Saudi Women Defy Ban on Driving

At Los Angeles Times, "Saudi women get in the driver's seat to defy ban."

It's gender apartheid, but of course, the global progressive left seeks Israel's delegitimization and destruction. The world is upside down.

Also at The Lede, "Saudi Women Defy Driving Ban." And Sydney Morning Herald, "At the wheel of progress."

Mavi Marmara Will Not Sail in Second Gaza Flotilla

At Haaretz, "Gaza flotilla organizers disappointed by Turkish group's decision to cancel ship" (via Blazing Cat Fur).

Organizers of the flotilla that is set to sail for the Gaza Strip later this month expressed disappointment over the weekend that the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) will not take an active role in the convoy.

The IHH announced on Friday that the Mavi Marmara ship, on which nine Turkish activists were killed last May when it was intercepted by Israeli commandos on its way to Gaza, will not take part in the upcoming convoy.

RELATED: At Jerusalem Post, "US man seeks to seize flotilla ships using anti-piracy law":

Dr. Alan Bauer, an American- Israeli victim of a Palestinian terrorist attack, on Thursday filed a first of its kind lawsuit in an effort to seize ships to be used by Islamic and anti-Israel organizations to try to breach the blockade of the Gaza Strip later this month.

The suit, Bauer v. The Mavi Marmara, was filed in Manhattan federal court, seeking to confiscate 14 ships, which are scheduled to participate in the upcoming flotilla and which were outfitted with funds Bauer says were unlawfully raised in the United States by anti-Israel groups, including The Free Gaza Movement. Over the weekend, however, the Turkish IHH organization said the Mavi Marmara was still too damaged to sail for Gaza.

The plaintiff, a biologist from the Chicago area, and his son Jonathan, then aged seven, were seriously wounded when Palestinian suicide bomber detonated a bomb, packed with metal spikes and nails, in the center of a crowd of shoppers on King George Street in Jerusalem on March 21, 2002.

Three people were killed and 85 other people were also wounded.

Bauer alleges that The Free Gaza Movement and other American-based anti-Israel organizations have raised funds in the United States to outfit the Gaza flotilla ships. The lawsuit contends that furnishing and outfitting the ships, which are being used for hostilities against a US ally, violates American law.

The plaintiff rests his claim upon the rarely used 18th-century “informant” statute (18 USC Section 962) that allows a plaintiff (called an “informer”) to privately seize ships outfitted in the United States for use against a US ally.

The stature states: “Whoever, within the United States, furnishes, fits out, arms, or attempts to furnish, fit out or arm, any vessel, with intent that such vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince, or state, or of any colony, district, or people, to cruise, or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States is at peace; or Whoever issues or delivers a commission within the United State for any vessel, to the intent that she may be so employed – Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

“Every such vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all materials, arms, ammunition, and stores which may have been procured for the building and equipment thereof, shall be forfeited, one half to the use of the informer and the other half to the use of the United States.”

Still more at the link above.

Presidential War Powers

Harry Reid's a blithering idiot. I have no idea how he was ever elected to public office. It's not so much his position on the War Powers Resolution, but that it's at odds with his claim that the public wants the troops home from Afghanistan. Frankly, Americans are weary of overseas commitments altogether, but at least the Afghan deployment enjoyed broad bipartisan support to begin with, back in the day. With Libya, the administration took the easiest route to do something --- anything --- in North Africa and the Middle East amid the wave of revolutions taking place in the "Arab Spring." And there's been little public consensus on major U.S. role in Libya.

This guy sucks:

Unfortunately, a Ron Paul wing in the GOP is joining with the Dennis Kucinich Demo-nuts to push for action on the Resolution. A lot of folks in the right blogosphere have made something out of this as well, and it goes to the lack of vital national interests at stake, and that's understandable. That said, John Yoo's got a new piece up on the Commander-in-Chief's authority on the use of force, "The GOP Plays Politics With the War Powers Resolution," and Yoo's the man:

Congressional Republicans should not try to outdo Mr. Obama in a game of unprincipled one-upmanship. But that's precisely what key GOP leaders have done. Earlier this week, House Speaker John Boehner sent a letter to the White House accusing Mr. Obama of violating the War Powers Resolution. "The Constitution requires the president to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'" he wrote, quoting the president's responsibilities under Article II of the Constitution. "And one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation."

