit from the Fox News stage.
But if you want to know who the clear winner is, all you have to do is look at the ratings (from CNN Money):
Donald Trump counter-programmed Thursday’s GOP primary debate with his own prime time event. So whose show scored a bigger audience?
Answer: Fox’s debate. But it was the second lowest rated debate of the season. So Trump is certain to take credit for hurting the channel’s total viewership.
The first hour of Fox’s Trump-less debate had an 8.4 household rating, according to early Nielsen data on so-called metered markets.
This means 8.4% of American homes with TV sets were watching the face-off.
The second hour had an 8.3 rating, which means the audience was loyal even though Trump was absent.
By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump’s event, CNN and MSNBC, had about a quarter of Fox’s audience combined.
The most recent GOP debate, televised two weeks ago on the Fox Business Network, had a household rating of 7.4.
So Thursday’s debate was bigger — but not by much.
The other five GOP debates of the cycle have had household ratings ranging from 8.9 to 15.9.
Actual viewership numbers will be available later in the day on Friday. Fox News likely had 11 million to 13 million viewers for the debate.
Notice that they’re trying to downplay it to give Trump a win here – but why would the media want to do that? Makes you wonder.
A more honest comparison would be to show the ratings from four years ago in the 2012 presidential election cycle.
Who Will Stand up for Civil Liberties? by Alan M. Dershowitz
At a moment in history when the ACLU is quickly becoming a partisan left wing advocacy group that cares more about getting President Trump than protecting due process (see my recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal,) who is standing up for civil liberties?
The short answer is no one. Not the Democrats, who see an opportunity to reap partisan benefit from the appointment of a special counsel to investigate any ties between the Trump campaign/ administration and Russia. Not Republican elected officials who view the appointment as giving them cover. Certainly not the media who are revelling in 24/7 “bombshells.” Not even the White House, which is too busy denying everything to focus on “legal technicalities” that may sound like “guilty man arguments.” Legal technicalities are of course the difference between the rule of law and the iron fist of tyranny. Civil liberties protect us all. As H.L. Mencken used to say: “The trouble about fighting for human freedom is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons of bitches: for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” History demonstrates that the first casualty of hyper-partisan politics is often civil liberties.
Consider the appointment of the special counsel to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” Even if there were such direct links that would not constitute a crime under current federal law. Maybe it should, but prosecutors have no right to investigate matters that should be criminal but are not.
This investigation will be conducted in secret behind closed doors; witnesses will be denied the right to have counsel present during grand jury questioning; they will have no right to offer exculpatory testimony or evidence to the grand jury; inculpatory hearsay evidence will be presented and considered by the grand jury; there will be no presumption of innocence; no requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, only proof sufficient to establish the minimal standard of probable cause. The prosecutor alone will tell the jury what the law is and why they should indict; and the grand jury will do his bidding. As lawyers quip: they will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them to. This sounds more like Star Chamber injustice than American justice.
And there is nothing in the constitution that mandates such a kangaroo proceeding. All the Fifth Amendment says is: “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” The denials of due process come from prosecutorially advocated legislative actions. The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves if they saw what they intended as a shield to protect defendants, turned into a rusty sword designed to place the heavy thumb of the law on the prosecution side of the scale.
Advocates of the current grand jury system correctly point out that a grand jury indictment is not a conviction. The defendant has the right to a fair jury trial, with
all the safeguards provided in the constitution. But this ignores the real impact of an indictment on the defendant. Based on a one-sided indictment alone, the “ham sandwich” can be fired from his or her job or suspended from university. Consider what happened to the Arthur Andersen company and its thousands of employees when it was indicted for obstructing an official proceeding by destroying records relating to one of its clients. Although Andersen was ultimately vindicated, the indictment itself forced it into bankruptcy causing a loss of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in shareholder values. Many individual have been indicted on the basis of one sided grand jury prosecutions and subsequently acquitted after a fair trial. Many of these individuals also suffered grievously as the result of being unfairly indicted.
