<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; no doubt</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/no-doubt/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:36:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>To Kill a Terrorist</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/the-assassination-of-mahmoud-al-mabhouh/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-assassination-of-mahmoud-al-mabhouh</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/the-assassination-of-mahmoud-al-mabhouh/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:07:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan M. Dershowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[air]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[COMBAT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[combatant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[demise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dubai]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enemy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enemy combatant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enemy combatants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[England]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extradite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extradition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extrajudicial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extrajudicial killings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fleeing felon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gaza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Britain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israeli agent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israeli air force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israeli civilians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[killing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal questions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mabhouh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mahmoud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military mission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military wing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mossad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[murder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policeman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proportionate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Goldstone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[second world war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[situation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=51171</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If Israel assassinated the leader of the Hamas military wing, did it have the right to?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/mahmoud.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-51173" title="mahmoud" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/mahmoud.jpg" alt="" width="475" height="328" /></a></p>
<p>I don’t know whether Israel did or did not assassinate the leader of the Hamas military wing, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.  But assuming for argument’s sake that the Mossad made the hit, did it have the right to engage in this “extrajudicial assassination?”</p>
<p>Not all extrajudicial killings are unlawful.  Every soldier who kills an enemy combatant engages in an extrajudicial killing, as does every policeman who shoots a fleeing felon.  There are several complex legal questions involved in assessing these situations.</p>
<p>First, was the person who was killed a combatant, in relation to those killed him?  If Israel killed Mabhouh, there can be absolutely no doubt that he was a combatant.  He was actively participating in an ongoing war by Hamas against Israeli civilians.  Indeed, it is likely that he was killed while on a military mission to Iran in order to secure unlawful, anti-personnel rockets that target Israeli civilians.  Both the United States and Great Britain routinely killed such combatants during the Second World War, whether they were in uniform or not.  Moreover, Hamas combatants deliberately remove their uniforms while engaged in combat.</p>
<p>So if the Israeli Air Force had killed Mabhouh while he was in Gaza, there would be absolutely no doubt that their action would be lawful.  It does not violate international law to kill a combatant, regardless of where the combatant is found, whether he is awake or asleep and whether or not he is engaged in active combat at the moment of his demise.</p>
<p>But Mabhouh was not killed in Gaza.  He was killed in Dubai.  It is against the law of Dubai for an Israeli agent to kill a combatant against Israel while he is in Dubai.  So the people who engaged in the killing presumptively violated the domestic law of Dubai, unless there is a defense to such a killing based on international principles regarding enemy combatants.  It is unlikely that any defense would be available to an Israeli or someone working on behalf of Israel, since Dubai does not recognize Israel’s right to kill enemy combatants on its territory.</p>
<p>If it could be proved that Israel was responsible for the hit—an extremely unlikely situation—then only Dubai could lawfully bring Israelis to trial.  They would not be properly subjected to prosecution before an international tribunal.  But what if a suspect was arrested in England, the United States or some other western country and Dubai sought his extradition?  That would pose an interesting legal, diplomatic, political and moral dilemma.  Traditional extradition treaties do not explicitly cover situations of this kind.  This was not an ordinary murder.  It was carried out as a matter of state policy as part of an ongoing war.  A western democracy would certainly have the right and the power to refuse to extradite.  But they might decide, for political or diplomatic reasons, to turn the person over to Dubai.</p>
<p>Turning now to the moral considerations, which might influence a decision whether to extradite, the situation is even murkier.  The Goldstone report suggests that Israel cannot lawfully fight Hamas rockets by wholesale air attacks.  Richard Goldstone, in his interviews, has suggested that Israel should protect itself from these unlawful attacks by more proportionate retail measures, such as commando raids and targeted killing of terrorists engaged in the firing of rockets.  Well, there could be no better example of a proportionate, retail and focused attack on a combatant who was deeply involved in the rocket attacks on Israel, than the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.  Not only was Mabhouh the commander in charge of Hamas’ unlawful military actions at the time of his death, he was also personally responsible for the kidnapping and coldblooded murder of two Israeli soldiers several years earlier.</p>
<p>Obviously it would have been better if he could have been captured and subjected to judicial justice.  But it was impossible to capture him, especially when he was in Dubai.  If Israel was responsible for the killing, it had only two options: to let him go on his way and continue to endanger Israeli civilian lives by transferring unlawful anti-personnel weapons from Iran to Gaza, or to kill him.  There was no third alternative.  Given those two options, killing seems like the least tragic choice available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/the-assassination-of-mahmoud-al-mabhouh/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Times Finds A Lone Crazed Assassin</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/peter-collier/the-times-finds-a-lone-crazed-assassin-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-times-finds-a-lone-crazed-assassin-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/peter-collier/the-times-finds-a-lone-crazed-assassin-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:05:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peter Collier]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[academe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alabama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amy Bishop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biology department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blogosphere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boston herald]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Braintree]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brilliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brother]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burst of gunfire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[department colleagues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diversity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harvard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Huntsville]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mass]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[murder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[murder spree]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NewsReal Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[page]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[page profile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perpetrator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piece]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political activist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political connections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[profile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ressentiment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saturday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[series]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[someone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Asian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[story]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tenure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time bomb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[town of braintree]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[University]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[university of alabama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[York]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=51395</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What the Grey Lady won't tell you about professor Amy Bishop.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bishop1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-51443" title="bishop" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bishop1.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="347" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Visit <a href="http://www.newsrealblog.com/">Newsreal</a></strong><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/us/21bishop.html" target="_blank"><em></em></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/us/21bishop.html" target="_blank"><em>The New York Times</em>’ front page profile</a> on Saturday of professor Amy Bishop, who allegedly executed three University of Alabama Biology Department colleagues after being denied tenure, appears to be an exhaustively reported piece based on “numerous interviews with colleagues and others who knew her.” It portrays Bishop as violent and unpredictable, rejected by Harvard because of mediocre work and shunned by a series of neighbors and co-workers scared off by the suppressed rage that kept bubbling up to the surfaces of her social life, and also someone who may already have gotten away with the murder of her brother years earlier possibly because of her mother’s political connections in her home town of Braintree, Mass.</p>
<div>
<p>“Between brilliance and rage” is the caption of the photo of Bishop used by the<em> Times</em> for the story, although the piece makes no case for the former.  But is this all the news that is fit to print about the perpetrator of this murder spree in academe?  What about the “family source” who told the Boston Herald that Bishop was,</p>
<blockquote><p>“<a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=144&amp;type=issue" target="_blank">a far left</a> political activist who was ‘obsessed’ with <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511" target="_blank">President Obama</a> to the point of being off putting”?</p></blockquote>
<p>What about the student who called her a <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=115&amp;type=issue" target="_blank">“socialist”</a>? What about one report that Bishop complained about a rule issued by University  of Alabama administrators regarding underclassmen living on campus because she believed it was destructive of “diversity.”  And what about the crowning irony of this case, whether or not she made this complaint: that two of the colleagues she allegedly killed were black and one was South Asian, and that Bishop thus wiped out the 14 person Biology department’s entire diversity in one burst of gunfire?</p>
<p>Considering the politics of Bishop’s <em>ressentiment</em> might have helped fill out the Times’ portrait of a psychopathic time bomb who had already gone off several times in her disordered life on her way to the Big Explosion on February 12 in Huntsville. There is no doubt, as the blogosphere has already noted, that the paper would have pursued even the vaguest hint that Bishop had been a fan of Glenn Beck or was a Tea Party fellow traveler as a major story line. For the Grey Lady, only the politics of the Right is personal.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/peter-collier/the-times-finds-a-lone-crazed-assassin-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Censorship at UC Irvine</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/censorship-at-uc-irvine-3/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=censorship-at-uc-irvine-3</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/censorship-at-uc-irvine-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 05:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan M. Dershowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[academic historian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advocates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ambassador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[audience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[College]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[college campuses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concerted effort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disapproval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disciplinary action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discipline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[effort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heckler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[historian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[historical perspective]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Irvine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Oren]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oren]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perspective]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public institution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shouts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Speaker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tactic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[talk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[University]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[university campuses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[university of california at irvine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[videotape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[View]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zealots]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=50956</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The rights of the speaker vs. the “rights” of disruptors.