Mr. Boehner's claim ignores the Constitution's fundamental nature as supreme law. As Chief Justice John Marshall declared in the foundational case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Constitution is "a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means," and any act of Congress "contrary to the constitution is not law." If the Constitution gives the president the executive authority to use force abroad, Congress cannot take it away. Surely Mr. Boehner agreed with this proposition before the current president took office. He, for instance, never claimed that President George W. Bush's exercise of broad executive powers in the war on terror violated the Constitution. Nor does he appear to have thought that legislative authorization of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was constitutionally necessary in 2001 and 2002.

Not to be outdone, House Republicans Roscoe Bartlett, Dan Burton, Howard Coble, John Duncan, Tim Johnson, Walter Jones and Ron Paul joined with Dennis Kucinich and other Democrats this week and filed suit in a D.C. federal court seeking to halt U.S. military operations in Libya. They may see themselves as purists, but they are not demonstrating fidelity to the Constitution by launching a legal effort that they know to be utterly futile ....

RTWT.

Added: See Allahpundit's write up on the New York Times' story, "NYT: Obama overruled top Pentagon, DOJ lawyers on Libya war powers" (via Memeorandum). And check JustOneMinute, "Obama Goes Shopping For Legal Advice." It's the hypocrisy that's stunning.

Bush White House Sought CIA Probe for 'Damaging Personal Information' on Leftist Professor Juan Cole?

Wow.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Honestly, though, arrest him if there's evidence of aiding and abetting terrorism. But don't just smear the guy using the CIA. Sounds like something from the Nixon years.

At New York Times, "Ex-Spy Alleges Bush White House Sought to Discredit Critic":

WASHINGTON — A former senior C.I.A. official says that officials in the Bush White House sought damaging personal information on a prominent American critic of the Iraq war in order to discredit him.

Glenn L. Carle, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information on Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who writes an influential blog that criticized the war.

In an interview, Mr. Carle said his supervisor at the National Intelligence Council told him in 2005 that White House officials wanted “to get” Professor Cole, and made clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to collect information about him, an effort Mr. Carle rebuffed. Months later, Mr. Carle said, he confronted a C.I.A. official after learning of another attempt to collect information about Professor Cole. Mr. Carle said he contended at the time that such actions would have been unlawful.

It is not clear whether the White House received any damaging material about Professor Cole or whether the C.I.A. or other intelligence agencies ever provided any information or spied on him. Mr. Carle said that a memorandum written by his supervisor included derogatory details about Professor Cole, but that it may have been deleted before reaching the White House. Mr. Carle also said he did not know the origins of that information or who at the White House had requested it.

Intelligence officials disputed Mr. Carle’s account, saying that White House officials did ask about Professor Cole in 2006, but only to find out why he had been invited to C.I.A.-sponsored conferences on the Middle East. The officials said that the White House did not ask for sensitive personal information, and that the agency did not provide it.

“We’ve thoroughly researched our records, and any allegation that the C.I.A. provided private or derogatory information on Professor Cole to anyone is simply wrong,” said George Little, an agency spokesman.

More at that link at top.

And what the heck? Check over at Juan Cole's, the freak: "Ret’d. CIA Official Alleges Bush White House Used Agency to “Get” Cole," and "Cole on Goodman & CIA Surveillance."

And, "Repeal the PATRIOT Act is the Lesson of Bush White House Spying."

Nope, not going that far. Patriot Act does not authorize CIA spying domestically. It simply allows coordination of intelligence gathering activities. Longstanding bureaucratic norms would still drive domestic surveillance operations, and frankly, the legacy of the 1960s and 1970s still contributes to a culture of legal safeguards that obviously make cases of spying --- like that alleged against Professor Juan Cole --- beyond the pale. Bust him if he's a treasonous dirtbag. Otherwise, let him spew his bilious hatred. No doubt he's earned some enemies on that basis alone.

The Jewish Enemies of Israel

From David Solway, at FrontPage Magazine:

Everywhere we look we see these broken Jews who have embraced left-wing causes, or assimilationist fatuities, or the temptations of social prestige, or the fashionable bromides of the zeitgeist that promise peace and understanding with anti-Semitic killers and despots in a pluralistic New World Order that exists only in their own febrile and disarrayed minds.

Candidates Show G.O.P. Less United on Goals of War

At New York Times:

DERRY, N.H. — The hawkish consensus on national security that has dominated Republican foreign policy for the last decade is giving way to a more nuanced view, with some presidential candidates expressing a desire to withdraw from Afghanistan as quickly as possible and suggesting that the United States has overreached in Libya.

