In Edwin Black’s new book, ‘Financing the Flames,’ the author of ‘IBM and the Holocaust‘ follows the money trail to uncover the powers behind non-profit groups attempting to de-legitimize Israel.
The book focuses on the role played by the New Israel Fund, a non-profit initially funded by the Ford Foundation, that donates to hundreds of smaller non-profits, many of which Black ties to programs attacking Israel or attempting to de-legitimize the Jewish state.
Black’s book explores NIF’s funding sources and its out-sized influence as a lobbying force in the Knesset and as a destabilizing force for the IDF. He also profiles some of the fringe groups that receive its donor funds and makes the case that Americans are indirectly funding a controversial Palestinian Authority program that pays convicted terrorists in Israeli jails.
A female genital mutilation (FGM) campaigner was left in tears after an experiment intended to assess the impact of political correctness on the fight against cutting saw 19 people sign a fake pro-FGM petition within 30 minutes.
Leyla Hussein, 32, who suffered female genital mutilation as a child, approached shoppers in Northampton with the petition, which argued that as FGM was part of her culture, it should be protected.
During the 30-minute experiment, 19 people signed the petition and just one refused – a result Hussein blamed on the all-pervading culture of political correctness.
“Did you know we’re just completing what Canada’s Parliament has declared as “Islamic History Month”?
Yes, all Octobers in Canada shall be an opportunity for you infidels to learn from my people.
Learn about our often bloody history of conquest and enlightenment, including how we Muslims slaughtered our own Prophet Mohammed’s family, right up to modern times when we committed genocides in Bangladesh and Darfur and tried to kill innocent school girls like Malala Yousafzai.
It’s amazing how Canada is providing us Muslims the opportunity to reconcile the crimes and accomplishments of our forefathers, without us having to fear for our lives.
One Syrian security official called it the “Starvation Until Submission Campaign”, blocking food and medicine from entering and people from leaving besieged areas of Syria.
Forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad have used partial sieges to root out rebel forces from residential areas during the civil war. But a recent tightening of blockades around areas near the capital is causing starvation and death, residents and medical staff say.
Few observers seem able to recognize noteworthy predictive connections between the unraveling situation in Syria and the likely outcomes of Palestinian statehood. Still, this overlooked linkage is significant. In essence, the whole abhorrent panoply of war crimes and crimes against humanity revealed in Syria, including perhaps the use of chemical weapons against civilians, is what we might also expect in “Palestine.”
There, openly fratricidal warfare between Hamas, Fatah and several other Palestinian splinter groups could effectively replicate what we are witnessing today between pro- and anti-Assad forces in Syria.
There is more. With a newly emerging geostrategic polarity between Russia and the United States, the old Cold War antagonists could quickly line up on opposite warring sides in Palestine. Among other things, including possibly parallel cleavages in a steadily nuclearizing Iran, this polarity could portend substantially enlarged instabilities in the Middle East.
For all of its predictable liabilities, both national and regional, Palestine would represent an historically new state. While still not generally understood, there has never been a Palestinian state. Never.
Within all contending Palestinian factions, there is agreement on one central objective: that all prospective Palestinian leaders seek statehood because of an alleged right under international law to “self-determination.” For them, the November 29, 2012 upgrade of the Palestinian Authority to the status of a “nonmember observer state” at the United Nations was merely an intermediary and partial achievement. Now, Hamas, Fatah and assorted sister groups will agree, there still needs to be a follow-on grant of full sovereignty.
Ironically, should this legally upgraded condition actually be realized, it would likely represent the juridical beginning of another Syria. Somehow, it has become customary to explain the Arab-Israeli conflict in terms of a purported absence of Palestinian “sovereign equality.” More precisely, so proceeds this conventional narrative, the Middle East plainly requires the decently enhanced juridical symmetry of a “two-state solution.” Only when a Palestinian state is created alongside the existing Jewish state, goes this contrived argument, can there be “peace.”
To be sure, a great many evident holes puncture this feeble explanation, many of which have to do with its most utterly core assumptions. By now, we should all readily understand, no major Palestinian leader or faction could ever be content with “coexistence. ” Rather, for this person or group, peace can be expected only when all of Israel has finally been incorporated into Palestine.
Seeing requires distance. The movement for Palestinian statehood has never really been about land. It has always been about God. In its modern form, moreover, the grotesque and ultimately genocidal Palestinian view of Israel stems from Hajj Amin el-Husseini’s canonical Jew hatred, and the World War II-era Arab Muslim leader’s corresponding promulgation of Jihad.
The 1988 “Hamas Covenant,” a documentary wellspring of any future Palestinian state, explicitly ties the irreducible obligations of Jihad to Islamic rules: “It is necessary to establish in the minds of all the Muslim generations, that the Palestinian issue is a religious issue, and that it must be dealt with as such.”
This recalcitrant view remains unhidden. Today, on any Palestinian Authority or Hamas map of the region, Israel is unambiguously identified as “Occupied Palestine.” Naturally, such a conspicuously irredentist view does not bode well for area diplomacy. As recently as October 19, 2013, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh urged “armed resistance” as the only correct Palestinian orientation to Israel.
Enter Syria. With the Syrian civil war continuing to rage, even as President Bashar al-Assad is praised by U.S. President Barack Obama for reportedly complying with the destruction of his chemical weapons, we can get a palpable sense of what Palestine would look like. Although rarely considered in this manner, the current situation in Syria is actually a reliably portentous omen of what ultimately awaits in “Palestine.”