Jewish Pundit Hounded by Black Lives Matter, White Supremacists Says He’s Received More Antisemitic Tweets Than Any Media Peer
Calling himself “more conservative than [President-elect Donald] Trump on every issue,” yet the bane of the alt-right, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire — who has the distinction of being “one of the few people who has managed to unite the Black Lives Matter movement and white supremacists in protest against him” — told the UK-based J-TV that he has received more antisemitic tweets in the past year than any of his colleagues in the media.
On the program “Current Affairs” — moderated by the UK-based Henry Jackson Society founder and executive director Dr. Alan Mendoza — Ben Shapiro, an American political author, pundit and Orthodox Jew, who resigned from Breitbart News Network in March after a widely publicized incident involving reporter Michelle Fields and former Trump staffer Corey Lewandowski — said nevertheless that he does not believe that the incoming administration in Washington will be antisemitic.
“I’ve been a very critical voice about Donald Trump and about [former Breitbart editor] Steve Bannon, his White House chief strategist, in particular,” he said. “[But] I don’t have any evidence that [either is] antisemitic. I think that both are willing to pander to some of the worst people in the world on the alt-right in order to advance their agenda on particular issues, but there is no evidence that Trump is particularly anti-Israel, and Breitbart has never been an anti-Israel site; it’s always been a very pro-Israel site, so I’m not deeply concerned about antisemitism in the Trump administration as much as I am about the emboldenment of antisemites through a kind of patting on the head… But as far as policy [is concerned]…I think it’s going to be a more pro-Israel administration than the Obama administration was…”
Who’s Really Driving “Grassroots” Anti-Israel Activism in America?
“Israelis have to be bombed… it is wrong to maintain the State of Israel. It is an illegitimate creation” — Taher Herzallah, American Muslims for Palestine National Campus CoordinatorWikiLeaks: UN Human Rights Council Nothing More Than “Cudgel With Which To Batter Israel”
One of the most prominent faces of BDS in America is Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) — a self-titled “grassroots, human rights organization” with branches at dozens of US campuses. But while it claims to be “resisting racism,” SJP’s 2014 national conference featured a keynote speaker infamous for defending public calls to “shoot the Jew!” This discrepancy between SJP’s stated principles and its conduct is no exception: funded and closely guided by AMP and other political interest groups, SJP systematically exploits the language of social justice to promote a bigoted agenda.
In private SJP denies Israel’s right to exist, while in public they claim to support justice and peace.
SJP’s ties to AMP run deep, and SJP itself has admitted that, “NGO employees are in powerful positions,” within their movement. AMP chairman and Berkeley professor Hatem Bazian co-founded SJP in 2000 and is credited with “help[ing] to construct [the] successful narrative SJP has produced over the years” (in fact, AMP supplies the infamous “wall” that SJP displays on campuses). AMP organized the first SJP national conference in 2010, and has funded the group’s national conferences ever since. AMP’s own conferences include a “Campus Track” with sessions on “How To Start an SJP”.
AMP, in turn, has disturbingly close ties not only with Hamas but also with its parent organization — the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is a religious supremacist movement which believes that Islam must “impose its law on all nations.” The Brotherhood openly promotes homophobia and female genital mutilation, and vigorously fought efforts to bring Sudan’s dictator to justice for genocide against Africans in Darfur. AMP emerged in 2005 as a successor to the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), which was, according to memos uncovered by the FBI, founded by the Brotherhood “to serve the cause of Palestine on the political and media fronts” in the US. That is, the IAP was established by the Brotherhood — a foreign religious supremacist group — to spread propaganda. The IAP officially advocated for replacing Israel with an Islamist theocracy, and its former leaders now oversee AMP’s finances.
Former United Nations Special Rapporteur Richard Falk has proven himself to be no fan of Israel, to put it mildly. He wrote a book called “Slouching Towards a Palestinian Holocaust” after all. But if you think he’s bad (and he is), he’s nothing compared to the UN Human Rights Council.
A recently released Wikileaks cable from 2008, sent by the US Mission Geneva to the US Secretary of State, reveals that Falk proposed the UNHRC’s mandate be expanded to included – wait for it – violations of international humanitarian law by palestinians (but not non-international human rights violations by palestinians because we are talking about Richard Falk here).
As you can see from the cable, Falk’s proposal went down like a lead balloon.
Note the acknowledgement that the UNHRC is just an instrument with which to batter Israel.
1. (C) Summary: Newly appointed Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk, took the Human Rights Council by surprise in his first appearance before the body June 16 by proposing that his mandate be expanded to include violations of international humanitarian law by Palestinians. Falk’s proposal had clearly not been previewed either for supporters of the mandate, nor for Israel, the U.S., or any other delegation that opposes it. In a June 18 meeting with Mission officers, Falk admitted he had been unaware of the intense political sensitivities regarding this mandate at the Council, and noted that representatives of Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) delegations had told him that reopening the mandate would be impossible for procedural reasons. In fact, the Review, Rationalization and Improvement (RRI) of the OPT mandate, which Israel had hoped would be scheduled for the September 2008 Council session, does not appear on the program of work and will not be conducted at that time. Still, Falk’s proposal highlighted not only his unfamiliarity with the highly charged political environment in Geneva, but perhaps also an unexpected independence and approach to his new mandate that may make him a more serious interlocutor on this issue than his predecessor had been. End Summary.