The shift, while incremental so far, appears to mark a separation from a post-Sept. 11 posture in which Republicans were largely united in supporting an aggressive use of American power around the world. A new debate over the costs and benefits of deploying the military reflects the length of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the difficulty of building functional governments and the financial burden at home in a time of extreme fiscal pressure.

I noticed this, and I wondered a bit about Michele Bachmann on foreign policy. She hardly sounds like a neocon, but I think that's good. We've been in Afghanistan for almost 10 years, and that's hard to sustain politically. Look for a lot of folks to declare victory and advocate a rapid drawdown.

Canada's Hamas Flotilla

Called the Tahrir, the Canadian Boat to Gaza, of the Freedom Flotilla II.

Also known as the "Sea Hitler" by another name.

Background from Matt Gurney, at National Post, "The return of the NDP's anti-Israel fringe":

It was just over a year ago that Israeli forces went aboard the Mavi Marmara and six other ships that had set sail from Turkey. The vessels were filled with anti-Israel activists and aimed to deliver supplies to Gaza in defiance of Israel's arms blockade of the Hamas-controlled territory. Those aboard the ships were hoping to provoke an Israeli response and, unfortunately, they succeeded. While most of the ships were boarded peacefully, Israeli troops -armed only with light weapons, as they expected no resistance -were attacked when they boarded the Mavi Marmara. The situation escalated rapidly and, having failed to use the appropriate degree of force at the outset, Israeli troops had to use too much at the end. Nine activists were killed and Israel and its blockade were roundly criticized.

A year later, Canadian anti-Israel activists are hoping lightning strikes twice and are planning to sail a vessel from our shores to the Gaza Strip, despite the continuing Israeli military embargo. By forcing a confrontation with the Israelis, they hope to bring yet more international scorn down upon the Jewish state. They have a long list of supporters, including the usual suspects -but also one name that is a bit surprising: Alex Atamanenko, the freshly re-elected NDP MP for B.C. Southern Interior.

Mr. Atamanenko, first elected in 2006, has been quite public with his support of the Gazan cause before. He was quick to condemn Israel for the original flotilla incident. He also criticized its military operations against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip in 2008 and 2009. His endorsement of the Canadian Boat to Gaza is therefore logically consistent, if nothing else.

More at that link above. The NDP is the New Democratic Party, a national socialist party that is currently the official opposition party in the Canadian House of Commnons.

See also Gurney at FrontPage Magazine, "The Canadian Left Backs Upcoming Gaza Flotilla."

Protesters Killed at Israeli Border

At New York Times, "Israeli Soldiers Shoot at Protesters on Syrian Border":

JERUSALEM — Israeli forces fired at pro-Palestinian protesters on the Syrian frontier on Sunday as they tried to breach the border for the second time in three weeks, reflecting a new mode of popular struggle and deadly confrontation fueled by turmoil in the Arab world and the vacuum of stalled peace talks.

Wave after wave of protesters, mainly Palestinians from refugee camps in Syria, approached the frontier with the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights. Israeli soldiers opened fire on those who crossed a new trench and tried to attack the border fence near the towns of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights and Quneitra in Syria.

By nightfall, the Syrian news agency SANA reported that 22 protesters had been killed and more than 350 had been wounded. Israeli officials said that they had no information on casualties but suggested that the Syrian figures were exaggerated.

Even so, it was the worst bloodshed in the Golan Heights since Israel and Syria fought a war there in 1973.

RTWT.

This is a Damascus production. See, Ynet, "Syrian opposition: Anti-Israel rioters paid $1,000." And Gateway Pundit, "Anti-Israel Protesters Reportedly Paid $1000 to Storm Across Israel Border."

Also, from Rick Moran, at FrontPage Magazine, "Besieging the Israeli Border: A Syrian Production."

