As We Try to Celebrate Christmas

Gary Fouse
Fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Memri and Jihad Watch


First of all, let me wish a Merry Christmas to all my Christian readers. For my Jewish readers who just recently celebrated Hanukkah, I also extend my love and best wishes.

But it is hard not to  feel a sense of anger when Christians and Jews are being persecuted around the world.

As I write, the city of Barcelona is under high alert over credible reports that an unidentified Moroccan man may be planning to strike the city on this holiest of Christian holidays.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/barcelona-police-warn-of-muslim-plotting-jihad-massacre-on-christmas-day-city-on-high-alert

Here is a Spanish report from El Pais (Spain), which I have not had time to translate as yet.

https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/12/24/catalunya/1545661368_910928.html


From Canada comes yet another report of a Muslim cleric urging his followers not to wish Christians a Merry Christmas. Yes, Canada has a real problem with hate being preached in many of their mosques.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/canada-muslim-cleric-says-wishing-christians-merry-christmas-is-worse-than-murder

Also on high alert are the always beleaguered Christians of Pakistan, fearing attacks on Christmas day as one of their own, Asia Bibi, remains in hiding while Western nations (and the Vatican) studiously ignore her pleas for asylum. It is an international disgrace.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/islamic-republic-of-pakistan-security-high-at-churches-for-christmas-asia-bibi-still-in-hiding

Meanwhile, Pope Francis continues to ignore the persecution of Christians in Muslim majority countries while lecturing Europeans that they must continue to bring in more and more Muslims, some of  whom will torment Europe's Jews and plan attacks on Christmas markets, which are now the target of choice.

And the politicians in Western Europe (with the exception of Italy, Austria, and possibly Denmark) are on the Pope's side as they continue their insane immigration policies, no matter how many people are murdered and no matter how many women are raped. Jews continue to live in fear and many are emigrating. Politicians make statements of support and place guards in front of synagogues and Jewish schools, but the importation of Jew-hating Muslim men continues unabated, thus, the threat continues to increase.

I emphasize  that I am not referring to all Muslims, but the threat is very real and deeply rooted in Islamic doctrine.

But it is not only Muslims who need to take a look in the mirror. Our political and religious leaders, both Christian and Jewish, are letting us down. They are afraid to stand up to the Islamists in our midst and call them out for their hatred. Interfaith events, which appear to be noble on their surface, are nothing more than exercises in surrender by Christian and Jewish religious leaders who allow Muslim leaders to lie to us about Islam's "peaceful" nature. Many of these same Muslim leaders have a completely different (and more hateful) message when speaking to their own followers. Again-not all, but far too many.

Praying for peace seems to be an exercise in futility, but at least we can pray that today will not be marred by Islamic terror in Spain, Pakistan or anywhere else.

Merry Christmas.

Dan Bongino - Obama, Mueller and the Biggest Scam in American History

Complements: David Horowitz Freedom Center Restoration Weekend 2018

---

Tags: Dan Bongino - Obama, Mueller, Biggest Scam in American History To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

UC Berkeley Has to Pay for Abridging Free Speech

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


UC Berkeley has learned the hard way there can be a price to pay for abridging free speech on campus. Now they are paying out $70,000 to Young America Foundation.


https://www.yaf.org/news/yaf-wins-landmark-free-speech-lawsuit-uc-berkeley-to-pay-70000-and-rescind-unconstitutional-policies/?fbclid=IwAR1rahcMqkjCI6AJv0Sd2AwxtLYUDV4g9hAeiBBE0wvTsNfGtaSVmOfr2ks

It is more subtle than a university refusing a student group to bring in a particular speaker. There are other ways a university can limit or eliminate free speech by certain speakers they don't like. They can charge outrageous security fees, for example, that they would not charge to other groups.

Several years ago, I attended an event at UC Irvine where David Horowitz appeared. Not only did the university switch his meeting room at the last minute to a more obscure part of the campus, none of the whiteboard markers had enough ink. Horowitz repeatedly laughed it off at the UCI administrators in the audience who were documenting his words on their laptops.

When Milo Yiannopoulos appeared at UCI not long ago, the event was placed in a room much too small to accomodate the hundreds of people (including myself) who were trying to get in-and whose names were on the registration list.

I salute the YAF for holding UCB's feet to the fire. These institutions all have a ready made statement they release to the media when these things happen to the effect that they are "100 committed to the principles of free speech, inclusions, etc etc etc". It is a joke. When students and assorted riff-raff rioted at UC Berkeley a few years ago forcing a last minute cancellation to Yiannopoulos's appearance, the university all but put their seal of approval on the assaults and destruction of property as campus police stood around like potted plants. Other universities, like UCI, seem to be allowing disruptions to continue for a set period of time before gently ushering the protesters out with no consequences.

Left to their own devices and with the public not paying attention, universities will continue to limit conservative speech and indoctrinate our youth. They need to be countered, and, when appropriate, sued.

SJP Conference Looms Over UCLA

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


This article first appeared in Times of Israel.

Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) will be holding its national conference at UCLA from November 16-18. A few years ago (February 2011), SJP held its Western regional conference on the Westwood campus. That featured the anti-semitic Oakland imam, Amir Abdel Malik Ali, leading his audience in the "pledge of allegiance", which bore no resemblance to the one most of us recite here in the US. Ali's "pledge" swore to fight to the death on behalf of Islam, jihad, and all that charming stuff.

There is much opposition to this year's conference, as well there should be. SJP is anti-Jewish to its core. No matter that they have a few misguided misfits of Jewish background. They are all for the total destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.

Here is an op-ed that the feckless UCLA chancellor, Gene Block, has written in the LA Times regarding the conference.

With all due respect, Mr Block is full of it. For years, he has allowed Jewish students at UCLA to be bullied and intimidated by the likes of SJP, the Muslim Student Association, and other pro-Palestinian forces. He is hardly alone among UC chancellors. From UC San Diego to UC Berkeley and in-between, it's the same old story. For 20 years, I have seen it first-hand on the UC Irvine campus where I taught part-time from 1998-2016. In the past two years since I stopped teaching there, I have attended subsequent events where the bully-boy antics of the SJP have been on full display. Their tactics are simple: disrupt, bully and intimidate. They are a disgraceful and despicable organization.

And look who is headlining this year's freak show at UCLA. The keynote speaker is Chicago-based Palestinian activist, Hatem Abudayyeh. Here is what Discover the Networks has to say about Abudayyeh.

Abudayyeh was an outspoken supporter of Rasmieh Odeh, the Palestinian woman who was convicted of terrorism in Israel, hid that fact while immigrating to the US, and was finally deported after lengthy and costly legal proceedings. All the while, she appeared in front of the courthouse where she was being tried shouting into a bullhorn to her followers about how unjust America is. And this guy Abudayyeh was one of her biggest boosters.

Lovely fellow. Just what SJP wants to represent them. We should all draw the appropriate conclusions.

As Chancellor Block stated, SJP has the right to free speech. But make no mistake. From November 16-18, hate speech will be on display at UCLA. With the new outbreak of fighting between Israel and the Hamas regime in Gaza, no doubt the rhetoric at UCLA will get even more heated. The 2016 UC Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, which Block referenced, will be violated to the point of making it nothing more than a scrap of paper.

Latest Wave of C American Migrants Underlines Need for Border Security

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


As we speak, the latest wave of thousands of Central Americans is making its way though a compliant Mexico en route to our border. They have no visas. They have not been invited. They are coming anyway. They come waving Honduran, Salvadoran or Guatemalan flags. They stop to demonstrate in front of  our embassy in Mexico City along the way. Not exactly the best way to ensure you're welcome in the US. Apparently, they don't care whether they are welcome or not.

The same situation is playing out in Western Europe, where hundreds of thousands of migrants, asylum-seekers or refugees have stormed in from the Middle East and Africa, Most are young men in their 20s. With few exceptions, they are making no positive contributions to their countries of destination unless you call, terrorism, murder, and rape to be contributions. While the East European countries refuse to accept them, the Western Europeans seem powerless to say no.

There is also another possible similarity between the two groups: In both cases, billionaire financier George Soros appears to have his hand in it. In the case of Europe, it is documented. He funds some of the NGO rescue ships that are picking up African migrants in the Mediterranean and dumping them in Italian ports.  (At least up until the point where the new Italian government stopped allowing the ships to dock.) Soros is also suspected by some to be involved in the Central American wave though the liberal "fact check" sites dispute it.

Both examples point to the need for secure borders on both sides of the Atlantic. Contrary to accusations from the left, very few Americans oppose all immigration. We do insist, however, that we control who comes and who is not allowed in. For his part, President Trump, in his inimical style, is promising to stop the migrants marching through Mexico. Unfortunately, we are dealing with the by now obviously outdated law that people can apply for asylum if they can  get one foot over the border. We can't send our Border Control one foot over the line into Mexico to stop them. What is needed is cooperation from Mexico. In past decades, they have flooded this country with drugs and their own illegal immigrants. Now they are providing a way through Mexico for Central Americans. In short, Mexico is being a very bad neighbor.

It is up to Trump to pressure Mexico in no uncertain terms to stop this march toward our border. If these people are allowed into the US, it will be a huge failure on the part of the Trump administration.

Among all the hand-wringing from the left about the plight of all these thousands of 20-something men, lost is the fact that the actions of these migrants-both in the Americas and in Europe are truly hurting decent, legal immigrants. I still believe in legal immigration for those who will adopt our values and contribute to our various nations. I don't blame people who want to escape horrific conditions in their home countries to seek a better life in America or Europe. But the final say in who is admitted must rest with the receiving country. Immigration is not just for the benefit of the immigrant. It must also be for the benefit of the receiving country. We seem to have lost sight of that fact.

University of Michigan: It's Required

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com

"Speaker Emory Douglas, part of the “Penny Stamps Speakers Series Presentation” of the Stamps School of Art and Design, displayed a slide that showed a picture of Netanyahu and Hitler with the words “Guilty Of Genocide” written across their faces. Below the photo was the definition of genocide."

The University of Michigan has been in the news quite a bit lately, and for all the wrong reasons. Just recently, a University of Michigan professor made news when he refused to write a letter of recommendation for a student to study in Israel. Now comes this about a speaker who compared Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu with Hitler. That's bad enough. It was a required attendance for certain students. 


https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/252890

So here we have a former Black Panther who comes to the university to defame Netanyahu as being comparable to Hitler, and attendance is mandatory?

I invite the reader to follow the above link to the Penny Stamps site. If you are left with the impression that it is tilted way to the left, you are not alone. This reminds me of the UC Irvine New Narratives program instituted a few years ago by then Vice Chancellor Thomas Parham. In April 2017, I attended one such event which was loaded with a panel of victims including one black radical Canadian  woman who had recently moved to the US and opened her talk by saying that she had picked the wrong time to come here in referring to President Trump. I tried unsuccessfully to get New Narratives to invite a speaker who had a more favorable image of America, but all I got was a big run-around.

I wonder if the Penny Stamps Speakers Series would consider bringing in a pro-Israel speaker to provide some semblance of balance to those students who are required to sit through these lectures.

Probably not.

Professor Juan Cole's Mohammad

Gary Fouse

fousesquawk

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com

Hat tip Campus Watch and Middle East Forum


https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/articles/2018/was-prophet-muhammad-really-illiterate-an-intervi

University of Michigan professor Juan Cole always goes to incredible lengths to defend everything that is Islamic. Now he has come out with a new book on the Prophet Mohammad entitled, Mohammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires. If you had any doubts this would be a hagiographic endeavor, Cole's interview with Joseph Richard Preville erases all doubt.

How one can described Mohammad as a "prophet of peace" when he led armies to fight non-Muslims, took women and children as slaves and ordered the murders of his opponents and the beheadings of captives is beyond me. It is true that when Mohammad began his teaching in Mecca, he was peaceful. After he was driven out of Mecca, he and his followers went to  present-day Medina, where he consolidated his power and evolved into a warlord. Here are some statements by Cole that strain credulity.

JRP: You write that “Islam is, no less than Christianity, a Western religion that initially grew up in the Roman Empire” and that “Muhammad saw himself as an ally of the West.” How does your theory challenge or support other major scholarly interpretations of early Islam?

JC: The Arab Muslim sources emphasize the origins of Islam in Arabia and downplay how integrated the Arabs of late antiquity were into the Eastern Roman Empire, but Roman sources, inscriptions, and Qur'an passages give strong evidence for the Arabs as Roman citizens or  allies.  As for Muhammad being allied with Constantinople, there is some evidence for it in early Arabic sources and the eminent Princeton classicist G. W. Bowersock has hinted at it in his recent work, but I have taken the bull by the horns and said it explicitly.

It is true that all three monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam were born in the Middle East. While the first two successfully spread to the West ( the US is a democratic nation founded on Judaic-Christian principles), Islam's spread to the West, largely through recent immigration has hardly been successful. Assimilation has been slight and the clashes are too many to mention especially in Europe today. The fact is that Islam is antithetical to Western ideals of equality and freedom.


JRP: Many biographies portray Muhammad as illiterate and provincial.  Would you agree?

JC: The Muslim tradition calls Muhammad "illiterate," I think in part to protect him from charges by polemicists that he learned things by reading the Bible or other works.  But the tradition also says he was a successful long-distance merchant who regularly traded up to Damascus and Gaza in the Eastern Roman Empire.  Long distance merchants are always literate, and I think Muhammad could read and write Arabic, Aramaic and possibly Greek.  The Qur'an shows knowledge of the Bible, of Jewish tradition, and of classical Greek thought.  It isn't provincial.

An interesting observation and opinion on the part of Cole since he strays from Islamic teaching that Mohammad was illiterate. Also interesting is the reason Cole thinks Muslims say that Mohammad was illiterate. Critics of Islam do not believe that Mohammad truly received the word of God from the archangel Gabriel (He may have imagined he did), therefore the idea that he read the Bible and initially borrowed from it is open to question.

RP: What was Muhammad’s role in the creation of the Constitution of Madinah?  How revolutionary was this document for its time?

JC: The Constitution of Madinah was a treaty among groups in Madinah, to which the Meccan pagans expelled Muhammad in 622.  Madinah had Muslims, Jews and pagans and possibly some Christians. The treaty pledged all these groups to defend the city militarily if it was attacked.  It says that the Muslims have their religion and the Jews have theirs, so it recognizes freedom of conscience and is a political alliance.  In the Roman Empire at that time, Jews were placed under disabilities and would not have been treated as equals this way. 

And when the Jews supposedly broke the constitution, they were executed, and ever since Jews are hated within Islam. The Koran is replete with hateful verses against Jews (and Christians). Over the centuries Jewish minorities have had to live in a condition of dhimmitud, second class citizenship enshrined in the laws. It is true that in some places, Christians treated Jews as bad or worse as did Muslims, but Cole's answer leaves out tons of facts. 

JRP: How did medieval Muslim clerics slight or minimize the Qur’an’s peace verses by a theory of abrogation?

JC: Peace-making and turning the other cheek are very important themes in the Qur'an.  It allows going to war to defend yourself and innocents, but forbids aggressive, expansionist warfare.  The text was very inconvenient for later aggressive Muslim empires.  So ideologues developed a theory of "abrogation" where later verses invalidated earlier ones. They interpreted late verses on warfare as permitting aggression (they don't), and then alleged that all the peace verses were thus abrogated.  It was an intellectual and spiritual travesty.  Some Muslim thinkers, though, said only 5 verses were abrogated (not the peace verses), and rejected the procedure.   

For Cole to claim that peace making and turning the other cheek are important themes in the Koran is a hoot. Reading the Koran especially putting the suras (chapters) in chronological order contradicts Cole on its very face. The early Mecca suras do tend to be benign and peaceful, but the Medina suras are clearly not. Put in order of time, it all makes sense. Mohammad evolved from a simple preacher in Mecca to a warlord in Medina. As for the principle of abrogation (which Western-based "moderate" imams are loathe to discuss), it makes perfect sense given the transformation of Mohammad ands the obvious contradictory verses in the Koran. Keep in mind that it is the Islamic scholars themselves (not Cole) who are the authorities in Islam since Islam has no Vatican and has no popes.   

JRP: You have placed strong emphasis on Muhammad as a “Prophet of Peace.”  How do you think your book will encourage and strengthen Islamic peace studies?
 
JC: The peace verses of the Qur'an have been there all along, and have been central, but scholarship has not focused on them.  I'd like to see the kind of intersection of Peace Studies with Islam that exists with regard to Christianity.  Christians have fought a lot of wars and even been involved in genocide, but we all also know about the Quakers and Mennonites.  Only a few authors have written on the history of peace movements in Islam, which include the Murid Sufis of Senegal and the Gandhist Muslims in twentieth-century India.

Yes, the peace verses in the Koran have been there all along, but they are not central because they have been abrogated. Sura 9, the last major sura recorded is arguably the most violent and intolerable. It virtually abrogates every peaceful verse recorded earlier in time. As for Sufists and groups like the Ahmadiya Muslims, it is true they have a good track record of not being involved in the terror and intolerance we see in Islam today, but they are not regarded as Muslims by mainstream Islam. In fact, those that live in Muslim countries are persecuted. As for the wars and genocide of Christians, aside from the Crusades (in which both sides were culpable and Christians killed many Jews in the process), how many wars were fought for purely religious reasons? Genocide? I would argue that Hitler and the Nazis had no religious motivations for the Holocaust. They did not object to the theology of the Jews; they considered Jews as a race to be exterminated. And Hitler, despite his Catholic birth, was no Christian. He derided religion in general. If you want to talk about genocide in the modern sense, look no farther than today's Middle East.

If Cole wants to argue that most Muslims are leading peaceful lives and we should not blame them all for the atrocities being carried out today, that is fine. Cole, however, engages in falsehoods that are so easy to disprove just by scratching beneath the surface. If this is the type of scholarship to be found at the University of Michigan, they might as well stick to football.

Siraj Wahhaj: "My Son Can Be a Little Extreme"

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


This article first appeared in New English Review. Much of the information (not all) is contained in previous posts in Fousesquawk regarding this issue.




Even CNN's politically correct talk show host, Brooke Baldwin, was dumbstruck by that statement after she ran a video clip Thursday in which Imam Siraj Wahhaj spoke to the press about the arrest of his son, Siraj Wahhaj, Jr. in the New Mexico desert.

Yep. Keeping kids in starvation conditions in a filthy compound in the middle of the desert while training them to fire weapons in preparation for school shootings can be "a little extreme".

The elder Wahhaj also claims that it was he who tipped off the police to the New Mexico location when he learned that his son had absconded with his own three-year-old son in Georgia.

What CNN and other mainstream outlets are failing to report is the full background on Wahhaj Sr, a man with a long history of radical speech and associations behind him. About the farthest the media will go in describing Wahhaj's radical background is to advise the public that he appeared as a defense witness in the trial of the so-called "Blind Sheikh", Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case. They generally leave out the fact that Wahhaj was an unindicted co-conspirator  in the case. (He has never been charged.)

As the media loves to point out, Wahhaj was the first Muslim to give an opening prayer in the House of Representatives, which doesn't say much for the House. It is true that Wahhaj has convinced many non-Muslims that he is a peaceful moderate. When appearing before non-Muslim audiences (and the press), he comes across as a kindly, soft-spoken, grandfatherly type. When speaking before his own congregation and Muslim groups, however, it all changes. His language becomes full of hate, especially for America, which he has called "a filthy garbage can". He has also told his followers that Islam will take over America and made references to arming people with Uzis and 9 mm's. Both statements are now quite ironic given the filthy conditions in the New Mexico compound and the fact that weapons were also discovered including an AR-15.

Wahhaj's incendiary rhetoric has not turned off groups like CAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America, or the Islamic Circle of North America, who use him as one of their favorite speakers. In 2013, CAIR  Southern California leader Hussam Ayloush spoke in Riverside, and I asked him why CAIR would invite Wahhaj as a speaker given the statements described above. Ayloush replied that Wahhaj was "one of the most prominent and respected religious leaders in America", and I was a bigot for asking.

Linda Sarsour is another admirer of Wahhaj, whom she describes as her mentor and who taught her to "speak truth to power".

Also ironic is the fact that when Wahhaj came to  speak at a charity dinner in Yorba Linda, California in 2011 along with another radical imam, Amir Abdel Malik Ali, sponsored by the Islamic Center of North America (ICNA), a Muslim Brotherhood-aligned group, a protest ensued prior to the scheduled beginning of the event. I was present and spoke at the protest as did several local public officials including Congressman Ed Royce (R-CA). Unfortunately, some people showed up with their own agenda and engaged the attendees with chants as they arrived, an act we did not approve of. In the lead up to the event, local residents met with ICNA representative Shakeel Syed (now of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California) and requested that they find other speakers than Ali and Wahhaj given their radical nature. Syed's angry response was to point his finger at the lady who made the request and say that they would bring whatever speakers they chose.

Unfortunately, you will hear none of the above facts on CNN or other mainstream outlets other than perhaps, Fox. It is another sterling example of the media deliberately omitting pertinent facts.

Whether the elder Wahhaj has any involvement in his son's activities or not, it is fair to ask how much of his teachings sank into his son. I hope that the authorities will at least explore any possible involvement on the part of the imam. To not do so would be gross negligence on their part.

A Salute to College Republicans

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse,blogspot.com


Full disclosure: I write this as an independent voter who routinely votes for Republicans simply because they more represent my conservative point of view. I have never joined any particular party.

But the case of the Stanford student, Hamzeh Daoud, who made written threats of physical violence against "Zionists" on the Stanford campus, has once again pointed out the fact that many College Republican (CR) chapters, especially in California, are taking the lead in standing up, not only for conservative values and free speech issues, but also standing up to campus anti-semitism.

During the years I was teaching part-time at UC Irvine (1998-2016) and getting involved in anti-semitism issues, the CR chapter was fairly dormant. That has changed in recent years as they have become more assertive in standing up for free speech issues and defending Jewish students under assault by the pro-Palestinian brown shirts. Probably the most significant figure has been Ariana Rowlands, a past president of the UCI CR and a recent graduate.

In May 2016, it was College Republicans, who by chance, witnessed an SJP disruption of a pro-Israel event on the UCI campus and videotaped it. They also stood up for free speech in inviting conservative pundit Milos Yiannopoulos to speak, which led to protests and an attempt by the UCI administration to discipline them. The CR stood their ground and forced the administrators to back down. More recently, the CR hosted a group of Israeli reservist soldiers to speak at their weekly meeting in May 2018, an event, which was predictably disrupted by outside agitators invited by who knows who. (Actually, I  have a good idea.)

Also at UC Berkeley. the CR chapter has stood for free speech. Their 2017 invitation to Yiannopoulos to speak led to an actual riot by Antifa type thugs, who by their actions forced a cancellation of the event.

Now comes the ugly incident at Stanford, where Daoud posted social media messages promising to (physically) fight "Zionists" on campus. It was the CR chapter at Stanford who put themselves out front by calling for the administration to take action. (To this date, we don't know what that action is.) Not surprisingly, the campus newspaper, The Stanford Daily, shamelessly stood up for Daoud and his anti-Israel cause, filling the pages of their publication with denunciations of Israel and the CR. Daoud has now resigned his position as a dorm resident assistant, but we do not know what if any punitive action will follow from Stanford. That is covered by state privacy laws.

Of course, one cannot speak for every CR chapter in the nation. Clearly, some are more active than others. All I can say is that it is heartening to see certain chapters actually stand up for their values in the face of the politically-correct climate on most every campus. If this is the future of the Republican party, I cannot wait to see them replace many of the current crop in Congress. We need to support them.

Shame on Marc Lemont Hill

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com

Hat tip The College Fix



Temple University Professor Marc Lemont Hill, who appears regularly on cable news channels, has really gone off the end with this one. On his Instagram account, Hill posted birthday greetings to convicted cop killer and fugitive Assata Shakur (real name JoAnne Chesimard), who since her escape from an American prison, has been living in Cuba.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/46947/

While Hill does not come across on TV as a hardhead, behind his friendly TV demeanor is a guy with radical beliefs. Shakur was committing her crimes before Hill was even born, yet he is so sure of her innocence. Maybe the learned professor should keep in mind that flight is evidence of guilt, at least an element.

Notwithstanding Hill's hagiographic description of Shakur, the American public has no sympathy for cop killers. Thus, Shakur can look forward to spending her final years in Cuba. Who knows? Maybe when she dies, the Cubans will entomb her next to that other icon of the left, Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

Islamic Center of San Diego Looking for Interpreters for Immigration Cases

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
garyfouse.blogspot.com



This is interesting.

The Islamic Center of San Diego is issuing an urgent appeal for interpreters to assist immigration attorneys at the border (in its own words). Specifically, they are asking for interpreters in Arabic, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi and other (non-Spanish) languages. Interpreters would be assisting the Federal Defenders of San Diego.

https://m.facebook.com/302790013065190/posts/2050542088289965/

So why is this interesting? It is because, as we have been saying for years, it's not just Mexicans and Central Americans coming across our southwestern border. People from the Middle East and the Near East are also coming via Mexico. If immigration attorneys in San Diego are in need of these kinds of interpreters, it just proves what we have been saying all along.This is nothing more than the Islamic Center of San Diego showing its obvious desire to get more Muslims into the country and now assisting those who come illegally. It is more proof that for the sake of our own national security, we need to build the wall.

A Link Between BDS and Terrorism

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Tablet Magazine

I recall the time I saw BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement against Israel)  co-founder Omar Barghouti speak at UC Riverside in 2014. I had encountered this self proclaimed "human rights activist" the year before at UC Irvine when he refused to tell me where he was born, saying it was "irrelevant". (It is relevant because Barghouti  was not born either in Israel proper or the disputed land and he has ruffled a lot of feathers by getting his university education at Tel Aviv University.)

At UC Riverside, I used the opportunity of the q and a to question Barghouti's credentials and ask the sponsoring department at UC Riverside if they would consider bringing in a speaker with a different point of view. Professor David Lloyd, a big shot in the BDS movement himself and sponsor of Barghouti's appearance, termed my question "preposterous" referring to Barghouti as-you guessed it-a "human rights activist".

Of course, the entire BDS movement poses as a human rights  movement that is non-violent. That is, to use Dr Lloyd's word,"preposterous". BDS is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the elimination (one way or another) of every last Jew in Israel. It just doesn't admit it. The BDS movement in the US has stirred widespread anti-Jewish feeling on countless US university campuses. That some oddball, leftist Jewish professors may support BDS does not change that fact.

That brings us back to Barghouti and the below article from Tablet Magazine, in which he is mentioned.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/263409/bds-umbrella-group-linked-to-palestinian-terrorist-organizations

 "Since its founding, the BNC has frequently and openly collaborated with known leaders of these terror organizations: In 2015, for example, the BNC held a press conference to pressure the Palestinian government not to import gas from Israel, featuring a speech by Khalida Jarrar, then a member of the Palestinian parliament for the PFLP and still an active official in the terror group. A video of the BNC-hosted press conference features Jarrar seated alongside BNC secretariat member Omar Barghouti."

So here we have the great human rights activist, Omar Barghouti, participating in an event with Khalida Jarrar, a member of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine-a US State Department designated terror group.

It's called connecting the dots.

A Response From UCLA

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com

On May 17, Students for Justice in Palestine disrupted an Israeli event at UCLA. Subsequently, UCLA received many letters of complaint, including one that I signed onto. Today, I received this email from UCLA in response.

Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns. UCLA is deeply disappointed that protesters disrupted a May 17th student event that focused on the experiences of Jewish, Armenian and Kurdish indigenous communities. This incident left many students feeling silenced and intimidated. It also dishonored UCLA’s commitment to the free and robust exchange of ideas. University officials and police arrived on the scene promptly, and the disruption ended without physical injury. Campus officials are carefully reviewing the incident to determine precisely what happened, who among the protestors are affiliated with UCLA, and how to appropriately respond to this incident. While we respect the right to lawful protest, such protests cannot prevent speakers from communicating with a willing audience.

Steve Ritea,

Executive Director

Executive Communications

2224D Murphy Hall

Comment: While I appreciate the words in the letter, this is likely the last thing we will here of this.



 "Campus officials are carefully reviewing the incident to determine precisely what happened, who among the protestors are affiliated with UCLA, and how to appropriately respond to this incident." 

First of all, the video clearly shows precisely what happened. Secondly, had campus police identified the disruptors (which I am guessing they did not) they would know who were students. As to how to respond, any students should be, at the least, suspended if not expelled and SJP banned from campus. Finally, they are not protestors. They are disruptors. UCLA is a public campus, thus open to the public. Those who enter the campus for purposes of disruption should be arrested.

Let's follow this to see what happens.

Recount of UC Irvine Hate Week 2018

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


The Pro-Palestinian Students Suffer Another "Nakba"


This past week (April 30-May 4), the University of California at Irvine endured another week of anti-Israel activities sponsored by the Muslim Student Union (MSU) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). The week's theme was "Nakba", the Arabic word for catastrophe, which represents the "catastrophe" of 1948, when Israel became a state, and the Arab world launched an (unsuccessful) attack against Israel. Thousands of Arabs living in Israel left the territory at the urging of the Arab armies. Since Israel was victorious, those who had left, thinking they would return after the Arab victory, became refugees. Thus, it was Nakba week, and for the SJP/MSU, it was another public relations catastrophe.

Only one speaker was announced, and the rest of the activity centered around the so-called "apartheid wall". The days were marked by loud, angry chanting on the part of the SJP/MSU and behavior meant to be intimidating. The Israeli group, Reservists on Duty, was on-hand to answer any questions as to the truth about Israel. As happened last year, their presence angered the SJP/MSU. Finally, on Thursday night, the College Republicans invited the Reservists to speak at their regular meeting. As might be predicted, the event was disrupted by about ten persons who apparently came from off-campus. It marked the third May in a row that pro-Israel events were disrupted. As usual, no arrests were made.

What follows is a day- by-day account of the events. If you hit the links, you can see photos and videos.

Day One (Monday)

Around 11 am or so, this writer dropped by the so-called "apartheid wall" near the library. I chatted briefly with one of the representatives of Reservists on Duty, ex-IDF soldiers, most of whom are American-born. I noted immediately that the pro-Palestinian forces all had their faces covered with Palestinian scarves and other paraphernalia. It made them look like real, bonafide Arab terrorists. What kind of impression could this possibly have on other students? I took photos of two of them, a male and female. The male, seeing my camera, quickly darted behind the wall. He was too late. Later in the week, this individual would play a prominent part in the events.

Having seen their own (SJP) announcement of the week's events, I noted that only one speaker was scheduled, for Wednesday evening. I was curious to know if other events were planned for the other evenings. So I approached the table that SJP/MSU had set up and politely asked the aforementioned young man with his face hidden if there were any events for that evening. He quickly looked away and walked away as if I were going to attack him.

"C'mon," I said, "I'm not going to bite you." No response. I turned to a female and asked the same question. Silence. So, I walked away. I left campus at that point prior to the time when they began their dopey chants.

Day Two (Tuesday)

This writer was not present at UCI on Tuesday, but talking to my contacts who were, I learned that when the SJP/MSU types began their chants around noon, they deliberately got in the faces of the IDF Reservists (approximately 5 Reservists), who calmly stood their ground. Fortunately, there were plenty of campus cops to preclude any violence. As always, the tactic of the pro-Palestinian crowd is noise and intimidation.

Day Three (Wednesday)

When I arrived at the apartheid wall before noon, I saw that the campus cops were out in force. The first thing I saw (and videotaped) was an effort by one of the Reservists to dialogue with the young man in face mask who I described on Monday. (As throughout the week, the pro-Palestinians had their faces covered with Arab/Palestinian scarves and keffiyas.) The pro-Palestinians had claimed one side of the wall as their "space", and one Reservist had crossed the wall in an attempt to dialogue with the young man. The Reservist was polite and offered to take a letter from the SJP to the Israeli Knesset. He also asked the young man to shake his hand. All he got was f-bombs. The SJP/MSU guy twice told his followers, "Nobody from us better say a f----- word!" The others, almost all females, dutifully complied. You can watch and hear it by going to the above link. At that point, the cops asked everyone (not pro-Palestinian side) to clear the area on that side of the wall thus enforcing the Palestinian "safe space". That did not prevent the SJP/MSU from crossing to the other side when they began their chants or even before.

I then took the opportunity to interview (on tape-see above link) one of the female Reservists as to what had happened on Tuesday. She described how the SJP/MSU types had gotten in their faces with their chants.

Then shortly after noon, the little rascals began their chanting and marching. I managed to get lots of videotape including when our hot-headed friend tried repeatedly to intimidate me by getting directly in my face while I was videotaping. The cops were all  over us, and I just kept filming the pretty keffiya and the shifting eyes. The first encounter must have lasted about 5 minutes. It was quite amusing.

Having other things to do with my valuable time, I opted not to attend the evening event featuring some guy from Al Awda (Right of Return) in Orange County named Anis Zubi. He was described by the SJP/MSU as a "Nakba survivor".

Day Four (Thursday)

I was not present during the day, but aside from the usual bickering and chanting, things were somewhat calmer than the previous day.


Thursday Evening- Disruption

During the week, the College Republicans at UCI announced that they had invited the Reservists on Duty members to address their group at their regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday evening. That raised the question to whether this event would be disrupted. The previous May, Students Supporting Israel had invited the Reservists to speak during Hate Week, and that event was disrupted by SJP and others. I was present and videotaped it all. Similarly in May 2016, SJP and other groups (assisted by so-called legal observers from the National Lawyers Guild- attached to the UCI Law School, no less) had disrupted a pro-Israel meeting in which an Israeli Defense Forces film was shown. After  last year's incident UCI placed SJP on two-year probation. Would SJP members at UCI risk further punitive action by disrupting yet another event?

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend due to medical reasons, but others were prepared to videotape any disruptions. The College Republicans had announced beforehand and opened their proceeding by repeating that people speaking out of turn would be removed. Yet, it happened again. About ten people were allowed to fill empty seats after the event had started. Though the dean of students and campus police were present, they pulled out a bullhorn and began their chants. For some reason, it was allowed to continue for about three minutes until they were ushered out of the room. For the third year in a row, a Jewish, pro-Israel event was disrupted-with no arrests. The College Republicans live streamed the event, which can be viewed here.

At this point, things are not altogether clear. Witnesses have been told that no arrests were made and that the disruptors were not UCI students. It appears, though this is not confirmed, that the disruptors were not even identified. If that is the case, it is inexcusable. The question remains as to who invited them or caused them to be on campus in the first place. In 2010, when MSU students at UCI disrupted the speech of the Israeli Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, not only were arrests made, which led to successful prosecution, but the police did an extensive follow up investigation that proved that the disruption was pre-planned and attempts were made to cover up that planning. In my mind, such an investigation is appropriate now to show if any links exist between the disruptors and anyone else at UCI.

We are waiting to see if there is any complaint filed by the College Republicans and if UCI will conduct an investigation. One witness, who was not affiliated with the university, filed his own complaint with the UCIPD. The time has come for public pressure on the university to put a stop to this wave of anti-Jewish (Yes, that's what it is) agitation and thuggish behavior. When one side engages in disruption, which is a SJP specialty, the other side has its right of free speech infringed upon. Based on what develops in the coming days, I will suggest specific measures that the public can take.

Once again, the pro-Palestinian forces that are running amok on our campuses have embarrassed themselves at UCI and have embarrassed UCI in the process. For SJP and MSU, congratulations: Your Nakba week turned out to be a real nakba to your own cause. If you think you can dress up like terrorists and act like hooligans and win public opinion to your cause, you are sadly mistaken.

James Comey's Book

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com





This article first appeared in New English Review.


I just finished reading James Comey's book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership. Given current events,  I felt I had to. Comey's version of events surrounding the Clinton e-mail investigation, the Russian Collusion investigation, and the entire controversy surrounding the very character and personality of President Trump is an important part of the public record even if the book is self-serving (It is.) and even if certain parts of the book are open to question (They are.).

Looking at the book as a big picture, Comey comes across as one who considers himself the wisest and most ethical person in the room, if not all of Washington. Each chapter begins with a quotation from major figures in world history, from St. Francis, Mark Twain, Margaret Thatcher, and Thomas More among others. There are also quotes in the texts from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

There is no question that Comey has no respect for President Trump. At the end of the book, he states flat out that Trump is unethical. When Comey describes his personal encounters with Trump, he goes to great lengths to paint an uncomplimentary picture of Trump's personality, a man who doesn't listen to others and who dominates the conversation. Comey also stresses that Trump has no concept of the separation that the FBI and its director must maintain from the White House in order to maintain its integrity and independence. He, of course, describes the White House dinner when Trump demanded his personal loyalty.

More specifically, I wanted to check and see how Comey's words in the book matched up with events as we have learned over the past couple of years. One part that particularly caught my eye was in chapter 8 when Comey describes his policy of making sure every FBI trainee was educated about the abuses against Martin Luther King under J. Edgar Hoover.  Comey writes:

"To drive that message home, I obtained a copy of the 1963 memo from J Edgar Hoover to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy seeking permission to conduct electronic surveillance of Dr King. At the bottom of the single page memo, which is only five sentences long and without meaningful facts, Kennedy's signature grants that authority, without limit as to time and place. I put the memo under the glass on the corner of the desk where every morning I reviewed applications by the FBI and the Department of Justice to conduct national security electronic surveillance in the United States. As Hoover did, I was required to personally sign an application. The difference was our applications went to a court and were often thicker than my arm. As I would explain to employees, it is a pain in the neck to get permission to conduct that kind of surveillance, and it should be."

And yet, Comey signed off on that infamous FISA application to obtain a wiretap against one time Trump campaign aide Carter Page, which was largely based on the equally infamous Russian Dossier, compiled by former British Intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, which told of Trump allegedly hiring Russian hookers to urinate on his Moscow hotel room bed because the Obamas had previously slept there. (There were four applications, the original and three re-authorizations. Comey signed off on three and his deputy, Andrew McCabe, signed off on the other one.) While Comey talks about the dossier and how he briefed Trump about it, there is no mention of how it was used in the FISA application. Nor does he mention that the dossier was partially paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign. Nor does he mention that now-disgraced ex FBI official Andrew McCabe testified before Congress in  December 2017 that without the dossier, there would have been no FISA application against Page. Indeed, Carter Page is not mentioned in the book.

While Comey does mention McCabe a few times-and defends him as a man of integrity- the names of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page do not appear in the book. There is nothing in the book regarding the emails between Strzok and Page that talked about their hostility to Trump and their fervent desire to see Clinton elected. Not that agents are not entitled to their political preferences. They are not supposed to let it interfere with their job. Yet, they referred to the Trump-Russian collusion controversy as an insurance policy and indicated they knew that Clinton would not be indicted.

As to the Clinton email investigation, Comey goes to great lengths to show that he and the team of agents working the case acted properly in deciding not to recommend prosecution. In explaining his decision, Comey stressed two points in chapter 10:

1 "Our investigations required us to answer two questions. The first question was whether classified documents were moved outside of classified systems or whether classified topics were discussed outside of a classified system. If so, the second question was what the subject of the investigation was thinking when she mishandled that classified information.

In Secretary Clinton's case, the answer to the first question-was classified information mishandled?-was obviously, "yes".........

".........The heart of the case was, the, was the second question: What was she thinking when she did this? Was it sloppy or was there criminal intent? Could we prove that she knew she was doing something she shouldn't be doing?"

Not only does Comey ignore the actions of Clinton that would show knowledge of guilt in destroying the contents of her already subpoenaed emails using "Bleachbit" and actually destroying her communication device, he claims they could not show "intent" by Clinton to break the law. What Comey leaves out is that the principal federal law that would apply is 18 USC 793 (f), which did not require intent, rather that the accused mishandled classified information through "gross negligence". That is why Comey revised his exculpatory memo on Clinton to change "grossly negligent" (as originally worded) to "extremely careless"). The former term has legal implications. Comey claims in his book, that legal experts would recognize the difference. I sure cannot. In addition, it was Peter Strzok who helped Comey write that memo and reportedly was the one suggesting the change from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless."

(f)

"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Comey then uses the David Petraeus case as an example. Petraeus lied to the FBI to cover up the fact that he had provided classified information to his biographer (and lover), so he knew what he was doing was wrong. In addition, Everybody on Clinton's email list had the clearances and need to know. (Except, as it later turned out, disgraced US Congressman Anthony Weiner, who was also the husband of Clinton's controversial advisor, Huma Abedin.)

Comey says more than once in the book that they could not prove that former Secretary of State Clinton "knew what she was doing was wrong". That is absurd. She received a security briefing before taking up her duties. To say that any secretary of state didn't know these actions were wrong is akin to saying that the head of DEA didn't know it was wrong to snort cocaine in his office during working hours (or at home after working hours as well.)

Comey is more convincing when he describes the new information that was discovered from Anthony Weiner's laptop in October 2016-after the FBI had cleared Mrs. Clinton. Comey states that in his mind, it was better to advise the public that the case was being re-opened rather than conceal that fact and have it become public knowledge after a Clinton victory (which everyone presumed would happen). Thus came the announcement of a re-opening of the case  followed by an announcement that the case was once again closed just days before the election.

"I don't leak"

Comey has been having a rough time in interviews making the case that he wasn't a leaker in spite of the hand-written memo he passed on to a Columbia University law professor and friend which was then passed on to the press. In his testimony before Congress, Comey admitted doing so in the hope that this would lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Trump. Comey so distrusted Trump that he began writing memos after his conversations with the President, a copy of which he shared with his FBI senior leadership team (no names given), and a copy of which he kept at home.  (Chapter 13)

"As was my practice, I printed two copies of the memo. One I shared with the FBI senior leadership team and then had my chief of staff keep in his files. The other I locked up at home, for two reasons: I considered the memo my personal property, like a diary; and I was concerned that having accurate recollections of conversations with this president might be important someday, which sadly, turned out to be true."

Comey stresses in his interviews that the information was not classified-thus, he didn't leak classified information. One thing that was brought out in the Clinton email case was that a document is not just classified because someone puts a classification stamp on it. The information itself is what is classified. What we have here is an FBI director, so ill at ease in talking to the President, that he makes a hand-written memo of it and shares a copy to senior FBI leadership and his chief of staff for his own files. In one memo, Comey is addressing Trump's stated wish to him that he (Comey) could "let the Michael Flynn case go". Sorry, Mr Comey, but that document is sensitive on its face and belongs to the government. A conscientious civil servant would, in all probability, put a classification stamp on it simply given the players and the content.

Let me give a somewhat related example from my years as a federal agent. As a DEA agent (and this applies to the FBI and other federal agencies as well), we were required to keep our personal notes during an investigation for discovery purposes in the event of a trial. In other words, if an agent was conducting a surveillance, an interview, an interrogation, an undercover operation-you name it- it was not sufficient to merely submit an official report. Handwritten notes had to be preserved and made available to defense attorneys at time of trial. They were not our personal property. I would argue that nothing an FBI director produces as part of his duties is his personal property.

James Comey found himself in a unique situation in that his agency was investigating both of the 2016 presidential candidates at the same time. Few leaders could have navigated that mess well, and Comey was no exception. He talks a lot about leadership qualities in his book, and according to what I have heard was well-regarded by his agents. Yet, he does not dispel the notion that the fix was in on the Clinton investigation. All in all, Comey did not help his cause (vindication) by writing this book.

Questions for a Moderate Muslim

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


This article first appeared in New English Review.


Ever since 9-11, the US and its governments have searched desperately for so-called "moderate Muslims" who advocated peace and coexistence among religions and an end to terrorism. I myself have found the search daunting having listened to "moderates" like Aslan Reza, Tareq Ramadan, Maher Hathout, Faisal Abdul Rauf, and Muzammil Siddiqi to name just a few. Some I have found to be in denial about the troublesome aspects of Islam. Some I consider to be outright deceivers.I have heard some of them actually argue that sharia law is perfectly compatible with the US Constitution.

More credible to me are Muslim reformers, people like Dr Zuhdi Jasser and Shireen Qudosi. They acknowledge there are problems and there are people walking around who are dangerous.

We must concede, however, that most Muslims live quiet lives and are of no threat to anyone. How many of those people have engaged in a violent protest over Mohammad cartoons or wish for a worldwide caliphate, we have no way of knowing.  I assume they know what is in the Koran, just as I assume they know about the life of Mohammad including when he was a warlord. I assume they have also been taught about sharia law.

Thus, I have formulated a list of questions directed to the moderate, peaceful Muslims. As always, I encourage my Muslim readers to weigh in and answer them. I ask these questions as a non-evangelical Christian and use Jesus Christ as my yardstick. Of course, I mean no disrespect or neglect to other major religions like Judaism or Buddhism.

First of all, since Muslims revere Jesus, as well as previous prophets of the monotheistic faith, I ask my Muslim reader:

Did Jesus ever murder anyone?
Did Jesus ever order the murder of anyone?
Did Jesus ever lead an army to advance the Christian faith in battle?
Did Jesus ever order the execution of persons taken captive by his army?
Did Jesus ever take people including women and children as slaves?
Did Jesus ever preach hatred to others who did not share his (religious) beliefs?

The answer to all of the above questions is No.

Now I invite my moderate Muslim readers to ask the same questions about Mohammad.

The answer to the above questions becomes Yes.

In addition, I would ask Muslims if they really believe that the parts of sharia that define women as second class citizens and the parts of sharia (hudud sharia) that mandate death for those who leave Islam, defame Islam or engage in adultery of homosexuality are compatible with US laws. Do they have any place in a free, democratic nation?

The answers are clearly No.

I recently attended an event at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California entitled, "Islam 101", which featured a female Muslim speaker giving a sugar-coated explanation of Islam. When some of us began to ask hard questions (in a polite and non-disruptive manner when called upon), not only were questioners called outside by professors to be admonished, the campus police were actually called. My point in bringing this up is to say that Americans need to have an honest and frank discussion about Islam with moderate Muslims without having to be called racists and Islamophobes. Moderate and peaceful Muslims need to deal with these very legitimate questions.

Jewish Center at UC Irvine Hosting Anti-Zionist Panel

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


This article first appeared in Times of Israel Blogs.

Hat tip Mike Report



The recently-established Center for Jewish Studies at the University of California at Irvine will be hosting a panel discussion on April 16 on, "American Jews and Israel: The next 30 years". The announced discussion is about the relationship between American Jewry and Israel. The announced panelists are Liora Halperin (Benaroya Chair in Israel Studies, University of Washington), Noam Pianko, (Samuel N. Stroum Chair in Jewish Studies, University of Washington) and Hasia Diner (Paul and Sylvia Steinberg professor of American Jewish History, New York University). This event will coincide with the 70th birthday of the State of Israel.

First of all, I am not questioning the academic credentials of the panelists in any way. Nor do I question the right of these people-or anybody else working in Jewish studies- to be a supporter or opponent of  Zionism and/or Israel. I have learned long ago that feelings about Israel are divided among American Jews and that within US academia, many Jewish professors have differing points of view. For example, UCI professor Mark LeVine, who is listed as associated faculty within the center, is an outspoken critic of Israel, which is his right. As for the others in the Center, I don't know who they are or where they stand on Israel. Nor do I much care.

My point is this: Checking into the backgrounds of the three panelists, it is safe to say that they are not supporters of  Zionism. Again, that is their right, and I have no desire to debate the issue with them. My concern is that what we have looming here is yet another academic one-sided bashing of Israel in which all the panelists are of a like mind. It would be safe to predict that they will tell their audience that Israel is losing support among American Jews due to "its oppressive treatment and occupation of Palestinians".

First of all, Diner is no supporter of Zionism, as this article she wrote for Haaretz in 2016 illustrates.

As for Pianko, he serves on a regional advisory council for the New Israel Fund, an organization which often takes more progressive and pro-Palestinian positions as opposed to Israel. 

Nor would one infer from this  Middle East Forum report that Halperin is pro-Israel. Just the fact that she was part of a Middle East Studies Association panel pretty much says it all.

My question is, "Where is the balance?" Who would tell the audience that most American Jews still support Israel? Who would say that most Americans support Israel? Who would point out that support for Israel is strong with Evangelical Christians? Who would defend Israel's defensive policies? I know for a fact that a request was sent to the Center's director, Matthias Lehmann, to add a couple of pro-Israel panelists to provide some sort of balance. As of this writing, nothing has changed.

Of course, there is no academic requirement that any event give voice to both sides of an argument. I have attended a few events at UC Irvine put on by students who support Israel (which are usually disrupted by the pro-Palestinian side). It is hard to recall one-sided pro-Israel or conservative events sponsored by academic units, which often give credit to students who attend and often carry the imprimatur and weight of professors, as opposed to events sponsored by student groups.  

It is frustrating to work within the academic community (I taught part-time at UC Irvine for 18 years.) and constantly see the non-stop academic bashing of Israel while any effort to bring in pro-Israel speakers is met with disruption. Many of the figures and speakers I have observed and heard speak at UCI and other universities are people I consider to be Jew haters. Now the UC Irvine Center for Jewish Studies puts on a one-sided event against Israel and Zionism. To me, it casts suspicion on the agenda and ideological purpose of this Center. I also note that the Center's advisory board consists of prominent leaders from the Orange County Jewish community, people who are active in major Jewish organizations. Are they paying attention to what's going on? I wonder. Donors and potential donors should pay close attention to what the UC Irvine Center for Jewish Studies is doing.

Who Is Hafiz Kazi?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


On Wednesday, a 51-year-old man named Hafiz Kazi, originally from India, plowed his car through the gate at Travis Air Force Base north of San Francisco, and ignited it with propane tanks, killing himself in the process.

As you will see from the below three news reports, investigators cannot state (or will not) what the motive was.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmz45tkq3eE&feature=youtu.be


http://www.kcra.com/article/fbi-identifies-man-killed-in-fiery-crash-at-travis-air-force-base/19580976


https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article206625114.html

Jihad Watch, however, identifies Kazi as a Muslim.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/03/man-who-exploded-car-loaded-with-propane-tanks-at-travis-air-force-base-identified-as-a-muslim-named-hafiz-kazi

But what is the basis for concluding that Kazi is a Muslim? India though not predominately Muslim, has a large Muslim minority, in the tens of millions. Here is a clue:

Hafiz is a Muslim name, meaning one who has completely memorized the Koran. This is not to say that Kazi has memorized the Koran, only that he was given that name at birth. Gates of Vienna elaborates.


http://gatesofvienna.net/2018/03/place-travis-afb-action-suicide-method-propane-and-gasoline-motive-mystery/

Before this case is forgotten, the authorities (and the media) need to clear this issue up. Was this a case of Jihad?