web analytics
February 14, 2016 / 5 Adar I, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Lori Lowenthal Marcus’

At ‘Liberal’ Oberlin No Speech Rights for Non-Haters of Israel

Friday, January 22nd, 2016

Oberlin College holds a position at or near the apex of a universe populated by the leftist and the further leftist American colleges and universities. But Jewish students are finding that Oberlin’s liberalism does not extend to any discussion that is not unequivocally scathing about the Jewish State.

In a place where every people’s right to self-determination is revered as an ideological imperative, that same right for the Jewish people is deemed not only unworthy, but as evidence of racism itself.

This month Oberlin reappeared center stage largely for a list of demands issued by its Black Student Union, a list which is notorious for several reasons. It is: very long (14 pages), wide-ranging (hiring, firing, health, prisoners given free tuition, the list goes on) and unequivocal.

Oberlin BSU’s demands are not requests, they are non-negotiable and backed by the force of threat: “these are not polite requests, but concrete and unmalleable [sic] demands. Failure to meet them will result in a full and forceful response from the community you fail to support.”

The Demand Document – which was unsigned – was sent to Oberlin President Marvin Krislov earlier this month. On Wednesday, Jan. 20, Krislov responded with an invitation to dialogue, something already scorned in the initial move.

This Oberlin exchange arose in the context of the 2015 Revolution on American Universities. That RAU began in the fall semester, initially triggered by the Ferguson and Baltimore riots, followed by the melee at Missou, and the shrieking girl outburst at Yale. Princeton followed and eventually Oberlin joined in, with the biggest and most brazen set of demands of all.

But something else is happening at Oberlin, something that is the focus of this article. This issue was raised in the demand document. Tucked away on page 14, amidst disparate essentials, the students demanded: “Immediate divestment from Israel who [sic] has exploited many African descendant peoples seeking refuge. Furthermore, because the oppressive and violent acts towards Palestinians mirrors the anti-Blackness currently in the United States.”

This demand for an official declaration by Oberlin College denouncing the State of Israel is only the most explicit display of a campus-wide hostility to Zionism, and more broadly to Jewish religious observance, at least when it has any connection at all to Zionism or the Jewish state (which might be a bit of a problem for someone reciting, say, the entire Amidah prayer at any time of day.)

One current Oberlin student put it this way to the JewishPress.com: “at Oberlin, People of Color (POC) are on the ‘good side of the ledger,’ and they are opposed to Zionists, who are categorized as “pro-racist and harmful towards POC.”

Jewish Oberlin students and alumni have begun to speak out, albeit quietly and cautiously, because it has now become the reality for many of them that despite the many leftist, “liberal” positions shared by most students across the Oberlin spectrum, any identification with the Jewish State as even an aspect of one’s Judaism is verboten.

As a result, there is now underway a painstaking effort to create a voice that opposes what is now being described as anti-Semitism at Oberlin. That new, wavering, quavering voice is seeking to counter a pervasive atmosphere on campus that reached its stride when the Oberlin student senate voted in 2013 to approve a BDS (Boycott of, Divestment from and Sanctions against Israel) resolution, and has been going strong ever since.

Dr. Melissa Landa, Oberlin class of 1986, is attempting to do the proverbial herding of cats by creating a coalition of current students and alumni who can speak with a single voice, and have that voice attempt to draw attention to the unacceptable wave of blatant hostility towards anyone who identifies with the Jewish State. So far, Landa has helped to form a group more than 200 strong, “Oberlin Students and Alumni Against Anti-Semitism.” They wrote, signed and delivered a letter to the Oberlin administration, staff and faculty. Landa says she is meeting with Oberlin president Marvin Krislov on Tuesday, Jan. 26.

Clinton ‘Very Interested’ in Secret Plans to Fund Shaming of Israel and Spark ‘Palestinian’ Demonstrations

Tuesday, January 12th, 2016

UPDATED see end of article for update

While the U.S. government complains about a proposed Israeli law that will force non-governmental organizations operating in Israel to reveal whether they’re actually operated by foreign governments, it turns out that the U.S. government itself planned to use NGOs in Israel to manipulate Israeli policy. How? By sparking demonstrations among Palestinians, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

Several high-level advisors to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sketched the plan in emails, and Clinton directed that the emails be printed, apparently so she could study them carefully.

In an email, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering proposed to Clinton exactly who should be involved in the demonstrations, and the specific venues and buildings at which demonstrations should be conducted.  He even names at least one NGO to steer the protests he wanted to create: — “The Peace Now organization (Shalom Akshav)” – which Pickering suggests “despite its decline.”

The goal of the Pickering proposed demonstrations was to force Israel back to the negotiating table with the Palestinian Arab leadership.

Strikingly, given recent U.S. attacks on Israel’s proposed law mandating transparency among NGOs, the State Department advisers cautioned Clinton that their campaign would have to be secret.  “The United States, in my view, cannot be seen to have stimulated, encouraged or be the power behind” the plan to encourage such demonstrations. To achieve the desired result without being outed, Pickering suggested that “third parties and a number of NGOs” be drafted to be the public face on the plan.

Pickering was awarded an honorary degree by Brandeis University in 2014 for “elevat[ing] diplomacy to a high art.” Indeed.

The State Department emails describing the Pickering plan have something to offend everyone. Pickering urged Clinton to include only Palestinian women, and not men, in the planned demonstrations because the men would not remain peaceful.  “On the Palestinian side, the male culture is to use force.”  Indeed, Pickering explained to Clinton, for Palestinians “male culture comes close to requiring” violence.

The spirit of Pickering’s proposal was echoed by Anne-Marie Slaughter, who, in another email, proposed that the State Department find a group of millionaires/billionaires who would promise to contribute billions of dollars in a “Pledge for Palestine.”  Slaughter was confident that “even 30 calls to the right people in the Clinton fundraising network” would quickly generate the desired cash. Slaughter appeared to delight at the prospect of having Israelis be shamed for building homes “in the face of a Pledge for Peace.” The email went to Clinton as well as Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and others. Clinton responded to Slaughter’s proposal, writing: “I am very interested – pls flesh out. Thx.”  Slaughter served as Clinton’s Director of Policy Planning.

Apparently the actual uses of the funds were unimportant, because Slaughter’s email did not say anything about what the money should be spent on. Perhaps tunnels in Gaza.

UPDATE: The link to the email between Clinton aide Slaughter and Clinton was dropped in the posting of this article. It is now embedded in the text.

‘Unify Syria, Divide Israel’ Says Kerry in Major Middle East Policy Address

Thursday, October 29th, 2015

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke about U.S. Policy Towards the Middle East on Wednesday, Oct. 28 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Kerry touched on many topics during his hour-long talk, including the Nuclear Iran Deal, ISIS, the war in Syria and, of course, the Arab-Israeli conflict.

GENESIS OF ISIS

Kerry claimed that ISIS – which is apparently now to be known in U.S. Diplo-talk as Daesh – arose out of the chaos during the early days of the Syrian Revolution, when poor, disillusioned Syrians were protesting in the streets because they just wanted jobs and a future.

But Bassar al-Assad’s thugs, Kerry explained, beat up those young people. Then the parents of the young people went out in the streets to clash with Assad’s thugs, who in turn used bullets and bombs on the protesting parents.

“Having made peaceful change impossible, Assad made war inevitable,” Kerry said. And then Assad turned to Hezbollah for help, and then to Iran and Russia, and this exacerbated tensions between Sunni and Shiite communities, and this paved the way for Daesh.

Kerry made clear the U.S. is not pleased with Russia’s role so far in the conflict, because instead of fighting ISIS, Russian airstrikes have been targeting Assad’s enemies.

But Kerry is committed to a political solution to the crisis – he apparently sees ISIS and the Syrian conflict as the same battle – and believes there must and will be a political transition that sidelines Assad.

Kerry claims that all the participants in the conflict agree that “the status quo is untenable.” Sound familiar?

We all agree that we need to find a way to have a political solution, we all agree that a victory by Daesh or any other terrorist group absolutely has to be prevented. We all agree that it’s imperative to save the state of Syria, and the institutions on which it is built and to preserve a united and secular Syria.

Kerry called on the Russians to get with the program and allow a transition “that will unite the country and will enable this beleaguered country to rehabilitate itself, bring back its citizens, and live in peace.”

That’s all. Not asking much. Just stop the fighting, unite the country, have free and fair elections, and all will be good.

SYRIA MUST BE UNITED; ISRAEL MUST BE DIVIDED

In contrast to Kerry’s insistence that Syria – a factionalized country with various warring ethnic groups none of which want to be controlled by the other – be united, Kerry’s diktat for Israel is the opposite.

Although Israel has gained territory repeatedly as the result of wars waged against it by belligerent outsiders, and which since the fall of the Ottoman Empire has never been ruled by any other nations, the U.S. demands that Israel must be divided.

STATUS QUO ON TEMPLE MOUNT GOOD; STATUS QUO IN ISRAEL BAD

And Kerry continued to insist that the status quo must be maintained on the Temple Mount – a status quo which prevents Jews from moving their lips lest they be deemed praying – but the status quo in which Israel does its best to defend its citizens must be terminated.

When not pointedly referring to Har Habayit, Kerry insisted that “the current situation is simply not sustainable. President Obama has said it publicly many times, I’ve said it publicly and it is absolutely vital for Israel to take steps that empower Palestinian leaders to improve economic opportunities and the quality of life for their people on a day to day basis.”

Really? Israel has to empower the leaders of the terrorists so that economic opportunities and their quality of life is improved? The PA, one of the single largest recipients of international aid ever?

Israel and Russia Create Joint Military Working Group on Syria

Friday, September 25th, 2015

The Russians have arrived in Syria. Because the United States has taken a pass on the unraveling of the world as we used to know it, Israel is making the best of it. Sometimes it is better to join them (to some extent) than to fight them, as the saying goes.

Over the past few weeks Russia has begun moving personnel and weaponry into Syria in an effort to prop up its ally, besieged Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Russia is amassing a military presence, including deploying aircraft to a base in Latakia province. It has also sent fighter-bombers and ground attack aircraft, and is erecting a building large enough to house as many as 2,000 advisers in Syria.

The presence of Russians and the buildup of Russian weaponry has added to the complex and easily combustible situation on Israel’s border with Syria. Something Israel does not want to add into the mix is accidentally starting a conflict with Russia should Russian equipment or personnel become collateral damage from a mission to prevent the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to Moscow on Monday, Sept. 21 to talk about Syria. Netanyahu told Russian President Vladimir Putin that he wanted to “clarify our policies” and to make sure there were “no misunderstandings between our forces.”

Netanyahu said that “Iran and Syria have been arming the extremist Islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah with advanced weapons, aimed at us, and over the years thousands of rockets and missiles have been fired against our cities. At the same time, Iran, under the auspices of the Syrian army, is attempting to build a second terrorist front against us from the Golan Heights.”

The result of that diplomatic effort by Netanyahu was the establishment of a joint military working group to ensure there were “no misunderstandings between [Russian and Israeli] forces.”

The effort will coordinate information regarding military activity in Syria, including aerial, naval and electromagnetic activity.

A U.S. official told Reuters that U.S.-Israeli coordination allowed the allies to share classified technologies for identifying Russian aircraft over Syria: “We know how to spot them clearly and quickly,” the official said.

Iran is in the region in order to assist Syria, which is no friend to Israel, and Syria is the main supplier of deadly weapons to Hezbollah, Israel’s enemy from the north. Also friend to Syria is Iran, which is Israel’s greatest threat.

This dangerous region continues to grow more volatile by the day. Everyone is improvising to fill the gap created by the absentee player – the United States.

House Passes Resolution Obliging Obama to Follow the Law

Friday, September 11th, 2015

Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced, and the House passed, a Resolution intending to require President Barack Obama to follow his obligations under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (Corker-Cardin).

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), both of whom served in the U.S. military, sponsored House Resolution 411. The Resolution was introduced and then approved by a vote of 243-186 on Thursday, Sept. 10, the same date on which the U.S. Senate filibustered the Iran Deal to prevent the House from pushing forward a disapproval vote and requiring members to publicly vote on the deal.

The Resolution points out that despite the President’s obligation under Corker-Cardin “to transmit the agreement, including any side agreements” to “the appropriate congressional committees and leadership,” and the term “agreement” is exhaustively defined as including any

agreement related to the nuclear pro- gram of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related there- to, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.

Because the President has not provided Congress with the documentation regarding the secret side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the President has failed to comply with Corker-Cardin.

And because Corker-Cardin has been breached by the President, the 60 day Congressional review period, the Resolution states, has not yet begun to run.

“Despite the reckless efforts by President Obama and Senate Democrats to force the implementation of the terribly flawed Iran nuclear agreement, I am proud of my colleagues in the House for getting it right and passing this important resolution today,” said Pompeo.

“This resolution is crucial to reining in the president and forcing him to live up to his obligation under Corker-Cardin, which he himself signed into law just a few months ago. The lack of access to the roadmap makes it impossible for a member of Congress to support this agreement; therefore, the president must show Congress the agreement in its entirety. A bad deal with Iran is not worth risking the safety of Kansans and the American people. I will continue to work hard and do everything in my power to stop this agreement.”

Following the passage of the Resolution, another opponent of the Nuclear Iran Deal, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), said “President Obama broke the very law he signed by failing to provide Congress with the Iran-IAEA side agreements. Withholding these documents from the American people and their elected representatives completely discredits the transparent review process the Administration was legally obligated to provide. In light of this vote, I believe the House should pursue legal action against the Administration for its blatant disregard for the law.”

Legal Bombshell Could Block Nuclear Iran Deal, if Congress Has the Nerve

Friday, September 11th, 2015

After the Senate’s filibuster of the Nuclear Iran Deal on Thursday, Sept. 10, perhaps the only remaining way for Congressional opponents of the Nuclear Iran Deal to block the measure is if Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) authorizes the House of Representatives to sue President Obama for failing to comply with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (Corker-Cardin).

That avenue is wide open, at the moment, thanks to a decision by a Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. issued on Wednesday, Sept. 8.

The court in House of Representatives v. Burwell found that the House has standing, that is, the right, to bring a lawsuit against the executive branch of the U.S. government. The issue in the Burwell case is the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

The legal basis for the potential lawsuit would be the failure of the White House to comply with the requirements laid out in Corker-Cardin. Under that legislation passed earlier this year, the White House had to provide Congress with all documents relating to the Nuclear Iran Deal, whether codicils, side agreements, or any other agreements bearing on the issue, with or between the parties.

As was discovered this summer, there are two secret side agreements dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, the only parties to which are Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The administration has never provided Congress with any documents relating to those side agreements. As was revealed yesterday in the JewishPress.com, the administration claimed, with a straight face, that it has provided Congress with all the documentation it has. The administration was able to make that claim because not one member of the U.S. government has a single piece of paper or digital notation regarding those side deals – those were all left with the Iranian negotiators and the members of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Iranians physically threatened to harm IAEA members if information about the secret side deals were shared with Americans, the Washington Free Beacon noted, quoting the Iranian Fars news service.

Of course the administration knew that Corker-Cardin required it to produce documentation regarding the side deals. Perhaps for this reason, first the administration tried to hide the fact that those side deals existed.

But the existence of those side agreements was discovered anyway, by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), two U.S. legislators trying to represent the interests of America, who traveled to Vienna to meet with IAEA officials in July, and who were told about the side agreements then.

Once the existence of those side deals became known, the administration officials still hid critical information about them – even to themselves, if they can be believed – although those officials had to know they were violating Corker-Cardin all along by allowing every jot of documentation to remain beyond U.S. borders.

Think about the growing mound of lies and obstructions surrounding Messr.s Obama and Kerry’s Nuclear Iran Deal. What is in it that they are so convinced Americans would revolt if the truth about it were known?

