Tuesday, August 13, 2019
From Ian:
Major US Academic Association Votes Down Resolution to Boycott Israel
Richard Epstein: Israeli Lessons for Mass Shootings
Major US Academic Association Votes Down Resolution to Boycott Israel
A controversial resolution promoting an academic boycott of Israel was narrowly voted down at a prestigious social science academic association over the weekend, The Algemeiner learned on Monday.McCarthy to Post: Omar and Tlaib pulling Democratic Party away from Israel
The resolution, which was co-authored by Melissa Weiner, an associate professor of sociology at the College of Holy Cross, and Johnny E. Williams, a professor of sociology at Trinity College, called on the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) to “promote divestment and disinvestment from Israel by academic institutions, and place pressure on your own institution to suspend all ties with Israeli universities, including collaborative projects, study abroad, funding and exchanges.”
However, the resolution failed by a vote of 34 to 37 on Saturday.
“The conversation on the proposed resolution was civil by and large, even though the issue was quite contentious,” William Cabin, vice president of SSSP during the vote, told The Algemeiner. “We are pleased by our membership’s conduct throughout the conversation and vote.”
Ezra Temko, a sociologist at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville who opposed the BDS resolution at the SSSP meeting, wrote that “The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel is an ugly campaign that stands in opposition to social justice.”
The difference between the Democratic and Republican parties on Israel is that while mainstream Democrats support the Jewish state, among Republicans, the whole party does, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.
And the problem with the Democrats, he asserted, is that members such as congresswomen Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) are – with their statements and actions – pulling the party away from Israel.
“I think they are the wave of the Democratic Party,” said McCarthy, currently in the country leading a group of 31 Republicans on a week-long study tour organized by an AIPAC affiliated charity. He cited a current poll saying that the most sought after endorsement for Democratic candidates in the upcoming election is – first of all – any former Democratic president, and “the next in line is AOC.
“This is concerning to me,” he said. “They are not a few freshman anymore. They are the movement within the party.”
McCarthy noted that the Republican-controlled Senate passed an anti-BDS bill known as S.1 – Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019 – in February by a vote of 77 to 23, with Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer co-sponsoring the bill, and 21 Democrats voting for it.
But it did not move in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. Instead of bringing the bill to the floor, the Democratic leadership was only able to bring to a vote an anti-BDS resolution, which passed by a landslide margin of 398-17. But, McCarthy stressed, there is a world of difference between a bill and a resolution.
A bill, if it passes both the Senate and the House, then goes to the president to be signed into law. A resolution is just a resolution. “A resolution is a statement, a law is binding,” he said.
Richard Epstein: Israeli Lessons for Mass Shootings
The only strategy that has a fair chance of success to reduce, but never stop, all mass killings, starts from the opposite end. It is beyond dispute that gunmen utilize the element of surprise. It has long been known that most of the death and destruction of a mass shooting takes place before any police or security team has time to arrive. Killers open the door and they start shooting: no warning, no mercy, no pause. Speed is the essence of any police response. Better that a single officer enter the fray immediately than wait even ten seconds before reinforcements can pitch in.
Yet the police cannot be everywhere, so they need reinforcements before they arrive, not afterward. One way for this to work is to make sure that in every mass gathering there are already present trained, armed individuals who can confront any assailant the instant an attack begins. To achieve that goal, there must be an immediate reversal of current policy and the implementation of something similar to current Israeli practice, which states simply enough: “All off-Duty Combat Soldiers Must Carry Their Weapons.” The United States should adopt a similar policy, which applies to the military, police officers, and others who carry and use weapons as a routine part of their job. It is clear that the risk of a terror attack is lower in the United States than in Israel. Indeed, of the 39,000 gun deaths in 2016, only 451 were from mass killings. But the grisly list of mass killings is bad enough. The trend, moreover, has been upward over the last half-dozen years. The public’s frustration and outrage are palpable.
The immediate response from armed individuals already on the premises could do much to deter crazed individuals from making these attempts. They could engage in return fire that could kill or wound the attacker or induce him to flee. And the benefit of this boots-on-the-ground policy is not limited to mass shootings. To be sure, it will be of little use in cases of suicide or domestic disputes. But it could help deter various forms of stranger assaults that take place on public streets or places, like airports, schools, parks, and shopping malls. There is always the risk that the return fire will be misdirected, but the same is true of the actions of SWAT teams that burst belatedly on the scene.
After all, just what is the alternative? The common proposals today all call for more top-down restrictions intended to keep people from acquiring dangerous weapons in the first place. These proposals tend to ignore the impressive array of federal restrictions already in place. Here is a partial list: the National Firearms Act of 1934, which taxes various gun transfers; the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which initiated a five-day waiting period before any individual could acquire a gun; the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005; and the National Instant Criminal Background Check Act of 2007.
.jpg)
