Friday, February 19, 2016

College Campus anti-Semitism. China Builds on Rocks, We Talk.


Cartoons of the times!

The Dems have a basic problem.  How do they win with two losers.

The Repubs have several basic problems.  How do they beat the losers with no winners.
===
Can you make an egg from a Syrian Omelet?  (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
Obama will try to turn the nomination of Justice Scalia's replacement into a racial cause celebre.

If Republicans cave they will never win another election in pursuit of the presidency nor should they. On the other hand, if they do not resist effectively and allow themselves to be painted into an obstructionist corner it can result in their losing the Senate and suffer the same results.  There is plenty of past evidence to show Democrats have been obstructionists at the time of Supreme Court Nominations and it is up to Republican leadership to point this out and present  a clear case why allowing Obama to dictate the selection process will prove tantamount to a nail that seals our nation's fate and future rulings will continue to under gird our constitutional form of government.

There comes a time when you stand your ground and catch the heat because the issues are that critical  and this one relates to the survival of our republic. (See 2 below.)
===
When publicly held corporate America began acquiring newspapers and other media outlets their need for profits turned these acquired entities into entertainment vehicles and the previous status of and respect for the "Fourth Estate" changed radically.

Also, I believe when by-lines were given to first page news reporters this simple act skewed the veracity of reporting.  I understand editorial page bias but when it is allowed to spill over onto first page news reporting,  where such should be strictly factual and without slant, this became the beginning of the end for truth.

It is also a fact, technology has become a significant competitor to newspapers and media outlets and the press for timely reporting has served, in far too many cases, to cause premature and less than factual reporting.

The trend towards politicization of everything in life has also proven destructive, has resulted in an increase in cynicism and eliminated comity in relationships among members of both major parties.

I was relatively close to Sam Nunn. I know he had the greatest respect for Sen. Howard Baker. Reagan loved playing poker with Tip O'Neil etc.

Finally, professors in Journalism Departments are increasingly of a liberal persuasion , many have misgivings about and/or are hostile towards America and some are downright Communists.

If this trend is not bad enough, our college campuses have become hotbeds of radicalism, anti-Semitism is on the rise and administrators have become cowards, their voices stilled by student protests and outrageous demands and physical threats. The influence of Muslims is fed by Saudi financed Islamic Study Departments and other large donations that come with a subtle,but not obvious,  price. (See 3 below.)

I believe our Republic is under attack from within as well as without and the time for effective counter response is well past.

This is why Allen West's recent address was both timely and effective and why the reception he received, from an avowedly conservative audience, was understandable and appropriate. His message must not be allowed to die. At the next board meeting of The SIRC, I will propose some ideas that I believe are constructive in furtherance of his message.
===
Obama is going to put pressure on Israel during his remaining months and does Israel have an effective strategy? (See 4 below.)
===
China build on rocks in the South China Sea and we talk. (See 5 below.)
===
Dick
========================================================================
1)
Commenting on the situation in Syria at a press conference in Tel Aviv on Sunday Minister of Defence Moshe Ya’alon said, "We believe Syria is like an egg which has become an omelet. There is no way to make an egg from an omelet.” Ya'alon has used the egg simile before to describe the disintegration of Assad's Syria.” The simile reminded me of Humpty Dumpty, the anthropomorphic egg of English nursery rhyme fame.                                     
The possibility of reconstituting Syria seems as remote as putting “Humpty together again.” “We are going to face chronic instability for a very, very long time." Ya’alon predicted.
The Director-General of the Intelligence Ministry Ram Ben Barak's predictions were more free-spoken. In an interview on IDF radio he said, "I think that ultimately Syria should be turned into regions, under the control of whoever is there."  Ben Barak a former deputy head of the Mossad reasoned that a rapprochement between Assad's minority Alawite sect and the Sunni Muslim majority is not feasible. "After killing half a million Sunni Muslims it's unthinkable that the Alawites who number 12 percent of the population could rule a Sunni majority.
Describing the various forces fighting in the Syrian civil war, Oren Dorell  USA TODAY said “Armies and militias from more than a dozen countries have joined the Syrian conflict, making for a mind-boggling and dangerous stew of shifting and competing alliances.”
The Syrian Conflict.
A lead article in The Economist described how almost five years since the war started in Syria, the regime is making a comeback. “Unlike previous ebbs and flows in the brutal conflict, this one looks as if it may prove decisive. In what has long since become a proxy war, Assad’s allies are simply more dedicated to their cause than the backers of those fighting to oust him; and there is little sign that this will change.”
Iran’s supporting role, mobilising thousands of Iraqi and Afghan Shia militiamen to bolster Assad’s forces helped. But it was Russia’s intervention late last year that has made the difference. “Sold as being against Islamic State (IS, ISIS), Russia has mainly set about bombing the more mainstream Sunni rebels. Despite yet another report this week accusing Assad of crimes against humanity for ‘exterminating’ prisoners, Russia knows that his regime is more palatable to the West than IS.”
The Economist described how America, focused on fighting IS, has continued to hope, without any real evidence, that Russia will help force Assad to the negotiating table. “Not surprisingly peace talks fell apart in Switzerland last week almost as soon as they had begun, over the assault on Aleppo. Assad and his allies appear to see the only point of the talks as being a place to consolidate their gains, in hope of receiving a stamp of approval from a weary UN.
“The opposition’s backers are at odds, too. The Gulf States are angry with America for focusing on IS instead of Assad. On February 10th Turkey lashed out at America for working with the Kurdish PYD, Syria’s offshoot of the Turkish PKK, which Turkey considers a terrorist group.”
The author of the article in The Economist noted that, “The PYD is in tacit alliance with the regime. Its fighters are moving in to hold some of the areas taken by the regime around Aleppo, on the border with Turkey. The silent agreement may soon become formal. Word is that Russia has promised the Kurds what Western backers would not: a continuous Kurdish area in the north-east of Syria that is their stronghold.”
Fabrice Balanche a scholar at the Washington Institute has   pointed out that Russia, Iran and Assad know that this year America is weak because of the election and Obama won’t increase US involvement in Syria. Predictably they are exploiting the opportunity in order to destroy the opposition.”
A few months ago another think tank scholar Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of “The Future of Land Warfare,” wrote in the Washington Post arguing, “The case for deconstructing Syria.”

“What is needed, in addition to a humane refugee policy, is a fundamentally different approach to the Syrian civil war that holds out the promise not only of defeating the Islamic State and, over time, President Bashar al-Assad but also of relieving as much of the humanitarian tragedy unfolding there as possible — and soon. We are witnessing the equivalent of slow-motion genocide and doing little about it.”

“The most viable strategy for achieving, at least partially, these various aims would be to deconstruct Syria. We need a number of regional solutions rather than a Hail Mary hope for a big and comprehensive political deal or military turnaround”….”This strategy has the added advantage of being viable even as Russia escalates its role in certain sectors of the country, because it does not require any near-term and direct U.S. military challenge to Assad’s core areas of rule,”…..” The endgame for these zones would not have to be determined in advance. The goal might be some form of Syrian confederacy, with several highly autonomous zones and, eventually, a modest national government. The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force (perhaps even including Russia), if this arrangement could ever be formalized by accord. But in the short term, the ambitions would be lower — to make these zones defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and expanded.”

O’Hanlon wrote before the regime comeback and doesn’t take into account Russia’s vital interest in maintaining Assad’s regime.

Dennis Ross wrote in the Los Angeles Times recently,” The nature of the Russian strikes makes clear that Putin was not just trying to improve Assad's leverage before negotiations. No, he was intent on changing the balance of power fundamentally on the ground and sending a message to Arab leaders. Namely: You may not like our support for Assad, but unlike the Americans we stand by our friends. If you want to deal with problems in Syria or in the region, you deal with us.”

Obviously maintaining the Russian naval base at Tartus on the Mediterranean coast in Syria partly explains Russia’s vital interest in that country. There has been a Russian naval presence there since 1971. At the time, the Soviet Union was Syria’s primary arms supplier and used the deep-water port as a destination for shipments of Soviet weapons. Russia managed to maintain access to Tartus after the fall of the U.S.S.R. due in part to a deal that wrote off Syrian debts to the Soviet Union.

However, defeating the Syrian opposition forces and ISIS is also motivated by Russian domestic concerns, namely Russia’s Muslims! .
 However, defeating the Syrian opposition forces and ISIS is also motivated by Russian domestic concerns, namely Russia’s Muslims! 
According to a poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center, 6% of respondents considered themselves Muslims. According to Robin Paxton Reuters, Muslim minorities make up approximately 14% of Russia's population. 
Bearing in mind that volunteers from the North Caucasus have fought in Syria and remembering the ten year long   Second Chechen War, Putin seems determined to prevent another Muslim insurgency in Russia, especially if  
 inspiration comes from the Syrian opposition group
1a)

The Real Divide in the Middle East

By JONATHAN S. TOBIN 

To listen to many in Europe, the American foreign policy establishment, and even the Jewish left, any discussion about the reason for conflict in the Middle East centers on Israeli policies and West Bank settlements. But while the conflict with the Palestinians continues remains the obsessive focus of much of the international media, the truth is something very different. For proof of that, you don’t have to rely on me. Just ask the head of Hezbollah.
Earlier this week, Hezbollah chieftain Hassan Nasrallah gave a speech on the anniversary of his predecessor’s violent death in which he made typical boasts about plans to attack Israel, including a threat to blow up chemical tanks in Haifa, which would result in mass deaths. But aside from the usual invective against the Jewish state, the Shia leader’s ire was directed at Sunni Arab states in the region. What was his complaint? That many Arab nations now “consider Israel a friend and ally.”

Nasrallah is right. While Egypt has had an ice-cold peace with Israel since 1979 and has had open relations with Jordan since 1994, in the last year the Jewish state’s relationship with the Arab world has been transformed. Driven by the common menace of Islamist terror as well as by fear of the growing strength of Iran in the wake of the nuclear deal championed by President Obama, the solid Arab wall of enmity toward Israel has crumbled. While hatred of Israel and open anti-Semitism is still a staple of Arab and Muslim political and popular culture, the Sunni states have now aligned themselves with Israel against Iran and its Hezbollah terrorist auxiliaries, as well as Sunni Arab allies like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. 
Moreover, these ties aren’t limited to the military government in Egypt that is primarily concerned with its war for survival against the Brotherhood or a Hashemite dynasty in Jordan that has always looked to Israel for support against enemies. Now even the Saudis — the guardians of the holy Muslim shrines in Mecca and Medina — and other Gulf states are making no secret about their informal and private alliance with Israel.
Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke on the same topic earlier this week when he said that he thought it was high time Arab states came clean in public about what has been happening. While the Egyptians and the Jordanians are increasingly public about the extent of their security cooperation with Israel — including joint military exercises — the Saudis and others are still worried about being fingered in the Arab street for being, as Nasrallah rightly noted, Israel’s “friend and ally.”
The Hezbollah leader and his Iranian masters are locked in open combat with the Sunni states because of their intervention in the Syrian civil war. Hezbollah has suffered terribly in recent years because of their losses in terms of casualties and image because of their employment as Iranian-paid mercenaries loaned out to fight for the brutal Assad regime. While Nasrallah would like the world to think he’s preparing to fight Israel, the truth is that the ordeal of their participation in mass slaughter in Syria has taken a toll on the group.
Nasrallah’s taunts at the Sunni states hint at the real dividing line in the Middle East. On one side are Iran and its terrorist allies Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, as well as its ally Syria and Assad’s Russian patrons. On the other side is the rest of the Arab world and Israel.
President Obama’s nuclear deal that ended international sanctions against Iran has strengthened the Islamist regime immeasurably. Its economy is getting a boost from the $100 billion in frozen assets that Obama turned over to Tehran as well as from the flood of foreign businesses that hope to benefit from a newly rediscovered market. But Arab states understand that pumping up the Iranian economy presents a threat to their security because a significant share of the profits will go to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its associated terrorist groups as well as to the Iranian military and now legal nuclear program.
The Arab world understands that Iran’s motivation is not, as President Obama said, “to get right with the world,” but to seek regional hegemony. So it is no surprise that Sunni states are now aligning themselves with a regional power that also fears Iran and presents no threat at all to their nations: Israel.
As Netanyahu and Nasrallah both understand, this is a revolution in Middle East politics that is turning the conventional wisdom and alliances on their head. But what is really curious about some of the international discourse about the Middle East is the way some European countries and other foes of Israel continue to ignore this reality.
The Sunni states may sympathize with the Palestinians but, unlike many Americans, they understand that PA leader Mahmoud Abbas and his predecessor Yasir Arafat have rejected offers of statehood and peace and have lost patience with their desire to persist in a conflict that can yield no rewards for them or the Arab and Muslim world. While the Sunni states may not be Zionists, they understand that the real threat to their security is Iran and its Islamist terror network, not a Jewish state that is solely focused on its survival.
Yet somehow these facts elude Israel-bashers in the U.S. and some European governments, like the French, that persist in thinking that the focus of diplomatic efforts in the region ought to be on pressuring Israel to make concessions to Palestinians that don’t actually want peace.
The real question for the world about the Middle East now is which side are you on? Are you with Iran, its terrorist allies, and the butchers of Damascus? Or are you standing with the Sunni states and Israel as they seek to prevent Iran from achieving its strategic goals that have been advanced by a feckless Obama administration? At this point, any diversion from that dilemma isn’t merely unproductive. It’s a denial of reality.
=====================================================================
2)

Win one for Nino



Let’s understand something about the fight to fill the Supreme Court seat of Antonin (“Nino”) Scalia. This is about nothing but raw power. Any appeal you hear to high principle is phony — brazenly, embarrassingly so.

In Year Seven of the George W. Bush administration, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) publicly opposed filling any Supreme Court vacancy until Bush left office. (“Except in extraordinary circumstances.” None such arose. Surprise!) Today he piously denounces Republicans for doing exactly the same for a vacancy created in Year Eight of Barack Obama.

Republicans, say the Democrats, owe the president deference. Elections have consequences and Obama won reelection in 2012.

Yes. And the Republicans won the Senate in 2014 — if anything, a more proximal assertion of popular will. And both have equal standing in appointing a Supreme Court justice.

It’s hard to swallow demands for deference from a party that for seven years has cheered Obama’s serial constitutional depredations: His rewriting the immigration laws by executive order (stayed by the courts); his reordering the energy economy by regulation (stayed by the courts); his enacting the nuclear deal with Iran, the most important treaty of this generation, without the required two-thirds vote of the Senate (by declaring it an executive agreement).

Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) complains about the Senate violating precedent if it refuses a lame-duck nominee. This is rich. It is Reid who just two years ago overthrew all precedent by abolishing the filibuster for most judicial and high executive appointments. In the name of what grand constitutional principle did Reid resort to a parliamentary maneuver so precedent-shattering that it was called the “nuclear option”? None. He did it in order to pack the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with liberals who would reliably deflect challenges to Obamacare.

On Tuesday, Obama loftily called upon Congress to rise above ideology and partisanship in approving his nominee. When asked how he could square that with his 2006 support of a filibuster to stop the appointment of Samuel Alito, Obama replied with a four-minute word salad signifying nothing. There is no answer. It was situational constitutional principle, i.e., transparent hypocrisy.


As I said, this is all about raw power. When the Democrats had it, they used it. The Republicans are today wholly justified in saying they will not allow this outgoing president to overturn the balance of the Supreme Court. The matter should be decided by the coming election. Does anyone doubt that Democrats would be saying exactly that if the circumstances were reversed?


Which makes this Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (Ky.) moment. He and his cohorts have taken a lot of abuse from “anti-establishment” candidates and media for not using their congressional majorities to repeal Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood, block executive orders, etc.

What was the 2014 election about, they say? We won and got nothing. We were lied to and betrayed by a corrupt leadership beholden to the “Washington cartel.”

As it happens, under our Madisonian Constitution, the opposition party cannot govern without the acquiescence of the president, which it will not get, or a two-thirds majority of the Congress, which it does not have.
But no matter. Things are different now. Appointing a Supreme Court justice is a two-key operation. The president proposes, the Senate disposes. There is no reason McConnell cannot hold the line. And he must. The stakes here — a radical generation-long reversal of direction of the Supreme Court — are the highest this Senate will ever face.

If McConnell succeeds, he will have resoundingly answered the “what did we get for 2014?” question. Imagine if the Senate were now in Democratic hands. What we got in 2014 was the power to hold on to Scalia’s seat and to the court’s conservative majority.

But only for now. Blocking an Obama nominee buys just a year. The final outcome depends on November 2016. If the GOP nominates an unelectable or unconservative candidate, a McConnell victory will be nothing more than a stay of execution.

In 2012, Scalia averred that he would not retire until there was a more ideologically congenial president in the White House. “I would not like to be replaced,” he explained, “by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I’ve tried to do for 25 years.”

Scalia never got to choose the timing of his leaving office. Those who value the legacy of those now-30 years will determine whether his last wish will be vindicated. Let McConnell do his thing. Then in November it’s for us to win one for Nino.
======================================================================================
3) The 10 Campuses With The Worst Anti-Semitic Activity:


1.     Columbia University
2.     Cornell University
3.     George Mason University
4.     Loyola University Chicago
5.     Portland State University
6.     San Diego State University
7.     San Francisco State University
8.     Temple University
9.     University of California Los Angeles
10.   Vassar College

I. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Columbia University is home to some of the most well-known anti-Semitic professors in the nation such as Rashid Khalidi and Joseph Massad, who has been accused of harassing Jewish students on multiple occasions. In addition, it is home to a highly active SJP chapter that has recently brought BDS founder Omar Barghouti and disgraced anti-Semitic professor Steven Salaita to campus. 

A. March 10, 2014: Israeli Apartheid Week. 
B. September 11, 2014: Protest with signs such as “Call to Action: Stand with Gaza.”
C. November 2014: Street theater: mock security checkpoints were set up. 
D. November 19, 2014: Speaker event with Steven Salaita, who has made numerous bigoted statements about Jews and Israelis. 
E. December 2, 2014: Speaker event featuring BDS founder Omar Barghouti and radical, anti-Israel faculty.

Barghouti opposes the existence of a Jewish state and Jewish rights to self-determination in Israel, and he has slandered Israel repeatedly. Reports after his speech noted that he spoke to a “packed hall.” Responding to a question about whether Jews have the right of self-determination, Barghouti responded “One thing I do know– not at my expense. If they are a nation and have a right of self-determination, not at my expense. That does not give them the right to expel us or to take our land.”  The article reports that, “The audience broke into applause, the first time that any speaker had been interrupted by applause in two hours.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/netanyahu-barghouti-celebratory
F. December 1, 2014: Panel: “Ferguson to Gaza.” The event was described as “A panel discussion highlighting the many intersections of race, militarized policing, and structural state violence faced by communities in Palestine and Ferguson.”

II. CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Cornell’s SJP chapter has used open force to intimidate Jewish and pro-Israel students on campus, and has erected scores of anti-Israel signs across the campus in addition to interrupting a student government meeting and erecting mock “checkpoints” on campus.

A. Spring 2014: Cornell University’s active SJP, which receives support from extremists in the community, attempted and failed to pass a divestment resolution. 
B. April 10, 2014: BDS was introduced. 
C. April 17, 2014: Direct action: interrupting a student government meeting. www.cornellsun.com/blog/2014/04/18/students-take-control-of-student-assembly-meeting
D. August 29, 2014: Protest: 30 SJP members showed up with signs and a loudspeaker. They read the names of those who died during Operation Protective Edge. 
E. Fall 2014: Anti-Israel activists erected scores of anti-Israel signs across the campus, stalked a student, harassed and threatened another, and defaced and destroyed his posters. www.legalinsurrection.com/2014/11/i-will-fking-slap-you-more-cornell-anti-israel-intimidation
F. October 31, 2014: Street theater with an art display and signs in a quad. 
G. November 19, 2014: Verbal harassment at an anti-Israel rally. www.legalinsurrection.com/2014/11/i-will-fking-slap-you-more-cornell-anti-israel-intimidation
H. November 19, 2014: Physical assault: A pro-Israel student was splashed with water and had a sign torn from his hands. 
I. November 19, 2014: SJP organized a mock Israeli checkpoint at Ho Plaza, a central student gathering point on campus, between the Cornell Bookstore and Willard Straight Hall, where many student activities are centered.

www.legalinsurrection.com/2014/11/cornell-pro-israel-students-taunted-fk-you-zionist-scums

III. GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY 
George Mason University has a very active Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) affiliate, Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA), which promotes BDS, “anti-normalization,” and the one-state solution (i.e., the dissolution of Israel). Its anti-Israel events are cosponsored by the Middle Eastern Studies Department and other student clubs on campus. It is not the quantity of events at this campus that is so troubling but rather their broad sponsorship by the Middle Eastern Studies Department, the Trans-Arab Research Institute, the Arab Studies Institute, New Century College, and Global Programs. 
A. May 18, 2014: SAIA crashed a pro-Israel event in northern Virginia with huge posters that read, “ISRAEL IS AN APARTHEID STATE.”

www.mondoweiss.net/2014/05/crashing-activists-festival
B. March 25, 2014: Speaker event with Miko Peled. Peled has described the Israeli government as “a radical Zionist regime,” and Israel as a nation where “half of the population lives in what it thinks is a Western democracy while keeping the other half imprisoned by a ruthless defense apparatus that is becoming more violent by the day.”
C. April 7, 2014: Speaker event with anti-Israel activist, Ali Abunimah. Abuminah has accused Israel of practicing “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “attempted genocide” against the Palestinians.  In his words, “Israel’s problem is not, as its propaganda insists, 'terrorism' to be defeated by sufficient application of high explosives.” Rather, Abunimah explained, “its problem is legitimacy, or rather a profound and irreversible lack of it.… Israel simply cannot bomb its way to legitimacy.”

www.hangtime.com/events/ali-abunimah-the-battle-for-justice-inpalestine/1402870533309024
D. October 20, 2014: Panel discussion: “Operation Protective Edge: Legal and Political Implications of ICC Prosecution.” The ICC is the International Criminal Court which the Palestinian Authority has recently joined and pushed for an investigation into whether Israel has committed war crimes against the Palestinians. 
E. October 27, 2014: Speaker event with Stephen Salaita, who has made numerous bigoted statements about Jews and Israelis.

www. twitter.com/stevesalaita/status/459722797481476096

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/08/anti-israel-prof-loses-job-offer-at-u-illinois-over-hateful-tweets//#more
F. November 5, 2014: SAIA staged a walkout of a pro-Israel campus event with an IDF colonel and organized a Gaza “teach-in” in the public square where members read names of Gaza casualties.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKATWJ8QVuQ
IV. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO 
Loyola University has an active SJP led by students who are part of the SJP national leadership. The university is fairly apathetic, allowing an extremist fringe to dominate too much of the discourse, and the administration has only lightly punished SJP for blatantly violating university rules. 
A. February 14, 2014: Panel discussion: “Greenwashing” the conflict. “Greenwashing” is a term used by anti-Israel activists to claim that Israel’s eco-friendly technology is publicized to hide the pollution of Palestinian lands and mistreatment of the Palestinian people.
B. February 23, 2014: Film Screening: 5 Broken Cameras, an anti-Israel film that demonizes the IDF while obscuring the violent protests of the Palestinians.
C.  February 28, 2014: Panel Discussion: “Pinkwashing” the conflict. 
“Pinkwashing” is a term used by anti-Israel activists to claim that pro-Israel forces highlight Israel’s strong support of gay rights in order to obscure their mistreatment of the Palestinians. 
D. March 10, 2014: BDS Resolution originally introduced in student government. 
E. March 11, 2014 and March 18, 2014: BDS passed. 
F. April 2014: A divestment resolution narrowly passed the Student Government but was vetoed by the student government president. 
G. April 10-14, 2014: Palestine Awareness Week. 
H. Inflammatory/hateful social media messages were posted during divestment. 
I. September 9, 2014: Protest/disruption of pro-Israel events: SJP members harassed Jewish students manning a table for Birthright Israel, asking them, “How does it feel to be an occupier?” They also asked, “How does it feel to be guilty of ethnic cleansing?” SJP students later blocked the table, holding signs that read, “My family is from the ethnically cleansed village of [name] BUT I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RETURN.” SJP was charged with several school policy violations and was eventually sanctioned with probation through the end of the school year and a requirement to attend intergroup dialogue training. 
J. December 3, 2014: Speaker event with Sa’ed Atshan, an anti-Israel activist who has served for five years as a lecturer in “Peace and Justice Studies” at Tufts University.

www.facebook.com/events/1567174540178209
K. October 19, 2014: SJP promoted several Chicago-area events with Steven Salaita, who has made numerous bigoted statements about Jews and Israelis. 

V. PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY 
Portland State’s Students United for Palestinian Equal Rights (SUPER) posts inflammatory messages on their social media pages, displays an “apartheid wall” whenever weather permits throughout the spring term and has brought such anti-Semitic luminaries at BDS Movement founder Omar Barghouti to campus.
A. Street theater: “apartheid wall” display, which is displayed regularly during the spring term (whenever the weather permits).
https://www.facebook.com/events/606388362711760/
B. Spring 2014: Speaker event with Omar Barghouti about divesting from Israel. Barghouti opposes the existence of a Jewish state and Jewish rights to self-determination in Israel, and he has slandered Israel repeatedly. 
www.vimeo.com/75201955
www.counterpunch.org/2003/12/12/relative-humanity-the-essential-obstacle-to-a-just-peacein-palestine www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/omar_barghouti_at_ucla_echoes_of_1930s_europewww.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/omar_barghouti_at_ucla_no_to_bds_no_to_occupation

C. Spring 2014: Vandalism: SUPER defaced CHAI’s event posters last year for multiple events. During spring quarter 2014, sidewalk graffiti that read, “Israel did 9/11,” was suspected to have been perpetrated by SUPER members.
[reported to StandWithUs]

D. Spring 2014: Verbal assault: The president of SUPER verbally assaulted a StandWithUs Emerson Fellow who was tabling for the movie The Case for Israel. On another occasion another student was called “a murderer” and was told she should be ashamed of herself for displaying an Israeli flag.
[reported to StandWithUs]

E. November 2014: Remi Kanazi spoke about the BDS movement through a spoken word workshop, “America is the Belly of the Beast.” G. Winter 2014: Panel discussion: “Colonialism, Racism and Apartheid.” The panel, which was hosted in the Native American student center, had a member of the Native American group, a member of the NAACP, and a member of SUPER who said she didn’t “feel safe walking around Jerusalem because of the 15-year-old IDF members walking around with guns.” 
F. December 2014: Protest: SUPER promoted the “I Can’t Breathe” campaign to push its own agenda in Pioneer Square in downtown Portland—about five blocks from campus. 
http://koin.com/2014/12/13/protest-police-killings-national-portland-121314/

G. Regular spring event: Israeli Apartheid Week: A weeklong event to showcase films, anti-Israel speakers, and the “Israeli apartheid wall” on campus. Examples of films include 5 Broken Cameras and Where Should the Birds Fly. 
H. Ongoing: Inflammatory/hateful social media posts: SUPER always posts content on their Facebook page like “From Ferguson to Palestine, Occupation is a Crime.” It posts graphics of “ending apartheid” like a sledgehammer breaking down the “apartheid wall” in Israel.
https://www.facebook.com/PSUSUPER
VI.  SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SDSU is home to an SJP chapter that violated the Student Code of Conduct by dropping leaflets from the top of several campus buildings mean to simulate an Israeli air strike.  In addition, the chapter holds a “Palestinian Solidarity Month” during which they display a “Palestinian Solidarity Village” featuring an “Apartheid Wall” plastered with anti-Israel propaganda and mock Israeli checkpoints. 
A. January/February 2014: Panel discussion before divestment vote.
http://www.thedailyaztec.com/48341/news/sdsu-divestment/
www.sjpsdsu.com/events.html

