Liberal Hypocrisy on Foreign Government Intervention

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accused Russia of trying to influence the US election by leaking thousands of Democratic National Committee emails to embarrass the Democrats.  The emails showed how the DNC sought to discredit Senator Bernie Sanders in an effort to promote Clinton, and to disrupt Trump rallies, among other things.

The veracity of the emails were not questioned by Clinton or fellow Democrats.

Clinton claimed that the Russians leaked such emails to help elect Donald Trump, and she made a point of connecting Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin in her third debate with Trump.  Interestingly, some of the leaked emails connected Clinton herself with Putin.

In another twist of hypocrisy, just a few months earlier, various left-wing groups decried Israel’s new NGO law which required Non-Governmental Organizations that lobby the Israeli parliament and run various agencies within Israel and its territories, to disclose if they receive more than half of their funding from foreign governments.  The left-wing groups even got the United Nations to chime in that such identification transparency law was anti-democratic, even though the NGOs would still able to continue to lobby and function.

It is a remarkable bit of hypocrisy for liberal groups to try to stop a foreign government from simply publicizing emails that Democrats actually wrote, while supporting various foreign governments efforts to ACTIVELY lobby and operate inside Israel anonymously.

nif
New Israel Fund CEO Daniel Sokatch

The New Israel Fund (NIF) is an organization that helps create such NGOs that receive foreign funding, loudly voiced its opposition to the Israeli Transparency Law. The NIF CEO is also on the Advisory Board of J Street and the Founding Executive Director of the Progressive Jewish Alliance, which ultimately became Bend the Arc, a Jewish PAC which endorsed Clinton for President.

It would appear that liberals are transparently hypocritical.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Hillary’s Transparency

J Street’s Select Appreciation of Transparency

Adalah, Dismantling Zionism

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

George Soros’ Left Wing Lobbying Dwarfs Goldman Sachs and the NRA

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Advertisements

J Street’s Select Appreciation of Transparency

J Street, a far-left lobbying group which calls itself “pro-Israel” has a select appreciation for the value of transparency.  Consider its statements in the recent past:

On October 23, 2015, the group stated: “J Street congratulates delegates to the World Zionist Congress for overwhelmingly approving a resolution requiring the institutions it oversees to provide Jewish communities around the world with comprehensive and accurate information on their budget, finances and activities.

This was an important vote for democracy and accountability. Jews in Israel and around the world should know where the money they raise to support the State of Israel is invested. They should know that these funds are spent in ways consistent with Jewish values and in a manner that advances Israel’s future as a secure democratic homeland of the Jewish people.  
 
For too long, the actions of vital institutions like the Jewish Agency for Israel, the Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael and the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization have operated in secrecy, cloaked in deliberate confusion. Investigations have raised serious concerns about corruption. Meanwhile, some of these organizations, under the direction of the Government of Israel, have funneled funds to strengthen settlements in the West Bank at the expense of needy communities within Israel’s 1967 boundaries…. This massive support shows that financial transparency is something Jews around the world can unite around.”

J Street seemed particularly happy with the notion of clearly showing the flow of funds at organizations as it promoted “democracy,” “accountability” and “transparency.”

However, if the transparency of the flow of funds came against parties J Street supported, like those that opposed settlements, J Street reversed its opinion.

benami-J Street
Executive Director of J Street, Jeremy Ben Ami
(photo: JTA/J Street)

On December 28, 2015, J Street condemned the Israeli government for a bill that would provide financial transparency of NGOs (non-governmental governmental organizations):

J Street is deeply concerned and disappointed by the Israeli cabinet’s decision Sunday to send to the Knesset for approval a one-sided bill aimed at restricting the work of progressive non-governmental organizations which monitor human rights and oppose the occupation…. The bill, which was introduced by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked of the right-wing Jewish Home party, would create a series of onerous new requirements that aim to demonize and discredit progressive organizations. Under the guise of “transparency,” these groups would have to identify themselves as foreign agents on the grounds that they receive the majority of their funding from foreign governments. Meanwhile, right-wing organizations, which receive significant funding from private foreign entities, would be free to continue to funnel money to West Bank settlements and to other anti-democratic causes without being subject to the same requirements.”

Somehow, J Street likes transparency in some situations, while not in others.

The group claims that the bill only targets progressive groups, but that is not the case at all.  All NGOs, whether left-wing or right-wing, would be forced to declare if they received the majority of their funding from foreign governments.  All NGOs funded by private foreign entities – left-wing ones like George Soros’s Open Society, or right-wing groups – would not need to declare if that they were foreign entities.

Former Israeli Ambassador to the United States and current MK (Kulanu) Michael Oren believes that the bill to provide transparency would hurt Israel’s ties to the United States.  He suggested including labels for private donations as well as governmental donations. “You either have transparency, or you don’t.

Perhaps a solution to meet everyone’s goals on transparency would be to label groups funded by foreign governments “Foreign Entities,” and those sponsored by private foreign money “Internationally Sponsored.”


J Street is always keen to expose, highlight and label Jews living in Judea and Samaria and those that support them.  As it states on its website: “Communal institutions should provide full transparency to supporters regarding the source, amount and purpose of funds transferred through their accounts to institutions and programs on the West Bank.

That is why J Street also supports removing the “Made in Israel” label of products made in the “West Bank,” and using a distinct label of products as being “Made in the West Bank.”

Just don’t make J Street or its supporters provide transparency itself on its foreign funding.


Note:  To learn more about which organizations and countries support the various lobbying and activist groups, go to NGO-Monitor.  For example, the anti-Zionism group Adalah received money from: Switzerland; Belgium; Netherlands; Germany; Sweden; Denmark; the EU as detailed here.

NGO Monitor


Related First.One.Through articles:

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

The Fault in Our Tent: The Limit of Acceptable Speech

The Left-Wing’s Two State Solution: 1.5 States for Arabs, 0.5 for Jews

Adalah, Dismantling Zionism

Squeezing Zionism

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Selective Speech

Summary: Just because we are free to do or say something, doesn’t mean we should. And the selection of what speech to admire or admonish is not hypocrisy, but a choice on philosophy.

 

Many people have taken very hard positions regarding the recent killings at a “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest,” in Texas. In an effort to portray everything in black-and-white, they miss important distinctions.

  1. Murdering someone for being insulted is ALWAYS wrong. As discussed on these pages, “I’m Insulted; You’re Dead,” everyone should whole-heartedly condemn the killing of people because sensibilities were offended. Whether the attacks were at the Parisian offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, or at an event in Texas where people drew the Islamic prophet, no one should condone murder.
  2. Freedom of Speech is a CAUSE worthy of Defense. Freedom of speech and press are cornerstones of western democracies. They are basic and important causes to uphold.
  3. Specific language does NOT need to be defended. Just because someone has the right to say something, doesn’t require everyone to come to the defense of the content of any particular speech. An individual or organization that opts to distance itself from an event does not mean they are against free speech.

Civil Sensitivities

Western societies are a mix of people and ideas. Such combinations create both civil and uncivil conversations. One can choose to be part of a completely civil society where nothing unpleasant is ever said, uncivil society in which people attack people all of the time, or more likely, a blend of the two, where different ideas are shared which may upset certain individuals at certain times.

Civil society’s “safe spaces” are one’s home and organizations where people share common values.  It is hard to imagine that one can walk in public and never hear or see something disagreeable.

An inherent component of being part of the mixed society is to strike a balance of the use of free speech and society’s sensitivities.  Just because someone has the right to say something, doesn’t mean that they should, and that everyone has to support the comment. The other half of that balance is that there is no requirement in society to be polite to everyone.