Consider the consequences of an indictment by the special counsel’s grand jury in this matter. Not a conviction – just an indictment handed down by a grand jury that heard only one side in secret. It depends, of course on who the indictment named. In the Nixon case, for example, the president was named as an unindicted co- conspirator by the Watergate grand jury. This meant that he could not even defend himself at a trial. I was on the national board of the ACLU at the time. And although I despised Nixon and campaigned for his opponent, I wanted the ACLU to object to the unfairness of a one sided grand jury naming him as an unindicted co conspirator.
So I will be standing up for civil liberties during the duration of this investigation. As a civil libertarian, I care more about due process and the rule of law than I do about politics. But many people conflate my advocacy for civil liberties with support for President Trump. I have been bombarded with tweets such as: “Alan loves Donald. He’s throwing him lifelines;” “Has he been hired by Trump? Time to come clean;” “@AlanDersh I thought you were a smart guy. After hearing you support Trumpie, guess not;” “Has Trump already hired @AlanDersh to defend him? Clearly sounds that way;” and “No matter the subject, he inserts himself in the conversation with a full-throated and nonsensical defense of Trump.”
Let me be clear: I voted for Hillary Clinton and oppose many of President Trump’s policies. I would be taking the same position if the shoe were on the other foot – if Hillary Clinton had been elected and she were being subjected to an unfair process. Indeed I did do precisely that when she was threatened with prosecution. Remember the chants of “lock her up” during the campaign?
I will continue to monitor the current investigations into President Trump and his associated for any violation of civil liberties. I will call them as I see them, without regard to which side benefits.
Who Is Jailing and Torturing Palestinian Journalists? by Bassam Tawil
-
The Palestinian Authority (PA) sees no need for international intervention to halt its own crackdown on freedom of speech. Nor does it consider the closure of a newspaper office and the detention of journalists as a “war crime.”
-
-
The report reveals that Palestinian detainees have been undergoing severe torture while in PA detention. During the past few years, ten people have died in Palestinian prisons. As far as we can see, no one from the European community has taken the slightest notice.
-
The detention of Khalil is seen in the context of the PA’s continued effort to silence and intimidate Palestinian journalists who dare to criticize the Palestinian leadership and its institutions.
-
The PA clearly wants a media that reports only against Israel. The only incitement permitted is the one directed there.
-
Western human rights groups that regularly condemn Israel for its actions against Palestinians have, as usual, failed to respond to this latest assault by the PA on public freedoms. The PA’s crackdown on the media is not going to attract the attention of the mainstream media in the West: the story lacks an anti-Israel angle.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) recently and not surprisingly announced that it was planning to file a complaint with international organizations over Israeli “assaults” and “crimes” against Palestinian journalists.
The Palestinian Ministry of Information condemned the “assaults” as a “war crime” and said it would urge the International Federation of Journalists to send a commission of inquiry to the Palestinian territories to launch an investigation against Israel.
Ironically, the PA’s announcement came only a few days after it ordered the closure of a newspaper office in Ramallah and the detention of a female journalist, Naela Khalil. The announcement also coincides with the PA’s ongoing crackdown on freedom of expression in the West Bank, where Palestinians are being arrested for posting critical remarks on social media.
The Palestinian Authority, of course, sees no need for international intervention to halt its own crackdown on freedom of speech. Nor, apparently, does it consider the closure of a newspaper office and the detention of journalists a “war crime” when it does it.
Earlier this month, the Palestinian Authority ordered the closure of the Ramallah-based Al-Araby Al-Jadeed online newspaper on the pretext that it was operating without a license from the Palestinian Ministry of Information. The decision to shut the newspaper came after Palestinian security officers had raided its offices several times and questioned employees about the nature of their work.
The management of Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, however, said that it had applied for a license in December 2014, but had never received an answer from the Palestinian Ministry of Information.
A senior official with the Ministry later admitted that the decision to shut down the newspaper was taken after the publication of an article that was considered “offensive to the State of Palestine and its security institutions.” In other words, the decision had nothing to do with the newspaper not having obtained a license from the Ministry of Information in Ramallah.
