fbpx

November 3, 2024

Wikipedia Editors Add “Gaza Genocide” to “List of Genocides” Article

Wikipedia editors have officially added “Gaza genocide” to the “List of genocides” Wikipedia article following a discussion launched over the summer.

The list itself begins with “Gaza genocide,” where it states: “Israel has been accused by experts, governments, U.N. agencies and non-governmental organizations of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population during its invasion and bombing of Gaza during the ongoing Israel Hamas war. By March 2024, after five months of attacks, Israeli military action had resulted in the deaths of over 31,500 Palestinians – 1 out of every 75 people in Gaza – averaging 195 killings a day, and nearly 40,000 confirmed deaths by July. Most of the victims are civilians, including over 25,000 women and children and 108 journalists. Thousands more dead bodies are under the rubble of destroyed buildings. By March 2024, 374 healthcare workers in Gaza had been killed.”

The discussion over whether or not to add “Gaza genocide” to the list began in July; those in favor argued that it was only natural to include after an article title was changed from “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” to “Gaza genocide” earlier the month. They also argued that it fits the list’s inclusion criteria for “acts which are recognized in significant scholarship as genocides” and that other genocides on the list are considered controversial, such as Rohingya genocide and Darfur genocide. Those opposed to inclusion contended that the allegation that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip is too widely disputed to warrant mentioning it in a neutral voice (wikivoice) in the article, especially when the International Court of Justice has yet to make a ruling on the matter.

The discussion was a formal discussion known as a Request for Comment (RfC), where editors put in their “!votes” with their stated position and rationale on the dispute at hand; oftentimes, a closer (an uninvolved Wikipedian in good standing) renders a verdict on the discussion based on the numbers and the strength of site policy arguments. British Wikipedian Stuart Marshall ultimately closed the discussion in September, finding consensus in favor of inclusion based “on the strength of the arguments …  and it’s not close … I discarded the argument that scholars haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the Gaza genocide is really taking place,” Marshall wrote. “The matter remains contested, but there’s a metric truckload of scholarly sources linked in this discussion that show a clear predominance of academics who say that it is. I discarded the argument that it is for the U.N. or the International Courts to decide what’s a genocide and what isn’t. This is Wikipedia, where we follow the scholarly sources.” Marshall rebuked an argument put forward in the discussion where an editor argued against inclusion by citing a piece from The Economist the editor claimed was “significantly more reliable than publications in ideologically captured fields like critical race theory, postcolonial studies, etc.” “The contention that ‘General-audience publications such as The Economist are actually significantly more reliable than publications in ideologically captured fields like critical race theory’ is not one that I lightly set aside. I hurled it aside with great force,” Marshall wrote. “We follow the scholars.”

When the editor “Partofthemachine” told Marshall on his talk page that scholarly sources should receive “editorial scrutiny” over “their obvious prioritization of an ideological agenda over factual accuracy,” Marshall acknowledged that “there are serious scientists with all kinds of insane views” but that the Wikipedia community needs to reach “a consensus that a certain scientist is a nutcase or a certain journal publishes lies.” But Marshall stated the comment in question didn’t cite any such consensus and “was about ‘ideologically captured fields,’ which is a red flag for a U.S. alt-right perspective.”

One editor told me that they “would be concerned about POV-pushing, especially when we say ‘sources say.’ Are those sources objective? Is it really a consensus among experts or just a consensus among motivated academics?”

Other editor sources provided mixed opinions on Marshall’s close. One editor with many years at Wikipedia, almost entirely outside of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area, told me: “When he says ‘we follow the scholars,’ he’s saying ‘we follow a subset of sources guaranteed to find Israel guilty of everything, including the Lindbergh kidnapping’… Anti-Israel bias is baked into the Wikipedia power structure, as he could have easily used his discretion not to have Wikipedia accuse Israel of genocide in ‘wikivoice.’” Another editor told me that “when you have a field filled with partisanship, ‘a predominance of academics’ means nothing. It’s about quality of scholarship, plain and simple, and maintaining a robust and self-critical neutrality that is not common enough in a space currently filled with an abundance of veiled politicking.”

“Anti-Israel bias is baked into the Wikipedia power structure, as he could have easily used his discretion not to have Wikipedia accuse Israel of genocide in ‘wikivoice.’”

One editor, however, defended Marshall as “a veteran closer” who has made numerous closes in the topic area and “usually does it by the book”; there were no irregularities in the close that would warrant it be overturned, the editor told me.  “I think he was right to discard some of the arguments that either argued against the system, or argued against academia,” the editor argued, adding that while The Economist is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, it is an opinion piece and is “just not on the level of peer-reviewed academic journal articles. It can still be used in the article but would probably be attributed although it may not need to be for facts since Economist is generally reliable. But as far as its heft in the discussion, I think Marshall is probably in line with the community sentiment on how to handle it in that dispute.”

That said, the editor said they “roughly agree” with arguments in the RfC that the sourcing isn’t strong enough to put it in wikivoice and argued that “people should do a better job of impeaching the credibility and bias of academics who are anti-Israel, while finding more good sources that are somewhat balanced or pro-Israel. The other side successfully impeaches the credibility of ‘Zionist’ scholars and American Jewish scholars … I think a big part of what burnishes scholarly credibility has to do with expertise, publications and bylines, citations in other RS, affiliations with reputable institutions, etc… This all has to be analyzed and argued by editors in the RfC, like a court case where you need to construct evidence and have a case with different pillars and premises.”

A source survey highlighting where various academics stand on whether or not Israel’s actions in Gaza are tantamount to a genocide was cited in the RfC; the same survey can be found on the top of the talk page on the Wikipedia “Gaza genocide” article. Two of my editor sources pointed to a couple of the scholars’ cited in the survey should be discounted, such as a French sociologist and anthropologist writing an op-ed in Le Monde quoting someone from Jewish Voice for Peace and an international relations professor being interviewed in Anadolu Agency, the Turkish state-run media outlet that Wikipedia considers as being generally unreliable on international politics and contentious topics. “He’s literally quoting an activist in an [Le Monde] op-ed,” an editor who grew disillusioned with Wikipedia after making thousands of edits told me. “That means nothing regarding scholarly consensus and would very rarely even be proper for an article.” Regarding the Anadolu Agency citation in the survey, the editor said that “if the highest quality source for something like this would be, say, a well-known professor of international law publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a high-quality academic journal, then this guy who’s in an ‘adjacent’ field with no specific expertise giving his unreviewed opinion in the state-run media of an enemy state is not very high.” Further, the editor noted that establishing the majority view among scholars “is also somewhat of a numbers game as whoever has more people looking is likely to find more sources supporting their side. There are thousands of academics in many fields.”

That said, another editor told me that “the lack of pro-Israel academics is one of the major gaps here.”

It is also worth noting that the current inclusion criteria in the “List of Genocides” article was changed in April from “that are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides in line with the legal definition of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide” to its current iteration after enough editors argued that it would be better to simply follow what the scholars say as opposed to having it be narrowly toward the 1948 definition and follows the criteria for other lists on Wikipedia. “This definitely seems to be related to recent politics and this sort of discarding precedent, moving target and ground shifting under us is one of the major challenges,” an editor said.

I have previously reported on how editors renamed the “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” Wikipedia article to “Gaza genocide”; a challenge to the close of that discussion on procedural grounds ultimately failed. An attempt in September to rename the article from “Gaza genocide” also quickly failed after a few days.

One editor told me that they hope Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, which is the site’s version of a Supreme Court of sorts, opens a case “that deals with both the claim calling this a genocide as well as editor behavior.”

Wikipedia Editors Add “Gaza Genocide” to “List of Genocides” Article Read More »

About That Second Civil War

Tuesday is Election Day, when Americans get to exercise their franchise, and the losing candidate—from either party!—could very well challenge the result and claim victory.

Yes, a Democrat can do it, too. January 6 will forever be remembered as a red-letter date, when hundreds were incarcerated, mostly for trespassing and damaging federal property, and resisting arrest.

But the protests on behalf of Black Lives Matter and Palestinian Terrorists are Terrific — led by progressives who will most certainly vote for the Democratic Party — were not peaceful. They also resulted in the destruction of public property and scuffling with police, along with the intimidation of Jews. Very few spent even one night in jail.

Republicans wearing MAGA hats are no more or less dangerous to our democracy. What has been happening on our college campuses—led by DEI administrators and hatefully mischievous professors, with spillovers into media, publishing, museums, nonprofits, K-12 classrooms, and the human resources departments of major corporations—is a complete rejection of the First Amendment: the amendment that is the bellwether of our democracy.

Harris supporters, all. Both sides are debasing our democracy.

The United States is the world’s oldest democracy—from the get-go. We never had a monarchy that required convincing to step aside, surrender authority, and make way for representative government. Our Founding Fathers, initially, didn’t know what to call the person George Washington would soon become. There already was a King George, stewing over the loss of his Colonies, his mighty Red Coats defeated by a ragtag rabble that one day would root for the Red Sox.

We would end up calling Washington, President, and he voluntarily stepped down after serving two terms. The 22nd Amendment codified that transfer of power. Ever since, there have been a few close presidential elections by the popular vote and the Electoral College count, resulting in some uncertainty. The one in 2000 was decided by the Supreme Court; the one in 2020 was decided by revulsion to the events on January 6. For the first time, there was the spectacle of the highest office in the land possibly being decided by force.

This cannot happen again.

We have been transferring this elective office peacefully longer than any other democratic nation. Longevity comes with responsibility. Coup d’etat is not in our DNA. So many of our institutions are already failing—our government, the clergy, press, law enforcement. Handing off the keys to the White House must be accomplished with grace, dignity, and electoral certainty.

Coup d’etat is not in our DNA. So many of our institutions are already failing—our government, the clergy, press, law enforcement. Handing off the keys to the White House must be accomplished with grace, dignity, and electoral certainty.

It is true that Donald Trump was not, to say the least, magnanimous in defeat in 2020. Indeed, he and many of his supporters never accepted the results.

It is not true, however, as so many continue to impugn, that he incited a riot on the Capitol. As usual, he was reckless with his presence at the Ellipse. And irresponsible in some of what he said. But he urged the gathered crowd to march over to the Capitol, “peacefully and patriotically,” and “make your voices heard.”

Those are not the marching orders for a riot.

Yes, his reluctance to intervene while the mayhem was happening, and his indifference to it, were grossly negligent.

Meanwhile, Democrats failed to derail Trump’s march back to the White House—with numerous legal challenges to keep him off the ballot or cripple his campaign by locking him up. The latest efforts to defeat him, led by the Democratic standard bearer, Kamala Harris, are to call him a fascist and the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.

Trump is many unattractive things—impulsive, insulting, philandering, bullying, self-flattering, bloviating, un-self-aware, and, as an overall human being, more imperfect than most—but he’s not Hitler, and I say that as someone whose life was forever altered by Hitler.

The election remains too close to call and no doubt there will be legal and electoral challenges that could go on for weeks. The prevalent use of absentee, mail-in ballots, questions about who should receive them and how they are collected, and concerns about voter identity and verification, will once again invite mistrust.

I long for the old days: the ubiquity of the ballot box and voting machines.

Recounts and audits will be ordered. Lawsuits will be filed. Like in 2020, the courts, especially the Supreme Court, will not wish to be called upon to anoint the next president. When defects in the ballots or count mechanism are discovered, judges will doubtlessly dismiss the cases as they did in 2020, and rule that there is “no evidence of widespread fraud.” That, however, will only pique the interest of those who will wonder: “But there is evidence of some fraud?”

Prepare yourselves for protests in the streets. They seem to be the rage these days. For weeks pundits have held their tongues rather than say what is on the minds of many: Will this election set the stage for a civil war?

Since the Civil War, at no other time has our nation been this divided, or contemptuous of those who hold differing views. Slavery was the tripwire in 1860; sadly, race is still a factor in today’s upheavals, along with sex, gender, immigration, crime, antisemitism and the environment.

Name-calling has risen to a contagion, a national ethic. President Biden inveighs MAGA Republicans as “garbage”; a comedian at a Trump rally has a similar observation about Puerto Rico. Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” is being recalled, and Trump’s stump speech is replete with “rapists, murderers, criminals, insane asylums and enemies from within.”

It still looks as if half the country consists of college-educated coastal elites with progressive leanings and numerous complaints about their country, and the other half red-state, rustbelt, blue-collar, God-fearing Americans who listen to country music, possibly as an expression of their love for country.

I feel confident we will survive the turmoil. I only ask that if post-election conflicts are inevitable, this time, can we all agree to at least have a civil, Civil War?

By next week, America’s political landscape will be completely different. I feel confident we will survive the turmoil. I only ask that if post-election conflicts are inevitable, this time, can we all agree to at least have a civil, Civil War?


Thane Rosenbaum is a novelist, essayist, law professor and Distinguished University Professor at Touro University, where he directs the Forum on Life, Culture & Society. He is the legal analyst for CBS News Radio. His most recent book is titled “Saving Free Speech … From Itself,” and his forthcoming book is titled, “Beyond Proportionality: Is Israel Fighting a Just War in Gaza?”

About That Second Civil War Read More »

Public Enemy: Unmasking the Qatar Connections

“The name Yahya means the one who lives. They thought of him as dead but he lives. Like his namesake, Yahya bin Zakariya, he will live on and they will be gone.”

These were the words of Sheika Moza Bint Nasser  eulogizing Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas mastermind behind the Oct. 7 massacre, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Moza, the mother of current Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and chair of the Qatar Foundation, is emblematic of the double game played by Qatar, using Western outreach to cover up its nefarious activities.

“Qatar has been funding Hamas,” Middle East historian Asaf Romirowsky, who heads Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa, told the Journal. According to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Qatari regime has funneled nearly $2 billion to the Hamas government in Gaza since 2007, and “pledged $360 million of annual support to the enclave in January 2021, in part to subsidize government salaries. About a third of Qatari support is in the form of fuel that Hamas authorities sell for cash.”

“Doha has been harboring Hamas leadership, including Khaled Mashaal… while at the same time they’re buying institutions, including K-12 institutions, to normalize this narrative within American society,” added Romirowsky.

While Qatar has portrayed itself as an ally to the West, acting, for example, as a go-between in negotiations to free the hostages held by Hamas, Qatari money has flown into American schools and universities to indoctrinate American students.

Moza has been a leading emblem of that double game.

She is “extremely pro-Palestinian, extremely pro-Hamas,” Romirowsky says, adding that “one of the most famous quotes she’s known for” is when she said at a recent conference in Turkey that “a Palestinian child dies every 10 minutes.” While portraying herself as an “image of elegance” and a “fashion icon,” Romirowsky said that “the connectivity and the support for Hamas [and] the Palestinian cause at large is front and center within her narrative.”

Jewish Insider (JI) also noted that Moza said during a speech in 2023 that “artificial intelligence [is] used to fabricate stories, falsify facts, and block publications, photos, and videos that include atrocities committed by the Israeli occupation forces against the people of Gaza and the West Bank,” which JI characterized as an apparent claim that AI has been used to fabricate “Hamas atrocities against Israelis.”

“It’s not only her,” Romirowsky said, “but her role is unique and influential because of who she is,” as it “gives her this imagery as a legitimate voice while at the same time attempting to downplay the ties to Hamas and everything else. That’s how they’re playing it.”

Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president of research for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), told the Journal that though Moza does not have a formal role in the current Qatari government structure, she is the matriarch of the royal family “and is heavily involved in the dispersing of funds to the various causes and alliances that Qatar supports” and has “immense clout within Qatar…The decision to  eulogize and lionize the architect of the 10/7 slaughter is to me not surprising but should be very clarifying to Qatar’s partners and allies.”

Schanzer pointed out that Qatar, in addition to sponsoring Hamas, are “proponents of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an ideological driver of Hamas but also al-Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS. The Qataris have long played a double game with the international community where they have invested in the West and gotten involved with international multilateral bodies purportedly in the name of peace while simultaneously financing and supporting a range of bad actors that have destabilized the Middle East and in fact the West.”

A 2010 feature in Haaretz, titled “The Power Behind the Throne?” described Moza as “one of the most impressive and influential women in the Middle East. Her name appears on the Forbes magazine list of the world’s 100 most powerful women, and the British newspaper Guardian quoted a top fashion designer who said that ‘not since Jackie O has any first lady had such global resonance in terms of fashion.’”

The Haaretz article also noted that “it seems there isn’t a single public institution in Qatar or international organization involved in education in which she doesn’t play a role.”

“She’s heavily involved at the U.N. You’ll see her getting up and speaking at various committees at the U.N. and various bodies at the U.N. purportedly in the cause of peace,” Schanzer said. “Eulogizing a mass murderer is probably not in line with that objective.”

Born in Qatar in 1959, Moza grew up in Egypt and Kuwait because her family was in exile after her father was imprisoned for being a political opponent of the Qatari emir at the time. She subsequently married Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani––the son of the then-Qatari emir––in 1977, becoming the second of his three wives. Al-Thani took the throne in a bloodless coup from his father in 1995, and Al-Thani’s son took the throne from him in 2013. Scholar Osama Fauzy alleged in his book “Rulers and Women” that Moza “may even have been among [the] planners” of the 1995 coup, according to Haaretz, and that she “was also behind the political purge conducted by the new leader among his brothers and their sons, using the claim that they had tried to oust him—in order to promote her own children to senior positions.”

“There was this moment where Qatar had gotten kind of a bad reputation, so much so that the surrounding Gulf states had turned against the Qatari regime, and it was around that time that we began to see a pivot,” Schanzer said. “There was a smooth transition, took a lot of people by surprise but what I think we can say with certainty is that the ideology for the regime never changed… it was continuity, not change.” Schanzer attributed the pivot to “a decision in the royal family” and that “her role didn’t change, everybody else’s did… she was still the matriarch of the regime, the difference is that her husband no longer had that primary role, but her son did. The Al-Thani family continued to preside over this immense wealth, and they continued to sink massive investments all over the world as a means of amassing influence and power.”

Exposing the facade

Schanzer attributed Qatari money as the primary reason for why “people like Moza [have] the access she has enjoyed. Western leaders and entities have been persuaded to look the other way because of the immense amount of money that is being wielded here.” He added that Qatar has more than 300,000 citizens “and it controls more than 10 percent of the world’s energy and this affords them outsized influence.”

“She makes a significant concerted effort to create the façade that she wants, that she knows will resonate with the West while at the same time being able to layer the pro-Hamas narrative,” Romirowsky said, adding that “the more concerning part [is] the kind of power she yields has to do with the fact that she controls The Qatar Foundation, which of course allowed all this money and pro-Muslim Brotherhood, pro-Hamas propaganda to infiltrate and trickle down into American society… there’s a connection between the money and the power she yields and the institutions they’re actively buying.”

The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) has released reports detailing how the Qatar Foundation that Moza chairs funneled billions of dollars to major American universities like Harvard, Yale, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, and Columbia. One ISGAP report declares that “Qatar is currently the largest foreign donor to U.S. universities” and that Columbia’s Middle East Institute “is a hub of vocal support for the BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions] movement. Several of its staff members have voiced pro-Hamas sentiments following October 7, 2023.” Further, ISGAP reported in 2024 that there are some universities who have not been fully disclosing the money they have received from Qatar and that “if the law were to be enforced properly, these universities would face serious consequences.”

“There’s no coincidence where she has received honorary doctorates and Qatari gifts, you’ll see a correlation,” Romirowsky said. Indeed, ISGAP’s report on Columbia shows a picture of Moza with Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health Dr. Linda Fried launching a researching project in 2018. Romirowsky added that there’s also a correlation between Qatari money and American universities with campuses in Qatar; both Georgetown and Carnegie Mellon  have campuses in Qatar.

“I think what we can say is that it has tempered the school administrators’ will to get the problem under control,” Schanzer said regarding a possible connection between campus antisemitism and Qatari money. “In other words, when you’re getting that much money from sovereign wealth, maybe you care a little less about what alumni and parents and students have to say. I think that’s as far as we can probably go for now.”

“This goes to a larger issue [of] foreign money that has gone into American institutions with the idea of buying the politics, buying the role, and if you buy a chair or department, you also buy the complete and total narrative of how these topics are being taught in Western institutions,” Romirowsky said. “And that’s where they have been able to sanitize Hamas or Brotherhood kind of Islamist education in Western institutions.” He added that for Qatar, such spending is “a drop in a bucket and universities don’t like to say no to money, because universities kind of operate like a hedge fund.”

Additionally, the Qatar Foundation’s funding of K-12 education shows “how the foundation is being built in a very structured way even before they get to the campuses,” Romirowsky said. The New York Post reported on Oct. 26 that, according to the Network Contagion Research Institute and New York City Public School Alliance report, a map of the Middle East excluding Israel in a Brooklyn school was funded by the American arm of the Qatar Foundation and that the foundation has “donated more than $1 million to the [city’s Department of Education] for dual-language Arabic programs.”

And according to researcher Robert Williams’s Dec. 2023 piece in The Gatestone Institute, since the money to these education institutions is being funneled through the Qatar Foundation nonprofit, “the foundation can identify itself as a private organization, which enables Qatar to conceal its state funding as private donations.”

For its part, the Qatari embassy has denied wrongdoing, saying in a statement following a House Ways and Means Committee hearing that some in the hearing “repeated a false narrative that Qatar is funding American universities for malign purposes, including influencing recent incidents of campus unrest. When this same unfounded assertion was put to Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on May 2, 2024, she said plainly there was no evidence Qatar played any role. Qatar has no desire or ability to influence anything that happens on U.S. university campuses. It is flatly untrue, for example, that Qatar is the ‘largest foreign donor to U.S. universities’ – a claim made to imply dark motives, and to undermine the strong U.S.-Qatar security and trade partnership.”

The embassy added that “six American universities have operated campuses in Qatar, educating and awarding degrees to Qatari women and men, and to students from around the world who wish to study there. These universities operate with complete independence. The contract payments to these universities fund the operating costs of the campuses in Qatar, including construction, maintenance, and faculty salaries. They are not donations, and this distinction is clearly reflected in the Department of Education data.”

To get to the bottom of Qatar’s role, Romirowsky called for a “crackdown” on the Qatar Foundation and  investigations on possible violations of Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and the tax code over the flow of Qatari money into American institutions. “There are two aspects to all of this: one is [a] FARA issue regarding foreign-country [involvement]. The other part is proving the terrorist connection as it relates to all of that,” Romirowsky said. He added that “we are not privy to the contracts between The Qatar Foundation and the universities, so there needs to be a deep dive into what those contracts actually say, so when all these universities have campuses in Qatar and what’s going on there and have lectures on these issues, to my mind there would be enough evidence to go after these matters.”

According to Gerard Filitti, Senior Counsel at The Lawfare Project, “It is not illegal for Qatari money to be flowing to US campuses; the burden is on the recipients of this funding to comply with various laws…The law that has been most widely reported on is Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which requires colleges to report to the Department of Education any gifts received from, as well as contracts with, any foreign source, that are valued at $250,000 or more,” Filitti said in a statement to the Journal. “The Department under the Trump Administration opened investigations into multiple universities, and concluded in October 2020 that they had failed to disclose nearly $6.5 billion of foreign gifts and contracts. Under the Biden Administration, the Department has not prioritized similar investigations, despite the concerns raised by this significant amount of dark money.”

National Review reported in 2020 that the Department of Education released a report finding that “a number of universities had not appropriately reported funding received from entities in China, Qatar, and Russia” and that several universities were being investigated over the matter; in 2022, The Washington Examiner reported that “the inquiries seem to be in a lengthy limbo” and the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that the department was planning on ending the investigations. And in 2024, former U.S. Attorney and Prague Security Studies Institute Senior Fellow Paul Moore wrote at RealClearEducation that the department decommissioned an “interactive data table for analyzing foreign funding disclosures” that was part of an “online portal for reporting foreign source gifts and contracts valued at $250,000 or more per calendar year.” The department’s explanation for the removal of the table: a “contract change.”

In February, The Washington Free Beacon reported that Qatar has “doled out more than $243 million on lobbying efforts in the United States since 2015, with more than $16 million spent in 2023 alone.” The Free Beacon quoted both Republican Study Committee (RSC) Chair Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK) as saying that he is putting in efforts to get investigations launched and legislation on the floor to address the matter.

“While Section 117 reporting requirements have received a modicum of attention, there has been next to no attention on the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a law that requires anyone acting on behalf of a foreign government to influence U.S. policies to disclose this relationship,” Filitti added. “Considering the amount of dark money that comes from countries whose political systems, let alone political interests, do not align with America’s democratic values, there needs to be a close examination of what, precisely, Qatar and other countries are funding. This means we need information beyond the amount of money received – we need transparency into how that money is being spent, and a frank assessment as to whether many of the universities receiving foreign funds should be treated as agents of a foreign power.”

The Al Jazeera connection

Also under the microscope lately has been Al Jazeera, the Qatari-funded network that the Israel Defense Force says has been coordinating with Hamas and that journalists for the outlets were found to be members of both Hamas and Islamic Jihad. According to FDD, “the Qatari royal family established Al Jazeera in 1996” and “if Doha sponsors the extremists, Al Jazeera amplifies their voices. Notably, the late Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, hosted a popular show on Al Jazeera through which he legitimized suicide bombings against Israelis.”

MEMRI similarly noted in a lengthy report in February  that al-Qaradawi promulgated “antisemitic, homophobic and anti-Western views and to praise the Holocaust and promise another one – this time ‘at the hand of the believers’” during his Al Jazeera show. The MEMRI report also attributed Al Jazeera to being “the prime power for toppling the secular authoritarian regime in Egypt, when Qatar, by means of Al-Jazeera, supported the Muslim Brotherhood in ousting then Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak” and noted that “two months before 9/11, Al-Jazeera gave an Al-Qaeda spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, free rein to speak un-interrupted for ten minutes, and to call for 12,000 mujahideen to join Al-Qaeda.”

Further, according to the MEMRI report and Long War Journal, Al Jazeera correspondent Tayseer Allouni was sentenced to seven years in prison in 2005 after being convicted of providing support for al-Qaeda; Allouni has denied the charges and called the sentence “political.” He went right back to working with Al Jazeeraafter being released in 2012. Allouni was also “the first to air an interview with Osama bin Laden after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack” and that in 2013, Allouni interviewed Abu Muhammad al Julani, who headed the Al Nusrah Front, which was the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda at the time, reported Long War Journal.

More recently, Al Jazeera provided an exclusive broadcast to Hamas commander Mohammed Deif on the morning of the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in Israel. “It was, in fact, a Qatari declaration of war in the very first hours of the conflict – given the fact that it was Qatar who developed Hamas’s capabilities over a decade,” the MEMRI report stated. “Later, Qatar offered its services as a mediator between Israel and Hamas. This is the common Qatari playbook. It proved effective in Afghanistan in 2021: Qatar supported the Taliban for years, all the way until the day of the removal of the secular regime of President Ashraf Ghani, with 13 U.S. soldiers killed. It then offered its services as mediator between the U.S and the Taliban to evacuate the remaining Americans to Qatar, and since then it has been operating on the political level to provide legitimacy in the West to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.”

Notably, the MEMRI report cited various Arab journalists who have criticized Al Jazeera for also being a propaganda arm of the Iranian regime, pointing to how Al Jazeera of ignoring the 2022 protests––and the subsequent regime crackdown––against the Iranian regime after Mahsa Amini was beaten to death by the morality police for not wearing a hijab to the regime’s standards. Indeed, Qatar and Iran are two faces of the same snake; Qatar camouflages its support of terror by buying influence and indoctrinating the west, while Iran wreaks havoc through its terror proxies whose chief mission is the destruction of Israel.

In those efforts, Al Jazeera is never too far away.

“Al Jazeera has been a mouthpiece of Hamas, not to mention al-Qaeda and the insurgency of Iraq, the fight for Afghanistan, the Qataris have been involved in this from the start,” Schanzer said. “You’ve got to understand here, the Qataris were also the people who established the Taliban embassy in their country with the goal of negotiating an American exit from the country, which obviously ended in disaster… we have evidence of al-Qaeda financiers and ISIS financiers that have found shelter in Qatar. So none of this surprising when you see Sheika Moza come out and say what she did about Sinwar.”

“The fact that Al Jazeera is that platform that basically allows for active terrorists to use it as a quasi-media platform that gives a façade of Westernism vs. the reality of it, that’s all part of the winning of hearts and minds. They’re doing that through media, education, this is exactly the tactic that has been used by the Qataris to buy influence in the United States,” Romirowsky said.

And yet, in April the Biden administration criticized the Israeli government for taking efforts to shut down Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel, with State Department spokesman Matthew Miller saying at the time: “We support the independent free press anywhere in the world, and much of what we know about what has happened in Gaza is because of reporters who are there doing their jobs, including reporters from Al Jazeera.” This is what prompted MEMRI to republish their February report in May.

Schanzer said that Moza has “a very important role to play here with Qatar, its foreign policy, its dispersal of funds worldwide, which continues at an alarming rate. You have to start to ask yourself, what does a country of 330,000 people—what do they want with American education? Why are they supporting terror groups? Why are they investing in the West? This is a dangerous regime with no power to speak of other than ideology and money. But when they wield them together, it is something that I find extremely troubling.”

He called for Qatar to “be identified as a state sponsor of terror” and to “be stripped of its major non-NATO ally status here in the United States. We should move our airbase from Qatar… we should not be operating there. We should be distancing ourselves from this dangerous regime.”

The military base that Schanzer is referring to, the Al Udeid Air Base, is located in Qatar and is the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East. The Biden administration reportedly reached an agreement with Qatar in January to continue using the base for another 10 years. Qatar has reportedly restricted the U.S. from using the airbase to launch strikes against Iran.

Schanzer also called for Moza to be “condemned” and that statements like hers eulogizing Sinwar “should not go unanswered.”

Beyond its Hamas and Iran connections, Qatar has also come under fire for its human rights abuses, especially its treatment of women.

According to Human Rights Watch, “Women in Qatar must obtain permission from their male guardians to marry, pursue higher education on government scholarships, work in many government jobs, travel abroad until certain ages, and receive some forms of reproductive health care.”

Also, “Unmarried women who report sexual violence can be prosecuted for non-marital sex if authorities do not believe them with a penalty of up to seven years’ imprisonment, as well as floggings if they are Muslim.”

As Romirowsky sums it up: “There is no pressure coming on them. They try to play it both ways. This needs to stop.”

Public Enemy: Unmasking the Qatar Connections Read More »

Jewish Leaders’ Political Mistake in Spurning Trump

As a pro-Israel conservative and an observant Jew, I reject former President Donald Trump’s claim that Jews who vote for Democrats are “disloyal” to their community.

There are many reasons Jews vote for Democrats; some may believe, sincerely, that Democratic policies are better for Israel.

But Trump is right to note that Jewish institutions have not reciprocated his support for Jews or for Israel. In so doing, Jewish leaders may have made a fateful mistake.

Whatever one’s views of his other policies, there is no doubt that Trump was good to Israel.

He moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, fulfilling a bipartisan promise. He recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He defunded Palestinian institutions that support terror. He made these decisions over the objections of the State Department and even the Pentagon. That is why Israelis prefer Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris by a 66% to 17% margin.

For his trouble, Trump received almost no thanks whatsoever from the institutional Jewish community. Groups associated with the political right, like the Zionist Organization of America and the Republican Jewish Coalition, honored Trump for his efforts.

But mainstream Jewish institutions were relatively quiet, and some Jewish organizations even led the criticism of Trump whenever he made a perceived rhetorical misstep.

Trump was understandably puzzled and frustrated by the lack of gratitude. Hence his recent comments, at a conference of the Israeli American Council (IAC), that even 40% of the Jewish vote was unacceptable, given his unprecedented support for Israel.

Jewish voters could make the difference, he observed, adding — in a remark that was later taken out of context — that if he lost to Kamala Harris in the end, “the Jewish people would have a lot to do with the loss.”

Trump was not threatening anyone. Nevertheless, Jewish organizations condemned him. Few were inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

One can imagine that Trump felt, once again, that he had been mistreated by the community, that his outreach to Jews had been met with hostility.

The obvious counterargument would be that Trump has said many things to offend the Jewish community. And I would concede that he has often chosen his words poorly. But many of the “worst” examples are fictional.

Trump never called neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Virginia, “very fine people,” for example. He said that they should be “condemned totally.” Both President Joe Biden and Vice President Harris have misconstrued his remarks, even after being fact-checked.

Meanwhile, when Trump was accused of being like Hitler, these same Jewish groups were eerily and shamefully quiet. You don’t have to support Trump to condemn the incendiary and dangerous association with an evil that caused the death of six million Jews, and can only exacerbate the alarming rise in antisemitism. 

While many Jewish organizations were joining the relentless bashing of Trump, something interesting was happening in the Muslim community.

Many Arab and Muslim American voters are upset over the war in the Middle East, believing that Biden and Harris have been too supportive of Israel (while Jewish critics believe they have not been supportive enough).

At first, these “Uncommitted” leaders planned to sit out the race; some ended up endorsing third party candidates like Jill Stein.

But a few Arab and Muslim leaders began to explore the idea of working with Trump.

Voting for Harris’s opponent is a stronger form of protest than wasting a vote. In addition, Trump had, after all, presided over four years of peace in the Middle East — and peace was better than war, even if the terms of that peace favored Israel. Moreover, Republican positions on social issues such as transgenderism are closer to the traditional values of the Muslim community.

There may have been another calculation as well. With Trump at odds with the institutional Jewish community, who rejected him despite his support for Israel, Arab and Muslim leaders may have seen a political opening.

Trump is, above all, a transactional leader, who reciprocates favors. If Muslim and Arab leaders backed him, they might not convince him to shift his pro-Israel policies, but they would at least earn a seat at the table when the Middle East came up.

Notably, Trump visited Dearborn, Michigan, last week, and received a warm welcome. Evidently at least some Arab American leaders and voters understand that their votes are more powerful when one party cannot take them for granted. Have we Jews learned that?

Jewish leaders did not have to endorse Trump. But they could have shown more gratitude in the past, and they could have tempered their contempt for him during this election season to benefit their relationship with a possible future president. If Trump wins, the institutional Jewish leadership could find itself frozen out. 

Trump will still be the most pro-Israel president, in my opinion, because he wants a stronger America, which benefits Israel.

Yet the organized Jewish community may find it has lost its political edge to a smarter, and growing, Arab and Muslim constituency.


Joel B. Pollak is senior editor-at-large at Breitbart News in Los Angeles.

Jewish Leaders’ Political Mistake in Spurning Trump Read More »