February 03, 2016

At the United Nations Nothing Justifies Terrorism, Except Palestinian 'Frustration'

For Immediate Release:
February 3, 2016
Contact: info@humanrightsvoices.org
Follow us on Twitter

At the United Nations Nothing Justifies Terrorism,
Except Palestinian 'Frustration' 

This article by Anne Bayefsky originally appeared on National Review.
The United Nations played the Holocaust game last week so it could play another lethal game this week. The ruse consists of making a big deal about the gas chambers for Jews back then, while stoking the fires of anti-Semitism burning right now.

On January 31, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon penned a New York Times op-ed to say at one and the same time that “people will always resist occupation” and “nothing excuses terrorism.” That follows a statement he gave to the Security Council on January 26, in which he said “Palestinian frustration is growing” and “it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as an incubator of hate and extremism.”

Reaction to the claim that it is human nature to stab pregnant women and mothers in front of their children — as Palestinians had done the week before — has been unanimous across the Israeli political spectrum. In the words of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on January 26: “The secretary-general’s remarks give a tailwind to terrorism.”

Nevertheless, the spokesman of the secretary-general doubled down in a press briefing on January 27 with these words: “Absolutely nothing justifies terrorism. . . . At the same time, if we want to see an end to this violence . . . we must address the root causes, the underlying frustrations.”

In short, for the United Nations, nothing justifies terrorism except Palestinian frustration.

It is hardly a secret that the UN agenda is to find reasons for treating the Jewish state differently — notwithstanding the UN Charter’s promise of equality for nations large and small. The settlements bandwagon is one of many.

In effect, the “occupation” rant is the PC version of ISIS’s “Allahu Akbar.” It has been the Arab cry since the minute of Israel’s birth in 1948 and is the verbiage that presages destruction, not peaceful coexistence. It is the complaint about Jews living on Arab-claimed land, despite the fact that ultimate ownership of this land — according to legal agreement — is to be decided by negotiations, not UN fiat.

The bigger picture tells the story. The UN just wrapped up a year in which there were a total of 26 General Assembly resolutions condemning specific countries for human-rights abuse: 19 — that’s 73 percent — against Israel and one, for instance, against Syria. In 2015, the UN Commission on the Status of Women adopted one resolution condemning a country for violating women’s rights: Israel — for violating the rights of Palestinian women.

Finding excuses for demonizing Jews, discriminating against Jews, delegitimizing Jewish self-determination, and just plain old Jew-hatred, is thousands of years old. It has a name, anti-Semitism.

Which is where the UN’s international Holocaust Remembrance Day comes in. At the UN, it provides cover. So on January 27, Ban Ki-moon showed up at the General Assembly’s annual commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz.

After checking-off “present” in his Holocaust remembrance speech, the secretary-general could manage to mention anti-Semitism only once, and only together with “anti-Muslim bigotry.” His UN secretariat also used the day to promote the claim that there were multiple Holocausts, adding for the first time to the rostrum of the annual event a Sinto speaker, who repeatedly referred to “the forgotten Holocaust of the Sinti and Roma.”

The occasion was further desecrated by the Palestinians and their UN collaborators, who managed to hijack the day to hold the annual kickoff of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP). The secretary-general delivered his anti-Semitism/anti-Muslim-bigotry speech at the Holocaust(s) event and then walked into the CEIRPP event and delivered another speech on Israel’s international crimes.

Here is Ban Ki-moon on Holocaust Remembrance Day when he was not in the presence of survivors: “Palestinians are losing hope. Young people especially are losing hope. . . . If we hope to see an end to this violence . . . we must address the underlying frustration.” He said nothing about the “frustration” — actually the deep psychological burden — of necessary and mandatory military service for millions of Israelis throughout the prime of their lives. Nothing about Palestinian responsibility for their own lives, or their choice of more terror over more land, or their refusal to negotiate, or their installation of a terrorist organization to govern the land they already occupy in Gaza.

In late November 2015, Palestinian UN representative Riyad Mansour announced at an exhibit opening held in the public lobby of the UN: “We are so proud that in this popular uprising, the backbone of this uprising are the youth of Palestine.” On January 17 a 16-year old Palestinian stabbed to death an Israeli mother of six — a.k.a. a “settler” — in front of her children. And now the UN secretary-general expresses his empathy and understanding of this normal, to-be-expected, “youthful frustration.”

We know what comes next, because that’s a straight line if there ever was one.


Click here to donate now

Anne Bayefsky is the Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and President of Human Rights Voices. Follow her @AnneBayefsky.

January 21, 2016

Why I Am Supporting Mike Huckabee

I love Sarah Palin and we all owe her a debt for taking the abuse and standing up to the establishment many times. 

Now that the race has seemed to tighten, I have decided to support Governor Mike Huckabee I am supporting him even though I disagree strongly with some of his positions as I am strongly in support of the 10th Amendment and states rights and he is less so on some social issues. But I am supporting him for several reasons.

 1. He is an adult in his demeanor. As a Jew, I have strong prohibition against Lashon Hora (negative speech, gossip, etc) and Mike seems to be careful about what he says. 

2. He was governor of Arkansas for, I think, about 10 years, and has great administrative experience so I know that if he is in the Oval Office from day one he will know how to start managing the government and change the terrible direction it is currently going in.

 3. He is very clear and unapologetic about fighting evil.

 4. He knows from long experience on how to fight the Clinton machine. 

5. He is a very good speaker and when given the opportunity does well in debates and all public speaking. 

6. He has been clear that he will not allow personal politics to stop him from supporting whoever the Repub nominee is, that to me is being an adult. 

7. His Fair Tax has a reasonable chance of being done, and even though I am more supportive a flat tax, I know that Huck understands the poor and middle class need some tax relief and that we can do it without demonizing folks that are very wealthy. His Fair Tax will eliminate the payroll tax which will great for the economy. 

Finally, I think he is a man who really knows who he is, knows he must listen to everyone and not be arrogant, and I think he can relate to most Americans, even those that have many different political views. 

Now, at this time it does not look hopeful for his nomination. But, things can change quickly, I think we all know that.

October 06, 2015

President ‘Mumbo-Jumbo’ - WSJ

President ‘Mumbo-Jumbo’ - WSJ







David Petraeus testified last month to the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Regarding Syria, the former general and CIA director urged a credible threat to destroy Bashar Assad’s air force if it continues to bomb its own people. He also recommended “the establishment of enclaves in Syria protected by coalition air power, where a moderate Sunni force could be supported and where additional forces could be trained, internally displaced persons could find refuge, and the Syrian opposition could organize.”
But Barack Obama does not agree. At his Friday press conference, the president described such views as “mumbo-jumbo,” “half-baked ideas,” “as-if” solutions, a willful effort to “downplay the challenges involved in the situation.” He says the critics have no answers to the questions of “what exactly would you do and how would you fund it and how would you sustain it.”
America’s greatest living general might as well have been testifying to his shower drain for all the difference his views are going to make in this administration.
So it is with this president. It’s not enough for him to stake and defend his positions. He wants you to know that he thinks deeper, sees further, knows better, operates from a purer motive. His preferred method for dealing with disagreement is denigration. If Republicans want a tougher line in Syria, they’re warmongers. If Hillary Clinton thinks a no-fly zone is a good idea, she’s playing politics: “There is obviously a difference,” the president tut-tutted about his former secretary of state’s position, “between running for president and being president.”
You can interpret that jab as a sign Mr. Obama is urging Joe Biden to run. It’s also a reminder that Mr. Obama believes his Syria policy—the one that did nothing as 250,000 people were murdered; the one that did nothing as his own red lines were crossed; the one that allowed ISIS to flourish; the one that has created the greatest refugee crisis of the 21st century; the one currently being exploited by Russia and Iran for geopolitical advantage—is a success.
That’s because the president’s fundamental conviction about American foreign policy is that we need less of it—less commitment, less expense, less responsibility. Winston Churchill once said that the U.S. could not be “the leading community in the civilized world without being involved in its problems, without being convulsed by its agonies and inspired by its causes.” Mr. Obama sees it differently. He is the president who would prefer not to. He is the Bartleby of 21st century geopolitics.
As for what a serious Syria policy might look like, the U.S. proved it was capable of creating safe havens and enforcing no-fly zones in 1991 with Operation Provide Comfort, which stopped Saddam Hussein from massacring Kurds in northern Iraq the way he had butchered Shiites in southern Iraq.
This is how we wound up preventing what might otherwise have been a refugee crisis that would have rivaled the current exodus from Syria. It’s how we got an Iraqi Kurdistan—the one undisputed U.S. achievement in the Middle East in the past 25 years. It’s how we were later able to stop ISIS from swallowing northern Iraq and eastern Syria whole.
Reprising that formula in Syria won’t be simple, but what’s the alternative? John Kerrywants another grand conference in Geneva so the warring parties can settle their differences in a civilized way. Will ISIS be invited to the table? Donald Trump says that if the Russians “want to hit ISIS, that’s OK with me”—except the Russians are hitting U.S.-backed rebels instead of ISIS. There’s a view that staying out of Syria is the best way to get bad guys on all sides to fight their way to mutual extinction. But the lesson of the Syrian war is that chaos does not annihilate the forces of jihad. It turbocharges them.
“It is frequently said that there is no ‘military solution’ to Syria,” Gen. Petraeus said in his testimony. “This may be true, but it is also misleading. For, in every case, if there is to be hope of a political settlement, a certain military and security context is required—and that context will not materialize on its own.” Is this, too, mumbo-jumbo?
In the meantime, note what Vladimir Putin, lectured by Mr. Obama for getting Russia “stuck in a quagmire,” is achieving in Syria.
For a relatively trivial investment of some jet fighters and a brigade-sized support force, Moscow extends its influence in the eastern Mediterranean, deepens a commercially and strategically productive alliance with Iran, humiliates the U.S., boosts Mr. Putin’s popularity at home, and earns a geopolitical card he can play in any number of negotiations—Ukraine, gas contracts, Mr. Assad’s political future, you name it. If things don’t work out, he can pull up stakes within a week without much loss of money, lives or prestige. It’s a perfect play.
I spent some time staring at press pool photos of Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin at their recent encounter at the United Nations. The Russian seems to gaze at the president the way a good chess player approaches an inferior opponent—somewhere between delighted and bored by the intellectual mismatch. We’ve got 16 more months of this to go.
Write bstephens@wsj.com.

September 22, 2015

The Donald’s Dangerous Populism | Hoover Institution

The Donald’s Dangerous Populism | Hoover Institution



Epstein is a very smart guy, but he totally misses the point here in his effort to gain favor with the Trump haters.