Yigal Allon — 'Israel: The Case for Defensible Borders'

The Los Angeles Times has a new essay from Dore Gold, "The long view in Israel against the 1967 line." Recall that Gold is a former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations. I cited his recent commentary piece at Wall Street Journal, "Israel's 1967 Borders Aren't Defensible." At the Times he discusses Yigal Allon's 1976 essay at Foreign Affairs, "Israel: The Case for Defensible Borders." I'm reading it. Here's this from the introduction:

It is impossible to plumb the depths of the Arab-Israeli conflict, not to speak of formulating proposals for its solution, if no true understanding exists of the full significance of its cardinal characteristic-the extreme asymmetry of its two sides. This asymmetry is manifest not merely in one or two, but in all, of its aspects. It is obvious in such objective data as the comparison between Arab and Israeli territories (of the Arab League states 8,500,000 square miles; of Israel, including presently administered areas, about 28,500); or of the relative population statistics (of the Arab League states 134,000,000; of Israel 3,500,000 citizens); not to mention their contrasting actual and potential wealth.

But of primary importance are the subjective asymmetric factors affecting relations between the two sides. In this respect, there is absolute polarization. Whereas the Arab states seek to isolate, strangle and erase Israel from the world's map, Israel's aim is simply to live in peace and good relations with all its neighbors.

These diverse objectives have determined the war aims of both sides. It is within this context that we should mention the chain of terrorist acts that was designed not merely to sow death and destruction in Israel but also to extend the conflict, and thus embroil the Arab states in full-scale wars. It is almost superfluous, and certainly tiresome, to quote the legion of statements of Arab leaders that represent this aim, ranging from the "Palestine Covenant" to current governmental declarations.

As opposed to this total Arab goal, Israel's war aims have been confined to repelling the offensives of the Arab armies as determined by strategic and political circumstances, whether by reactive counter-offensives such as those of 1948 and 1973 or by preemptive counter-offensives as those of 1956 and 1967. Military defeats, indeed, cost the Arab states losses in lives, destruction of equipment, political setbacks, and damage to national prestige-and perhaps even danger to their regimes. However, such defeats have never been, nor ever will be, a threat to their very existence as sovereign states or to the lives of their civilian populations. In contrast, a military defeat of Israel would mean the physical extinction of a large part of its population and the political elimination of the Jewish state. In highly realistic and clear terms, therefore, the Arab states can permit themselves a series of military defeats while Israel cannot afford to lose a single war. Nor does this reflect a historical trauma in any sense. To lose a single war is to lose everything, and this is a most real and stark fact.

And about the 1967 borders:

One does not have to be a military expert to easily identify the critical defects of the armistice lines that existed until June 4, 1967. A considerable part of these lines is without any topographical security value; and, of no less importance, the lines fail to provide Israel with the essential minimum of strategic depth. The gravest problem is on the eastern boundary, where the entire width of the coastal plain varies between 10 and 15 miles, where the main centers of Israel's population, including Tel Aviv and its suburbs, are situated, and where the situation of Jerusalem is especially perilous. Within these lines a single successful first strike by the Arab armies would be sufficient to dissect Israel at more than one point, to sever its essential living arteries, and to confront it with dangers that no other state would be prepared to face. The purpose of defensible borders is thus to correct this weakness, to provide Israel with the requisite minimal strategic depth, as well as lines which have topographical strategic significance.

And not quoted is the key issue raised by Dore Gold at the Los Angeles Times: There's never been a final recognition of boundaries. Israel is not now nor has it ever been required to withdraw behind the 1967 armistice lines.

Anyway, check the discussion at LAT. It's perfectly sound, but detailed arguments like this have little effect on those determined to drive the Jews to the sea.

Israel Opens Fire on Naksa Day Protesters

At Washington Post, "Palestinian protesters attempt to cross Israeli border from Syria, troops open fire."

Israeli army spokesman Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai accused Syria of creating “a provocation” at the border to divert attention from the Syrian government’s deadly crackdown on the uprising in that country.

In a sign of official backing for the protests, the border clashes were broadcast live on Syrian television, with comments from participants, and reporters were permitted direct access to the normally closed frontier zones.

Near the village of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights, scores of Palestinians and Syrian supporters who arrived in buses from Damascus streamed down a hillside and marched toward the frontier, carrying Palestinian and Syrian flags and chanting “Palestine is Arab!” and “the Golan is Syrian!”

When the protesters tried to cross a trench and earth berms topped with razor wire, which had been put up by the Israeli military to block their approach, army sharpshooters opened fire at the marchers from a border fence nearly 150 yards away.

The army spokesman said that troops had fired warning shots before shooting at the legs of the demonstrators. The gunfire was accompanied by loudspeaker warnings in Arabic that those who approached the border fence were endangering their lives.

Also at Los Angeles Times, "Israel fires on pro-Palestinian protesters at Syrian border."

Added: At Legal Insurrection, "Assad Sends More Palestinian Cannon Fodder Over Israel Border." (via Memeorandum).

Dozens Killed as Syrian Security Forces Open Fire on Protesters

At Los Angeles Times, "Dozens reported killed as Syrians continue protests":

Thousands of antigovernment protesters marched in Damascus, Homs and other Syrian cities Friday in opposition to President Bashar Assad, chanting, "These are the last days of your season."

Security forces responded by firing on protesters in several cities. Dozens of people were killed, with the toll particularly high in Hama, Syria's fourth-largest city and the site of a bloody crackdown ordered by Assad's father nearly 30 years ago. Snipers reportedly fired from rooftops at thousands of protesters. The reports could not be independently verified because Western journalists are barred from entering the country.

Months after pro-democracy protesters unseated repressive regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, the so-called Arab Spring appears to have turned into a brutal stalemate in Syria. Assad has not been able to crush the protests; demonstrators take to the streets daily but have failed to gain enough popular support to topple him.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed alarm Friday over the violence in Syria, which has reportedly claimed at least 70 lives in the last week, and called for independent and transparent investigations of all the killings. Human rights groups say 1,000 people have been killed in the 11-week uprising.

Analysts say that Syria will play an important role in shaping the legacy of the regional reform movement, and that the opposition has the potential to influence other countries where uprisings also have stalled, such as Bahrain and Yemen.

"Many other countries are watching to see if they achieve regime change," said Mohammed Masri, a researcher at Jordan University's Center for Strategic Studies in Amman. "If they are successful, it could bring new momentum to the Arab Spring."

"There are now two roads," Masri said, "The road of Egypt and Tunisia, and the other, which is a brutal and bloody one."

Also at Instapundit, "SYRIA UPDATE: Tanks Move in on City as Thousands Mourn Protesters’ Deaths."

'Naksa Day'

Okay, should be a big news day, for example, at Jerusalem Post, "IDF on high alert for 'Naksa Day' border unrest," and "30 protesters gathering on Syrian side of border."

And at Ynet, "Security forces on high alert for 'Naksa Day'." Also, at New York Times, "Israel Braces for Clashes During Border Protests":

JERUSALEM — Israel on Saturday was bracing for possible clashes along its borders after Palestinian activists in the region called for protest marches on Sunday, three weeks after a similar wave of coordinated protests led to deadly clashes with Israeli troops.

Protests on Sunday to mark the anniversary of the Palestinian “naksa,” or setback, in the June 1967 Middle East war were being planned in the West Bank and Gaza, territories that were conquered by Israel then. There have also been calls on social networking Internet sites for Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria to march at the Israeli border.

That echoed the conditions that led to the violence on May 15, the day Palestinians mark as the “nakba,” or catastrophe, of Israel’s establishment in 1948. Taking a cue from the so-called Arab Spring movement, organizers in multiple countries and territories called for a coordinated action against Israel, and huge crowds of Palestinians responded.

They clashed with Israeli troops on four fronts, and breached the border between Syria and the Golan Heights for the first time in more than 30 years. At least 14 protesters from Lebanon and Syria were killed, stoking outrage in Palestinian camps across the region and intensifying pressure on Israel to create the conditions for a return to peace talks.

The Israeli military was not giving out details of its preparations, but television reports showed soldiers repairing fences and bulldozers digging trenches along the borders in the north. On Thursday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he had instructed Israeli forces to act with restraint, but also with determination, to protect Israel’s sovereignty and borders. According to reports from Lebanon, activists there canceled plans to march to the Israeli border after the Lebanese authorities declared the border area a closed military zone.

Plus, at Haaretz, "Thousands march in Tel Aviv in support of Palestinian state based on 1967 borders."

RELATED: Leo Rennert, at American Thinker, "Joel Greenberg, the Washington Post's Palestinian Propagandist."

Added: At Jihad Watch, "Palestinian Authority presidential adviser: 'refugee' assaults on Israel's borders are the 'new Palestinian nuclear weapon'."

Palestinians Ready Major Action Against Israel

Big news from the Middle East.

At Haaretz, "Dress rehearsal: The Palestinians are gearing up for more protests in the wake of their Nakba Day successes."

June is shaping up to be one big dress rehearsal for the tsunami in September. On Sunday, Palestinians will mark the anniversary of the 1967 Six-Day War with processions and demonstrations in the territories and along Israel's borders. Toward the end of the month, a new flotilla to Gaza is planned, with the declared aim of breaching the blockade - which in practice has long since been lifted. In the meantime, the Palestinians will continue pressing their initiative for a unilateral declaration of a state come September.

From the Golan Heights to the West Bank, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's suggestion to the Palestinians will continue to resonate: to march en masse to Jerusalem. The idea is to create a popular, nonviolent demonstration along the lines of Tahrir Square, which would leave Israel unable to mount an effective response.

More details, and then:

Without ignoring the plans for Naksa Day, the country's leaders are now primarily concerned with blocking the Gaza flotilla, which is scheduled to depart on June 20. Currently, the plan is to have 15 boats carry about 1,500 Islamic and European left-wing activists who are seeking a bloody clash with the IDF. So far, only four boats have been recruited. Gantz promised the MKs that the IDF would block all attempts to breach the maritime blockade of Gaza, and added the self-evident: that the flotilla is a provocation, not an actual attempt to assist Gaza's residents.

Maj. Gen. (res. ) Giora Eiland, who headed the internal IDF inquiry into last year's flotilla episode, offered an interesting hypothetical proposition this week. If it were possible to get the Turkish government (as opposed to the organizers, who are from the extremist Islamic organization IHH ) to promise to examine the boats in advance, and ensure that they are not carrying weapons, he said, then Israel should consider letting the vessels into Gaza.

Yeah. Weapons.

See Ynet, "IDF has photos of armed flotilla activists" (via Memeorandum) Also at Israel Matzav, "IDF has photos of armed Mavi Marmara terrorists... but won't release them?!?"

RELATED: At CSM, "Israel's navy trains for second major Gaza flotilla."

Andrew Klavan: The One State Solution

It's Klavan on the Culture:

New Ad from Emergency Committee for Israel Slams Obama on Israel Peace Proposal

Thanks both Democrats and Republicans alike, for standing with Israel. Puts Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the outs as well:

Voiceover: When President Obama sided with the Palestinians, members of both parties stood with Israel.

Harry Reid: Nobody should set premature perimeters about borders.

Steny Hoyer: Israel’s borders must be defensible.

Bob Casey: Jerusalem is the undivided and eternal capitol of Israel.

Benjamin Netanyahu: And I see a lot of new friends of Israel here…. Democrats and Republicans alike.

Voiceover: The Emergency Committee for Israel thanks Israel’s true friends, Democrats and Republicans alike.

ADDED: Alana Goodman has more: "Here’s to Bipartisan Support for Israel."

Children Are Among Casualties of Syrian Military Raids After Demonstrations

At New York Times.

Also, at Globe and Mail, "How a 13-year-old became a symbol of Syrian revolution."

RELATED: At CNN, "Report: Syrian abuses could be 'crimes against humanity'."

David Horowitz: 'The Totalitarians Within'

At FrontPage Magazine:

On May 11, 2011, I spoke to a student audience at UCLA for about an hour. My speech was video-taped and recorded on audio. Frontpage Magazine posted the video and an edited transcript of the speech. We are now posting an unedited transcript (accessible here) for reasons I will make clear in a moment.

On May 24, the Undergraduate Students Association at UCLA, by a 10-0 vote passed a resolution proposed by the Muslim Students Association declaring that “UCLA is a UC Campus Against Islamophobia.” I don’t mean to suggest that my appearance was the sole trigger of this resolution but it didn’t surprise me to find that among the numerous “Whereas” clauses in which the reasons for the resolution are stated, I am the only individual mentioned, or that it just came two weeks after the “controversy” surrounding my appearance which was really not so much a controversy as a series of one-sided assaults on myself and the College Republicans who invited me. “Islamophobes! Racists!” Call it an opportunity that I presented for the MSA and its supporters to extract concessions from the broader student population and to attempt to reach into their pockets in the process. Since student governments are proving grounds for future politicians, it is also a moment for the rest of us to reflect on what is in store for the country if these university elites can repeat their gains in the world beyond the campus.

Here is how the Muslim Students Association formulated the concept “Islamophobia:”

Islamophobia is defined as ideologies, beliefs, and actions that perpetuate inaccurate and xenophobic views toward the culture and practice of Islam and the personification of its followers, such as being seen as monolithic, seen as a separate and ‘other’ culture that does not share common values, seen as inferior to the West, seen as violent, aggressive, and supportive of terrorism, seen as sexist and oppressive of women, seen as a political ideology used for political advantage, anti Muslim hostility, and exclusionary or discriminatory practices against Muslims from mainstream society;

Please note, “Islamophobia” is manifest in statements about Islam that are “innaccurate” (and by whose standard you might ask); by statements that reflect the view that Islam “does not share common values” (as for example, a belief in the separation of church and state?); by attitudes that regard Islam as “inferorior to the West” “as sexist and oppressive of women” (in other words no more noticing that in sharia-governed countries women are consigned to a second class status that renders them the virtual chattel of males); nor can one entertain the opinion that Islam is a political ideology (as it indubitably is in Iran, Saudia Arabia, Lebanon and Gaza, just to name a few zones where the lines between politics and religion are invisible). In other words no noticing that the “Party of God” (Hezbollah) or the Muslim Brotherhood which is now the most powerful political party in Egypt are actually political. Nor can you link the Islamic beliefs, codified by a warrior named Mohammed who urged his followers to slay infidels and cut off their heads with terrorists who invoke those beliefs when slaying infidels by cutting off their heads.

My recent speech at UCLA is adduced as evidence of the Islamophobia directed against Muslims in this clause:

Whereas, On Wednesday May 11th controversial speaker David Horowitz made false allegations on campus against the Muslim Students Association and the Afrikan Student Union, and further instilled hate against Muslims by stating that “Islam is a sick, sick culture” (5)(6);

Two footnotes are attached to this clause as if there were some actual connection to facts of my appearance at UCLA on May 11. One of the footnotes links to a column by a UCLA Muslim, Asra Ziauddin, which seizes on the “Wall of Lies” that I had written and that College Republicans had erected to counter the slanders of Palestinian Awareness Week at UCLA. Palestine Awareness Week claimed among many similar blatant falsehoods designed to demonize Jews and the Jewish homeland, that Israel is an “apartheid state.” Our response: Israel is not only not an apartheid state, it is the only real democracy in the Middle East. To this Ziauddin countered — “Myth: Israel it is the only democracy in the Middle East. Fact: This democracy only works for Jewish citizens.”

Actual Fact: Israel’s democracy works for 1.4 million Arabs who are Israeli citizens as well. To prove his fallacious point Ziauddin writes: “Six million Palestinian refugees have not been granted the right of return.” I don’t for a moment believe that Ziauddin’s invented figure “six million” is a coincidence, but there is no such right of return except in the minds of Palestinian revanchists.

RTWT at the link.

It's a tough battle, but truth prevails.

Caroline Glick: 'American Jewish Organizations and Obama'

At Big Peace:

President Obama’s speech on the Middle East at the State Department last week, his icy glares at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office last Friday, his address before the AIPAC conference on Sunday, and his subsequent press briefings have all made clear that he is not sympathetically inclined toward Israel, nor does he consider Israel an ally worth defending.

Obama’s advocacy of the 1949 armistice lines as a starting point for negotiations demonstrate his lack of support for Israel’s right to defensible borders. His non-response to the Hamas-Fatah unity deal demonstrates that there is nothing the Palestinians can do that will make him accept the reality that their commitment to Israel’s destruction, rather than Israel’s continued control over Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, is the reason there is no peace between them and Israel.

Word.

The full essay at the link.

IMAGE CREDIT: Israel Matzav, "Why American Jewish Organizations are Defending Obama."

Robert Stacy McCain: 'Pacifism and Historical Ignorance'

An excellent post.

I promised McCain I'd throw him some traffic this weekend. He links to a Victor Davis Hanson essay, on which I'll have more later. Meanwhile, I'm snagging this video, a Legal Insurrection upload:

RELATED: From Evan Sayet, at FrontPage Mag, "Why Jews Support the Democratic Party."

More on all of this tonight ...

Student Activism at AIPAC

The video is especially interesting after 6:00 minutes.

And Barbara Efraim touched base with me yesterday, the first chance she's had since getting back from AIPAC in D.C. I already posted Barbara's recent commentary piece at The Daily Bruin, but she wanted to give me a heads up on this comment at the article:

Equating Noam Chomsky – a world-renowned public intellectual, linguist, writer, and emeritus professor at one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world – to some marginal, goblin-like hate-monger as Horowitz is just plain foolish.

What “threat” of Sharia Law do you speak of? What Israeli “democracy” do you speak of? Your rhetoric is tired and ineffective.