The U.S. Bars Entry To Founder Of The BDS Movement

We have previously discussed the decision to bar certain travelers from the United States based on their political views or associations. I have long opposed such orders as inimical to free speech and counterproductive for the country as a whole. The latest example of this policy is the barring of Omar Barghouti, the co-founder of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement. According to NPR, the Palestinian activist was prevented from entering to speak to various groups who wanted to hear from him. The government prevented that as well as his desire to attend his daughter’s wedding.

Countries like Russia regularly bar entry to people who hold views considered unacceptable. It is the ultimate form of denying free speech but preventing people from even conversing on a subject. Of course, Barghouti can still appear by video or engage through the Internet. All that the order achieves to make a mockery of our values of free speech.

Ultimately, Barghouti appeared via livestream and his being barred at the border likely served to only reaffirm the views of the BDS supporters.Read more:

229 thoughts on “The U.S. Bars Entry To Founder Of The BDS Movement”

  1. Of Ilhan Omar, Anti-Semitism, and America
    By Sebastian Gorka|April 10th, 2019

    It was only a matter of time. And in this case, it didn’t take long at all.

    After Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) made her racist remarks about the “evil” and “hypnotic” influence of Israel, the undue influence of the Jewish lobby in Washington, (“it’s all about the Benjamins”), and the dual loyalty of American Jews, Democrats were on track to censure her by name from the floor of the House. But it never happened. Nancy Pelosi proved too weak.

    After almost a week of wrangling, the committee that drafted the final statement on the scandalous freshman representative released a final text that never mentioned her by name, her statements, or any need for her to apologize for her bigotry. (Not coincidentally, Omar sits on this very committee.) In fact, the final language was such generic and anodyne boilerplate that it could have been issued at any time, by either party, for any reason or no reason at all.

    That the Speaker of the House was so timid in the face of such shocking behavior should surprise no one.

    Behold the face of the Democratic Party: minority, young, and racist. This is the fruit of identity politics. Be it Omar, who is on the cover of the current issue of Newsweek, Rashida Talib (D-Mich.) who signaled the need to obliterate Israel on her first day in office, or the leader of the pack, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.), a proud supporter of the anti-Israel BDS movement, the “new faces” of the DNC constitute a united front in their hatred for our Semitic brethren.

    And no matter what Pelosi says, Omar will not be reined in.

    In the less than two months since the Democratic House leadership was forced to take its limp-wristed action, the immigrant saved from the hell that is “modern” Somalia has let her inner racist out once more, as this Monday she took her anti-Semitism to Twitter to attack a member of the Trump Administration.

    Stephen Miller, my former colleague in the White House, is a very intelligent but quiet young man. On those rare occasions when he does veer towards being outspoken, it is almost always within his special “lane” of immigration policy. He does not talk publicly about his family background or personal beliefs, nor does he feel especially compelled to share the fact that he is Jewish, though it’s no secret. That is why Omar’s Monday attack on him is all the more egregious. To call Stephen Miller a “white nationalist” is more than simply obnoxious, given that white nationalism is an ideology which targets those of color generally, and Jews specifically.

    Omar has yet to be sanctioned in any way by her party or the leadership in Congress for this newest act of hatred. This despite the fact that after her attack on Miller, a disturbing video surfaced on social media in which the congresswoman casually described the mass murder of 2,977 people by jihadists on September 11, 2001 as an event where “some people did something.” This was before she used 9/11 as the justification for the establishment of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas-front founded in 1994. A federal court in 2008 designated CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist-financing trial in American history. The FBI had to sever all ties with the group exactly because of its ties to the Holy Land Foundation and its leaders who were convicted in that trial for sending $12.4 million to Hamas from the United States.

    In less than four months in Congress, Omar has used ancient and modern Anti-Semitic slurs to attack Jewish members of the Trump Administration, her fellow Jewish members of Congress, and our closest and best ally in the Middle East, Israel. She has trivialized the greatest terror attack on American soil since the founding of our republic, and has spoken warmly of those directly implicated by a federal court for their support of one of the deadliest perpetrators of international terrorism.

    Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans. But so is our choice to denounce, call out, and recall racists. Ilhan Omar is the most flagrantly racist figure in politics today. Every day her vile beliefs and words are tolerated by Nancy Pelosi and her fellow partisans is a day that proves just how morally bankrupt and devoid of any legitimacy the Democrats have become.

    [Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact]

  2. There’s a reason for all of those things that St. Peter claims “Tom doesn’t know”; I have not paid close enough attention to HHHNN updates, a truely “fair and balanced” source of news.
    Going forward, I’ll ditch Reuters, the NY Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, PBS, ABC, CNBC, and other news sources that have kept me in he dark about all those things St. Peter the Journalist 😉😃😄mentions.
    Reading every word of a fact-based, objective 😀😆😄😂🤣 source like HHHNN is essential for anyone seeking the “truth”.

    1. The prince is one of a number of mega-wealthy investors with numerous international holdings.
      Maybe Hollywood Hill had a point in listing many of his investments that in addition to the ones I already mentioned.
      The “internet meme” apparently promoted by Hollywood Hill is that there is somehow a suspicious link between Prince Waleed and Fox News.
      That fits in well with the frequent displays of “Fox Paranoia” exhibited by Hill and a few others her.

      1. The meme is your’s, Tom, you own it. It shaped ‘your’ perceptions. Not mine.

        1. Who brought up the “40 ownership of Fox by a Saudi”?
          (Hint……it wasn’t me.)
          That led into all kinds of subsequent ridiculous claims by Peter like “I wasn’ that far off” when I pointed out that it was 6%, maybe.
          ( It looks like he sold much of his stake in 2017, and it’s likely to be lower now).
          Then we see the attempted deflection by Peter that I was “dismissive” of the Saudi princes international investments; they is in fact no major area of disagreemt over the size and amount of his stock holdings.
          But to cloud the issue further, he brings that up to attempt to bury his earlier blunder reshape the narrative by dragging it put into the tulies.
          There is an established pattern by Peter Schill and the other main propagandist here to deflect, muddle, and distort as much as need to in order to short-circuit any rational, orderly exchange.
          Whether that involves bringing on Shari law, The Code of Hammurabi, volleyball, or whatever out of left field and into their comments, whatever they need to do to continue on with their monologues here.

          1. I’l wager he recycled a talking point from some nosepicker at Think Progress. We’ve heard from the NAACP and the ACLU today (while the Commerce Depts. published data is treated as if I made it up).