B. March 2014: SDSU SJP sets up a “Palestine Solidarity Village” as part of “Palestinian Solidarity Month.”  According to a campus newspaper article,  “The village includes a mock Israeli checkpoint and a large painted wall covered in art and information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as several tables set up by organizations that support SJP, such as Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano/a de Aztlán and the Jewish Voice for Peace.”
http://www.thedailyaztec.com/50310/news/student-activists-make-statement-with-wall/

C. March 2014: Interrupting pro-Israel speaker Dumisani Washington. [reported to StandWithUs]
D.  Nirit Revzin, president of Aztecs for Israel, writes in a campus newspaper column: “I have been rejected numerous times in creating a dialogue toward progress or cooperating with Students for Justice in Palestine, as I have been told ‘SJP officers do not socialize with sympathizers of a brutal apartheid state.’
http://www.thedailyaztec.com/51791/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-divestment-creates-campus-hostility/#sthash.I6GyKFNu.dpuf
E. April 2014: BDS resolution was introduced over three different senate meetings. BDS was discussed and failed to pass. 
F. Spring 2014: Verbal assault against pro-Israel students tabling. [reported to StandWithUs]

G. Speaker event with Alison Weir. Weir is the founder and executive director of If America Knew, an organization which demonizes Israel. Weir has said that America’s support for Israel makes us an “accomplice to war crimes and an accessory to oppression.”
According to SJP’s website, “Ms. Weir gave a lecture to students and members of the community about the relationship between the United States and Israel, why Americans should be outraged about U.S. involvement in Israel.”
H. Fall 2014: Palestine Awareness Week, an annual event; Israeli Apartheid Week/Islam Awareness Week. www.facebook.com/events/623063584428083/?ref=3&ref_newsfeed_story_type=regular

I. October 2014: “Remembering Gaza” Event: street theater: “die-in” in protest of Operation Protective Edge
J. Operation Protective Edge was launched by Israel in April 2014 as a defensive measure in response to unceasing rocket attacks from Gaza. Inflammatory/hateful social media posts made during and right after the operation. 
K. October 2014: Speaker event with Greta Berlin, co-founder of the Free Gaza Movement.  Berlin created a controversy when she tweeted a blatantly anti-Semitic video. She has also claimed that Americans give foreign aid to Israel in order "to occupy, kill, starve, humiliate and drive out a native population in favor of white European colonists." 
L. November 6, 2014: SDSU SJP violates the Student Code of Conduct by dropping leaflets from the top of several campus buildings mean to simulate an Israeli air strike.  According to the campus paper, “The papers fluttering to the ground were meant to resemble leaflets dropped over Gaza ordering Palestinians to flee the region because of an imminent air strike.”
M. November 19, 2014: Anti-Israel performer Remi Kanazi speaks at the SDSU Student Union.
N. November 20, 2014: “Right 2 Education Tour” with two students from Birzeit University who “told of their experiences of trying to attain an education and better future despite the Israeli occupation.” 

VII.  SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY 
In addition to bringing in numerous anti-Israel speakers and holding regular Israeli Apartheid Week protests, San Francisco State’s General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) disrupted a celebration of Israeli Independence Day and was led by a sociopathic president who made open threats against Jews and Israel on social media.
A.      February 2014: SFSU General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) President Mohammad G. Hammad is exposed as having written a number of threatening social media posts describing his wish to attack students, teachers and Israeli leaders.
Hammad’s posts include:

“I think about killing a lot.  And some of you are usually the targets of my daydreams J”

“You know what?  Israelis ARE colonizers, there is literally no way around it. And you know what else?  My heroes have always killed colonizers. I literally see nothing wrong with this. And my only regret is that not all colonizers were killed.”
“There are children shouting outside and I want to set them on fire.”
“Let’s play a game. Objective: Kill U.S. Soldiers. Goal: world peace.”
"I think about the time I tried to be - moderate - and advocate for non-violence and honestly I just want to go back in time and slit my own throat/and then the throats of all my enemies before they grow up into the shits they are today"
"Oh/And tomorrow is [hopefully] the day that I find out if I will be the President of the General Union of Palestine at my school/...Hopefully I'll be able to radicalize half of our population and bring them back with me as fighters~"
After Jewish groups and the media exposed his postings, Hammad eventually left campus (probably not voluntarily) and was placed under investigation by the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the FBI. 
B.      Fall 2014: Street theater: GUPS regularly holds “die-ins” during “Israeli Apartheid Week,” which it usually conducts concurrent with the AIPAC Policy Conference. During this most recent “street theater,” they constructed gravestones with names of Palestinians who have died, and they read each name aloud in the center of campus.
B. Yom Ha’atzmaut: GUPS disrupted a celebration of Israel Independence Day by protesting the entire event in the middle of campus.

www.antisemitismatsfsu.blogspot.com/2014/05/san-francisco-state-gups-attempts-to.html
C. Fall 2014: The anti-Israel club held a “pinkwashing” event in a classroom on campus.
“Pinkwashing” is a term used by anti-Israel activists to claim that pro-Israel forces highlight Israel’s strong support of gay rights in order to obscure their mistreatment of the Palestinians. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/opinion/pinkwashing-and-israels-use-of-gays-as-a-messaging-tool.html?_r=0

D. October 2014: Verbal assault: A Jewish student was walking home and was verbally assaulted by a few GUPS members. This is a regular experience of pro-Israel students who are often called “baby killers” and “Nazis” on campus. 
[reported to StandWithUs]
E. Fall 2014: Israeli Apartheid Week: They call it a cultural week, but they end up just doing things about hating Israel, like “Nakba Day.” When they celebrated their mural on campus, it turned into just an Israel “hatefest.” 
F. SFSU speakers from fall 2014 to the present: • Rabab Abdulhadi, Race and Resistance Studies and AMED, SFSU • Joanne Barker, American Indian Studies, SFSU • Claudia Chaufan, University of San Francisco and International Jewish AntiZionist Network • Jamal Dajani, award-winning news producer, journalist, filmmaker, and Middle East analyst; co-founder of Arab Talk Radio • Jess Ghannam, University of California-San Francisco and Gaza Community Mental Health Project • Barbara Lubin, Middle East Children’s Alliance, Berkeley • Clarence Thomas, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local Ten, San Francisco • Jaime Veve, Transport Workers Union (retired) and Labor for Palestine • Michael Yoshii, Buena Vista United Methodist Church (Alameda) and Wadi Foquin Partnership Project • Sahar Francis • Hatem Bazian 
VIII. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY 
Temple University is home to an SJP chapter that was responsible for a verbal and physical attack on a Jewish student who approached their table at a campus activities bazaar to attempt a dialogue.  In addition, they are regular participants in Israel Apartheid Week and have brought well-known anti-Semites such as David Sheen to campus.  

