Qatari Anti-Semitism

Doha, Qatar

The ugliness behind the glitter

The Jerusalem Post has published an article focusing on anti-Semitism in Qatar. The wealthy Arab nation on the Persian Gulf has made great efforts in recent years to become an important player on the world stage from hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup to positioning itself as some sort of "strategic ally" to the US against international terror. Much like Saudi Arabia, Qatar is a questionable ally, indeed. More significantly, not only does Qatar play host to the leadership of Hamas, it has joined with Antony Blinken's State Department in an attempt to broker a cease-fire in Gaza and release of Israeli hostages.

The JP article focuses on anti-Israel, anti-Jewish attitudes prevalent in Qatar, including anti-Jewish tropes present in Qatari textbooks. The article is based on the US State Department's 2023 report on religious freedom around the world.

The State Department report on Qatar is troubling indeed. Yet, that same State Department is partnering with Qatar to find a "solution" to the Gaza war. 

In addition, Qatar is also home to the Al Jazeera news network. Much like Qatar itself, Al Jazeera poses as a responsible and objective news outlet, you know, like CNN, BBC, and so many others. Their English language operation even features many liberal Westerners eager to carry water for Qatar's positions on issues such as the West in general, and Israel in particular. Not surprisingly, many of their op-ed contributors are American university professors, uniformly hostile to Israel.

And let us not forget that Qatar, like Saudi Arabia, pours a lot of money into American academia, much of it to fund Middle East Studies departments in our universities. These departments are basically bastions of pan-Arab, anti-Israel, and anti-West teaching. In short, they are propaganda centers. A significant part of the blame for the turmoil currently going on in our universities over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is attributable to these so-called academic departments.

Of course, in international politics, nations sometimes need to cooperate with odious regimes. The US learned that during World War 2 and the Cold War. Today we have the sector of Iran looming over that part of the world. I get it. At the same time, Qatar is a country we should be leery of. The less we have to depend on duplicitous countries like Qatar, the better.

Suspected Honor Killing in the Netherlands:

Joure (Friesland), Netherlands

Back in May, an 18-year-old Syrian female was found murdered in the Netherlands. Police strongly suspect she was the victim of an honor killing by her family. Her two brothers are currently in custody awaiting legal proceedings, while the father is believed to be in Syria. The father allegedly sent emails to the Dutch newspaper, De Telegraaf, acknowledging that he had killed his daughter. Dutch authorities are currently attempting to have him arrested and extradited. The news that this is a suspected honor killing has just recently been reported the past few days. The family resides in Joure (Friesland).

The below article from NHN Nieuws (NL) is translated by Fousesquawk.

https://www.nhnieuws.nl/nieuws/n155434/18-jarige-vrouw-uit-joure-vermoord-uit-eerwraak-denkt-om

Father also a suspect after death of woman (18) from Joure, Public Prosecutor suspects honor killing

July 5, 2024 at 04:36. Updated July 5 2024 at 14:16

The Public Prosecutor's Office

The Public Prosecutor's Office believes that an 18-year-old woman from Joure has been the victim of an honor killing. And meanwhile, her father is identified as a suspect, the Public Prosecutor's Office reports. Her two brothers are in custody.

The father has not yet been arrested. The authorities think that he is in Syria. That is where the family is originally from. The Public Prosecutor's Office reports that "measures are being taken to expedite his arrest".

The Public Prosecutor's Office recently subpoenaed emails that the father reportedly sent to De Telegraaf. In them, he reportedly acknowledged that he killed his daughter.

Honor-related violence is committed because the honor of the family is supposedly damaged. In order to restore the honor, those who are said to have violated it are threatened or abused, or in the worst case, murdered. According to the aid organization, Fier, fatal honor killings occur 7-17 times a year.

The body of the woman was found last May in Lelystad. It was quickly determined that she had died from a crime.