            1. What data are you talking about, Tabby?? Your ‘ratio’ of debt reports? How would I know they’re from the Commerce Department? You never say where you’re getting any stats.

              Those stats from the ACLU and NAACP correspond with almost every report I’ve seen on Black arrests and incarcerations. And I don’t totally disagree with your explanations. I worked with cops for many years, I understand why they pursue the cases they pursue.

              But regarding the criminalization of abortion, common sense says that poorer women would be disproportionately prosecuted. But the so-called ‘pro-life’ movement has no desire whatsoever to address the ramifications.

              1. But regarding the criminalization of abortion, common sense says that poorer women would be disproportionately prosecuted.

                Common sense says don’t kill your young. But you want it done anyway..

              2. How would I know they’re from the Commerce Department? You never say where you’re getting any stats.

                Because that’s who compiles and publishes general production statistics in this country. You wan’t labor statistics, it’s the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Miscellaneous data, the Census Bureau, transportation data, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Ag data, the Economic Research Service of USDA, Energy data, the Energy Information Administration. Global data, check the World Bank, the UNDOC, the IMF, etc.

          2. Who brought up that meme, Tom??? I never saw it.

            What a hostile stunt to pull on other commenters! You pull a stupid meme out of nowhere and claim the other person got their views from it. Then you double-down on the accusation and keep repeating the claim.

            I could play that game as well. There are Trumpers on my Facebook stream who post ridiculous memes on a daily basis. I could copy one of their memes and post in the reply box of some comment you make. Then I could write: “Here’s where Tom Nash got his idea!” Then I could spend the next 3 days repeating that over and over.

            But that’s not me, Tom. I’m not that hostile.

  3. Use the Patriotic Act. It’s either an act of Terrorism or supporting an act of Terrorism.

  4. Well, I did consider🤔 St.Peter’s comments about my use of emojis, and I promise😇, out of proper consideration for his objections, to be mindful and considerate 🤭in all future comments to and about Hollywood Hill. —–Tom

  5. Now if anyone else wants to double down on Hollywood Hill’s claim that a Saudi investor owns 40% of Fox, feel free.
    Or just claim that the particular claim is ” not that far off”☺️😄😃😊🤣.
    I think that Hollywood Hill should stay with that line whenever somebody calls bull**** on his crazy, baseless, “proprietary” set of facts.
    Joseph Goebbels was, unfortunately for Germany and the rest of the world, pretty smart and pretty slick.
    At least those dangerous qualities are absent in our two resident propagantists here, so the actual threat from their non-stop propaganda is minimal.

  6. I can see why Hollywood Hill feels that it “reflects badly on conservatives” when he’s called out for latching on to “something he saw somewhere” on the internet, then presents it here as if it were fact.
    That makes him look stupid, and could even damage the sterling reputation of his fair and balanced HHHNN media platform.
    My suggestion to Peter is that, unless he’s trying to set himself up for being razzed/ needled/ mocked, try checking sources outside of a Facebook post, a feed he gets from the main news desk of David Brock, or Hollywood rumor before posting it here as “fact”.
    There are some here who actually will razz and mock Hollywood Hill when he invites it. And that reflects badly on them🤗😉😂🤣.
    Now I personally😇 try to treat Peter with all the seriousness and credibility that he “deserves”.

    1. Tom, you lie on a daily basis. So just shut up with your pot stirring. It seems your only function on this blog is to just pop in here and there for hit & run attacks while using stupid emoji’s as cover. What a jerk!

      1. Care to point out the lies you claim I make daily, Hollywood Hill?
        Or is that simply another one of your lies?
        I realize that a shameless, prolific, hyperpartisan propagandist and Hollywood flake like St. Peter is not exactly meticulous when it comes to accuracy.
        When I point out a wildly inaccurate claim here, I demonstrate why it’s not acccurate.
        Now while I expect a scumbag like Hollywood Hill to pull out accusations like “liar” out of his grab-bag of stunts, but maybe St.Peter would care to cite the instances where I lie “daily”.
        Maybe his source for that accusation
        Facebook again?

        1. I almost forgot to rate the claim made by Hollywood Hill in his 9:11 PM comment.

            Would hate to have him overlook anything, so the all-caps sentences and the emojis might help him look more closely🧐 at comments where he’s mentioned.

        2. Right now you’re lying about Facebook. I don’t get my news from Facebook. Never did. In fact, most of my Facebook activity involves telling people how inaccurate their memes are. And at least half of those comments pertain to so-called liberal memes. The liberals on my stream don’t always like me.

          But here you twice asserted this lie that I get my news from Facebook. And apparently it’s a lie you intend to keep repeating.

          Then just a couple days ago you popped in on a debate to call Anon a ‘liar’. I read that thread over at least a couple times and I couldn’t discern ‘why’ you were even calling Anon a ‘liar’. You weren’t even specific about it. That makes ‘you’ the liar! And it was hardly the first time.

          1. Care to tell us where you did get that claim about Saudi ownership of Fox, St. Peter?
            I did ask you for where you got that “information”, your source, and you never answered that ( big surprise).
            So I looked into possible likely sources; in the absence of an answer from Hollywood Hill, I posted the Facebook meme as his most likely source.
            Now he can clear that up and tell us where he picked up that bogus Fox/ Saudi ownership claim, but I don’t except that will happen.
            He ducked that question once already, so I won’t hold my breath for a straight answer from him.

            1. Tom, are you denying that Rupert Murdoch meddles politically on 3 different continents? Are you denying that Prince Waleed was Murdoch’s longtime investment partner? My 40% estimate came pretty close. Waleed’s ratio of investment was about one third of Murdoch’s. I was off by 7%. But now you want to make some huge production out of it while repeating the lie that I get my news from Facebook.

              It seems you want to selectively focus on one little thing while ignoring everything else. It’s just hostile attitude we constantly see from the Trumpers on this site. You outnumber liberals so you want to harass us as much as possible. Because you know that certain nerds and windbags will always come to your rescue. It’s what’s know as ‘tribalism’.

              1. Peter, many people join together for investment purposes. I am not too fond with some of the personalities behind my investments but I like to earn money. The Prince thought Murdoch was a good metric to follow. Is there more to it>?I don’t know., but take note, the Prince had non voting shares while Murdoch had voting shares.

              2. “You outnumber liberals ”

                A lot of liberals have changed their personalities and dropped off because they couldn’t defend their positions. Now you want to claim you are surrounded by the opposition because you can’t make your case.

