Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Should Palestinian Arabs have free will? Their leaders don't think so

Having free choice is a good thing, unless you pretend to be "pro-Palestinian."

We've seen in the past that Arab leaders like to pretend that not a single Palestinian Arab "refugee" would want to become a naturalized citizen of Arab countries, even though every single time they had the chance thousands of them jump at the opportunity. Yet in the name of "Palestinian unity," self-proclaimed "leaders" rail against giving individuals the opportunity to make their own decisions that may be at odds with the political will of the unelected leaders.

For some reason, not too many Western liberals are upset over this steamrolling of individual choice.

Now we have another example, that of Christians in Israel. From AFP:

In a region marked by sectarian division, Israel is trying to bring its Christian Palestinian population on side in a move aimed at splitting them from their Muslim compatriots, experts say.

This Israeli charm offensive has recently led to the army calling for the first time on Arab Christians to sign up for military service, and in a newly-passed law which formalizes a distinction between Christian Palestinians and Muslims.
...
But ahead of a key visit to the Holy Land by Pope Francis which begins on Saturday, this apparent strategy of divide and rule has Israel's Palestinian community worried.

Israel's Palestinian population -- descendents of some 160,000 Palestinians who remained after Israel was established in 1948 -- today numbers 1.4 million, 130,000 of whom are Christians.

Military service is not compulsory for Israel's Palestinians, except for the tiny Druze community, and only around 100 Christians volunteer for service each year, army figures show.

But last month, Israel said it would start sending enlistment papers to all Christian Arabs of military service age, angering Palestinian MKs who accused the government of seeking to divide Christians from Muslims.

The reaction of the Christian Churches was not slow in coming.

In Nazareth, the largest Palestinian city in Israel, the Greek Orthodox Church sacked one of its priests after he publicly encouraged young Christians to join the army to understand "the importance of serving and getting involved in the country in which they live and which protects them."

The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which represents the Roman Catholic Church, protested against the army's decision to seek a tenfold increase in the number of Christian recruits annually.

"The issue is that these Christians are Palestinian," said Michel Sabbah, patriarch between 1988-2008 and the first Palestinian to hold the post for centuries.

"If you accept yourself as Palestinian, you must be logical with yourself -- you don't go into an army which maintains occupation on Palestinians, or kills Palestinians.
...
Opponents accuse nationalist right-wing elements within Netanyahu's coalition of playing the "sectarianism" card and seeking to create a divide between Christians and Muslims.

"I don't think that Israel is serious about integrating Arab Christians in Israeli society on the basis of full, equal-rights citizens. This is a clear attempt to split the Arab-Palestinian minority in Israel," said political analyst Wadie Abu Nasser.

What is missing from this discussion?

Individual choice!

Israel isn't drafting any Christians into the IDF. It isn't forcing them to do anything. It isn't stopping any of them from identifying as "Palestinian."

But as we saw recently, some 43% of Arabs in Israel identify more as Arab Israelis than as Palestinian. For Michel Sabbah to flatly say that "these Christians are Palestinians" He is disenfranchising two out of every five Arabs, and I suspect that the percentage of Christians who identify as Israeli is higher.

Yet AFP cannot find a single person to argue that Israeli Arabs, or Israeli Christian Arabs, should have the simple right to decide for themselves what they want to do.

If you are liberal, isn't that what your position must be? Isn't dissent from within one's community something to be celebrated, not insulted?

Or is choice something that is only for Westerners, but not for Arabs?

Being against Arab individuality and choice sounds a little racist to me.

How J-Street Lies

For some reason, I'm on J-Street's mailing list, and I received this:

One-stater Jack Kingston qualified for a run-off in Georgia's Republican Senate primary and is now one step closer to winning the Republican nomination.

Kingston was a member of last Congress' infamous "One State Caucus." He's on the record urging Israel to annex the West Bank and forgo its Jewish and democratic character. Now's the time to dig deep and do everything in our power to prevent Jack Kingston from taking the oath of office next January.

Jack Kingston's ideas are dangerous for Israel.

Not only has he pushed Israel to annex the West Bank, but Kingston also called the Obama Administration's two state diplomacy "misguided". And he even claimed that the President had "turned his back on Israel" by pursuing a diplomatic deal to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

So I decided to look up when Kingston said he supported Israel's annexation of Judea and Samaria.

Here is the legislation he co-sponsored, from 2011:

Supporting Israel's right to annex Judea and Samaria in the event that the Palestinian Authority continues to press for unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.

In other words, he supports Israel's right to act unilaterally if the PLO acts unilaterally first.

But does he support a one-state solution? Not at all. Here's another piece of legislation he co-sponsored in 2011, HR 268:

Reaffirms support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states, a democratic Jewish state of Israel and a democratic Palestinian state living in peace and mutual recognition.

States that any Palestinian unity government must forswear terrorism, accept Israel's right to exist, and reaffirm previous agreements made with Israel.

Opposes any attempt to establish or seek recognition of a Palestinian state outside of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.

Urges Palestinian leaders to: (1) cease efforts at circumventing the negotiation process, including through a unilateral declaration of statehood or by seeking recognition of a Palestinian state from other nations or the United Nations (U.N.); and (2) resume direct negotiations with Israel.

Supports the Administration's opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.

Calls upon the Administration to lead a diplomatic effort to oppose a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and to oppose recognition of a Palestinian state by other nations within the U.N. and in other international forums prior to a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Affirms that Palestinian efforts to circumvent direct negotiations will harm U.S.-Palestinian relations and will have implications for U.S. assistance programs for the Palestinians and the Palestinians Authority (PA).

Reaffirms the U.S. statutory requirement precluding assistance to a PA that includes Hamas unless that PA and all its ministers accept Israel's right to exist and all prior agreements and understandings with the United States and Israel.

This resolution reflects the broad Israeli and Zionist consensus. And it supports two states.

J-Street is lying. As usual.

I cannot find any statement of support for this resolution on the J-Street website. I suspect that they were against it.

So who is pro-Israel again?

I strongly suspect that J-Street lies about most of the pro-Israel politicians they oppose.

Academics debating anti-Israel resolution reveal their antisemitism

From Jonathan Marks at The Chronicle of Higher Education:

Need a break from grading? Head on over here, where someone has posted a partial record of Modern Language Association member comments on resolution 2014-1, urging the “United States Department of State to contest Israel’s denials of entry to the West Bank by United States academics who have been invited to teach, confer, or do research at Palestinian universities.” It is a spectacle. How often do you get to see scholarly colleagues refer to one another as “Zionist attack dogs?”

In January, the MLA’s Delegate Assembly narrowly passed the controversial resolution at the association’s annual meeting. In March, the Executive Council decided to send it to the full membership for a vote, which began on April 21 and will close on June 1. The debate over the resolution took place from mid-March to mid-April, at a site open only to MLA members. Only part of it has been posted at the link above, but the rest I found this morning mysteriously lodged in the jaws of my Labrador retriever, to be known hereafter as my Zionist retrieving dog.

To some extent, there is normal debate over this closed message board. There are arguments for and against the resolution. But plenty of Israel haters reveal their antisemitism. To wit (I added the affiliations):

It is time that Zionists are asked to finally account for their support to the illegal occupation of Palestine since 1967. This resolution rightly targets only Israel given the humongous influence that Jewish scholars have in the decision making process of Academia in general.

Posted 20 Mar 4:11 pm by Alessio Lerro [Comparative literature, Rutgers]
_________________________________________________________________________

Does anyone remember Edward Said, our beloved late leader? I think he must be turning in his grave to see how far we have regressed since his tenure! What is stiking [sic] here is not that that Resolution 2014-1 is eliciting debate. Rather, what stands out in bold relief is just how intolerant of debate are its detractors. As on the broader political scene, moves to seek justice and opportunity for Palestinians (or to remove obstacles to achieving those goals) are countered by Zionist attack dogs. When the Zionist lobby railroads its way through Congress, universities, and civil society no request is made for equal time for the other side. Only when a counter voice is raised in this tightly controlled wilderness, do the proponents of Israeli exceptionalismn [sic] cry foul. VOTE YES on this simple proposition seeking to facilitate academic freedom and inquiry in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

Posted 22 Mar 5:16 pm by Elizabeth Jane Ordóñez [Spanish, Metropolitan University Denver]
_________________________________________________________________________
Elizabeth Jane Ordóñez's dismissal of everyone who opposes this resolution as "Zionist attack dogs" is insulting, contemptible, and unacceptable.

Posted 22 Mar 6:46 pm by Peter C. Herman
_________________________________________________________________________
"Zionist attack dogs" was probably used metaphorically. However, considering the undue and unfair pressures being exercised on universities by Zionist funders and lobby groups to quell any dissent or any objection to Israel's colonial activities, as well as Zionist academics using their past or present positions (as with Cory Nelson) to strangle resistant voices, not to mention Zionist politicians pushing the US into disastrous wars, the expression maybe [sic] severe but not far from the truth. I can understand that some Jews can be mild Zionists (not sure if the Christian variety in North America can be that mild), but Zionism is a harmful ideology that has caused tremendous damage to the minds of otherwise reasonable people as well as disrupted and unsettled the lives of millions of people it has dispossessed.

Posted 22 Mar 8:30 pm by Basem L. Ra'ad [professor emeritus at Al-Quds University]
_________________________________________________

Jonathan Marks makes an excellent point:

The anti-Semitic tropes in these statements are not subtle. But even if they were, I wonder why the academic left, which is usually so attuned to the subtlety of racism and sexism, puts up such a high bar for anti-Semitism. Suddenly “But I said Zionist, not Jew”; or “I’m a Jew, so I can’t possibly be in league with haters of Jews”; or “Yes, I’m focusing on the Jewish state and no other state, but so what?”; or “Sure, I’m echoing standard anti-Semitic tropes, but they’re really applicable here” are incontrovertible arguments, and it becomes bad form to suggest that anti-Semitism is at work unless someone is screaming anti-Semitic slogans.

(h/t Yair Rosenberg via @Geuzen1)

Muslim Brotherhood leader forgets to say "Zionists" instead of "Jews"

Some Arabs keep forgetting the famous virtual memo of 1968: "From now on, don't say you are against Jews, but use the word 'Zionists' instead."

Arab leaders have tried to keep this edict in mind, allowing us to see a shift in rhetoric from Jews owning the banks and media to saying that "Zionists" do.

But old habits die hard.

Mohammed Badie, General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, made an address to the court on May 18, 2014, rejecting the accusations brought against him and other members of the movement. In footage from the trial posted on the Internet, Badie says: "We have fought only against the Jews... yet now we are being accused of conspiring with Hamas against the Egyptian people. This is an absolute lie."

Following are excerpts:

[...]

We have fought only against the Jews, and Kamel Al-Sharif may testify about the conduct of the Muslim Brotherhood in the [1948] war in Palestine. We fought against the Jews. The Israeli strategic research institute wrote in a report: "Our greatest enemies in the world are the Muslim Brotherhood." This is an honor for us, yet now we are being accused of conspiring with Hamas against the Egyptian people. This is an absolute lie.

05/21 Links Pt2: Chloe Valdary: Brandeis Unbecoming Defending Hirsi Ali; Bibi Meets Leno

From Ian:

Chloe Valdary Blasts Brandeis University's 'Lack of' Moral Leadership

In a new video from Americans for Peace and Tolerance, human rights activist Chloe Valdary blasts the Brandeis University administration for its April decision to revoke the offer of an honorary degree to women's rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In the video, titled "Brandeis Unbecoming," Valdary asks, "who will speak for the thousands of women oppressed and abused everyday?" She then highlights various victims of honor killings and abuse done in the name of radical Islam.
Brandeis University revoked the honorary degree from Hirsi Ali after a student petition, a faculty petition and considerable noise from outside organizations and leaders. Highlighted in the video is a portion of the faculty petition which reads, "We cannot accept Ms. Hirsi Ali's triumphalist narrative of western civilization, rooted in a core belief of the cultural backwardness of non-western peoples."

Brandeis Unbecoming: A New Video Defending Hirsi Ali, by Chloe Valdary

Richard Kemp: Britain, Lawfare and the ICC

Today the United Kingdom sits alongside Libya, Darfur and Sudan as the International Criminal Court [ICC] launches an investigation into alleged war crimes by the British Army in Iraq.
This perversion brings to mind German Pastor Martin Niemoeller's powerful words at the end of the Second World War:
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me."
It was not long before they came again for the Jews – this time in the newly established Jewish state. And over the years, Israel's enemies, unable to destroy her in battle, have used "lawfare" – the abuse of Western laws and judicial systems – to try to undermine and delegitimize her.
A leading player in this unremitting assault has been the UN Human Rights Council [UNHRC], which has passed resolution after spurious resolution against Israel while ignoring horrific human rights abuses around the world. The fundamentally flawed Goldstone Report, which concluded that Israel had been guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the IDF's defensive operation in Gaza in 2008-09, is an example of the UNHRC's distortions of reality.

Israeli Arabs increasingly identify with Israel

From JPost:

The percentage of Israeli Arabs who recognize Israel’s right to continue to exist as a Jewish and democratic state rose in 2013, according to a study by Prof. Sammy Smooha of the University of Haifa.

More Israeli Arabs identify themselves as such, instead of as Palestinian, found the study, which was a product of a joint venture between the university and the Israel Democracy Institute.

The report stated that, contrary to popular belief, Jews’ opinions about Israeli Arabs are not undergoing radicalization but demonstrate long-term stability.

While over the past 10 years, Israeli Arabs have become more extreme in their views toward the state and its Jewish majority, the results of the study in 2013 show a change in trend. For example, 53 percent of Israeli Arabs recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, compared to 47 percent in 2012.

Sixty-four percent in 2013 think that Israel is a good place to live, compared to 59 percent a year ago.

A major shift was found this year in the number of Arabs – 43 percent – who favor their Israeli-Arab identity over a Palestinian one. This compared to 33 percent in last year’s study.

This completely contradicts the conventional wisdom, which isn't surprising since the conventional wisdom is often created by people with an agenda.

Previous years' studies are online, but at the moment it doesn't look like the full report has been published on the web.

More from the humor site PreOccupied Territory:

Washington, DC, May 19 - President Obama hit back at critics of his policy on the Syrian civil war today, insisting that he never committed to getting the US directly involved in the conflict even if Basher Assad's forces crossed the "red line" of using chemical weapons, as nowhere in his statements on the conflict did he invoke the no-turning-back phrase "Simon says."

Despite repeated violations of international law by forces loyal to the Syrian president, the international community, especially the US, has been reluctant to commit militarily to the rebels, a significant number of whom are jihadist groups that could threaten American interests. Foreseeing such complications, Obama specifically avoided uttering "Simon says" when addressing Assad, knowing that refraining from the invocation of Simon would leave him with the political and diplomatic wiggle room to opt for letting Assad continue to slaughter his people unimpeded.

Deaths from the Syrian civil war now number more than 160,000, and the number of refugees now exceeds three million. Neighboring countries find their resources strained in handling the exodus, and the United Nations refugee agency lacks the funds and material to tend to the influx properly. Rebels and refugee representatives were incensed that the American president avoided providing serious military aid, but upon hearing his explanation that he never actually mouthed the words "Simon says" in directing Assad to stop committing atrocities, they conceded that Assad could not be expected to comply.

"We get it," said Ahmad Fatuh, a father of six at a refugee camp in Jordan. "I understand now, and it's OK. I thought maybe the deaths of four of my children could serve as poignant markers in the struggle for liberation from a tyrant, but Obama never actually said the magic words. That means there's no ethical bond obligating the US to act to protect the victims. We're cool with that."

In a related development, the United Nation Security Council opened a session on the Syrian conflict. The session began with US Ambassador Susan Rice and British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant trying to be the first to call, "Not It!"

05/21 Links Pt1: Letting go of Abbas; Oslo Cost 933Bil Shekels; In Iran, You Can’t Be ‘Happy’

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Letting go of Abbas

The time has come for Israel to show Abbas the door. It would be best if we can do it quietly – offering him the opportunity to relocate to somewhere warm and retain all the loot he and his cronies have siphoned off for their personal use.
Once Abbas is gone, Israel will have to choose between applying its laws to parts of Judea and Samaria and offering the Palestinians outside those areas a limited form of autonomy, or applying its laws to the entire region, conferring permanent residency status on the Palestinians and offering them the right to apply for Israeli citizenship.
Alarmists argue that without Abbas, Israel will go broke having to finance the Palestinian budget. But this is ridiculous.
Once you subtract the hundreds of millions of dollars that go missing every year, and you take into account that Israel managed to govern the areas for 24 years, you realize that this is just one more empty threat – like the demographic threat – made by people who have no political existence without the façade of a peace process.
Abbas is not an asset. He is a liability. It is time to move past him. (h/t Bob Knot)

The Price of Oslo – 933 Billion Shekels and Counting

The failed attempt at regional peacemaking known as the Oslo Process has cost the state of Israel over 900 billion shekels – more than $250 billion – since 1993, and the costs keeps rising, according to a study by the Likud party's Jewish Leadership faction, which is headed by MK Moshe Feiglin (Likud-Beytenu).
By comparison, the total state budget for 2014 has been set at about 400 billion shekels, or about $115 billion.
The numbers came as a shock to the researchers, who recently gave a much lower estimate of the total financial costs of the botched endeavor.

White House Puts New Lipstick on Old Pig a/k/a Unity Government

An anonymous senior White House official allegedly told the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz that the U.S. would cooperated with a Palestinian Unity Government, despite the participation of the terrorist group Hamas.
The way the Unity Government is being promoted, it will be run by “technocrats” and not by representatives of Hamas or Fatah. How anyone appointed by the two parties will not be members of those two parties is difficult to understand, but that is the confection being promoted by those involved, and it is eagerly being ingested by the Americans and others – including 28 European Union foreign ministers – interested in moving forward “peace talks” which also have little grounding in reality.
The Unity Government is allegedly going to be put in place next week.

At a Knesset debate over incitement and violence against Christian recruits for the IDF today, member of Knesset Basel Ghattas insulted and threatened the priest who leads that movement.

Ghattas, a Christian MK of the Balad party, became incensed when Father Gabriel Nadaf arrived to testify. He had to be physically restrained as he hurled insults and threats, saying that Nadaf was a "traitor scum" and a Shabak agent.

Let that sink in: An Arab member of Israel's Knesset is threatening a priest who advocated Christians join the country's army. If joining the army is treasonous to the Arab cause, then what is joining the Knesset? Beyond that, it is beyond belief that the Knesset can tolerate such behavior and attitudes.

Father Nadaf said that Ghattas' words were tantamount to a threat on his life, saying "We all know how Arabs treat traitors. And we know what happened to Yitzchak Rabin when he was branded a traitor."

Christians at the hearing testified about the threats that they have received, Father Nadaf was threatened to be skinned and a "WANTED" poster was circulated offering hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill Nadaf and other Arab Christian Zionists.

Knesset members said that not enough was being done to protect the Christians who support their nation's army, and also that Father Nadaf's protection should be increased as well.

(h/t Yoel)

US might turn a blind eye to Hamas in PA as Hamas says it strengthens "resistance"

Haaretz reported on Monday:

Despite Israel’s position, the U.S. administration is tending toward cooperating with the soon-to-be-formed Palestinian unity government, even if Hamas as an organization does not accept the conditions of the Mideast Quartet to recognize Israel, honor previous agreements and abandon violence.

A senior White House official told Haaretz that as long as the platform of the future government meets the conditions of the Quartet - the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia - the U.S. will be satisfied.

“We want a Palestinian government that upholds those principles,” said the White House official. “In terms of how they build this government, we are not able to orchestrate that for the Palestinians. We are not going to be able to engineer every member of this government.”

On Tuesday, Hamas political leader Khaled Meshal gave a speech in Doha, where he said that national unity "is not a substitute for resistance but it meant to strengthen it."

It is clear that the impending unity government will put on one face to the West and another one to Palestinian Arabs.

As long as the West and the Quartet want to believe the lies, they will.

Divestment fails at UW by lopsided 59-8-11 vote

Last night, the University of Washington voted on their version of a divestment resolution, which said in part:

WHEREAS, the state of Israel, in its ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands , violates International Law and Human Rights…

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: THAT, the ASUW requests the University of Washington to examine its financial assets to identify its investments in companies that provide equipment or services used to directly maintain, support, or profit from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, including a) the demolition of Palestinian homes and the development of illegal Israeli settlements; b) the building or maintenance of the Separation wall, outposts, and segregated roads and transportation systems on occupied Palestinian territory, and c) illegal use of weaponry and surveillance technology by the Israeli military against Palestinian civilian populations, and that those findings be shared with the ASUW…

THAT, the ASUW requests the University of Washington to instruct its investment managers to divest from those companies meeting such criteria within the bounds of their fiduciary duties until such companies cease the practices identified in this Resolution.

The resolution was co-sponsored by Peter Brannan, a 31-year old senior (not a typo, he graduated high school in 2001) and an Arab of Palestinian descent named Amira Mattar.

The main organization pushing the resolution was SUPER-UW, which put together a 68 page booklet with letters of support from dozens of academics and other Israel haters across the country. The initiative was started on Passover to steamroll over objections of Jewish students who actually care about the holiday. They got Seattle alternative newspapers to write articles in their favor. As usual, supporters of Israel had to organize quickly to counter a well-planned campaign of lies.

Here's what happened:

As the Senate plodded through new business, the tension in the room was palpable. By 7:00 pm the AAA committee met in the foyer to hear final arguments and questions. After a brief pro and con and questions session, the committee voted to deliver the resolution to the senate “unfavorably”. This means that the AAA committee frowned upon the legislation but nevertheless was presenting it to the full senate.

At around 7:20 pm the senate reconvened. Those who wished to advocate for the resolution were told to gather in the right aisle, those in opposition to the left. For the next hour and a half the room was subject to a whiplash of perspectives. The pro students offered the usual BDS arguments, mired in stories of personal anguish “my grandfather can’t get his transfusions because of the wall”, Matrix style stories “Arabs and Jews are assigned different bio-metric cards courtesy of HP and Motorola”, and outright lies “The reliable website Mondoweiss reported today that the Israelis ripped out 15,000 dunams of Apple and Pear trees”. One of the most far-fetched assertions of many was the description of huge Caterpillar Tractor war machines (“15 times bigger than a regular tractor”) armed with offensive missile batteries.

There were at least as many students representing the pro-Israel side as there were BDS supporters. The pro-Israel students prepared well and their arguments seem to have resonated with the senators. One student expressed frustration at the unwillingness of the BDS side to enter into dialogue.

“We all support human rights, justice, and fair treatment for all people. I support fair treatment of Palestinians. But this resolution is one-sided, it does nothing to bring the parties together for dialogue. It actually opposes dialogue. And though we’ve tried to talk to the other side, the other side has refused to talk with us.”

One of the highlights of the evening was an articulate statement against the resolution made by UW Sociology professor,Paul Burstein. The professor was the only pro-Israel speaker who called out the BDS resolution as anti-Semitic. He suggested the resolution framers were less than honest as to their goals, and that their true intention was the end of Israel as a Jewish majority state. Pointing out that the resolution demanded nothing tangible of the students or the university, he described it as just an easy way to manipulate the students to appear to support the sponsor’s twisted agenda.

The debate wound to a close around 9:30pm as the President of the senate suggested that the maintenance staff would soon need to service the auditorium. Final tally 59 against, 8 in favor and 11 abstentions.

There was some scattered applause as the final tally was counted, but no gloating came from the pro-Israel side. Most merely heaved a sigh of relied that the battle for now, was won.

As students exited the auditorium, 27 BDS supporters, signs in hand stood outside the auditorium exit in a semi-circle, forcing attendees to walk through their gauntlet as they stood in silent, mournful disapproval.

This wasn't just a defeat - this was a rout.

This year was supposed to be the year of divestment. The BDSers planned to pass many resolutions at universities across the country, and they targeted the most liberal and sympathetic campuses they could. In nearly every case, they lost.

The fact that it happened in one of the most leftist areas of the country, near where Rachel Corrie lived, speaks volumes on how BDS has lost steam in places it formerly appeared to be dominating.

US soldier shot and killed in Jordan

From Stars and Stripes:

A 19-year-old American infantryman deployed to Jordan died in an Amman hospital Saturday of a gunshot wound, said a spokeswoman for Fort Carson, Colorado, where the soldier was based.

Spc. Adrian M. Perkins of Pine Valley, California, was shot at a Jordanian military base and died at the King Hussein Medical Center, spokeswoman Daneta Johnson said.

No further information about the circumstances of the incident was provided.

“The cause of death is under investigation,” Lt. Col. Steve Wollman, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said in a statement.

In a news release, the Pentagon described Perkins’ injuries as “noncombat-related” and said he was in Jordan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.

Jordan has more than 1,000 military personnel deployed to Afghanistan, according to the International Security Assistance Force, the top NATO command in Afghanistan.

At the same time, roughly 1,000 U.S. personnel are stationed in Jordan “to support our mutual objectives, develop capacity, and provide military assistance to the Jordanian armed forces,” Wollman said.

Perkins, who entered the Army in August 2012 as an infantryman, deployed to Jordan in October as a member of Fort Carson’s 1st Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division. His awards include the Army Achievement Medal and decorations related to his service in the Army and overseas.

Doesn't it sound like there is more to this story?

He was killed Saturday. If it was an accident, either self-inflicted or from another soldier, it should be pretty clear by now what happened. If it wasn't an accident, this is not the sort of story that should be buried. (Suicides are also often classified as "death from non-combat related injuries".)

You can be sure of one thing: if a US serviceman was killed in Israel, this would be all over the news. Not to mention accusations of a cover-up over waiting 2-3 days to release the news, and rumors that Israel did it on purpose.