Not Hypocrisy, But a Preference

When a party or organization chooses to defend some speech and not others, they show their own preferences or priorities. Consider the New York Times approach to several events that upset segments of the American population:

  • Mosque at Ground Zero (2010): The United States offers freedom of religion (as well as speech and press) and as such, Muslims are free to build a mosque at any location where they legally have rights to the land. However, many people viewed the proposed building of a mosque overlooking the site where terrorists killed thousands of people in the name of Islam, as wrong and insulting. The New York Times editorial felt differently stating that it saw “the wisdom of going ahead with the project,” in an opinion that sided with Muslims but offended many people.
  • Convent at Auschwitz (1989): Similar to the mosque at the base of the destroyed World Trade Center, the location of a Roman Catholic convent on the grounds of a notorious concentration camp where over a million Jews were killed simply because of their religion, was viewed as completely insensitive by many Jews. While the Times covered the news story in several articles, it conspicuously never offered its own opinion as to whether the convent should be moved.
  • Giuliani on the Brooklyn Museum art show (1999): The Brooklyn Museum ran a controversial series of “art works” that treated Christianity harshly, including a painting of Mary covered in dung. After New York City NYOR Rudolph Giuliani threatened to withhold funding for the museum, the NYT opted to attack the Mayor stating that “Art is the name of a perpetual human struggle with the limits of perception. The Mayor… is failing dramatically in that role in a fashion that makes him and the city look ridiculous
  • Metropolitan Opera on Klinghoffer (2014): When the streets of New York held civil protests about the Metropolitan Opera’s airing of a play that showed a sympathetic side of terrorists murdering an infirm elderly Jew, the New York Times rushed to the opera’s defense. The editorial page ran a headline that stated “The Death of Klinghoffer Must Go On”. It argued that it stood for art and free speech. Others claimed that it simply stood on the side of Palestinian terrorists.
  • Charlie Hebdo (2015): The New York Times printed a series of editorials trying to find its position on the murder of journalists by Muslim terrorists. While it clearly stood by the rights of journalists to free press, it seemed to support such right because it lampooned all religions, and not just Islam.
  • Draw Mohammed Exhibit (2015). The New York Times chose to attack the organizer of the event, Pamela Geller and stated that the event was simply “hate speech”. It condemned the contest “cannot justify blatantly Islamophobic provocations like the Garland event.

What is the summary of the observations of the New York Times?

  • It sided with Muslims at Ground Zero and the Draw Mohammed Contest; against them at Charlie Hebdo;
  • It sided against Christians at the Brooklyn Museum and offered no opinion at the Auschwitz convent;
  • It sided against Jews for the Klinghoffer opera and no opinion at the Auschwitz convent

When it came to religion, the Times record was mixed, while showing a preference for Muslim sensitivities over Christians and Jews.

Overall, the Times will claim its record is for upholding freedoms.  It obviously failed in that principle when it came to the Mohammed Exhibit, which it claimed failed the threshold for art and was merely “hate speech”.  Perhaps the Times forgot the never-ending nature of its definition of art from 1999: “Art is the name of a perpetual human struggle with the limits of perception.”


Related First.One.Through articles:

Blasphemy OR Terrorism

My Terrorism

New York Times Confusion on Free Speech

“Please Sir, May I have Some More?”

As the 2014 Operation Protective Edge (hopefully) draws to a close, one can expect the same histrionics that have become well-known and well-worn to emanate from the Arab world. The video below of Queen Rania of Jordan, is of her appeal to the United Nations five years ago, which can serve as the outline for the Arab textbook on UNRWA. In summation, we are pathetic and we want to ask the world for money again.

(As further background/amusement, Queen Rania of JORDAN was born in KUWAIT and considers herself Palestinian, when convenient).

“Life half-lived” – Palestinian Quality of Life. The Arabs will bemoan their treatment by Israel and ignore their treatment by their Arab brethren.

Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria are denied citizenship by their host countries. They are denied the ability to own property and obtain white color jobs. The Jordanians gave Palestinians citizenship in 1954, only to revoke it in 1988. Egypt has totally shut down Hamas which runs Gaza, as it is a part of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.

The reason why Palestinians have a bad quality of life (beyond the discrimination from their Arab “brothers”) is because of UNRWA. UNRWA has given millions of second and third generation Arabs a life “half-lived” because of a promise that they will get to go to a house that no longer exists, in a country that their grandparents sought to destroy at its infancy. The Arabs in Israel have twice the life of Palestinians in Arab countries.