Until recently, the two brothers were in full restrictive custody, which means that they can only have contact with their attorney. Now they can again have contact with the outside world. Omroep Flevoland (news) reports that the men are 22 and 24 years of age.

A preliminary hearing in the case is scheduled in September.

Columbia: Three Administrators "Permantly Removed" From Their Positions

The plot thickens at Columbia University. Three university administrators have been "permanently removed" from their positions in the wake of leaked texts that mocked the concerns of Jewish students and the leader of the campus Hillel chapter. A 4th official who was involved in the text exchanges, Columbia College Dean Josef Sorett, remains in his position, which has many critics asking why. In addition, it is not immediately clear if the three administrators in question have been suspended or fired.

The College Fix has the report here. In addition, the Columbia Spectator also has a report here.

In November, 2023, Columbia suspended the campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), both rabidly anti-Israel groups, and certainly in the case of SJP, anti-Semitic as well. In my opinion, both of these radical organizations should be permanently banned from Columbia and all university campuses. Their actions on campus go far beyond speaking out against Israel and are unacceptable.

Portugal: One Fine Day in Porto

Porto, Portugal

On Saturday afternoon, about 40 Bangladeshi men were engaged in a massive brawl in the Portuguese city of Porto. One man had to be taken to the hospital with cuts to the head and apparently, nobody was arrested.

"Don't turn that corner, Bud."

This article from today's Correio da Manhã is translated by Fousesquawk. The article has a video of the incident with no sound.

Group of about 40 men involved in brawl with sticks, iron bars, and knives in Porto.

Only one of those involved was hospitalized with two cuts to the head.

 By Nelson Rodrigues at 10:36

A group of about 40 men, immigrants from Bangladesh, were involved in attacks outside a cafeteria Saturday afternoon on Dr. Aires Gouveia (street) next to the emergency room of the Saint Anthony Hospital in Porto. Sticks, iron bars, and knives were used in the confrontations.

Only one of those involved, a 48-year-old, was hospitalized. He had two cuts to the head. He is not in a life-threatening condition.

The PSP (police) was called to the scene and identified two men suspected of participating in the attacks. neither was detained.

The attacks were filmed. The suspects fled in the direction of Restoration (street).

*Update: (July 9, 2024). Latest reports from Portuguese media suggest the reason for the brawl was "political". No word on whether it was Portuguese politics, Bangladeshi politics, or Trump supporters vs. Biden supporters.

Joe Biden: Our Great American Soap Opera

This article first appeared in New English Review.

President Biden has done himself no good in the wake of his debacle debating former President Trump. In short, the damage control is not working. Sure, he went to Raleigh, North Carolina and gave -or tried to give- a "stemwinder" of a speech (with teleprompter) to prove that he really does have the energy to serve as president for another four years.  The only thing he showed was that he was an angry old man.

Then he gives a radio interview to a black-owned station in Philadelphia (WURD).  His interviewer later admitted that the questions she asked Biden had been sent to her in advance by Team Biden. (She has now been fired by WURD.)

And then there was the 22-minute interview in Wisconsin on ABC in which George Stephanopoulos basically asked him variations of the same question throughout. Biden insisted that his debate performance was a one-off. Several times, he repeated that it was his fault but also repeated the lines about having a cold and suffering from jet lag. That was in reference to his June trip to France for the D-Day commemoration, followed by a disastrous trip to Italy for the G-7 summit. The Italian newspapers (unlike the US media) were buzzing about his embarrassing episodes, begging off from a ceremonial dinner for Italian President Sergio Mattarella, wandering away from the other world leaders as Italian parachutists were landing at their feet, and seemingly drifting off as Andrea Bocelli was reaching his climax of Nessun Dorma (which happens to mean "nobody sleeps" in Italian). Then he flies to California for a fundraiser before returning to Washington and Camp David to prepare for the debate. In all that flying, he was also probably stuck in a middle seat on Air Force One, right?

And they only served him peanuts and a coke!

