Forecasting Trump’s Presidency: The Republican Party’s Decline, and What Comes Next?

from counterpunch

FEBRUARY 9, 2017

by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO


Now seems as good a time as any to predict where the Trump presidency is headed. In my last CounterPunch piece, I called for the president’s impeachment for violations of the Constitution, and as related to his fascistic Muslim ban.

But let’s be honest – there’s very little chance the Republican party will remove Trump from office. Despite the lightning rod of controversy that is “The Donald,” Republicans see unified government as too valuable for pushing through reactionary, pro-business reforms, to simply give up on this president. True, Trump’s impeachment would mean Pence’s ascendance, and the emergence of a leader who is much preferred by the Republican establishment. But the embarrassment of having to remove a sitting president for fascistic policies would be a long, drawn out process, and would greatly harm the party and its ability to govern. Since Trump seems to be here to stay, the questions become: how will his term will play out? If we can’t get rid of Trump, how do we at least limit his impact on the country?

Trump has committed himself to a scorched earth approach to “governing” via executive order and assaults on the rule of law. But at their current pace, there is little chance that he and his party are re-elected in 2018 and 2020. I believe this to be the case for several reasons. Presidents naturally see declining support over time, even those not suffering from Trump’s brazen buffoonery. Furthermore, the Republican Party’s policy proposals are deeply unpopular, and its stance on tax cuts, deregulation, and health care will hurt it among voters. There’s also “The Donald” factor to keep in mind, as Trump is a lightning rod for controversy. His penchant for scandal will only hurt the party brand even more than it already has in the coming months and years. Finally, add to all this the poverty of Trump’s promise to “Make America Great Again” by bringing back middle class jobs, and one has a recipe for disaster, ending in the Republican Party’s steady decline.

Donald Trump and the Threat of Time

It’s well known among presidency scholars that presidents are far less popular by the end of their terms than the beginning. There’s a well-known “honeymoon effect” that characterizes the presidency, occurring within the first year. Most presidents come into office with a job approval rating over 50 percent. They’ve made a lot of promises during the campaign, and most of the public wants them to succeed and fulfill at least some of their pledges. This relatively high approval rating steadily falls throughout a president’s term. The reason appears obvious: over time people tire of the president. Politicians make many promises and follow through with very few of them, so it’s not surprising to see job approval ratings fall over time.

A quick look at past numbers: Obama started office with a 67 percent job approval, and by the end of his first term, fell more than 20 percentage points. George W. Bush started at 62 percent, and fell to about 50 percent by the 2004 re-election, and down to just over 30 percent when he left office in 2009. George H. W. Bush came into office with the same rating as his son, but fell to under 40 percent by the 1992 election.

This pattern of decline fits pretty much every president in the post-World War II era, except for Bill Clinton, who held a 54 percent approval rating in January 1993, but finished office at 66 percent. But Clinton’s growing approval had little to do with what he did to help working Americans. The few liberal policies he pursued – raising the minimum wage and supporting the Earned Income Tax Credit, were far from enough to compensate for his assault on organized labor via NAFTA, and his war on the poor via “welfare reform” and the destruction of Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Clinton had the good luck of presiding over an 8-year period conveniently positioned between two recessions (one from the early 1990s and one from the early 2000s), and at a time of low inflation and modest household income growth. This growth in income had nothing to do with Clinton policies (particularly NAFTA), which eviscerated average male incomes. Rather, it was likely the rise of dual income earners in the U.S. that accounts for the growth in family incomes during this period.

Setting aside Clinton, my point is that Trump has nowhere to go but down. He started his office with a job approval rating of 46 percent – unprecedentedly bad in modern history – and has already fallen to 42 percent just a few weeks into his term. The decline in job approval for Obama and Bush between their first month in office and their re-election averaged 16 percentage points. Using this benchmark means Trump’s approval rating may be as low as 30 percent come re-election time. Furthermore, this may be too generous a prediction. Neither Bush nor Obama were anywhere near as obnoxious in their demeanor as Trump, who has consistently gone out of his way to insult large segments of the public. Factoring in Trump’s personality, we may be talking about a president with an approval rating in the 20s come re-election time. In modern history, no president has ever been re-elected with an approval rating under 40 percent.

Health Care Reform: The Ticking Time Bomb

Few issues are closer to the hearts and pocketbooks of American voters than their health care, and Republican health care reform proposals will likely hurt the party’s re-election chances significantly. Weeks into the Trump presidency, the party is split regarding what to do with the Affordable Care Act. The most reactionary Republicans are pushing hard for repeal, even though the party has not come up with a realistic replacement. Other members of the party are worried, rightly, that they will be blamed after a repeal if tens of millions of Americans lose their health insurance and federal subsidies offered through state health insurance exchanges disappear. The Urban Institute estimates as many as 30 million Americans may lose insurance with the collapse of the exchanges and the scaling back of Medicaid (previously expanded under the ACA).

Talk about a replacement plan that will allow a smooth transition to insurance plans that cost less and provide better care, as Trump promised, was always a red herring. If Republicans failed to develop a workable alternative in the last 7 years, it’s highly unlikely they will come up with one in the next few weeks. And many Republicans are getting squirrely about the repeal. Countless calls from constituents who are anxious about losing health insurance have given Congressional Republicans the jitters about what all this means for the re-election prospects in 2018. Political scientists have long documented the practice of “pocket book voting,” in which many Americans punish the party of the president during periods marked by growing economic insecurity. Many Americans are likely to punish the Republican Party in 2018 if they lose their insurance, while facing spikes in health care premiums and other costs.

Outside the ACA repeal, Republicans are also in a tough spot regarding their support for privatizing Medicare. This proposal, the pet project of Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, has long been unpopular with the public.

Nearly 60 percent of Americans opposed Medicare privatization in 2012, including most Republicans, independents, and Democrats. Americans fear the unknown when it comes to health care. And seniors are right to oppose privatization when they will be forced to bare the cost of buying in a health care market by premium costs that will rapidly outpace the rates of health care subsidy increases provided by government. Seniors live on fixed incomes, and will be unable to endure a parasitic health care market that prioritizes ever-increasing profits over public health. Seniors are by far the most expensive demographic group to cover in the U.S., for obvious reasons, so placing responsibility into their hands for purchasing health insurance is a disaster waiting to happen. Even talk of Medicare privatization is likely to hurt Republicans moving into 2018. Retirees and near retirees vote in overwhelming numbers, and they will not forget the Republican Party’s betrayal when they enter the ballot booth.

Make America Great Again: Trump’s False Promise

Trump was elected promising to “drain the swamp” of big business power in Washington. He promised to usher in a golden age of prosperity for working Americans. But Trump was never more than a used-car salesman, his election campaign laden with cheap talk, heavy on the promises, and light on the details. Now that Trump is in office, he’s presented no realistic plan for how to create decent-paying jobs. His belligerence toward China, seen in White House chief strategist Steve Bannon’s promise that the U.S. will go to war over the South China Sea, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s calls for a military blockade, threaten nuclear Armageddon. They certainly do nothing to help workers who have suffered from outsourcing.

Trump’s call for a 20 percent tax on Mexican goods entering the U.S. will do little to aid American workers. Companies relying on sweatshops in Mexico have numerous options for avoiding the tax. One way is to shift the cost of the tax to consumers, while U.S. corporations continue to benefit from low-pay Mexican sweatshop labor. A second option is to simply shift production to another country that is not subject to the 20 percent tax. Either way, there is little in Trump’s plan to guarantee jobs returning to the U.S. If Trump were willing to take the strong steps needed to rein in corporate power, perhaps progress could be made. But there is zero chance that he’s going to call for the revocation of corporate charters for companies that have outsourced jobs or propose to do so in the future, or call for a ban on goods produced in sweatshops. Even if he wanted to ban those goods, there’s no chance corporate establishment Republicans in Congress will play along.

Trump’s economic promises are important because they are one of the primary reasons he was elected. He came into office on a very short leash, with working Americans expecting that he make good on claims that he will help a middle class eviscerated by four decades of neoliberal, anti-worker reforms. He won this election based on his status as an “outsider” who could fix Washington. He is an outsider no more, and Americans are going to judge him and the party come 2018 based on their track record in office.

Even with a positive agenda that focuses on re-unionization and a living wage, making significant headway toward restoring the middle class in the two-to-four-year window between elections is daunting. But this goal is all but impossible without progressive policies aimed at helping working Americans. Americans saw significant growth in inequality and declining wages throughout most of Obama’s presidency. And the vast majority of new jobs created under Obama – 94 percent – were low-pay, temporary, or contingent positions. Expect these trends to continue and intensify under Trump. By passing a multi-trillion-dollar tax cut plan for the wealthy, Republicans will greatly increase inequality, while doing nothing for working families. Many Americans vote based on their economic experiences, punishing the party in power in times of growing economic insecurity. Expect this practice to continue in 2018 and 2020.

“The Donald” Factor

Trump’s presidency has all the makings of a slow-motion heart attack. Every incendiary twitter post sends liberals into cardiac arrest. As polls have long shown, many conservatives ignore Trump’s absurdities and bigotry, since he “speaks their language” by adopting reactionary and bigoted stances on various social issues. But Trump’s callous attacks on large numbers of Americans will probably take a toll on his approval rating among “independent” and “moderate” swing voters who do not identify as racists, sexists, or xenophobes, but who found Trump’s populist economic rhetoric appealing. Trump goes out of his way to insult just about anyone and everyone he can. This is no way to govern a country, and much of middle America will grow tired of his bullshit promises and shock politics in the coming months and years. Trump certainly has redefined the boundaries of “acceptable” discourse for the worse, but even his brand of shouting and tweeting blatant absurdities will only remain novel for so long.

It would be naïve to say that Trump’s brand and popularity will not decline based simply on future scandals. U.S. or foreign intelligence agencies may continue to derail the Trump presidency via their own attacks – substantiated or not. Trump’s black-hole finances may come back to haunt him, creating constitutional conflicts of interest related to his business profits and obligations as president. As details about Trump’s income are revealed moving forward, the president may find himself in the middle of a media storm of corruption charges. Finally, one should expect future scandals simply by way of “Donald being Donald.” Whether future controversies involve revelations of racism (there are still countless hours of “The Apprentice” footage left unchecked), unwanted sexual advances, or other types of lewd “locker room talk,” it’s likely that this presidency will be one for the record books in terms of the number of tabloid scandals. Trump is a shameless reality TV star and vulgarian, and we should expect more of this from him moving forward.

The Sleeping Giant

It’s unclear how much more damage Trump’s Muslim ban can hurt his approval ratings. If there are people out there who don’t know Trump is an Islamophobe, future news stories about it are unlikely to have much effect. But Trump’s backhanded attacks on minority groups – including Hispanics, African Americans, Muslims and others, are likely to hurt the party come 2018 and 2020. Political scientists have long spoken of “disturbance theory,” in which citizens awaken from their political apathy in the face of assaults on their privileges and rights. People are more likely to act against political repression when confronted with a blatant threat staring them in the face. For many Americans – Trump’s presidency is just such a threat. And the mobilization against Trump is likely to matter greatly in the future, not just in terms of contributing to sagging approval ratings, but in galvanizing larger turnouts for future elections.

The future is impossible to predict with any precision. But considering the above concerns, it seems likely the Republican Party will lose control of Congress come 2018, and will probably lose the White House in 2020. Short of some major or catastrophic terror attack, Trump’s approval ratings will continue to fall. At the current rate, I won’t be surprised if I’m hearing pundits talk about a lame duck president before the end of Trump’s first term.

Trump is doing everything in his power to gift wrap the presidency and congress for the Democrats. But the current party leadership isn’t in much of a position to capitalize on it. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi rule over a tired, old, crumbling party that has faded into irrelevance. These “leaders” can do little more than trip over themselves on their journey into oblivion. The party’s done nothing to call for impeachment against this president for his lawless attack on immigrants, or to condemn Trump for his blatant and elitist class war policies. They’ve marketed no coherent agenda or alternative progressive policy plan as an alternative to Trump’s politics. Rather, Pelosi is as tone deaf as ever. In a January town hall meeting, she absurdly claimed the Democrats are opposed to Wall Street. It was amusing to watch the audience react with derision and laughter against a party that even non-partisan fact checking groups recognize has long received the lion’s share of Wall Street campaign donations.

The United States is marked by a crisis of governance. Neither political party has articulated a vision for how to rein in corporate power, create an economy that works for working Americans, or build a government that protects the needy and disadvantaged. Republican’s reactionary turn provides an opportunity for a political alternative that rejects neoliberal capitalism. Ultimately, it’s up to the public to articulate such a vision if they desire an alternative to the status quo.

Join the debate on Facebook
Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2015). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

Activists fight new anti-BDS legislation across US

from the electric intifiada

Nora Barrows-Friedman Activism and BDS Beat 9 February 2017

Growing waves of legislation intend to silence and punish boycott activists in the US. (Stephen Melkisethian, Flickr)
Activists and lawyers in the state of Washington are challenging several bills which attack free speech rights and smear Palestine solidarity activists.

Meanwhile, a Virginia lawmaker attempted to classify Palestine advocacy as discrimination.

The barrage of legislation is part of a growing wave of laws aimed at punishing and silencing activists across the US involved with the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign to pressure Israel to respect Palestinian rights.

In the past week, Palestine Legal, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee/Defending Dissent Foundation, sent a memo to Virginia state lawmakers urging them to oppose a bill that would categorize Palestine advocacy as discrimination.

The bill was killed in committee on 8 February.

The bill, which would have amended the Virginia Human Rights Act, sought to codify the US State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism. That definition is based on a discarded and discredited definition of anti-Semitism published, but never adopted, by a European Union agency.

Kenneth Stern, the lead author of the anti-Semitism definition used by the State Department, has himself opposed its adoption into legislation, warning that it would be used by Israel advocacy groups to police speech.

Stern warned in December that doing so would be “unconstitutional and unwise” and would “actually harm Jewish students and have a toxic effect on the academy.”

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Stern urged US lawmakers not to advance a similar piece of legislation in Congress, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, that would incorporate the definition into law.

That bill sailed through the US Senate but stalled in the House. It could be resurrected this year under the Trump administration.

Because religious discrimination is already prohibited by state and federal law, this amendment didn’t add any new legal protections to Jewish people in Virginia, Rahul Saksena, staff attorney with Palestine Legal, told The Electronic Intifada.

But it “would essentially classify Palestine advocacy as unlawful discrimination – in employment, public accommodation and educational institutions,” he explained.

The bill “makes a mockery of the state’s [established] Human Rights Act by punishing, rather than uplifting, human rights advocacy,” Saksena added.

Saksena pointed out that sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression are not covered by the Virginia Human Rights Act.

“So if there’s actually an attempt to expand anti-discrimination laws in Virginia in this political climate – because we’re seeing a rise in hate crimes across the country – then instead of punishing Palestine advocacy, they should be expanding the roots of the anti-discrimination law,” he said.

Palestine Legal noted on Wednesday that “after intense pressure from Palestine solidarity and free speech advocates, HB 2261 died in committee. It will not be considered during the 2017 legislative session.”

Bullying students
The primary sponsor of the Virginia bill, House of Delegates member Dave LaRock, bullied student organizers of the National Students for Justice in Palestine conference which was held in the state at George Mason University last October.

LaRock demanded that university administrators block the conference while he smeared SJP as a group that “incites violence” and is linked to “terrorist organizations.”

An assistant to the lawmaker told the right-wing publication Algemeiner that LaRock has since been “working with different organizations to formulate legislation” on the issue of anti-Semitism, attempting to link SJP groups with anti-Jewish bigotry – a common smear tactic used by anti-Palestinian organizations to discredit student activism and distract from Israel’s human rights abuses.

In February, activists from a broad coalition in Virginia were able to successfully beat back an anti-BDS bill that would have required the state to compile information on the boycott Israel movement.

The bill could have also led to a McCarthyite blacklist of companies that don’t do business with Israel. It was tabled – effectively set aside – in a unanimous vote by the state senate, but could be brought back this year.

Banning free speech in Washington
Meanwhile in the state of Washington, organizers are mobilizing against several legislative attempts to punish human rights activists.

Anticipating these types of attacks on their BDS campaigns, activists formed Free Speech Washington, a group to defend the right to boycott.

Working with the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, more than 30 activist groups signed a letter pressuring their lawmakers to reject two anti-BDS bills in the state legislature.

Introduced in January, House Joint Memorial 4004, and an identical bill, House Joint Memorial 4009, are nonbinding resolutions. But both conflate the BDS movement with anti-Semitism and call on top governmental leaders of the US and Israel to condemn the boycott campaign and human rights activists.

The bills are sponsored by Republican and Democratic state lawmakers.

The bills also support Israel’s “right to self-defense” and, ignoring the evidence to the contrary, asserts that “the people of the state of Washington” condemn the BDS movement.

The measures are now in committee but no hearings have yet been scheduled.

“We’re focusing on this as a speech issue,” said Cindy Corrie of the Olympia-based Rachel Corrie Foundation and of Free Speech Washington. “In whatever form they take, all of these efforts are intended to stop speech on this issue and to limit our ability to utilize BDS as a response to injustices that we’re seeing.”

The text of the bills “really misrepresents BDS and the people who support it,” Corrie told The Electronic Intifada.

She noted that in 2016, the Democratic Party of Thurston County, where Olympia, the state capital, is located, adopted support for BDS in its platform. “It passed resoundingly, but it took work,” Corrie said. “We have our state legislature moving in one direction, but our county Democrats saying yes, this is our right to [engage in BDS campaigning].”

Activists are hoping the legislation won’t get a hearing. The bills “are clearly there because opponents want to fight BDS as an approach to challenging Israeli policy,” Corrie said. “No matter how people feel about Israel-Palestine and BDS, this is a speech issue and an affront to our First Amendment rights.”

Governor’s statement
The free speech coalition is also pushing back against a governors’ statement alleging that BDS activists “malign” Israel, which is “forced to defend itself against repeated and ongoing attempts to annihilate it.”

So far, the “Governors Against BDS” statement has been signed by 45 sitting or former governors, according to the American Jewish Committee, the Israel lobby group that initiated it.

Corrie said that she hoped Washington Governor Jay Inslee would not sign on, noting that when he was a member of Congress, he had supported an investigation into Israel’s 2003 slaying of her daughter Rachel Corrie in Gaza.

Suppressing student activism
Meanwhile, a Washington state senator is preparing to introduce a bill that would clamp down on student activism in support of Palestinian rights.

Michael Baumgartner, a Republican, announced in late December that he is “troubled” by growing support for the BDS movement on campuses and promised to introduce legislation that would “block universities from engaging in divestment or boycotts targeted at the state of Israel.”

The bill would withhold state funds to institutions if they participate in “boycott activities.”

Baumgartner pointed to the passage of a divestment vote by students at Evergreen State College in Olympia in 2010, remarking that universities should be focused on education, not becoming “distracted by political correctness run amok with absurd and amateurish causes.”

Baumgartner claimed that public universities are being “used in misguided diplomatic attacks on Israel,” and cited his “experience on the ground in the Middle East” for his expertise on the claim that Palestine solidarity activism seeks to “wipe” Jewish people “off the map.”

The state senator’s experience in the region seems to refer to his previous role as an administrator, and later civilian contractor, with US occupation forces in Iraq. He also worked for the crown prince of Dubai and lobbied for Saudi businesses and US firms doing business in Saudi Arabia.

“Student activists learn through their activism – they have a constitutional right to engage in human rights boycotts,” Palestine Legal’s Rahul Saksena said.

With the senator introducing a bill to effectively prohibit students from engaging in their constitutional rights, “he’s taking away from one of the most important learning opportunities that prepare students to be fully engaged members of society,” Saksena added.

Cindy Corrie said she was shocked by Baumgartner’s disrespect toward students, but not surprised by his legislative plans.

She said that Free Speech Washington activists learned how to strategize in anticipation of anti-BDS legislation from meetings with activists in Virginia and Maryland, where anti-BDS bills were derailed due to sustained pressure from human rights activists and civil rights groups.

“It can be overwhelming, but it also makes us realize we really have to all step up and challenge these things and be heard,” Corrie said. “In this increasingly repressive environment, it’s more important than ever to do that.”

An earlier version of this post was published before the Virginia bill died in committee. It has been updated to reflect the bill’s current status.

Rights group: Israeli online incitement towards Arabs doubled in 2016

from mondoweiss
Israel/Palestine Allison Deger on February 8, 2017
An Arab rights group has found ten of thousands of Israelis are publishing “widespread hatred and incitement against Arabs and Palestinians” on social media, and are often motivated to harass following charged statements by Israeli politicians.

The hate speech is going unnoticed by Israeli officials who are advancing a law to scrub similar content from Facebook, but only when it is made by Palestinians against Israelis, said the Haifa-based group 7amleh, the Arab Center for Social Media Advancement, in a report published Tuesday.

7amleh focused on Hebrew social media posts. Along with the Israeli firm Vigo, it analyzed keywords used online during 2015 and 2016. The group said the results were “horrifying,” due to the sharp increase of incitements towards Arabs in the last year. The study showed slanderous, provocative, and threatening posts made by Israelis against Arabs and Palestinians more than doubled in 2016, reaching 675,000 posts made by 60,000 Hebrew-speaking Facebook users.

That number amounts to one inflammatory post every 46 seconds, with one in eight using derogatory terms or “incitement to violence,” 7amleh said.

This data is the first that examines Israelis abusing Palestinians online. It comes around two months after an Israeli legislative committee approved a draft of a bill that grants Israeli courts the authority to order Facebook to censor content it deems in violation of Israeli regulations over verbal threats.

Yet on a case by case basis, Israeli police already coordinate with Facebook and Google to block and remove offending online content. At a cyber security conference last week, the Israeli Knesset member who introduced the “Facebook law,” Ayelet Shaked, said Facebook complies with 78 percent of Israel’s requests to delete content or suspend accounts, the Israeli outlet NRG reported.

Israel began arresting Palestinians in large numbers in 2015 on incitement charges following a series of knife attacks against Israelis with a noticeable trend, some of the attackers had posted their deadly plans in advance on Facebook. Over the next year, tensions increased with Palestinians killing 36 Israelis, and Israeli forces killing more than 200 Palestinian. According to the Arab legal rights group Adalah, in this same period, Israeli police arrested more than 400 Palestinians because of content they produced or circulated online. Over 200 were citizens of Israel and at least 150 were from the West Bank, of whom 60 were convicted for “incitement” (the other 90 were released without charges).

Under Israeli law incitement is punishable by up to five years in prison, however, in the West Bank where Palestinians are subject to harsher military law, the same offense can come with a ten-year sentence. The kinds of comments that have landed Palestinians in jail have ranged from one poster stating he hoped to be a “martyr,” to journalists sharing newsworthy events.

Nadim Nashif, the Director of 7amleh said his group’s research confirms while Israel was arresting a record number Palestinians for social media posts, it was selectively enforcing policies against hate speech and online harassment when made by Israelis.

“This report contains a message to the decision makers on these social media networks to halt the biased and dual policies,” said Nashif, “The report also calls on social media networks to stand firm against the incitement and violations hosted on their sites against Arabs, and to deal with, on a serious level, risks induced as a result of this incitement.”


Of those targeted online, 7amleh said most are Palestinian politicians.

“The Knesset member, Haneen Zoabi, bore the brunt of insults and incitement to murder, with 60,000 posts being directed towards her. The Knesset member Ahmed Tibi was subjected to 40,000 posts, closely followed by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with 30,000 and Ayman Odeh with 25,000. Basil Ghattas was verbally abused in 15,000 posts each. Furthermore, Abnaa Sakhnin Football Club was singled out in 14,000 posts,” the group said.

7amleh discovered a correlation between these outbursts against Palestinians leaders, and speeches made by influential Israeli politicians, including a spike during the trial of Elor Azaria, “The incitement is seen in the content written on the internet seemed to rise as the Israeli leadership increased incitement and hatred in their public addresses,” 7amleh said.

“Israel has more than 200 criminal files against Arab and Palestinian activists charging them with incitement on the internet, while almost not a single case of incitement has been opened against Israeli instigators,” 7amleh said.

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/02/israeli-incitement-towards/?utm_source=Mondoweiss+List&utm_campaign=3479a016b5-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b86bace129-3479a016b5-309260894&mc_cid=3479a016b5&mc_eid=b1e0e2d3d7#sthash.rMaeyO3E.dpuf

Israeli Support for Trump Gives American Jews a Taste of Their Own Medicine

from Haeretz

When leftists complain about occupation and democracy, Jewish Americans prefer to believe Israel's Sean Spicers and Kellyanne Conways.

Chemi Shalev Feb 07, 2017 3:43 PM

American Jews should brace themselves. Next Wednesday is not going to be pleasant. Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to Donald Trump’s White House and in all likelihood it’s going to be a love fest. The two leaders could be all over each other with hugs and kisses and songs of praise. Many American Jews, probably most, will feel a bit queasy. They’ll do their best to avert their eyes and look the other way.
Mind you, if you only listen to Netanyahu and other Israeli politicians these days, you might reach the conclusion that America’s new president is Henry Kissinger, Otto von Bismarck and Winston Churchill all rolled into one. Finally, you might assume, the world is being led by a courageous leader who knows how to look reality straight in the eye and is not afraid to act. He’s put Iran on notice, told Palestinians where to get off, sent Europeans running for cover, warned the United Nations to clean up its act and, most heartwarming of all, he loves Israel to death. Who could ask for more? 

Some American Jews feel the same way, of course, but they are in the minority, arguably one that’s smaller today than the 25 percent that gave Trump their vote in the November elections. The rest, at least those that follow such things, have had to watch and hear Israeli leaders, from Netanyahu on down, fawning over Trump and portraying him as God’s answer to the Jewish people. Many of them will be asking themselves, excuse the vulgarity: "WTF?"
This is what the Jewish state has to say about our foul-mouthed ignoramus of a president? About the women-hating, abortion-denying, immigrant-baiting, judge-demeaning Donald J. Trump? About a president who has inspired anti-Semites all over America to come slithering out from under their rocks? About a chief executive who hasn’t said a word about the recurring bomb threats against Jewish Community Centers? About an American president who has done more for Holocaust denial than anyone since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? This is the president that Israel is going gaga over?

How is it, these bewildered Jews might wonder, that this brave, courageous, patriotic Israeli government, defender of the faith and protector of Jews everywhere – along with most Israelis, in fact – has shamefully refrained from saying a word about the anti-Semitism that has metastasized under Trump’s wings? Has steadfastly refused to criticize Trump’s intentional omission of Jews from the White House's Holocaust Day statement? Has yawned as Trump turns discrimination against Muslims into America’s new state religion? Has ignored Trump’s hostility toward the rule of law and the danger that he poses for democracy? Has laughed as Trump poisons America’s relations with some of its best friends, as if it’s all one big joke?

One narrative that’s already been widely explored is the growing divergence between right-wing Jews, for whom Israel is the paramount – if not only – concern, and left-wing Jews, for whom universal values, freedom and democracy are just as important, if not more. Up until now, Netanyahu and his right-wing partners in the Israeli coalition have tolerated American Jewish liberals, at best, because they had no choice. They needed their support, in Congress, at AIPAC, in American Jewish organizations throughout the land. But now there is a Republican president, a Republican Congress, Christian Evangelicals and Sheldon Adelson, all of whom share Netanyahu’s worldview – as well as his disdain for Jewish leftists – so there’s really no more reason to keep on catering to liberal Jews or pretending to foster bipartisanship. And Israelis, let’s face it, were never all that interested in the first place.

But there is another way of looking at it. Liberal American Jews are finally getting a taste of their own medicine. Now, when it is the U.S. and not Israel which is descending down a slippery slope toward curtailment of freedoms, religious discrimination and authoritarianism; When it is the U.S. and not Israel where the government undermines the independence of the judiciary and the media, like any tin pot dictatorship in the making; When it is the U.S. and not Israel that is branding Muslims a priori as potential terrorists before they even open their mouths. 

Now, when the U.S. and Israel truly have “shared values” – though not necessarily in a good way – American Jews can finally understand how if feels when your brothers, sisters and cousins prefer to look the other way. When they ignore your complaints and tell you you’re exaggerating. When your dire predictions of where your country is headed are met with derision, if not hostility. When you feel that your own family is stabbing you in the back.
For so many years, with a few notable exceptions, American Jews of all persuasions have turned a blind eye to the fears and anxieties of Israelis who actually share their core values. When Israeli leftists demonstrated against the occupation, against abuses of human rights, against institutionalized discrimination, most American Jews preferred to accept the official government line that these are just self-hating, if not traitorous, Israelis out to damage their country. When Israelis described tarnished democracy, a repressive atmosphere, fear of speaking out, most – though not all – American Jews said they were exaggerating. Or lying. Or working for the other side.

When Israeli commentators and politicians complained about Netanyahu’s incitement against political enemies and the Arab minority, American Jews were otherwise engaged. When they explained how Netanyahu and his government have endeavored to weaken the media and to undermine the Supreme Court, American Jews preferred to believe Israel's Sean Spicers and Kellyanne Conways, who swore it was all a lie. American commentators and pundits, both left and right, who are now rightfully alarmed at Trump’s sabotage of custom, convention and common courtesy laughed their heads off when their Israeli counterparts warned against the exact same thing in the Holy Land. It’s only leftist whining, they comforted themselves. They’re only a minority, after all. Who cares what they say?

It was so convenient to stick to the party line. It is not the role of American Jews to intervene in Israel’s internal affairs. We don’t vote in the Israeli elections. We don’t send our boys to the Israeli army. We have to work with the duly elected government. And it was the safer course, in any case. Who wants to find himself badmouthed by Netanyahu, like J Street or the New Israel Fund or Breaking the Silence? Who would want to be placed on the enemies’ list of the growing number of rabid right-wing Jewish organizations and activists who will pounce on you and make your life miserable if you dare to criticize Israel? What is the difference between them and the legions of right-wing trolls who pounce on every Jew who has something bad to say about Trump?  

American Jewish organizations snap to attention whenever an Israeli politician recites one of the four fabled code words "Iran," "BDS," "Palestinians" or "terror," along with "anti-Semitism," so long as it isn’t Trump’s. Some of them also get worked up about pluralism, because that’s their own thing. But democracy? Freedom of speech? Racial discrimination? Equality? Women’s rights? Religious coercion? Fifty years of disenfranchisement of millions of Palestinians? Fuggedaboutit. That’s not our thing. We don’t want to know. Let’s not invite speakers who insist on talking about it. Let’s filter them out for Jewish delegations visiting Israel. Let Israelis figure things out all by themselves. Meanwhile, Netanyahu gives such great speeches, doesn’t he? Did you hear him at the UN? He really let the Jew-haters have it! Such naches.

So now the shoe is on the other foot. American Jews are apprehensive. Some fear for their families, some for their future, some for the safety and prosperity of the Jewish community as a whole. Many are looking at their fellow Americans differently than they did only a year ago, many are concerned about the direction taken by the great country that allowed them to flourish and prosper. They wonder how this will all end. Of course, these are the exact same feelings that many liberal Israelis have been having for years. Nah, don’t exaggerate, they were told by American Jews. It’s not that bad. We had a UJA mission, and they came back raving. So leave us alone.

Don’t get me wrong: This is not Schadenfreude. The indifference of so many Israelis to Trump’s arrogance and immorality is appalling. The apathy toward anti-Semitism and the distress of American Jews is shameful. In fact, perhaps there’s even a silver lining in the dark clouds gathering above. Maybe recent events will serve as wake-up call for like-minded Jews everywhere. Perhaps some of them will learn a lesson from right-wingers, who have been supporting each other for years.
Perhaps it will finally dawn on liberal Jews in both countries that you can’t give our support automatically, like robots, no matter who’s in charge, because by doing so we are undermining ourselves. 
Let the reactionary right-wingers go nuts for each other while they can, but Jews who support liberty, equality and fraternity must finally find each other, before it’s too late – even if it already is.

“We must all hang together,” as Benjamin Franklin said, “or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.770014?utm_content=%2Fus-news%2F1.770014&utm_medium=email&utm_source=smartfocus&utm_campaign=newsletter-breaking-news&utm_term=20170206-21%3A02

Breaking News: Trump tells the truth! The USA is also "a killer."

During his recent interview with Bill O'Riley of Fox News, Trump, responding to O'Riley's calling Putin "a killer," responded by saying "there are a lot of killers out there. What do you think, that we are so innocent?"

Perhaps there's something in his personality disorder that stopped him from saying what is the required statement that every president is supposed to say about the US role in the world: "The USA is as pure as the driven snow and an angel sent by god to lead the world to peace, prosperity and our way of life."

He actually blurted out the truth: "Putin is a killer? The USA is also a killer." The media and Democratic & Republican politicians were aghast. "You can's say that! America is exceptional and sacred," they bellowed.

Trump's live-in-the-moment cynicism actually put him on the right side of history...for a moment anyway. He's likely to see he shouldn't have said that and change his tune.

That the USA throughout its history is and has been a predatory, imperialist, war mongering state, that has aspired to be an empire is an established fact (not an alternative one).

There is a bi-partisan record of mass murder: to cite a very few examples - Stealing half of Mexico in 1848 (Illinois congressman Abe Lincoln was in opposition to that war), occupying and subjugating the Phillippine Islands (Mark Twain spoke out gaainst that war), Vietnam, the Chile coup, invasion of Iraq, constant bombing and drone killings in several countries that continue to this day...the list is lengthy and attests to the bloody history of the USA's zeal to crush any opposition to its domination (Hillary's bloody fingerprints are all over the sewing of chaos in Libya and the coup in Honduras..this during the "liberal" Obama administration.)

The true neocon colors of bloviators on MSNBC have been revealed by the repulsive flag waving rants of Rachel Maddow et al.

Yes, America is exceptional. It's an exceptionally violent, imperious country. It's up to us (as we did during the Vietnam war) to restrain it.

e Quebec mosque shooting and the Zionist connection

from mondoweiss
Jonathan Ofir on January 31, 2017 27 Comments


I’m not as quick to assume as White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer is. At a briefing yesterday, he rushed to refer to the Quebec mosque shooting where 6 Muslim worshipers were killed, as “a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the President is taking steps to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to our nation’s safety and security.”

The Washington Post had to wonder in its headline: “Why did Sean Spicer suggest that the Quebec shooting validated Trump’s policy initiatives?”

Indeed, as Glenn Greenwald points out, “Spicer exploited the attack to justify President Trump’s ban on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries”– seven countries from which, incidentally, “foreigners… have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015”, as the CATO Institute noted last week.

Greenwald pointed out that “almost immediately, various news outlets and political figures depicted the shooter as Muslim. Right-wing nationalist tabloids in the UK instantly linked it to Islamic violence. Fox News claimed that ‘witnesses said at least one gunman shouted “Allahu akbar!”,’ and then added this about the shooter’s national origin: [Fox News tweet] ‘Suspect in Quebec mosque terror attack was of Moroccan origin, reports show’.” The claim was not retracted long after it became clear that it was false.

I would add references from across the Atlantic. The Israel National News still has up an article at the point of this writing, containing the headline “Report claims shooters yelled ‘Allahu akbar!’ in deadly Mosque shooting”. Israeli Walla News unquestioningly runs the “Allahu Akbar” narrative (Hebrew), Israeli Ynet includes it in headline (Hebrew) . That’s mainstream Israeli news. Haaretz, more careful, citing Reuters and Guardian, refrains from the claim (Hebrew).

But there was only one shooter. The other man mentioned as a Moroccan was a bystander, a witness to the attack, and his involvement was quickly dispelled. The mention of ‘Allahu akbar” appears to be a dog-whistle. It’s supposed to mean ‘Jihadist radical Islam’ or something like that. But do people realise, that shouting ‘Allahu akbar’ in a scene of an attack, especially by Arab-speaking Muslim, can be equivalent to an English-speaking Christian shouting ‘Oh my God!’?

Now that the ‘Islamist terrorism’ claim is dispelled (alas not all medias are as fast to follow through – what’s the hurry?), can we look at what other possible motives could be at play?

As Ali Abunimah notes, the shooter Alexandre Bissonnette, appears to be not only a fan of US President Donald Trump, French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, holding anti-immigrant and anti-feminist views. He also appears to be a fan of the Israeli army and other ardent Zionist groups such as ‘United with Israel’.

No, we should not rush to conclusions, but isn’t there already something to be discussed here?

It is not very hard to understand the obvious connection to the anti-immigrant right, and that is of obvious relevance in light of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s welcoming of refugees in the wake of Trump’s draconian orders. But what about the Zionist aspect? It is hardly mentioned anywhere. NBC will even go down to details of Bissonnette’s Facebook account, noting that “he had liked pages for heavy metal bands, video games and public figures ranging from far-right French politician Marine Le Pen and U.S. President Donald Trump to chess grandmaster Anatoly Karpov and Pope John Paul II.” Yet no mention of Israel.

Interestingly, the Forward does mention the Israel connection clearly , but one is hard pressed to find such mentioning otherwise.

Such affinities towards white-nationalism, anti-immigration sentiment and particularly anti-Islamist tendencies (as this attack embodies in its very nature), dovetail rather well with Zionism.

In fact, one of the most horrid examples of Christian, White-supremacist terror, that of Anders Breivik in Norway 2011, also included a very clear ideological affinity with Zionism.

Former head of the Anti-Defamation League Abe Foxman opined that this affiliation was ‘bizarre’: “One bizarre twist to Breivik’s warped worldview was his pro-Zionism – his strongly expressed support for the state of Israel”, Foxman wrote in the Washington Post.

“Who does Foxman think he is kidding?”, wrote Ali Abunimah, “There is nothing “bizarre” about this at all. Indeed Foxman himself has done much to bestow credibility on extremists who have helped popularise the Islamophobic views he now condemns. And he did it all to shore up support for Israel.”

Yet such discussions appear to be extremely contentious. Can we really take seriously loose affiliations to Israel and Zionism, just because some terrorist mentions it? Is it not merely the raving of a deranged individual?

Such caution appears to be completely absent when Israel seeks to incite against Palestinians. When Israel wants to frame ‘terrorism’ upon Palestinians, it seems enough to say ‘ISIS’ without a shred of evidence, and this will be echoed far and wide. This is what happened on the 8th of January with the alleged ramming and ‘terror attack’ in East Jerusalem that killed four Israeli soldiers. It was enough for Netanyahu to say “ISIS,” without a shred of evidence. And enough for Chief of Police Ronnie Alsheikh to say, “It is certainly possible to be influenced by watching TV”. Why be pedantic? When it comes to Palestinians, it’s no problem to shout “terror” and make loose, baseless allegations.

The same happened more recently, on January 18th, when Israel enacted its ethnic cleansing operation at the Israeli Bedouin village of Umm Al-Hiran. Schoolteacher Yaqoub Moussa Abu Al-Qia’an was shot by Israeli police whilst driving his car slowly, after which he accelerated (apparently, his leg was shot first) and ended up killing an Israeli Policeman, Erez Levi. Abu Al-Qia’an was then shot again and left to bleed to death (as is often the case with assumed ‘terrorists’). Immediately Abu Al-Qia’an was publicly framed, not merely as a terrorist, but even one with ‘jihadist sympathies’.

As I wrote at the time, the police made the ‘Jihadist sympathy’ claim based upon a raid of his home in which they discovered copies of Israel Hayom (Shledon Adelson funded right-leaning paper) from 2015 whose banner headlines spoke of an ISIS bomb attack, as well as books in Arabic. Reading such a newspaper– the most read newspaper in Israel, with a headline that is typical– is surely very suspicious. So is the possession of Arab books. Shouldn’t Al-Qia’an only have been reading Yiddish?

There appears to be no end to the speed, range and ridiculousness of the assumptions when it comes to Israel and its incitement against Palestinians. When the word ‘terror’ is presented, this presses a button and the world media mostly responds accordingly and submissively. It’s enough to make the ‘Islamist’ allegation, and it will be re-quoted, no proof necessary. We are so prone to connect terror with ‘Islam’, that it is almost an automatic assumption.

But figures show that this assumption is unfounded in reason. Less than 2% of the terror attacks in Europe 2010-2015 were “religiously motivated”, thus, not ‘Islamic terrorism’. In USA, an FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims. As New York Times also notes, “since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, anti-government fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.”

Nonetheless, in defiance of all fact, figures and reason, Fox News host Brian Kilmead said a few years ago on live debate, that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”

How much are we prone to believe these sorts of claims? Is it just one dumb pundit? No, there are many more. Some of them are even National Security Advisers, like Michael Flynn.

In August, Flynn spoke to a Jewish synagogue congregation about ‘Islamism’. In the past, Flynn has regarded the whole of Islam as a ‘cancer’. But now he was trying to make a more ‘sophisticated’ (the same kind of ‘sophistication’ applied by Kilmead), that the cancer is ‘Islam-ISM’:

“We are facing another ‘ism,’ just like we faced Nazism, and fascism, and imperialism and communism,” Flynn said. “This is Islamism, it is a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people on this planet and it has to be excised.”

Well, that is actually very funny. Something about that ‘ISM’, huh? Did the irony that Flynn was talking to a congregation defined by Juda-ISM, most all of them likely supporting Zion-ISM, completely pass everyone over the head? And what about his ‘imperialism’? That’s just hilarious. But it’s also very serious. He’s the National Security Adviser. He sees a major world religion as a cancer (where his attempts at sophistication of his primitive bigotry end up totally ridiculous).

Benjamin Netanyahu has also taken some of Flynn’s lines (or was it the other way around?) when he compared ‘radical Islam’ (Flynn’s ‘Islamism’) to Communism and Nazism, hailing the hardline ideologist Jabotinsky’s ‘Iron Wall’ policy (also back in August).

But is it possible that terrorists today can actually get their inspirations from the supposed ‘bastions of democracy and freedom’?

After all, Obama’s killer-drone campaign is regarded by Noam Chomsky (on CNN) as “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times.” Chomsky characterized Obama’s policy as a “global assassination campaign targeting people suspected of perhaps intending to harm us some day, and any unfortunates who happen to be nearby.”

And what about Israel’s seasonal massacres in Gaza? Is that not a state-terrorist campaign? What about the siege of Gaza? Last week, the Council of Europe has condemned it as “collective punishment”. Is this not also a form of state terrorism?

We should not be surprised when terrorists who aim their attacks at Muslims or perceived Muslim supporters get inspiration from western state terrorism, and Israel in particular. Zionism, the ideology informing the Jewish State, is for all practical purposes a violent, anti-assimilationist, nationalist-exclusivist ideology that has ethnic cleansing at its very heart. It is not strange, that white-supremacist terrorists would draw their inspiration and awe from its m

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/01/shooting-zionist-connection/#sthash.84HnCdOp.dpuf

Haneen Zoabi: 'Israel is the only country not shocked by or afraid of Trump'

The Guardian
by Harriet Sherwood


The Israeli-Palestinian politician campaigns for women’s rights and against attacks on minorities. She explains why the US president has so much in common with Benjamin Netanyahu

Zoabi, 47, was the first Israeli-Palestinian woman to be elected to parliament in 2009.

Monday 30 January 2017 13.08 EST Last modified on Monday 30 January 2017 17.00 EST
Haneen Zoabi, one of 14 Israeli-Palestinian members of the Knesset out of a total of 120, has been spat at, jostled and suspended from parliament. “I’ve got used to [abuse],” she says. “It’s partly because I am a woman, don’t forget that. [For some people] it’s normal to be angry towards a woman who doesn’t [meet] your expectations of how women should behave.”

Zoabi has long faced risk of expulsion. Under a law passed last summer, a member can be thrown out for “incitement to racism” or “supporting armed struggle” if 90 of the 120 legislators back such a move. Civil rights groups have said the law is directed at Palestinian members of parliament in an attempt to silence them. Isaac Herzog, the leader of Israel’s Labour party, described the legislation as a “dark mark on Israel’s face”. Zoabi has called it an attempt at “political assassination”.


Arab-Israeli politician Haneen Zoabi disqualified from re-election

“We are members of parliament. We don’t throw stones, we’re not in any armed resistance. We talk. And Israel has criminalised this,” she says. Zoabi, 47, was the first Israeli-Palestinian woman to be elected to parliament when she won a seat in 2009. About 20% of Israeli citizens are Palestinian, who have nominally equal rights but face institutionalised discrimination – for example, in funding for schools (which are segregated between Jews and Palestinians in Israel) and in public sector jobs. She grew up in Nazareth, where she still lives in an apartment in her parents’ house, and studied philosophy at the university of Haifa – one of the few mixed cities in Israel.

Her notoriety was triggered by her participation in a flotilla of ships attempting to break the blockade of Gaza in May 2010. It was intercepted by Israeli forces and nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed. Zoabi, who was aboard the lead ship, the Mavi Marmara, witnessed the violence.

The resulting furore has not diminished her commitment to activism. Earlier this month, she and other Israeli-Palestinian politicians protested at the Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran in the Negev desert as Israeli forces took part in a demolition operation to make way for a new Jewish town. A Bedouin man was shot dead and a police officer died when he was hit by a car. Zoabi and her fellow lawmakers are now facing calls to be investigated for incitement. “What is happening at Umm al-Hiran is expulsion, it is apartheid, colonialism,” she says. “Palestinians are facing political expulsion from the Knesset, and physical expulsion from the Negev.”

Israel, she says, wants to “close the file” on the Palestinians’ demand for a state. Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, “is shifting the paradigm from managing the crisis to solving the crisis – but [his is] a one-sided solution in the interests of Israel. Something has changed in the minds of Israelis: Palestinians have ceased to exist. The walls are not just physical, they are also psychological.”

This mindset is reinforced by the new US president, she says. “Donald Trump may seem bizarre and unique to most of the world, but not for Israel. His kind of populism [and] his way of violent speech are the dominant model in Israel. Israel is the only country not shocked and not afraid of Trump. On the contrary, Netanyahu and Trump represent the same model.”

If Trump follows through on his election pledge to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, signifying endorsement of Israel’s claim of the city as its “eternal and undivided capital”, there should be “strong reaction”, says Zoabi.

Zoabi said that Trump’s ban on people from some Muslim countries entering the US was a dangerous formalisation of Islamophobia. “This hatred is nothing new, it’s part of the culture, but now it’s being turned into policy. It’s becoming part of the norm that you can talk with hatred about Muslims without feeling any shame,” she said.

She would like to see a popular civil rights movement, with Palestinians taking to the streets, businesses closing in protest and the Palestinian Authority dissolving itself to force Israel to take responsibility “as an occupying force”. But the international community – Europe, and Britain in particular – must also act, she adds; Israel should not be able to expand settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank with impunity. “If you violate international law, you should pay the price.” Zoabi would like to see government sanctions and a boycott – “Can you imagine a more non-violent protest than a boycott?”

Within her own community, she says, it was no longer “against the norm [for women] to be active leading political struggles. This is not unusual. In Palestinian society, more women have academic qualifications than men. Women in the workplace are not unfamiliar. Independent women, choosing to continue a career, delaying marriage or not getting married, having fewer children – this is something you see more and more. It’s not a conservative society in a stereotyped way.” She has campaigned against issues such as polygamy, domestic violence and so-called “honour” killings. “We had four demonstrations last year, which were widely supported. I’m not in the margins on this issue – I’m in the consensus.”

Zoabi hopes she is a role model to younger Palestinian women: “You should stand for the things you believe in. If you don’t get direct results right now, it doesn’t mean to say there is no outcome. Maybe not for you, but for another generation.”

Last month, Zoabi took part in a protest by female parliamentarians and officials at the Knesset after two aides were barred for wearing insufficiently “modest” dresses. The dress code was eased as a result. “It was so silly – but sometimes you feel really powerful,” she says. “I just wish the Knesset cared as much about freedom as it does about looking at women’s dresses.”