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ucirvine1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-50958" title="ucirvine" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ucirvine1.jpg" alt="" width="360" height="229" /></a></p>
<p>Recently Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, who is an academic historian and a political moderate, was invited to speak at the University  of California at Irvine.  I know Michael well and have heard him speak many times.  He is one of Israel’s most effective advocates, particularly on university campuses.  He speaks about peace, about the two-state solution and he brings a historical perspective to his analysis.  Because he is so effective, anti-Israel zealots try to prevent him from speaking and his audience from hearing his views.</p>
<p>That’s exactly what happened at the University  of California at Irvine when Oren began to speak.  This tactic of censorship will be tried at other universities as well, if it is permitted to succeed.</p>
<p>Let there be no doubt about it, these radical anti-Israel zealots are trying to censor Michael Oren.  After repeatedly disrupting his speech and making it impossible for him to continue, eleven of them were arrested and now face possible disciplinary action from the University  of California, a public institution.</p>
<p>They and their supporters now claim that the eleven disruptors whose right of free speech is being violated.  They are threatening legal action to defend their right to prevent a speaker from expressing his views and an audience from hearing those views.  This is a topsy-turvy view of the First Amendment.</p>
<p>It is true that an individual heckler may have the right to shout in opposition to a speaker, so long as his shouted words are brief and non-recurrent.  But any fair viewing of the videotape, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w96UR79TBw">available on YouTube</a>, proves beyond any doubt that this was a concerted effort to silence Michael Oren and to prevent his audience from hearing his point of view.  The university was correctly embarrassed at this attempt at censorship.</p>
<p>I too speak on college campuses, trying to make the moderate, two-state solution case on behalf of Israel.  My speeches have been greeted with shouts of disapproval and efforts to silence me.  When I spoke last year at the University  of Massachusetts, a similar effort was made to prevent me from expressing my view.  I refused to remain silent and I simply shouted over the ruckus.  Eventually the University had to end the event.  When I spoke at the University of California at Irvine several years earlier, there was also some heckling, but there was no coordinated effort to stop me from speaking.  Similar groups have succeeded in preventing other pro-Israel speakers, including Israel’s former Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, and its current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, from speaking.</p>
<p>These attempts to prevent college audiences from hearing pro-Israel speakers must be taken very seriously by universities.  As Michael Oren explained in the beginning of his talk, universities are places where full and complete freedom of speech must be given a high priority.  Freedom of speech does permit the right of audience members to express views different from a speaker, so long as they obey reasonable rules and do not prevent the speaker from expressing his or her views.  Reasonable rules include permitting the holding of signs, so long as they do not block anyone’s view, the handing out of leaflets, an opportunity to ask questions at the end of the talk and sporadic and non-recurrent booing or shouting of brief comments</p>
<p>I have defended students who have been subjected to discipline for shouting a single word, for holding a sign or for making an obscene gesture.  But I would not defend a so-called right of a group of students to act in a coordinated manner in an effort to prevent a speaker from expressing views that the audience is entitled to hear.</p>
<p>There are several rights at stake in any such case.  First is the right of the speaker, who has been invited by the university to present his point of view.  Second is the right of the audience to hear his point of view.  Third is the right of audience members who disagree with his point of view to express opposition.  These rights need not be in conflict, so long as there is no effort to prevent the speaker from conveying his point of view to the audience.</p>
<p>From what I saw on the videotape, it seemed clear that there was a coordinated effort of censorship, and not merely an exercise of free speech by audience members who disagreed with what Oren was saying.  If such a coordinated effort at censorship is established by the evidence, then discipline is warranted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/censorship-at-uc-irvine-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jeffrey Goldberg: Leon Wieseltier, Andrew Sullivan and Anti-Semitism &#8211; The Atlantic</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/jeffrey-goldberg-leon-wieseltier-andrew-sullivan-and-anti-semitism-the-atlantic/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=jeffrey-goldberg-leon-wieseltier-andrew-sullivan-and-anti-semitism-the-atlantic</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/jeffrey-goldberg-leon-wieseltier-andrew-sullivan-and-anti-semitism-the-atlantic/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:54:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[aipac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american jews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anne Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anne Frank Attic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti semite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti semites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-Semitism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apos s]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[basher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bicycle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[calumnies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chait]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[couple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exchange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fray]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intemperate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel-basher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jeffrey goldberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewish person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leon Wieseltier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[look]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal experience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pianist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piece]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pro war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[run-up]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Semite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Semites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zionist]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=49898</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here are a couple of observations about Leon and Andrew, based on a more careful reading of Leon&#8217;s piece, and a look back at some of Andrew&#38;apos;s greatest hits. 1 I don&#8217;t mean this as a cop-out, but Chait says much of what I would say, but better. 2 Like Chait, I don&#8217;t believe that [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here are a couple of observations about Leon and Andrew, based on a more careful reading of Leon&#8217;s piece, and a look back at some of Andrew&amp;apos;s greatest hits.</p>
<p>1 I don&#8217;t mean this as a cop-out, but Chait says much of what I would say, but better.</p>
<p>2 Like Chait, I don&#8217;t believe that Andrew is an anti-Semite. I have no doubt that if Andrew happened to come upon a Jewish person being harassed or otherwise tormented, he would ride his ridiculous bicycle into the fray and beat back the anti-Semites with a stick. And he certainly passes the Anne Frank Attic Test.</p>
<p>3 But: His evolution from wild-eyed Zionist to vitriolic Israel-basher is one of the more painful things I&#8217;ve witnessed recently, and not only because we are friends, or were friends. In the old days &#8212; meaning last year, and before &#8212; Andrew was an intemperate defender of the Jews. I remember one exchange in the run-up to the Iraq War in which he told me that seeing the movie &#8220;The Pianist&#8221; made him even &#8220;more pro-war.&#8221; Now he has flipped, to the other extreme.</p>
<p>4 The question of whether Andrew is or is not personally anti-Semitic isn&amp;apos;t entirely relevant. What is relevant is that he sometimes uses his blog to disseminate calumnies that can cause hatred of Jews, and of Israel. I know this from personal experience, because the anti-Semites who e-mail him copy me. Andrew&amp;apos;s posts on Israel and on Jewish political power in America have lately given comfort to some very repulsive people. This doesn&amp;apos;t mean, of course, that the role of AIPAC shouldn&amp;apos;t be debated openly, but it should be done without prejudice; without the axiomatic assumption that American Jews who love Israel are disloyal to America; and without the Judeocentrism of the neo-Lindbergh set.</p>
<p>via <a href="http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/02/weighing_in_on_leon_wieseltier.php">Leon Wieseltier, Andrew Sullivan and Anti-Semitism &#8211; Jeffrey Goldberg</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/jeffrey-goldberg-leon-wieseltier-andrew-sullivan-and-anti-semitism-the-atlantic/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bin Laden Goes Green</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/bin-laden-goes-green/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bin-laden-goes-green</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/bin-laden-goes-green/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:35:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rich Trzupek]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[air]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[air pollution disaster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al jazeera]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alarmists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti americanism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arab news network]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[audio tape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brink]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[continent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[daily kos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deserts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doesn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drought]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[effects of global warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Soros]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history of new york]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hostage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infidels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judged]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misidentify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OIL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[osama bin laden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pollution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ramifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reason]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Red Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saudi Arabia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Speaker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[story]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorist organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorist sympathizers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[warmongers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[world politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yanbu]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=48430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What does the world’s most notorious terrorist have in common with Al Gore? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-48431" title="obl-gore" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/obl-gore.jpg" alt="obl-gore" width="400" height="266" /></p>
<p>Judged simply by their content, it would be easy to misidentify the speaker who uttered the following quotes:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The effects of global warming have touched every continent. Drought and deserts are spreading, while from the other floods and hurricanes unseen before the previous decades have now become frequent.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Al Gore perhaps?</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The world is held hostage by major corporations, which are pushing it to the brink. World politics are not governed by reason but by the force and greed of oil thieves and warmongers and the cruel beasts of capitalism.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Sounds a lot like something you might read at the Daily Kos.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;We must also stop dealings in the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible. I know that this has great consequences and grave ramifications, but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>That’s got to be George Soros, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>In fact, all three quotes are part of Osama bin Laden’s <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584249,00.html">latest appeal to the world</a> in an audio tape released last week by the Arab news network Al-Jazeera. The idea, no doubt, was to appeal to more “mainstream” anti-Americanism around the world. Those who help sabotage American industry and our economy, in other words, punish the infidels. Perhaps not quite as spectacular as <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582355,00.html">blowing up a CIA outpost</a>, but all contributions are gratefully accepted.</p>