              3. I sure as hell contested your ridiculous claim about the Saudi ownership of Fox News, Peter, but I did not address your other silly questions/ comments.
                You and the other c. 15 or left- wing commentators here are, indeed, vastly outnumbered.
                One would have to go back to Custer’s Last Stand or the Alamo to see another example of a small band facing such impossible odds.
                It’s highly probable that you are equally beseiged and outnumbered in Hollywood, as well.

          2. I was specific Peter, but I neglected to put it in all CAPITAL LETTERS when I disputed his claim of ‘”50 years of illegal tax activities by the Trumps”.
            I can see why you missed it. I’ll try to use more capital letters and emojis in the future for your benefit, maybe shiny objects, too.😃😄

            1. Tom, let’s discuss those emojis. They create a code everyone knows. It reads “Passive Aggressive!”.

              It’s the online equivalent of smiling in someone’s face while insulting them with nasty presumed ‘jokes’. Little ‘digs’ that sound unmistakably hostile. But we’ve got these funny faces like, ‘It’s only a joke!’

              1. Peter,
                I’ll consider cutting back on those emojis in favor of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS to get through to you.😊😋😍😃😂🤣

                  1. I did a quick read of the 6 year-old Vanity Fair article linked by Hollywood Hill. No matter how much leeway one can possibly grant St. Peter, I don’t see how that article comes even “close to” supporting the absurd claim of 40% Saudi contol/ ownership of Fox News, by ONE Saudi investor.
                    It was also noted in the Vanity Fair linked article that the same Saudi investor holds ( or held) stakes in Disney and the Plaza Hotel, among other companies. If the Plaza pulls Gideon Bibles and replaces them with Korans, we’ll know’s behind this.

                      Now this was published in roughly the same time frame as the Vanity Fair article linked by Hollywood Hill; it is hard to imagine how anyone can claim that they were not that far off or close to o the original moronic meme that the
                      Saudi investor owned 40% of Fox News.
                      I can think of maybe one possible reason for the ridiculous initial and subsequent claims by St. Peter, but I’ll leave leave that aside for the time being.

                    2. TOM: YOUR LINK SAYS THIS:

                      Alwaleed owns 7 percent of Class B voting stock with 21st Century Fox, second only to Murdoch, as of Aug. 19. The filing notes, in compliance with federal securities law, 40 percent of Alwaleed’s voting rights are suspended because he is not an American citizen.

                      He is the third largest stockholder in the new News Corp., trailing Murdoch and an investment firm, with a 6.6 percent stake.

                      The relationship with Murdoch is reciprocal. News Corp. has a sizable stake in Rotana, a broadcasting company that airs Arabic and English programming in the Middle East. Alwaleed owns an 80 percent stake of Rotana, according to Bloomberg.

                      So Alwaleed has a sizable interest in Fox News, second in one aspect only to Murdoch. Experts told us that translates to being the No. 2 owner of Fox News.

                      It’s accurate to say he’s the No. 2 owner, but he’s more of a passive major shareholder, said Jay Ritter, University of Florida finance professor, pointing out Alwaleed does not have a seat on the company’s board of directors. His investment resembles other stocks held in major companies by mutual funds and investment firms, who invest big in public companies but do not intend to take over.

                      Gee Tom, I’m glad you posted this. For some reason you wanted to marginalize Alwaleed. Like he’s a nobody. But if anything this article makes him sound like a very active partner of Rupert Murdoch’s.

                    3. Either 6% or 40% is “quite substantial”
                      ……so why split hairs over an exaggeration that overstated Primce Waleed’s ownership by c. 600%.

                      Ill split hairs and note that the equation which calculates his exaggeration is the odds ratio:

                      (40/60) / (6/94)

                      IOW a 10.4 – fold exaggeration.

                    1. Either 6% or 40% is “quite substantial”
                      ……so why split hairs over an exaggeration that overstated Primce Waleed’s ownership by c. 600%. That passes for accuracy in the world of HHHNN.
                      The list of companies the Saudi prince has investments in (mostly as a stockholder) is very long….e.g., CitiiGroup, Twitter, Disney, and dozens of other companies.
                      I think he sold most of his NewsCorp stock in 2017, and like mega-investor Warren Buffet, the mix in his portfolio often changes.
                      If that Saudi prince’s connection with Mudoch or NewsCorp seems significant/suspicious, then the ownership of Uranium One by a RUSSIAN😳🤪 state-owned company must seem really fishy to some. It’d be a lot easier to imply nefarious foreign, hostile “meddling” in that case than in the case of Prince Waleed.

                    2. PRINCE ALWALEED BIN-TALIA

                      With a net worth of around $27 billion, as of today, Prince Alwaleed Bin-Talal is, according to Bloomberg’s new Billionaire Index, the 15th wealthiest person in the world, just ahead of Li Ka-Shing, the man who controls Hutchison Whampoa, an Asian conglomerate. He has been called the Saudi Warren Buffett, and like the legendary Omaha value investor he holds on to the investments he makes, some of them “for life.” “I am proud of that,” the prince says. He owns 95 percent of the publicly traded Kingdom Holding—his version of Berkshire Hathaway—with a current market value of around $20 billion, up nearly 50 percent in a year. (His investments apart from Kingdom Holding include Rotana and, by one estimate, millions of acres of land in Saudi Arabia.) He favors high-growth, high-risk technology companies, which he identifies with the help of a small Riyadh-based investment committee. (He generally shuns U.S. investment banks, with the exception of Citigroup.) He also has stakes in Apple, TimeWarner, Motorola, 360buy, Saks, AOL, eBay, and Euro Disney. Last December, he bought a $300 million stake in Twitter on the secondary market from two early investors in the company, Union Square Ventures and JPMorgan Chase. He won’t say how much of Twitter he now owns, but he indicates that the reported valuation of $10 billion isn’t far off, giving him around three percent of the company. In 2011, he joined forces with Bloomberg Television—which for a fee will provide the business news content and the operations expertise—to start a new pan-Arab TV news channel, Alarab, based in Bahrain, which will compete with Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, which is owned by the Saudi royal family. “May the best survive,” he says.

                      Edited from: “The Stockholder In The Sand”

                      VANITY FAIR, 3/21/13
                      Prince Alwaleed was, in 2013, the 15th Wealthiest man in the world. And he was the second largest stockholder in NewsCorp, parent company of Fox News.

                      But Tom Nash thinks Prince Alwaleed is only the stuff of silly memes. That is Tom thinks the prince is only someone conspiracy mongers have heard of.

