Petulant POTUS – Threatens Bibi with UN over 2-State Issue

Editor’s Note – Now that Netanyahu has stunned both his country’s leftist media and ours, and set Obama into a tirade, Obama is threatening Netanyahu before he even calls to congratulate him on his stunning victory.

We and many others have chronicled Obama’s loathe for Netanyahu for years, but now, it is not even arguable anymore – and Obama is about to throw our greatest Middle East ally under the bus in favor of the Arabs, or as the left likes to call them, the Palestinians.

Now Obama is going to cut him off at the knees by going around him to the U.N. – removing a long history of defending Israel in that farce of a world peace organization:

From Tel Aviv to Turtle Bay – The White House hoped a new Israeli prime minister would resume peace talks with the Palestinians. With Netanyahu holding on, the administration is weighing a turn to the U.N. to help force a deal.

After years of blocking U.N. efforts to pressure Israelis and Palestinians into accepting a lasting two-state solution, the United States is edging closer toward supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution that would call for the resumption of political talks to conclude a final peace settlement, according to Western diplomats. (Read more at Foreign Policy.)

The petulant Obama must get his way; by hook or crook, and he harbors grudges like no other President. Dick Cheney is correct, Obama is the worst President, eclipsing Jimmy Carter easily – or is it badly?

Will Obama no longer have Israel's back? The icy relationship between Obama and Netanyahu is about to get far colder!
Will Obama no longer have Israel’s back? The icy relationship between Obama and Netanyahu is about to get far colder!

Once again, Obama’s view of the world, and that of John Kerry is proving to be a continuing failure for the best interests of freedom loving people in favor of Palestine and our enemies. Look for him to coddle Hezbollah now as well!

Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama on collision course over Palestinian two-state solution

Israel and America set for new confrontation after US president bluntly restates belief in Palestinian state to solve Middle East problem

By , Jerusalem and David Blair in Tel Aviv of the UK Telegraph

A triumphant Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to be on a new collision course with Barack Obama on Wednesday night after the US president bluntly restated his belief in a Palestinian state and criticised the Israeli leader’s re-election campaign tactics.

In a pointed intervention, Mr Obama was said to be “deeply concerned” about comments made about Israel’s Arab population, a spokesman said, calling it “divisive”.

“The Obama administration is deeply concerned by the use of divisive rhetoric in Israel that sought to marginalise Arab Israeli citizens,” Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman told reporters. “This rhetoric undermines the values and Democratic ideals that have been important to our democracy and an important part of what binds the United States and Israel together. These are views the administration intends to communicate directly to the Israelis.”

The criticism appeared to refer to comments Mr Netanyahu made in a video posted on Facebook on election day on Tuesday when he attempted to mobilise supporters by warning that Arabs were “voting in droves” and being bussed to polling stations by Left-wing groups.

The White House intervention rudely interrupted the Israeli prime minister’s celebrations of an unexpected landslide re-election win and followed Mr Netanyahu’s eve-of-poll abandonment of a commitment to recognise Palestinian statehood as part of a peace agreement.

israel-results_3236336b

Mr Netanyahu – desperately trying to woo Right-wing voters – created fresh doubts about the future of the Middle East peace process when he said on Monday that a Palestinian state would not be created if he were re-elected.

Mr Netanyahu’s Likud party won a resounding victory against a strongly-tipped centre-Left opposition grouping, the Zionist Union, largely by appealing to supporters of Right-wing parties like the Jewish Home, which opposes a Palestinian state.

The Israeli leader has previously committed himself to accepting a demilitarised Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive peace deal in a 2009 speech at Tel Aviv’s Bar Ilan University. He said that commitment was no longer relevant in a region threatened by Islamist radicals.

But in a thinly-veiled rebuke of Mr Netanyahu’s volte face, Mr Earnest told reporters that Mr Obama still believed that a two-state solution – usually defined as an independent Palestine and Israel living side-by-side – was the best means of bringing stability to the Middle East.

“It has been the policy of the United States for more than 20 years that a two-state solution is the goal of resolving the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians,” he added. “Based on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments, the United States will reevaluate our position and the path forward in this situation.”

Prime Minister 2009 – present and 1996 – 1999 - Benjamin Netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister since David Ben Gurion. He came to power for the first time in 1996 and held the premiership until his crushing defeat in the 1999 election. He achieved a political comeback in 2009 and has been prime minister ever since.
Prime Minister
(2009 – present and 1996 – 1999) Benjamin Netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister since David Ben Gurion. He came to power for the first time in 1996 and held the premiership until his crushing defeat in the 1999 election.
He achieved a political comeback in 2009 and has been prime minister ever since.

He said Mr Obama had not yet called Mr Netanyahu to congratulate him but would do so in the coming days.

The two men have had a notoriously frosty relationship – which worsened this month when the Israeli leader accepted an invitation behind Mr Obama’s back to address the US Congress, where he criticised the White House’s efforts to reach a deal with Iran over its nuclear programme.

In further remarks, the spokesman said Mr Obama did not believe Mr Netanyahu’s re-election win would have a serious impact on the Iran negotiations, which have reached a crucial phase.

The Obama administration’s comments followed statements from the European Union, the United Nations and the Palestinians demanding a renewed commitment to the stalled peace process.

Palestinian officials responded to Mr Netanyahu’s re-election by threatening to intensify diplomatic moves aimed at pressuring Israel, including pursuing it for possible war crimes in the International Criminal Court, which the Palestinian Authority is due to join on April 1.

A spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader, said he expected the new Israeli government to “recognise the two-state solution”.

“On this basis, we will continue to cooperate with any Israeli government that is committed to international resolutions,” said the spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh.

Review Netanyahu’s political history here.

The renewed emphasis on peace came after Mr Netanyahu vowed on Wednesday to quickly assemble a new Right-wing government that would safeguard the “welfare and security” of all Israelis.

A day after a surprise landslide victory, the prime minister said he would waste no time by putting together a new coalition “within two to three weeks”.

“Reality will not wait for us,” he said. “The citizens of Israel expect us to quickly put together a leadership that will work for them regarding security, economy and society as we committed to do – and we will do so.”

The pledge came as final results from Tuesday’s poll showed his Likud party winning 30 seats in the 120-member Knesset, Israel’s parliament, decisively outstripping the 24 won by the Zionist Union, which pre-election surveys had suggested could emerge as the biggest party.

It paved the way for Mr Netanyahu to serve a fourth term as Israeli prime minister during which he is likely to become his country’s longest-serving leader, surpassing David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding leader.

The result also confounded exit polls that showed the two groupings in a dead heat – an outcome which would have raised the possibility of them joining forces in a national unity government, or grand coalition.

netanyahu_obamaThat appeared unlikely on Wednesday as Likud officials predicted a new conservative government formed with smaller Right-wing and religious parties. Isaac Herzog, the Zionist Union leader, ruled out entering a grand coalition by conceding that his future lay in the opposition.

Mr Netanyahu is instead expected to cobble together a coalition with like-minded partners such as the Jewish Home party before reaching out to Moshe Kahlon, a former Likud minister whose new Kulanu party won 10 seats by appealing to Israelis worried about socio-economic issues.

Mr Netanyahu’s victory was achieved through using “cannibalising” tactics that involved eating up support from smaller Right-wing parties by frightening their followers about the prospects of a Left-wing government ready to compromise Israel’s security, campaign insiders said.

As the prime minister’s poll ratings sunk, his chief strategist, Aron Shaviv, decided to make his woes the main theme in the campaign’s final days by constantly reminding voters that the man they know as “Bibi” really might lose.

Making a virtue of Mr Netanyahu’s vulnerability, the tactic targeted voters who had abandoned Likud for various parties positioned even further along the hardline spectrum, notably the Jewish Home, led by Naftali Bennett, which lost five seats in the election.

Gaza – War Crimes Against Humanity, Who are the True Culprits?

Editor’s Note – With all the hand wringing and accusations that Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza, who really is the war criminal? Palestinian supporters who act as if Hamas is a legitimate governmental entity need to learn a lot about the laws of war and what it means to provide support for a terrorist entity.

The only war crimes committed come from perpetrators in Gaza, not from beyond. Every argument the Palestinians/Hamas and their supporters use is actually proof of their own crimes. Collateral damage and death is solely the responsibility of Hamas because they caused the circumstances – with full knowledge and by design. Law is based in intent – Hamas intends to commit war crimes, Israelis intend the opposite, but cannot stand idly by just because they are far stronger.

Gaza and their supporters claim Israel is committing genocide!
Gaza and their supporters claim Israel is committing genocide!

Of course, according to Hamas/Palestinians and their supporters, the actions of Hamas are somehow justified, yet Israel’s responses with force are not. Why? Because Israel is blockading Gaza. Of course, even that accusation has little basis in reality, but since when did reality matter to the romanticism of all things Palestinian?

They forget that Egypt is also participating in the blockade, and aid has been provided by the Israelis and others since Hamas took over and it is the source of all the supplies to create the terror tunnels.

The other question to ask is why UNWRA has failed so miserably, despite billions in aid and 65 years of effort. The answer is that UNWRA is complicit and the UN itself is propagating the problems through dubious accusations to keep the money flowing. What has UNWRA really done since 1949?

UNRWA actually employs many from Hamas in its cottage industry, and it is in their best interests to keep the poor Palestinians stuck in a cycle of misery, much by their own hands. People have spent their entire professional careers working for UNRWA – quite a stable job isn’t it?

Irrational support for Hamas/Palestine (Including other terror organizations in Gaza) is as irrational as accusing Israel of war crimes when no nation on Earth has ever practiced such caution in war. In the article below, we see exactly how the laws of nations in war have been transgressed, repeatedly, for years and years, by the Palestinians and their enablers at UNWRA.

For 90 Minutes, Jewish Leaders Tell UN’s Ban Ki-moon About Hamas Abuses, List 19 War Crimes

By Joshua Levitt – The Algemeiner

For a full 90 minutes on Wednesday, Jewish leaders told United Nations Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon about the litany of abuses of international rules of warfare – 19 in total – by Hamas in Gaza.

HamasHidingPlacesThe group included Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, directors of The Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman, Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and representatives from B’nai Brith and Hadassah.

Rabbi Cooper told The Algemeiner on Thursday, “Bottom line, the Jewish world will have to be more proactive on the international stage, not only to defend Israel, but ourselves as well. We will continue to interact with Ban Ki Moon to insure that this important leader will be more responsive.”

In a follow-up note to Ban after their meeting, the SWC rabbis summed up the argument they presented. They said that “we must frankly ask you how many times will the world allow itself to be held hostage by Hamas? This is the third time since 2005 when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza that Hamas has brought death and destruction to the people of Gaza. Once again they are using the people of Gaza, the civilian infrastructure and UN facilities in its non-stop campaign to terrorize the Jewish state.”

During the 90 minute meeting, according to Rabbi Cooper, the SWC urged the UN to announce an official inquiry into the use of various UNRWA schools by Hamas to store and launch rockets for the benefit of the UN’s own reputation. They also called on the UN not to permit the UNRWA to supervise the billions in reconstruction funds expected for Gaza.

“The systematic hijacking of previous aid, cement, and building materials by Hamas to build an underground superhighway of terror is scandalous and a violation of the wishes of the donors who did not contribute funds for rockets or tunnels,” they said. “Those who failed to stop such theft and serial abuse of humanitarian aid, must be held accountable and should not have any involvement in supervising or dispersing of future funds.”

They also said that work shouldn’t begin until “the total disarming of Hamas and the destruction of all of the thousands of rockets and missiles Hamas still harbors.”

The Jewish human rights group that works to protect Jews against anti-Semitism also raised that core issue with Ban. “There has been an explosion of anti-Semitism and genocidal hatred against Israel from Europe to Australia,” they said. “Rather than denouncing this toxic situation Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, contributed to it by being so rabidly one-sided in her criticisms of Israel.”

“During her tenure there was no effort to investigate previous crimes against humanity by Hamas, including its own admission that 160 Palestinian children died building their terrorism tunnels. Her behavior demands a public censure from the Secretary General.”rocket-fired-by-gaza-terrorists-in-palestine-towards-israel

They asked that “with a human rights disaster of epic proportions in Syria, with ethnic cleansing in Iraq, with a difficult situation in Ukraine and with continuing human rights outrages in North Korea,” the upcoming UN General Assembly “not be allowed to degenerate into an anti-Israel hate fest,” and noted that the UNGA will coincide with the Jewish High Holy Days.

“Anymore demonization of Israel emanating from the halls of the United Nations will only contribute to anti-Semitism globally,” they said.

To hammer home their point about Hamas violating human rights, although Israel is accused of doing so by the UN Human Rights Commission, the SWC rabbis left Ban with a detailed list they compiled of the 19 violations made by Hamas, with full notes and citations for Ban to reflect upon.

In further comments to The Algemeiner, Rabbi Cooper said Ban “refused to get involved with the travesty at UN Human Rights Council.”

Read the SWC’s list of Hamas’s 19 violations of the rules of war:

1) Hamas’ rocket attacks directed at Israel’s civilian population centers deliberately violates the basic principles of distinction (Additional Protocol I, arts. 48, 51(2), 52(1).) Any doubt about this is resolved by the fact that Hamas itself has boasted of its intention to hit population centres. It is well accepted in customary international law that intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities constitutes a war crime. (Rome Statute, art. 8(2)(b)(i))

Shujaiya-32) Staging of Attacks From Residential Areas and Protected Sites: The Law of Armed Conflict not only prohibits targeting an enemy’s civilians; it also requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish their combatant forces from their own civilians, and not to base operations in or near civilian structures, especially protected sites such as schools, medical facilities and places of worship. As the customary law principle is reflected in Article 51(7) of Additional Protocol I: The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or shield, favor or impede military operations.

3) Use of Civilian Homes and Public Institutions as Bases of Operation – see (2) for citations.

4) Misuse of Medical Facilities and Ambulances – Any time Hamas uses an ambulance to transport its fighters it is violating the Law of Armed Conflict: Under Article 23(f) of the 1907 Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which reflects customary international law, it is especially forbidden … [t]o make improper use of a flag of truce, … as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention. Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1949)also provides that: … the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground … may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments…

5) Booby-trapping of Civilian Areas – see (2) for citations.

6) Blending in with Civilians and Use of Human Shields – As the ICRC rule states, lilt can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.

7) Exploitation of Children – Hamas has paramilitary summer camps for kids. There are reports, from this war and previous ones, of children fighting and being used for tunnel digging. violates the Law of Armed Conflict, including prohibitions against allowing children to take part in hostilities. As customary international law is reflected in this regard in Additional Protocol I, the parties to a conflict must take “all feasible measures” to ensure that children lido not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. (Additional Protocol I, art. 77(2))UNWRA

8 ) Interference with Humanitarian Relief Efforts – While Israel kept its end of humanitarian truces. Hamas used them to shoot rockets into Israel, including the Kerem Shalom crossing where humanitarian goods are brought into Gaza. All of these actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict, which requires parties to allow the entry of humanitarian supplies and to guarantee their safety. Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires parties in an armed conflict to permit the free passage of [humanitarian] consignments and shall guarantee their protection. Article 60 of the same Convention protects the shipments from being diverted from their intended purpose, something Hamas has certainly done in the past and is reported to have done in this conflict as well.

9) Hostage-taking – The Fourth Geneva Conventions, article 34, says flatly “The taking of hostages is prohibited.” This is not an “arrest” as Israel-haters claim, and this is not a prisoner of war situation as Hamas has made clear – the purpose of Hamas’ hostage-taking falls under the definition on the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages: “Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the “hostage “) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages (“hostage-taking ‘) within the meaning of this Convention.

10) Using the uniform of the enemy – Additional Protocol I prohibits the use of enemy flags, military emblems, insignia or uniforms “while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations”. [3] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “making improper use … of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts when it results in death or serious personal injury. [4] According to some, this is considered perfidy, a war crime. (h/t Joshua)

11) Violence aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population – Rule 2 of ICRC’s Customary IHL is Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. II It quotes Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I prohibits “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population”. Hamas rockets are aimed not only at killing civilians, but also at spreading terror among Israelis.

12)Targeting civilian objects, such as airports or nuclear power plants – Rule 7 of the Customary IHL says “Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects, quoting Articles 48 and 52(2)of Additional Protocol I.

Who started the need for a blockade, and who wasted millions on tunnels?
Who started the need for a blockade, and who wasted millions on tunnels?

13. Indiscriminate attacks – Besides targeting civilians and civilian objects, Rule 11 of the ICRC CIHL states flatly that “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. II By definition, every Qassam rocket attack and most of the other rocket and mortar attacks are by their very nature indiscriminate. See also Rule 71, “The use of weapons which are by nature indiscriminate is prohibited.

14) Proportionality in attack – ICRC’s Rule 14 states “Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited. Rocket attacks against civilians have zero military advantage, so by definition they are disproportionate to their military advantage. See also Rule 18: “Each party to the conflict must do everything feasible to assess whether the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

15)Advance Warning – Rule 20 of the ICRC CIHL states “Each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. Given that Hamas has used the media and SMS calls to threaten Israelis, it is clear that they have the ability to warn before every rocket attack. Their failure to do so is a violation of IHL.

16) Protecting civilians – Rule 22 of the ICRC Customary IHL states, “The parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks. Hamas not only has failed to protect civilians in Gaza by building bomb shelters, they have deliberately put civilians in harm’s way.

17) Attacking medical units – Rule 28 states, Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. Hamas has shot mortars at the Israeli field hospital, set up for Gazans, near the Erez crossing.

18) Protection of Journalists – Hamas has threatened journalists, implicitly and explicitly, accusing some of being spies and sometimes not allowing them to leave Gaza, making them effectively hostages. Rule 34 states “Civilian journalists engaged in professional missions in areas of armed conflict must be respected and protected as long as they are not taking a direct part in hostilities.

19) Mistreating the dead. Rule 113 says, Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited. Hamas has shown off an alleged chip cut out from the (presumably) dead body of Shaul Orono.

Leaked Tape – Did Obama Get Dismissive and Back Hamas?

Editor’s Note – Earlier today, a breaking news story from Israel, reported by numerous sources, claimed an American leaked a transcript and/or tape of the actual conversation between Obama and Netanyahu on Sunday that caught everyone’s attention.

It also caused an almost immediate declaration from the White House and the Department of State, and then later from Netanyahu’s office that it was fabricated.

Tweets and ‘retweets’ from Ben Rhodes at the White House and Marie Harf at State read:rocket-fired-by-gaza-terrorists-in-palestine-towards-israel

The US v the Israeli media day 3 RT @marieharf: RT @rhodes44 This “transcript of POTUS-PM call” report is totally false

Marie Harf @marieharf RT @rhodes44 This “transcript of POTUS-PM call” report is totally false

The initial story from Arutz Sheva is posted below and it was showing how Obama had thrown Israel under the bus in favor of Hamas and the Gazan terrorists residing with them.

We ask you to judge, but lately, who is more believable, especially since Hamas declared they will not do a cease-fire or disarm anyway.

It appears, if true, that there is no longer a question – Obama has officially taken the side of Hamas over Israel. On that call, Obama was treating Netanyahu as if he were an underling of the US government by his tone and the way he was making demands.

We at SUA are leaning toward it being true, especially after Kerry’s debacle earlier .

The White House and the State Department are still saying this is completely false and never happened, but now we are learning that not only was it true, it was actually worse. In an email from IMRA, we read:

Truth is worse than the denied Oren Nahari reports on Obama Netanyahu conversation Dr. Aaron Lerner – IMRA 29 July 2014

American and Israeli officials charged that the transcript reported below is a fabrication.

In truth, the White House press release describing the conversation is far worse than the transcript presented by Oren Nahari.

According to the White House press release “The President stressed the U.S. view that, ultimately, any lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must ensure the disarmament of terrorist groups and the demilitarization of Gaza.”

US President Barack Obama and Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Washington. Photo: REUTERS
US President Barack Obama and Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Washington. Photo: REUTERS

While the EU declares that the terrorists in the Gaza Strip should be disarmed, Mr. Obama doesn’t see the demilitarization of Gaza before there is a “lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.

Put bluntly: if we don’t agree to divide Jerusalem then Hamas can keep its rockets.

So while this transcript has Mr. Obama arguing with Netanyahu over the choice of mediators, the White House has Mr. Obama stating for the record that the demilitarization of Gaza is off the agenda until Israel can reach a “lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.

In this case the truth is worse than what is now claimed to be fiction.”

So you can see, Obama wants Israel to fall on its sword before it will try to force Hamas and friends to disarm – again, its Israel’s fault this is not ending.

Obama and Kerry say there is no space between the US and Israel, and that they back Israel completely, but those words are countered by other words and actions.

They are also belied by tone and tenor of communication. Read more here at the Jerusalem Post, you decide.

In Leaked Tape, Hostile Obama Tries to Force PM to Accept Truce

US president markedly unfriendly, interrupted prime minister as he attempted to push unfavorable truce on Israel.

By Ari Soffer – Arutz Sheva

Damning evidence has emerged of US President Barack Obama’s dismissal of Israel’s position in favor of supporting the position of Hamas and its allies during ceasefire talks.

A “senior US official” leaked an audio recording of a telephone conversation between Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to Channel One.

In it the 35-minute conversation, which took place on Sunday, the US President appears downright hostile at points, and even cuts off Netanyahu in the middle of his protestations over a one-sided truce proposal which would have seen Hamas receive all its key demands, but that Israel ultimately rejected.

The following is an excerpt of the conversation, published in Hebrew by Channel One:NetBHOKerry

Obama: I demand that Israel agrees to an immediate, unilateral ceasefire and halt all offensive activities – particularly airstrikes.

Netanyahu: What will Israel receive in return for a ceasefire?

Obama: I believe that Hamas will stop firing rockets – silence will be met with silence.

Netanyahu: Hamas violated all five previous ceasefires, it is a terrorist organization which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

Obama: I repeat and expect Israel to unilaterally stop all its military activity. The pictures of destruction from Gaza distance the world from Israel’s position.

Netanyahu: Kerry’s proposal was completely unrealistic and gives Hamas the military and diplomatic advantage.

Obama: Within a week of the end of Israel’s military activities, Qatar and Turkey will begin negotiations with Hamas on the basis of the 2012 understanding [following the end of Operation Pillar of Defense – ed.], including Israel’s commitment to removing the siege and restrictions on Gaza,

Netanyahu: Qatar and Turkey are the biggest supporters of Hamas. It is impossible to rely on them to be fair mediators.

Obama: I trust Qatar and Turkey, and Israel is in no position to choose its mediators.

Netanyahu: I object, because Hamas is able to continue and to fire rockets and to use tunnels for terror attacks…

Obama – interrupts Netanyahu mid-sentence: The ball is in Israel’s court – it is obligated to end all military activities.

The Channel One journalist who received the tape emphasized that at other points during the conversation there were more “positive” word exchanged between the two, such as Obama repeating America’s commitment to Israel’s security.

But those words will ring hollow to Israelis, considering that the proposal put together by John Kerry, Qatar and Turkey did not address a single one of Israel’s demands and – as alluded to by Obama himself – relied on little more than the goodwill of Hamas to stop firing rockets.

This, despite the group (which the US itself lists as a terrorist organization) being unabashedly committed to the destruction of the State of Israel and the genocide of all Israeli Jews.

For his part, earlier on Tuesday John Kerry claimed that Prime MinisterNetanyahu had in fact approached him to ask him to help hammer out a ceasefire deal, after previous truce proposals were rejected by Hamas.

If that was indeed the case what resulted could hardly have been whatNetanyahu had in mind: a joint initiative with two states overtly hostile towards Israel, concluding in a draft proposal which would have granted Hamas all of its key conditions – including the opening of air and sea ports and the total lifting on Israel’s security blockade – but which addressed Israel’s “security concerns” in only the vaguest possible terms.

Israel Foe Robert Malley Obama’s New MidEast Man

Editor’s Note – From the “Shake My Head” files, Obama and Kerry want Robert Malley to be the new Middle East man. However this is not really new, he appears to have been retained all along as their man, and this goes all the way back to the Clinton Administration.

Obama picked up that baton and is now twirling it. This goes back to the Rashid Khalidi/Bill Ayers Israel bashing party and the tape that has never surfaced even though the LA Times still has it. Look at the connections here as well.

Since he was first elected in 2008, and took the oath of office (twice the first time) at his inauguration in 2009, many have questioned Obama’s stance on Israel and attaining peace with the ‘Palestinians.’

At numerous points, much has pointed in the direction of his less than loyal stand towards Israel despite glowing, yet empty words of support for them.obama_netanyahu_getty_file_thumb_thumb[24]

There was the time early in his Presidency that showed open disdain for Israel and its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.

This was followed up with massive pressure application on the Israelis for several years, especially regarding Iran and land arguments regarding the ‘Palestinians’.

In the most recent times, under John Kerry’s efforts as Secretary of State, the definition of insanity has been proven over and over.

Recent peace talks barely started before the predictable immediate implosion took place; John Kerry struck out again. Why? Because they simply do not have the best interests of the Israelis, our staunchest ally to date in the region at heart. Rather, this administration has been obviously behind all things ‘Palestinian’.

Now the proof is in! Who does Kerry and Obama want to be in charge of the Israeli/Palestinian peace process? They want Robert Malley. Who is Malley? Adam Kredo from the Washington Free Beacon writes the following:

An anti-Israel diplomat who was kicked off the 2008 Obama campaign after he was caught negotiating with the terror group Hamas is under consideration for a State Department advisory post, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

Robert Malley, a longtime government insider who worked for former President Bill Clinton and advised then-Sen. Barack Obama, is said to be on Kerry’s shortlist for deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, according to reports and sources. He currently serves as the Middle East director of the International Crisis Group (ICG).

If tapped for the job, Malley would be in charge of the Israel-Palestinian peace process, according to Al Monitor.

Yes, that Robert Malley! Why not just come out and say it openly, Obama and Kerry simple deplore Netanyahu and the peace loving Israelis. In a quick summary, Robert Malley is:

Rabidly anti-Israel, Simon Malley was a confidante of the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various leftist revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Samantha Powers (right) was asked to leave the Obama campaign for her anti-Israeli postitions and then Robert Malley stepped down for meeting with Hamas several times. Now, another anti-Israel Barack Obama advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski (left), is blasting the American Israel Jewish Public Affairs Committee for “McCarthyism.”
Samantha Powers (right) was asked to leave the Obama campaign for her anti-Israeli postitions and then Robert Malley [Center] stepped down for meeting with Hamas several times. Now, another anti-Israel Barack Obama advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski (left), is blasting the American Israel Jewish Public Affairs Committee for “McCarthyism.” [From The “Gateway Pundit” in 2008, click the image to read more.]
To further see why, please read the rest from DiscoverTheNetworks.org, “a guide to the political left”:

Robert Malley – Some History

  • Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group
  • Formerly served as President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs
  • Son of Simon Malley, a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party
  • Blamed Israel for the failed Camp David peace negotiations with Yasser Arafat in 2000
  • Has co-written a number of op-ed pieces with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat
  • Consistently condemns Israel, exonerates Palestinians, urges U.S. disengagement from Israel, and recommends that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies
  • Became foreign policy advisor to presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2007

Harvard-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, Robert Malley is the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which receives funding from the Open Society Institute (whose founder, George Soros, serves on the ICG Board and Executive Committee).

In his capacity with ICG, Malley directs a number of analysts based in Amman, Cairo, Beirut, Tel Aviv, and Baghdad. These analysts report periodically on the political, social and economic factors which they believe have the potential to spark conflict in those regions, and they make policy recommendations in an effort to defuse such threats. Covering events from from Iran to Morocco, Malley’s team focuses most heavily on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the political and military developments in Iraq, and Islamist movements across the Middle East.

Prior to joining ICG, Malley served as President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs (1998-2001); National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s Executive Assistant (1996-1998); and the National Security Council’s Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and Humanitarian Affairs (1994-1996).

In 2007, Malley — one of the most frequently quoted commentators on U.S. Middle East policy and Arab-Israeli strife — became a foreign policy advisor to Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Malley was raised in France by his mother — a native New Yorker named Barbara Silverstein — and his father, Simon Malley, a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party. Rabidly anti-Israel, Simon Malley was a confidante of the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various leftist revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.Netanyahu-Nasrallah-Obama

In a July 2001 op-ed (titled “Fictions About the Failure at Camp David”) which was published in the New York Times, Robert Malley (whose family, as noted above, had close ties to Yasser Arafat) alleged that Israeli — not Palestinian — inflexibility had caused the previous year’s Camp David peace talks (brokered by Bill Clinton) to fail. This was one of several controversial articles Malley has written — some he co-wrote with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat — blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat for that failure.

In their August 9, 2001 piece, “Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors,” Malley and Agha again dismissed claims that the Camp David talks had failed when “Ehud Barak’s unprecedented offer” was met with “Yasser Arafat’s uncompromising no.” They wrote that Barak had taken an unnecessarily hard-line approach in negotiating with Arafat. According to Malley and Agha, Arafat believed that Barak was intent on “either forcing him to swallow an unconscionable deal or mobilizing the world to isolate and weaken the Palestinians if they refused to yield.”

Malley’s identification of Israel as the cause of the Camp David failure has been widely embraced by Palestinian and Arab activists around the world, by Holocaust deniers like Norman Finkelstein, and by anti-Israel publications such as CounterpunchAccording to American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky, Malley “was also believed to be the chief source for an article [dated July 26, 2001] by Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat’s role in the collapse of the peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias.”_50363060_abbasnetanyahu

Malley’s account of the Camp David negotiations is entirely inconsistent with the recollections of the key figures who participated in those talks, most notably then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, U.S. President Bill Clinton, and U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross (Clinton’s Middle East envoy).

According to Ross, the peace efforts failed for one reason only: because Arafat wanted them to fail. “[F]undamentally,” said Ross, “I do not believe he [Arafat] can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict. Arafat’s whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause … [F]or him to end the conflict is to end himself…. Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it [peace] wasn’t … achievable was because Arafat wouldn’t accept.”

Over the years, Malley has penned numerous op-eds condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, HezbollahHamas, and Muqtada al-SadrEd Lasky enumerates and summarizes some of these Malley writings as follows:

  • Playing Into Sharon’s Hands”: In this January 2002 piece, says Lasky, Malley “absolves Arafat of the responsibility to restrain terrorists and blames Israel for terrorism. He defends Arafat and hails him as ‘… the first Palestinian leader to recognize Israel, relinquish the objective of regaining all of historic Palestine and negotiate for a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 boundaries.’”
  • Rebuilding a Damaged Palestine”: This May 2002 article accuses Israel’s security operations of deliberately weakening Palestinian security forces (which themselves are replete with terrorists and thus make little or no effort to prevent terrorism), and calls for international forces to keep Israel in check.
  • Making the Best of Hamas’s Victory”: In this March 2006 piece, Malley recommends that nations worldwide establish relationships with, and send financial aid to, the Palestinians’ newly elected, Hamas-led government. Malley also alleges that Hamas’ policies and Israeli policies are essentially mirror images of one another. Writes Malley: “The Islamists (Hamas) ran on a campaign of effective government and promised to improve Palestinians’ lives; they cannot do that if the international community turns its back.” In Malley’s calculus, the Hamas victory was a manifestation of Palestinian “anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, Western lecturing and, most recently and tellingly, the threat of an aid cut off in the event of an Islamist success.” In addition, Malley counsels the U.S. not to “discourage third-party unofficial contacts with [Hamas] in an attempt to moderate it.”Hamas1
  • Avoiding Failure with Hamas”: This April 2006 article not only advocates international aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian government, but also suggests that a failure to extend such aid could trigger an environmental or public health crisis for Palestinians.
  • How to Curb the Tension in Gaza” (July 2006): Here, Malley and co-writer Gareth Evans condemn Israel for its military’s efforts (in 2006) to recover Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who had been kidnapped and held hostage by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. The authors classify Israel’s retaliatory actions as “collective punishment” that stands in “violation of international law.”
  • Forget Pelosi: What About Syria?”: In this April 2007 piece, Malley advocates U.S. and Israeli outreach to Syria, notwithstanding the latter’s close affiliations with Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda in Iraq. He further contends that it is both unreasonable and unrealistic for Israel or Western nations to demand that Syria sever its ties with the aforementioned organizations or with Iran. He suggests, moreover, that if Israel were to return the Golan Heights (which it captured in the 1967 Six Day War, and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War — two conflicts sparked by Arab aggression) to Syrian control, Damascus would, as Lasky puts it, “somehow miraculously” pursue peace — “after they get all they want.”
  • Containing a Shiite Symbol of Hope”: This October 2006 article advocates U.S. engagement with the fiercely anti-American Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite leader of the Mahdi Army in Iraq.
  • Middle East Triangle”: Co-written with Hussein Agha, this January 2008 piece calls for Hamas and Fatah to end their bitter disputes and to join forces in an effort to derail what the authors view as Israel’s attempt to “perpetuate Palestinian geographic and political division.” Malley and Agha predict that such a strategy would prompt Hamas to: (a) abandon its longstanding quest to destroy Israel; and (b) encourage Palestinian AuthorityPresident Mahmoud Abbas (a leading member of Fatah) to negotiate for a lasting peace with Israel.
  • The U.S. Must Look to its Own Mideast Interests”: Co-written with Aaron David Miller, this September 2006 article urges the U.S. to engage with Syria and Hamas, rather than to “follow Israel’s lead.” Malley and Miller add: “A national unity government between Fatah and Hamas appears within reach, and the Europeans seem prepared to resume assistance to such a government once it takes shape. Should this happen, America shouldn’t stand in the way — regardless of whether Hamas recognizes Israel or formally renounces violence. Instead, the United States should see this as an opportunity to achieve what is achievable: a Palestinian cease-fire involving all armed organizations, a halt to all Israeli offensive military actions, and the resumption of normal economic life for the Palestinian government and people.”
  • A New Middle East”: In this September 2006 article, Malley contends that Hezbollah’s infamous attacks and kidnappings targeting Israelis (two months earlier) were motivated partly by that organization’s desire to liberate Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails, and partly by pressure from Hezbollah’s close allies, Syria and Iran.

Puppets3In July 2006 Malley criticized the U.S. for allegedly remaining “on the sidelines” and being a “no-show” in the overall effort to bring peace to the nations of the Middle East. Exhorting the Bush administration to change its policy of refusing to engage diplomatically with terrorists and their sponsoring states, Malley stated: “Today the U.S. does not talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, the elected Palestinian government or Hizballah…. The result has been a policy with all the appeal of a moral principle and all the effectiveness of a tired harangue.”

In February 2004 Malley testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and recommended that the Arab-Israeli “Road Map for Peace” be abandoned because neither side had confidence that the other was bargaining in good faith. As Ed Lasky writes, “[Malley] advocated that a comprehensive settlement plan be imposed on the parties with the backing of the international community, including Arab and Moslem states. He anticipated that Israel would object with ‘cries of unfair treatment’ but counseled the plan be put in place regardless of such objections; he also suggested that waiting for a ‘reliable Palestinian partner’ was unnecessary.”

According to Lasky, Malley’s overarching political objectives include “a radical reshaping of decades of American foreign policy and a shredding of the role of morality in the formulation of American policy.” “These policies,” says Lasky, “would strengthen our enemies, empower dictatorships, and harm our allies.

One U.S. security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, states that Robert Malley “has expressed sympathy to Hamas and Hezbollah and [has] offered accounts of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that don’t jibe with the facts.”

On May 9, 2008, the Barack Obama presidential campaign was forced to sever its ties with Malley after the latter told the Times of London that he had been in regular contact with Hamas as part of his work for ICG.

On November 5, 2008, Middle East Newsline reported that Obama “had sent senior foreign policy adviser Robert Malley to Egypt and Syria over the last few weeks to outline the Democratic candidate’s policy on the Middle East.” The report added that Malley had “relayed a pledge from Obama that the United States would seek to enhance relations with Cairo as well as reconcile with Damascus.” “The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests,” said an aide to Malley.

On February 18, 2014, it was announced that Malley was formally returning to the White House to serve as a senior director at the National Security Council, where he would be in charge of managing relations between the United States and its allies in the Persian Gulf.

Brandeis Shuns Hirsi Ali and Free Speech

By Denise Simon – (Cross-posted at the FoundersCode.com web site)

On the Brandeis University website it states the school is the only nonsectarian Jewish sponsored university in the country. The school was named for Louis Dembitz Brandeis, a former Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.Brandeis-Logo

Then there is a sentence on the website that refers to the school as having innovative and exciting programs of learning that emphasizes an interdisciplinary approach to knowledge and the solutions of real-life problems.

However, when it came to the schools decision to un-invite Ayaan Hirshi Ali for an honorary degree, it flies in the face of the very text above and especially that of what any Supreme Court Justice would encourage.

In a deeper look, one of the notable alumni of the school is Michael Ratner, class of ’65. He is the President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Sounds like a great guy but his organization is at the core of those who aid the Attorney General of the Department of Justice, Eric Holder. Additionally, that organization is the lead agency, full of lawyers, providing free counsel to Guantanamo detainees.

And this very week, the school terminated its invitation to Ayann Hirshi Ali under major pressure from CAIR, whose membership has a nasty history.

When radical speech comes from Muslims however, the same voices claiming to defend the world against hate speech suddenly turn into spin doctors. Among the examples:

  • Sami Al-Arian remains a hero in Islamist circles despite being exposed as a board member for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and was taped saying Jews were “made into monkeys and pigs” by Allah and is calling for “Death to Israel.”
  • CAIR represented Imam Kifah Mustapha, in failed litigation against the Illinois State Police. The agency dropped Mustapha as its first Muslim chaplain after the Investigative Project on Terrorism reported about his work as a paid fundraiser for a Hamas front, including performances “singing about Jihad and martyrdom” in a singing troupe which performed at fundraisers.cair-1
  • CAIR lauded University of California, Irvine students charged with misdemeanors for orchestrating a series of disruptions aimed at silencing a 2010 speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. CAIR’s Los Angeles director called the students, whose stated goal was to silence someone else’s speech, “true American heroes.”
  • CAIR has defended Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi as a moderate despite his fatwas justifying suicide bombings in Israel and attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad joined Qaradawi in 2012 to discuss a film project about the Muslim prophet Muhammad. This meeting occurred after Qaradawi expressed a wish to kill Jews before he dies.
  • When a radical Muslim website threatened the producers of “South Park” in 2010, CAIR’s national spokesman dismissed the significance, wondering in the Los Angeles Times if “they were set up only to make Muslims look bad.”

CAIR works diligently to block free speech across America as well as free thought. Brandeis stated it’s reason for shunning Ayaan Hirsi Ali is due in part that her criticisms were inconsistent with Brandeis Universitiy’s core values.

Well, do those core values include shutting down free speech? Did anyone at the University bother to research the history of CAIR, their relationship to Hamas and its documented relationships with unindicted co-conspirators from the Holyland Foundation trial?

It was only recently that CAIR also forced capitulation of the University of Michigan and the Greater Oakland County Republican Club. (Read more here.) My good friends at the Investigative Project continue to do yeoman’s work with proven facts and documents.

Too often, claims of “Islamophobia” are parroted without challenge by the news media. None of the reports this week pressed Hirsi Ali’s critics about the context of her statements or about the overall tenor of their attacks.

None pointed out that internal documents discovered during an investigation into a Muslim Brotherhood support network place CAIR on the group’s “Palestine Committee.” The committee was tasked with helping Hamas politically and financially.

Until that situation changes, the Islamist winning streak of bullying others into silencing their foes is likely to continue.

Come on America, unless we admit what CAIR is, and what Islam and Sharia is doing to the entire culture and history of our country, then we are going to have a crisis all too soon that will begin to make us look like Great Britain and sadly, Syria.

J Street Student Leaders to Repair Brandeis-Al Quds Relationship

UPDATED: Students for Al Quds get $10,000 grant after heckling former IDF spokesman

By  – Free Beacon

Two student leaders of J Street at Brandeis University who recently came under fire for heckling an Israeli soldier have been selected to help repair the school’s relationship with the Palestinian Al Quds University, which has hosted several anti-Israel terror rallies on its campus.Brandeis

Brandeis was forced to sever its long-term partnership with Al Quds after it hosted a military rally last year that featured masked men performing the traditional Nazi salute. A second Hamas rally was held in late March.

Two leaders of J Street’s campus group, J Street U, were recently given an independent grant to travel to Al Quds and spearhead a “student dialogue initiative” aimed at repairing relations between the two universities.

The students—Eli Philip and Catriona Stewart—serve as the copresidents of Brandeis’s J Street U group. They most recently drew headlines for heckling a former IDF soldier who was speaking on campus.

The Al Quds dialogue initiative comes at a critical time for Brandeis, which is facing a fierce backlash for rescinding an honorary degree from the Islamic human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The J Street leaders were awarded the $10,000 as part of the Davis Projects for Peace program, which encourages students to “design grassroots projects for peace.”

Philip and Stewart wrote in their grant proposal that they are seeking to “create a framework for long-term student dialogue between Brandeis University and Al Quds University.”

WhosFundingCAIRThe duo hopes to “gain insight into their [Al Quds student’s] daily lives through a structured and intentional five-day trip in Jerusalem and the West Bank and post-trip weekly discussion meetings,” according to the proposal.

Philip and Stewart wrote in their proposal that the December rally at Al Quds “appeared to many at Brandeis to be an anti-Semitic rally.”

Others, including Middle East expert Tom Gross, who first reported on the rally, say that it most definitely was.

Al Quds students associated with Islamic Jihad’s campus faction donning black military gear and mock automatic weapons. They then marched across the school’s campus flashing the traditional Nazi salute.

“It bothers me very much that the school I am attending has a partnership with a school that inherently promotes death to Jews,” Brandeis student Eve Herman told the Washington Free Beacon at the time.

J Street leaders Philip and Stewart say that the Nazi rally inspired them to pursue the new partnership, which will allow a delegation of Brandeis students to spend a week at Al Quds.

“We realized that this was the kind of moment for which the [Brandeis] partnership existed, a moment that could have resulted in learning and growth for both institutions,” they wrote in their grant proposal.

The students claim that Brandeis’s decision to cut ties with Al Quds “lacked appreciation for [former Al Quds University head Sari] Nusseibeh’s desire to uphold the values of free speech and respect, as well as for the realities of life in the West Bank.”

J Street U sparked a row on Brandeis’ campus late last year, when Philip and others were reported to have been “disruptive and rude” during a speech by former IDF spokesman Barak Raz.J-Street-U-Brandeis

“Philip and his [J Street U] colleagues were so disruptive during Raz’s talk that there were calls for him to resign his student leadership position for having embarrassed the Brandeis community,” the Jewish Press reported at the time.

Raz later responded to the incident by stating that Philip “walked in [to the event], over an hour late, and aside from the disruptive chatter, missed the points that were made.”

“The behavior you displayed was quite sub-par,” Raz wrote, adding that “should you desire to continue this conversation, it’s probably best done in a way that reflects a little more integrity. I’m surprised that while you came to learn and listen, you refused to do that.”

Philip, Stewart, and a Brandeis University spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on the grant.

However, Ellen de Graffenreid, a senior vice president for communications, told the school’s newspaper that the initiative “is consistent with Brandeis University’s principles of academic freedom and open dialogue on challenging issues.”

UPDATE 4:25 P.M.: Brandeis University emailed the Free Beacon following the publication of this article to distance itself from the Davis Projects and the J Street U students’ project.

“The Davis Projects for Peace is an outside foundation that is not affiliated with Brandeis University. Brandeis University does not play a role in selection of students who are the recipients of these funds,” senior vice president for communications Ellen de Graffenreid wrote to the Free Beacon in an email.

The Davis Projects for Peace program is advertised and hosted on Brandeis’s College of Arts and Sciences website. Brandeis is described as one of the David Projects’ “partner institutions.”

“The relationship with Al Quds University remains suspended and there are no plans at this time to reinstate it,” she said.

Brandeis’s communications department cannot quickly respond to press requests, she said.

“You emailed us at 11:29 a.m. and posted your story at 2:52 p.m.  Understandably, we are quite busy today and were not able to respond to your single request for comment instantaneously,” she said.

“I respectfully request that you change your headline to reflect that Brandeis neither selected nor funded this student research project,” Graffenreid wrote.