Thursday, May 25, 2017

Noura Erakat, Israel's Smiling Enemy, Speaks at Berkeley

By Michael Lumish

{Sponsored by Campus Watch and published by The Algemeiner.}

Noura Erakat
If Brooklyn-based "feminist" and Palestinian apologist Linda Sarsour is the progressive-left flavor of the month, George Mason University international law professor Noura Erakat is a more intellectually significant, up-and-coming player in the growing Western, anti-Jewish, Israel-hating business.

Approximately fifty people attended Erakat’s keynote address at the recent UC Berkeley conference on the fiftieth anniversary of the Six Day War, “6 Days, 50 Years: 1967 and the Politics of Time. The conference was part of a larger University of California project "hosted in conjunction with Universities of California, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara."

Erakat, a practitioner of “lawfare” against Israel and the niece of Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat, represents a young, bright, smiling enemy to Israel and the Jewish people.

In her talk, “Taking the Land Without the People: International Law and the 1967 War,” Erakat raised such leading questions as “How has an exorbitant register of death and destruction as experienced in the Gaza Strip during Israel's most recent military offensives become tolerable in the language of law?” and “How has the Palestinian use of force been delegitimized to the point of extinguishing armed resistance by criminalizing all of it?”

The loaded nature of Erakat’s questions will be obvious to anyone with a passing grip on the history of the Jewish people under thirteen centuries of Arab-Muslim imperial rule. Given the lack of human rights for non-Muslims throughout the Middle East, it is laughable that she could ask them with a straight face.

Erakat asserted that the 1967 Israeli victory established “the machinery of occupation” whereby villages were established for the indigenous Jewish population in Judea and Samaria allegedly in direct contravention of international law.

Her principle argument was that the presence of Jews in Judea and Samaria represents a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention prohibiting states from moving people into territories occupied through war. As a skilled attorney and professional harasser of Middle Eastern Jewry in the U.S., Erakat acted as though her interpretation of international law is self-evident when, in fact, it is highly dubious.

Whatever the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention in terms of Jewish people building housing for themselves on Jewish land, Erakat rightly noted that Israel faces major international push-back. The “international community,” or so she stated, is opposed to land acquired via war and perhaps more importantly, the Palestinians simply would not allow it. The irony of such a position seemed entirely lost on her.

Naturally, Erakat also dragged out the whiskered canard that since the Six Day War, Israel has used national security as a mere “cover for further colonization.”

If the war was a war of national self-defense, which it was, then Israel has some legal and ethical “wiggle room” for its allegedly aggressive “settler-colonial” behavior. But, according to Erakat, the Six Day War was not defensive. On the contrary, it was a war of Israeli-Jewish aggression against its largely innocent Muslim neighbors.
   
The fatal flaw in Erakat’s approach, if not from a legal perspective then certainly from an ethical one, is that Arab and Muslim peoples oppressed “their” Jews as second and third-class non-citizens from the rise of Muhammad until the demise of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.

The Jews of the Middle East are the only people in human history to regain sovereignty after millennia of ethnic cleansing of their homeland. Like the Christians in the Middle East and Europe, Jews suffered the Arab-Muslim imperial conquests from the seventh-century until their failure at the “Gates of Vienna,” which marked the line of Jihadi advance into Europe in 1683.

If the Arabs of the Middle East wish to be viewed as victims of Jewish aggression, it might be helpful if they would stop the genocide of the Christians in the region. It would also be helpful if their religious leaders would stop teaching their children that killing Jews is beloved in the sight of Allah.

One cannot, after all, claim to be a victim of secular racist oppression while ruining millions of lives with religious racist oppression. From an ethical or moral perspective, it simply does not work that way.

Finally, this represents a difficulty within Middle East Studies, more generally, because it is an academic field grinding a political axe against both the West and the indigenous Jewish population in that part of the world.

People are beginning to realize the truth of this matter but, unfortunately, no one has told Noura Erakat.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

After Manchester

Doodad

What to do after Manchester? What to do after any of these attacks? Weep and post Facebook messages and memes and sadly admit it's the new normal? That is what is likely given what we have seen to date. The problem is, of course, we are hoist on our own petard of Democracy, Liberalism and inclusiveness. Our fatal flaws. But they should not be a suicide pact.

The Western world has to administer some zero tolerance and tough love. Left alone, Islam is not going to reform itself. So maybe we need to do it for them in the interest of national safety. Trump tried a relatively tame scheme and was roasted for it so how likely is it for anything with real teeth to succeed? Unlikely, of course.

We should start with zero tolerance for the Jihad. Laws should be passed that make incitement to violent Jihad a high crime punishable by long imprisonment and deportation where possible. This would include jihad preachers, social media posters, sellers of such material etc. Mosques which engage in the rhetoric should be closed and their preachers jailed. Internet providers and social media which allow such stuff should be made to pay for their collaboration by jail and or stiff monetary fines/restitution.

The perp in Manchester was "known to the police." As were almost all of the recent perps elsewhere. Lots of good it did under current laws. Perhaps if laws existed making possession of jihad materials highly illegal, these guys could have been in jail instead of killing people. As it is now, lawmakers have to wait until they kill first. Senseless.

There are hundreds of other thing which would also help but I can already see the hysteria that would erupt at even the few sensible suggestions I have made. Unfortunately, dead innocents is the price most governments are willing to pay to be seen as Liberal and Democratic. This applies everywhere, even in Israel which at least has the excuse of worrying about the International community's reactions to its self defense.

We don't need to demonize and punish Muslims; just those who would kill us or offer support for those who would.

Monday, May 22, 2017

This Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

Nothing Left
This week Michael and Alan speak live with Maj-Gen Jim Molan (ret) who visited Israel to examine the situation regarding Hezbollah on the northern border; they chat with Isi Leibler about the Trump visit to Saudi Arabia, and then speak with studio guest Georgina Downer from the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank in Melbourne.

We then hear from Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist on the plight of European Jewry.


3 min Editorial: Julia Gillard

11 min Maj-Gen Jim Molan (ret) on Hezbollah

34 min Isi Leibler in Jerusalem

51 min Georgina Downer, Inst of Public Affairs In the Studio

1 hr 14 Giulio Meotti, plight of European Jewry

The podcast can also be found on the J-Air website.

Or its Facebook page.

NOTHING LEFT can be heard live each Tuesday 9-11am on FM 87.8 in the Caulfield area, or via the J-Air website www.j-air.com.au

Contact us at Nothing Left:

michael@nothingleft.com.au

alan@nothingleft.com.au

Saturday, May 20, 2017

UC Berkeley Pits Liberalism Against ‘Islamophobia’

By Michael Lumish

{Sponsored by Campus Watch and also published at Jihad Watch and Jews Down Under. Best wishes to Robert Spencer who is recovering from a recent attempt on his life in Reykjavik.}

Fast on the heels of the University of California’s anti-free speech “Battle of Berkeley”—in which hundreds of black-clad, left-wing, “anti-fascists” attacked Trump supporters in the streets—around five hundred students and scholars attended the weekend conference “Islamophobia & The End of Liberalism?”

The concept of “Islamophobia” was created as a political device to demonize critics of Islamic supremacism. Accordingly, the conference poster featured a righteously concerned Statue of Liberty embracing a young Muslim woman in a hijab as if to protect her from xenophobic Trump supporters. The clear implication was that the Western liberal tradition requires open borders and that Muslims as people, rather than jihadis as ideologues, are threatened by fellow Americans.

The fundamental question posed at UC Berkeley was whether “Islamophobia” represents a betrayal of the tradition of Enlightenment liberalism or its imperial, racist fulfillment. This query hovered over the eighth annual conference organized by Hatem Bazian, director of the University’s Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project, who blasted what he called “Trumpism.” Surprisingly, the participants from universities around the world did not settle for a pat answer.

Adnan Husain of Queen’s University in Canada argued that the "liberal concept of multiculturalism" is undermined by contemporary forms of aggressive, white, Western "crusaderism."

In a talk entitled "Liberal Islamophobia,” the University of Denver’s Nader Hashemi asserted that Hillary Clinton is anti-Muslim because during the 2016 presidential campaign she claimed that moderate Muslims represent a bulwark against “violent extremism.” In doing so, she allegedly reduced the American Muslim community into little more than a foreign-policy tool of the U.S. government.

Raja Abdulhaq, a graduate student in international affairs at Brooklyn College, claimed that the goal of white Western liberals was to transform Muslims into "carbon copies" of themselves.

Meanwhile, Long Island University philosopher Shaireen Rasheed maintained that the so-called "Western gaze" reduces Islam to a thing in need of reform, according to the standards of white Western cultural hegemony.

Thus, liberal concerns over terrorism, Sharia law, or the European immigration crisis are reduced to attempts to control, formalize, and channel Western Muslim identities into alienating, indoctrinating, and inauthentic white liberal molds.

When one asks if terrorism and Islamic supremacism inspire Western anti-Muslim bigotry, the response is to accuse the questioner of “Islamophobia.” The problem, we are to believe, is not terrorism or the spread of Islamic supremacism into Europe. On the contrary, according to the general attitude of the conference, these are merely the natural responses of a people oppressed under the weight of voracious white, Western, racist, colonialist, imperialist aggression.

In other words, the real problem is not Osama Bin Laden, but George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

What is perhaps most disconcerting about the conference was the tendency to embrace anti-Semitic anti-Zionism while claiming to oppose ethnic prejudice. A perfect example of this was the use of anti-Semitic cartoonist Carlos Latuff to promote the event. Latuff specializes in demonizing Israeli Jews as violently inhumane creatures in much the same way the Nazis did with European Jews in the early to mid-twentieth-century. This is akin to promoting racist caricatures of African-Americans while professing to fight racism. It is inconceivable that Bazian and other conference organizers would use Latuff’s vile work unknowingly. Their actions reveal their intent to legitimize anti-Semitism by using it at a UC Berkeley event ostensibly dedicated to fighting racism.

Ultimately, UC Berkeley’s “Islamophobia” conference contradicted itself in at least two ways. Foremost was the morally reprehensible act of espousing anti-Semitism in order to combat anti-Muslim bigotry. The other was its insistence that the larger Muslim world, comprised of 1.6 billion people, about one-quarter of the world’s population, are fundamentally victims of aggressive Europeans imperial excess. Centuries of Muslim empire-building aside, playing the victim card simply allows Bazian and his colleagues to continue their aggressions against the West under the guise of moral purity.

Friday, May 19, 2017

The Galling Hypocrisy of Jewish Trump Haters

Michael Lumish

This is basically a note to a Facebook acquaintance who specializes in advancing the "progressive-left" Wall of Hatred.

Part of what bothers me about the current conversation around Trump and Jews and Israel is the never-ending blatant hypocrisy.

In fact, what pisses me off about the nature of the conversation now is the very same thing that pissed me off about the nature of the conversation when Obama was in office.

That is, while Obama was running "the show" in the United States most Jews didn't really care that he supported the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the fact that the Brotherhood called for the conquest of Jerusalem which is nothing less than calling for an Arab genocide of the Jews of the Middle East.

Per my ongoing conversation with Jonathan Eron I want to say loud and clear that, yes, Barack Obama did, in fact, support the Muslim Brotherhood. Eron, and not for the first time, has called me a liar for saying so, but the historical record on this matter is clear.

Barack Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood.

Here is a quote from The Atlantic in a June 3, 2009, article written by Marc Ambinder entitled,"'Brotherhood' Invited To Obama Speech By U.S."

Ambinder writes:

"A sign that the Obama administration is willing to publicly challenge Egypt's commitment to parliamentary democracy: various Middle Eastern news sources report that the administration insisted that at least 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's chief opposition party, be allowed to attend his speech in Cairo on Thursday."

This, of course, represents just one small way in which the Obama administration supported an organization that, itself, supported the Nazis.

So, for those of you who despise Trump but enjoyed getting violated by Barack Obama, here is a clue:

The more that people like you shit all over Donald Trump the more I like the guy.

There are a few reasons for this. One is the obvious hypocrisy of your position. You honestly do not care that Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood despite the fact that the Brotherhood has been screaming for the genocide of the Jews since the time of  Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb who wrote "Our Struggle Against the Jews."

Anyway, let's start a list and we can add to it each time that you spread around your toxic hatred.

1) Obama supported the Brotherhood.

2) Obama lobbied for UN 2334 which robs the Jewish people of our patrimony on the land of our ancestors.

And, for the moment, let's add:

3) Obama supported the empowerment of Iran and normalized their gaining of nuclear weaponry within the coming few years.

But the thing of it is since I know that Eron and the Haters are doing everything they possibly can to derail this presidency no matter what he does, it creates considerable sympathy in my heart for the guy.

So, I have to say, you're doing a terrific job.

I did not vote for either Trump or Hillary, but now I am beginning to wish that I had voted for Trump out of sympathy for the poor bastard due to the fact that poisonous wretches puke vomit on him on a daily basis.

From where I sit, by throwing such garbage at the guy continually you have essentially immunized him from criticism.

Congratulations.

Monday, May 15, 2017

This Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

Nothing Left

This week Michael and Alan speak with radio personality, satirist, documentary maker and author John Safran about his new book, "Depends What You Mean By Extremist", and then catch up with Dr Bernie Power, the moderator from last week's public debate Social Justice: Israel Palestine.

We hear from Anastasia, the author of a new pro-Israel cartoon called Zionist Pugs, and then speak with Omri Ceren from The Israel Project. And Isi Leibler has his say as usual from Jerusalem.



3 min Editorial: Debate on Israel-Palestine

9 min John Safran on his new book

37 min Dr Bernie Power, moderator of the debate

53 min Anastasia, creator of Zionist Pugs cartoon

1 hr 9 Omni Ceren, The Israel Project

1 hr 32    Isi Leibler in Jerusalem speaking about Ronald Lauder

The podcast can also be found on the J-Air website.

Or its Facebook page.

NOTHING LEFT can be heard live each Tuesday 9-11am on FM 87.8 in the Caulfield area, or via the J-Air website www.j-air.com.au

Contact us at Nothing Left:

michael@nothingleft.com.au

alan@nothingleft.com.au