Turkey, under increasingly dictatorial and Islamist leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, blasted the US for moving its embassy in Israel to the country’s capital, Israel.
The Wall Street Journal‘s James Taranto responded with this gem on Twitter:
In one of those useless exercises the UN seems to enjoy, its members forced a Security Council debate and vote to condemn Pres. Trump’s decision to move the US embassy to the city Israel calls its capital, Jerusalem.
The US vetoed the resolution. Since everyone knew in advance it would do so, the debate was staged to smear the US and Israel. It follows a recent move by another UN body to remove any Jewish references to locations within Israel. They will be called only by their Arabic names, even if they are exclusively Jewish Holy Sites. As far as the UN is concerned, it’s a “Judenfrei zone.”
As ZipDialog has noted previously, the embassy move (which is actually a gradual process) did not prejudge the US position on the location of a future Palestinian state, and the US said so.
The Palestinians did not accept that explanation–their position is flatly rejectionist–but their attempt to spark another uprising fizzled. Still, it’s the thought that counts.
It is also worth noting that US decision was divisive along party lines. It had complete support among Republicans, very little among Democrats (though their leaders generally remained low profile), and fairly broad opposition among US diplomats and foreign-policy types, many of whom predicted disaster. Turkey and Iran are trying their hardest to encourage such an uprising, so far without luck.
The move itself was of a piece with several other Trump decisions that (a) fulfill clear campaign promises, and (b) revisit long-standing US policies that he thinks have failed to produce results.
This Security Council debate gave US Ambassador Nikki Haley a chance to show that she is cut from the same cloth as Ambassadors Pat Moynihan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, not Susan Rice and Samantha Power.
Here are a couple of Amb. Haley’s tweets about that debate and the US position, which she forcefully articulated.
The phrase, “taking names,” recalls those previous ambassadors, who said that voting against US interests would not be a freebie. Most administrations take the “no worries” attitude. Not this administration. One gets the clear impression that Haley is more in tune with the White House and NSC than with Rex Tillerson and the State Department.
Articles chosen with care. Your comments welcomed.
Linked articles in bold purple
This is a broad effort, supported by Pres. Trump and led by the office of the US Trade Representative
Corporate leaders will fear a trade war, understandably. They would prefer a bad-but-stable arrangement with Beijing, providing access to the Chinese market. Trump undoubtedly thinks he can get a better deal, with a focus on US jobs, and he understands how vulnerable China is. Its entire economy is based on open access to world markets without letting those market participants have equal access to China.
This adds Rhodes to the growing list of top Obama government officials who may have improperly unmasked Americans in communications intercepted overseas by the NSA, Circa has confirmed.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, Rice and former CIA Director John Brennan have all been named in the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into the unmasking of Americans. A letter sent last week from Nunes to Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence, suggested that top Obama aides made hundreds of unmasking requests during the 2016 presidential elections. –Sara Carter at Circa
Comment: This investigation deserves a lot more media attention–and some serious investigative reporting. If the unmasking was unnecessary, that would be a problem but merely another example of power corrupting. If, however, the unmasking had partisan political aims, that would be a much more serious issue since it would be illegally transforming our foreign intelligence operations into a political instrument for one US administration to use against domestic opponents. If that is proven, it would be a fundamental blow to our constitutional governance.
An internal announcement to the [DOJ’s] civil rights division seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.” –New York Times
Comment: The latest Supreme Court decision narrowly approved the continued use of race as one factor in admissions, but there are several other cases pending, so the weighting of the racial factor is still being litigated. Indeed, as the composition of the Court changes, the overall status of race-based admissions may change.
◆ Can this marriage be saved? Bride arrested after pulling gun from wedding dress and pointing it at the groom (New York Post)
Comment: In a shocker, police report alcohol may have been involved.
◆ Today in Irony: Palestinian Authority chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, who has opposed Israel at every turn, has asked to be put on Jewish State’s list for a lung transplant–and will, of course, be put on the list. (Jerusalem Post)
Comment: Meanwhile, the PA continues to pay terrorists for killing Israelis.
Thanks to Clarice Feldman and Eduardo Vidal for the story on Affirmative Action
It’s from the anti-Israeli left, specifically from a small group with the misleading name “Jewish Voice for Peace.”
They back every anti-Israeli group and idea put forward by their fellow progressives.
In the process, they came up with this brilliant thought:
Israel has no right to “appropriate” Jewish symbols!
I guess they belong to somebody else.
Yes, that’s right, the Jewish state has no right to use Jewish symbols.
This is what “intersectionality” means when its bizarro-world logic is directed at Zionism.
Here’s a quick definition and analysis.
It’s simply a fancy name for “all of us oppressed people have the same enemies and the same cause, so we need to stick together.”
The main enemy is white people in general, especially white men who have succeeded in business, are heterosexual, and “identify” as men because they were born male (the left terms that “cis-male,” to parallel “transgender.”)
As a political strategy, that’s the oldest one in the books. It’s simply a cohesion strategy to increase the collective clout of diverse interest groups.
As a logical statement, it’s nuts. Their only interests are negative. They share almost no positive goals.
As a practical statement today, it means left-wing feminists and gays are allies with extremist Muslims who would demolish their agenda instantly if they gained power. Indeed, they have done so wherever they do have political power.
But, since these are allies in a highly-ideological movement, they have to pretend they have some deeper shared interest in human liberation. They don’t.
Btw, there are lots of gay men and women–in the US and abroad–who support Israel.
They just don’t receive enough attention. They should.
Hat tip to John-Paul Pagano, Kevin Reiss, and Mark Finkelstein for this.
Articles chosen with care. Comments welcomed. Linked articles in bold purple
◆ Trump’s twitter fury, aimed at MSNBC’s Morning Joe and its hosts, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski
The Washington Post headline says, quite accurately: ” Trump and ‘Morning Joe’: How a long and ugly feud just got even uglier”
Politically, this is self-inflicted damage to Trump. Few approve it except for his most avid supporters. And it takes him off-message, at a time when Americans want results on healthcare and taxes.
But the worse damage is to our public life and discourse, which had already sunk so low, and to trust in our institutions, which are crucial to our democracy.
◆ Far Different from the first time: “Trump travel ban takes effect to minimal disruption“ (Fox News)
The revised order, which the US Supreme Court approved in part (with some aspects reserved for future decisions), covers 6 countries and does not block foreign individuals with strong personal ties to the US.
A scaled-down version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban took effect at 8 p.m. ET Thursday, with none of the dramatic scenes of protest and chaos that greeted the original version of Trump’s executive order five months ago.
The Departments of Homeland Security, State and Justice went ahead with the implementation after the Supreme Court partially restored the order earlier this week. –Fox News
The Fox report was straightforward. Others, not so much.
It was almost impossible to find a news report that actually gave the news instead of an editorial. The news is that the revised ban went into effect, worked smoothly (so far), and met with only modest demonstrations at airports, far different from the bureaucratic mess and large demonstrations that surrounded the initial order.
Kudos to the BBC for this neutral headline: “Trump travel ban comes into effect for six countries.”
Bronx cheer for many others. CNN headline makes no mention of the smooth rollout and modest demonstrations. It does mention further court challenges, even though the main one will come in the autumn at SCOTUS. The challenges are from Democratic state AGs, such as Hawaii, and they mainly ask for clarification. A nothingburger.
Most of the headlines looked like this. Others emphasized the demonstrations.
◆ Major legal victory: Jury decides US can seize a major Manhattan skyscraper, owned by Iran (New York Times)
The jury . . . found that the Alavi Foundation, which owns 60 percent of the 36-floor skyscraper at 650 Fifth Avenue, violated United States sanctions against Iran and engaged in money laundering through its partnership with Assa Corporation, a shell company for an Iranian state-controlled bank that had owned the remaining 40 percent. . . .
The [US] government has agreed to distribute proceeds from the building’s sale, which could bring as much as $1 billion, to the families of victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks, including the Sept. 11 attacks. –New York Times
Comment: The same foundation has made donations to Columbia University (link here). The stench runs deep.
◆ Major lawsuit again San Francisco State University over its systematic anti-Semitism, including violent suppression of Jewish speakers, shouted curses, calls for an “intifada,” etc. The suit alleges the university administration was indifferent to repeated complains and actively protected the disrupters. (Newsweek)
The lawsuit has been filed by a pro bono organization, the Lawfare Project. The suit
calls SFSU “among the worst of the worst offenders and is largely recognized as being among the most anti-Semitic campuses in the country.”
The heckling of Barkat is one of several incidents that the suit argues contributed to an atmosphere hostile to Jewish students, one that was created with the alleged complicity of the school’s administrations. –Newsweek, reporting on Lawfare Project’s suit against SFSU
Comment: Long overdue. The SFSU administration actually blamed the Israelis for one disruption against them, saying the only reason the mayor of Jerusalem (Nir Barkat) came to speak at SFSU was that he knew the Palestinians and the leftist allies at SFSU would riot to prevent it–and that’s just what Barkat wanted.
So, this is the logic: the mayor of a large city comes to speak at your university; your students riot and prevent him; you blame the mayor; and then, after promising citizens the rioters would be punished, you do nothing at all.
Those administrators should be held fully and personally accountable. Their next jobs should be flipping burgers until they are replaced by robots.
The celebrations in this weekend’s Chicago Gay Pride festival were marred by one mean-spirited moment. The organizers of the “Dyke March” blocked Jewish women from participating because they carried a gay-pride banner that included a Star of David.
“It made us feel unsafe,” the organizers actually said, before launching into their rant against Israel and those who support it.)
This episode is not only noxious in its own right, it highlights several problems that are now pervasive on the left and increasingly pollute America’s public life.
The most important is the growing public expression of anti-Semitism, much of it fueled by the strange alliance between progressives (such as the Dyke March organizers) and rabid anti-Israel activists, led by Palestinians.
These larger problems deserve exposure.
They deserve censure, too, when they violate our democratic norms of tolerance, free speech, and open debate. That’s what this column does.