Two American academic groups — the American Studies Assn. and the Assn. for Asian American Studies — have called for a boycott of Israeli universities. Those resolutions have met with many objections. Much has been made, for example, of the inherent hypocrisy of attempting to ostracize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians and their Israeli Arab cousins when there are so many far worse situations in the Middle East and around the world. But there is another objectionable element in the boycott movement: the abuse of language.
In the discussion that surrounds the call for a boycott, South African apartheid is almost invariably invoked. Say what you will about the Israeli occupation, but the South Africa analogy is false. The word "apartheid" isn't accurate, but it is emotional and inflammatory.
Of all people, professors should be more precise in their use of language. That they are not, and that they use such freighted language, suggests a goal other than helping the parties get to two states for two peoples.
Let's use an academic tool — a surprise quiz — to examine the intellectual integrity of the apartheid allegation.
1. The valedictorian of the most recent graduating class at the medical school at Israel's MIT, Technion, was:
a) A West Bank settler
b) An Orthodox Jewish man
c) A wounded veteran
d) A Muslim woman
2. The only country on the following list in which the Christian population isn't falling precipitously is:
a) Iraq
b) Syria
c) Egypt
d) Israel
3. Which of the following is true of Israel's Arab Christians?
a) They make up about a third of Israel's pharmacists
b) They are among the winners of the Israel Prize, the country's highest civilian honor
c) Their high school students have a higher rate of success on their graduation exams than Israeli Jewish students
d) All of the above
4. Since Israel left Gaza in 2005, the number of rockets fired from there into Israel is:
a) 8
b) 80
c) 800
d) 8,000
5. Which of the following is not true:
a) Arabs from Israel, the West Bank and Gaza have access to Israeli hospitals
b) Arab doctors and nurses treat Jewish and Arab patients in Israeli hospitals
c) Hundreds of wounded civilians and fighters in the Syrian civil war have been treated in Israeli hospitals
d) By law, Israeli Jews may refuse to be treated by an Arabdoctor
6. When West Bank Palestinians have a claim that their rights have been abrogated by an Israeli action, they can file a lawsuit with:
a) A West Bank military court
b) A special court for Palestinians
c) No one
d) The Israeli Supreme Court acting as a court of primary jurisdiction
7. The number of Israeli Arabs currently elected to serve in the Knesset, Israel's 120-person parliament, is:
a) None
b) 1
c) 3
d) 12
8. The Golani Brigade, an elite Israeli army unit, recently made news when it:
a) Blew up a Hezbollah arms depot
b) Stopped a suicide attack on a city bus
c) Disbanded because Israel faces few military threats
d) Appointed Col. Rassan Alian, a Druze, as its commander
9. Salim Joubran is:
a) An Israeli Arab serving a five-year sentence for insulting Israel's president
b) A human rights organization fighting for Palestinian rights
c) An Israeli restaurant shut down because it doesn't serve kosher food
d) An Israeli Arab who serves on Israel's Supreme Court
10. Israel's 2013 Miss Israel beauty queen was:
a) Bar Refaeli, a fashion model
b) Agam Rodberg, an actress
c) Sandra Ringler, a fashion stylist
d) Yityish Aynaw, a black Ethiopian immigrant to Israel
Before looking at the answer key, try to imagine the condition of blacks in South Africa, the victims of apartheid, in each of the settings in the quiz.
Israel isn't a perfect country. Criticism of Israel is legitimate, and Israelis themselves do it every day. But as the quiz reveals — D is the correct answer to each question — whatever Israel is, it isn't an apartheid state.
Perhaps the professors need to study their subject a little harder.
Seth M. Siegel, co-founder of the marketing agency Beanstalk and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is writing a book on water resources in Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)

CNN: Feds Investigating Christie for Alleged Misuse of Sandy Relief Funds


By Melanie Batley
Federal investigators have launched an inquiry into whether New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie improperly used Superstorm Sandy relief funds to produce tourism ads that featured him and his family during his re-election campaign.

According to CNN, federal auditors will examine the use of $25 million in public funds for a marketing campaign aimed at reviving tourism on the Jersey Shore after major parts of the coastline had been decimated in the 2012 storm.

New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone prompted the inquiry after asking the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in August to examine how Christie spent the marketing money approved by the department.

"This was money that could have directly been used for Sandy recovery. And, as you know, many of my constituents still haven't gotten the money that is owed them to rebuild their homes or raise their homes or to help," Pallone told CNN.

Pallone cited concerns about the bidding process for the firm that was awarded the marketing plan after it charged the state roughly $4.7 million, about $2 million more than the next lowest bidder, according to CNN. The winning bid featured Christie and his family in advertisements while the losing proposal did not.

Pallone told CNN that a preliminary review of the spending has already been concluded and that there was enough evidence to launch a full-scale investigation into the use of the funds. The probe will take several months to complete, with findings to be issued in an official report.

Any wrongdoing unearthed from the probe would likely further dim the presidential chances of Christie, who shot to national prominence on the basis of his performance during and after the superstorm.

News of the inquiry could also deepen the controversy surrounding the embattled governor who last week fired top aides and gave a lengthy public apology over revelations that they had ordered lanes to be closed to the George Washington Bridge in September as a possible act of political retribution.

Subpoenas could be issued as soon as Monday for Christie’s former deputy chief of staff and campaign manager, The New York Post reported. And New Jersey state Senate Democrats also have delayed the confirmation hearing for Kevin O’Dowd, Christie’s nominee for attorney general, who is his current chief of staff.

Meanwhile, in a sign that Christie's troubles are further deepening, his earliest political mentor, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, has also distanced himself from the governor, suggesting Christie's aggressive character marks a sometimes "dangerous" approach to governing, and one that may be undesirable in a presidential candidate, The Washington Post reports.

"On the one hand, I think he's got a lot to offer. I think he's the most able politician since Bill Clinton," Kean said. "On the other hand, you look at these other qualities and ask, do you really want that in your president?"

He also hinted at Christie's hardball politics, citing tactics by Christie last year when he unsuccessfully tried to oust his son, Thomas Kean Jr., from his position as the state Senate Republican minority leader as part of a deal with South Jersey Democrats, who were helping the governor with bipartisan legislation.

"If you come at him, he's going to come back at you harder," Kean said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3a)

Ariel Sharon(1928-2014)

by Shoshana Bryen

Shortly after the 1982 Lebanon War, I was in Israel with three retired, high-ranking American General Officers, including the former Chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the former Commander, US Air Forces Europe; and the former Commander in Chief, US Army, Europe. We traveled across the north, into Lebanon and up to the Beaufort Castle (from which the PLO had been shelling Israel). The highlight of our program was to be a meeting with Defense Minister Ariel Sharon. The Ministry of Defense (MOD) schedule, however, showed the meeting late in the afternoon the day before the Kahan Commission investigating the Christian-perpetrated massacres at Sabra and Chatila in Lebanon.
Surely, I thought, he had better things to do than meet with us.
But he arrived on time, relaxed and very willing to talk.  After the scheduled hour, I made a move to thank him and end the meeting. "Why are you in a hurry?" he thundered. I suggested he might need the time for other business. "I'm spending tomorrow answering questions for the Commission," he said. "And I since already know what I did and didn't do and since I am planning to tell the truth, I don't need time to study."  We stayed another hour.
It was the first of my 29 trips to Israel escorting retired American Flag and General Officers; 23 of them included Ariel Sharon.
He was comfortable with and enjoyed the American military and he was on our schedule annually until 1991, when he was Minister of Housing.  I noticed the omission by our hosts at the MOD, but thought our timing was just bad.  Late one night, my Israeli cell phone (used exclusively for outgoing so no one had the number) rang. It was Gen. Sharon.  "Where are you?" he said. "In Tel Aviv," I replied. "Why aren't you in my office?" he demanded. I said he wasn't on the schedule, foolishly suggesting that perhaps the MOD thought that as Housing Minister, he would be less relevant to our group that year.  "Housing IS security," he boomed. He believed that. Houses – not just "settlements" – but houses and their residents, citizens ready to serve the state and grow  the country, were as much a part of Israel's security as soldiers on the borders. He chaired the Knesset Committee overseeing Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union. More citizens, more houses, more security.
We were in his office the next day.
As Foreign Minister and then as Prime Minister, Gen. Sharon was a fixture in the program of the Flag and General Officers. He preferred to meet late, when his other work was done.  He asked as many questions as he answered – and he answered many.  He wanted to know about 9-11, about Afghanistan, and later about the war in Iraq and Saddam's WMD (he believed Saddam had them). He talked about Iran, Hezbollah and the "peace process." In 2002, we saw the first video and photographs from the PLO weapons ship the Karine-A, captured by Israeli commandos.  In 2003, we saw photographs of suicide bombing victims that had never been released to the press. "The deceased are entitled to their privacy," he said somberly.
In 2005 we discussed the Gaza disengagement at length.  It was, as usual, late in the evening and we were leaving for the airport directly from his office.  I had provided one of my participants with a gift to present on behalf of the group at the end of the meeting.  When the time came, I nodded to the General, who rose and said, "We would like to thank you, sir…" That's all he got out. Sharon said, relatively calmly, "Sit down. We're not finished yet."  It is hard to rattle the Commander of US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), but the General was rattled. He sat. I said, "We have to be at the airport soon, we're leaving." "I'll tell you when you're leaving," he said tartly. "You have lots of time."
And so we did; but he didn't.  It was our last meeting with General Sharon.
My great takeaways were first that national security is not just about soldiers and their equipment. There is a complex relationship between the military, the citizenry, the government, and the economy – national mood counts and confidence of the people in its government counts the most.  And second, when someone smarter than you tells you he'll let you know when the meeting is over, listen – you'll learn more that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) 

Battle Over Presidential Recess Appointments Heads to Supreme Court

By Mark Sherman 

)President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans are squaring off at the Supreme Court over the president's power to temporarily fill high-level positions.
The high court is hearing arguments Monday in a politically charged dispute that also is the first in the nation's history to explore the meaning of a provision of the Constitution known as the recess appointments clause. Under the provision, the president may make temporary appointments to positions that otherwise require confirmationby the Senate, but only when the Senate is in recess
The court battle is an outgrowth of the increasing partisanship and political stalemate that have been hallmarks of Washington over the past 20 years, and especially since Obama took office in 2009.
Senate Republicans' refusal to allow votes for nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau led the president to make the temporary, or recess, appointments in January 2012.
Three federal appeals courts have said Obama overstepped his authority because the Senate was not in recess when he acted. The Supreme Court case involves a dispute between a Washington state bottling company and a local Teamsters union in which the NLRB sided with the union. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned the board's ruling, and hundreds more NLRB rulings could be voided if the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court decision.
More broadly, if the justices ratify the lower court ruling, it would make it nearly impossible for a president to use the recess power. Under such a ruling, presidential nominees could be blocked indefinitely when the president's party does not control the Senate.
Three federal appeals courts have upheld recess appointments in previous administrations.
Senate Republicans also are taking part in the case, in support of the company, Noel Canning.
The impasse over confirming nominees to the NLRB and the CFPB was resolved last summer. And majority Democrats have since changed Senate rules to limit the ability of the minority party to block most presidential nominees, spurred by GOP efforts to block three Obama appeals court nominees.
But while situations like the one that led to the current court case are unlikely to arise in the short term, a Republican takeover of the Senate in the midterm elections in November could prompt a new round of stalled nominations, said John Elwood, a Washington lawyer who served in the Justice Department during the Bush administration and has written extensively about recess appointments. "We may be back where we were before," Elwood said.
The justices will be considering two broad questions and a narrower one as well.
The big issues are whether recess appointments can be made only during the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress and whether the vacancy must occur while the Senate is away in order to be filled during the same break.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. told the court that 14 presidents have temporarily installed 600 civilians and thousands of military officers in positions that were vacant when the Senate went into recess at any point, a practice that has been well-understood by both presidents and lawmakers. A high court ruling that a recess only happens once a year would "dramatically upset that long-settled equilibrium," Verrilli said.
The narrower issue is whether brief, pro forma sessions of the Senate, held every few days to break up a longer Senate hiatus, can prevent the president from making recess appointments. That's what the Senate did, at Republicans insistence during the time when Obama acted.
Senate Republicans say the answer is easy. "Who determines - the Senate, or the President - whether the Senate is in session? The Constitution's text and structure point to only one answer: the Senate," the Republicans said in court papers.
But Verrilli said the Senate made clear in voting for the pro forma sessions that no business would be conducted and that, in essence, the Senate would be in recess. "The President took the Senate at its word. And rightly so," he said.
Highlighting the new rules, the Senate is scheduled to vote a few hours after the Supreme Court argument on the nomination of one of those previously blocked Obama appointees, U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins, to serve on the federal appeals court in Washington. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------