The mass media and the Titanic. Why are they are no longer trusted? Because they have become untrustworthy. (See 1 below.)And
When it comes to the PLO and Israeli Peace Deal, how do you kill something that has been dead since 1967 and again when Arafat rejected a good deal? (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
College students, whose families pay enormous sums of money to attend elite universities etc. so they can make good contacts in the hope of finding suitable employment, are being taught very little that is meaningful while they are being coddled and protected from diverse opinions. One thing they are getting exposed to , however, is a good dose of learning to hate. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)The Media's Own Incestuousness Is Causing It to Break Down
A few years ago I gave a talk in Texas on the incestuousness between the Democratic Party and the media. One of the slides noted that Jay Carney of Time magazine left the magazine to go work for Vice President Joe Biden and then on to be White House press secretary. When Carney left Biden's office, he was replaced by Shailagh Murray, who went in from the Washington Post. In turn, she was married to Neil King who worked for the Wall Street Journal.
Neil contacted me. He took issue with my implication that he couldn't be fair in his coverage of Washington given his marriage. While I don't dispute that he covered Washington with an even hand, I thought and still think that it was indicative of his world view and how stories might be shaped that he more likely than not leaned left and was married to Joe Biden's press secretary. So it is somewhat funny to me to note he left the Wall Street Journal and went to work for Fusion GPS, which is now in the news as the group that created the Trump dossier from Christopher Steele.
In fact, the Washington Post is now reporting that Fusion GPS used media connections to advance interests of various groups that paid it. It is an ascertainable fact that many reporters have failed to aggressively pursue this story because they have knowingly or unknowingly been used by Fusion GPS to advance the interests of paying clients.
But hundreds of internal company documents obtained by The Washington Post reveal how Fusion, a firm led by former journalists, has used investigative reporting techniques and media connections to advance the interests of an eclectic range of clients on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley and in the nation’s capital. The firm has played an unseen role in stories that dominated headlines in recent years.
We also now know that Fusion GPS did not just hire journalists, but also had a senior Department of Justice employee's wife on its payroll at a time it was creating the Steel dossier.
This likewise comes as there are new questions about Adam Schiff, the congressman the media loves and who may have been one of the CNN sources who caused them to get basic facts wrong on Friday in a story related to Trump's emails.
Here's the problem for the media. During the Obama Administration, many members of the media floated in and out of the administration and in and out of leftwing blogs and think tanks. They are still around with many of them serving as reporters and their leftwing friends as members of L'Resistance. They trade information and shape each other's world views and I am not convinced the heads of media outlets are doing enough to push their reporters to separate their world view from the facts at hand. As a result, we are not getting the whole truth, but a narrative within which facts are shaped to advance the narrative. That is no better than what Donald Trump is doing.
There is a pretty substantial symbiotic relationship between the political left in Washington and the media. While a few people went from the media to the Bush Administration, it was never like it was with Obama.
Jay Carney went from Time to the White House press secretary's office. Shailagh Murray went from the Washington Post to the Veep's office while married to Neil King at the Wall Street Journal. Linda Douglass went from ABC News to the White House and then the Atlantic. Jill Zuckman went from the Chicago Tribune to the Obama Administration's Transportation Department. Douglas Frantz went from the Washington Post to the State Department and Stephen Barr went from the Post to the Labor Department.
Ruth Marcus who heads the Washington Post Editorial Board is married to the Obama Administration's former FTC Chairman. Jonathan Allen of NBC News had been at the Politico before going to work for Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then back to Politico before going to left-leaning Vox. He left Vox and moved to NBC News. Andy Barr worked for the Politico before leaving for Democrat politics. Michael Scherer was at both Salon and Mother Jones before going to Time. Laura Rozen was at Mother Jones and the American Prospect before Foreign Policy magazine. Even Nate Silver had started out at Daily Kos. Then, of course, there is Matthew Dowd who worked for scores of Democrats before working for George Bush. That, though he later washed his hands of Bush, bought him street credibility with ABC News to become its senior politically analyst alongside George Stephanopoulos, formerly of the Clinton Administration.