<p>This is not to say that either Al Gore or George Soros are terrorist sympathizers (the jury is out on the Daily Kos). Rather, it’s to observe that radical messages tend to attract radicals. Bin-Laden’s self-serving green activism will resonate with people pre-disposed to distrust America, and alarmists like Gore have created the environment that allows this to occur.</p>
<p>There is much obvious, and laughable, hypocrisy in bin-Laden’s sudden concern for the environment. It was his terrorist organization, after all, that leveled the twin towers, which subsequently created the most horrendous air pollution disaster in the history of New York. If he’s really concerned about the environment, this Islamic warrior might also want to consider how Mother Earth fares in his ancestral home of Saudi Arabia.</p>
<p>The following is an anecdotal story, but one suspects it’s representative of a larger truth. I worked in Saudi Arabia, on and off, between 1996 and 1998, in the Red Sea port city of Yanbu. During my time there, I had occasion to drive up the coastal highway to observe operations at the <a href="http://www.yanbucement.com/profile.html">Yanbu Cement Company</a>, located about seventy kilometers north of Yanbu. (The bin-Laden family was then rumored to have an interest in Yanbu Cement, but I can not confirm it). At the time, Yanbu Cement operated three large kilns, essentially big rotating drums in which the ingredients that go into cement “cook” at high temperature.</p>
<p>In the United States, and in most all of the western world, cement kilns have to <a href="http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&amp;sid=6e49a0f322a1b2a5dc0579dd3386ea91&amp;rgn=div6&amp;view=text&amp;node=40:6.0.1.1.1.17&amp;idno=40">utilize pollution control devices</a> to comply with environmental standards. Without such devices, these kilns would emit truly amazing amounts of air pollution. I was therefore shocked to observe a huge, menacing, dirty brown plume that ran for miles through the air above the Red Sea. Approaching Yanbu Cement, the source of that incredible smear on the atmosphere became obvious: none of the kilns at Yanbu Cement were controlled at all. The stacks belched out filthy plumes of soot at a rate that I have never observed then or since in over twenty five years of environmental practice.</p>
<p>This kind of story can be told again and again throughout the developing and third worlds. Those nations are not nearly rigorous about protecting the environment as the west, because environmental controls cost money to install and to operate. Accordingly, if everyone followed bin-Laden’s advice and, using the power of their purses, effectively transferred manufacturing capacity to such nations, the net result would be a far more polluted world.</p>
<p>But, of course, bin-Laden doesn’t really care about the health and welfare of the planet and its inhabitants. He’s just scrambling for talking points that he hopes will resonate with listeners who hate America. Al Gore and his disciples have unwittingly provided him with more ammunition to do so. That doesn’t make Gore a terrorist, but it’s surely further evidence of the unintended consequences that are bound to occur when you abandon science for the sake of a political agenda.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/bin-laden-goes-green/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Case Against the Goldstone Report</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/the-case-against-the-goldstone-report/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-case-against-the-goldstone-report</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/the-case-against-the-goldstone-report/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan M. Dershowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civilian casualties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civilian clothing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civilian dress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civilian population]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clothing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[combatants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[critical conclusions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberate policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[detractors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[excuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goldstone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hard evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human shields]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innocent civilians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intentionality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israeli government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israeli side]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methodology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mosques]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[operation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinian civilians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[population]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pretext]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[purpose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rocket]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rocket attacks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary general of the united nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war crime]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=47909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's much more scurrilous than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-47921" title="goldstone4" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/goldstone4.gif" alt="goldstone4" width="450" height="353" /></p>
<p>The Goldstone Report is much more scurrilous than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe. According to the report, Israel used the more than 8,000 rocket attacks on its civilians merely as a pretext, an excuse, a cover for the real purpose of Operation Cast Lead, which was to target innocent Palestinian civilians—children, women, the elderly—for death.  This criminal objective was explicitly decided upon by the highest levels of the Israeli government and military and constitutes a deliberate and willful war crime.  The report found these serious charges “to be firmly based in fact” and had “no doubt” of their truth.</p>
<p>In contrast, the Mission decided that Hamas was not guilty of deliberately and willfully using the civilian population as human shields.  It found “no evidence” that Hamas fighters “engaged in combat in civilian dress,” “no evidence” that “Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack,” and no support for the claim that mosques were used to store weapons.</p>
<p>The report is demonstrably wrong about both of these critical conclusions.  The hard evidence conclusively proves that the exact opposite is true, namely that:</p>
<p>[1] Israel did not have a policy of targeting innocent civilians for death.  Indeed the IDF went to unprecedented lengths to minimize civilian casualties; and</p>
<p>[2] That Hamas did have a deliberate policy of having its combatants dress in civilian clothing, fire their rockets from densely populated areas, use civilians as human shields, and store weapons in mosques.</p>
<p>What is even more telling than its erroneous conclusions, however, is its deliberately skewed methodology, particularly the manner in which it used and evaluated similar evidence very differently, depending on whether it favored the Hamas or Israeli side.</p>
<p>I have written a detailed analysis of the Goldstone Methodology, which is now <a href="http://www.alandershowitz.com/goldstone.pdf">available online</a>.  It is being sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations for inclusion in critiques of the Goldstone report received by the United Nations.  This analysis documents the distortions, misuses of evidence and bias of the report and those who wrote it.  It demonstrates that the evidence relied on by the report, as well as the publicly available evidence it deliberately chose to ignore, disproves its own conclusions.</p>
<p>The central issue that distinguishes the conclusions the Goldstone Report reached regarding Israel, on the one hand, and Hamas, on the other, is intentionality.  The report finds that the most serious accusation against Israel, namely the killing of civilians, was intentional (and deliberately planned at the highest levels).  The report also finds that the most serious accusations made against Hamas, namely that their combatants wore civilian clothing to shield themselves from attack, mingled among the civilian populations and used civilians as human shields, was unintentional.</p>
<p>These issues are, of course, closely related.  If it were to turn out that there was no evidence that Hamas ever operated from civilians areas, and that the IDF knew this, then the allegation that the IDF, by firing into civilian areas, deliberately intended to kill Palestinian civilians, would be strengthened.  But if it were to turn out that the IDF reasonably believed that Hamas fighters were deliberately using civilians as shields, then this fact would weaken the claim that the IDF had no military purpose in firing into civilian areas.  Moreover, if Hamas did use human shields then the deaths of Palestinian civilian shields would be more justly attributable to Hamas then to Israel.</p>
<p>Since intentionality, or lack thereof, was so important to the report’s conclusions, it would seem essential that the report would apply the same evidentiary standards, rules and criteria in determining the intent of Israel and in determining the intent of Hamas.  Yet a careful review of the report makes it crystal clear that its writers applied totally different standards, rules and criteria in evaluating the intent of the parties to the conflict.  The report resolved doubts against Israel in concluding that its leaders intended to kill civilians, while resolving doubts in favor of Hamas in concluding that it did not intend to use Palestinian civilians as human shields.  Moreover, when it had precisely the same sort of evidence in relation to both sides—for example, statements by leaders prior to the commencement of the operation—it attributed significant weight to the Israeli statements, while entirely discounting comparable Hamas statements.  This sort of evidentiary bias, though subtle, permeates the entire report.</p>
<p>In addition to the statements of leaders, which are treated so differently, the report takes a completely different view regarding the inferring of intent from action.  When it comes to Israel, the report repeatedly looks to results and infers from the results that they must have been intended.  But when it comes to Hamas, it refuses to draw inferences regarding intent from results.  For example, it acknowledges that some combatants wore civilian clothes, and it offers no reasonable explanation for why this would be so other than to mingle indistinguishably from civilians.  Yet it refuses to infer intent from these actions.</p>
<p>Highly relevant to the report’s conclusion that militants did not intend for their actions to shield themselves from counterattack is that the Mission was “unable to make any determination on the general allegation that Palestinian armed groups used mosques for military purpose,” “did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities,”  did not find evidence “that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes,” and did not find “that Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat actives from United Nations facilities that were used as shelters during the military operations.”</p>
<p>There is, however, hard evidence that Hamas did operate in mosques and, at the very least, near hospitals.  Circumstantial evidence (precise weaponry) was used to prove Israeli intent.  Regarding Hamas, the circumstantial evidence even stronger in inferring intent.  It is beyond obvious that militants do not fire rockets in the vicinity of mosques or hospitals because it is easier to launch rockets near community institutions.  Rather, they do so only because of the special protections afforded to hospitals and religious centers in war.</p>
<p>The report—commissioned by an organization with a long history of anti-Israel bigotry, and written by biased “experts,” with limited experience and a pre-ordained result—is one-sided and wrong in its fundamental conclusions.  This should not be surprising since conclusions can be no better than the methodology employed, and the methodology employed in this report is fundamentally flawed.</p>
<p>So now it is up to Richard Goldstone to explain the evidentiary bias that is so obviously reflected in the report, and that is documented in my lengthier analysis available online.  The burden is on him to justify the very different methodologies used in the report to arrive at its conclusions regarding the intentions of Israel and the intentions of Hamas.  Failure to assume that burden will constitute an implicit admission that the conclusions reached in the Goldstone report are not worthy of consideration by people of good will.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/the-case-against-the-goldstone-report/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Big government: Stop! &#8211; The Economist</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/big-government-stop-the-economist/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=big-government-stop-the-economist</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/big-government-stop-the-economist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:22:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[aftermath]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Britain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electorate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expressions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Focus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[growl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Grumpy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hostility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[message]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutterings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[result]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revolt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scandinavia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[southern Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[splurge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ted Kennedy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=47593</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE aftermath of the Senate election in Massachusetts, the focus of attention is inevitably on what it means for Barack Obama. The impact on the Democratic president of the loss of the late Ted Kennedy’s seat to the Republicans will, no doubt, be significant (see article). Yet the result could be remembered as a [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15330481"><img src='http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/the-economist-logo.gif' alt='' /></a></p>
<p>IN THE aftermath of the Senate election in Massachusetts, the focus of attention is inevitably on what it means for Barack Obama. The impact on the Democratic president of the loss of the late Ted Kennedy’s seat to the Republicans will, no doubt, be significant (see article). Yet the result could be remembered as a message more profound than the disparate mutterings of a grumpy electorate that has lost faith in its leader—as a growl of hostility to the rising power of the state.</p>
<p>America’s most vibrant political force at the moment is the anti-tax tea-party movement. Even in leftish Massachusetts people are worried that Mr Obama’s spending splurge, notably his still-unpassed health-care bill, will send the deficit soaring. In Britain, where elections are usually spending competitions, the contest this year will be fought about where to cut. Even in regions as historically statist as Scandinavia and southern Europe debates are beginning to emerge about the size and effectiveness of government.</p>
<p>There are good reasons, as well as bad ones, why the state is growing; but the trend must be reversed. Doing so will prove exceedingly hard—not least because the bigger and more powerful the state gets, the more it tends to grow. But electorates, as in Massachusetts, eventually revolt; and such expressions of voters’ fury are likely to shape politics in the years to come.</p>
<p>via <a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15330481">Big government: Stop! | The Economist</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/big-government-stop-the-economist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Bernanke Nomination &#8211; WSJ.com</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/the-bernanke-nomination-wsj-com/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-bernanke-nomination-wsj-com</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/the-bernanke-nomination-wsj-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:29:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ben Bernanke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chairman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concessions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[December]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Depression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fed chief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fed policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal reserve chairman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harry Reid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leader Harry Reid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lesson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[majority leader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[master]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[master of the universe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. Bernanke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. Reid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nomination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nothing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opportunism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political opportunism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[printing money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reconfirmation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revolt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scott Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[term]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tim Geithner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treasury secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[universe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[week]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wsj]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[yesterday]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=47496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The White House said yesterday it has damped down a political revolt against Ben Bernanke and now has the votes to secure the Federal Reserve Chairman&#8217;s second four-year term. Whether or not Mr. Bernanke is confirmed, the lesson we draw is that overly political central bankers will eventually be undone by politics. There&#8217;s no doubt [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704562504575021704013095196.html"><img src='http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/OB-FI844_1berna_G_20100124153215.jpg' alt='' /></a></p>
<p>The White House said yesterday it has damped down a political revolt against Ben Bernanke and now has the votes to secure the Federal Reserve Chairman&#8217;s second four-year term. Whether or not Mr. Bernanke is confirmed, the lesson we draw is that overly political central bankers will eventually be undone by politics.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s no doubt that some of this reconfirmation panic is nothing but political opportunism. When we opposed Mr. Bernanke&#8217;s reconfirmation on December 3, the facile consensus was that the Fed chief was a master of the universe who had saved the world from depression. But after Scott Brown&#8217;s victory in Massachusetts last week, Senate Democrats are suddenly looking for a financial political sacrifice. President Obama doesn&#8217;t look ready to throw over Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, so Mr. Bernanke is the designated spear catcher.</p>
<p>The Democrats&#8217; loudest complaint, moreover, is that Mr. Bernanke and the Fed haven&#8217;t been easy enough in printing money. Majority Leader Harry Reid declared his support for Mr. Bernanke on Friday, but not before extracting what he said were concessions about future Fed policy.</p>
<p>The Fed chief promised, said Mr. Reid, that he would &#8220;redouble his efforts&#8221; to make credit available and that Mr. Bernanke &#8220;has assured me that he will soon outline plans for making that happen, and I eagerly await them.&#8221;</p>
<p>via <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704562504575021704013095196.html">The Bernanke Nomination &#8211; WSJ.com</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/the-bernanke-nomination-wsj-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Muslim Child Brides in Britain</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/hege-storhaug/muslim-child-brides-in-britain-by-hege-storhaug/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=muslim-child-brides-in-britain-by-hege-storhaug</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/hege-storhaug/muslim-child-brides-in-britain-by-hege-storhaug/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:08:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hege Storhaug]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[11 year old]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[17 years]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anything]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british soil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizenship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CRIMES]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal offense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[establishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[example]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[father]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feminists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gambia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[geese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[generation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genital mutilation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[girl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigrants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration forms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[initiative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[instances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[journalist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim countries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutilation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new approach]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nine years]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[old girls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phenomenon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[place]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[problem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reason]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[term]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tv documentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[View]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wife]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=46028</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How does a civilization based on humanism tolerate such conditions?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-46063" title="marriage" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/marriage.jpg" alt="marriage" width="450" height="299" /></p>
<p>It is heartbreaking, even as it is unsurprising.  In Britain, the authorities are now reporting the forced marriage of girls as young as nine years old on British soil.  We are not talking about one case, but several, which take place under official protection.  We are not speaking, then, about parents or “husbands” who are being charged with a criminal offense.  The situation, in other words, is completely unacceptable and makes clear that we have a crying need for a new approach to these matters.  Government must put its foot down – and powerfully so – so that there will be no doubt as to the way in which such grotesque crimes will be addressed.</p>
<p>First, when I say that the marriage of nine-year-old girls in today’s Britain (and the rest of the EU, for that matter) is unsurprising, my statement is based on my own 17 years of experience in the field of immigration: forms of assault based on tradition and religion – including child marriage, forced marriage, genital mutilation, so-called honor-related offenses such as rape and murder – have become established here as a result of immigration, mostly from Muslim countries.  Instances of these offenses have been documented in countries such as Norway (where, to be sure, there have been no recorded cases of marriage to girls as young as nine, but where the marriage of an 11-year-old came to light in a TV documentary that I worked on as journalist; such cases have also been known in Sweden). The only phenomenon that has not been documented in Norway thus far is forced eating by girls before they are to be married off.  I was told about this practice by feminists in Paris in 2003, and the phenomenon had been imported into France by immigrants, mostly from Mali.  Girls are locked up and fed like geese before being married, because in their culture being fat is considered beautiful.</p>
<p>This being said, the news from Britain, which has been reported in the <em>Times, </em>deserves widespread attention.  Because the authorities are obviously aware of very serious information about actual children who are supposedly under the protection of those very same authorities.  In other words, Britain’s Ministry of Justice, if the <em>Times </em>is to be believed, knows who these children’s parents are, parents who have attempted to arrange for the rape of their own children.  For this is what we are talking about here: the deprival of children’s freedom, plus countless years of repeated rape.  Such phenomena must force authorities to sit down with a cool head and a warm heart and ask themselves: who are we, and where are we going?  What are we doing to ourselves as a nation, to our heritage, to our culture, to our future?  According to the <em>Times, </em>however, British authorities are not doing anything of the kind.  Here comes the proposed initiative, and before you read this sentence you had better take a deep breath.  The Ministry of Justice says that the children’s parents are receiving help from the authorities “to solve the problem.”</p>
<p>I must admit that the principal methods being used in such cases in Norway and in Europe generally – namely, information and dialogue – no longer hold a particularly cherished place in my heart.  In my view, the methods must be appropriate to the crime.  By far the majority of parents in Europe understand that marriage to children is not “good”; it is precisely for this reason that such weddings do not take place in display windows. The same goes for the husbands with which these children are compelled to tie the knot – and by whom they are raped.  As a consequence of the very high levels of immigration from majority-Muslim countries to Europe, we have seen the establishment in European cities of more or less closed enclaves which live according to the norms and values of the residents’ countries of origin. These enclaves, as a rule, have turned their backs on the countries of which their residents are citizens; you might say that they close their blinds.  My view is that the current situation calls for stronger measures.  Because we are entirely behind the times.</p>
<p>The political establishment has allowed things to go too far.  What is happening within extended families and within these immigrant communities is out of control, and the victims of this state of affairs are the most vulnerable people of all.  If one is to have any hope whatsoever of regaining control of the problem, it must be answered back with firm and uncompromising demands and measures: in cases of child marriage, first with a long prison term and then, most important, after the prison term has been served, with expulsion from the country.</p>
<p>I mean this very seriously: if we do not begin to make use of such methods immediately in serious cases such as child marriage, genital mutilation, the dumping of children, so-called honor killing and honor rapes, then we will simply continue to be tilting at windmills for the rest of this century.  These grotesque practices will not peter out over time – as our leading politicians quite seriously believed was the case, in the last decade, with both genital mutilation and forced marriage.  (I could provide the names of actual politicians with whom I have discussed this, but these have been conversations in closed rooms which one does not write about if one hopes to maintain their trust.  I can, however, say this: that they believed that the problem would disappear in the generation of immigrants’ children, their reasoning being that this ”second generation” was born here and would therefore behave like other Norwegians.)</p>
<p>Allow me to give a specific example from a criminal case in Norway that is currently under litigation.  In August 2005, Human Rights Service reported to the police a couple whom we suspected, with good reason, that four of their then six daughters had been genitally mutilated.  All of the children had been born in Norway (meaning that they had not been genitally mutilated as children before immigrating to Norway, which is not a crime), and the four oldest, who were then aged 5 to 11, were sent to one of the parents’ three exquisite properties in Gambia “to learn about their parents’ culture and religion,” as they so nicely put it.  When I visited the girls at their parents’ residence, they had already been there for two years, under the “care” of their father’s second wife (he now has three wives).  The girls were not only emotionally mistreated by  this woman; an adult individual told me that they had also been genitally mutilated in the jungle in the Gambian interior shortly after their arrival in 2003. They were to be “disciplined,” as this source put it, and the girls were “totally disciplined,” according to the source, when they were returned to wife #2 a week after their mutilation.</p>
<p>After we filed our report in 2005, the police in Norway worked intensely – and the case went entirely up to the top prosecutorial levels in both Norway and Gambia – to get the four little Norwegian citizens back to Norway.  Now we are writing in 2010, and the girls are still ”imprisoned” in Gambia, while their parents live freely – and supported by the government &#8211; in Norway.  In short, the police have made several unsuccessful efforts to persuade the courts to allow them to hold on to the parents’ passports while their case is being investigated, so that they, for example, would not be able to travel to Gambia (where the oldest girl, age 15, is waiting for her parents to come and marry her off to a cousin, according to sources in Gambia).</p>
<p>In 2008, Norwegian authorities decided to investigate the parents’ two youngest daughters, who lived with their parents here in Norway.  The three-year-old girl was not genitally mutilated, but the five-year-old was.  (The latter had also been in Gambia, while the former had not.)  The father was taken into pretrial custody (a historic imprisonment in Norway), while the mother escaped punishment on the grounds that she was once again pregnant.  After a few weeks, the father was a free man again, but has still refused to bring his daughters back to Norway.  So far he has not been punished.</p>
<p>What do you think would have happened in this case if the father’s citizenship could have been revoked?  The case would most likely never have been a case at all.  The parents would never have played Russian roulette with what appears to be the only thing they love, their Norwegian citizenship and the financial bounty it affords.  For that’s all that Norwegian citizenship means to parents like this: money.  In their minds and hearts, they are still back in Gambia.</p>
<p>If someone now comes along waving international human-rights conventions in defense of such parents, I can reply with the same conventions, for example the convention on children’s right to live with their parents, and as long as the parents deny their children this right, Norway can ensure that the children are given this right by sending their parents back to Gambia. Also, if we allow us to use our critical common sense, what matters more: an adult’s right to retain a citizenship he has acquired in his adulthood when in fact he could just as easily live in his country of origin, or a child’s right to be protected from ritual mutilation, and then from forced marriage with rape to follow – not to mention right to be brought up with the care and love he or she deserves?</p>
<p>We have seen the development in Europe through the 1990s and up to the present time, and it can no longer be denied: larger and larger groups from the Muslim world are living in self-imposed isolation and practicing criminal traditions that negatively affect the health of children, young people, and women.  No one can answer the question of how many of these practices have become more common, precisely because they take place “in the dark, on the inside.”</p>
<p>I believe<em> </em>that the practices have increased in frequency and will continue to do so in line with the rate of immigration, the number of Muslims living in Europe, and the resultant increase in the isolation of these minorities.  In any event, we cannot “sit and wait for better times” – because this is about the destruction of human life, and the sustainability of our welfare state.  Simply the fact that women’s rights are now going in reverse (see also <em>Aftenposten’s </em>report on the Muslim moral police who operate in the Oslo neighborhood of Gronland, and who among other things deprive women and gays of their freedom) is completely intolerable.</p>
<p>To sum up, I think that it is alarming that we should be so extremely naive as to believe that the conditions will <em>suddenly </em>become so much better in this decade.  We need for the police to take an entirely different approach.  We need to speak and act in such a way that no one can misunderstand that things have crossed the limits of patience.  A society based on humanism cannot live with such conditions.  It is, after all, about helpless and defenseless children and teenagers, and marginalized women.</p>
<p>My last word on these matters, then, is this: the ideas I am presenting here are about ten years ahead of their time. Still, I am quite certain that it is only a matter of time before citizenship will not be so sacred anymore as to be untouchable.</p>
<p><em>Translated from the Norwegian by Bruce Bawer</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/hege-storhaug/muslim-child-brides-in-britain-by-hege-storhaug/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>50</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bret Stephens: Can Intelligence Be Intelligent? &#8211; WSJ.com</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/bret-stephens-can-intelligence-be-intelligent-wsj-com/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bret-stephens-can-intelligence-be-intelligent-wsj-com</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/bret-stephens-can-intelligence-be-intelligent-wsj-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:15:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adviser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bombing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bombshell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bret Stephens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterinsurgency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterterrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[daniel patrick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision makers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Detroit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Doctor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doctor joke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equivalent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exhibit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence failures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence officers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jim Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knowledge analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[level decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security adviser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[operation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overall strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shrug]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[staff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[top notch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war in afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[week]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wsj]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=45953</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Intelligence,&#8221; Daniel Patrick Moynihan once observed, &#8220;is not to be confused with intelligence.&#8221; To read two recent analyses of U.S. intelligence failures is to be reminded of the truth of that statement, albeit in very different ways.Exhibit A is last week&#8217;s unclassified White House memo on the attempted bombing of Flight 253 over the skies [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Intelligence,&#8221; Daniel Patrick Moynihan once observed, &#8220;is not to be confused with intelligence.&#8221; To read two recent analyses of U.S. intelligence failures is to be reminded of the truth of that statement, albeit in very different ways.Exhibit A is last week&#8217;s unclassified White House memo on the attempted bombing of Flight 253 over the skies of Detroit. Though billed by U.S. National Security Adviser Jim Jones as a bombshell in its own right, the memo reads more like the bureaucratic equivalent of the old doctor joke about the operation succeeding and the patient dying. The counterterrorism system, it tells us, works extremely well and the people who staff it are top-notch. No doubt. It just happens that in this one case, this same terrific system failed comprehensively at the most elementary levels.For contrast—and intellectual relief—turn to an unsparing new report on the U.S. military&#8217;s intelligence operations in Afghanistan. &#8220;Eight years into the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. intelligence community is only marginally relevant to the overall strategy,&#8221; it begins. &#8220;U.S. intelligence officers and analysts can do little but shrug in response to high level decision-makers seeking the knowledge, analysis, and information they need to wage successful counterinsurgency.&#8221;</p>
<p>via <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703652104574652002740167932.html">Bret Stephens: Can Intelligence Be Intelligent? &#8211; WSJ.com</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/bret-stephens-can-intelligence-be-intelligent-wsj-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Daughter Brought to Life &#8211; by Jay Nordlinger</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jay-nordlinger/a-daughter-brought-to-life-by-jay-nordlinger/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-daughter-brought-to-life-by-jay-nordlinger</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jay-nordlinger/a-daughter-brought-to-life-by-jay-nordlinger/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:04:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jay Nordlinger]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[activist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[age]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aunt barbara]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beloved aunt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[co author]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[introduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[left behind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[man]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meditation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memoir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pay attention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rabbi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reaganite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relationship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Rose Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[something]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thinker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[woman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=43116</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Horowitz’s unusual new memoir.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-43119" title="sarah" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/sarah2.jpg" alt="sarah" width="450" height="302" /></p>
<p><strong>[Visit <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/">National Review</a>]</strong></p>
<p>David Horowitz has done what few could do: He has written a memoir of a child of his who died (age 44); and he has brought it off beautifully. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1596981032"><em>A Cracking of the Heart</em></a> makes for raw reading at times, but it also makes for thought-provoking and uplifting reading. It is a very unusual book, written by an unusual man — about an unusual woman — and when I say “unusual,” I mean something positive, no doubt.</p>
<p>Horowitz will need no introduction to readers of National Review Online. A leader of the New Left, he became a leader of the fighting Reaganite Right. He is a thinker and a doer, an intellectual and an activist. His mind ranges widely, and so do his books. He has written about politics and policy, of course. But he has also written about matters literary, cultural, and spiritual. His 2005 book, <em>The End of Time</em>, is a meditation on mortality. <em>A Cracking of the Heart</em> is a meditation too, plus other things.</p>
<p>Sarah Rose Horowitz — the second of David’s four children — died in March 2008. Several years before, her beloved aunt Barbara died: and her rabbi told her, “Pay attention to the ways in which your relationship continues.” That is part of what David is doing in this book.</p>
<p>She spent much of her time writing, did Sarah Horowitz, producing poems, stories, articles, notes of various kinds. But she published very little. She is certainly published now, as her father stocks this memoir with the writings she left behind. Indeed, she is a co-author of this book, often its main voice.</p>
<p><strong>To continue reading this article, <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDc1YjExYzM4NzRiNTcwNjg4ZThlMDA2OTNlM2Y4ODM=">click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jay-nordlinger/a-daughter-brought-to-life-by-jay-nordlinger/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Collaborators in the War Against the Jews: Richard A. Falk &#8211; by Steven Plaut</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/steven-plaut/collaborators-in-the-war-against-the-jews-richard-a-falk-by-steven-plaut/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=collaborators-in-the-war-against-the-jews-richard-a-falk-by-steven-plaut</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/steven-plaut/collaborators-in-the-war-against-the-jews-richard-a-falk-by-steven-plaut/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:15:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steven Plaut]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aggressors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assimilationist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atrocity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civilian deaths]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diatribe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enclaves]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Falk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gaza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genocidal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genocide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[german territories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holocaust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hugo Chavez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incursions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innocent germans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innocent victims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jimmy Carter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Ashcroft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jonathan Kay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[martin peretz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mass]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monstrosities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monstrosity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuremberg trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Orwellian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overstatement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[part]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PLO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professor emeritus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[record]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[richard falk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Bork]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rwanda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slouching]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social inequality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorist aggression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[title]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ward Churchill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[world war ii]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=40132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ America’s master of the Orwellian inversion.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-40139" title="falk" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/falk.jpg" alt="falk" width="450" height="338" /></p>
<p>It is a bit of a shame that <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0219/m/3a.jpg">Richard A. Falk</a>, professor emeritus of International Law and Practice from Princeton, cannot go back in time in some sort of time machine to right historic wrongs.  If he could, there is no doubt at all that he would revise and re-orchestrate the Nuremberg Trials conducted by the Allies after World War II so that the leaders of the United   States and Britain were the ones indicted instead.  After all, from 1945 onwards the Allies were guilty of “occupation.” Earlier, they had even dared to use military force against German terrorism, had caused German civilian deaths in their earlier military incursions and air bombing campaigns, and then illegally colonized German territories.  If it were up to Falk, the Nuremberg trials would have been devoted to prosecuting the Jews of Europe for causing so much trouble for those poor innocent Germans.</p>
<p>Falk is not only one of the worst collaborators in the academic wars against the Jews, he is also America’s leading practitioner of the Orwellian inversion.  For Falk, America is a<a href="http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/richard_falk"> fascist monstrosity</a>, while the world’s fascist and totalitarian monstrosities are democratic enclaves of freedom.  For him, Israel is a terrorist aggressor, while the Arab terrorist aggressors are innocent victims and peace-loving progressives.  For him, Israel is a Nazi-like country seeking genocide, while the genocidal Islamofascists of the Hamas and their backers are merely protesters against social inequality inside Israel.  For him, terrorist aggression against Jews is really the pursuit of peace, while self-defense by Israel is criminal, terrorist aggression and genocide.</p>
<p>So who exactly is Richard Falk?  He is basically an Ivy League version of Ward Churchill.  He has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Falk">described himself</a> as an &#8220;assimilationist Jewish with a virtual denial of even the ethnic side of Jewishness.&#8221;   <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/richard-falk-conspiracy-theorist">According to Martin Peretz</a> of the New Republic, “Yes, let me assure you, this hater of Israel is a Jew.  And, also yes, this hater of America is an American. “   Falk’s only interest in his Jewish origins is when he can use them as a bludgeon against Israel and other Jews.  According to one report, Falk <a href="http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=375">may have converted</a> to the Baha’i religion.  Falk’s <a href="http://un-truth.com/israel/richard-goldstone-due-in-region-this-weekend-to-begin-hearings-on-gaza-war">wife is a</a> Turkish Moslem.</p>
<p>And just what is Falk’s agenda?   <a href="../2009/10/28/friends-of-terror-by-mark-d-tooley">When addressing an audience</a> of supporters of the anti-Israel organization “Sabeel,” Falk thus spoke:  “During a question and answer period after remarks by Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, an audience member urged people to ‘vote the Jewish state out of existence.’  Enthusiastic applause erupted up and down the pews.”   For Falk, it goes without saying that Israel must be annihilated.  He <a href="../2009/10/28/friends-of-terror-by-mark-d-tooley">cannot imagine any form</a> of Middle East “peace” in which the Jews have <em>not</em> been driven into the sea.  In his words, “If we are to re-imagine peace, we have to stop thinking of the conventional two-state solution, this idea of two people living in separate states would be a disaster.”</p>
<p>But there is so much more! <a href="http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5056-911-more-than-meets-the-eye"> Falk is a conspiracy nut who is involved</a> up to his hairline in <a href="http://www.nysun.com/foreign/un-official-calls-for-study-of-neocons-role/74465">the “911 Truth” conspiracy cult</a>, which claims that the Bush Administration was actually behind the 911 attacks on the US.  Falk has repeated over and over his “suspicion” that high American officials, conniving with nefarious Jewish neo-conservatives, were the real culprits who organized the attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon.   <a href="http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2004/Falk_GriffinForeword.html">Falk wrote a sycophantic foreword</a> for a conspiracy “book” by one David Ray Griffin, &#8220;The New Pearl Harbor.&#8221;   Falk championed that “book” <a href="http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060616221050157">and helped get it a publisher</a>.   <a href="http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/the-truth-about-richard-falk-gaza-and-911">Here is Falk’s</a> take on 911:</p>
<blockquote><p>“As far as I can tell, the real explanation is a widely shared fear of what sinister forces might lay beneath the unturned stones of a full and honest investigation of 9/11. Ever since the assassinations in the 1960s of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X there has been waged a powerful campaign against ‘conspiracy theory’ that has made anyone who dares question the official story to be branded as a kook or some kind of unhinged troublemaker.  In this climate of opinion, any political candidate for high office who dared raise doubts about the official version of 9/11 would immediately be branded as unfit, and would lose all political credibility.  It is impossible to compete in any public arena in the United States if a person comes across as a ‘9/11 doubter.’”</p></blockquote>
<p>Writing a in the <em>Middle East Quarterly</em> (Winter 2002), &#8220;Professors of Palestine,&#8221; Martin Kramer observed that &#8220;extracting&#8230;<em>ex cathedra </em>rulings from Falk is easy business.&#8221;   <a href="http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/412">Kramer added</a>:  “I hadn&#8217;t seen Falk&#8217;s authority invoked so reverentially since my own student days at Princeton. Back then, he was the leading campus enthusiast of the Ayatollah Khomeini. ‘The depiction of Khomeini as fanatical, reactionary, and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false,’ he wrote in 1979. ‘Iran may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane government for a third-world country.’ I well recall watching him preside over a ‘teach-in’ in support of the revolution, which was going to end human rights abuses in Iran. And I recall student groupies applauding fanatically, as if in a trance.”</p>
<p>Falk’s publication record is a one-sided indictment of everything Western and a one-sided exoneration of everything anti-Western.  He was an <a href="../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/XI0VDGQ4/New%20York%20Times%20on%20February%2016,%201979,%20and%20it%20was%20titled%20%22Trusting%20Khomeini.%22">early sycophant of</a> the Ayatollah Khomeini, publishing in the <em>New York Times</em> on February 16, 1979 a piece titles &#8220;Trusting Khomeini.&#8221;  <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/tensions-iran">The New Republic claims</a> Falk considered the Ayatollah to be the Messiah.  Falk <a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/good-fight">also was a cheerleader</a> for the Khmer Rouge.  He regularly writes for viciously anti-American and anti-Semitic web sites such as “Counterpunch” and “Znet.”</p>
<p>Kramer adds, &#8220;Falk is famous for his one-size-fits-all definition of war crimes and crimes against humanity.&#8221;  So, &#8220;in 1998&#8230;he warned officials responsible for implementing the United Nations sanctions against Iraq of their &#8216;criminal accountability for complicity in the commission of crimes against humanity.&#8217; The persistence of American leaders in carrying out the sanctions regime ‘subjects them to potential criminal responsibility.’&#8221;</p>
<p>Naturally, Falk also sees conspiracies being perpetrated by Neo-conservatives (meaning Jews) against far-leftist academics.  <a href="http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/4161">He opines:</a> &#8220;There&#8217;s no doubt that there&#8217;s a concerted right-wing attempt to intimidate professors who advocate critical views, especially on Middle East issues and on the Bush presidency.&#8221;   To drive home his point, he <a href="http://www.wardchurchill.net/a7_RichardFalk.pdf">served as a cheerleader</a> and apologist for Ward Churchill when the latter dismissed the American victims of 9-11 as “little Eichmanns.”</p>
<p>Falk has been ferociously opposed to the Allied liberation of Iraq.  He described the invasion as a “war of aggression” by the United States and its allies, and – naturally &#8211;  also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Falk">compares<em> it</em></a> to the crimes of German Nazis in World War II.  Orwellian inversions involving Nazis are Falk’s favorite metaphor, and he seems to compose several before breakfast each day.  Elsewhere he has stated, “It is not an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with the criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity.&#8221;   He compared Attorney General like John Ashcroft to the Nazi conspirators who set the Reichstag on fire.</p>
<p>Falk<a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2200"> dismisses</a> the Domestic Security Enhancement Act and the <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=101&amp;type=issue">Patriot Act</a> as &#8220;sweeping powers&#8221; that represent a &#8220;slide toward fascism.&#8221;  He routinely denounces America for being an imperialist power, an empire.  In 2003 he published a diatribe, &#8220;Will the Empire be Fascist?&#8221;   There he insists that terror warnings and threat assessments are tools used by the American government to frighten and control the public.  He has demanded that American sovereignty be constricted and subjected to a &#8220;Global Peoples&#8217; Assembly,&#8221; a governing body whose members would &#8220;represent the worldwide voice of the people in action and decision making.&#8221;  You know, people like Hugo Chavez and Muammar Khaddafi, who would decide there what America can and cannot do.</p>
<p>But Falk’s special animosity is reserved for Israel.  He has been trying for decades to get Israel obliterated.  And that track record qualified him to serve as the special investigator into “Israeli war crimes” on behalf of the United Nations!   In 2007 Falk published, &#8220;<a href="http://www.transnational.org/Area_MiddleEast/2007/Falk_PalestineGenocide.html">Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust</a>,&#8221; in which he wrote that it was not an &#8220;irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians (by Israel)&#8221; with the &#8220;criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity.&#8221;  His title is a thin plagiarism of the title of a book by Robert Bork, “<a href="http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/180-8895717-5469257?asin=B002JE1UQ8&amp;afid=yahoosspplp_bmvd&amp;CPNG=bookmarked&amp;lnm=B002JE1UQ8%7CSlouching-Gomorrah-Liberalism-American-Paperback_:_Books&amp;ref=tgt_adv_XSNG1060">Slouching Towards Gemorrah</a>.”  The article may be Falk’s most openly anti-Semite diatribe.  In it, he accuses Israel of mistreating Palestinians on a scale comparable to the Nazi extermination of Jews.  He writes:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not. The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy. If ever the ethos of ‘a responsibility to protect,’ recently adopted by the UN Security Council  as the basis of ‘humanitarian intervention’ is applicable, it would be to act now to start protecting the people of Gaza from further pain and suffering.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Falk then went on to argue that the plight of the Palestinians is worse than the victims of genocide in Rwanda:  “But Gaza is morally far worse (than Rwanda), although mass death has not yet resulted.”  That single sentence may be the most telling of all the inanities Falk has ever invented.</p>
<p>Jonathan Kay, <a href="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/04/10/jonathan-kay-on-the-bigtory-of-richard-falk-the-un-s-new-anti-israel-hit-man.aspx">writing in the Canadian National Post</a>, dismissed Falk as an anti-Jewish bigot and as “an anti-Israel hit man:”</p>
<p>“Falk accuses Israel of having ‘genocidal tendencies,’ and calls the international response to the situation in Gaza &#8220;morally far worse&#8221; than its response to the 1994 Rwanda genocide (death toll: 800,000) and Srebrenica — <em>despite the fact that there is not a single recorded instance of Israel implementing a program of deliberately killing civilians in Gaza, let alone mass murder</em>.”</p>
<p>The article concludes by declaring, &#8220;To persist with [Israeli policies] is indeed genocidal, and risks destroying an entire Palestinian community that is an integral part of an ethnic whole.  It is this prospect that makes appropriate the warning of a Palestinian holocaust in the making, and should remind the world of the famous post-Nazi pledge of ‘never again.&#8217;   What a scandal to imagine that this ignorant ideologue is the expert in whom the UNHRC has entrusted its fact-finding in Gaza and the West Bank.  In fact, notwithstanding his shrill opinions, Falk clearly doesn&#8217;t actually <em>know</em> anything about Gaza and West Bank.”   No, Falk is not beneath commandeering every iota of Jewish suffering in history to demonize Israel, even the “Never Again” slogan coined following the Holocaust in World War II.</p>
<p>There is almost no distortion of the truth that Falk will not embrace when he jihads against Israel.  He <a href="http://www.transnational.org/Area_MiddleEast/2007/Falk_PalestineGenocide.html">defends the “election” of the Hamas</a> in Gaza as a “fair election.”  His evidence?   Jimmy Carter said so.  He deliberately inverts history in the worst Orwellian manner.  The Hamas has been seeking ceasefires with Israel, but Israel keeps violating them, according to the learned oprofessor.  Israel and the US <a href="http://www.transnational.org/Area_MiddleEast/2007/Falk_PalestineGenocide.html">are all to blame for the rise of Hamas</a> hegemony in Gaza, opines Falk, because Israel failed to capitulate sufficiently to the heads of the PLO and the US failed to coerce Israel to do so: “This latest turn in policy needs to be understood in the wider context of the Israeli refusal to reach a reasonable compromise with the Palestinian people since 1967.”  The reasonable compromise the Palestinians demand of course is Israel’s complete extermination.</p>
<p>In 2001, when he retired from Princeton, the misnamed U.N. Commission on Human Rights decided to send a biased “commission of inquiry” to bash Israel over its supposed violation of human rights.  Falk was <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0219/3a.shtml">one of three</a> members chosen.  The other two were also anti-Israel:  John Dugard, a South African from Leiden University in the Netherlands who considers Israel a racist apartheid-like regime, and Kamal Hussein, former Bangladeshi foreign minister.  Alan Dershowitz <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israel-bans-a-un-rapporte_b_152158.html">dismissed Falk as a bigot</a> and as someone who made up his mind long before he began any “investigation.”   In Dershowitz’ view, appointing Falk is comparable to the following: “Imagine the UN appointing David Duke to report on how Blacks are victimizing Whites, or Hugo Chavez to report on American foreign policy, or Mohammad Ahmadinejad to investigate whether the Holocaust occurred.”</p>
<p>In  2008 the <a title="United Nations Human Rights Council" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council">United Nations Human Rights Council</a> (UNHRC) officially appointed Falk to a six-year term as a “<a title="United Nations Special Rapporteur" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Rapporteur">United Nations Special Rapporteur</a>” on &#8220;the situation of human rights in the <a title="Palestinian Territories" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Territories">Palestinian territories</a> occupied since 1967.&#8221;  I guess Noam Chomsky wasn’t available.  US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton explained why Falk was selected: &#8220;He was picked for a reason, and the reason is not to have an objective assessment — the objective is to find more ammunition to go after Israel.&#8221;</p>
<p>This new commission reached its conclusions long before it was even convened.  <a href="../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/XI0VDGQ4/%22The%20central%20issue%20is%20to%20ask%20whether%20Israel%20has%20used%20excessive%20force%20in%20responding%20to%20the%20Palestinian%20political%20demonstrations,%22%20said%20Falk.">In Falk’s words</a>, the purpose of the commission was this: &#8220;The central issue is to ask whether Israel has used excessive force in responding to the Palestinian political demonstrations.&#8221;   Note that he and his sidekicks had no interest in the countless terrorist atrocities and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians launched by Palestinians.  In fact, Falk essentially came out in favor of Palestinian terrorism even before the commission began its work: &#8220;One is evaluating whether the conditions of occupation are such as to give the Palestinians some kind of right of resistance.  And if they have that right, then what are the limits to that right?&#8221;   The only difference between terrorism and “resistance” depends entirely on whether on not Falk endorses it.  Falk used the same opportunity to denounce Israel as a colonialist entity.</p>
<p>In May, 2008, and recalling his early campaigns against Israel on behalf of the UN, Israel refused to allow Falk to enter the country at all as a UN representative.   He <a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&amp;cid=1228728204503">tried to enter again</a> in December, was detained for 30 hours in Tel Aviv airport and then given the bum’s rush out.  Falk joined the tiny club of anti-Semites so extreme that Israel refuses to allow them to enter the country.  Of “academics” barred from entering Israel, Falk shares that honor only with Neo-Nazi Norman Finkelstein, who was evicted from Israel thanks to Finkelstein’s intimate ties to the Hezb’Allah terrorists.  (Even Noam Chomsky and numerous other blatant anti-Semites enter Israel all the time with no problem, and <a href="../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/3NE07EQU/isracampus.org.il">many lecture at Israeli universities</a>.  Israel only evicts the worst collaborators with terrorism!)</p>
<p>When Falk was evicted, the Israeli Ministry of the Interior explicitly cited Falk’s long record of anti-Israel hate propaganda in its decision to ban his entry.  Simona Halperin, the director of Israel’s International Organization and Human Rights department, called Falk &#8220;completely unobjective,&#8221; citing his comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and of Israel&#8217;s actions against the Palestinians to the Holocaust.  Writing in the Israeli daily Maariv, Uri Yablonka commented on the expulsion of Falk:  “It is not every day that the Foreign Ministry decides to ban a senior United Nations emissary from entering Israel, especially when the person involved is a Jewish academic. But in the case of Prof. Richard Falk from the United States, Israel made an exception. This was because in the past <em>Falk voiced support for suicide attacks</em> and compared Israel’s activity with that of the Nazis.”  The editor of Maariv dismissed Falk as a repulsive maniac.</p>
<p>When Israel launched its anti-terror campaign in Gaza in 2008, “Cast Lead,” Falk repeatedly and mechanically <a href="http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/F1EC67EF7A498A30C125752D005D17F7">denounced all Israeli defense operations</a> as “war crimes.”   Evidently the <a href="http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6592">only form of Jewish self-defense against Hamas rockets that Falk</a> is willing to approve is total capitulation.   Even grabbing ships full of arms bound for Islamofascist <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1097608.html">terrorists is “criminal,” according to Falk</a>, and an abuse of Palestinian rights.   He <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6186137.html">repeatedly called for Nuremberg</a>-style indictments of Israeli leaders for “war crimes.”  Falk is <a href="http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6801">not above outright falsification</a> when it comes to his prettifying the Hamas or demonizing Israel.</p>
<p>As for Falk’s <a href="http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30640">other political associations</a>, Kathy Shaidle lists some of these: “Falk is a prominent member of the<a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2200"> International Association of Democratic Lawyers</a>, which the CIA once characterized as ‘one of the most useful Communist front organizations at the service of the Soviet Communist Party.’ Today Falk chairs the <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6722">Nuclear Age Peace Foundation</a>, whose recommended strategy for combating terrorism is to increase U.S. aid to those countries that act as a breeding ground for terrorists.”  The New Republic’s <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/jane-fonda-mary-robinson-jimmy-carter-desmond-tuto-theyre-all-back-and-they-are-all-m">Martin Peretz insists</a> that he “finds human rights abuses Right and Left but on second thought only Right.”</p>
<p>Kathie Shaidle <a href="http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30640">sums Falk up</a> thus: “Were Falk simply an obscure crank, his views about the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 could be written off as the rantings of a sadly delusional individual.  However, Falk’s enthusiasm for conspiracy theories casts grave doubts about the levels of objectivity and competence he will bring to his new ‘investigative’ position at the United Nations.  Unlike the scientific method or other rational methods of deduction, conspiracy theories work backwards from frequently tenuous ‘evidence,’ in order to ‘prove’ the conspiracist’s pre-determined theories.  Richard Falk publicly has sided with radical Islam over America and Israel for three decades, with little consideration for facts and evidence.  Given that, and his gullible support for bizarre 9/11 ‘revelations,’ critics have good reason to suspect that, as a UN ‘investigator,’ Falk will leave a great deal to be desired.”</p>
<p>As the Hamas’ point man serving the UN commission, Falk did indeed deliver the goods, as expected.</p>
<p><strong>Articles in Frontpage’s Collaborators series:</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/18/collaborators-in-the-war-against-the-jews-sara-roy/">Sarah Roy</a><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="../2009/10/21/collaborators-in-the-campus-war-against-israel-and-the-jews-howard-zinn/">Howard Zinn</a><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="../2009/11/18/2009/10/16/collaborators-in-the-campus-war-against-israel-and-the-jews-joel-beinin-%E2%80%93-by-steven-plaut/">Joel Beinin</a><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="../2009/11/18/2009/10/14/collaborators-in-the-campus-war-against-israel-and-the-jews-mark-levine-%E2%80%93-by-steven-plaut/">Mark LeVine</a><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="../2009/11/18/2009/10/13/collaborators-in-the-campus-war-against-israel-and-the-jews-neve-gordon-by-john-perazzo/">Neve Gordon</a><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36406">Norman Finkelstein</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36238">Tony Judt</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36178">Michael Lerner</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36028"><strong>Marc H. Ellis</strong></a></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/steven-plaut/collaborators-in-the-war-against-the-jews-richard-a-falk-by-steven-plaut/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>118</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama’s War &#8211; by Matt Gurney</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/matt-gurney/obama%e2%80%99s-war-by-matt-gurney/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama%25e2%2580%2599s-war-by-matt-gurney</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/matt-gurney/obama%e2%80%99s-war-by-matt-gurney/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt Gurney]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Academy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghan government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american electorate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american troops]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[army]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[army cadets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[battle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[central Afghan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credible allegations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic establishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electoral fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enormity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Funding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamid Karzai]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ineffectual leadership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international observers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jacob]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[January]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kabul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kabul afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leadership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. President.

Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[necessary step]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[night]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oratorical skills]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president hamid karzai]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reliability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reluctance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reputation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[situation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tribal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vote]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[west point academy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=40176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The hardest choices ahead.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-40178" title="troops" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/troops.jpg" alt="troops" width="450" height="309" /></p>
<p>Since taking office last January, President Obama has been able to blame the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan on the last administration, insulating himself from criticism. No longer. After his speech to Army cadets at the West Point academy on Tuesday night, Afghanistan is now clearly Obama’s war.</p>
<p>On balance, as <a href="../2009/12/02/obama%E2%80%99s-hedged-bet-on-afghanistan-by-jacob-laksin/">said ably</a> by Jacob Laksin, the President’s speech hit the right notes. He has taken a firm stand against the anti-war Democratic establishment and has repudiated the most defeatist branches of America’s left-wing.  This represents a clear break from the President’s past positions, and he should be praised for taking this difficult but necessary step, which leans against not only the prevailing wishes of his own party, but of the war-weary American electorate at large. Bravo, Mr. President.</p>
<p>Obama himself is clearly aware of the enormity of the challenge that he has now made his own. His address was well written, but the President’s normally outstanding oratorical skills were AWOL during the speech, which was delivered capably, but without the powerful charisma Obama is rightly known for. In short, he said all the right things, but it was clear that his heart was not it in. After months of delay, when the Administration no doubt desperately sought other options, Obama has made the right decision, but with obvious reluctance.</p>
<p>Now that the decision has been made and a further 30,000 American troops committed to the battle, attention must be turned to Obama’s plan itself, which is not without problems. An issue of particular concern is the reliability of the central Afghan government in Kabul. Afghanistan’s President, Hamid Karzai, was recently returned to power after what can only be loosely termed an election. The vote has been widely derided by international observers as having been illegitimate, hobbled by credible allegations of substantial <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/11/afghan-vote-fraud.html">electoral fraud</a>. Karzai’s fraudulent victory, combined with his reputation for corrupt, ineffectual leadership, has eroded the patience of his Western backers.</p>
<p>Obama addressed the <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j3hz-bWvRRq9Y9Ri9boWHpYue7dA">failings</a> of the Karzai government in his speech last night, giving public voice to America’s frustration. The President said that American funding would henceforth go directly to the ministers and provincial governors most capable of delivering tangible positive results. This was clearly a barely veiled warning to Karzai — shape up, or the funding stops. While it is true that the endemic corruption of the Afghan government is a major concern, anything America and its allies do that undermines Karzai’s authority is ultimately self-defeating.</p>
<p>For better or for worse, the ability of the Allies to withdraw from Afghanistan depends upon being able to standup the Afghan security forces. But in order for these forces to function as effective, professional combat troops rather than mere brigands, there must be a central authority capable of controlling them. The Anbar Awakening, where Iraqi tribal militias joined with American forces in defeating the Iraqi insurgency, has been cited as a model to follow in Afghanistan, but it must be recalled that despite obvious problems, Iraq has developed a functional central government that is now working to absorb the militias into the country’s broader military and political institutions.</p>
<p>Unless Afghanistan develops a similar unifying federal force, any provincial governor or tribal leader favored with Western dollars and weaponry, instead of being a stabilizing force, will become yet another faction in Afghanistan’s already dangerously disunited societal fabric. President Obama is right to call attention to Karzai’s lamentable record of fraud and corruption, but put bluntly, America is stuck with Karzai, and Obama must not cut off his own nose to spite Karzai’s face.</p>
<p>Also worrisome were the President’s remarks on funding the war. While he was right to say that an open-ended commitment to the war there was “not sustainable” and honestly warned that his proposals would cost the American taxpayer an additional $30-billion dollars a year, the stated desire to rein in costs while working to reduce America’s federal deficit rang somewhat hollow when spoken by the man overseeing <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57K4XE20090821">unprecedented federal spending</a>. If President Obama had said that America could not afford the $30-billion, that would have been shortsighted, but arguably true. In the case of this Administration, however, there is every reason to believe that every penny not spent on winning in Afghanistan would instead be wasted pursuing one of the left’s social engineering schemes, whether that be socialized medicine or a ruinous cap-and-trade climate change policy.</p>
<p>Some members of the President’s party have in recent weeks spoken publicly about introducing a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/23/lawmakers-propose-war-surtax-pay-troop-increase-afghanistan/">war tax</a> to fund the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and continuing operations in Iraq. It is true that the massive debts being run up by Congress are alarming, but the prospect of introducing a new tax in the midst of an economic crisis, while still pursuing open-ended spending projects domestically, is absurd to the point of insanity. The President would have done American taxpayers a great service by using the West Point speech as an opportunity not just to wax philosophic about his desire to build America, but to explain exactly what steps he would take to keep America safe while balancing the books and returning the country to a sound fiscal footing. Recall that the extra $30-billion a year represents a mere 3% of the forecasted trillion-dollar deficit. Clearly, Afghanistan is not the primary threat to America’s economic wellbeing. Congress is.</p>
<p>President Obama has taken the first steps necessary to enable a victory in Afghanistan, despite significant political risk and no doubt ferocious resistance from his own party. He should be commended for his courage, but must also be reminded that the toughest choices are still ahead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/matt-gurney/obama%e2%80%99s-war-by-matt-gurney/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David M. Phillips: The Illegal-Settlements Myth, Commentary</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/david-m-phillips-the-illegal-settlements-myth-commentary/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=david-m-phillips-the-illegal-settlements-myth-commentary</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/david-m-phillips-the-illegal-settlements-myth-commentary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[acceptance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arab land]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[avalanche]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conclusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conviction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decades]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discussion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[idea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imprudent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israeli settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewish settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal question]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legitimacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[logical conclusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[myth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[narrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[question]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unpopularity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[verdict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[west bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wisdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=40105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is. Decades of argument about the issue have obscured the complex nature of the specific legal question about which a supposedly overwhelming verdict of guilty [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is. Decades of argument about the issue have obscured the complex nature of the specific legal question about which a supposedly overwhelming verdict of guilty has been rendered against settlement policy. There can be no doubt that this avalanche of negative opinion has been deeply influenced by the settlements’ unpopularity around the world and even within Israel itself. Yet, while one may debate the wisdom of Israeli settlements, the idea that they are imprudent is quite different from branding them as illegal. Indeed, the analysis underlying the conclusion that the settlements violate international law depends entirely on an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the West Bank is “Arab” land. Followed to its logical conclusion—as some have done—this narrative precludes the legitimacy of Israel itself.</p>
<p>via <a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-illegal-settlements-myth-15295">The Illegal-Settlements Myth</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/david-m-phillips-the-illegal-settlements-myth-commentary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 2442/2684 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 10:01:15 by W3 Total Cache -->