A. March 2014: Israeli Apartheid Week, an event designed to characterize the state of Israel as an “Apartheid State” similar to South Africa before reforms were enacted there. 
B. March 18, 2014: Speaker event with David Sheen: “Racism Against Africans in Israel.”  Sheen is an independent journalist and filmmaker who falsely claims that Israel discriminates against Africans. One false quote he publicized on his Twitter feed states that “Just as Nazis compared Jews to vermin to incite racism against them, Netanyahu compares non-Jewish Africans to ebola.”
C. March 28, 2014: Panel: Palestine Children’s Relief Fund. 
PCRF is headed by Stephen Sosebee, who depicts Israelis as murderous Zionist terrorists whom Palestinians must resist by means of "armed struggle" (i.e., suicide bombings). Sosebee charges that the U.S. government, citizenry, and media are manipulated by a "Zionist lobby" and "Zionist influence.”

On June 24, 2003, NGO Monitor reported: "PCRF received assistance from [t]he Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Global Relief Foundation, and [t]he International [Islamic] Relief Organization -- all of which were closed down by the U.S. government for funding terrorist groups.

http://web.archive.org/web/20141024073757/http://apartheidweek.org/philadelphia
temple.collegiatelink.net/organization/SJP/events?onlyCurrent=False

D. March 27, 2014: Speaker event with Josh Ruebner. Ruebner founded “Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel” and believes that Palestinians have the “right of return” and that suicide bombings can be explained by Israel’s subjugation of the Palestinians.
E. March 28, 2014: Speaker event with Saed Atshan on “pinkwashing.” “Pinkwashing” is a term used by anti-Israel activists to claim that pro-Israel forces highlight Israel’s strong support of gay rights in order to obscure their mistreatment of the Palestinians.

http://web.archive.org/web/20141024073757/http://apartheidweek.org/philadelphia
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/opinion/pinkwashing-and-israels-use-of-gays-as-a-messaging-tool.html?_r=0

F. March 31, 2014: Panel: “Parallels of the Black Struggle and the Palestinian Struggle.”
temple.collegiatelink.net/organization/SJP/events?onlyCurrent=False

G. April 28, 2014: Protest: “Taking Back Temple.” 
H. August 20, 2014: Physical and verbal assault: A pro-Israel student was assaulted while tabling. During welcome week on campus, when a Jewish student approached the SJP table to begin a dialogue, students behind the table laughed at and verbally attacked the Jewish student, calling him a “Zionist, racist baby killer.” A student struck the Jewish pro-Israel student in the face as SJP students reportedly yelled “Zionist pig!” and “Kike!” at him.

www.jewishexponent.com/headlines/2014/08/jewish-student-assaulted-at-temple-university
http://www.jta.org/2014/08/21/news-opinion/united-states/temple-u-jewish-student-punched-at-pro-palestinian-groups-booth

I. October 27, 2014: Panel Discussion: “Teach-in” on “Anti-Semitism and the Left” 
K. November 5, 2014: Protest: “In Support of Rasmea.” Rasmea Odeh is a convicted terrorist who was directly involved in the murder of two innocent Israelis. 
L. November 14, 2014: Protest: “Philly, Don’t Dance with Israeli Apartheid.” 
IX. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES 
In addition to trying (and ultimately succeeding) in passing a BDS initiative in student government, UCLA’s SJP chapter attempted to require student government candidates to sign a pledge not to take trips to Israel sponsored by pro-Israel organizations. No candidates were asked to sign a pledge fore swearing their participation in any other programs. SJP members also used social media to attack Jewish students and smear their reputations. 

A. Inflammatory/hateful social media posts: attacks against pro-Israel senators were made online, many after Operation Protective Edge (a military initiative to defend Israel against rocket fire from Gaza) and around the time that BDS was introduced (both BDS resolutions). 
B. SJP introduced an initiative that would require candidates for student government to sign a pledge to not take trips to Israel sponsored by AIPAC, ADL, or Hasbara Fellowships. 
C. January 2014: Speaker event with BDS movement founder Omar Barghouti. Barghouti opposes the existence of a Jewish state and Jewish rights to self-determination in Israel, and he has slandered Israel repeatedly. 
https://www.facebook.com/events/720804964603810/?ref_newsfeed_story_type=regular

D. February, October, and November 2014: Panel discussions before undergraduate BDS hearings in February and October and another in the law school before the graduate student union BDS vote in November. 
F. March and May 2014: Verbal assault: The email accounts of pro-Israel students and Hillel professionals were hacked, aggressive newspaper articles were published, and accusations were made in the school senate. The verbal assaults occurred after BDS failed in March and during a Yom Ha’atzmaut celebration in May. 
www.dailybruin.com/2014/03/18/submission-hate-speech-after-divestment-resolution-only-furthers-divide

G. April 2014: Event with Ali Abuminah titled “No Rest Until We Divest.”
Abuminah has accused Israel of practicing “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “attempted genocide” against the Palestinians.  In his words, “Israel’s problem is not, as its propaganda insists, 'terrorism' to be defeated by sufficient application of high explosives.” Rather, Abunimah explained, “its problem is legitimacy, or rather a profound and irreversible lack of it.… Israel simply cannot bomb its way to legitimacy.”

https://www.facebook.com/events/225934717601992/?ref_newsfeed_story_type=regular
H.  May 14, 2014: SJP UCLA brings BDS proponent Angela Davis to campus. She tells the crowd that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is worse than the treatment of blacks under apartheid in South Africa.
I.  November 3-7, 2014: Palestine Awareness Week at UCLA featuring a mock apartheid wall and an event called “Roadmap to Divestment: a screening and discussion.” This week notably preceded the re-introduction of the BDS resolution in student government. 
J. November 5, 2014: Speaker event with Salaita, who has made numerous bigoted statements about Jews and Israelis.
K.  November 2014: UCLA student government passes BDS resolution in an 8-2-2 vote.

X. VASSAR COLLEGE
Many SJP chapters echo the anti-Semitic sentiments of the Nazis, but Vassar’s SJP chapter took things one step farther by posting an anti-Semitic German cartoon dating from the Nazi regime on their twitter account. Vassar SJP also vandalized a pro-Israel “Wall of Truth” and harassed students taking a course involving a trip to Israel to study water supply issues.
A. February 2014: SJP members picketed a course in which students would be taking a Vassar-sponsored trip to Israel, causing students to feel harassed and intimidated.

http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/195416/vassars-israel-debate-takes-raw-racial-turn/
C. April 3, 2014: Speaker event with anti-Israel professor Joshua Schreier, who stated that Israel is a European settler colonialist project displacing native Palestinians. About 50 students attended the talk. 
D. April 3, 2014: Protest/Disruption of Pro-Israel Events: SJP protested outside of a StandWithUs Israeli Soldiers’ Stories event. Five or six SJP students posted signs outside of event that read, “Israel is apartheid,” “Israel commits genocide,” and other such demonizing slogans against Israel. When the speaker, Hen Mazzig, tried to engage with them and invited them to come attend the event and ask questions afterward, they responded by saying, “We don’t talk to occupiers,” and left as a group. 
E. May 5, 2014: Social media: SJP posted an anti-Semitic image dating from the Nazi regime in Germany on its Twitter account.

www.truthrevolt.org/news/vassar-sjp-tweets-and-then-deletes-nazi-propaganda
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/05/vassar-nazi-cartoon-reflects-campus-dehumanization-of-israel/

F. May 2014: Defacement of a  pro-Israel “Wall of Truth” displayed on campus by pro-Israel students to respond to SJP’s falsehoods. 
G. May 2014: Vassar’s president condemned a “racist, anti-Semitic graphic” posted on SJP’s Tumbler page, depicting a Nazi propaganda poster of a many-armed figure wearing a loincloth featuring the Star of David and holding a bag of money.

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/news/local/2014/05/15/vassar-anti-semitic-palestine/9150095/
H. November 7, 2014: Panel: Refuseniks. An event featuring young Israelis who refuse to participate in the IDF.

www.facebook.com/events/852023631496866
====================================================================
By Prof. Eytan Gilboa

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Israel needs a more active and aggressive diplomatic strategy to thwart what seems to be an escalating campaign of pressure from the international community on the Palestinian issue; a campaign that President Obama can be expected to lead in his final months in office.
President Barack Obama will vacate the White House on January 20, 2017, but he is unlikely to do so in the traditional manner. In their eighth and final year of service, American presidents generally behave like “lame ducks.” They don’t initiate new policies or programs, particularly those that might stir controversy or have an adverse effect on the chances of their party’s subsequent candidates for office. In the eighth year, US presidents tend to be preoccupied primarily with their legacies.
President Obama's approach to securing a legacy appears to be significantly more aggressive than that typically demonstrated by lame duck presidents, and this could have serious ramifications for Israel.
From the beginning of his tenure at the White House, Obama’s relations with Israel have been marred by frequent disagreements and confrontations, primarily on the Iranian nuclear weapons program and negotiations with the Palestinians. In November 2015, after the Iran nuclear deal was finalized, Obama met at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The meeting was described as positive, encouraging many in Israel to hope for a more cooperative, less confrontational final chapter between the two leaders. Since that meeting, however, many signs indicate a rough journey ahead for Israel during Obama’s last year.
A recent pattern of one-sided statements and actions, primarily by the US and the EU, reveal a new, focused, collaborative attack on Israel, particularly with regard to the settlements and West Bank policy. In November 2015, The EU required labeling of goods produced in the settlements, and later excluded the settlements from its agreements with Israel. These actions, which were unprecedented in their hostility to Israel, could not have been undertaken without some degree of US approval.
The US took two steps that demonstrate that approval: It defended the EU's labeling action by characterizing it as “only a technical measure”; and in January 2016, US Customs issued a reminder on a twenty-year-old requirement to label products from the West Bank and Gaza. The US and the EU also criticized a proposed Israeli law that would require Israeli NGOs that receive substantial funds from foreign countries and organizations to reveal those resources. According to the Americans and the Europeans, the law would undermine democracy in Israel.
In a January speech at a security conference in Tel Aviv, US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro severely criticized Israel’s settlement policy. “Too many attacks on Palestinians lack a vigorous investigation or response by Israeli authorities,” he said. “Too much vigilantism goes unchecked, and at times there seem to be two standards of adherence to the rule of law: one for Israelis and another for Palestinians.” Shapiro, who has had the difficult task of navigating the personal animosity between Obama and Netanyahu, has been an outstanding ambassador and a fine advocate for mutual American-Israeli interests. The harsh tone of his speech was not his style, suggesting either that it was dictated to him by the White House or the State Department, or that he thought that this was what they wanted him to say.
These statements and actions in combination reveal a wide-scale, coordinated attack on the settlements and Israeli policy. This attack is hypocritical, discriminatory and counterproductive. The EU-US labeling of goods from the West Bank has not been applied to any other country holding or occupying disputed territories, such as Morocco in Western Sahara, Turkey in Northern Cyprus, China in Tibet, or Russia in the Crimean Peninsula. The lack of a similar EU action in the Northern Cyprus case is particularly noteworthy, because Cyprus is a member state of the EU. Singling Israel out for special treatment in this (or any) way borders on anti-Semitism.
Washington ought to be reminded that often it seems as if the US maintains two de facto legal systems: one for whites and one for blacks (as has been highlighted by a spate of investigations into murders of blacks by white police officers). Yet no one calls the US an apartheid state, an accusation that is persistently hurled at Israel.
Nor is any other country in the world subjected to relentless criticism of its policies by numerous NGOs funded by foreign countries. These NGOs claim solely to be protecting human rights in the West Bank and Israel, but are in fact seeking a complete Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Several of them deny the right of Israel to exist at all, and they demonize and delegitimize Israel abroad. The EU and several European countries pour tens of millions of euros annually into these hostile NGOs. Israel is considering a law that would require those NGOs to reveal the funding they receive from foreign countries; legislation that has been met with severe criticism in both the EU and the US.
It is the EU and the US which, by funding hostile NGOs in Israel, are committing a gross intervention in Israeli democracy, not the proposed law that is intended to defend it.
The White House and the State Department might take a closer look at their own Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which – considering the negative connotations with which the term “foreign agent” is associated – is more libelous than the proposed Israeli law. The Act’s language is very similar to that of the Israeli proposal, as is the rationale behind it.
FARA requires that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a “political or quasi-political capacity” disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances. FARA explains that its purpose is to facilitate “evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons.” This law has never been used to question American democracy, but when Israel attempts to take a similar position, a different standard is applied.
This double standard is also readily apparent in the approach the EU – and, recently, the US – takes to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Instead of negotiating a peace agreement with Israel, the Palestinian Authority is conducting a worldwide delegitimization and demonization campaign against Israel, and plans to advance a resolution at the UN Security Council outlawing settlements and demanding a timetable for Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines. France has agreed to support this plan, and might even submit a similar resolution. France has proposed a regional conference on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, and threatened to recognize Palestine if the conference does not gel.
In the past, such moves would have been strongly opposed by the US, which has always advocated a settlement reached via direct negotiations. Until recently, the US could be depended upon to veto any UN resolution calling for an imposed solution. However, in view of its recent statements and actions, it is no longer clear that the US will continue to adhere to this policy. US support for an imposed solution would add another layer of hostility to the existing bad relations between Obama and Netanyahu.
The above statements and actions – all of which occurred, it should be noted, during a long wave of Palestinian terrorism against Israeli citizens – are particularly disturbing because they appear to represent a coordinated EU-US campaign. They may well serve to harden Palestinian rejection of negotiations and agreement, because the Palestinians might reasonably conclude that international pressure will be brought to bear against Israel to force her to accept their demands without reciprocal concessions.
President Obama’s policy toward Israel during the last year of his presidency could be driven by several considerations. During his tenure, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been the shortest and the least productive in years. In view of that abysmal record, Obama might want to demonstrate that he did all in his power to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace. He might believe that only aggressive pressure by the US and the EU on Israel will bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table. He might want to tie the hands of the next president by leaving a legacy of fundamentally changed US-Israeli relations, or he might simply wish to punish Netanyahu for the battle over the Iran nuclear deal and the failed negotiations with the Palestinians.
It is also entirely possible that Obama will be a new variety of ex-president. Rather than take on the role of the traditional “former president” who occupies himself with planning his presidential library and advocating for causes, he might seek a new important position, such as Secretary General of the UN or head of a global organization. His policies and politics during his final year in office might be intended to improve his chances of winning a prestigious global position.
The signs of a brewing new confrontation with Obama are clearly visible, and the Israeli government has to find creative and more effective ways of coping with it. An Israeli initiative could both undermine Obama’s designs and foil the Palestinian strategy of currying international pressure on Israel. However, all Israel's options are problematic, and several are unlikely to be adopted by the present Israeli coalition government. Also, the Palestinian wave of terrorism against Israel is still continuing, and Israel cannot be seen to be succumbing to terror.
Whatever Obama’s motivations and intentions may be, it would be a mistake to assume that he will spend his last year in the White House behaving like a typical lame duck president, restrained by the presidential elections. So what should Israel do? It can hunker down, wait for Obama’s term to expire, and ride-out the onslaught, but that is a poor option. The remaining alternatives include a temporary and limited freezing of settlements, unilateral steps in the West Bank, participation in a regional peace conference, and the forming of a national unity government. Whatever strategy is adopted, it should be accompanied by an urgently needed public diplomacy campaign.
The settlements are the target of the present EU-US campaign – but they are not the main obstacle to peace; Palestinian rejectionism is. Limited and temporary freezing of building in the settlements has not produced any movement on the Palestinian side in the past, and the present coalition government is unlikely to take that step. The unilateral disengagement from Gaza failed, but certain conditional unilateral steps in the West Bank could be contemplated, such as transfer of certain lands in Area C to control of the Palestinian Authority.
The Palestinians have rejected every peace proposal offered to them by Israel and the US: The Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton proposals in 2000; the Ehud Olmert proposal in 2008; and the John Kerry proposal in 2014. The US, the EU and the UN nevertheless place most of the blame on Israel for the stalemate. The solution is an aggressive public diplomacy campaign designed to illustrate the primacy of Palestinian rejectionism as the main obstacle to peace. Participation in a regional conference is risky, but rather than flatly rejecting it, Israel could agree to take part under certain conditions.
The most effective response by Israel to EU-US pressure would probably be the establishment of a national unity government.
On January 22, during a meeting in Paris with French President Francois Hollande and Laurent Fabius, opposition leader Isaac Herzog criticized their promotion of international moves against Israel. “Decisions of this nature serve as a reward for terrorism and for BDS. They paralyze the chances of regional moves,” Herzog said, adding that “the attempt to try and reach a Palestinian state now is unrealistic.” These views are not far from those of Netanyahu. Herzog would like to join the coalition, and Netanyahu has an interest in expanding his razor-thin majority in the Knesset.
Critical challenges require an unusual response, and the present limited containment policy must be replaced with a more active and aggressive Israeli diplomatic strategy.
Prof. Eytan Gilboa, a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is director of the Center for International Communication at Bar-Ilan University.
================================================================
5)A Glimpse Into China's Military Presence in the South China Sea
Analysis

Analysis

Widely published satellite imagery from Feb. 14 shows the presence of new Chinese air defense systems on Woody Island in the South China Sea, highlighting continuing maritime frictions in the area. But new imagery obtained by Stratfor provides a higher-resolution view of the deployment and activities taking place across the island. Specialists at AllSource Analysis have identified two batteries of HQ-9 surface-to-air launchers, as well as supporting vehicles such as an engagement radar and the Type 305B AESA acquisition radar. Chinese military personnel are also moving near the air defense batteries, and cables are connecting vehicles and equipment into a single networked system.
China's claim to most of the South China Sea is a persistent source of tension with five Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries that claim land and waters in the sea. (Vietnam contests China's claims to Woody Island, along with the rest of the Paracel Islands.) It also conflicts with the United States' notion of freedom of navigation, though it holds no position on the territorial disputes themselves. To counter China's dominance, the United States has run two active campaigns every quarter since October 2015 in which its naval vessels and aircraft deliberately pass by disputed features that are not considered to provide legitimate maritime claims under international law. China has called these moves destabilizing, and it has used U.S. operations and coalition building in the area to justify deploying defensive arms to its South China Sea possessions.
While these air defense systems provide a notable military capability, their presence on the island does not necessarily reflect a major escalation. They are packed closely together on a sand platform near the waterline in a way that suggests they are either part of a training operation or a conspicuous show of force. The platform was constructed in recent months, with imagery taken in December 2015 showing dredging activity in this location. But the position is not permanent: The sand platform is already deteriorating in some places. The visibility of the deployment raises the possibility that it was intended to send a political message as U.S. President Barack Obama reportedly sought to convince the heads of ASEAN countries to persuade China to accept a ruling from the U.N. Permanent Court of Arbitration on the legal status of 10 land features disputed with the Philippines.
Apart from the air defense systems that were recently uncovered, there is also significant Chinese military activity on other parts of Woody Island. A key feature of the base is its runway, which gives China the ability to send and receive combat aircraft. In November 2015, J-11 fighter jets were reportedly deployed to the base, and while the current imagery does not show these aircraft out in the open, our partners at AllSource Analysis have determined that 16 hangars at several locations along the runway seem to be designed to host fighter aircraft like the J-11. Tire tracks also show that one section of these hangars has been used to host aircraft while the others have not. The imagery can neither rule out nor verify the presence of aircraft inside these hangars, but it does confirm that the air base can host up to 16 of these fighter aircraft out of plain sight.
Finally, several large high-bay drive-through buildings have been constructed in an area that is likely dedicated to the storage of explosive materials or ammunitions. Complex berm structures are being erected along with these buildings to shield them from explosions or to contain explosions that occur within them. These buildings can receive large logistics vehicles carrying ammunition, such as fighter aircraft armaments or air defense missiles, which can then be loaded or offloaded inside the cover of the buildings and exit again on the opposite side. Construction continues in this part of the island, and more berms are likely to be erected over time. Equipment located near the structures also indicates concrete pouring activities.
While the media's response to China's actions on Woody Island suggests that they represent a watershed moment in the militarization of the South China Sea, in reality they are neither surprising nor particularly meaningful. Despite the widespread attention Beijing's deployment has received, it is unlikely to shift the calculations of any country involved in the ongoing maritime disputes in the South China Sea.
============================================================================



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)