The Palestinian Ministry of Information sent a letter to the Palestinian prosecutor-general urging him to authorize the closure of the newspaper. The letter explained why the newspaper had to be shut. The letter read: “A London-based newspaper that has an office in Ramallah recently published a report that offends the State of Palestine and its security agencies. The report portrayed our security forces as if they have nothing to do but arrest people and conduct security coordination with the occupation state (Israel). This is incitement against the Palestinian Authority and its security institutions. We therefore hope you will issue an order to close this unlicensed office.”
According to Palestinian journalists, the report that enraged the PA and prompted it to take action against Al-Araby Al-Jadeed was actually written by an Egyptian journalist, Shaima Al-Hadidi.
The report criticizes the Palestinian Authority for clamping down on journalists and political opponents in the West Bank and refers to security coordination between the Palestinian security forces and Israel.
“The Palestinian Authority does not hesitate to open the doors of its cells for [to hold] its opponents,” the report charged. “The Palestinian Authority prisons in Ramallah are full of dozens of political detainees accused of resisting occupation.”
The report reveals that Palestinian detainees have been undergoing severe torture while under Palestinian Authority detention. In just one month last August, there were at least 12 cases in which detainees complained that they had been tortured by Palestinian Authority interrogators. Some detainees were denied medical treatment, the report said, and pointed out that during the past few years, ten Palestinians have died in Palestinian prisons. As far as we can see, no one from the European community took the slightest notice. Such information is presumably considered, in journalistic terms, “dog bites man:” The Palestinian leadership is abusing its own people again? Who cares, glad it’s not us.
Some of the Palestinians who died in detention were identified as Majd Barghouti of Ramallah, Fadi Hamadneh of Nablus, Arafat Jaradat of Hebron, Ayman Samara of Jenin, Nawaf Kawazbeh of Bethlehem, Rabi Mahmoud al-Jamal of Hebron and Raed al-Hitleh of Tulkarem.
In another case, Palestinian Authority security officers arrested the journalist Amer Abu Arafeh after raiding his home and confiscating documents, cameras and computers. Abu Arafeh latersaid that he was interrogated about Facebook entries he had posted, in which he had reportedly criticized the Palestinian Authority.
The report about Palestinian Authority human rights violations in Al-Araby Al-Jadeed angered the Palestinian Authority to a point where it felt that closing the newspaper’s Ramallah office was not enough. Last week, the newspaper’s correspondent, Naela Khalil, was detained for interrogation. After protests by her colleagues, the PA agreed to release her on bail.
Journalists Amer Abu Arafeh (left) and Naela Khalil (right) were recently arrested by Palestinian security services for criticizing the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. |
The detention of Khalil is seen in the context of the Palestinian Authority’s continued effort to silence and intimidate Palestinian journalists who dare to criticize the Palestinian leadership and its institutions.
The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate and a few human rights groups in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have since condemned the decision to detain Khalil and shut the offices of her newspaper.
However, most Western human rights groups that regularly condemn Israel for its actions against Palestinians have, as usual, so far failed to respond to this latest assault by the Palestinian Authority on public freedoms. It is a punishment for freedom of expression that apparently bothers no one apart from us.
The cases of Al-Araby Al-Jadeed and Naela Khalil, the female journalist detained in Ramallah, show that the Palestinian Authority leadership effectively does not tolerate any form of criticism. Palestinian officials have accused the newspaper and its journalist of “incitement” against the Palestinian Authority. But this is the same Palestinian Authority that has long been engaged in a massive campaign of incitement against Israel, especially during the past few weeks.
The Palestinian Authority clearly wants a media that reports only against Israel. The only incitement permitted is the one directed there. Palestinian journalists who incite against Israel are safe; they do not face any form of harassment by the Palestinian Authority security forces. But once a journalist or a media outlet dares to publish anything that is considered “offensive” against the Palestinian Authority, they quickly find themselves behind bars in Ramallah.
It is forbidden to criticize President Mahmoud Abbas or any of his top officials. It is also forbidden to report about human rights violations and torture in Palestinian Authority prisons.
During the past few years, several Palestinians have been arrested or summoned for interrogation for posting critical remarks about Abbas and other Palestinian officials on Facebook.