It goes on and on in a feedback loop of incestuous politics and worldview shaping. In the Obama Era, it was all about protecting their precious. Now it is about undermining the President. Many of the editorial level checks lean left and so do not run traps as effectively against bad stories. We are seeing a continued breakdown in reporting and a further erosion of public trust as a result. Something has to give. But I fear the media is too inside a bubble of its own creation to do necessary due diligence.
It's not that these reporters cannot be fair. It's that many of them do not even realize their biases and left-leaning pre-suppositions are tripping them up.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) How to Prevent the Next Mideast War
It’s in Europe’s interest to get tough on Hezbollah.
By Daniel Schwammenthal
Europe’s borders are bloody. From Ukraine in the east to Libya and Syria in the south, war has brought mass migration, terrorism and political instability to a continent ill-equipped to do much about the underlying problem. Yet while the European Union’s soft power can’t stop conflicts, it could help prevent the outbreak of a new one—between Israel and Iran, aided by its proxy Hezbollah.
“The Middle East is under threat both of ISIS, the militant Islam of the Sunni variety, and militant Islam of the Shiite variety, led by Iran,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday in Brussels before a breakfast meeting with the EU’s 28 foreign ministers. Given Europe’s preference for “engagement” over confrontation, some in the room no doubt found Mr. Netanyahu’s talk of tough diplomacy hard to digest.
But there’s no denying the facts. Iran has ethnically cleansed key areas in Syria of their original Sunni residents and repopulated them with Shiites from Lebanon and Iraq. Now Iran is setting up military bases to cement its dream of a land bridge to Lebanon as a path to regional hegemony. Given that the Iranian regime has made Holocaust denial and the destruction of the Jewish state core pillars of its ideology, no Israeli leader, whether right-wing or left-wing, could allow it to establish a permanent military presence next door.
And so on Dec. 2, Israeli airstrikes reportedly hit an Iranian base under construction in Syria some 30 miles from the border. Images provided by an Israeli satellite company, ImageSat International, show the destruction of seven buildings, with three more damaged.
Israel is determined to prevent Iran from opening a second front. The first front is the one along the Lebanese border. It is controlled by Hezbollah, which is wholly owned and funded by Iran. During the six-year-old Syrian war, Israel had limited its intervention to providing medical help and stopping the delivery of strategic weapons to Hezbollah.
Despite those efforts, Hezbollah has become a considerable strategic threat. If Hezbollah starts another war—as some Israeli military officials think it inevitably will—it will make the 2006 confrontation look like a skirmish. The group’s arsenal of missiles has grown, and their reach, accuracy and payload have increased. In 2006, Hezbollah had about 15,000 rockets that could hit northern Israel, and it fired some 4,300 over a month. Today Hezbollah has around 120,000 missiles capable of hitting anywhere in Israel, and it could fire probably 1,000 a day.
How would this affect the EU directly? Lebanon already hosts some 1.5 million Syrian refugees. A major war could turn many Lebanese themselves into refugees. The ensuing migration would destabilize Europe further.
Hezbollah knows it cannot destroy Israel. But if it can inflict more damage than in 2006, it will claim victory. In its propaganda efforts, it will have help: Journalists, the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations doubtless will ignore Israeli efforts to avoid civilian deaths—which surpass even NATO standards—and avert their gaze from the readily available evidence that Hezbollah is hiding its weapons among civilians. As in previous confrontations that Hezbollah and Hamas instigated, simplistic media coverage will mischaracterize every Lebanese civilian casualty as evidence of Israeli war crimes and brutality.
That’s where EU diplomacy comes in. If Hezbollah and its Iranian overlords knew they’d be deprived of this propaganda victory, they might be less eager to attack. That’s why the EU’s foreign ministers should condemn Hezbollah now for rearming in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 and for hiding weapons among civilians. The EU should put Hezbollah on its terror list until it disarms and declare that in any future war, it will hold Hezbollah and Tehran responsible for civilian casualties on both sides of the border. It should also inform the Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is an integral part, that no EU reconstruction aid will flow after another Hezbollah-initiated war.
Moreover, EU diplomacy needs to take a stronger tone vis-à-vis Tehran. Just last week, the deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami, warned Europe that if it “threatens” Tehran—i.e., challenges its ballistic-missile tests—Iran will increase the range of missiles beyond 1,200 miles. Imagine how European stock markets, oil prices and foreign investments would react if that same threat were uttered in 10 years, when Iran, according to Barack Obama, will be a threshold nuclear state. The time to confront Iran is now, not when it is too late, as it is in North Korea.
Rather than line up for friendly photo-ops with Iran’s ever-smiling foreign minister, Mohammad Zarif, the EU’s leaders need to call out the real foreign-policy chiefs, including Gen. Salami and his boss, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani. The EU could start by following the U.S. lead and imposing sanctions against Mahan Air, an airline backed by the Revolutionary Guards, which flies troops and weapons to Syria. Mahan’s ethnic cleansing airdrops are cross-subsidized by its commercial activities, including passenger flights to six European destinations. Ultimately, the entire Revolutionary Guards ought to face sanctions for war crimes in Syria and terror activities world-wide. No EU reconstruction aid to Syria should flow as long as foreign troops remain.
Engagement is a legitimate tool. The EU has tried it now for many years with Iran, but it has failed to moderate the regime. Continuing this policy against any reasonable hope of success crosses the fine line between engagement and appeasement.
Europe’s power is mostly soft. But it can still be “weaponized” to help contain Iran and pre-empt another major war in its neighborhood.
Mr. Schwammenthal is director of the AJC Transatlantic Institute.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
Campus Antisemitism and Pseudo-Intellectual Complicity By Rachel Hirshfeld
Posted By Ruth King
In recent decades, academics promoting pseudo intellectual studies have sought to advance the notion that antisemitism in the contemporary context, and specifically on college and university campuses, is a mere illusion, created by a group of alarmists,”[1] attempting to exaggerate the severity of threats against the Jewish community. Recently, this phenomenon received attention when the Research Group of the Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies at Stanford University published a September 2017 report, entitled “Safe and on the Sidelines: Jewish Students and the Israel-Palestine Conflict on Campus.”[2] The report, which has been presented in testimony before the US House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee,[3] attempts to discredit the argument that colleges and universities have become “breeding” grounds and “hotspots of antisemitism.”
While the report acknowledges that “[s]ince 2014, there have been at least seven separate studies[4] dedicated to tracking campus political discourse as it pertains to antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment,” it argues that “what [these studies] offer in numerical impressions, they obscure in the subtleties of student experience.” While the existing studies –conducted by the Anti-Defamation League (2015)[5], the AMCHA Initiative (2015, 2016, 2017)[6], Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar (2015)[7], Leonard Saxe et al. (2015, 2016),[8] and others — generated extensive data and statistics, using reported incidents, surveys, polls, and questionnaires, the study by the Research Group of the Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies at Stanford University is based solely on personal interviews with sixty-six undefined students across five California university campuses[9].
In fact, the study acknowledges that it “intentionally sought out Jewish students who were either unengaged or minimally engaged in organized Jewish life,” thereby excluding students who are most likely to either be the targets of antisemitic attacks or be cognizant of antisemitism on campus. In light of these findings, this paper will illustrate that the study by the Research Group of the Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies at Stanford University contains fundamental methodological flaws, omissions, and distortions, thereby presenting a highly inaccurate and misleading account of antisemitism on campus.
Given the atmosphere on many university campuses, which often curtails and inhibits freedom of speech and dissenting views, as illustrated by Jonathan S. Tobin[10] and others, it is no surprise that the report was “approved and supervised by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board,”[11] when it, in fact, is devoid of scholarly merit. One must look no further than the cover page of the report to see that the authors include Abiya Ahmed, a former employee of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with close political and ideological ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and Ari Y. Kelman, a member of the Academic Council of Open Hillel, which seeks to overturn Hillel International’s guidelines that proscribe partnering with anti-Israel groups or individuals. Open Hillel gives recognition to supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, including Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), two of the organizations most directly responsible for creating a hostile campus environment saturated with anti-Israel sentiment.
While the report claims that, “students feel safe on campus” and that “[n]ot a single one of [the] interviewees described their campus as hostile to Jewish students,” its assertions are empirically false. In fact, it altogether discounts seven crucial studies, including claims that, “Student groups sponsored at least 520 anti-Israel programs on U.S. campuses in 2014-15, a 38% increase from the 375 anti-Israel campus programs during the previous academic year.”[12] It ignores similar claims that, “Antisemitic activity on campuses most popular with Jewish students continued to rise, increasing by 40% from 2015 to 2016”[13] and data indicating that, “While the number of anti-Zionism-motivated acts of anti-Jewish hostility stayed approximately the same from 2015 to 2016, the number of acts motivated by classic antisemitism rose sharply, with anti-Jewish genocidal expression more than doubling from 2015 to 2016.”[14] The report additionally overlooks evidence that suggests that, “Nearly three-quarters of [survey] respondents reported having been exposed at one time during the past year to at least one of six antisemitic statements,”[15] including claims likening Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi treatment of the Jews during the Holocaust. In addition to the studies and data dismissed in the report, the Research Group of the Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies at Stanford University also fails to comment on similarly disturbing studies conducted by the FBI[16] and NYPD[17].
Yet, even if one were to only consider the sixty-six handpicked student interviews highlighted in the Stanford study, there is reason for concern. In fact, the study often seems to be proving an argument that is diametrically opposed to its underlying conclusion. For example, one interviewee, Amanda, a senior from UC Berkeley, “reported seeing swastikas on campus,” yet the study notes that, “her response was to be unintimidated and almost casual about them, as if student callousness was part of every day life.” She states that she has seen “maybe three or four” during her entire time on campus. She then corrected herself to say that she has seen “[m]aybe five. Actually, maybe more than five.” While the report maintains that Amanda “did not consider this to be part of a pattern of harassment,” it is safe to say that swastikas are arguably the most notorious hate symbol, evoking one of the most horrific periods in Jewish history, and certainly do not cultivate a safe or inviting atmosphere for Jewish students.
We must not forget that the antisemitism of today is not the antisemitism of the 1930s or 1940s. One does not have to witness swastikas on a regular basis or soldiers clad in Nazi-like uniforms marching through university dormitories or student libraries for antisemitism to exist on campus. In the contemporary context, attacks on the Jewish people, and on Jewish students and faculty, most often take the form of onslaughts against the State of Israel, the central manifestation of contemporary Jewish identity. While BDS campaigns[18], “Israel Apartheid” Weeks[19], mock checkpoints[20], mock eviction notices[21], and “die-ins”[22] pervade campus grounds, the report cloaks tactics of double standards, demonization and delegitimization in the language of political activism, when they are, in fact, manifestations of contemporary antisemitism, as explained by former Soviet dissident and Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky in his 2004 book, The Case For Democracy[23]. Indeed, while criticism of Israeli government policies – like criticism of all government policies – is not only entirely legitimate, but a necessary and productive means of ensuring a thriving democratic society and vigorous pluralistic debate, BDS activists seek to conflate legitimate criticism of Israel with the complete delegitimization of Israel in the international arena. By exploiting the rhetoric of “human rights” and other universal moral principles, anti-Israel activists attempt to portray Israel as inherently racist, thereby questioning the very existence of the Jewish state and seeking to cast it as the pariah among nations
.
The study notes that, “[w]hen students do feel threatened, the feeling derives generally from campus activism related to the tone of the debate about Israel-Palestine conflict,” which is described as “severe, divisive, and alienating.” In fact, according to the report, many students “fear that entering political debate… will carry social costs that they are unwilling to bear.” Elisheva, like many other interviewees, “keenly felt the social implications of political engagement” and “demurred from outright conflict, usually concluding that fierce political battles were not worth the high social cost they exacted.” Elisheva “observed that stating that her commitment to Israel might cost her friendships.” Similarly, Todd, a sophomore at Stanford, criticized the informal norms about political speech on campus, saying, “There’s definitely kind of a sentiment that you should stay within what Stanford students consider acceptable in terms of what you’re saying.” According to the report, he felt that violating these norms and expressing his support for Israel could have “negative repercussions.” The report goes on to state that, “[s]tudents who wish to speak up often opt out, choosing silence and avoidance,” while others “avoid spaces on campus where they know that they are likely to encounter uncomfortable confrontations.” As Elizabeth, a senior at UCLA, noted, “It’s easier to just stay out of it.” Ultimately, according to the authors of “Safe and on the Sidelines,” it is tolerable for Jewish students to be silenced, ostracized and sidelined, as the report’s title – intentionally or unintentionally – implies.
Academia prides itself on open scholarly inquiry, intellectual pluralism, and freedom of expression; universities are intended to be the epicenters of knowledge, ingenuity, and curiosity. Yet, the report points to an atmosphere that proscribes academic pluralism rather than advancing it and allows divisive speech to impede freedom of speech. While the Stanford report is both an academic debacle and a distorted narrative of events, it, like many other mendacious studies, is repeated on the global stage, thereby presenting a highly inaccurate and misleading account of antisemitism on campus. While the aforementioned studies documenting Jewish student life are extremely pertinent, additional high caliber, scientific, and scholarly research would be valuable to augment the current data and methodically ascertain the atmosphere on university campuses and its effects on Jewish students and faculty, as well as the Jewish community at large. Such research should rightfully supplant disingenuous “studies” and help inform domestic and international opinion. Indeed, we live in a world in which antisemitism masquerades as anti-Zionism; hatred, once again, casts a dark shadow on “liberal” societies; and “enlightened” institutions of higher education trample on the very ideals they claim to espouse. At this point, it seems that Jewish students and faculty may, indeed, be unsafe and on the sidelines
[1] Josh Nagli, “Anti-Semitism is not rife at universities – to suggest so is alarmist and wrong,” The Telegraph, December 23, 2016.
[2] Ari Y. Kelman, Abiya Ahmed, Ilana Horwitz, Jeremiah Lockwood, Marva Shalev Marom, and Maja Zuckerman, “Safe and on the Sidelines: Jewish Students and the Israel-Palestine Conflict on Campus,” The Research Group of the Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies, Stanford University, September 2017.
[3] Liel Leibovitz, “Jewish Studies Professor to Congress: No Anti-Semitism on College Campuses, Nothing Wrong With Comparing Israel to Nazis,” Tablet Magazine, November 7, 2017.
[4] Anti-Defamation League, “Anti-Israel Activity on Campus, 2014-2015: Trends and Projections,” 2015; The AMCHA Initiative, “Report on Antisemitic Activity in 2015 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Undergraduate Populations,” 2015; The AMCHA Initiative, “Report on Antisemitic Activity During the First Half of 2016 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Jewish Undergraduate Populations,” 2016; The AMCHA Initiative, “Antisemitism: At the Epicenter of Campus Intolerance Antisemitic Activity in 2016 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Jewish Undergraduate Populations,” 2017; Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, “National Demographic Survey of American Jewish College Students 2014: Anti-Semitism Report,” February 2015; Leonard Saxe, Theodore Sasson, Graham Wright, and Shahar Hecht, “Antisemitism and the College Campus: Perceptions and Realities,” Waltham, Mass: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, 2015; Leonard Saxe, Graham Wright, Shahar Hecht, Michelle Shain, Theodore Sasson, and Fern Chertok, “Hotspots of Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Sentiment on US Campuses,” Waltham, Mass: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, 2016.
[5] Anti-Defamation League, “Anti-Israel Activity on Campus, 2014-2015: Trends and Projections,” 2015.
[6] The AMCHA Initiative, “Report on Antisemitic Activity in 2015 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Undergraduate Populations,” 2015; The AMCHA Initiative, “Report on Antisemitic Activity During the First Half of 2016 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Jewish Undergraduate Populations,” 2016; The AMCHA Initiative, “Antisemitism: At the Epicenter of Campus Intolerance Antisemitic Activity in 2016 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Jewish Undergraduate Populations,” 2017.
[7] Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, “National Demographic Survey of American Jewish College Students 2014: Anti-Semitism Report,” February 2015.
[8] Leonard Saxe, Theodore Sasson, Graham Wright, and Shahar Hecht, “Antisemitism and the College Campus: Perceptions and Realities,” Waltham, Mass: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, 2015; Leonard Saxe, Graham Wright, Shahar Hecht, Michelle Shain, Theodore Sasson, and Fern Chertok, “Hotspots of Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Sentiment on US Campuses,” Waltham, Mass: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, 2016.
[10] Jonathan S. Tobin, “Who’s shutting down the debate on Israel?” Jewish News Service, November 10, 2017; Jonathan S. Tobin, “Silencing Israel on Campus,” Jewish News Service, November 13, 2017; Hannah Dreyfus, “‘Free Speech’ Comes At High Cost For Jewish Students,” The Jewish Week, October 25, 2017.
[11] Ari Y. Kelman, Abiya Ahmed, Ilana Horwitz, Jeremiah Lockwood, Marva Shalev Marom, and Maja Zuckerman, “Safe and on the Sidelines: Jewish Students and the Israel-Palestine Conflict on Campus,” The Research Group of the Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies, Stanford University, September 2017.
[12] Anti-Defamation League, “Anti-Israel Activity on Campus, 2014-2015: Trends and Projections,” 2015.
[13] The AMCHA Initiative, “Antisemitism: At the Epicenter of Campus Intolerance Antisemitic Activity in 2016 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Jewish Undergraduate Populations,” 2017.
[15] Leonard Saxe, Theodore Sasson, Graham Wright, and Shahar Hecht, “Antisemitism and the College Campus: Perceptions and Realities,” Waltham, Mass: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, 2015.
[16] Federal Bureau of Investigation, “2016 Hate Crime Statistics,” accessed November 28, 2017, https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/tables/table-1.
[17] Will Bredderman, “NYPD Reports ‘Huge Spike’ in Hate Crimes Since Donald Trump’s Election,” The Observer, December 5, 2016.
[18] Anti-Defamation League, “BDS: The Global Campaign to Delegitimize Israel,” accessed November 28, 2017, https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/bds-the-global-campaign-to-delegitimize-israel.
[19] Anti-Defamation League, “Israeli Apartheid Week: A Year-by-Year Report,” accessed November 28, 2017, https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/israel-international/Israeli-Apartheid-Week-Year-by-Year-Report.pdf.
[20] Jenna Lyons and Nanette Asimov, “UC Berkeley students stage mock checkpoint in protest,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 2, 2016.
[21] Alina D. Sharon, “Campus eviction notices are fake, but their anti-Semitism is real, experts say,” Jewish News Service, June 22, 2014.
[23] Natan Sharansky and Ron Dermer. The Case For Democracy: The Power Of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny And Terror (Cambridge, MA: PublicAffairs, 2004).
Rachel Hirshfeld is a Strategic Consultant for the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP). Rachel attended New York University and served as the Jewish Agency’s representative on campus, combating anti-Israel delegitimization campaigns. She previously worked at NGO Monitor, where her research focused on the funding and political advocacy of Israeli, Palestinian and international NGOs (non-governmental organizations), as well as NGO involvement in the United Nations and NGO exploitation of international legal mechanisms to demonize Israel.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment