BDS Boycott and the MLA Convention, January 9-12, 2014

Last updated: January 12, 2014
 

Last month, two American academic organizations decided to boycott Israel. At first, there appeared to be little surprise that US academicians would do that. After all, US campuses have become anti-Israel hot-houses. But it turns out there could be a very big surprise here—for the boycotters.

This is a long story with a short--but potentially expensive--ending. 

The smaller of the two organizations that turned against Israel--the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA)--acted on December 15, 2013. On that date, the President of the NAISA posted a letter on the organization website to declare support for the boycott of Israeli academic institutions. This support was not the result of a membership vote. It came from  ‘a member-generated petition asking that NAISA formally support the Boycott of Israeli Academic and Cultural Institutions that was initiated by [emphasis mine] the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel’.  

Remember the name, ‘The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel’. We’ll come back to it.

 The NAISA governing Council reached a consensus about the petition. It would support the boycott. But the President was careful. He added that if NAISA members wished to discuss the Boycott during the upcoming NAISA convention, they could do so.

As you’ll see in moment, the NAISA might be wise to have that discussion. It might want to change its mind.

At the same time the NAISA announced its pro-boycott support, the American Studies Association (ASA) was busy with its own boycott endorsement. But instead of declaring its support through a governing Council consensus that is open for discussion, the ASA had a more binding proposal.

It called for a membership vote.

According to Inside Higher education (““Not Just a Family Feud”, Elizabeth Redden, December 19, 2013), the ASA has 3,853 eligible voting members.  But over a ten-day on-line boycott referendum in December, 2013, only 1,252 of those members voted. Nevertheless, sixty-six per cent of those 1,252 voters voted for the boycott.

Remember this vote. The ASA has 3,853 total voter-eligible members. 1,252 of them voted. Sixty-six per cent of that 1,252 votes is 826 pro-boycott votes. 826 votes for a boycott means that 21 per cent (a minority) of the ASA won the boycott endorsement.   

When the NAISA and the ASA turned against Israel, nobody seemed to notice the NAISA. They’re probably too small to be noticed. But two essays appeared to react to the ASA vote.

In the first of these essays, Cornell University Law School professor William Jacobson declared on his blog (Legal Insurrection) that if the ASA voted to support an anti-Israel academic boycott, he (Jacobson) would file a complaint with the US Internal Revenue Service to challenge the ASA’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status (see “Tax-Exempt Status of American Studies Association to be challenged if Israel boycott resolution passes”, December 16, 2013). He would do this, he said, because engaging in an academic boycott does not satisfy the requirements of 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It violates those requirements.

On January 8, 2014, the Jerusalem Post reported that Jacobson had indeed filed that challenge (“American Studies Association’s tax-exempt status challenged,” Maya Shwayder). The ASA will now have to hire lawyers to defend itself.

Lawyers are expensive.

Also in mid-December 2013, on the last day of the on-line ASA vote, the Times of Israel published an essay by Nitsana Darshan-Leitner (“Schooling the ASA on boycotting Israel”, December 15, 2013).  Darshan-Leitner is founder of an Israeli NGO, Shurat HaDin, also called, Israel Law Center. The purpose of this NGO is to sue terror organizations and those who promote anti-Israel discrimination. In her essay, Darshan-Leitner suggested that if the ASA voted to boycott Israel, she would sue them in US Federal and State courts for illegally promoting what both the US government and (at the very least) the State of New York had already termed, ‘illegal’.  

On January 10, 2014, Israel news outlets reported that Shurat HaDin had sent a letter to ASA president-elect Elizabeth Duggan, notifying her it represents several Israeli professors. The letter warned Duggan of Shurat HaDin’s intent to file suit against the ASA in United States courts, should the ASA not take all immediate steps to cancel the boycott of Israeli institutions and academics (see “Shurat HaDin Threatens Action Over ASA Boycott”, Eldad Benari, Arutz Sheva).

The ASA may now have to hire lawyers to defend itself—if they have the money to do so.

Leaving the smaller NAISA aside for the moment, these two legal actions against the ASA are important for several reasons. First, they send a signal to all academics (who appear eager to bash Israel) that boycott calls—and, perhaps, other anti-Israel activities--will now be met with stiff opposition. These two legal filings suggest that, if you act out against Israel, you better be rich enough to hire a lawyer—or have lawyer friends who will be willing to work pro bono; hate and discrimination, in other words, have just gotten expensive.

Second, it sends a message to academic organizations that, while a vocal minority (for example, 21% of the ASA) may indeed have the power to ram through morally repugnant (and potentially illegal) votes, it may not be wise to empower such repugnancy. You could lose your tax-exempt status. You could get sued in Federal court. Legal fees could drive you to bankruptcy.

Third, it sends a message to organizations like the NAISA—which did not vote on the boycott—that support for (potentially) illegal boycotts may not be in its best interest. It might be wise for them to re-evaluate that support.

But there is a far more important reason for these legal actions. That reason is, to use an acronym, the MLA.

The MLA (Modern language Association) is like the NAISA and the ASA. It’s an academic organization. But it doesn’t have 1,000-4,000 members. It’s got 30,000 members.

In the academic world, the MLA is an 800-pound gorilla.

That’s important right now because, at this very moment that 800-pound gorilla is meeting in Chicago, Illinois for its 2014 national convention. The convention runs from January 9 -12, 2014.

According to the Chicago Tribune (“An academic scandal headed for Chicago”, Amy Stoken and Jack S. Levin, January 1, 2014), the MLA Convention offers opportunities for teachers of English and foreign languages "to share their scholarly findings and teaching experiences with colleagues and to discuss trends in the academy." To facilitate such opportunities, this year’s Convention is running 810 sessions (according to the Trib) so that members can learn, discuss and share. All but one of those 810 sessions covers topics in language and literature. The singular exception is a roundtable discussion entitled, “Academic Boycotts: A Conversation about Israel and Palestine."

It is the only political session of the Convention.

Can you guess where this is going?

Curiously, all the announced speakers at this roundtable are on record favouring a boycott. Apparently, only one side of the boycott question is to be represented. One participant is Omar Barghouti, a founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel—the driving force (according to some) of the world-wide boycott-Israel campaign.

You may remember The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. It’s what the President of the NAISA referred to (above) when he posted his support for an anti-Israel boycott on the NAISA website.

Apparently, Mr Barghouti has been busy courting American academic organizations to support his attacks against Israel. He has now hit the big-time—speaker at a session of the MLA national convention.

Mr Barghouti is listed on the MLA Convention website as an ‘independent scholar’. He appears to have no academic credentials. Since a non-member of MLA is blocked from looking at speaker biographies, one must do an on-line search to discover what is the nature of Mr Batrghouti’s  ‘independent scholarship’; but a quick google-search yields nothing.

But what one does discover is that the Homepage for Mr Barghouti’s organization does not maintain a very scholarly commitment to accuracy: in a post entitled, “Academic Boycott of Israel in 2013: A Tipping Point”, we read that “In mid- December 2013, the American Studies Association endorsed an academic boycott of Israel where 66 percent of the ASA membership [emphasis mine] voted” to support a boycott of Israel.

But if you remember the arithmetic of that ASA vote (above), you’ll remember that it wasn’t 66% of the ASA membership that voted for the boycott. It was 66% of the 1,252 members who voted in the on-line referendum.  The number of ASA members who voted for the boycott did not represent 66% of the membership—they represented only 21% of the  membership.

That’s a rather unscholarly error. It’s a difference between a minority wanting a boycott and an overwhelming majority wanting it. In fact, given the nature of his Homepage, Barghouti appears more propagandist than scholar. What’s he doing at a scholar’s convention?

The MLA is a venerable academic organization which has for decades promoted professionalism and quality in education and scholarship.  Where are Barghouti’s professional credentials? Where is his scholarship?

The MLA is treading on thin ice. Judging from the public record, Barghouti may not belong at the MLA. He appears to have no academic appointment worth mentioning on the MLA convention public website. His public work seems unscholarly. His organization appears to promote what is illegal.

It’s one thing for small organizations like the NAISA or the ASA to be hijacked by those who would push what is unseemly and potentially illegal. But the 30,000-member MLA?

Shurat HaDin and William Jacobson (above) might want to look up the MLA’s mailing address.

 

Arab headlines: Palestine, January 7-9, 2014

Do you read Arab news? You should.

There are peace talks going on. If you read Israel’s press to see how Jews see these talks, you might want to know how Muslims see these talks.

The headlines—and comments—below come from January 7 -9, 2014.

 Hamas News

-Dozens of settlers, accompanied by rabbi, storm al-Aqsa Mosque

-IOF forces Jerusalemite to raze his own home

- “Stones of Baked Clay” ... Hope For Liberation & Victory

- In the anniversary of Nakba day: We will [be] back to our land

- The Zionist project must end

-Barghouthi: Kerry's initiative seeks to prolong Israeli occupation

 -Futility of current talks between Israel and PA

 
Palestinian Authority (PA)/Fatah news

-Fatah proposes unity government plan to Hamas

-Abbas discusses peace process with Jordanian king

-Analysis: Why Palestinian leadership is right to engage in peace talks

- Palestinian NGO decries Israeli 'excessive force'

-Analysis: On the 'Jewish State of Israel'
--

For the first time in months, both the Hamas and Fatah news sites are running headlines about the current round of Arab-Israel peace talks. But the news here is not the same news you see on Israeli sites. There is a significant difference between Arab and Jewish views of this ‘peace’.

In Israel, an informal look at news sites suggests that perhaps 60 per cent (or, 60+ per cent) of headlines present pro-peace features, news and analysis. Most of the pro-peace stories appear to be written by Jews.

Very few articles against ‘peace’ appear in the Israeli press. The overwhelming impression is, as one Leftist recently said, ‘most Israelis want peace.’

But then, the Israeli press is far from objective. Too often, when we see an overwhelming number of stories favouring a single issue, we learn after the fact that editors were working overtime to sell a slanted version of the news.

The Hamas-Fatah sites tell a different tale. Arabs don’t promote a peace with Israel the way Israel’s press promotes a peace with the Arab. If a pro-peace essay does appear on these Arab sites, it’s probably been written by a Westerner (“Analysis: Why Palestinian leadership is right to engage in peace talks”). Then, virtually all essays about the peace talks focus on—or are based upon--only two issues: (1) Palestinian national rights cannot be compromised; and (2) peace with the Occupier (Israel) will not happen unless all Palestinian demands are met.

As you read through the current batch of Israeli and Arab peace-talk essays, you’re going to have to be careful. If you don’t understand what words mean, you are not going to understand what’s happening.

Here is the most important word you must understand: ’Palestine’.

If current stories in the Israeli press are any indicator, ‘Palestine’ is a trick word.  It doesn’t mean what Israelis—particularly Leftist Israelis--think it means.

When the United States, the European Union (EU) and virtually all Israeli Leftists speak of a new Arab state to be called ‘Palestine’, they refer specifically to land that is to be surrendered by Israel. Today, that land is called Judea- Samaria. Perhaps land from the Jordan River Valley will be included. Gaza, already under Arab control, is included.

To the US, the EU and Israel Leftists, this is the geography upon which ‘Palestine’ will sit. It will share a border with Israel. 

But for the Arab, Palestine does not share a border with Israel. Palestine is Israel.

The Arab use of the word, Palestine, does not conform to the definition used by the US, EU and Israel’s Leftists. The Arab definition that you see in Hamas/Fatah news stories refers to a different ‘Palestine’. It’s a definition which, though different, might actually be more accurate than the one used by Israel and the West.

The Arab use of the word, ‘Palestine’, does not refer to Judea-Samaria, the Jordan River valley or Gaza.  It refers to UN Resolution 181. This is the 1947 UN Resolution that outlined how the “Future government of Palestine” would be divided.

The ‘Palestine’ of that 1947 UN Resolution was, essentially, the land-mass of modern 21^st Century Israel. The intent of 181 was to divide that Palestine between Jew and Arab.

That Palestine was to become two states—a Jewish state and an Arab state.

But the Arabs didn’t want to share. They attacked. They wanted only one state for that entire Palestine. They intended to remove the Jewish portion of that Palestine.  

Nevertheless, that portion of Palestine still remains in Jewish hands. Nevertheless, the Arabs still want it for themselves.

Arab wars against Israel have always aimed to liberate that portion of 1947 Palestine from the Jew. To the Arab, the Jew has ‘occupied’ what Arabs self-define as ‘Arab land’. It’s been that way since 1947. For the Arab, what is today’s Israel is nothing more than occupied Arab land—and the Israel Defense Force (IDF) is the IOF, the Israel Occupation Force (“IOF forces Jerusalemite to raze his own home”). 

Westerners, including Israeli Leftists, do not understand this distinction. They should.

When Arabs want to liberate Palestine, they are not talking about Judea-Samaria. They’re talking about that 1947 Palestine. That means that they want all of Israel—Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Acco, etc.

Arabs do not see these peace talks as a prelude to peace. If they sign a Kerry plan (whatever the details), they’ll only get Judea-Samaria and perhaps a portion of the Jordan River valley. Given their goal of getting all of Israel, such a deal would be just another Western attempt to create a NEW Nakba for the Arab—a new national Arab catastrophe (“Barghouthi: Kerry's initiative seeks to prolong Israeli occupation).

In other words, to the Arab, a peace based on receiving just Judea-Samaria will be a disaster.

To the Arab, the 1947 ‘Palestine’ must be Jew-free. That is the only end-game. Any Arab who signs an agreement for a different end-game is a ‘capitulationist’ (“Futility of current talks between Israel and PA”).

 This is not outrageous extremism. It is not fantasy.  It’s the middle-of-the-road position for the Arab. It’s what you’ll read every day in Hama/Fatah news.

 

Israel’s Left sells suicide. Want to buy it?

Here are some recent news headlines you may have overlooked. The headlines—and the commentary--cover the period January 3 -7, 2014.

 -EU-Funded NGO Dehumanizes Jews on PA TV (01/03/14, Arutz Sheva)

-'Palestinian Authority under Abbas is Anti-Semitic' (01/04/14 Arutz Sheva)

- [Israeli Arab] MK Tibi: Abbas Will Never Concede (01/05/14, Arutz Sheva)

- Abbas said to reject Kerry call to recognize Israel as Jewish state (01/04/14, Times of Israel).

- Kerry: Netanyahu, Abbas Made Significant Concessions (01/06/14, Arutz Sheva)

- US-Brokered Deal 'Just the First Stage' in Israel's Demise (01/06/14, Arutz Sheva)

- Ex-PM Olmert Calls Bibi a 'Fool', Urges Deal with PA (01/06/14, Arutz Sheva)

--

Israel’s Left has come out this week swinging at Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The cause for this attack is the peace plan that US Secretary of State John Kerry says he’s about to present (by March, 2014).

Israel’s Left is like that. When they see something they think will give them a happy ending, they don’t celebrate their victory. They attack someone.

They’re doing it again this week, this time calling their nemesis Benjamin Netanyahu a fool. This attack is a good one. It’s creative. It makes Netanyahu a fool no matter what he does about current peace talks. He’s fool if he rejects all the hard work Kerry is doing on Israel’s behalf. But he’s also a fool if he accepts Kerry’s peace—or, as Leftist ex-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert so smartly put it, “even a foolish Prime Minister will turn out well," after accepting a peace plan.

Notice how the word, ‘foolish,’ got placed into that sentence. It’s the Left’s way of complimenting the Prime Minister: even a fool can get something right!

But as Olmert slams Netanyahu, he reveals himself. For example, he says that an Israeli proposal to identify land swaps to exchange with the Palestinian Authority (PA) as part of a peace agreement is, essentially, a non-starter. There’ll be no peace with such a proposal, he said in a recent speech at Hebrew University.

That’s interesting. The current peace talks are supposed to be based on swaps. This idea is from US President Barack Obama. Peace is supposed to be based on 1967 lines—with land swaps so Israel could keep its largest ‘settlement’ blocks in Judea-Samaria.

Now Israel’s Left rejects that plan?

Olmert doesn’t spell out how Israel finds peace. But that’s okay because that’s how the Left works: slam the opposition --and be sure to ignore reality. The Left in Israel plays a hit-and-run game: hit hard when no one’s looking and then run.

But the reality Olmert refuses to address is clearly visible in this week’s news cycle: first, the PA under Abbas is anti-Semitic; and second, as a consequence of that Jew-hate, PA leaders see a Kerry peace plan as just the first stage in the ultimate destruction of Israel.

This last statement is not the mad ravings of religious Jews or Right-wing extremists, as the Left might want you to believe. These words come from the PA itself. Specifically, they come from Abbas Zaki. Zaki is a senior member of the central committee of Fatah. Fatah is the Arab political Party which controls the PA. Fatah is headed by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. 

Zaki told a Syrian TV interviewer that any peace agreement with Israel will simply be the "first stage" in eradicating Israel altogether. Zaki was so proud of his interview he posted a clip of it on his Facebook. It was quickly translated and circulated by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). You can watch the interview at palwatch.org. It’s a PMW Bulletin, dated January 6, 2014, titled, “PA leader: Stages plan to eliminate Israel is basis of PA policy”. It’s also available at Arutz Sheva, embedded in the article, “PA leader: Stages plan to eliminate Israel is basis of PA policy”, January 6, 2014.

Zaki explained that the Palestinian goal of eradicating the Jewish state will not be achieved through military conquest. Israel is too strong for that approach. The defeat of Israel will come through stages—from diplomacy and terror.

Israel’s Left shows why. Every time a series of terror attacks hits Israel—and every time the West and/or the PA threaten Israel--it is the Left that cries first that we can get peace only through surrender.

It’s an odd—and suicidal—belief. But it’s what the Left wants.

Read the news. Read how the Left, essentially, says, ‘we must surrender land or perish’.  Then read how the PA repeatedly declares it will destroy us.

Read also how, during peace talks, no less--when Arabs should be talking about a ‘peace dividend’--terror attacks don’t fall. They skyrocket.

The Left sells national suicide. They sell a poison pill—a peace they say will save you but which will actually kill you.

Don’t buy it.

 

 

 

How peace talks feed the Abbas war against Israel

Current peace talks with the Palestinian Authority are a fraud. They do not promote peace. They empower Mahmoud Abbas’ war against Israel.

There is a reason Abbas is intransigent. It’s the same reason he doesn’t prepare his followers for peace: he’s not interested in peace. He is obsessed with war—against Israel.  

On July 25, 2013, just days before the talks began--and with ‘peace-is-possible’ in the air--Abbas’ Fatah Facebook page didn’t promote peace. It glorified five suicide bombings which had killed 61 "Zionists" (“Fatah Honors Terrorist for Murdering 61 Israelis,” Arutz Sheva).

During peace talks, his Facebook page would not showcase images of peace. It glorified murder.

Abbas is cunning with his war. He will not fight Israel alone.

That same July, the European Union (EU) announced it would boycott Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, the Golan Height and parts of Jerusalem (“Column One: How to respond to EU sanctions”, Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, July 25, 2013). We didn’t know it at the time, but that boycott was connected to Abbas’ war.

The United States helped Abbas—then helped again by conveniently ignoring his hate. Marine Corps General James Mattis, the recently retired head of U.S. Central Command, issued a harsh rebuke against Israel’s communities in Judea-Samaria. He declared that Israel’s Jewish populations in Judea-Samaria were turning Israel into an apartheid state (“U.S. General: Settlements Will Make PA State Impossible,” Arutz Sheva, July 26, 2013).

Four days later, Abbas announced his own apartheid intentions(“Abbas: There Will be No Israelis in 'Palestine'”, Arutz Sheva, July 30, 2013). He declared that there will be not a single Israeli--soldier or civilian--in ‘Palestine’.

Funny thing about Abbas: while the EU was threatening Israel with a boycott, no one in the US declared that Abbas’ anti-Israel declaration would turn Palestine into an apartheid state. No one in the EU declared that such hostility towards Israelis would isolate Abbas on the international stage.

Nobody said a negative word about Abbas.

But Abbas’ TV programming became viciously negative. Four days after Abbas’ ‘no Israeli’ announcement—as ‘peace’ talks began—we learned of a PA TV contest: “Deny Israel's Existence - Win $100!” (Arutz Sheva, August 4, 2013).

If the PA was not interested in peace, we learned very quickly what it was interested in: concessions to the PA and pressure against Israel. 

First, the concessions: Abbas got 104 Arab prisoners (mostly killers of Jews) released from Israeli prisons. He got this from Israel as a ‘goodwill gesture’. The US demanded it. This gesture was an incentive to get him to show up at the talks (“Shin Bet Head Warned Ministers: Don't Release Terrorists”, July 28, 2013, Arutz Sheva).

Then there was pressure against Israel. Writing in Commentary Magazine, Jonathan Tobin revealed that chief Arab peace negotiator Saeb Erekat told an Arab radio interviewer that the announcement of the European Union’s new directives outlawing all EU cooperation with Jewish ‘settlements’--just before peace talks began--had not been coincidence. It had been deliberate. It was, he said, part of a deal.

Erekat claimed that the EU had issued the boycott order as an incentive for Abbas to return to negotiations (Jonathan Tobin, “What the Palestinians Already Won”, Commentary Magazine, August 20, 2013).

 Abbas won big: he got prisoners freed and an anti-Israel boycott before he even sat down to talk. He didn’t have to promise a thing.

As Tobin suggested (above), such offers as these made the Palestinians winners even before negotiations began. With an anti-Israel boycott in place to pressure Israel (and 104 prisoners ready to return to Abbas—and kill again), the U.S. and the EU had given the Arabs little incentive to make concessions of their own.

That was more than four months ago. Tobin was spot-on. Abbas hasn’t budged an inch. He has not been talking about peace. But he has been showing off his war-successes against Israel.

He shows off 440 million US dollars the US has pledged  (“PLO: US to Transfer $440 Million to PA in 2014”, Arutz Sheva, 01/01/14). He showcases the released killers. Next, he will show how he has the power to trigger the EU’s boycott by torpedoing the talks—and then blaming Israel (“‘Israel likely to be blamed for failed peace talks’ (12/29/13, Times of Israel).

For Abbas, that will be the crowning achievement of the peace talks. He will have used this fraudulent charade to fuel his war against Israel in ways he could hardly have hoped to do on his own. He could get a major international boycott, more than a hundred killers released, more than 400 million dollars added to his war-chest--and a world ready to ‘isolate Israel on steroids’ (words Kerry used when warning Israel not to let the talks fail).

In our Talmud (B’rachot 54a), we see the commentary Rashi talk of corrupt rulers who seek to libel others. That’s Abbas. He’s corrupt. He seeks to libel Israel. He uses these peace talks to spread that libel and to wage his war.

He has much to smile about.

 

 

 

 

Five miles apart: 8,000BCE and the 21st Century

If all of ancient Gaul was divided into three parts, so, too, is the Middle East.  Life in this Region follows three paths.   

First, there is the Middle East of Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. These places shame themselves with poverty and tribal brutality. With a population of more than 176 million, this group makes up 45 per cent of the Middle East’s 397 million people.

This group does not fully live in the 21^st Century. Too many live in Stone Age conditions. Life is not characterized by work, education and family. Life is marked by killing, celebrations of killing, deprivation and torture. For this Middle East, life is too often primeval and dark.

This first group dominates news from the Middle East. Syria suffers through a devastating civil war. More than 130,000 have been killed since fighting broke out in March 2011. The real fatality number could be three times that. More than 2.3 million Syrians are refugees. Seven million more—including two million children—desperately need humanitarian assistance.

There seems no end to the killing. There seems no end to the misery.  

In Iraq and Lebanon, multiple bomb blasts kill and injure dozens every week. Syria, Iraq and Egypt become a killing field for journalists. In 2013, 70 journalists were killed in just these three Arab countries. Perhaps even more frightening, an additional sixty journalists had been abducted in Syria—and thirty were still missing as of late December, 2013.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is in this first group. While ‘peace’ talks supposedly unfold, PA news demonizes Israel. The PA is at war with Israel. In PA news, there is no talk at all about peace.  

The PA is ruled by an unelected despot, Mahmoud Abbas, who was elected eight years ago—to a four-year term. His ruling Party, Fatah, has a new 2013 logo: a map of ‘Palestine’ where Israel is today.

Abbas glorifies the murder of Jews. Human Rights Watch says he tortures his own people. He wants to conquer Israel.

The Second Middle East segment seems to contain Jordan, Iran, Turkey, Cyprus (considered by some to be part of the Middle East), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Kuwait.  The population of this second group totals just over 203 million, or 53 per cent of the region’s 397 million people.

Life within this second group is much improved over the first group. For many here, life is often characterized by work, education and family. Law and order are common. But rule here is not democratic. Rule is autocratic. Punishment can be harsh. Rulers are typically benign towards their citizens—if, that is, you overlook apartheid-like laws that restrict everyone.

Life here is restricted but liveable.

The third segment of the Middle East contains only one country—Israel. Of the 17 countries in the Middle East, Israel is 9^th in population. Its 8 million people represent 2 per cent of the Middle East’s 397 million people. If you count only Jews in Israel, then Israel represents app 1.5 per cent of the Middle East’s total population.

This smallest-of-the-three segments endures in a sea filled with 389 million Arabs. These Arabs live just miles away. But unlike Arab countries, Israel is a democracy. It lives in the 21st Century. It offers more freedom than any other country in the Middle East.

It pushes the outer limits of modernity.

This past week, Israel announced a deal between the Israel Electric Company (IEC) and America’s Cisco corporation to begin a ‘digital revolution’.  While Arabs revelled in a new terror campaign against Jews, Cisco and IEC announced a campaign to start a digital revolution.

At the same time, Israel’s government announced a “Digital Israel” project, which promised “paperless” interaction between government offices--and between citizens and the government. Israel will install fiber-optic cable throughout the country to connect all cities, towns, and villages.

Arabs pound each other back to 8000BCE. Arabs engorge on calls to murder.  Israel talks about installing a fiber-optic network.

Arabs kill. Israel wants its citizens to surf the Internet at speeds of 1 gbps (1 gigabit, or 1000 megabits, per second) and more. 

As Cisco and IEC discussed their digital revolution, another Israeli high-tech company—Wilocity—made its own announcement.  It was developing the world’s fastest wi-fi. The company said its system would be 25 times faster than the fastest home internet.

What else was Israel doing while Arabs murdered, tortured and abused each other? It announced it was developing new propulsion systems for rockets. You see, Israel is looking at going to the moon.  

Arabs and Jews live just a few miles apart. Arabs want their children to kill Jews. Jews want their children to make a better world.

The difference between 8000BCE and the 21^st Century couldn’t be more stark.

Israel news: BDS, chess children and Jonathan Pollard

Here are some recent Israel headlines you might have missed. These stories come from December 27, 2013 – January 2, 2014.

The war against Israel

-MIT Opposes Academic Boycott of Israel (12/29/13, Arutz Sheva)

-Bill to Strip Schools Supporting ASA Boycott of Public Funding (12/28/13, Arutz Sheva)

-Dozens of U.S. university heads have slammed ASA boycott of Israel, Presidents Conf. says (01/02/14, JTA)

--

Two weeks ago, the American Studies Association (ASA) approved a bigoted boycott of Israel. Now, we see the fallout.

While the boycott vote has not (yet) been universally rejected by American Universities, no University has been reported (as of December 30, 2013) to support it. But a few prominent schools have been quick to step up to condemn it with public statements.  These include (according to news reports) Brandeis University, MIT, Indiana University, Kenyon College and Penn State University.

In addition, two New York State lawmakers (Senate co-leader Jeffrey Klein and Assemblyman Dov Hikind) have started their own campaign to stop public funding to schools that support any boycott. The two lawmakers are proposing a bill that would give colleges and universities in the state of New York 30 days to withdraw their support from groups boycotting Israel --or lose state funding.

By the end of this news cycle (January 2, 2014) at least 90 American Universities and colleges have been reported to have rejected the ASA vote. That’s a good sign. But it isn’t enough. 

The ASA isn’t the only academic organization to promote a boycott of Israel. Boycotting Israel has become a favourite academic pastime—and in this season of joy for gentiles, academic bigots have decided to celebrate their bigotry.

First, the ASA passed its boycott vote. Then, at almost the same hour, the Native American Studies Association urged its own members to boycott Israeli educational institutions.

Now, next week in Chicago, the Modern Language Association (MLA) (a significantly larger organization than any of those which have so far voted to boycott) will offer a roundtable discussion on an academic boycott of Israel.  The first of four listed speakers is Omar Barghouti, who has no academic credentials. He is listed simply as an ‘Independent Scholar’. He is a founding committee member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). Wherever he can, he promotes the ideology that Israel is an oppressive apartheid state—even as he pursues an advanced Humanities degree at Israel’s Tel Aviv University (Wikipedia).

The MLA has 30,000 members. Barghouti will have a ‘bully pulpit’ to speak his mind. Predictably, he will advocate for a boycott of Israel.

This fight is not over. Those who seek to boycott Israel must be stopped. Those who defend Israel by pursuing lawsuits and legislation should not think they can afford to stand down.

So long as a boycott discussion appears on an academic agenda, lawsuit and legislation must be on our agenda.

-Israeli Chess Team Forced to Compete Under Anonymous Title (12/27/13, Arutz Sheva)

--

Here’s a little story that most readers probably missed. It’s about a chess match. What could be more boring than that, right?

Well, this chess match wasn’t boring because, once again, Israelis were given the Nazi treatment—and nobody objected.

Israeli participants were not allowed to play under the Israeli flag. All other participants had their national flag displayed. The Israelis were forced to play under the auspices of the international chess federation. They were the only team forced to do this because the Arab country hosting this particular international competition refused to show an Israeli flag.

This isn’t ‘international competition’ as much as it’s a version of the old Nazi theme: deny the Jew—or, short of that, make believe the Jew doesn’t exist.

This time the Nazi drama unfolded at the World Youth Chess Championship being played in the United Arab Emirates. Only Israelis were unable play under their own national flag. Only Israelis were forced to play under the flag of the World Chess federation—as if they were stateless, with no national representation.

It’s that Nazi theme: deny the Jew until he disappears for real.

This is international bigotry empowered by a major international organization. Since this was a competition for an under-18 age group, it was bigotry aimed at children.

No one had the moral courage to say, no.

Jonathan Pollard

-Report: Kerry Offers Pollard's Release to Israel(12/27/13, Arutz Sheva)

-White House Denies Plans to Release Jonathan Pollard (12/29/13, Arutz Sheva)

-Report: Peres to Devote Remainder of Term to Pollard (12/27/13, Arutz Sheva)

-US Jewish Leaders Have 'Consensus': Pollard Must Be Freed (12/27/13, Arutz Sheva)

-Hotovely to Netanyahu: Demand Pollard's Release (12/27/13, Arutz Sheva)

-For Kerry, Pollard is a bargaining chip with Netanyahu (12/29/13, Haaretz

-Protesters rally for Pollard outside Kerry hotel (01/02/14, Times of Israel)

News flash: Jonathan Pollard will be released as part of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

News flash: Jonathan Pollard will not be released.

News flash: US Secretary of State John Kerry has agreed to release Pollard.

News flash: the US has no plans to release Pollard at this time.

Headline writers will have a field day with this story: ‘Pollard peace pawn’; ‘Peace pawn Pollard’; ‘Peace pawn Pollard protests being pawn’.

It’s unseemly. Jewish blood is so cheap, a Jewish political prisoner can be dragged through the media as if he were a rag doll.

Well, maybe that won’t happen. Maybe Jonathan Pollard will simply be released.

Would Pollard accept such a deal?

Stay tuned.

Arab analysis: Fatah and Hamas do not represent Palestine

This week, US Secretary of State John Kerry has returned to the Middle East for the tenth time since July/August, 2013. He’s here for more peace talk between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

News analysis in Israel is upbeat. Israeli analysis suggests peace could be possible (“The World From Here: Will Abbas defy Islam for peace with Israel”, Dan Diker and Harold Rhode, Jerusalem Post, 12/31/13).

But news analysis in the Palestinian Authority doesn’t talk about peace. In the PA, the question being asked this week is not, is peace possible? The question being aired in PA news is, don’t you know that Hamas and Fatah/PLO are illegitimate—and harm the Palestinian people?

In case you didn’t know, Hamas and Fatah/PLO drive the Palestinian political engine.  Despite much publicized differences, these two organizations are actually two halves of the same anti-Israel coin. As described by this week’s most interesting Arab news analysis (below), Fatah/PLO is the ‘secular’ half of Palestinian political leadership. Hamas is the ‘religious’ half.

You see this distinction in the Hamas and PLO Charters. The Hamas Charter expresses its goal (to destroy Israel) using mostly religious references. The PLO Charter expresses its goal (to destroy the Zionist entity) using mostly political terms.

The goal is the same. The terms for expressing that goal differ because they come from different parts of the war against Israel: the PLO articulates the secular war. Hamas articulates the religious war.

This news analysis (“Analysis: Dis-participation as a Palestinian Strategy?”) was first published in PA news on December 21, 2013. It was updated on December 23rd. Then it was republished for the week of December 25, 2013 – January 2, 2014. It claims that the PLO/Hamas leadership architecture is in crisis. It says that both Hamas and the PLO have become illegitimate; they no longer represent ‘the Palestinian people’ (ibid).

Is John Kerry pushing Israel to make peace with an illegitimate ‘partner’? Everyone says no. But then PA news runs an analysis that says, yes.

What’s going on here?

For the Palestinian people to move forward, this analysis suggests, they must ‘dis-participate’ (hence the title of the analysis) from the ‘illegitimate and ineffective’ PLO/Hamas political arrangement. Given the fact that the US Secretary of State identifies Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas as Israel’s true ‘peace partner’, such a condemnation of Abbas’ Party apparatus does not suggest a lasting peace. If anything, it suggests trouble—big trouble.

This Arab analysis is important because it appears during a crucial moment in peace talks with Israel. The PA news service is not a free and independent press which publishes whatever it wishes. It’s an outlet for political policy.

If peace were a real possibility, the PA should be talking about a ‘peace dividend’.  But it isn’t doing that. Instead of exploring the benefits that statehood could create, this analysis undercuts the leaders who pursue that statehood.

Is this what John Kerry has fomented—accusations of illegitimacy in the Palestinian Authority?

In Israel, the media promote peace (“Poll: Most Israelis, Palestinians support 2-state solution”, The Times of Israel 12/31/13). The US comes to Israel and promotes peace talks (“Kerry: Israeli, Palestinian leaders want peace talks”, Ynet (1/1/14). Israel’s Jewish leaders want to give peace a chance (“Lieberman: Israel must give Kerry's peace efforts a chance “, Haaretz, 1/1/14).

But in PA news, there is no talk of peace. Instead, the talk is of an illegitimate PLO/Hamas maintaining a strangle-hold on the ‘Palestinian people’. This strangle-hold throttles Palestinian national rights and self-determination.

The claim here is that Fatah and Hamas are illegitimate because they are too committed to ‘the two-state project’. That commitment—that project--favours the Israelis.

Does John Kerry know about this analysis? Does he know the PA is showcasing such an argument to its audience?

How curious that the PA presents this argument at precisely the moment Kerry returns. Perhaps Kerry should read it.

The last time the ‘Palestinians’ signed anything with Israel was at Oslo, in 1993. But this analysis claims that those Oslo Accords have brought only disaster to ‘Palestine’. Oslo was a "second Nakba" (the national catastrophe for ‘Palestinians’). Oslo brought with it an unprecedented level of corruption and security cooperation with Israel. Oslo enabled an even more aggressive Israeli colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

It was Oslo, this analysis claims, that has allowed Israel to pursue its brutal and remorseless siege of Gaza.

But there is a solution: "dis-participation".

Specifically, this analysis wants ‘Palestinians’ to ’dis-participate’ from anyone talking to Israelis. The analysis promotes a public rejection of the existing political system in the PA. That’s what it will take, the analysis concludes, to keep alive Palestinian national rights.

How strange to see this argument during the most intense part of peace talks. It certainly doesn’t promote peace.

It seems to promote civil war.