Why is the Left so wrong on Israel?

Why is the Left so wrong on Israel?

By Michael Curtis
This piece is written more in sorrow than in anger. Why is the left so often wrog about Israel?
Israel is a great country that has its problems, as do all countries and organizations, and sometimes, in the words of President Barack Obama, does “do stupid things.” Israel’s political culture has been shaped by many factors, especially its Zionist ideology, the resilience it has developed in fighting four wars, and the impact of incessant terrorist attacks that have caused disruptions in the life of the country.

But by any token the country is a remarkable success. Israel has integrated people from more than 100 countries into a diverse mosaic pattern in a democratic society of tolerance and freedom of expression and religion, not withstanding the still-existing inequalities and differences with Palestinian Arabs. It compares favorably with other democratic nations, scientifically, economically, and culturally with the largest number of art museums per capita of any country in the world.

Why then is a considerable part of those who consider themselves on the left, many of whom are well-meaning even if some are rabid anti-Semites, so critical and even hostile to the State of Israel, often to a greater degree than they are to almost all other countries? Why do those who consider themselves on the political “left” so eager to criticize Israel almost automatically, rather than acknowledge the contributions to science, medicine, innovations, and culture made by Israel in its 65 years of existence? The obvious answer is the Palestinian issue.


Since the French Revolution of 1789 originated the political terms “left” and “right” they have symbolized opposing political positions and ideologies. The Left has stood as the party of movement, progressive, calling for a more egalitarian society, supporting the underdog, and ending oppression and injustice. The Right has generally been regarded as the party of order.

But what is a “leftist” position on politics in the Middle East? Does it approve of the Hamas Charter that calls for the extermination of Israel? Does it mean sympathy for Islamist extremism, some of which can be seen as “Islamo-Fascism,” or for tribal and ethnic bigotry of Arabs, or for Arab dictatorial systems, or for expressions of unrelenting hatred of Jews? The silence, or occasional lip service, of many who proudly define themselves as “leftist” on the rising tide of antisemitism today and frequently expressed by Palestinian officials, can only be regarded as moral perversity.
In his tongue in cheek article in Social Text in 1996, Alan Sokol expressed concern about the increasing prevalence on the left of “a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking… that denies the existence of objective realities.” This is unfortunately applicable to well-meaning leftists who have tended to accept the validity of the Palestinian Narrative of Victimhood, that Palestinians are the most oppressed people in the world, that Israel is a cruel oppressor, and that the Arab-Israeli dispute is the most important in the world.
Do leftists have any real sense of right and wrong concerning Israel? Who of them criticized the fellow leftist German writer Gunter Grass, who joined as a young man the Waffen SS during the war, for his poem of April 2012 in which he called Israel a threat to world peace and aggressive towards Iran?
The result is that many on the “left” are in effect reactionaries, approving or silent about the attacks on democratic systems and even on Western civilization itself. They do not applaud a country in which there are peaceful, honest, elections, rule by secular law, and gay marches through the streets of Tel Aviv. Rather, though they are violating principles of free speech and the value of discussion, they refuse to approve speeches by black females such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Condeleezza Rice, call for boycotts of Israeli academic institutions and intellectual exchange. This in itself suggests a lack of sincerity about leftist adherence to their ideals of multiculturalism and of identity politics.

The essential question is why the “left” has reservations about criticizing the non-democratic countries, and specifically about the religious fanaticism in Arab Muslim countries. Even more strikingly, why cannot the “left” understand the basic hatred of Palestinians, as expressed by Abbas Zaki, a leader of Fatah, when speaking on August 22, 2014, regarding rocket attacks on Israel, “I think the Palestinian people’s weapon is pure… they don’t want to kill… but there are no innocent Israelis.”
The “left” critics, like others holding different political views, are concerned with problems concerning the disputed territories in Palestine and surrounding areas. But why do legitimate differences of opinion about the solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict lead to mindless hostility and to Israel being regarded as a “pariah” state? It is true that Israel today is not a state with a Social Democratic ethos symbolized by kibbutzim. But why does this entail non-sensible accusations that Israel is a racist, imperialist, even an “apartheid” state, that has betrayed democratic ideals?

Proponents of the left, even those who were not anti-Semitic or Jews afraid of their Jewishness, or what Isaac Deutscher called “non-Jewish Jews,” always had doubts about Zionism. The traditional left saw the movement for Jewish self-determination as counter to universal socialism, and then, during the British Mandate, regarded Zionism as a tool of British imperialism, even though the Poale Zion, the party of David Ben-Gurion, was admitted into the Socialist International. Leftist perception of Israel became dogmatic with the so-called New Left in the late 1960s.

Of course, it is clear that after the god of communism has been proved a false god, except perhaps in North Korea and Cuba, leftists have no real lodestar to follow. As a substitute, they express a supposed concern about oppression by the West, and only by the West. Israel is seen as the remaining remnant of Western imperialism, as an associate or puppet of the U.S. trying to retain power in the Middle East.

Heroic struggle on behalf of Palestinians is typified as in the case of Edward Said by throwing rocks in June 2009 against an Israeli watchtower, or approving violence as a sign of individual authenticity as suggested by Jean-Paul Sartre and Carlo Fuentes. How many beheadings of innocent journalists and social workers have to take place before leftist begin to see the horrors of Islamist extremism and defend Western values?

Indeed, leftist moral indignation seems to relate only to actions of democratic countries. Or, outrageous behavior of Islamists is defended in bizarre terms: one instance is the explanation in June 2012 at Leeds University by Professor Gayatri Spivak of Columbia University. “Suicide bombing…and the planes of 9/11… is a purposive self-annihilation… they serenely destroy themselves (and many others) for the good of the cause.”

The difficult questions of Palestinian self-determination, of the disputed territories, of the refugees caused by the Arab aggression against Israel in May 1948, of the status of Jerusalem, of Israeli settlements, remain to be resolved by peaceful negotiation between the parties. They are issues on which the left can comment in rational and critical fashion. But the “leftists” who continually harp on the evils of “occupation” or discrimination are usually unaware of or discount the real factors, the main one being Palestinian intransigence, preventing the solution of alleged problems. Israel is not perfect and those problems have to be solved by discussion and negotiation. But the main one is the existential one, the survival of Israel.
Whatever one’s sympathy for the underdog, the Palestinians are not, in spite of leftist views, symbolic of those really fighting against colonial or oppressive rule in countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Their rhetoric is not addressed to helping their own people, nor on finding a way to live with Israel as a neighbor. Their expressions are to a large extent limited to hatred of the existence of the State of Israel, and frequently of Jews, irrespective of any particular Israeli actions.
Some leftists follow this point of view and its consequences. They ban drinking Coca Cola as they ban any relationship with cancer research in Israel. Some on the left have seen the pathological hated of Israel by Hamas as a radical political movement. They view homophobic, non-democratic, and religiously intolerant states and groups as worthy of support. One of the heroines of the left, Professor Judith Butler, referred on September 7, 2006 at UC Berkeley to the terrorist groups Hamas and Hizb'allah as “social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left.”

A final question: do those on the “left” supposedly concerned with the Palestinians approve of the goal expressed on October 29, 2006 by Mahmoud al-Zahar, Hamas' foreign minister? His statement is clear, “Israel is a vile entity that has been implanted on our soil, and has no historical, religious, or cultural legitimacy… We say no to recognizing Israel, regardless of the price we have to pay.” He said that the day “we expel the Jews” is drawing near, and that they are headed for annihilation.

The decent people of the left can only be taken seriously if they deal with all the fictions of this irrational statement, if they raise voices to distance themselves from this kind of rhetoric. They should undertake the more difficult challenge of rational analysis of complex problems, including the highly controversial one of Israeli settlements, rather than adhere emotionally to a questionable Palestinian narrative of oppression.

This piece is written more in sorrow than in anger. Why is the left so often wrog about Israel?
Israel is a great country that has its problems, as do all countries and organizations, and sometimes, in the words of President Barack Obama, does “do stupid things.” Israel’s political culture has been shaped by many factors, especially its Zionist ideology, the resilience it has developed in fighting four wars, and the impact of incessant terrorist attacks that have caused disruptions in the life of the country.

But by any token the country is a remarkable success. Israel has integrated people from more than 100 countries into a diverse mosaic pattern in a democratic society of tolerance and freedom of expression and religion, not withstanding the still-existing inequalities and differences with Palestinian Arabs. It compares favorably with other democratic nations, scientifically, economically, and culturally with the largest number of art museums per capita of any country in the world.

Why then is a considerable part of those who consider themselves on the left, many of whom are well-meaning even if some are rabid anti-Semites, so critical and even hostile to the State of Israel, often to a greater degree than they are to almost all other countries? Why do those who consider themselves on the political “left” so eager to criticize Israel almost automatically, rather than acknowledge the contributions to science, medicine, innovations, and culture made by Israel in its 65 years of existence? The obvious answer is the Palestinian issue.
Since the French Revolution of 1789 originated the political terms “left” and “right” they have symbolized opposing political positions and ideologies. The Left has stood as the party of movement, progressive, calling for a more egalitarian society, supporting the underdog, and ending oppression and injustice. The Right has generally been regarded as the party of order.

But what is a “leftist” position on politics in the Middle East? Does it approve of the Hamas Charter that calls for the extermination of Israel? Does it mean sympathy for Islamist extremism, some of which can be seen as “Islamo-Fascism,” or for tribal and ethnic bigotry of Arabs, or for Arab dictatorial systems, or for expressions of unrelenting hatred of Jews? The silence, or occasional lip service, of many who proudly define themselves as “leftist” on the rising tide of antisemitism today and frequently expressed by Palestinian officials, can only be regarded as moral perversity.


In his tongue in cheek article in Social Text in 1996, Alan Sokol expressed concern about the increasing prevalence on the left of “a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking… that denies the existence of objective realities.” This is unfortunately applicable to well-meaning leftists who have tended to accept the validity of the Palestinian Narrative of Victimhood, that Palestinians are the most oppressed people in the world, that Israel is a cruel oppressor, and that the Arab-Israeli dispute is the most important in the world.
Do leftists have any real sense of right and wrong concerning Israel? Who of them criticized the fellow leftist German writer Gunter Grass, who joined as a young man the Waffen SS during the war, for his poem of April 2012 in which he called Israel a threat to world peace and aggressive towards Iran?
The result is that many on the “left” are in effect reactionaries, approving or silent about the attacks on democratic systems and even on Western civilization itself. They do not applaud a country in which there are peaceful, honest, elections, rule by secular law, and gay marches through the streets of Tel Aviv. Rather, though they are violating principles of free speech and the value of discussion, they refuse to approve speeches by black females such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Condeleezza Rice, call for boycotts of Israeli academic institutions and intellectual exchange. This in itself suggests a lack of sincerity about leftist adherence to their ideals of multiculturalism and of identity politics.

The essential question is why the “left” has reservations about criticizing the non-democratic countries, and specifically about the religious fanaticism in Arab Muslim countries. Even more strikingly, why cannot the “left” understand the basic hatred of Palestinians, as expressed by Abbas Zaki, a leader of Fatah, when speaking on August 22, 2014, regarding rocket attacks on Israel, “I think the Palestinian people’s weapon is pure… they don’t want to kill… but there are no innocent Israelis.”
The “left” critics, like others holding different political views, are concerned with problems concerning the disputed territories in Palestine and surrounding areas. But why do legitimate differences of opinion about the solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict lead to mindless hostility and to Israel being regarded as a “pariah” state? It is true that Israel today is not a state with a Social Democratic ethos symbolized by kibbutzim. But why does this entail non-sensible accusations that Israel is a racist, imperialist, even an “apartheid” state, that has betrayed democratic ideals?

Proponents of the left, even those who were not anti-Semitic or Jews afraid of their Jewishness, or what Isaac Deutscher called “non-Jewish Jews,” always had doubts about Zionism. The traditional left saw the movement for Jewish self-determination as counter to universal socialism, and then, during the British Mandate, regarded Zionism as a tool of British imperialism, even though the Poale Zion, the party of David Ben-Gurion, was admitted into the Socialist International. Leftist perception of Israel became dogmatic with the so-called New Left in the late 1960s.

Of course, it is clear that after the god of communism has been proved a false god, except perhaps in North Korea and Cuba, leftists have no real lodestar to follow. As a substitute, they express a supposed concern about oppression by the West, and only by the West. Israel is seen as the remaining remnant of Western imperialism, as an associate or puppet of the U.S. trying to retain power in the Middle East.

Heroic struggle on behalf of Palestinians is typified as in the case of Edward Said by throwing rocks in June 2009 against an Israeli watchtower, or approving violence as a sign of individual authenticity as suggested by Jean-Paul Sartre and Carlo Fuentes. How many beheadings of innocent journalists and social workers have to take place before leftist begin to see the horrors of Islamist extremism and defend Western values?

Indeed, leftist moral indignation seems to relate only to actions of democratic countries. Or, outrageous behavior of Islamists is defended in bizarre terms: one instance is the explanation in June 2012 at Leeds University by Professor Gayatri Spivak of Columbia University. “Suicide bombing…and the planes of 9/11… is a purposive self-annihilation… they serenely destroy themselves (and many others) for the good of the cause.”

The difficult questions of Palestinian self-determination, of the disputed territories, of the refugees caused by the Arab aggression against Israel in May 1948, of the status of Jerusalem, of Israeli settlements, remain to be resolved by peaceful negotiation between the parties. They are issues on which the left can comment in rational and critical fashion. But the “leftists” who continually harp on the evils of “occupation” or discrimination are usually unaware of or discount the real factors, the main one being Palestinian intransigence, preventing the solution of alleged problems. Israel is not perfect and those problems have to be solved by discussion and negotiation. But the main one is the existential one, the survival of Israel.
Whatever one’s sympathy for the underdog, the Palestinians are not, in spite of leftist views, symbolic of those really fighting against colonial or oppressive rule in countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Their rhetoric is not addressed to helping their own people, nor on finding a way to live with Israel as a neighbor. Their expressions are to a large extent limited to hatred of the existence of the State of Israel, and frequently of Jews, irrespective of any particular Israeli actions.
Some leftists follow this point of view and its consequences. They ban drinking Coca Cola as they ban any relationship with cancer research in Israel. Some on the left have seen the pathological hated of Israel by Hamas as a radical political movement. They view homophobic, non-democratic, and religiously intolerant states and groups as worthy of support. One of the heroines of the left, Professor Judith Butler, referred on September 7, 2006 at UC Berkeley to the terrorist groups Hamas and Hizb'allah as “social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left.”

A final question: do those on the “left” supposedly concerned with the Palestinians approve of the goal expressed on October 29, 2006 by Mahmoud al-Zahar, Hamas' foreign minister? His statement is clear, “Israel is a vile entity that has been implanted on our soil, and has no historical, religious, or cultural legitimacy… We say no to recognizing Israel, regardless of the price we have to pay.” He said that the day “we expel the Jews” is drawing near, and that they are headed for annihilation.

The decent people of the left can only be taken seriously if they deal with all the fictions of this irrational statement, if they raise voices to distance themselves from this kind of rhetoric. They should undertake the more difficult challenge of rational analysis of complex problems, including the highly controversial one of Israeli settlements, rather than adhere emotionally to a questionable Palestinian narrative of oppression.



Read more: http://americanthinker.com/2014/10/w...#ixzz3FTPzuatB
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

All I can say is, "FUCK YEAH!"

I doubt there is one person "on the left" (whatever that means) out of a thousand that agrees with the crazy haji's who think Israel has no right to exist. If they do believe that, they aren't on the left, they're just another fanatic.

On the other hand, a lot of us think that turning a completely blind eye to Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinian people, among other things Israel does, badly serves US interests. Israel needs to start being more of an ally like Britain, Canada or France instead of the totally dependent creature it is right now. It would be better for Israel and better for us.

the rocket attacks are such a pet peeve of mine..

The rockets are so worthless. Rarely does one of these rockets even injure someone anymore. Israel's reaction to rockets is like someone shooting a guy for slapping his hat off. I stopped checking up on their situation some months back, after a few week span where the body count between Israeli air strikes and pally rockets was 200ish to 1.

Hey Israel, do what you think you need to do, but stop with the rockets excuse. It's embarassing.

the rocket attacks are such a pet peeve of mine..

The rockets are so worthless. Rarely does one of these rockets even injure someone anymore. Israel's reaction to rockets is like someone shooting a guy for slapping his hat off. I stopped checking up on their situation some months back, after a few week span where the body count between Israeli air strikes and pally rockets was 200ish to 1.

Hey Israel, do what you think you need to do, but stop with the rockets excuse. It's embarassing. Originally Posted by Koontz

The entire exercise is ridiculous and pre-determined.....and has been going on since I can remember..... The rockets are gestures. And so is the Israeli retaliation, even though it is markedly more effective....and lethal.....better weapons....the ones we give/sell them.

I doubt there is one person "on the left" (whatever that means) out of a thousand that agrees with the crazy haji's who think Israel has no right to exist. If they do believe that, they aren't on the left, they're just another fanatic.

On the other hand, a lot of us think that turning a completely blind eye to Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinian people, among other things Israel does, badly serves US interests. Israel needs to start being more of an ally like Britain, Canada or France instead of the totally dependent creature it is right now. It would be better for Israel and better for us. Originally Posted by timpage

We were suppose to dump Israel a long time ago. After all what would America want with a little strip of land inhabiting only eight million people as a defacto allied country. Oh that's right they have one of the best Air forces in the world after we trained and funded them. I guess it's best we keep up our investment.

Jim

The entire exercise is ridiculous and pre-determined.....and has been going on since I can remember..... The rockets are gestures. And so is the Israeli retaliation, even though it is markedly more effective....and lethal.....better weapons....the ones we give/sell them. Originally Posted by timpage

Why don't they just aim a few rockets your way, asshole, and then see how you feel about them.
If rocket fire was raining down on South Dallas, you wouldn't like it, no matter how many of your neighbors got killed.

the rocket attacks are such a pet peeve of mine..

The rockets are so worthless. Rarely does one of these rockets even injure someone anymore. Israel's reaction to rockets is like someone shooting a guy for slapping his hat off. I stopped checking up on their situation some months back, after a few week span where the body count between Israeli air strikes and pally rockets was 200ish to 1.

Hey Israel, do what you think you need to do, but stop with the rockets excuse. It's embarassing. Originally Posted by Koontz

Hey you Nazi scumbag.....the Iron Dome only knocks out 90% of the rockets....the Israeli have to constantly hide in bomb shelters.....

If the Palestinians don't want to get the shit kicked out of them, then they should stop attacking Israel.......

Hey you Nazi scumbag.....the Iron Dome only knocks out 90% of the rockets....the Israeli have to constantly hide in bomb shelters.....

If the Palestinians don't want to get the shit kicked out of them, then they should stop attacking Israel.......

Originally Posted by LowRider69

And there you go. Be critical of Israel and you immediately get called names. That's reeeeaaally taking the easy way out. Funny, you call me a NAZI, but Israel is the one committing genocide.

You're being irrational. Get back to basics, and count the bodies on both sides. I have no patience for hamas, but neither am I going to play along with this rockets excuse. It's deeper than rockets, and using that excuse in the forefront when presented with the actual numbers of effectiveness is absolutely absurd.

Shall we present a NAZI checklist and see who falls where between me and IDF? Mass casualty bombings, heavy propaganda, borderline genocide (fighting age males), mandatory military service.

Israel is just as dark and screwed up as the rest of our countries. Stop playing the victim. The situation will be played out regardless. Stop being babies and take criticism like the rest of us.

..the rockets are shit. Use the real reasons. It's fine.

And there you go. Be critical of Israel and you immediately get called names. That's reeeeaaally taking the easy way out. Funny, you call me a NAZI, but Israel is the one committing genocide.

You're being irrational. Get back to basics, and count the bodies on both sides. I have no patience for hamas, but neither am I going to play along with this rockets excuse. It's deeper than rockets, and using that excuse in the forefront when presented with the actual numbers of effectiveness is absolutely absurd.

Shall we present a NAZI checklist and see who falls where between me and IDF? Mass casualty bombings, heavy propaganda, borderline genocide (fighting age males), mandatory military service.

Israel is just as dark and screwed up as the rest of our countries. Stop playing the victim. The situation will be played out regardless. Stop being babies and take criticism like the rest of us.

..the rockets are shit. Use the real reasons. It's fine. Originally Posted by Koontz

You ignorant cocksucker

You ignorant cocksucker Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Explain?

Explain? Originally Posted by Koontz

Everything you said was idiotic, misinformed, and stupid.

Everything you said was idiotic, misinformed, and stupid. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

How so? I said real things. I tell you what, I'll take back the genocide thing. That's an exaggeration.

Now can we meet in the middle and you tell me what else in my post was untrue? I'll gladly elaborate on any specific part of your choosing.

Really though, my only complaint is the rockets excuse. The rest is just add ons in defense of myself after getting called nazi. However, I can't even have that. No criticism allowed without defamation of my character.

We were suppose to dump Israel a long time ago. After all what would America want with a little strip of land inhabiting only eight million people as a defacto allied country. Oh that's right they have one of the best Air forces in the world after we trained and funded them. I guess it's best we keep up our investment.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Nobody is talking about dumping Israel. What is it with you people? Try to focus.

With the key words in your paragraph being "we trained and funded them".....Israel would do well to remember that. They exist because of us. No other reason. As a result, they would do well to do our bidding, at least every once in a while....instead of consistently taking positions that alienate us to most of the nations around the world. They treat us like shit because we have let them do so. We ought to be the dog, Israel the tail, not the other way around.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2014100...t-garrett.html

Qatar Awareness Campaign: Letter to Cornell University and President
Published on Wednesday, 08 October 2014 07:13 Published on Wednesday, 08 October 2014 07:13 Written by Qatar Awareness Campaign

Qatar Awareness Campaign LogoElizabeth Garrett Office of the President
300 Day Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853


Dear Ms. Garrett:
Congratulations on your recent appointment to President of Cornell University! We hope you take this opportunity to examine Weill Cornell Medical College’s extensive relationship with a state sponsor of terrorism.
This letter is being sent to you on behalf of the Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition. The purpose is to inform you and the public of the activities of Qatar, the country whose capital hosts a campus of Weill Cornell Medical College. Since 2001, the Qatar Foundation has borne all campus development costs associated with the campus in Doha’s Education City.

Cornell University, an Ivy League institution, is one of the most respected institutions of higher learning in the nation, and indeed the world. Weill Cornell Medical College, which became affiliated with Cornell in 1998, is one of the most prestigious and selective medical schools.

Following the Hamas attack on Israel this summer, Cornell’s presence in Doha, Qatar came under scrutiny by Jewish organizations. Qatar is an open supporter of the Gaza-based terrorist group, which fired thousands of rockets at Israel in July and August, killing and wounding dozens of innocent Israelis. Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center called Cornell’s presence in Qatar “outrageous,” while the Zionist Organization of America called on Cornell and other American universities to “end or suspend their programs in Qatar.”

In light of these events, we urge to you read the information below, which includes evidence that Qatar is arguably the preeminent sponsor of terror in the world today. It is a benefactor of the genocidal armies of ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram; it is involved in Taliban narcotics trafficking through a relationship with the Pakistani National Logistics Cell; and profits from operating a virtual slave state. Qatar has leveraged its relationships with violent jihadi groups to its own benefit, and to the detriment of the United States and her allies.

So the public understands why this letter is addressed to you, Cornell’s past and current activity suggest a growing partnership between Cornell and the terror-sponsoring Gulf state:

*In 2001, the Qatar Foundation funded an initiative in Doha, the Education City. It welcomed six American universities, Weill Cornell, among them (in 2001), to build campuses in the complex. The Qatar Foundation, which has noted links to terrorism, pays all associated campus development costs.

*In 2004, Bill Clinton and Al Gore both visited Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar. In 2013, Qatar donated between $1-$5 mil to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation; also in 2013, Al Gore sold CurrentTV to (Doha-based) Al Jazeera, profiting personally a reported $100 million.

*Despite recent criticism, Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar announced in September their intentions to expand their presence, partnering with the Qatari medical company Aspetar for clinical trials and education.

*Sheikh Mohammed Hamad Jassim Al-Thani, MBBChB, the Director of Public Health for the Supreme Council of Health in Doha, Qatar, is on the faculty of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York (since 2011).

The QAC Coalition and petitioners ask that you consider the attached sourced report on Qatar's activities. The links cited are vetted and credible sources. We hope you take the time to verify the truth of the statements for yourself.
After doing so, the Coalition of the Qatar Awareness Campaign calls on you to exert due influence on the Qatari government to cease any type of involvement in all forms of Islamic terrorism, slavery, and drug trafficking!
Sincerely
Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US Army, Ret)
AllenBWest.com
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr
Center for Security Policy Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs Walid Shoebat
Shoebat.com
Charles Ortel
Washington Times Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret)
Chairman, Stand Up America Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch