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: https://forward.com/fast-forward/422425/bds-omar-barghouti-barred-united-states/
Is Omar Barghouti denied entry because he founded the BDS movement, or does he have terrorist ties?
Born in Quatar to Palestinian parents. Moved to Egypt. Lived for 11 years in the US. Married an Israeli Arab woman and now lives in Israel. He opposes a two state solution. He says under his proposed one state, Jews would not have the right to move to Israel, but “Palestinians” would.
Does he have ties to Hammas? Muslim Brotherhood? It seems rather incredible for him not to.
I have not heard the reasoning and am unclear which department generated the ban. The below article indicates that he is not a citizen of Israel, and has been blocked from leaving Israel before. The only explanation given was it was an “immigration matter”. I think we need more information.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-bds-founder-omar-barghouti-denied-entry-to-us/
>BLOCKQUOTE>The AII, which coordinated Barghouti’s US visit, said in a statement that he was informed by airline staff at Ben Gurion International Airport that the US Consulate in Tel Aviv had directed US immigration services to deny his entry.
The statement said Barghouti, a resident of Acre who is married to an Arab Israeli and holds Israeli permanent resident status, was not provided an explanation for his denial of entry beyond being told it was an “immigration matter.”
Barghouti, a co-founder of the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement, possessed a valid US visa, and the required Israel-issued travel documents, the institute said.
Israel has barred Barghouti from leaving the county a number of times in recent years, by refusing to renew travel documents granted to Palestinian residents of Israel who do not have full citizenship.
Karen, where are you getting this???? It’s not in your article.
“Born in Quatar to Palestinian parents. Moved to Egypt. Lived for 11 years in the US. Married an Israeli Arab woman and now lives in Israel. He opposes a two state solution. He says under his proposed one state, Jews would not have the right to move to Israel, but “Palestinians” would.
Does he have ties to Hammas? Muslim Brotherhood? It seems rather incredible for him not to”.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Karen, nowhere in your Times of Israel story does this information appear.
Hi Peter – it’s in one of the links in other comments. Darn it, my comments are getting so spread out that I’m losing track of which link I posted where.
The above link to the Times only indicated that the reason given was “immigration”. He is married to an Israeli Arab and does not have Israeli citizenship. He’s had trouble leaving the country before. I do not know if Israel asked the US not to let him board, or if we originated the ban.
We need more information.
I hate when these stories get legs and go off and running before we know the facts of what’s going on. What we are seeing is gossip about an accusation that he was barred solely because of his formation of BDS. That may end up being true, or it may be due to immigration problems, or security concerns with terrorism.
As I mentioned below in my comment to P Hill, Marwan Barghouti is imprisoned for terrorism. He led an intifada. The Barghouti family is prominent in Palestinian politics, with ties to Hamas and other terrorist organizations. There is even a Hamas leader named Omar Barghouti to further confuse things.
I do not know yet if this particular Omar Barghouti belongs to this family, and/or ascribes to their views.
I can say that definitely/maybe there was a security concern that had nothing to do with his leadership in the BDS movement.
Before we run with this as a speech issue, there is a lot more information to untangle.
It’s not the same person, Karen. You’re trying to confuse them.
No, P. I’m not confusing anyone. Do you really not understand what I’ve explained multiple times? I’m beginning to think you don’t hang on my every word?
Where is the disconnect? The patriarach of the family is a jailed terrorist who actually led the Third Intifada. Other family members are heavily involved in terrorism and Hamas. I said that we need to determine if Omar is related to this family and supports their views. That, right there, if proven, would be a terrorist tie. We don’t know yet, but there is certainly no “confusion”.
Karen, Wikipedia only refers to a Barghouti ‘clan’. It doesn’t use the word ‘family’. The Wikipedia bio on Omar Barghouti doesn’t say his father was a terrorist. It could be true, but Wikipedia doesn’t say that. And you don’t say where you’re getting that.
I’m sorry, are you only going by Wikipedia and nothing else I’ve linked? Do you not understand what clan means in that context? They are not Highlanders.
I didn’t say his father was a terrorist. I said Marwan, a patriarch of the Barghouti family, was a convicted terrorist who led an Intifada. I also said that we have to determine if this is the same Barghouti family related to Omar.
Did you think that “clan” meant immediate family? Do you know what patriarch means? Male head of a family, which could be grandfather, uncle, brother…Remember in The Godfather how Michael was head of more than just his own children? I’m sorry, where is the confusion? You really don’t seem to be getting this. I will clarify it if you are sincere.
Please just stop asking questions until you go back, and read all of my comments in chronological order. Read all the links. Follow my reasoning on what we have, and what we still need to establish a link. Then, let me know what you need clarification on.
Marwan Barghouti is a cousin and Barghouti’s father was a founding member of the PLO. He has a few more relatives that are polically involved.
One can always make a mistake about one’s identity but I think the basic facts on Barghouti are well known and have been traced.
Alan, I might point out that Osama Bin Laden hailed from a family that is largely respected in the west. So family links don’t necessarily indict someone for terrorism.
Wikipedia refers to a Barghouti ‘clan’. They actually use the word ‘clan’. I’m not entirely clear if that means extended family or a community of some kind.
Peter, the Washington Post and Wikipedia seem to be your credible sources. The WP has no problem spinning the truth or even outright lying and Wikipedia is frequently thin on certain issues. All of a sudden you have changed your views of the Saudi ruling class in particular the Bin Laden family…”largely respected”. Are you unable to be consistent? I don’t care about Wikipedia’s definition of what a clan is and I don’t care if they are not close cousins. I care about their relationships and how they have interacted with one another directly and indirectly. I care about what they say in Arabic and what they have done.
Alan, you’re not saying anything here. I don’t know what you’re even referring to.
The Bin Laden family was originally from Yemen but they moved to Saudi Arabia and became wealthy from the construction industry. Ironically some members of the family were in the U.S. on 9/11. The Bush administration found itself in the awkward role of letting those Bin Ladens safely depart the country. That’s not a scandal in my opinion. I’m just pointing out that in the Middle East, family associations don’t necessarily mark someone as a terrorist or even a supporter of terrorists.
Alan, you’re not saying anything here. I don’t know what you’re even referring to.
If you don’t know what he’s referring to then ask for clarity before declaring he’s not saying anything. For all you know, Allan knows something you don’t. Be humble enough to figure it out.
Humility when dealing with Allan is both very difficult and not warranted for those who have completed Junior High.
True humility is not something one turns on or off when convenient. I agree it may be difficult; but it is always warranted.
Anon, humility doesn’t exist in your world. It has been replaced by arrogance and stupidity. Go play with Jan F.
“The Bin Laden family was originally from Yemen”
Using your words ” you’re not saying anything here”. The family moved from Yemen to Saudi Arabia in the early 20th century and have close connections to the Saudi Monarchy. Along with being inconsistent do you refer to one’s nationality as the place their distant lineage was born or where their parents were born and where they lived?
You have to be careful when you talk about links to terrorism. A person that claims to be a pacifist yet provides money to a terrorist organization directly or indirectly has links to terrorism. That is why one sometimes uses the adjective, significant, as I did in a previous posting.
Allan – further confounding the issue, one of the pillars of Islam is charity. It is quite common for charitable donations to be funneled to terrorism, sometimes with the donors’ knowledge, sometimes not.
A charity that purports to help feed Palestinian children could be a terrorism money laundering front. Another popular rues is helping (terrorist) widows. Sometimes this is with full knowledge of the donors. The Saudis are particularly infamous for financing terrorism.
There have been many issues like this uncovered through Homeland Security.
Yes, charity is common and very frequently feeding the poor or helping the sick is funnelled into terrorism. The other thing that is quite common is the notion of Taqiya which makes fools of a lot of otherwise intelligent people.
What gets me is the custom of Taarof.
On way that it is expressed, is when a guest is supposed to demur from accepting whatever tidbits the hostess offers. Oh, no, I couldn’t possibly…The hostess is supposed to insist, and then the guest acquiesces and proclaims how wonderful it all is.
The problem is that Persian and American cuisine is quite different. Although I did acquire a taste for rose water candies, I really, really, really, most emphatically, did not want the calapache (goat brains). However, you also have to be very delicate about not offending the hostess.
P Hill – that is why I’ve said, what? 4 times? That we need to find out if Omar is related to that Barghouti family and if he shares his views. Family + Supporter of Views/Material Support = Terrorist Ties. Family + Opposes Views = No Terrorist Tie
Many, but not all, of the bin Laden relatives have publicly disavowed Osama. To compare apples to apples, it would be like trying to find out if another bin Laden disavowed him, or if he thought he was the bees knees, advocated on the behalf of the Taliban, and organized efforts to fund terrorism. It would be kind of important to know which direction the bin Laden in question went. In addition, tracing Arabic families can be difficult, as they do not follow Western nomenclature. Bin means son of, so Osama bin Ladin means son of Ladin. Bint means daughter of. So bin Ladin and bint Ladin would belong to the same family.
I got it. This will get through.
Possibility A: The family of the BTK serial killer knew nothing about his homicidal tendencies, and were horrified.
Possibility B: Serial killer families like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House of Wax…
Disavow or join in. Pertinent question.
Your are psychotic.
You are an idiot.
You are a crooked moderator.
Allan – I wondered if Omar belonged to that Barghouti family, or if the tie was traced to the wrong Omar. There was a Hamas leader of the same name.
Karen, family trees in that part of the world are sometimes difficult to establish certainty about. I know of only one Omar Barghouti of significance. I do not know of a Hamas leader of the same name but I have seen it written that BDS was Hamas-inspired and that he helped establish that movement (BDS). Could language similar to that cause someone to assume he was a leader of Hamas? I don’t know.
http://jcpa.org/is-the-barghouti-family-joining-forces-with-hamas/
“While Hamas was quick to announce Naalwa’s “martyrdom,” they did not claim him as coming from the ranks of the Hamas’ Qassam Brigades. However, the terrorist killed in Ramallah, Saleh Barghouti, was a son of Omar Barghouti, a famous Hamas leader in the West Bank, so the Hamas fingerprints were very obvious in the Ofra attack.”
As mentioned previously, I do not believe this Hamas leader, Omar Barghouti, is the same guy. However, since there was a leader by the same name, there may be some false positives in connecting the threads.
I have some ideas on how to find out, but it is going to take me a few days. If I find anything interesting, I will post.
My response earlier was when doing something else so I didn’t go into detail. This may be the same Omar Barghouti I mentioned that I did not feel was related to the Omar Barghouti under discussion. I had a list of at least some of the person’s in question relatives of note and one of the same name was not mentioned and likely would have been if he were of the same family.
Thanks! 🙂
SENATE REPUBLICANS PUSHED BILL..
EMPOWERING STATES TO COUNTER BOYCOTTS OF ISRAEL
BUT BILL HAS SERIOUS FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES
On Feb. 5, the Senate passed a package of Middle East policy bills, including the Combating BDS Act of 2019. The act, which would affect laws on the books in 26 states that prevent state and local governments from doing business with entities that boycott Israel, has reignited debate over whether lawmakers’ efforts to stymie the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel violate the First Amendment. This post examines the bill passed by the Senate and tracks ongoing litigation against state anti-BDS laws in federal courts.
The Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019
On the first day of the 116th Congress, Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., James Risch, R-Idaho, Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., introduced S.1, the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act, a package of four Middle East policy bills that died in the last Congress. Three of the act’s four sections were relatively uncontroversial: One codified a 2016 agreement guaranteeing Israel $38 billion in security assistance over 10 years, another reauthorized defense cooperation with Jordan through 2020, and the third added sanctions on the Syrian regime and those that do business with it.
The fourth section, entitled the Combating BDS Act, was more controversial. According to a press release from Sen. Rubio, it would “empower state and local governments in the United States to counter the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement’s discriminatory economic warfare against the Jewish state.” Senate foreign relations committee Chairman Risch added that the bill “is vital to … end discrimination against Israel.”
After the package was introduced, critics voiced strong concern. The ACLU and Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., criticized the bill on the grounds that economic boycotts are protected by the First Amendment. Sen. Rubio and newly elected Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., also traded barbs on Twitter over the constitutionality of laws restricting boycotts of Israel.
The Combating BDS Act is a top legislative priority of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which published a memo asserting that “[t]he legislation in no way impedes the right of any American to boycott or criticize Israel.” Others have disagreed with this reading of the legislation. Lara Friedman of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, who tracks Israel-related legislation in Congress, offered a “fact-check” of the AIPAC memo, writing: “The purpose of the [Combating BDS Act] is to give political and legal cover to, and encouragement for, state laws that violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.”
Edited from: “Breaking Down The Combatting BDS Act Of 2019 And First Amendment Challenges To State Anti-BDS Laws”
LAWFARE, 3/19/19
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Crucial Passage From Above:
“The Combating BDS Act is a top legislative priority of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which published a memo asserting that “[t]he legislation in no way impedes the right of any American to boycott or criticize Israel”.
Link To LAWFARE’S Coverage Of Above:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/breaking-down-combating-bds-act-2019-and-first-amendment-challenges-state-anti-bds-laws
The supposed small government advocating GOP has been passing multiple laws at the state level – and this one would be federal – limiting the ability of local governments on numerous fronts to enact laws they don’t like. Typically they are environmental, though this one is targeted at a specific organization. If there is a principle hidden somewhere in this other than controlling those democratic leaning GD urban population centers and seeking Jewish votes, I don’t know what it is.
The same principle that led to the demise of the Hanseatic League–Feudalism.
AL JAZEERA COVERAGE SUGGESTS..
ISRAEL ASKED U.S. CONSULATE TO DENY TRAVEL
BARGHOUTI HOLDS U.S. VISA VALID UNTIL 2021
Upon arrival at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, Barghouti was told by airline staff that the US Consulate in the city was directed by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to deny him travelling to the US due to an “immigration matter”.
Barghouti holds valid travel documents and a US visa valid until 2021.
“They just said it’s a ban by the US immigration service, nothing beyond that,” he told Al Jazeera.
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.
“Israel’s far-right regime is not merely continuing its decades-old system of military occupation, apartheid and ethnic cleansing; it is increasingly outsourcing its outrageous, McCarthyite repression to the US and to xenophobic, far-right cohorts across the world,” he added. “The most precious thing that this ban deprives me of, and that I cannot compensate, is being at my daughter’s wedding. I am hurt, but I am not deterred.”
The US embassy in Jerusalem and USCIS did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.
Edited from: “U.S. Denies Entry To BDS CoFounder Omar Garghouti”
Al Jazeera, 4/11/19
The United States has a right of sovereignty over its borders and can decide who to let in and who to keep out. In my view Freedom of Speech applies to American citizens and to a lesser extent non-citizens permitted within its borders. The only question I have is what the US policy is? I am not sure of that so I can’t make a decision in this case though we have good reason to deny his entry.
Barghouti lends significant support to the Hamas terrorist organization.
Barghouti lends support to violent actions.
Barghouti’s objective and speech is intended to destroy a sovereign state’s right to exist.
I think he is an undesireable. I would like to be able to speak freely in the world he comes from and supports. Though I strongly support freedom of speech I sometimes look at it as a two way street.
ALAN, PUT UP OR SHUT UP
Show us a credible story from mainstream media linking Barghouti to terrorist groups.
Define what you believe qualifies as credible.
A source we all recognize!
I recognize a lot of sources. I guess the question is what do we all recognize as credible?
“A source we all recognize!”
That definition should rate an F in any elementary school.
Facebook?
Guys, what’s the problem here??
We know what credible mainstream sources are. Major Newspapers, Major Newsmagazines, and Major News Networks. I’d be willing to look at a Fox News story here. But let’s see something from a source all of us know. Something that credibly links BDS to violent extremists as Alan alleges.
And I’m not seeing anything from Alan yet which confirms what I suspected. Alan is just popping off without any credible sources.
And ‘No’, Tom, Facebook isn’t credible. As usual you seek to trivialize the discussion when you think it reflects badly on conservatives.
P Hill – this will be a problem until we get more information. I have discovered that there is a Hamas leader with the same name, Omar Barghouti. I actually think that is a different person. However, this might be the same family. The Barghouti we were discussing was born in Qatar to Palestinian parents.
I have no idea if this Barghouti is related to people in Hamas leadership, or what Omar’s personal involvement is. The Palestinian Barghouti family is prominent in Israel, and Marwan was involved in an intifada.
http://jcpa.org/is-the-barghouti-family-joining-forces-with-hamas/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwan_Barghouti
There are threads that need to be untangled very carefully.
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???
P Hill – please see my explanation below. I think it is hard to make sense out of the comments when they are linked to different replies.
Basically, I wrote about a prominent Barghouti family with links to terrorism, the patriarch Marwan is a terrorist in prison, the family is very political, and there is even a Hamas leader named Omar Barghouti (see the first link and read through it). However, I believe the latter is a different Omar.
I do not consider this proof that this particular Omar has terrorist ties. We need to find out if he is related to that Barghouti family, AND if he supports their views. That would be a terrorist tie. The fact that a Hamas leader had the same name is going to give some false positives, as well.
Basically, we need more information, or a statement from Homeland Security. Or Mossad.
The following was written about Marwan Barghouti:
“Israeli authorities have called Barghouti a terrorist, accusing him of directing numerous attacks, including suicide bombings, against civilian and military targets alike.[4] Barghouti was arrested by Israel Defense Forces in 2002 in Ramallah.[1] He was tried and convicted on charges of murder, and sentenced to five life sentences. Marwan Barghouti refused to present a defense to the charges brought against him, maintaining throughout that the trial was illegal and illegitimate.
Barghouti still exerts great influence in Fatah from within prison.[5] With popularity reaching further than that, there has been some speculation whether he could be a unifying candidate in a bid to succeed Mahmud Abbas.[6]”
If Omar Barghouti is related to Marwan, and supports his views, that would certainly be a very strong tie to terrorism, with a legitimate concern to Homeland Security. However, as I’ve mentioned, I do not know if this is the same clan to which he belongs. I’m very curious to find out, now. Omar is such a common name, and Barghouti is an infamous family, so we’ll have to work off a birthdate. I’m actually wondering if Mossad would talk to me…
No. The Washington Post is not a credible news source for Trump and the Russia investigation. It is a rag. That it might be credible for other things is possible but the Russia story showed them at their worst. Many of the writers are poor and poorly educated. You like the fact that they agree with you no matter how wrong they are.
I so happen to prefer primary sources backed up with several others. You like anonymous sources that are made to sound like important people. You like indefinite sources where you can write your own conclusions. You like sources that twist words and context. You like to quote nice words spoken in English by an individual who also speaks in Arabic to other audiences and says just the opposite.
BDS was started by a person who wants Israel not to exist and lends support to violence. His family tree isn’t very nice either. BDS is Hamas inspired. I quote: “definitely, most definitely, we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.”
Peter Shill demands “A source we all recognize!”
You will recognize this source and you will commit seppuku….to cut bowels, aka hara-kari.
Keep us posted…
😉
____
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6903755/Kenneth-Starr-admits-omitted-report-Hillary-Clinton-triggered-Vince-Fosters-suicide.html
EXCLUSIVE: Ken Starr says Hillary Clinton DID trigger Vince Foster’s suicide when she humiliated him in front of White House staff and admits he omitted the finding in FBI report because he didn’t want to ‘inflict further pain’ on her
‘Hillary put him down really, really bad in a pretty good-size meeting. She told him he would always be a little hick town lawyer who was obviously not ready for the big time,’ former FBI agent Coy Copeland told Kessler
Ronald Kessler, a former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal investigative reporter, is the New York Times bestselling author of The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, The Secrets of the FBI and The Trump White House.
Ken Starr deliberately left out of his final report the FBI’s finding that Hillary Clinton ‘triggered’ the suicide of President Clinton’s Deputy White House Counsel to spare her feelings, DailyMail.com can reveal.
FBI agents investigating the death of Vince Foster learned he was set off after Hillary attacked and humiliated him in front of other White House aides a week before he took his own life on July 20, 1993.
But for what were then unexplained reasons, Starr elected to conceal the FBI’s finding that Hillary’s tirade triggered Foster’s suicide when he wrote his final report on the matter.
At a reception for authors participating in the 2019 Annapolis Book Festival last weekend, I asked Starr why he omitted the damaging FBI finding.
At first, he beat around the bush, citing well-established facts indicating that Foster was already depressed before Hillary lashed into him at the White House meeting.
But when pressed, Starr admitted he ‘did not want to inflict further pain’ on Hillary by revealing that her humiliation of Foster a week before he took his own life pushed him over the edge.
In interviews for my book The First Family Detail, the FBI agents who worked the case for Starr revealed the truly about Foster’s death when he shot himself at Fort Marcy Park along the Potomac River.
The investigation into Foster’s death was conducted for independent counsel Starr’s probe of the Clintons’ investments in the Whitewater real estate development.
In interviewing Clinton White House aides and Foster’s friends and family, the FBI agents found that a week before Foster’s death, Hillary as First Lady held a meeting at the White House with Foster and other top aides to discuss her proposed health care legislation.
She told him he didn’t get the picture, and he would always be a little hick town lawyer who was obviously not ready for the big time.
Hillary violently disagreed with a legal objection Foster raised at the meeting and ridiculed him in front of his peers, former FBI agent Coy Copeland and former FBI supervisory agent Jim Clemente told me.
Copeland was Starr’s senior investigator and read the reports of other agents working for Starr.
During the White House meeting, Hillary continued to humiliate Foster mercilessly, both former FBI agents said.
‘Hillary put him down really, really bad in a pretty good-size meeting,’ Copeland said. ‘She told him he didn’t get the picture, and he would always be a little hick town lawyer who was obviously not ready for the big time.’
Indeed, Hillary went so far as to blame Foster for all the Clintons’ problems and to accuse him of failing them, according to Clemente, who was also assigned by the FBI to the Starr investigation and who probed the circumstances surrounding Foster’s suicide.
‘Foster was profoundly depressed, but Hillary lambasting him was the final straw because she publicly embarrassed him in front of others,’ said Clemente, who, like Copeland, was speaking about the investigation for the first time.
‘Hillary blamed him for failed nominations, claimed he had not vetted them properly, and said in front of his White House colleagues, ”You’re not protecting us” and ”You have failed us,” Clemente said. ‘That was the final blow.’
At a reception for authors participating in the 2019 Annapolis Book Festival on Saturday, Ronald Kessler (pictured) asked Starr why he omitted the damaging FBI finding from his report
At first, Starr (pictured) beat around the bush, citing well-established facts indicating that Foster was already depressed before Hillary Clinton lashed into him at the White House meeting
At a reception for authors participating in the 2019 Annapolis Book Festival on Saturday, Ronald Kessler (left) asked Starr (right) why he omitted the damaging FBI finding from his report. At first, he beat around the bush, citing well-established facts indicating that Foster was already depressed before Hillary Clinton lashed into him at the White House meeting
‘Hillary put him down really, really bad in a pretty good-size meeting,’ former FBI agent Coy Copeland said. ‘She told him he didn’t get the picture, and he would always be a little hick town lawyer who was obviously not ready for the big time.’ Pictured: Bill, Hillary and daughter Chelsea Clinton attending Foster’s funeral in 1993
‘Hillary put him down really, really bad in a pretty good-size meeting,’ former FBI agent Coy Copeland said. ‘She told him he didn’t get the picture, and he would always be a little hick town lawyer who was obviously not ready for the big time.’ Pictured: Bill, Hillary and daughter Chelsea Clinton attending Foster’s funeral in 1993
After the meeting, Foster’s behavior changed dramatically, the FBI agents found. Those who knew Foster said his voice sounded strained, he became withdrawn and preoccupied, and his sense of humor vanished. At times, Foster teared up. He talked of feeling trapped.
On Tuesday, July 13, 1993, while having dinner with his wife Lisa, Foster broke down and began to cry. He said he was considering resigning.
That weekend, Foster and his wife drove to the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where they saw their friends, Michael Cardoza and Webster Hubbell, and their wives.
‘They played tennis, they swam, and they said he sat in a lawn chair, just kind of sat there in the lawn chair,’ Copeland said. ‘They said that just was not Vince. He loved to play tennis, and he was always sociable, but he just sat over in the corner by himself and stared off into space, reading a book.’
Two days later, Foster left the White House parking lot at 1.10pm. The precise time when he shot himself could not be pinpointed. After Park Police found his body, they notified the U.S. Secret Service at 8.30pm.
Based on what ‘dozens’ of others who had contact with Foster after that meeting told the agents, while Foster was already depressed, ‘The put-down that she gave him in that big meeting just pushed him over the edge,’ Copeland said. ‘It was the final straw that broke the camel’s back.’
No one can explain a suicide in rational terms. But the FBI investigation concluded that it was Hillary’s vilification of Foster in front of other White House aides — coming on top of his ongoing depression — that triggered the White House official’s suicide about a week later, Copeland and Clemente both say.
Starr issued a 38,000-word report, along with a separate psychologist’s report on the factors that contributed to Foster’s suicide. Yet Starr never mentioned the meeting with Hillary, leaving out the fact that his own investigation had found that Hillary’s rage had led to her friend’s suicide.
After the meeting, Foster’s behavior changed dramatically, the FBI agents found. Those who knew Foster said his voice sounded strained, he became withdrawn and preoccupied, and his sense of humor vanished. At times, Foster teared up. He talked of feeling trapped. Pictured: Foster, his wife Lisa, Hillary and Bill Clinton in 1988
After the meeting, Foster’s behavior changed dramatically, the FBI agents found. Those who knew Foster said his voice sounded strained, he became withdrawn and preoccupied, and his sense of humor vanished. At times, Foster teared up. He talked of feeling trapped. Pictured: Foster, his wife Lisa, Hillary and Bill Clinton in 1988
In his book Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation that came out last September, Starr lists the pressures Foster was under, including that the deputy White House counsel’s ‘close friend Hillary didn’t seem grateful. She excoriated Foster within earshot of others, then gave him the cold shoulder for weeks.’
However, Starr’s official report excludes even that negative finding by the FBI.
Why Starr chose to conceal the critical meeting and his own investigators’ finding that Hillary’s tirade triggered Foster’s suicide remained a mystery until now. When I asked Starr for comment on the question for my book The First Family Detail that came out in 2014, he did not respond. A spokesman for Hillary Clinton also had no comment.
While the Clintons claimed Starr was out to get them, Clemente says that as his staff changed, Starr vacillated between pursuing the investigation aggressively and pulling his punches.
For example, the former FBI supervisory agent reveals that Starr refused to allow him to try to interview Hillary about her commodities trading. For reasons still unknown, in her first commodity trade in 1978, Hillary was allowed to order ten cattle futures contracts, which would normally cost $12,000, although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released.
Hillary was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight. In ten months of trading, she made nearly $100,000. She claimed she made smart trades based on information from the Wall Street Journal. The question, Clemente says, was why she was allowed to make investments while ignoring normal margin calls that require traders to cover any losses incurred during the course of trading.
Starr’s report recounted how the FBI ran down even the most bizarre theories about Foster’s death and conducted extensive ballistics tests that refuted assertions that Foster had not committed suicide.
Yet in his report, Starr never referred to the meeting where Hillary humiliated Foster in front of aides, nor to the sharp change in Foster’s disposition afterward, findings that would have supported the report’s conclusion that Foster committed suicide.
The FBI agents’ findings are included in their reports of interviews, according to David Paynter, the archivist who read the reports when cataloging them at the National Archives. However, I found that those reports are now missing from the appropriate files at the National Archives in Suitland, Maryland.
After I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the records, John Valceanu, the archives’ director of communications and marketing, confirmed that the records could not be located, but he said that did not necessarily mean that they had been stolen.
He held out the possibility that the FBI interviews were not filed where they should have been and were somewhere else in the more than 3,000 boxes of records amounting to 7.5 million pages generated by the Starr investigation.
Since Starr never told Copeland or Clemente why he decided to exclude the FBI findings from his report, the former FBI agents could only speculate on his reasoning.
‘Starr didn’t want to offend the conscience of the public by going after the first lady,’ Clemente said. ‘He said the first lady is an institution. He acted most of the time as a judge instead of as an investigating prosecutor, and then he hired attorneys who went to the other extreme.’
Told that Starr justified his decision to exclude the fact that Hillary was the chief culprit in Foster’s suicide by saying he did not want to ‘inflict additional pain,’ Clemente, now a retired FBI profiler, commented that Starr ‘looked at every issue as an intellectual exercise and was a gentleman in every way. If he had any flaw, perhaps it was that he was too kind.’
If so, he should not have been a prosecutor and suppressed a key finding of an investigation that cost taxpayers $39.2 million.
For confidential support call the National Suicide Prevention Line on 1-800-273-8255.
Estovir, as usual your link is LONG and IRRELEVANT..!!!!
One presumes it’s part of your daily campaign to distract from topics Professor Turley chose.
DARREN SMITH–
Is Estovir some in-house troll charged with changing topics? It almost appears that way. Every day Estovir can be counted on to make aggressive efforts at disrupting whatever topic the professor chose. And more often than not, Estovir seeks to change topics repeatedly within the same thread.
It’s not ‘my’ blog of course; it’s Professor Turley’s. And you’re the supposed moderator. Do you want some Culture Commando aggressively hi-jacking each discussion?
Do you want some Culture Commando aggressively hi-jacking each discussion?
The irony of posting that question on this thread is apparently lost on you.
Stop whining to Darren that you have so little self-control that you cannot keep Estovir out of your head.
Olly, it’s Professor Turley’s blog. If Turely feels a topic is worthy of discussion, then we should be free to discuss it. We don’t need someone repeatedly hi-jacking the discussion with frivolous culture war issues that have nothing to do with news of the day.
And even if someone responds to Estovir’s posts, he will change topics again surely as night will fall. Estovir doesn’t want discussions to go anywhere.
If Turely feels a topic is worthy of discussion, then we should be free to discuss it.
And you are. And if someone else wants to go off topic, they should be free to do so. And you are under no obligation to acknowledge they or their posts even exist.
We don’t need…
What collective We are you referring to?
Estovir doesn’t want discussions to go anywhere.
And he’s free to want that within JT’s civility rules. You don’t seem to grasp this whole free speech concept.
Peter, you neither know or understand what the word credible means. Has the Washington Post been credible in the news reporting about Trump and Russia? No. I didn’t say Barghouti was a member of Hamas rather I said he provided support for and his ultimate goal is for Israel not to exist.
If you want answers to many of the questions that come up you will have to seek out more specialized journals than the popular ones that support the inept person’s ability to say he ‘knows something about that subject’. You are that inept person whose depth of knowledge is the thickness of a page from the WP.
NPR COVERAGE OF BARGHOUTI..
TELLS US BAN IS COMING FROM TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
The U.S. government has denied entry to Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the BDS movement, which urges boycott, divestment and sanctions to pressure Israel on security and settlement policies in the West Bank.
Barghouti was at Ben Gurion International Airport in Israel on Wednesday when airline staff informed him that he wouldn’t be flying despite holding valid travel documents, according to the Arab American Institute, a Washington-based advocacy group that arranged the trip. He was told that U.S. immigration officials had ordered the U.S. consul in Tel Aviv to deny him permission to enter the United States.
A State Department official told NPR, “Visa records are confidential under U.S. law; therefore, we cannot discuss the details of individual visa cases.”
Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, which handles Israel’s fight against the BDS movement, said it had no connection to the matter. And Israel’s Interior Ministry said it had no knowledge of the U.S. action.
Barghouti had scheduled a speaking tour that included stops at Harvard and New York University, meetings with Washington policymakers and an appearance at a bookstore in Philadelphia owned by professor Marc Lamont Hill, whose CNN pundit contract was terminated last November over controversial remarks he made in support of Palestinian rights. At the end of the trip, Barghouti planned to attend the wedding of his daughter, who lives in the United States.
BDS supporters see Barghouti’s movement, which draws inspiration from a similar campaign against apartheid-era South Africa, as a nonviolent way to protest Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank, construction of settlements which most of the world views as illegal, and other human rights concerns. The approach has experienced a surge in popularity in recent years, with dozens of student, academic and labor groups announcing support for BDS, and artists such as Lorde and Lauryn Hill canceling shows in Israel.
Those moves worry Israel, which considers BDS a cover for a more nefarious campaign to delegitimize or even destroy the country. BDS critics on Twitter had blasted Barghouti’s speaking tour as giving a platform to anti-Semitism. In the United States, more than two dozen states have adopted laws to punish companies that boycott Israel. This week, according to a report in The Hill, House Republicans are launching a discharge petition to force a vote on Senate legislation “that would allow state and city governments to penalize entities that seek to boycott, divest from or sanction Israel.”
Barghouti, who lives in Israel with permanent residency status, previously has faced obstacles to traveling. In 2016, Israeli authorities refused to renew his travel documents, citing evidence that Barghouti spent most of his time in the West Bank, Israeli outlets reported. Israeli Interior Minister Aryeh Deri was quoted as saying Barghouti is “using his resident status to travel all over the world in order to operate against Israel in the most serious manner.”
In February, the watchdog group Amnesty International demanded that Israel “end the arbitrary travel ban on human rights defender Omar Barghouti.” Israel later issued Barghouti a travel document. He holds a U.S. visa that is valid through January 2021.
Barghouti is among a growing list of international figures barred entry to the U.S. by the Trump administration. Earlier this month, U.S. authorities revoked the visa of the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, reportedly over her attempts to investigate alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.
Last month, dozens of women — primarily from African and Middle Eastern nations that fall under the administration’s travel ban — were denied visas to attend a United Nations women’s conference. In accordance with a 70-year-old treaty, the United States, as host nation, is obliged to admit visitors to the U.N. headquarters in New York.
In some cases, there is a clear political or security backstory to the denial of entry. In others, the reasons are opaque. In 2017, an Afghan all-girls team of students that was invited to a robot-building contest was denied entry. U.S. authorities eventually issued visas for the girls after a backlash from human rights groups.
Edited from: “U.S. Denies Entry To Leader Of Movement To Boycott Israel”
NPR, 4/11/19
“BDS supporters see Barghouti’s movement, which draws inspiration from a similar campaign against apartheid-era South Africa, as a nonviolent way to protest”
It is very easy to promote a person as non violent, but he supports violence as do many of those surrounding him and he supports a terrorist organization, Hamas. The non-violence is a smokescreen to permit those supporting terrorism to function in the USA.
RE. ABOVE:
I appreciate that Professor Turley cared enough about this issue that he covered it today. But the article he posted is more vague than informative. Turley’s article lends the impression Barghouti’s ban was possibly an Israeli decision. This NPR story, however, clearly tells us that Barghouti’s ban is coming from the Trump administration.
What’s more, it tells us that the administration banned dozens of women from attending a U.N. conference last month, a story I hadn’t heard about. It also tells us that Republicans are pressing legislation to punish states and cities that seek to boycott Israel. I wonder if Turley steered away from this NPR coverage to avoid any mention of that Republican initiative.
Because Israel claims to be “a Jewish State”, those who support apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity in Palestine, demean all Jews around the world. Zionism is the worst form of anti-Semitism.
Autumn has no problem with Muslim states, only Jewish ones. I wonder why.
Autumn supports the ability of Muslim states to deny citizenship to Jews and Christians and sometimes their lives, but doesn’t appreciate that Muslims have citizenship in Israel.
Autumn likes laws that make women and non Muslims inferior. Apparently she doesn’t believe in equality under the law.
It sounds like Autumn might get intense joy in throwing gays to their deaths off roofs.
It is the ultimate form of denying free speech but preventing people from even conversing on a subject.
Turley, using your reasoning, everyone on the planet not a US citizen has a right to enter the United States merely by claiming they have something to say. Does everyone have a right to enter your office and lecture you on anything? Do you have to let anyone into your home simply because they have something to say? No, the ultimate form of denying free speech would be torture, imprisonment and/or a firing squad.
Not allowing this individual into our country to make BDS speeches is the only limit put on this person. He still made the speeches and people within the US were still able to listen to them. Damn. Denying non-US citizens entry into the United States to make political speeches is our right.
“Denying non-US citizens entry into the United States to make political speeches is our right.”
Correct. We have the right to deny free speech rights to non-citizens. Turley is saying we shouldn’t do that.
We generally should not. There are right and proper reasons for prohibiting an alien from entering. NPR won’t entertain them (no surprise). Prof. T should be more meticulous here.
Prof. T should be more meticulous here.
But he won’t be. It wouldn’t be good for commentary volume on his blog.
Ok, that’s fair. But what justification could there be for denying entry to someone because he’s an advocate of BDS?
But what justification could there be for denying entry to someone because he’s an advocate of BDS?
What justification is necessary for allowing anyone entry into the United States? Begin there.
I think he should be allowed in. If you think he should be excluded the onus is on you to explain why. Excluding someone is the exception not than the rule.
If you think he should be excluded the onus is on you to explain why.
Wrong. He has no more right to enter our country than I do to enter your home.
“Barghouti was at Ben Gurion International Airport in Israel on Wednesday when airline staff informed him that he wouldn’t be flying despite holding valid travel documents”
He had applied for legal entry, had the documents to prove it, and was denied at the airport . Why? That’s not a normal occurrence. Turley is assuming it’s because he’s the founder of BDS. If so, do you think that’s a valid reason? Turley doesn’t.
So he applied for legal entry. That certainly clarifies this was not right but a privilege. He still made his speech which was not prohibited from being delivered within the United States. That certainly clarifies those within our borders were did not have their 1st amendment rights infringed.
So it boils down to this: under what conditions is our government allowed to grant or restrict entry into the United States? If this administration determined the purpose of this individuals entry was not in the best interests of the United States, then they should rescind any previously approved access. If our citizens prefer a different policy, then they have every right to do it the old fashioned way… through the electoral college. 🙂
That is not the first time that has happened either on an entry into the US or an entry into many other countries.
Substitute the name Netanyahu for the name Barghouti and then replay your argument about denying entry to the U. S. to give a speech.
Still L4D.
Netanyahu is welcome any time.
Olly,
It turns out that this was all a big misunderstanding.
They thought he was coming here to promote TDS, not BDS.
He was informed that we already had enough domestic TDS without allowing “outside agitators” in to push more people over the edge and into full-blown TDS.
“We will win . . . we will win even if it takes a century, two centuries. We will win because your laws allows us the freedom to win. None of the people that are wise enough to oppose us now will be around in 100 or 200 years. And as time goes by, fewer and fewer people will oppose us.”
No source given for the “we will win” quote; was that from the HLF?
Sounds like it was from that Democratic Party rally held in Minneapolis in Oct. 2002. You recall, the one advertised as a memorial service for Paul Wellstone et al.?
TIAx3:
Sounds like a loser hoping against hope that his opposition will die out eventually but lacking the self-awareness that so will he. There is a worldwide revolution of traditionalism and nationalism going on in the democracies against one-size-fits-all globalism and all PH seems to want is a John Lennon moment imagining his inevitable victory. The 60s hippies had the same “People Get Ready” song. They did and nothing happened except the tie-dye crowd withered on the vine — usually a cannabis vine. Power to the people, right never! It will work out the same this time, too.
Mespo,
Most of the people I knew who were pot smokers, and dud not go beyond that, never really got into an really trouble as a result of their useage.
It was a different story with LSD and some other drugs….L4B is an example of what a couple of hundred hits of acid can to a person. And over time, she was bound to get a really bad batch; the FDA didn’t do any inspections on virtually all of the LSD sold.
It’s “highly probable” that the many songs lyrics she sings or babbles to herself in the institution she’s confined to are the ones we’ve seen her post here; she’s also known by staff to repeatedly ask for directions to Woodstock.
“L4B is an example of what a couple of hundred hits of acid can to a person.”
You’re an idiot.
That was Ptom Gnash. He’s not an idiot. He’s a pesky pestering pain in the posterior.
Still L4D here. Ha-ha!
I thought so. Thanks for confirming, L4D. And you have him pegged. : ) I’m sure there are many words beginning with “p” that apply: piggish, pugnacious…and the list goes on.
“All that the order achieves to make a mockery of our RELIGION of free speech.”
FTFY
Religion. that is what you really mean
Just because you have the freedom to do something does not mean you should, a distinction few today grasp
I must admit that the word “values” is an empty signifier. However . . . there are substitution instances preferable to word “religion.”
This is L4D.
“Because the moral law, as known by reason, does not constrain us, it leaves us physically and psychologically free either to obey or to violate it. But if we reject the true good, we inevitably yield to the passions and instincts of our lower nature and thereby undermine our authentic freedom. To act freely against the truth is to erode freedom itself.” Avery Dulles, SJ in “JOHN PAUL II AND THE TRUTH ABOUT FREEDOM”, August 1995, First Things
The principle of right desire travels in both directions. That’s what makes it a principle instead of a value.
This is L4D.
A stitch in time saves nine.
This is Tom.
🤡
This is Estovir
(do I see a trend starting here?)
This is probably the closest I’ll ever be to a “Cory Booker moment’, but I AM ESTOVIR.
No Mother ever named her child Estovir.
No Mother ever allowed any man to name her child Estovir.
This is still L4D.
Tom Nash says: April 12, 2019 at 9:41 AM
A stitch in time saves nine.
Nope. That’s not it. Here’s the best version of the principle of right desire:
One ought to desire for others as well as for oneself that which is good both for others and for oneself.
“Ultimately, Barghouti appeared via livestream and his being barred at the border likely served to only reaffirm the views of the BDS supporters.”
that is the attitude of thinking that has allowed the US to be infiltrated by peoples who wish us no good. People who would do something somewhere. There is a mistake in thinking, as we did so long with NK, that if we just set a good example others will need follow our example. that is wrong thinking and we are the worse off for it. Those believing in the bds movement are as committed to their fanatical beliefs as are those who want to re-investigate Kavanaugh and russian collusion. telling them no is the act of an adult against bad children at this point.
Our Constitution applies to persons already in the US. When we admit anyone they, too, have a right to make a public speech. That speech can, and sometimes does, reflect the speaker’s hate of another person or group. This is allowed. “Hate speech” is legal.
There are two areas where the notion of free speech is very important: Politics and Religion.
These are matters of __opinion__. There are always cases where equally logical and intelligent men and women hold differing opinions on these topics.
Another important related area is the freedom of the press to report any and all facts accurately, and report editorial opinion (when identified as such). Freedom of the press allows publication of falsehoods. Fake News and Hoaxes. Publications lose reputation when those falsehoods are exposed as such by other publications of good repute. The only proper judge of press reports is the people who read them.
People outside the US are not entitled to the free speech benefits of our Constitution.
As long as Wikileaks only reported accurate information they, if they were in the US, would have the right to publish this accurate information no matter how obtained. Wikileaks is not entitled to our free speech protections even though no article they have published has been proven false. If Assange asked Manning to obtain classified information he may be prosecuted. Had he done the same thing while in the US he could not, in my opinion. No more than the investigators of Watergate who published their news.
according to the Arab American Institute, a Washington-based advocacy group that arranged the trip. He was told that U.S. immigration officials had ordered the U.S. consul in Tel Aviv to deny him permission to enter the United States.
IOW, NPR is acting as a conduit for an ‘advocacy group’.
NPR is being NPR, presenting the BDSholes as they present themselves in their public relations packets. NPR isn’t going to call attention to the fraudulence of the whole enterprise. You can do that just by reciting the stances Arab parties have taken at a a half-dozen crisis points over the last 50 years or by summarizing public opinion research taken on the West Bank and Gaza. A ‘two-state’ solution is not an option, because only about 1/3 of the local Arabs favor that option, and that third has scant influence over policy stances of the political bosses on the West Bank and in Gaza. ‘The occupation’ in the minds of the BDSholes, refers to Jews living in Tel Aviv as much as it refers to Jews living in West Bank settlements. To ‘end the occupation’ means the expulsion and murder of the Jewish population tout court.
It doesn’t seem to occur to Turley or to the idiots at NPR that the consular service has credible evidence that Barghouti is affiliated with criminal organizations.
“A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 52% of Israelis supporting “an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel”.[36]
Support for a two state solution varies according to the way the question is phrased. Some Israeli journalists suggest that the Palestinians are unprepared to accept a Jewish State on any terms.[37][38] According to one poll, “fewer than 2 in 10 Arabs, both Palestinian and all others, believe in Israel’s right to exist as a nation with a Jewish majority.”[39] Another poll, however, invoked by the US State Department, suggests that “78 percent of Palestinians and 74 percent of Israelis believe a peace agreement that leads to both states living side by side as good neighbors” is “essential or desirable”.[40]…..”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
PS A two state solution has been US policy for decades and across both party’s administrations. The ascendancy of hard line positions on both sides is unfortunate and for those truly concerned for Israel’s continued existence into the future and realistic about what that means, it is particularly of concern.
The ascendancy of hardline positions is a function of practical day-to-day interaction with Arab political bosses. Other people are sharper than you are.
Clearly they are not on this forum. That aside, the hardline fundamentalist Israelis are in ascendancy as well.
Use a dictionary.
For what word?
Wait. That was asking too much.
For what Letter?
This is L4D
For you it might require any word greater than 4 letters.
mas·sa·sau·ga [mas- uh- saw-g uh]
1. a small rattlesnake, Sistrurus catenatus, ranging from the Great Lakes to the Mexican border [non-venomous].
Related Question: What are the synonyms for massasaugas? Related Answer: Allan.
Source: Dictionary.com
This is L4D
Yep.
-OA
“A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 52% of Israelis supporting “an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel”.[36]
Gallup is the oldest and perhaps least competent major pollster in this country. If you consult the database Polling the Nations you’ll locate a copious set of surveys done by local agencies and others on the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza. They reveal the population of respondents can be sorted in three sets.
1. Somewhat north of 30% who actually do state to the pollster that they favor that sort of arrangement.
2. About 30% who say they favor that sort of arrangement, but for whom it is a non-negotiable item that a 7-digit population of Arabs be given free rein to settle in Israel whenever they care to.
3. Somewhat north of 35% who say the dissolution of the State of Israel is a non-negotiable feature of any settlement.
A. Only the obtuse do not understand the implications of option 2.
B. Only people completely divorced from the reality of their situation would entertain option 2 or option 3.
And by your own – unlinked – data, #3 represents even less of the Palestinian population than there are Trump supporters in the US. That means a clear majority favor or accept the continuation of an Israeli state.
Again, only the obtuse fail to understand the implications of option 2.
While we’re at it, one of the few passably fair competitive elections ever held in the West Bank and Gaza was so in 2006. The results were as follows: about 40% voted for the double-dealing mafias who gave you the Oslo disaster. About 45% voted for Hamas, who make their position in regard to Israel quite clear. Another 7% or so voted for a red-brown coalition who make use of different idioms than Hamas, but are no more constructive. There was a residue of about 5% who voted for vaguely liberal parties who actually do want some sort of permanent arrangement with Israel.
Those are Israel’s interlocutors. Lotsa luck.
Your last post is now both ancient and loaded with multiple factors, not isolated referendums on a two state solution.
Any other plan is doomed to failure eventually.
Arafat’s legacy is not “ancient history”.
Prime Minister Barak ( sp?) made the Palestinians an offer that offered surprising and unprecedented concessions and a path to full autonomy.
I don’t think Arafat believed he’d be as relevant in an established, stable Palestinian State.
Dennis Ross was a key participant in the negotiations between Barak and Arafat. In a later interview, he said that Arafat was offered a deal that went far beyond any previous offers by Israel, that gave Arafat most of what he was supposedly asking for, and one that Arafat would never see again.
He and others were hopeful and relatively confident that this would be “The Deal”, and when the offer was presented to him, he simply said “no’.
Barak and others warned Arafat that he would not be able to count on Israel’s final offer being a starting point for future negotiations; that if Arafat rejected it, Barak and subsequent Israeli leaders would not “pick up where they left off’ in future negotiations.
I think Israeli statesman Eban was the one who said that “the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”.
Absurd reference re polls was both ancient history and did not show what he claimed.
Ehud Olmert’s government offered Abbas and Co. the West Bank and Gaza in toto 10 years ago. They were turned down. Pretty amusing that in the ‘minds’ of liberal fantasists in this country, 10 years ago is ‘ancient’.
Maybe some Palestinian negotiators thought they could get a better deal from Likud😉, with Ariel Sharon and then Netanayhua.
The more dovish Labor Party and Barak warned Arafat and others that they were unlikely to get an offer that topped the offer rejected by Arafat at Camp David.
Subsequent Prime Ministers ( most Netanayhua) have been in power for almost nearly 20 years since then.
Any other plan is doomed to failure eventually.
Thanks for the wishcast. It’s been an education.
None of the history of failed attempts at agreement leads to the conclusion that a two state solution is not the only sustainable outcome all parties should work toward, and that is fortunately the positions of both the US and Israeli governments. The “wish casting” here is by absurd and anyone else thinking Israel can gut this out indefinitely while we prop them up and take damage and casualties (see Arc of Defense testimony on our costs in the region) is dreaming.
None of the history of failed attempts at agreement leads to the conclusion that a two state solution is not the only sustainable
None of it does if you’re irredeemably pig-headed. Not something I’d advertise.
God’s alternative to the two state solution according to Christian evangelicals. (Did somebody snarl something about pigheads flying? I mean flying pigheads, of course.)
What is the battle of Armageddon?
https://billygraham.org/answer/what-is-the-battle-of-armageddon/
Jun 1, 2004 … Regarding the battle of Armageddon, Mr. Graham has stated: “The Bible plainly forecasts the coming of yet another great war. It will be a war to …
L4D here.
According to NPR…
That’s the red flag that a crucial detail has been left out.
“BDS” means Be Dumb and Sanctuary.
Back in the 1930’s when Hitler had taken over Germany, he sent some talkers over to the U.S. to speak to a group of American citizens and non citizens called The German American Bund.
Read up on this folks and think about the aspects of allowing Nazi, or Muslim, terrorists come into this country to “speak”.
When this particular group comes in there is an old movie from the Three Stooges which is relevant. Curley says: “Hotsie totsie. I smell a Nazi!”
To bad we can’t “bar” entry to all the illegals jumping the border with their phony asylum claims as fast as we barred this guy.
P Turley,
May I suggest, take some time off, collect your thoughts, reread the US Constitutional a few more times. Maybe consult Lionel, Mark Levin or others.
Write a book or two or watch some Barney Miller.
But Please, paraphrasing a very sharp 92 year old WW2 vet caller from the last night’s Levin radio show: we just can not keep allowing millions of people from every 3rd world shiithole into the USA & the Prez has the authority to stop it all today regardless of your opinion.
The nation has been over ran f**ls!
Anyway, Gnite
“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.”
**************
We haven’t denied this anti-Semite free speech; we’ve denied him a platform for free speech. One he’s got no right to nor we have a duty to provide. Presence in this country is a privilege for foreigners (he’s a resident of Israel, ironically enough) not a right. We’d do well to remember that. Let him babble his venom from abroad. It’ll save us and our Jewish citizens a lot of showers washing off the stench of his odious brayings. We owe free speech to those lawfully on our soil and to no one else. Sentimentality notwithstanding.
NPR doesn’t make this clear, but he is almost certainly a Jerusalem Arab. After the 1967 war, Israel didn’t annex any territory bar about 25 sq miles worth of densely settled land in greater Jerusalem. The Arabs there were given heritable permanent residency status and an option to apply for Israeli citizenship. The catch is that in order to retain their status, they have to remain palpable residents of Jerusalem. The authorities in Israel have advanced the complaint that he isn’t actually living there.
Civic life in Israel is a great deal more congenial than the norm in Arab countries, so his agitation contra Israel is less than gracious.
TIAx3:
Wiki thinks he was born in Qatar and moved to Egypt before eventually matriculating to Israel via the US. I’m not all that interested in this pre-terrorist so he’s not worth much more research.
Doubt it. In order for a gentile to have permanent residency in Israel, you have to fit in one of the following categories:
1. Born within the 1949 armisitice lines
2. Born in the Golan Heights
3. Born in greater Jerusalem
4. Married to a Jew
5. 1st degree relative of a Jew
6. 2d degree relative of a Jew
I’m not sure converts off the street can qualify if they do not have family relations with native Jews. (And I don’t believe Conservative, Reform, or Reconstructionist conversions are deemed valid for purposes of qualifying under the Law of the Return).
He’s from a Palestinian clan with ties to Jerusalem so I’m betting he’s got some sort of connection there to gain residency status.
So were Yasser Arafat and Edward Said (both of whom grew up in Egypt). They didn’t receive residency status.
Mespo – Omar was born in Qater to Palestinian parents, lived in Egypt for a while, then went to college in the US. After that, he married an Israeli Arab. He has Israeli residency but not citizenship.
The Israeli link I provided earlier declared that he was not an Israeli citizen.
Almost everything I have seen about him states he was born in Qatar, He has links but not based on where he was born. The Israeli courts sometimes bend over backward to make the wrong decisions.
The Gulf emirates do not have birthright citizenship and only odd little job lots are ever naturalized. You have to be descended from someone who was in country at a given date in the past. (In the case of Kuwait, to take one example, you have to be descended from someone who resided there in 1920). That he was born in Qatar in immaterial. He would not have Qatari citizenship.
DSS, I made no mention about citizenship. I said “he was born in Qatar”.
I wouldn’t deny him a platform, but if he’s affiliated with criminal organizations, he’s properly debarred.
The studied incompetence of NPR in this matter is par for the course. All they had to do was consult the regulations governing the consular service for the menu of reason you might deny a visa. A precis is probably online, but they couldn’t be bothered to assign an intern or office clerk to look it up (or they couldn’t be bothered to report what they found).
Terrorist. That’s why.
Just another example how the Israeli lobby has a strangle hold on part of our foreign policy, nothing new here – move along folks nothing to see
What about Mohammed being a Pedo? Who in the heck would name their kid/s after a Paedophile???
This is America, take all that other BS back to the big sand box other to a Chinese detention Camp!
A lot of people name their kids after Catholic saints.
Just another example how the Israeli lobby has a strangle hold on part of our foreign policy,
It indicates nothing of the kind. Comments like yours are a reminder that there’s always a constituency for fantasies about da Joos.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/1/john-huber-fbi-probe-shrouded-secrecy-18-months-la/
Absurd, On a different topic……
This article and other recent articles seem to confirm the assessment that you made months ago about what Huber was doing……nothing.
Sessions evidently sought out and picked someone as ineffective as he was as AG in order to avoid being showed up.
If he is here then let him speak. If he wants to come in and then go speak in a sanctuary city he will not have to leave. All the migrants in the caravan at the Mexican border wish to speak free. Go ahead. Let them all in. The nation will collapse. We can then move to Honduras and deal with the criminal gangs.