                      Tom doesn’t know that mainstream features occasional stories on Prince Alwaleed. Tom doesn’t know because right-wing media never mentions the prince. From Tom’s perspective the prince is out of sight and out of mind and therefore doesn’t matter.

                    3. There is a relatively simple way of tracking major ownership of publicly traded U.S. companies. Anyone or institution (banks, mutual funds, hedge funds, etc) with a 5% or more stake in a company must register with the SEC.
                      And that information is public and readily available. Additionally, top executives of those companies are also required to requester as “corporate insiders”, and any transactions by them (“and the 5 percenters”) must be reported. Those transactions are public information as well.
                      Re Fox News itself, there was a major restructing by Fox Nres’ parent company about 5 years ago and some spin-offs and sales of assets.l think Disney ended up buying some of the “old NewsCorp”.
                      It looks like Fox News is now a subsidiarity of the “new NewsCorp”. I can’t find the Saudi prince’s name in the 5%+ list, or the name of a fund or investment group associated with him. It looks like he sold a big share of NewsCorp in 2017, so before 2017 sale, he might have still been in that 5% group.

              2. Peter, you have a lot of fear, emoji’s, Estovir, too many conservatives, etc. You live your life based on fear along with a lack of reality.

                1. Paranoia and Xenophobia can be handy tools for a propagandist like Hollywood Hill, Allan. Who are we to question his clever fear-mongering and projections of his own fears he displays here.

                  1. Tom, I’m not scared of the prince. Nor do I fear his investments. But the fact that you seek to diminish him in such a dismissive manner suggests discomfort on your part.

                    That’s what I was getting at wondering if Fox News Viewers understood who Murdoch is. Do they know he shapes politics on three continents?

                    And do Fox Viewers know Murdoch’s longtime investment partner was really a Saudi Prince? I’m just wondering. There is irony, of course. Fox viewers live in fear of Sharia law. Which makes it all the sillier. Like a dark comedy.

                    1. When a hyper-partisan propagandist wildly exaggerates a Saudi investor’s stake in “Fox,News”, that’s something worth pointing out . I would try to explain the difference to Hollywood Hill between 6,% and 40%; but most would understand that difference.
                      So St. Peter made a wildly exaggerated claim and it was pointed out to him that he was WAY , WAY, off the mark.
                      In doing so, St. Peter now claims that I’m “dismissive” of the Saudi prince because I caught and challenge that wild exaggeration.
                      That’s one part of his game; three was a reason in the first place for falsely claiming using that 40% number. Fox😳🤪 is backed by an Saudi, a Saudi …..yes, SAUDI😯has a huge (claimed) 40 % interest in Fox News, and the all-powerful, unholy Murdoch- Saudi- Fox News alliance is therefore exposed by Peter “Scoop” Hill.
                      The facts of the Saudi’s business investments convered (mostly accurately) in various publications, and those facts are what they are. I’m not “dismissive” of those facts, not an inclined to accept a wildly inaccurate claim by a two-bit hack and propagandist like Hollywood Hill.
                      Now we can argue about whether 6% is “not that far off” from 40%, or whatever other silly claim St. Peter now tries to make to squirm out of a blunders. I don’t see the point in doing so, any more than there’s any point in expecting anything other than a propganda mill from St. Peter’s Holy Scriptures he posts here.
                      Now if the diversion becomes “Murdoch’s evil empire” that Hollywood Hill wants to pivot to, and Murdoch himself, then that could and should include a discussion .of the multi-billionaires acting as political activists, whether that’s Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Howard Scultz, George Soros etc.
                      There’s no point in wasting time playing that game on the field with the moved goalposts Hollywood Hill prefers, because any discussion of multi-billionares, political activities, media presence of the ultra wealthy will be exclusive about the Koch Bros. when Hollywood Hill moves the goalposts again and does what he’s most comfortable doing….popagandizing.

                    2. I see that I neglected to address HH’s deflection about “Sharia law”

                      ……time permitting, I’ll try to comment on Hollywood Hill’s bizarre introduction of that topic into his “conversation”.
                      In Sharia law, I’ll anticipate an addidtional deflection by him involving the Code of Hammurabi.

                    3. “Fox viewers live in fear of Sharia law. Which makes it all the sillier. Like a dark comedy.”

                      Sounds like Pete wants to live under Sharia law.

      Just a reminder on why it’s best not to “run with” a story based on a Facebook or other internet post.
      When Hollywood Hill promoted the theme of major Saudi ownership of Fox, it didn’t sound like an accurate claim.
      There are some claims made in the comments here that are obviously inaccurate just on the face of it, and some that seem, let’s say, very suspect.
      Either way, if I catch a bogus “fact” from a dedicated propagandist, I might point it out.
      I realize that doing so “reflects badly on conservatives”, but what the hell, I’ll risk it.

      1. Since I can’t proofread some of the comments I submit here before posting, I won’t bother now to try to correct multiple typos/spelling errors in my most recent post. At times these comments threads are “viewable” on mobile devices, but for the past c. 7-8 months it’s been like a “coin toss” on whether parts these threads are easily or even possibly viewable.
        There are some ways to get around this, but a relatively “normal” screen display is not always possible.




    Netanyahu won a fifth term as prime minister, thanks largely to his embrace of Israeli nationalism. He has always campaigned on a security-first platform, castigating his foes as willing to compromise Israeli safety in exchange for Arab promises and international applause. He did that again, but this time he added more overt claims of Israeli sovereignty with regards to the West Bank, which his most nationalist supporters call Judea and Samaria.

    There are now more than 400,000 Jewish settlers in West Bank settlements, with another 200,000 or so in East Jerusalem. This is slightly less than 10 percent of the total number of Israeli Jews, and they overwhelmingly support parties in the nationalist-religious bloc that backs Netanyahu. Moreover, they most frequently back the most religious or the most nationalist of those parties. Without their near-unanimous support, Netanyahu would have to turn to the center to remain prime minister — and the centrist party, Blue and White, ran as an anti-Netanyahu vehicle for otherwise disparate figures and movements.

    Netanyahu pulled out all the stops to attract these voters. He brokered an electoral alliance between an ultranationalist party, Jewish Power, and two other, slightly less-extreme nationalist parties to create the Union of Right-Wing Parties. He even gave a member of that alliance a slot on his own party’s ticket to cement the alliance. The Union received five seats in the election, plus the one on the Likud list. They will be a central part of any coalition Netanyahu forms, and they unequivocally rule out the creation of any Palestinian state.