Even more astounding in that interview was when he claimed that Trump was yelling at him during the debate, and that had distracted him. Millions of people who watched the debate live can testify that is a ridiculous statement. 

Also, while Biden was in Wisconsin, he gave another energy-filled "stemwinder" (with a teleprompter) in which he promised his audience that he was going to beat Trump again in 2020!! 

And as all this is going on, Biden insists he will not drop out of the race as the groundswell rises from within his own party for him to withdraw. With some exceptions, they realize that Biden has reached the end of the road and will likely lose to Trump in November. They (and the media) should have realized in 2020 that he was in a state of mental decline. Then again, maybe the powers that be in the party figured they could more easily control him. Somebody clearly has been. For the left, the only thing that matters is that their agenda is carried out, and under Biden's inept rule, it has.

At any rate, it seems inevitable that the Democrat leaders in Congress are gearing up to march down to the White House and have that talk similar to when the Republican leaders told Nixon that his presidency was over. Nixon, whatever his faults, was not senile, and he was persuaded to put the country above himself. I honestly wonder if Biden, in his current condition, can be convinced to withdraw. He is a stubborn man, and stubbornness only increases with senility. In his public appearances since the debate, he appears to be in a state of denial.

And you know who the real "bad guy" in this sordid mess is? That would be the First Lady, Dr. Jill Biden herself. She is the one person who could have convinced him it was time to go back to Delaware. I have no doubt that she is the person Joe Biden depends on the most, the person he listens to the most. But she is clearly determined to hold onto power as First Lady, so she encourages him-pushes him- to stay in the race. What a disservice to the nation. The First Lady cannot claim senility on her part for her refusal to admit the truth. She can only be described as a conniver.

So with the rest of the world in turmoil, the American drama drags on as the Democrat party tries desperately to pull a rabbit out of the hat. The spin doctors can claim all they want that Biden is "bouncing back", but when even the mainstream media is now forced to admit there is a problem with the President's mental well-being, the chances for a Biden reelection seem more and more remote.

UC Irvine Silliness

UCI-Home of the Anteaters

If you wanted to encapsulate what is wrong with our universities today into a single op-ed in a campus newspaper, you need look no further than what UC Irvine's New University is running this week. It is a reflection on the recent pro-Hamas encampment and police action at UC Irvine, and it is written by two-you guessed it- professors. Even though the words "By opinion writer" appear beneath the title, it appears the op-ed was penned by Anneeth Kaur Hundle, 2023-2024 Associate Professor of Anthropology and Aaron Bornstein, 2023-2024 Assistant Professor of Cognitive Sciences.

I have picked out just a few paragraphs for comment, but the entire op-ed is chock full of the tired old leftist rhetoric about the "military-industrial complex", the "US-backed military occupation and genocide in Gaza", etc.  It's all anti-US, anti-Israel, and anti-police. 

Let's dig in.

"Such administrative emails reduce student activists — and to be more specific, a particular subset of the student body who have been peacefully exercising their rights to free speech, assembly and protest — as potential disruptors,  who constitute a seeming problem to be managed." 

Peacefully? I visited the UCI encampment just days before the police finally were called in. What I witnessed was a quad area surrounded by classroom and research buildings taken over by pro-Hamas students and other outside agitators. Activists were leading chants on bullhorns, nonstop, and some guy was beating on a drum. They were disrupting the operation of the university and interfering with the ability of teachers and students in the classrooms to go about the business of teaching and learning.

"Recommendations for de-escalation and then returning to normalcy after a “disruption” also construct student activists as irrational beings prone to violence, from whom nothing is to be learned. "

What conclusion is the public supposed to draw after witnessing the scenes from UC Irvine, UCLA, Columbia, and so many other universities? At UCI, the encampment lasted almost three weeks, and finally, the little rascals decided they were going to enlarge their area of control by taking over an adjacent building. That's when UCI's weak-kneed chancellor, Howard Gillman, finally decided enough was enough. The students ignored repeated orders to disband and resisted police when officers began to dismantle the encampment. 

UCI encampment

-MSN

"It is alarming to us that faculty are encouraged to rely on anti-terror, securitization and policing practices, when such policies and practices disproportionately target Black and Brown communities and criminalize student activists as potentially violent." 

Black and brown? Knuckleheads of all races have been represented in these pro-Hamas protests, both on and off campus. Similarly, those arrested in these protests represent all races including the usual collection of white anarchists and Antifa types. The police who are arresting people who go far beyond peaceful protests are grabbing them as they see offenses committed. They are not singling out black and brown protesters.

"Furthermore, the UCIPD is involved in other kinds of violent acts against students, including the meting out so-called “interim suspensions” to student activists without due process and on the basis of student protest being constructed as an “imminent threat to safety.” Some faculty associated with FSJP, for example, have documented the ways that upper administration has largely misled others in campus leadership on the actual impacts of these suspensions on students, including students’ lack of access to housing and other vital campus resources, the inability to take final exams or even attend their graduation commencement ceremony." 

So a suspension is now defined as violence? Returning to the real world, suspensions are supposed to have consequences. At least they did when I was a student back in the 1950s and 1960s.

In typical academic fashion, the writers have ticked off every box imaginable when it comes to leftist talking points. But then again, it's all about "intersectionality", you know.

The Biden-Trump 2024 Debates

Hat tip to the late, great Bo Diddley. 

For those of you who missed last week's debate between President Biden and former President Trump, here it is (digitally remastered as they say). And as a special bonus feature, Fousesquawk is providing a sneak preview of the September debate as well. Enjoy.

CAIR's Hussam Ayloush Doubles Down on His Anti-Semitism

Hussam Ayloush, CAIR

Hussam Ayloush, the CEO of the Council of American Islamic Relations, CAIR, a Hamas front organization, has a long history of making anti-Jewish statements. In my view, nobody in Southern California has done more to spread anti-Semitism than Hussam Ayloush. He would, of course, deny that he is anti-Jewish, only anti-Zionist, but his track record of inflammatory statements contradicts him.

MEMRI-TV has posted part of his Friday sermon at the Islamic Center of the Inland Empire (Rancho Cucamonga, Calif) on June 28, 2024. 

I will state this plainly, I have no problem stating that Hussam Ayloush is an anti-Semite who represents a despicable organization. I have said it to his face.

The Ongoing Morass at Columbia

"Among the dozens of newly published messages, Columbia College Vice Dean and Chief Administrative Officer Susan Chang-Kim wrote at 1:46 p.m. that the panel’s content “Comes from such a place of privilege… hard to hear the woe is me, we need to huddle at the Kraft center. Huh??” Dean of Undergraduate Student Life Cristen Kromm wrote at 2:08 p.m. that it is “Amazing what $$$$ can do” while referring to a Spectator op-ed penned by the campus rabbi in October 2023."

-Columbia Spectator

We recently learned that several administrators at Columbia University were caught exchanging text messages mocking the concerns of anti-Semitism on the part of Jewish students on campus. Amid the surge in anti-Semitism at Columbia and other universities in the wake of the October 7 attack by the Hamas terror group upon innocent Israeli civilians, Columbia is not surprisingly, one of the campuses most affected.

The mocking text messages were first brought to light by the hearings conducted by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Now, that committee has released additional exchanges that are basically insulting to Jewish students on campuses.

Columbia's campus newspaper, the Columbia Spectator, has a fairly detailed report on the latest revelations including transcripts of the exchanges. The exchanges reportedly took place during a May 31 panel discussion on  Jewish life on campus.

There is no way anybody can convince me that this university has any interest in the welfare of its Jewish students. From the president of the university on down, a thorough housecleaning is in order. The Jew-baiting, pro-Palestinian students who violate campus policies need to go, the outside agitators who come to campus to wreak havoc need to go, the indoctrinating professors who egg them all on need to go, and the cowardly administrators, especially those who mock Jewish concerns about campus anti-Semitism need to go.

Columbia, like other similar universities, has to feel it in the pocketbook. That means declining student enrollment, declining donations, declining grants-declining everything.

This resurgence in anti-Semitism in the US started on our university campuses, and it must be tackled on our university campuses.

Germany: Update on Iranian Knife Attacker in Lauf

 Hat tip Junge Freiheit, Gates of Vienna and Hellequin GB

Lauf-an-der-Pegnitz

A few days ago, we posted a translation of a German news article describing a knife attack upon a police car by an Iranian who was shot dead by the cops. The incident occurred in the small town of Lauf-an-der-Pegnitz, near Nuremberg.

Now more is known about the attacker. This article from Junge Freiheit is translated by Hellequin GB and posted on Gates of Vienna.

From the Daily Bruin: How UC Campuses Dealt With the Encampments

I am cross-posting an article running in the UCLA campus newspaper, the Daily Bruin. The article examines how various University of California campuses dealt with the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian encampments and protests this year. The article specifically focuses on UCLA, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, and UC Berkeley. It is a pathetic picture of weakness and indecision on the part of the UC administrators, from UC President Michael Drake down to the respective chancellors. Rather than shutting down the encampments immediately, administrators preferred to negotiate, make proposals, counter-proposals, and wring their hands until the situation on their campuses became intolerable.

Not that the Daily Bruin would agree with my assessment. Like most every other campus newspaper in the land, they sympathize with the pro-Palestinian agitators while condemning police action to clear the encampments. I still feel it is worthwhile to cross-post the article as examples of the weakness of the UC administrators. (I have added my own comment in the Daily Bruin reader commentary thread.)

 

The Supreme Court Decision

 Overall, I was pleased with the Supreme Court Decision giving former President Trump immunity for official acts done while president largely because I believe the prosecutions against him are wrong and politically motivated, as well as the opinion that he is not being provided due process in any of these cases including the one in which he was recently convicted in New York. I should state at this juncture that I am not a lawyer or constitutional expert, though I have three decades of federal law enforcement experience with all the court time that goes with it. I won't go into the details as to whether this decision will wipe out all the pending trials against Trump and force a retrial in the case where he was convicted. I personally hope so, but I cannot predict. 

As for the decision, I do feel that it leaves some loose ends that will have to be dealt with in the future.  This decision obviously goes beyond Trump and will apply to future presidents. Most importantly, what are official acts and unofficial acts? One example of that was the checks that Trump signed for Stormy Daniels while acting as president. Official acts? On the surface, I don't think so, but some smart lawyer could probably define it in a different way.

I don't believe any president should be above the law, but there is a reason why the Justice Department has a policy that it will not prosecute a sitting president. Till now, the Constitution has not been clear on this though a former president can be prosecuted. Imagine if a rogue prosecutor anywhere in the US, federal or local, decided that the sitting president did something illegal and decided to bring charges? We cannot cripple a sitting president and bring chaos to our executive branch. It would be a national security disaster. (And as we have learned, we do have rogue prosecutors.)

Does the decision give Trump and other presidents total immunity? Of course not. If a president were to murder or rape someone in the Oval Office, that is clearly not an official act. Other actions can be argued, however, and I suppose every president has taken some official action that his critics have said were illegal, unconstitutional, or abusing his authority, etc. This week, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, with whom I never agree, had an interesting comment saying (I paraphrase) that if no actions taken by a president can be prosecuted, Richard Nixon would like to have his presidency back. I assume she was referring to the infamous audio tape of Nixon instructing his surrogates in the Oval Office to have the CIA call off the FBI (from the Watergate Investigation) on the grounds that the whole thing was a national security issue.

Of course, Nixon was never prosecuted. He resigned in the face of almost certainly being impeached and removed from office. President Ford then gave him a pardon for any and all crimes he may have committed in Watergate. Nixon had no recourse for resigning in the face of impeachment and removal from office for his actions in Watergate. Maddow still has a point. When Richard Nixon ordered his surrogates to use the CIA to get the FBI off the Watergate case, was that an official act? I wonder what today's Supreme Court would say about that. I would say that was an official act even if it was illegal because it was part of a coverup of the Watergate investigation. The example that some on the left have used is what if the president ordered his attorney general to assassinate a political rival? Certainly illegal. Official act? I would say yes. Any order a president gives to his attorney general is an official act in my view, legal or illegal. If that is the case, then I see a need for some fine-tuning of the Supreme Court's decision.

On the other hand, going back to Maddow, suppose for the sake of argument that a future Trump Justice Department were to investigate and bring convincing evidence that President Obama ordered his Justice Department and FBI to whitewash the Hillary Clinton case and concoct a false narrative about Trump being tied to the Russians, and for the FBI to use a false justification to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page, etc. (Again, I am speaking hypothetically. I am not saying Obama ever gave such orders.) Would those have been considered official acts? I would say yes. What would you say, Ms. Maddow?

There is another interesting aspect to all this, which came out in the recent debate. Trump was asked if elected, would he attempt retribution against his enemies (in the form of prosecution, etc.). Trump, in his usual fashion, did not immediately give an answer until after being pressed and said that the best revenge was a successful administration. Good answer. Previously, Trump has made statements that implied that if elected, it would be payback time, "military tribunals" etc. All that did was give fodder to the media and the Biden campaign (which is still breathing as I write).

While I do believe crimes have been committed by many people in attempts to destroy Trump, including these malicious prosecutions (not to mention Biden's own corruption issues), I see a disturbing trend here where incoming administrations might try to prosecute the previous administration.

If we go back in history, would it have been justifiable if President Reagan had sent his Justice Department to bring charges against former President Carter for giving the Panama Canal to Panama? Could President Clinton have gone after former President Reagan for the Iran-Contra deal? Could President George W. Bush have gone after former President Bill Clinton for say, assaulting Kathleen Willey in the Oval Office (as she alleged)? Should Bush have ordered his Justice Department to investigate and possibly bring charges for the shady dealings of the Clinton Global Initiative (established after Clinton left the presidency)? Could President Obama have ordered his Justice Department to bring charges against George W Bush for the Iraq invasion? Should President Trump have used his Justice Department to restart the investigation of AG Eric Holder (and Obama) in Operation Fast and Furious? With the exception of the two Clinton examples, all of the above hypothetical examples involved official acts by presidents while in office. (Rachel Maddow can rest easy. If Clinton, indeed, sexually assaulted Willey in the White House, it could never be considered an official act. I'm not claiming he did or didn't. It was alleged.)

Hopefully, you see where I'm going with this. Were I a better historian and wanted to write a longer article, we could go all the way back to George Washington and find something they did in office that was deemed illegal by a succeeding president (of an opposing party, naturally). If we start doing this, virtually every president would find themselves in the dock after they left the presidency. That is what banana republics do.

Note that I didn't even go into the Supreme Court's ruling in the same decision that official acts by a president while in office cannot be used by prosecutors to prove other alleged crimes. I have no problem with it, but it would require a better legal expert to thoroughly examine it.

At some point, all this has to end. What also has to end is weaponizing our law enforcement agencies to bring down political rivals. But how? The problem is that corruption in politics has increased in recent decades and corrupt politicians have to be held accountable. Am I suggesting that we should turn a blind eye to this corruption and just let presidents do what they want? Not at all. Thus, we have a conundrum: How do we stop this trend of using prosecutors and law enforcement to go after presidents and former presidents while still holding future presidents accountable? The Supreme Court decision gives us a start, but I think more is needed. How do we accomplish all that and create a perfect system? At this point, I find myself a bit too deep in the weeds.