RUTHFULLY YOURS

I opened “Islam Upside-Down and Inside-Out” with “There can’t be too many books like this one. The Impact of Islam, by Emmet Scott, is one of many books that deflate the whole history, provenance, and character of Islam. At first glance, as an atheist, I thought that reviewing a book written by a Christian with an obvious Christian bias against Islam would be difficult, mainly in segregating the bias from the truth-telling and facts.”

But I left out some of the goriest parts of Scott’s opus, parts which explain in some respect the title of his book, parts which indict Islam as a psychopathic movement, an “illness” which spread to the rest of Europe.

Islam, for example, invented the “Inquisition,” not the Catholic Church, which adopted the institution as a way of identifying and persecuting heretics. Islam’s original purpose, however, was to test the sincerity of the conversion of Jews and Christians to Islam. Untold numbers of Jews and Christians were made an offer they could not refuse: convert or pay the exorbitant jizya or die. Jizya was a poll tax, or a head tax, on anyone not a “true” Muslim. Theoretically, the tax offered the infidel, or the dhimmi ,“protection” from theft, persecution, or death by Muslims and others, much as racketeers centuries later would extort “protection money” from individuals and businesses; the extortion was simply the criminals refraining from murder or dynamiting one’s business.

As Scott and others have described the workings of jizya, this did not, as a rule, work out as expected, resulting in massacres of Jews and Christians, or their deportation from Spain across the Mediterranean to Morocco. Which leads us back to the Inquisition.

I am a sophomore sapien majoring in Genderal Studies with emphasis on violence and transphobia.

Before we can end violence against anyone we have to outlaw guns and all references to them that can evoke fear and despair and hives among students.

We must abolish terms like “bulletin” or verbs like “rifle” and “shoot” as in photography.

“Butt” is offensive and also evokes a weapon’s handle and “caliber” should never be used to describe character. “Target” should really change its name and logo.

Numbers that can cause a panic attack are “22” “38” and “45” and must be used with great care. “Magazines” should henceforth be called periodicals and any use of the words “ammunition “, “rounds “or “magnum” (even to describe booze) may cause vapors in a delicate sapien. “Arms” should be referred to as “upper limbs” and “ballistic” must be replaced with “outraged.” To “cock” is disgusting on several grounds and “barrel” is edgy and “muzzle” has two awful meanings.

Guns kill and words have consequences and Sapiens are soulful and determined to ban words that can drive us into safe spaces.

When assigned writing contains those words, we demand a statement at the start alerting us to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material.

We need and we demand trigger warnings.!!!!

Ahead of Monday night’s first presidential debate, Rudolph Giuliani – former New York mayor and Republican nominee Donald Trump’s current adviser – spoke at the Israeli American Council’s annual conference. Four days of intense debate preparation with Trump preceded the talk. Giuliani insisted the time has come for the US to “reject the whole notion of a two-state solution in Israel.”

It can only be hoped that regardless of who prevails in November, Giuliani’s statement will become the official position of the next US administration.
In his speech before the UN General Assembly last week PLO and Fatah chief and unelected Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said many things to drive home the basic point that he is not interested in peace with Israel. He is interested in destroying Israel. But one particular demand stands out.

It stands out not because it is new. It isn’t new.

Abbas says it all the time and his advisers say it all the time. They say it to Palestinian and international audiences alike, and it always is met with support or at least sympathy.

Abbas demanded that Israel stop arresting Palestinian terrorists and release all Palestinian terrorists from its prisons. That is, he demanded that Israel allow thousands of convicted terrorists to walk free and refrain from doing anything to interfere with terrorists engaged planning and carrying out the murder of its citizens.

The overwhelming majority of Palestinians support this demand. And so does the US government.

During US Secretary of State John Kerry’s failed peace process in 2013-14, President Barack Obama and Kerry embraced Abbas’s demand that Israel release 104 terrorist murderers from its prisons as a precondition for agreeing to negotiate with the Jewish state.

Bowing to US pressure, Israel released 78 terrorists from its jails in three tranches. Ahead of the fourth scheduled release, Abbas and his advisers bragged that they would cut off talks with Israel as soon as the last group of terrorist murderers were released.

That is, they admitted that the negotiations, such as they were, were nothing more than a means to achieve the goal of freeing murderers.

Abbas and Fatah leaders in Ramallah claim that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates (the “Arab Quartet”) are using and promoting Abbas’s rival, Mohamed Dahlan, in order to facilitate their mission of rapprochement with Israel.

Many Palestinians were surprised to see veteran Palestinian official Ahmed Qurei, a former Palestinian Authority (PA) prime minister and one of the architects of the Oslo Accord, come out in favor of the Arab plan, which basically envisions ousting Abbas from power.

This, and not Israeli policy, is Abbas’s true nightmare. After all, he knows that without Israel’s presence in the West Bank, his regime would have long fallen into the hands of Hamas or even his political rivals in Fatah.

The “Arab Quartet” plan shows that some Arab countries are indeed fed up with Abbas’s failure to lead his people towards a better life. These states, which have long been politically and financially supportive of the Palestinians, have had enough of Abbas’s efforts to secure unending power — at the direct cost of the well-being of his people.

In his speech last week before the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas trotted out his usual charges against Israel, citing “collective punishment,” “house demolitions,” “extrajudicial executions” and “ethnic cleansing.” However, Abbas’s thoughts seem to be elsewhere these days. He is facing a new challenge from unexpected parties, namely several Arab countries that have come together to demand that he reform his ruling Fatah faction and pave the way for the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership.

Yet this was not included in the UN speech. Indeed, why would Abbas share with world leaders that his Arab brothers are pressuring him to introduce major reforms in Fatah and end a decade-long power struggle with Hamas that has resulted in the creation of two separate Palestinian entities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Abbas, his aides admit, is today more worried about the “Arab meddling” in the internal affairs of the Palestinians than he is about “collective punishment” or “settlement activities.” In fact, he is so worried that he recently lashed out at those Arab countries that have launched an initiative to “re-arrange the Palestinian home from within” and bring about changes in the Palestinian political scene.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on Thursday:

Now here’s the tragedy, because, see, the Palestinians are not only trapped in the past, their leaders are poisoning the future.

I want you to imagine a day in the life of a 13-year-old Palestinian boy, I’ll call him Ali. Ali wakes up before school, he goes to practice with a soccer team named after Dalal Mughrabi, a Palestinian terrorist responsible for the murder of a busload of 37 Israelis. At school, Ali attends an event sponsored by the Palestinian Ministry of Education honoring Baha Alyan, who last year murdered three Israeli civilians. On his walk home, Ali looks up at a towering statue erected just a few weeks ago by the Palestinian Authority to honor Abu Sukar, who detonated a bomb in the center of Jerusalem, killing 15 Israelis.

When Ali gets home, he turns on the TV and sees an interview with a senior Palestinian official, Jibril Rajoub, who says that if he had a nuclear bomb, he’d detonate it over Israel that very day. Ali then turns on the radio and he hears President Abbas’s adviser, Sultan Abu al-Einein, urging Palestinians, here’s a quote, “to slit the throats of Israelis wherever you find them.” Ali checks his Facebook and he sees a recent post by President Abbas’s Fatah Party calling the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics a “heroic act.” On YouTube, Ali watches a clip of President Abbas himself saying, “We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem.” Direct quote.

Over dinner, Ali asks his mother what would happen if he killed a Jew and went to an Israeli prison? Here’s what she tells him. She tells him he’d be paid thousands of dollars each month by the Palestinian Authority. In fact, she tells him, the more Jews he would kill, the more money he’d get. Oh, and when he gets out of prison, Ali would be guaranteed a job with the Palestinian Authority.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All this is real. It happens every day, all the time. Sadly, Ali represents hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children who are indoctrinated with hate every moment, every hour.

This is child abuse.

Imagine your child undergoing this brainwashing. Imagine what it takes for a young boy or girl to break free out of this culture of hate. Some do but far too many don’t. How can any of us expect young Palestinians to support peace when their leaders poison their minds against peace?

Samsung Global Innovation Center (GIC), part of Samsung Electronics, opened on Sunday a branch in Tel Aviv to invest in Israeli start-ups and entrepreneurs with a focus on software development.

Called Samsung Next, the Tel Aviv office follows similar ones set up in South Korea, San Francisco and New York by the South Korean conglomerate in an effort to stay ahead of competition by entering into early-stage technologies.

“In Israel you have perhaps the greatest amount of talent per square foot than anywhere in the world,” said Kai Bond, the general manager of Samsung Next New York at the opening of the offices at Tel Aviv’s Sarona complex. “If you want to leapfrog competition you can’t wait to play in an established market.”

Samsung Next Tel Aviv will invest and work with start-ups at every stage of development through incubation, investment from seed to Series B, acquisition and partnership, Eyal Miller, Managing Director and CEO of Samsung GIC Tel Aviv, said at a press conference. The idea is to get projects off the ground, help them grow and get them ready for an acquisition by Samsung or any other exit that best suits the companies, he said.

Samsung Next in Tel Aviv will focus primarily in such areas as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, virtual and augmented reality technologies, the Internet of Things, and big data technologies.
Samsung Next’s Eyal Miller in Tel Aviv (Courtesy: Tomer Flutin)

Samsung Next’s Eyal Miller in Tel Aviv (Courtesy: Tomer Flutin)

“Samsung is known for its hardware,” Miller said, “but we want to build a significant center for investments in software.”

The company believes that its way forward will be by combining its hardware activities with software, he added.

There is no limit to the budget or number of start-ups the company can invest in, said Miller, and investments will be made according to opportunity. Typically, the division will support Israeli companies in the seed and early stages with a range of investment programs providing funding from $250,000 to up to $3 million on a “case-by-case basis,” he said. Samsung will then either acquire the successful companies and incorporate them into its product lines, or help them raise funds to grow further, he noted.

A market place for horse breeding and a platform to ease the recruitment of new employees were just some of the projects presented at a demo day of the Hybrid program, an accelerator that aims to promote start-ups in the Arab sector.

The projects were the first ones to originate from the first cycle of the accelerator program, which aims to promote start-ups with one or more Arab, Druze or Bedouin founders. They work in cooperation with the 8200 Alumni Association, an organization that represents graduates of the top technology unit in the Israeli Army.

“In the Arab sector we have talented entrepreneurs but we have a lack of knowledge on how to take ideas and scale them up,” said Fidi Swidan, the director of the Maof Nazareth Business Incubation Center, part of Israel’s Ministry of Economy and Industry which is a backer of Hybrid. The aim of the program is to provide the necessary support to allow for these initiatives to grow, he said.

Eitan Sella, the director of Hybrid, said the idea is to expand the benefits of start-up nation from Tel Aviv to the rest of the country, to all of Israel’s citizens.
Fadi Swidan and Eitan Sella (left) at Hybrid’s demo day in Tel Aviv (Courtesy)

Fadi Swidan, right, with Eitan Sella at Hybrid’s demo day in Tel Aviv (Courtesy)

One start-up that took part in the program is Horse Mate. The company looks to create a horse breeding market place using data, breeding simulation, artificial intelligence and machine learning to enable horse breeders find the best match for their horses. Horse Mate is already in touch with five Arabian horse associations worldwide to compile an accessible pedigree database.

Skillinn, another start-up, wants to make use of crowd wisdom to match the right professional to the right job, using artificial intelligence. The company has tested its system with dozens of HR departments and is currently running its first paid pilot with one of the biggest IT companies in Israel, the entrepreneurs said.

Also to present at the Hybrid demo day was CleverPark, a company that has developed a screw-looking prototype that can be inserted into roads and combines hardware and software to enable cities and malls to get real-time data about parking lots to optimize parking resources. Each product can be built for under $10, about 80 percent cheaper than competing alternatives, the team said.

The president of Northwestern University told students on Monday that anyone who opposes “trigger warnings” or who ridicules the pain of those “microaggressed” is an “idiot” and a “lunatic.”

In his convocation address on Monday, NU President Morton Schapiro took a firm stance against censorship, but said he disagreed with University of Chicago Dean of Students John Ellison, who recently told first-year students they should not expect “safe spaces” in which to escape from ideas that make them uncomfortable.
“Schapiro does not take kindly to uncomfortable ideas,” notes the Weekly Standard’s Alice B. Lloyd:

Author of many a pro-“safe space” op-ed, he suggests he’ll also use his day job as a platform to promote the code of campus political correctness, now that the semester’s begun.

“The people who decry safe spaces do it from their segregated housing places, from their jobs without diversity — they do it from their country clubs,” Schapiro said. “It just drives me nuts.”

[…]Calling people who deny the existence of microaggressions “idiots,” Schapiro said he clearly remembers every microaggression he has experienced.

Microaggressions “cut you to the core” and aren’t easily forgotten, he said.

Hailing the new 10-year, $38 billion Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Israel on U.S. security aid, President Barack Obama couldn’t pass up the opportunity to chastise the Jewish state for failing to secure a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The U.S. commitment to Israel’s security, Obama said in a prepared statement as officials from both countries signed the agreement last week, “has been unwavering and is based on a genuine and abiding concern for the welfare of the Israeli people and the future of the State of Israel. It is because of this same commitment to Israel and its long-term security that we will also continue to press for a two-state solution … despite the deeply troubling trends on the ground that undermine this goal.”

Obama’s statement, and some of the terms of the memorandum, reflect everything that Israel’s supporters find so irritating about the administration – its condescension toward Israel, its confusion about the region and its ill-advised efforts to reshape U.S. relations with regional allies and adversaries.

Any new 10-year security agreement between the United States and its closest ally in that turbulent region should herald warm feelings and a hearty sense of accomplishment in both capitals, but the atmospherics around this agreement are fueling lots of resignation, bitterness and second guessing.

At first blush, the memorandum reflects the close ties between Washington and Jerusalem that long predate Obama. At $38 billion, or $3.8 billion a year for 10 years starting in 2018, it surpasses the $31 billion of its expiring predecessor and represents the single largest U.S. security package ever proffered for any nation.

But dig below the top-line numbers, and you find terms and restrictions that belie the boasts of Obama and other top U.S. officials about “unwavering” commitments and “genuine and abiding” concerns.

For starters, the new agreement includes $500 million a year for missile defense, which Washington has been providing outside its current package, not as part of it. If you add the $500 million to the current $3.1 billion annual payment, total annual U.S. security aid to Israel is $3.6 billion. Thus, the $3.8 billion annual payment under the new agreement represents only about a 5 percent increase – and that doesn’t account for inflation.

A handout given to students in a Gonzaga University gender studies class warns that “asking an Asian person to help with a math and science problem” is a “microaggression.”

According to the handout, asking that question is a problem because the “message” of it is that “all Asians are intelligent and good at math/science.”

Um#..#no it isn’t. Asking an Asian student for help with math and science is saying that you think that that particular Asian student is good at math and science, which could obviously be for reasons other than his or her race. Doesn’t Gonzaga consider the possibility that perhaps one student might want to ask an Asian classmate for help because that classmate always knows the answers to the questions in class? Should other students not ask that person for help just because that person also happens to be Asian? Sorry, but that’s absurd.

A picture of the handout was posted on Twitter on Tuesday by freshman Ben McDonald. In an email to National Review, McDonald said that one of his classmates had shown it to him after receiving it in his feminist-theory class.

Other no-nos listed on the document include asking an Asian or Latino American person, “Where are you from?” (because that’s really saying, “You are not American”), telling a “person of color” that he or she is “so articulate” (because that’s really saying, “It is unusual for someone of your race to be intelligent”), “asking an Asian American to teach them words in their native language” (because that’s really saying, “You are a foreigner”) and saying that “everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough” (because that’s really saying, “People of color are lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder”).

Obviously, this is ridiculous. Sure, there are times when saying, “You are so articulate” to a person of color could be a sort of passive-aggressive slight, which is insulting and obviously something you should avoid. But I’ve described particular people of all different races for being particularly “articulate.” I’ve said it about white people; does this handout mean that it’s something I should only say to white people? That “articulate” is a compliment that cannot be given to people of other races? Because that doesn’t seem all that fair.

Context makes all the difference in these situations, and context is exactly what lists like this ignore. In fact, without considering the role of context, such a list actually runs the risk of inhibiting communication — it can freak people out about saying things that they really don’t have to be freaked out about saying. Discussions about sensitivity are one thing, but making definitive claims that a particular phrase always has a particular meaning is not the way to deal with something as nuanced as language.

— Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review Online.