    Netanyahu also took a step in the final days of the campaign that, on its own, could sabotage any peace plan. Settlers have long wanted to see all of the West Bank annexed into Israel without giving the Palestinians automatic Israeli citizenship. Netanyahu endorsed part of that ideal, saying he wanted to incorporate Israeli settlements into Israel proper. He also said he would not uproot one settler from the West Bank. Neither pronouncement is conducive to a settlement with the Palestinians.

    The key here is understanding what they do to the idea of a territorially contiguous Palestinian state. Palestinian-controlled cities are currently separated by strategically placed Israeli settlements and Israeli-controlled roads. While Netanyahu’s statements would nominally maintain Palestinian control over the regions for which they currently exercise total or partial jurisdiction, the locations of these settlements make any formation of a contiguous state impossible. Palestinians might be in charge of their own cities, but they would be permitted no significant armed forces and have no ability to travel between their cities without crossing into Israeli-controlled territory. They are certain to not accept any such plan that leaves them fractured and dependent upon Israeli goodwill.

    Edited from: “Trump’s Relationship With Netanyahu Could Sour Very Quickly”


    1. RE. ABOVE:

      The article notes that Israeli Prime Minister Natanyahu has overtly appealed to ultra-nationalistic elements. Netanyahu, in fact, has no intention of ever withdrawing Jewish settlements from the West Bank.

      Therefore any Palestinian state would be shaped like Swiss cheese with Israeli-only roads slicing the map. Palestinians obviously have genuine grievances here.

      Yet conservatives on this comment thread reflexively think that any criticism of Israel amounts to ‘support for terrorists’. ..Go figure..!

    2. They should have signed on the dotted line in 2008. Haggled over details and then signed on the dotted line in 2000. Or opened negotiations in 1978 under the Camp David framework. Or come up with a constructive plan of action when Gamal Abdel Nasser told them in 1970 that he was signing an armistice whether they liked it or not.

      You snooze, you lose.

      1. Tabby, I half agree with you, the PLO, under Yssar Arafat, refused to negotiate for too long. That was dumb of them. But Arafat is dead and situation still simmers. A West Bank map with Swiss cheese holes is no solution whatsoever. It’s only a recipe for more trouble down the road. No Palestinian is going to be okay with having Israeli-only roads slicing through a tiny excuse of a country.

        1. Peter, why only half? Do you remember what happened when Gaza was turned over without anything in return? Do you know what the Hamas Charter says?

        2. A West Bank map with Swiss cheese holes is no solution whatsoever.

          So what? Time and again, the Arab bosses have revealed that they prefer that to any other feasible solution. If they want something else, they’re going to have to bargain for it. What they want would be unilateral concessions which they pocket (after which they demand more). Scroom.

  8. Can I just say that the logo for BDS is most unfortunate. It looks like the character has a bare bottom. Ever since I noticed it, that’s all I can see when I look at the logo.

    Really bad graphic design.

    1. Karen, I agree. It looks like those tacky French postcards of children peeing by the Eiffel Tower.

  9. Meanwhile, ignored here, our infantile President is threatening a capture and release plan of immigrants into sanctuary cities, a plan broken by the WaPo yesterday and already rejected by his immigration officials. I remember a post from Karen a couple of weeks ago fearing a weaponization of policy under those low life Democrats, but an actuality by Trump and the GOP – see ending tax deductions for state and local taxes, which was targeted at blue states (and mostly tax donor states) – and now this embarrassing event. No doubt the low life base will love this stuff, never apparently considering that lowering the bar works both ways. Surely you all knew he was slime when you let him into your house right? Kind of like that snake story and song.

    1. L4D, “Meanwhile, ignored here, our infantile President is threatening a capture and release plan of immigrants into sanctuary cities”

      Release them in Nancy Pelosi’s vineyard? She can probably house several thousands on her property with her multimillion dollar ranch at 26+ acres


      Nancy Pelosi’s vineyard makes her fourth-richest Californian in Congress

      Especially when the House minority leader and her husband open up their bucolic Northern California estate and vineyard on the banks of the Napa River to the likes of Google’s Eric Schmidt, wealthy environmental activist Tom Steyer and Gov. Jerry Brown.

      “When all the black SUVs are circling around the property — like planes gathering over O’Hare Airport — that is when you know they are here,” Susanna Kelham, who owns a winery next to the Pelosi property in St. Helena, told the Los Angeles Times.

      That was the scene last year when Pelosi hosted a dinner at the couple’s sprawling estate and vineyard about 65 miles north of Pelosi’s San Francisco district to close out a two-day conference in the wine country for political heavyweights.

      Such is life for the fourth-richest Californian in Congress.

      The Democrat has a minimum net worth of $29.3 million, according to an analysis of her financial disclosure forms compiled by Roll Call. The Los Angeles Times is using the data and for the first time is listing every asset and liability disclosed by the 55 members of the state’s congressional delegation.

      Financial disclosure rules allow lawmakers to report broad ranges for the value of both their assets and liabilities starting at $1 to $1,000 and ending with any value greater than $50 million. Precise figures are not required. Roll Call calculated minimum net worth by subtracting the minimum value of liabilities from the minimum value of assets disclosed.

      The Pelosi estate on Zinfandel Lane, for example, is valued between $5,000,001 and $25 million, according to the records the congresswoman filed with the House clerk’s office for calendar year 2014. A description of the property posted on its architect’s website says it was inspired by Palladian villas and boasts a guesthouse and a “Z” shaped pool.

      The estate is not just for show. The couple also collects between $5,001 and $15,000 in income from the sale of grapes grown at the vineyard. A spokesman for Pelosi did not say who the grapes were sold to or for what purpose.

      “The disclosure says grape sales,” said spokesman Drew Hammill. “That’s the only information available.”

      An official with the California Department of Food and Agriculture was similarly coy, writing in an email that information about grape sales is “considered proprietary and is protected by statute.”

      The Napa County Planning Commission gave the Pelosi family the OK in 2005 to operate a 5,000-gallon-a-year winery with weekly tastings, said Napa County Deputy Planning Director John McDowell.

      But the Pelosis have yet to build a full-fledged winery on the property. “They did enough to activate the permit,” he said. “The ball is in their court to pursue the rest of the construction project.”

      Aerial view taken in 2007 of a property owned by Nancy Pelosi.
      Aerial view taken in 2007 of a property owned by Nancy Pelosi. (Pictometry 2007)
      For all of Pelosi’s power and national stature, she and her husband have taken their concerns hyperlocal.

      The couple was at the center of a neighborhood dispute last year when a winery was applying for permits to open next to their property.