Which brings Congress, finally, at this very late date, to the possibility of litigation.

This only works if the House of Representatives, as an institution, brings the case, and that requires Boehner’s approval. Although Boehner has been late to the party, he has now become alive to the need for a vigorous legal attack on the flawed legislation itself and on the administration’s abrogation of its obligations under Corker-Cardin.

Perhaps this newfound interest stems from very serious challenges to his leadership. Those challenges are coming from Republicans on his right who have been the strongest opponents to the treaty as a threat both to the United States, as well as to Israel and the rest of the civilized world.

If Boehner has finally awakened and is prepared to use all the tools at his disposal as leader of the Republican majority in the House – which has strongly and consistently opposed this capitulatory deal – something historic may happen.

No American Has Seen the Entirety of the Side Deals and Not One Note Exists in US

Thursday, September 10th, 2015

In an exclusive interview with the JewishPress.com, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) disclosed that not only has every member of Congress who voted for the Nuclear Iran Deal never seen any of the documents containing key elements of the deal, but also that not a single document from or about those side deals is anywhere in the possession of any Americans.

This means that neither the President of the United States, nor the Secretary of State, nor any member of the U.S. negotiating team has the capacity to read any of these documents and know what they say.

It means that the United States is relying on someone else’s account of what the agreements say in order to determine whether a sufficient degree of protection is afforded the United States and its allies by this agreement.

And if the description U.S. officials have been given is wrong, the United States will not know until Iranian bombs fall.

This government is entrusting – yes, entrusting because there can be no verification of an unknown – the most murderous and voracious regime on the globe with following rules governing its nuclear activity and not even the highest levels of this administration can say exactly what those rules say.

It is staggering.

Pompeo, a Harvard Law School graduate who graduated first in his class from West Point and served in the U.S. military, along with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) discovered the existence of those secret side deals when they traveled to Vienna and met with members of the International Atomic Energy Agency in July.

Since learning about those side deals, one of which deals with Iran’s Parchin military complex and inspections of such sites and the other deals with the possible military dimensions of Iran’s previous nuclear weapons program, Pompeo has been “obsessed” with finding out the details of those deals.

When asked whether he or other members of Congress planned to subpoena the administration for the documentation surrounding those side deals, Pompeo responded: “they don’t have anything.”

“No notes? No lists? No summaries?” Pompeo was asked.

“Nothing,” he answered.

Astounding.

Pompeo told this reporter that the briefings provided by the administration to members of Congress about the side deals were provided based on recollections of what American officials were told.

Given this bizarre turn of events, opponents of the Joint Nuclear Plan of Action (which includes those invisible side deals) plan to do three things, Pompeo said.

First, they intend to vote to block the deal from going forward, as the administration is already in violation of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (Corker-Cardin), the first Article of which explicitly required the administration to provide all documentation of every part of the deal. Because the administration has failed to fulfill its obligation, the 60 day clock on the Congressional review period has not yet begun.

Second, the Congressional opponents of the JCPOA will introduce a new motion, one of approval for the JCPOA. This will require members of Congress to affirmatively vote in favor of the deal, if that is their position, despite their ignorance of key aspects of the deal.

And third, opponents of the JCPOA in Congress will move to ensure that the current sanctions on Iran are not lifted.

The revelation provided by Pompeo also brings into focus another profound problem with the Iran agreement: by its terms – that is, according to the terms we have – the agreement is inconsistent with, and purports to overrule, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement. The NNPA is a treaty, and as such, part of the Supreme Law of the Land ordained by the Constitution.

Therefore, the NNPA cannot be overruled by a mere executive agreement, which the administration has insisted is the status of the Iran deal. But if we do not actually know all of the relevant terms to which the United States has acceded, and which will govern the parts of the agreement we can see, it is even more clearly impossible for anyone to determine the extent to which this set of agreements contravenes the NNPA.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/no-american-has-seen-the-entirety-of-the-side-deals-and-not-one-note-exists-in-us/2015/09/10/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: