Buy American - Save America
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Khaled is a courageous Palestinian friend I met when I was in Israel many years ago. I have not seen his work of late and am glad to post it now. He is an Israeli citizen, accomplished writer and tells it like he sees it which is most unusual.
Palestinians: The Problem with 'Peace'
By Khaled Abu Toameh
"The Palestinian leadership has confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin," Malki said, referring to the possibility of holding a video conference meeting between PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu under the auspices of the Russian president. "The Palestinians will consider this possibility if Russia determines that its useful."
The Palestinian leadership, since 2014, has been boycotting peace talks with Israel. Since 2017, the Palestinian leadership has also been boycotting the US administration in response to President Donald Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Abbas, on May 19, announced his decision to renounce all agreements and understandings with Israel and the US, including security cooperation. As far as the Palestinian leadership is concerned, Israel and the US administration are now the main enemies of the Palestinians. It is prohibited to talk to any Israeli or US official. It has also become taboo for any Palestinian to talk about holding meetings with Israeli or US officials.
Malki's statements have therefore sparked widespread anger among Palestinians, some of whom are denouncing him and calling for his resignation.
Notably, those who are now condemning Malki are not only from extremist groups opposed to any peace process with Israel, but also from Abbas's own ruling Fatah faction. This is the same Fatah that is regularly referred to in the international media as the "moderate" faction of the Palestinians.
Founded in 1959, Fatah is the full name of the Palestinian National Liberation Movement. In 1967, Fatah joined the PLO, which signed the Oslo Accord with Israel in 1993 ostensibly to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by means of territorial concessions.
At the time, then PLO leader Yasser Arafat sent a letter to then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin claiming that the PLO was willing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, commit to finding a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and relinquish all forms of terrorism.
Twenty-seven years later, the leaders of Fatah evidently believe that conducting negotiations with Israel is a "crime" and that Palestinians who still believe in a peace process with Israelis at the very least need to be removed from their jobs.
"It is time for you to go home for self-reflection. You are no longer able to express, with a minimum of diplomacy, the aspirations of the [Palestinian] people. The prime minister is urgently required to replace you."
Because of Tirawi's background and senior position in Fatah, his attack on the Palestinian foreign minister carries weight. Tirawi, who holds the rank of Brigadier-General and is a member of the Fatah Central Committee, created and headed the Palestinian General Intelligence Service in 1994.
It is also notable that in the wake of Tirawi's attack on Malki, no Fatah leader has come out in Malki's defense. Fatah's silence, in fact, can be seen as an endorsement of Tirawi's call for dismissing a Palestinian official who expresses readiness to hold meetings with Israelis.
Tirawi's attack on Malki, meanwhile, has been welcomed by several Palestinian groups that reject Israel's right to exist, including the Iranian-funded Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).
Hamas said Malki's comments indicate that the Palestinian leadership is not serious about its threat to walk away from all agreements and understandings with Israel. "These statements show that the Palestinian leadership lacks the will to confront [Israeli] plans to annex the West Bank," Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem said. "They also show that the Palestinian leadership is continuing to bet on its relations with the occupation government."
The PLO's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) called for firing Malki and holding him accountable for his readiness to resume peace talks with Israel. "The PFLP views with seriousness the statements attributed to Malki, which reflect the Palestinian Authority's continued adherence to the illusions of negotiations [with Israel]," the group said in a statement. "The PFLP considers these comments as part of a trend that is turning against the Palestinian national and factional consensus."
Another PLO group, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), called on Malki to "stop your political heresy and abide by the decisions of the legislative bodies of the [PLO] National and Central Councils." These decisions advocate cutting off all relations with Israel, including security cooperation between the Palestinian security forces and the IDF in the West Bank. The DFLP said that Malki's remarks "carry dangerous positions and intentions that contradict the general trend adopted by the Palestinians towards Israel."
Not surprisingly, Malki, because of his apparent readiness to conduct a dialogue with Israel, is also facing a campaign of incitement on various social media platforms.
The attacks on Malki are hardly a surprise, given growing anti-Israel and anti-US sentiments among Palestinians.
This hostility is the direct result of the Palestinian leadership's continued incitement and fiery rhetoric against Israel and the US. Day in and day out, Palestinian leaders drill into the minds of their people that Israel rejects peace and is committing "war crimes" against Palestinians.
The same leaders insist with deadly deliberation that the US administration and Trump are "biased" in favor Israel and hate the Palestinians. When you radicalize your people against Israel and the US in such a way, how can you expect Palestinian leaders not to veto meeting with Israelis?
Under the current circumstances, it is impossible to talk about the resumption of a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians: as Malki learned the hard way, even as much as a word about negotiations from the mouth of a Palestinian leader sounds -- at the very least -- the death knell of his career.
Moreover, as Malki is also under attack also from "moderates," one can only ask what "non-moderates" could have in store for the besieged foreign minister -- or for any leader who might dare to return to a negotiating table with Israel?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Speaking of journalism and journalists, I have no proof, just a theory, but I am of the opinion anarchists have penetrated the New York Times and basically the influence of the radicals within its ranks have increased influence and may well have taken over the paper. It was always a liberal leaning/slanted paper fighting justified causes of which New York could be considered the home of prejudice going back to the time of the enormous influx of immigration from Europe.
What greater jewel of a national paper with national influence to capture? The New York Times has now become a national rag sheet and it's editorial policies and news reporting are out of line with those of our nation. It, along with other major news organizations have totally lost their way and no longer serve as credible ombudsmen. It has been a long time in coming but our mass media has mostly become the servants and handmaidens of the chaos manipulators and anarchists.
This is the result of the taking over of the journalism departments on college and university campuses by radical left wing advocates who hate America and who hold sway over the porous minds of their ill-informed students.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Speaking of journalism and journalists, I have no proof, just a theory, but I am of the opinion anarchists have penetrated the New York Times and basically the influence of the radicals within its ranks have increased influence and may well have taken over the paper. It was always a liberal leaning/slanted paper fighting justified causes of which New York could be considered the home of prejudice going back to the time of the enormous influx of immigration from Europe.
What greater jewel of a national paper with national influence to capture? The New York Times has now become a national rag sheet and it's editorial policies and news reporting are out of line with those of our nation. It, along with other major news organizations have totally lost their way and no longer serve as credible ombudsmen. It has been a long time in coming but our mass media has mostly become the servants and handmaidens of the chaos manipulators and anarchists.
This is the result of the taking over of the journalism departments on college and university campuses by radical left wing advocates who hate America and who hold sway over the porous minds of their ill-informed students.
New York Times Editorial-Page Editor James Bennet Resigns
By Benjamin Mullin and Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg
Resignation comes amid controversy over recent op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton; Deputy Kathleen Kingsbury to take over as acting editorial page editor
The New York Times editorial page chief resigned, becoming the second prominent U.S. newspaper editor to lose his job over decisions related to coverage of civil unrest following the killing of George Floyd.
James Bennet will be succeeded by Deputy Editorial Page Editor Kathleen Kingsbury, who will serve as acting editorial page editor through the end of the 2020 presidential election cycle, New York Times Co. said Sunday. James Dao, a deputy editorial page editor, will be removed from the company’s masthead and reassigned to the newsroom, the company
In an interview, New York Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger said the paper’s op-ed section needed “significant change,” and that it would have been hard for Messrs. Bennet and Dao “to lead that effort.” The company said Messrs. Bennet and Dao weren’t available for comment.
Mr. Bennet’s resignation comes less than a week after the New York Times opinion section published an op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) that called for the U.S. government to deploy military troops as part of “an overwhelming show of force” to deter looting amid protests sparked by the killing of Mr. Floyd, a black man, while in police custody in Minneapolis last month.
The op-ed, originally titled “Send In the Troops,” was criticized by many New York Times reporters and editors on social media, who said it endangered their black colleagues covering the continuing protests across the U.S. and contained factual errors.
Editors appended a note to the column later in the week saying that it contained overstatements, unsubstantiated claims about left-wing activists and a misquotation.
“This editors’ note is another humiliation to The New York Times,” Mr. Cotton wrote on Twitter Friday, saying that he stood by “every word I wrote.”
Mr. Bennet is the second prominent editor at a major U.S. newspaper whose resignation was announced this weekend. Stan Wischnowski, the top news editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, resigned on Saturday following the publication of a headline that drew condemnation from readers and the newspaper’s staff. The headline, “Buildings Matter, Too,” appeared over a column from the paper’s architecture critic in Tuesday’s print edition. Inquirer editors later apologized for the headline.
Mr. Bennet said during a newsroom-wide town hall on Friday that he didn’t read Mr. Cotton’s piece before it was published, a point of frustration for employees at the New York Times who saw the op-ed as harmful, according to people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Sulzberger said that there has been “a real breakdown in the process that produced a piece of work that fell far below our standards.” He suggested that the digital, mobile, and social-media era has fundamentally changed how the op-ed page is perceived. In a print-only era, he said, readers could see immediately that there was an institutional editorial voice on one page, and that there were a number of editorial pieces expressing a wide array of views on the opposite page—a context that online pieces don’t have.
Mr. Sulzberger said the Times remains “deeply committed” to offering a variety of opinions.
In recent days, as protests condemning police brutality swept the nation, journalists have taken to social media to criticize their employers, saying they neglect issues of racial justice, both in their coverage plans and in their hiring priorities. Ashley Edwards, a former editor at women-focused digital news organization Refinery29, said on Twitter that black employees at the Vice Media-owned outlet weren’t paid fairly or promoted into seniormost positions. In a statement posted to Twitter Thursday, Refinery29 acknowledged the criticism and said it was undertaking a “comprehensive” assessment.
Occasionally, the conversations on social media have turned acrimonious. Claudia Eller, the editor in chief of Variety, was placed on a leave of absence last week after she got into an argument on Twitter with former Hollywood Reporter editor Piya Sinha-Roy on the subject of newsroom diversity, calling her “bitter.” Ms. Eller apologized for the remarks in a note to Variety staff Thursday.
Mr. Bennet joined the New York Times in 2016 from the Atlantic magazine, where he was editor in chief. Before that, he held various positions at the New York Times for more than a decade, including White House correspondent and Jerusalem bureau chief.
Until recently, Mr. Bennet was viewed internally as a candidate to succeed New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet when he retires, according to a person familiar with the matter. Several journalists at the New York Times said this past week that they would not work for Mr. Bennet if he succeeded Mr. Baquet, the person said.
Mr. Bennet’s run as editorial page editor was marked by controversy. In January, weeks after the opinion section published “The Secrets of Jewish Genius,” a piece by columnist Bret Stephens that referenced a study by an author who promoted racist views, the newspaper expanded its standards department to advise the opinion section.
Write to Benjamin Mullin at Benjamin.Mullin@wsj.com and Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg at jeffrey.trachtenberg@wsj.com
And:
Alex Berenson, FOX News
And:
Alex Berenson, FOX News
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It has always been Trump's to lose. Meanwhile, his boorish unorthodox combative style may eventually cost him the presidency because voters are often more emotional than rational and are turned off by his personality and not turned on by his accomplishments.
Furthermore, Trump get's little help as we see meek Republicans, save for a few like Sen. Cotton, willing to stand up and be heard, to speak reason and common sense. They have allowed the radicals who have taken over the Democrat Party to become, again, the predominant voices heard among the land. No wonder Republicans lose when they should be winning . Their policies are better but their willingness to articulate, their cowardice is deafening. They are pathetic.
Furthermore, Trump get's little help as we see meek Republicans, save for a few like Sen. Cotton, willing to stand up and be heard, to speak reason and common sense. They have allowed the radicals who have taken over the Democrat Party to become, again, the predominant voices heard among the land. No wonder Republicans lose when they should be winning . Their policies are better but their willingness to articulate, their cowardice is deafening. They are pathetic.
POLL: Trump ‘Losing Ground’ With Key 2016 Voters
By Emily Zanotti
A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, released Sunday, has some tough news for President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign: a decline in support among voters who made up the key coalitions responsible for electing Trump to office in 2016.
The NBC News poll shows Trump around 7 points behind former Vice President Joe Biden nationally, but the national polls are largely deceptive; the presidential campaign is a state-by-state contest, not a national popularity contest, and the 2020 campaign has yet to start in earnest, leaving most current polling a referendum on Trump’s performance in office.
But, given that the poll is likely a referendum on Trump’s ability to handle major incidents as president, the NBC News poll has some rough news for the president: key demographics are finding themselves questioning the president’s ability in larger numbers, leaving the 7-point spread more worrisome than in other polls.
For starters, voters without a college education, who went for Trump in large numbers in 2016 — many resolving to vote after being included in Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” — are less enthusiastic about Trump this time around.
“]T]his week’s poll finds him leading among those without a [college] degree by only about 3 points, while he is losing voters with a degree by 24 points. That’s a massive edge for Biden among voters with a degree and a much smaller edge for Trump among voters that are a big part of his base,” NBC News reported.
Trump’s “edge” with male voters is also declining. In 2016, Trump had a double-digit lead over Clinton among men, but this time around, “his edge with men has eroded to about 8 points, and his deficit with women has exploded to 21 points.”
“That’s a gender split that basically makes it impossible for Trump to win the popular vote. Women tend to make up more of the electorate than men,” NBC News says.
The most concerning number, though, is Trump’s performance among white voters, which is also declining.
“In 2016,” the poll report notes, “Trump won white, non-Hispanic voters by 21 points. It made up for the huge losses he faced with communities of color. In the new poll, Trump does better with African American and Hispanic voters than he did in 2016, though he still isn’t close to winning those groups. But his edge with white voters is down to just 6 points — 49 percent to 43 percent for Biden — and white voters still make up the overwhelming majority of the electorate.”
The number also indicates that Biden is edging into the coalition that former president Barack Obama put together for his election and re-election campaigns in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Although Hillary Clinton drew from traditional Democratic voters across the board, she notably failed to drive Obama voters — non-traditional Democratic voters and other first-time voters — to the polls, leaving her struggling.
Trump, obviously, has plenty of time to make up the difference, and some of the declines could be tied to current events, giving the White House the summer to improve its standing.
Some interesting articles:
A Black Responds to Democrats' Insane Vow to Disband Police By Lloyd MarcusBrother and sister Americans, our greatest enemy is the Democratic Party. More
What Do They Really Want? By Jeremy EgererEven those who follow through on their threat to leave "racist" America find themselves looking hypocritical. More
De-Policing: The Handmaiden of Socialism By Eileen F. Toplansky
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment