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?

Student Suspended for NOT Walking Out of Class

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


I remember when I was a college student at Cal State Los Angeles back in the 1960s when the Kent State shooting happened. My French teacher, a liberal gal, came running breathlessly into the classroom telling us about the shooting and that we were not going to hold class while students in Ohio were being shot down. She then walked out leaving us sitting there.

Hey Lady! How about this class I'm paying for?

But now it has come to this. A high school student in Ohio (Coincidence? We don't think so) has been suspended because he chose to remain in class "National Walkout Day"..

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/16/ohio-student-suspended-for-staying-in-class-during-national-walkout-day.html

I don't want to delve too deep into all the politics going here with the NRA and all that stuff. Suffice to say, why don't they walk out over all the gun violence going on in Chicago with all the young lives being lost? The last thing we need to hear is a bunch of kids telling us they have the answer to these problems. If we adults don't have the answer either do the kids.

But when a teacher tells kids they have to leave class and make some sort of statement (that some  may not agree with) and the school backs it up with a suspension, something is terribly wrong in our educational system.

And something is wrong in our educational system once they decide to teach kids what they are supposed to think about the world to fit their own agendas. In this case, someone needs to lose their job.