      Citing traffic concerns and opposition to the size of the proposed winery, Paul Pelosi managed to secure an appeal hearing before the county planning board.

      He eventually appeared before the planning commission one Tuesday morning last October in a white dress shirt and blazer to announce that he had dropped his opposition — thanks to the new winery agreeing to cut back on the number of events allowed on the property.

      Before he left the podium, he took advantage of time with his audience to gripe about other local issues.

      “One thing I would like to say while here, though,” he said, according to video of the hearing, “all of us are concerned about the speed limit on Zinfandel Lane.”

      Pelosi earns between $15,001 and $50,000 in rent from a different Napa Valley property that she and her husband own jointly. Her disclosure form listed its worth as between $500,001 and $1 million.

      She and her husband also bring in as much as $50,000 in rent from a townhome near the Sugar Bowl Ski Resort in Norden valued between $1,000,001 and $5 million.

      Most of Pelosi’s reported assets were listed as belonging to her husband, who has investments in Apple, Walt Disney Co. and Facebook. He has a stake in a few San Francisco office buildings as well as other commercial real estate around California, including one building that houses a Walgreens.

      Paul Pelosi also has $10 million invested in the now defunct United Football League, because he owned the Sacramento Mountain Lions team.

      The congresswoman’s wealth has long been a source for attacks by her conservative critics as well those on the left. Animal rights activists once protested outside a Marin County restaurant in which she invests because veal was on the menu.

      With a minimum $42.8 million in assets and a minimum $13.5 million in liabilities, Pelosi ranks as the 15th-wealthiest member of Congress. And the disclosure forms tell a far different story for one of her colleagues, Majority Leader Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield.

      1. “Meanwhile, ignored here, our infantile President is threatening a capture and release plan of immigrants into sanctuary cities”

        I think that is a great idea. Those in the sanctuary cities should be pleased as well. They can see the results of their handiwork up close.

    2. Anon – Democrats support illegal immigration. They create sanctuary cities, many of which even protect violent illegal alien felons from deportation. They give them drivers licenses, healthcare, and allow them to carry less expensive auto insurance and liability coverage than legal residents and citizens.

      However, they became outraged at the very idea that our overwhelmed border patrol would release illegal aliens directly into sanctuary cities.

      Which is it? Are illegal aliens a boon, and welcome, or not? Why would they be offended at the very idea? Since they enact policies that encourage and enable illegal immigration, why is it “weaponizing” the government to release them directly into the areas that have openly, publicly, and repeatedly said they welcome them? Why is it “slime” to even suggest that sanctuary cities take the burden of illegal immigrants? They advocate for this! Are they implying that illegal immigrants are a weapon? A bomb? A threat? I thought the more the merrier, and how dare we require a legal immigration system? If you can get here, come on over! Just not in Pelosi’s neighborhood, please.

      I’ve remarked before that sometimes people just don’t get what the problem is until they experience it for themselves. Pelosi lives behind a gate on a vineyard. The affluent parents in her district send their children to public schools that require millions of dollars in local real estate to live in the school district. Or they send them to private schools costing thousands of dollars. Safe behind their gates, with armed security, and with their children getting the best education money can buy, they declare that anyone who opposes illegal immigration must be racist. Building walls is inhumane and sends the wrong message.

      OK. Experience it for yourself, then. Wait until your expensive school districts have more illegal alien kids than English speaking kids, and the system collapses trying to catch them up to speed while simultaneously educating the kids who have been in district. Release the felon illegal immigrants into their communities, and get them housing there. Let those who circumvented our legal immigration system, and therefor the health screenings, get off the Border Patrol bus with scabies, antibiotic resistant TB, and other illnesses that our legal immigration system would have taken care of, in their neighborhoods, and in their schools.

      If they are not okay experiencing this for themselves, then it is unethical for them to force it upon others.

      Immigration must be kept to numbers that our support system can handle. It must go through legal channels to screen out criminals, cartel members, gang members, and terrorists. Let in only the good people, willing to accept Western values, and those in numbers that we can support.

      Otherwise it is simply irresponsible.

      1. Gee, it’s almost as if Pelosi et al are suggesting that there is a downside to illegal immigration, and that too many would be a burden to the system.

        That is so odd…

        1. Pelosi was part of the leadership on the 2013 bipartisan immigration reform bill and similarly some proposals during Trump’s term which he killed. All contained immigration security increases, as did the minor bill just passed due to Trump’s intransigence.

      2. “Pelosi lives behind a gate on a vineyard.”

        It is my understanding there is a wall surrounding Pelosi’s vineyard estate. One source reported she employs undocumented immigrants

        “Further investigations into the workers at Pelosi’s vineyard lead to uncovering undocumented workers from Mexico. The workers are dropped off every morning at 7:00 am by a van. They work 7 days a week until the sun starts to go down and then the van comes to pick them back up.

        The large dark blue van with black tinted windows picks up illegal aliens at 6:00 am at a designated point each morning. The driver of the van works for a private undisclosed contractor of Slave Labor. These Coyotes sell the labor to companies or private individuals that need work performed.

        The Coyote Contractor of Slave Labor negotiates a set price for the work to be performed and then pays the illegal migrants approximately $20.00 a day for a 12 hour day, most of which is backbreaking work. These types of workers are the hard working people that pick those grapes at Nancy Pelosi’s vineyard!

        This is one of the main reason’s why Nancy Pelosi is fighting against ‘The Wall’. This will cut-off labor to her vineyards, therefore increasing the cost of her labor, therefore decreasing her bottom dollar profit on ‘grapes’.
        Nancy Pelosi and several more Democratic Politicians engage in this form of Slave Labor and Maxine Waters is one of them.”

        1. It’s not that high of a wall, really designed to keep vehicles from driving onto her property. It’s a curving wall made of field stone, it looks like. A nice, well designed, immoral wall. She has a beautiful home. And, yes, there is a gate. There’s no barbed wire or anything. It’s just to keep cars out.

          1. Please note – the wall is around her vineyard home. I have no idea about any of her other properties.

      3. Somehow i thought you’d support our President weaponizing policy again, even though you voiced fears of Democrats doing that. Guess what? The chances of that fear coming to fruition just increased by the bar lowering your guy specializes in.

        PS Pelosi isn’t the only public official who is wealthy and leads an insular life, and the ones you follow – Trump – generally don’t GAD or do anything for those less well off.

  10. “NY Dems block bill expanding college tuition for Gold Star families after approving $27M in tuition aid for illegal immigrants: report” Fox

    Loyalty is not a trait of the left or Democrats

      1. Read. After the quote it said Fox and then my comment. You don’t know what a source is. Copying the Washington Post is meaningless unless the proof is contained in the story.

        The real issue is: Did NY Dems block bill expanding college tuition for Gold Star families after approving $27M in tuition aid for illegal immigrants: report? They did.

  11. No one, including Peter Shill’s “reputable sources everyone recognizes”, has mentioned Rep Lee Zeldin’s response on this matter.

    Hate speech, anti-Semitism rise in America, thanks to Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar…


    Rep. Zeldin Applauds Denial of Entry into US for BDS Founder Omar Barghouti

    WASHINGTON – Congressman Lee Zeldin (R, NY-1), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and co-Chairman of the House Republican Israel Caucus, issued the following statement following the United States government’s denial of entry to Founder of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement Omar Barghouti:

    “We have witnessed the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate throughout the world, in our nation, on college campuses and within the halls of Congress, and whether this bigotry is brazen or shamefully masked as ‘legitimate’ we must reject it wherever it exists.

    “Just last year, at New York University, following the student government’s passage of a resolution supporting BDS, NYU’s Bronfman Center for Jewish Student Life was temporarily closed after a student issued threatening messages on social media expressing his desire for zionists to die. Yet, once again, NYU, in attempting to host Omar Barghouti, is providing a platform for this blatant bigotry and emboldening a man who compares Israelis to Nazis and, in referring to Zionism, said ‘I, for one, support euthanasia,” under the guise of a ‘Candid Conversation about BDS.’

    “Barghouti’s anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate must not be tolerated, empowered or embraced, and I applaud the Administration’s denial of his entry to the United States.”

    1. Estoiv, show us documentation that Barghouti is a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. No such passage appears here. This article is just a statement by a Republican congressman friendly to Israel’s lobbying apparatus.

      1. Peter Shill: “This article is just a statement by…”

        It is a press release by the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, a Jew, decrying the rise of anti-Semitism, hate, bigotry and death threats against Jews in America. Yet you dissed all of this. He also makes it clear that Barghouti represents anti-Semitism and anti-Israel animus just like Democrat Congresswoman Ilhan Omar

        Your comments are concerning.

        here is the press release again in case you had a grand mal seizure when you saw a reputable source that contradicts your “ideologically and politically motivated” comments on these forums time and time again.

        Note to Darren: consider blocking Peter Shill’s IP address for a time out period

        Congressman Lee Zeldin (R, NY-1), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and co-Chairman of the House Republican Israel Caucus, issued the following statement following the United States government’s denial of entry to Founder of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement Omar Barghouti:

        “We have witnessed the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate throughout the world, in our nation, on college campuses and within the halls of Congress, and whether this bigotry is brazen or shamefully masked as ‘legitimate’ we must reject it wherever it exists.

        “Just last year, at New York University, following the student government’s passage of a resolution supporting BDS, NYU’s Bronfman Center for Jewish Student Life was temporarily closed after a student issued threatening messages on social media expressing his desire for zionists to die. Yet, once again, NYU, in attempting to host Omar Barghouti, is providing a platform for this blatant bigotry and emboldening a man who compares Israelis to Nazis and, in referring to Zionism, said ‘I, for one, support euthanasia,” under the guise of a ‘Candid Conversation about BDS.’

        “Barghouti’s anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate must not be tolerated, empowered or embraced, and I applaud the Administration’s denial of his entry to the United States.”

        1. “It is a press release by the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee,”

          Estovir, Peter wants to hear from an anonymous source relayed by the guy that hands out paper towels in the bathroom.

        2. Congressmen issue statements every day that aren’t necessarily truthful and, or, lacking documentation. If I posted statements from Ms Ocasio Cortez, would they be absolutely true?

  12. And to think that the “original intent” of the American Founders, beginning within the year of adoption of the Constitution, was thrice demonstrated in the Naturalization Acts of 1790 1795 and 1802 which required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” as the Preamble stated unequivocally that America was designed and intended for “…ourselves and our Posterity,…”

  13. US denies entry to BDS cofounder Omar Barghouti

    The prominent Palestinian activist calls the US entry ban ‘ideologically and politically motivated’.


    Barghouti was also scheduled to speak at public events at the NYU campus in New York, Harvard University and with policymakers and journalists, AAI said in a statement on Thursday. At the end of his trip, he planned on attending the wedding of his daughter who lives in the US.

    Barghouti’s difficulties travelling in the past were due to the Israeli government restricting his ability to exit and enter Israel by not renewing his travel document, but this was the first time he has faced a ban by the US government.

    “This US entry ban against me, which is ideologically and politically motivated, is part of Israel’s escalating repression against Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights defenders in the BDS movement for freedom, justice and equality,” Barghouti said.

      1. If it’s so important for him to attend, why’s she holding it in the States?

        1. Ah, because she lives here.

          And because she believed that he’d be able to enter the U.S.

          “A prominent Palestinian human rights activist and cofounder of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement was denied entry to the United States on Wednesday, despite holding valid travel documents.” (Al Jazeera)

          (Absurd AND Insufferable.)

      2. He will probably try to kill Jews and friends of Jews, so yeah, no soup for you. Theres always NPR and such


        The BDS Movement Is About Dismantling Israel, Not The ‘67 Occupation

        Early Wednesday morning the University of Michigan’s student government voted down a resolution that would have begun the process of divesting from companies doing business with Israel. It was the latest defeat for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement which is dedicated to fighting Israel by isolating it, particularly in the cultural and economic sectors.

        Other than Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to devote a full 25 percent of his recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to condemning the BDS movement, it hasn’t got very much to show for its efforts. And I don’t expect it ever will.

        The reason why BDS keeps failing despite the almost universal recognition that the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the blockade of Gaza, are illegal and immoral is that the BDS movement is not targeting the occupation per se. Its goal is the end of the State of Israel itself.

        In its view, all of historic Palestine is occupied territory; that means Tel Aviv and Haifa as much as Hebron and Nablus. Obviously, a movement dedicated to eradication of Israel as a country is never going to achieve support other than from a radical fringe.

        The BDS movement tries to obfuscate its support for Israel’s destruction (not its physical destruction, the end of its statehood). Whenever anyone asks about it, they are referred to its founding principles: the Palestinian Civil Society Calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel Until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights of 2005.

        And it’s true: that document is the place to go for the answer to the question. Is the goal of BDS ending the post-1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the blockade of Gaza, or about replacing Israel itself with a state that although, in theory, hospitable to Jews would no longer be Israel?

        The document begins by explaining the rationale for BDS.

        It is that “57 [now 67] years after the state of Israel was built mainly on land ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian owners, a majority of Palestinians are refugees, most of whom are stateless.” Additionally, Israel has “since 1948” ignored “hundreds of UN resolutions [which] have condemned Israel’s colonial and discriminatory policies as illegal and called for immediate, adequate and effective remedies.”

        Accordingly, the only recourse is the imposition of “embargoes and sanctions against Israel” until Israel complies with the movement’s three demands.

        They are : “1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall. 2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.”

        The demands make clear that the movement’s goal is ending Israeli statehood, not just the post-1967 occupation. There is no reference to 1967 nor any invocation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions (242 and 338) which require the end of the 1967 occupation while preserving Israel’s right to security and self-determination.

        No, there is only the demand for compliance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 which was passed in 1948 and which requires the return of all the Palestinian refugees to Israel, along with the return to them of the property left behind. In other words, millions of the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees could return not just to the West Bank or Gaza but to Israel itself, essentially reversing the independence Israel achieved in 1948. As far as Israeli towns and villages, they would be “property” returned to the Palestinians. Hence, no more Israel.

        Of course, this will not happen in the real world, even if there is some justice in the demands. If refugees retain their rights permanently, my wife’s family (and my kids and grand-kids) could claim the property left behind in Poland when they were forced out by the Germans in 1939. In fact, tens of millions of refugees from places as disparate as India, Pakistan, Chechnya, Cyprus, and Rwanda would be lining up to claim their old homes. But that is not how history works. Israel is not going to dismantle itself and Jews will not be the first people in the world to relinquish the right to self-determination.

        The South African apartheid analogy, repeatedly cited in the BDS document, does not apply. It was the South African apartheid regime that was abolished, not the country known as the Republic of South Africa. If the BDS goals were achieved, there would be no State of Israel at all. That is why so many proponents of BDS have such a hard time even referring to Israel as a country. It’s often the “Zionist entity” or the “occupying regime.”

        But, in fact, it’s Israel, an actual country, connected by history to the place where it was established, speaking the ancient language but having created a new culture that is as legitimate as that of the Palestinians or any other people.

        The BDS movement is designed to turn the clock back to the time before Israel was created. That will not happen. The solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two states for two peoples. If that works out, they can confederate or merge later, whatever the two peoples decide. Or not. The BDS movement is irrelevant. It doesn’t do much harm. But it doesn’t do any good either.

        1. Estovir, this is an op-ed piece from 5 years ago. it contains no documentation that Omar Barghouti is a terrorist.

    1. “The prominent Palestinian activist calls the US entry ban ‘ideologically and politically motivated’.”

      Oh, well, we cant have that, can we.

      Lets see if Peter Shill can provide us some quotes and references from sources not ideologically and politically motivated….

      any day now….

  14. Karen, neither of your links here makes any mention of ‘Omar’ Barghouti. That’s who we’re discussing, ‘Omar’ Barghouti. Professor Turley’s link carries a photograph of Omar and he clearly isn’t the person in your Wikipedia story.

    Why are you trying to confuse the two???

    1. P Hill – did you not read my entire comment?

      First, I remarked about the terrorist ties of the Barghouti family. Then, I said we need to find out if Omar is related to the same family, and if he supports their views.

      Then, one of the links, if you read the entire thing, said that Omar Barghouti was a Hamas leader. I said that the man had the same name, but was probably a different person.

      Finally, I said that we need more information to see if this particular Omar had connections to that particular Barghouti, which is a very prominent family in Palestinian politics.

      That is why I said that there could be a terrorist tie, but we need more information. I also remarked that the Hamas leader of the same name could very well confound the issue for those looking for a link.

      What we also don’t know is if Israel itself asked the State Department it bar him entry for either immigration or terrorist reasons.

      You asked another poster for a reputable source on Oamr’s links to terrorism. I provided several sources for the family ties to terrrorism, and said we need more information to connect him to that family. Basically, I was both supporting your position that we haven’t seen proof of terrorist ties, as well as giving credence to the possibility that the tie might be there.

      I hope that helps clarify.

      1. Karen, Wikipedia refers to a Barghouti ‘clan’. I don’t know if that means family or community.

        In any event neither you nor anyone else has shown me credible sources linking Omar Barghouti to terrorists. But you and Alan seem very determined to make those insinuations.

        1. “Clan” refers to extended family.

          The Barghouti family is very active in politics and Hamas.

          I have insinuated nothing. I have listed the facts that I know so far, and have repeatedly said that this does not prove a definitive link to Omar yet. I also noted that the Hamas leader has the same name as Omar Barghouti, but is likely a different person. I have repeatedly said that we need more information.

          If this is “insinuating” to you, then it doesn’t mean what you think it does.

          Honestly, you keep making false attributions to me, like the claim that I was confusing Marwan, the patriarch, with Omar, who may, or may not, belong to the same Barghouti family.

          Arabs are like the South. Everyone knows who everyone’s second cousin twice removed is, and can trace their lineage. If it’s the same family, it will be known and verifiable at some point. If not, that will be known, too.

          1. Karen, I just so happened to see that there was a leader of a Hamas group that was killed who had the same name Omar Barghouti. I saw no relationship mentioned. Lots of people with the same name in terrorist organizations die but I don’t think this guy was significant enough to be placed on a limited list.

      2. Well he certainly is advocating the destabilization of Israel, American interests therein and embraces zero-sum tactics. Terrorist seems to fit the bill


        Schneider, Zeldin, Nadler, Wagner Introduce Bipartisan Resolution Supporting Two-State Solution and Opposing Global BDS Movement

        WASHINGTON – Representatives Brad Schneider (D, IL-10), Lee Zeldin (R, NY-01), Jerry Nadler (D, NY-10) and Ann Wagner (R, MO-02) introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing efforts to delegitimize the state of Israel and the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement targeting Israel.

        The four members issued the following joint statement on the resolution:

        “A two-state solution remains the best way to justly resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and ensure a future for two peoples living side-by-side in peace, security and prosperity. By denying the Jewish claim to a homeland, the BDS Movement is fundamentally incompatible with a two-state solution and pushes the cause of peace for both Israel and the Palestinians further out of reach. This resolution makes clear that Congress remains committed to a two-state solution and opposes zero-sum efforts to delegitimize the state of Israel.”

Comments are closed.