Corey Booker is a shameless, spineless follower.
BDS and support for the Palestinian cause among young Americans have destabilized the psyches of mainstream cultural and political leaders across the country.
Last night I attended a screening of the 1974 absurdist film “Rhinoceros” at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria. The film was presented as an allegory to fascism, and screened in the context of Trumpism and the imminent midterm elections. After the film, there was a panel discussion with a playwright Theresa Rebeck and Columbia University political science professor Ester Fuchs. I was shocked and horrified when Ester Fuchs, after bragging about having achieved tenure, gloating about having worked for the Bloomberg administration, and delivering boring platitudes about the necessity for young people to vote, initiated a totally unprovoked attack on BDS campus activists.
Israel and Palestine were not supposed to be the focus of the night’s discussion, so Fuchs’ random statements that essentially equated young BDS activists with Facists and a mindless mob of Rhinoceroses who were incapable of communicating with the other side, were unexpected. But it’s clear to me that some supporters of Israel are so caught up in colonial fervor and so triggered by the mere existence of Americans who want justice in Palestine that they decide to inject their reactionary beliefs in all contexts.
In response to Dr. Fuchs’ on-stage breakdown, a young black male member of the audience mentioned right wing Jewish groups that flirted with fascism like the JDL. The sentiment behind his question/comment was understandable, but unfortunately it was not phrased coherently. He should have directly questioned her attacks against BDS. Regardless, Fuchs responded in the most inappropriate way, pointedly referring to Louis Farrakhan as an example of an antisemitic black person.
Thankfully the panel ended soon after this, but the whole incident of Fuchs hijacking the discussion to attack Palestinian rights activism while touting her “progressive” ideals left a bitter taste in my mouth.
It is indefensible that this incident has been neglected by the US press and government, and more broadly, that Israel's war crimes and terrorism in Lebanon have been almost completely ignored in America. I hope this history will be readdressed soon.
I trust Ambassador Dean's re-telling of the attempt against his life in Lebanon, and his analysis of who was to blame is logical. His theory concerning Zia-ul-Haq's death, on the other hand, is a bit far fetched. By the time Zia-ul-Haq died Pakistan's nuclear programme had probably achieved significant success and killing him wouldn't have affected that. The American ambassador to Pakistan and other US officials were on the plane with Zia-ul-Haq and died with him. It seems hard to believe that Israel, America or any other Western player would have sacrificed Americans for no reason, for neither Pakistan's nuclear weapons nor it's foreign policy was a threat to Israel, America or Western Europe.
It is possible - but not very likely - that the crash that led to Zia-ul-Haq's death was an accident. If it was a planned assassination, as many believe, the most likely perpetrators would have been the Pakistani president's domestic enemies. The second, slightly less probable explanation would be that foreign players caused the accident. The most likely foreign powers would be the Soviet Union, Iran, India or Afghan elements opposed to Pakistan. It is very unlikely that Israel plotted Zia-ul-Haq's demise with India, as Dean seems to suggest. In 1988 India and Israel did not have diplomatic relations, let a lone strategic goals in common.