But this is not a story that most Western journalists or supposed human rights groups are interested in covering. A story that reflects negatively on the Palestinian Authority or Hamas is not “news that is fit to print.” The Palestinian Authority’s crackdown on the media is not going to attract the attention of the mainstream media in the West because, as noted by the left-wing Associated Press reporter, Matti Friedman, the award-winning journalist Khaled Abu Toameh and a few others, such stories lack an anti-Israel angle. Had Al-Araby Al-Jadeed been shut by Israeli authorities, the story would probably have made it to the front pages of most newspapers in the U.S. and Europe.
As such, the Palestinian Authority and President Abbas have no reason to be worried about the response of the international community to their continued assaults on freedom of expression. They can continue to arrest as many journalists as they like and close newspaper offices without having to worry about a backlash from the media, so-called human rights groups or the international community.
The Palestinian Authority is now demanding international protection for its journalists against Israeli “assaults.” But the real question that the international human rights organizations need to ask the Palestinian Authority when its leaders come calling to complain about Israeli “violations” is:
Who is going to protect Palestinian journalists from the Palestinian Authority and its security forces?
Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East
Who Is Betraying the Palestinians?
If the Americans and Europeans continue meddling, the stable but still fragile Palestinian social fabric in the West Bank will tear, and at the first sign of weakness, Hamas and ISIS will rush in — as they have long been planning — to take over.
-
Every Arab regime has, at one time or another, used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an excuse to oppress its people. Our fellow Muslims have been happy to use us as a pretext: We are waging war because of the Palestinians. We refuse to fight because of the Palestinians. We cannot do what you want because of the Palestinians. At no time did they ever seriously seek to resolve the conflict — nor did they ever want to.
- The sheikhs who claimed it was forbidden for Muslims to live under the shadow of infidel European Christianity now have to watch as Muslims grovel at Europe’s feet and beg the infidel Christians for a safe haven and shelter from… other Muslims.
According to Islamic sources, one of the signs of yawm al-qiyamah (Judgment Day) and redemption is the appearance of the False Messiah, masih dajjal, sent by Satan in the guise of the True Messiah. He is charismatic and powerful, his skin is the color of bronze, his hair is curly and his eyes flash fire. He pretends to do good deeds, drawing people to him and making them blindly follow him.
According to the tradition, the False Messiah sows disaster around the world, marking the stage before redemption. The Qur’an says, “You may love something that is bad for you and hate something that is good for you,” a convenient way of cajoling people into doing things they might find distasteful, such as blowing themselves up.
When U.S. President Barack Obama began his presidency and bowed down before the Islamists at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, we thought he would bring redemption to the Arab world. But his meddling in the Middle East has led to the final dissolution of most of the Arab states. The United States has muscled through a “nuclear deal” that the Iranians will not sign. How could one even expect Iran to sign anything with a country they call “the Great Satan?” Would you?
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, on June 4, 2009. (Image source: White House) |
As an additional advantage, since Iran has not actually signed anything, they cannot be accused of cheating — not that it would matter to them if they were, given their track record of breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The expected infusion of astronomical amounts cash will enable Iran to complete its nuclear weapons program and intercontinental ballistic missiles along with it; arm Hezbollah even more; spread greater terror and further the Shi’ite takeover of the Sunni regions.
The delusions of the Carter administration resulted in the overthrow of Iran’s Shah. This experience should have taught the Americans not to allow the overthrow of Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak. The man was undone by Obama’s comic-book fantasies and unworkable, starry-eyed demands. The rise and survival of Egypt’s current President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — despite the attempt of the U.S. administration to reinstate Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood’s regime — is only due to the will of Allah.
By withdrawing prematurely from a stable, if imperfect, Iraq, Obama caused much chaos in the Middle East. His wishful thinking and rambling concepts — from America’s great followership to resolving conflicts by surrendering — have stripped America of all deterrence and sucked the Middle East into an ocean of blood. His adolescent worldview, idealizing Islam, is nothing more than nostalgia for the days of his youth. His daydream of a peace-seeking “political Islam,” divorced from violence, has brought the Middle East devastation, wretchedness and death.
As Palestinians, our reactions are sorrow and frustration. We have to tell the truth and say that nothing is left of our dreams that the Arab armies would conquer Israel. Those of us who once thought that Islamist terrorist organizations would save us have now realized that this is not going to happen.
The Arab leaders who used to blame the miseries of our people on Jews and Zionists are now left with nothing but their empty words. Their hearts are full of envy, hatred and frustration as they look at the blossoming of Israel, the land Allah promised the Jews in the Qur’an, a flower in a burning field of weeds.
The Muslim clerics who claimed it was forbidden for Muslims to live under the shadow of infidel European Christianity sent our young people to blow themselves up to kill Jews and Christians, to frighten and conquer Europe. They now have to watch as Muslims grovel at Europe’s feet and beg the infidel Christians for a safe haven and shelter from… other Muslims.
The leaders of the wealthy Arab states are apathetic and have no solution, or even advice, for the millions of Syrian Muslim refugees who have lost their homes and families; yet the European “Crusaders” have opened their gates to thousands of desperate Muslims who reach their shores. There will always be Muslim sheikhs who will claim that the wave of Muslims seeking salvation in Europe will eventually join those mujahidin [jihad warriors] who for years have been organizing in the European ghettos.
The prophecies of the Qur’an are coming to pass: the Noble Qur’an prophesies that the Jews will return to Beit Almakdis (Jerusalem) and the land around it from the four corners of the world to live there, and it gives the Jews the Blessed Land and Jerusalem.
The Iranians promised us they would liberate Al-Aqsa Mosque, but all they really want is to lull us into a false sense of security, then take over the Arabian Peninsula. They have infiltrated and subverted Yemen and Bahrain, and taken control of the Straits of Bab al Mandeb, Hormuz and countries between Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut.
While the Arabs are weak and divided — thanks to America’s policy of divide and conquer — the Iranians keep on getting stronger. In light of the catastrophe Obama has caused the Arab world — with millions of refugees flooding the Middle East and invading Europe from Africa and the Arab countries — the dream of returning to Palestine has vanished.
It has long been obvious that there is no connection whatsoever between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the chaos in the Middle East. Every Arab regime has, at one time or another, used the conflict as an excuse to oppress its people by telling them they were fighting a common enemy. We have been betrayed by them as much as by the Europeans.
Our fellow Muslims have been happy to use us as a pretext, to have something to point at and complain about: We are waging war; it is because of the Palestinians. We refuse to fight; it is because of the Palestinians. We cannot do what you want; it is because of the Palestinians. At no time did they ever seriously seek to resolve the conflict, nor did they ever want to.
The great benefit we have is that the Israelis no longer rule us. We now have an autonomy. If the Americans and Europeans continue meddling and pressuring one side or the other in our conflict with the Israelis, eventually the stable but still fragile Palestinian social fabric in the West Bank will tear, and at the first sign of weakness Hamas and ISIS will rush in — as they have long been planning — to take over.
All we can do is comfort ourselves with the thought that given all the signs, the redemption of the world is coming and the Mahdi everyone is waiting for will soon be here.
Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.
Who Do Bigots Blame for Police Shootings in America? Israel, of Course! by Alan M. Dershowitz
In response to the tragic deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling at the hands of police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana, the New York University chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) posted the following on its Facebook page:
“In the past 48 hours another two black men have been lynched by the police…. We must remember that many US police departments train with #IsraeliDefenceForces. The same forces behind the genocide of black people in America are behind the genocide of Palestinians. What this means is that Palestinians must stand with our black comrades. We must struggle for their liberation. It is as important as our own. #AltonSterling is as important as #AliDawabsheh. Palestinian liberation and black liberation go together. We must recognize this and commit to building for it.”
Even in moments of national mourning such as these, SJP bigots cannot help but exploit the deaths of innocent Americans to further their own anti-Semitic political agenda, namely to delegitimize and demonize the nation state of the Jewish people.
By implicating Israel in these killings, SJP is engaging in the old trope of blaming Jews for systemic and far-reaching societal problems. This practice was anti-Semitic when some Christian communities used it to blame Jews for plagues, poisonings, and murders; it was anti-Semitic when the Nazis used it to blame Jews for the failing German economy; and it is still anti-Semitic today. There is no more evidence that any of the police who killed Mr. Castile and Mr. Sterling were in fact trained in Israel than there was that Jews were responsible for any of the other crimes that formed the basis for traditional blood libels.
The oppression of black Americans long predates the founding of the state of Israel; contrary to the claims of SJP and like-minded groups, Zionism did not beget racism, nor is Zionism a reflection of racism. It is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. But the twisted logic on the part of SJP should come as no surprise, given that the same organization blamed Zionism for rising tuition costs in the City University of New York college system. The essence of anti-Semitism is the bigoted claim that if there is a problem, then Jews — and now Zionists — must be its cause.
Addressing the structural causes of racism in the United States will take more than scapegoating Israel — it will require the type of far-reaching legislative action of which our current Congress seems incapable. By morphing the discussion about criminal justice reform and systemic racism in the United States into a polemic against Israel, SJP makes progress even more difficult.
That said, the reaction by SJP is reflective of a broader trend in hard left politics. Increasingly, groups such as Black Lives Matter (BLM), MoveOn, Code Pink, and Occupy Wall Street have embraced intersectionality — a radical academic theory, which holds that all forms of social oppression are inexorably linked.
This radical concept has led to the linking of disparate left-wing causes, no matter how tenuous their connections. Some intersectional feminist activists, for example, insist that feminists must oppose drone strikes (and by extension, Hillary Clinton), because they negatively impact women in the developing world. Even more absurdly, Jill Stein — the Green Party candidate for president — has come out in favor of the bigoted Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, partly on the grounds that support for Israel furthers the interests of the military-industrial complex, and by extension the fossil fuel industry.
Those activists that do not sufficiently embrace the new intersectional orthodoxy, meanwhile, have been targeted by protests: the 2016 Gay Pride parade in Toronto, for example, was broken up by Black Lives Matter for including a police float, and for not sufficiently prioritizing the concerns of black trans women. Similarly, a gay rights event in Chicago was broken up by activists, who insisted on the exclusion of an Israeli organization, which they claimed was co-opting the gay rights agenda and “pinkwashing” Israeli crimes against Palestinians.
Intersectionality seems to be driving hard left activists towards a “No True Scotsman” worldview: increasingly, they insist on a package of unrelated left-wing causes that must be embraced by anyone claiming the label of progressive — including the demonization of Israel as a racist, apartheid state.
Perhaps more worryingly, intersectionality tends towards the conclusion that the existing social, political, and economic system is flawed in so many profound ways, that any attempt at remaking it through democratic means is unacceptable. Activists have become increasingly obsessed with “Shut it Down” protest tactics, and a proud politics of “disrespectability,” that prioritizes resistance to a “corrupt,” “rigged” socio-economic system over respectful discourse and political compromise.
This helps to explain the sympathetic attitude of Black Lives Matter activists towards groups like Hamas, which embrace terror as a mode of “resistance” (in their view) against Israel. Indeed, Black Lives Matter activists have visited Gaza to express solidarity with Palestinians oppressed by so-called racist Israeli self-defense measures. While Black Lives Matter claims to disavow violence in securing its political objectives, many of its most prominent members are far more eager to criticize the “Israeli genocide of Palestinians” than to criticize Hamas for using rockets to target Israeli civilians. Black Lives Matter and other hard left groups have been notably silent about other oppressed ethnic groups such as Tibetans, Chechens, and Kurds. The only alleged “oppressors” they single out for condemnation are the Jews. This double standard raises legitimate questions about their real motivations.
Black Lives Matter activists have a sympathetic attitude towards groups like Hamas, which embrace terror as a mode of resistance against Israel. Indeed, BLM activists have visited Gaza to express solidarity with Palestinians oppressed by so-called racist Israeli self-defense measures. |
Moreover, the conflation of police actions in American cities with Israeli military actions in Gaza raises a disturbing question: if the so-called oppression of Palestinians in Gaza and the oppression of people of color in the United States are two sides of the same coin — as the SJP implied in its tweet — are the violent tactics employed by Hamas, and perversely supported by many on the hard left, an appropriate model to emulate in the United States? One hopes that the answer is no, and that the intersectionalist radicals will make that clear to their followers.
Professor Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus and author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law.