Regardless, all protests about quality of life will be directed at Israel, and not at UNRWA, Lebanon, Syria or Egypt.

“Hours wasted at checkpoints” – Border control. The Palestinians will complain about the restrictions of movement out of Gaza and the West Bank. The fact that those territories have amassed over 10,000 rockets, have a charter calling for the death of Jews and destruction of Israel, have fired over 10,000 rockets at Israeli towns over the past 13 years, and killed hundreds of Israeli civilians does not seem to factor into their concern about Israel’s need for border controls.

Regardless, Arab nations will press Israel to alleviate travel restrictions.

“UNRWA has delivered sanctuary.” – Charge of War Crimes. The vast majority of UNRWA employees are Palestinians. These employees were caught not only storing missiles in their schools, but handing them over to Hamas to launch against Israel. Those same members of Hamas launched missiles in and around the UNRWA schools.  UNRWA teachers have been caught building rockets for Hamas.

Regardless, the histrionics of Israel firing at the missile launching sites will continue.

“Reconstruction”. – Appeal for Money to Gaza. The historic blame for the limited re-building homes and schools in Gaza was laid squarely on Israel’s restriction on allowing building materials into Gaza. As Operation Protective Edge made clear, the fault was not the lack of cement in Gaza, but which projects the Palestinians sought to develop. Hamas used the materials to build terror tunnels instead of schools and roads above ground.

Regardless, the Arabs will argue for the ease of more materials into Gaza without oversight.

“School provides a comforting routine.” The schools in Gaza may fly an UNRWA flag, but the curricula are determined by the ruling authority – Hamas. The Hamas education is complete with demonization of Jews and Holocaust denial.

Regardless, Palestinians will demand a rebuilding of schools under the Hamas watch.

“Hell on Earth”. Queen Rania described Gaza as “Hell on Earth” for many years. She used this statement even though people in Gaza had: longer life expectancy; better immunization rates and higher literacy rates than Jordanians.

“If we let UNRWA collapse… we risk destabilizing the entire region.” Queen Rania should hand back her prophesy credentials. The Arab and Muslim world is in total chaos in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria and other places, with no connection to Israel or UNRWA. UNRWA itself is a destabilizing force to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, in its current configuration.

Regardless, the Arabs will shout that the organization should not be overhauled.

“All of us depend on UNRWA.” The appeal that the world needs UNRWA will continue even though it is blatantly false. It is a cheap attempt to get the world to continue to fund salaries for 30,000 Palestinians.

The amazing hypocrisy, is that the Arab world funds only 10% of the UNRWA budget, while they are the ones who claim it is necessary.

Regardless, Palestinians will once again have their hands out asking the world for more money.


Source:

“First of its kind” missile discovery: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/unrwa-investigating-20-rockets-empty-gaza-school-palestinian

“Second time” http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools

Third time a trend? http://www.timesofisrael.com/rockets-found-in-unrwa-school-for-third-time/

“Vast Majority” of UNRWA employees are Palestinians: http://www.unrwa.org/userfiles/20100118153142.pdf

UNRWA teacher and terrorist: http://www.globaljihad.net/view_news.asp?id=409

Frontpage article on UNRWA: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/defund-the-unrwa/

Turkish Hypocrisy – Erdogan’s Line of Defense

On July 19, Turkish Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdogan continued his vile attacks against Israel, comparing Israelis to Hitler. “(Israelis) have no conscience, no honour, no pride. Those who condemn Hitler day and night have surpassed Hitler in barbarism,”

Erdogan is famous for his hypocrisy. He has shelled Syria repeatedly for accidental mortar fire into Turkey. He has refused to admit Turkey’s Armenian Genocide. He has refused to back down from Turkey’s illegal annexation of northern Cyprus.

Maybe his title should be changed to the “Prime Turkey”.


Sources:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/19/uk-israel-turkey-travel-idUKKBN0FO0XD20140719

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/68204