Marco Rubio's sanctions on a key UN antisemite may already be paying dividends
Just a week later, all three members of a UN Commission of Inquiry set up specifically to clobber Israel — Chairwoman Navi Pillay, Miloon Kothari and Chris Sidoti — quit.
That makes the horrific stink at Turtle Bay a bit less awful.
Advertisement
Albanese certainly deserves Rubio's sanctions. As the UN's Human Rights Council special rapporteur, her job is specifically to slap Israel for its supposed wrongdoing in the Palestinian territories — and she's done that with zest. (Even when the wrongdoing is fake, which is essentially all the time.)
She's smeared the Jewish state as a perpetrator of 'genocide,' called Gaza a 'concentration camp' and compared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler.
Advertisement
She's spread antisemitic tropes, belittled the Holocaust and pushed to unseat Israel from the United Nations itself.
She blasts the 'Jewish lobby' for ginning up support for Israel — a clear sign of her intolerance for democracy.
Indeed, her hatred of Israel runs so deep that she's even vilified American businesses, such as Microsoft and Amazon, that dare to partner with Israel.
And accused US tech companies of profiting from Israel's 'genocide,' demanding the International Criminal Court pursue prosecute them and their bosses.
Advertisement
The three members of the bash-Israel commission were no better.
Pillay, a former UN high commissioner of Human Rights, has called Israel an 'apartheid' state and demanded sanctions on it.
Kothari worked on a report meant to whitewash Palestinian terrorism as 'resistance' and falsely accuses Jerusalem of 'massacring' and 'ethnically cleansing' Palestinians.
Advertisement
Alas, their departure won't spell the end of the commission or its antisemitic raison d'être.
Nor will it put much of a dent in the UN's pervasive, monomaniacal bias against Israel, from Secretary-General António Guterres on down.
But if Rubio's sanctions mean that at least some of the world body's antisemites are beginning to pay a price, they're well worth it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
As Harvard and Trump head to court, the government piles on the pressure
Last week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement served subpoenas to Harvard with sprawling demands that included payroll records, years of disciplinary files and any videos Harvard had of international students protesting on campus since 2020, according to two people familiar with the subpoenas, some of which were reviewed by The New York Times. The agency gave the university a breakneck one-week deadline for compliance. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also this month, the administration formally accused the school of civil rights violations, arguing that Harvard had failed to protect Jewish people on campus. The government also complained to the university's accreditor, which could eventually jeopardize Harvard students' access to federal financial aid. Advertisement Even so, both sides have continued discussions toward a resolution of the government investigations into the school and the sprawling legal fights, though they have made limited headway. This account is drawn from conversations with four people familiar with negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid endangering the talks, and from public statements and court records. Harvard leaders are well aware that a long fight with the government is perilous, threatening jobs, projects, reputations and academic independence. Some inside the university have feared that civil inquiries could become criminal matters. Advertisement Trump administration officials are looking to secure the most significant victory of their ongoing pressure campaign on academia. They are seeking to balance the long-term advantage of their powerful hold on the government with the short-term reality of working for a president who regularly favors dealmaking over systemic policy changes. Negotiators have been exchanging communications about what the administration wants from Harvard and what the university may be willing to accept. But the outcome of the hearing in Boston on Monday could shift how much leverage each side has in the talks. The case that will be before Judge Allison D. Burroughs began in April, after the Trump administration began to cut off billions of dollars in federal grants to Harvard. The university sued to restore the funding, contending, among other arguments, that the administration's tactics were violating the university's First Amendment rights. On Monday, both Harvard and the government will try to persuade Burroughs to rule in their favor outright. Her decision will be a milestone in a case that could eventually reach the Supreme Court on appeal and is already being regarded by West Wing officials and Harvard leaders as another bargaining chip. Before the lawsuit, the administration sent Harvard an extraordinary list of conditions, including new policies on hiring, admissions and faculty influence, compulsory reports to the government and audits of academic programs and departments. Since then, although officials acknowledged that sending the letter was a mistake, the government has barely budged from the demands. Advertisement And Trump aides have regarded the university's proposals as insufficient and anodyne. 'The Trump administration's proposition is simple and common-sense: Don't allow antisemitism and DEI to run your campus, don't break the law, and protect the civil liberties of all students,' said Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson. 'We are confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the president's vision.' Harvard declined to comment. Drawing out the talks has some benefits, too. Polls have suggested many Americans have become more distrustful of higher education, and the government's campaign has demonstrated the vulnerabilities of elite schools, which Trump and his allies argue have been captive to liberal ideas. Trump administration officials have especially reveled in squeezing Harvard, which, like other major universities, is deeply reliant on federal research money. But even though polling also suggests that many Americans disapprove of the Trump White House's tactics toward colleges and universities, administration officials have given little indication they want to end a clash that some Republicans have long craved. University officials have been trying to balance a sense of urgency with the advantages Harvard has drawn from the fight, including a show of public support. Besides the possibility of reclaiming leverage in the talks, university officials feel that a favorable ruling from Burroughs would give them greater credibility and cover to sell students, faculty members, donors and others on a settlement. Some officials expect the university to insist that any accord grant a judge or another figure the authority to enforce the terms. Harvard, wary of the White House's whipsaw approach to dealmaking, is not believed to be interested in an informal arrangement. Lawrence H. Summers, a former Harvard president who has sometimes sharply criticized the university, said that the absence of an agreement would leave Harvard vulnerable to new inquiries and a steady flow of court fights. He said he believed that the 'vast majority' of people with close ties to the school 'want to see all of this in the rearview mirror, if that's achievable.' Advertisement But Summers said that the conditions of any agreement will drive whether Harvard faces an internal rebellion. 'If they tell us we have to take certain books out of our library, we have to say no to that. If they tell us certain people can't be on our faculty, we have to say no to that,' said Summers, who added: 'If they tell us we've got to follow the law on reverse discrimination, we can say yes to that.' Harvard, he suggested, should also be open to changing some of its leadership. How hard of a bargain either side can drive is expected to become clearer Monday, when lawyers for the university and the government go before Burroughs for their first substantive oral arguments in Harvard's signature case against the administration. (Burroughs is also presiding over another case involving the government's quest to keep Harvard from enrolling international students. She has granted the university a series of interim victories in that matter.) Harvard is expected to argue that the Trump administration is trampling on constitutional protections, as it seeks greater influence over the university's operations. Harvard is also making an array of technical arguments, including that the government failed to follow long-established, written procedures for revoking funding. The administration has argued that it had followed certain regulations and that the case is essentially a contract dispute. In a court submission, the Justice Department said that federal research funds were 'not charitable gratuities.' Advertisement 'Rather, the federal government grants funds to universities through contracts that include explicit conditions,' the Justice Department wrote, adding: 'If they fail to meet these conditions, the grants are subject to cancellation.' The government's lawyers also contend that an 1887 law means that the dispute should be moved out of the Boston federal court entirely. Rather, they argue, the case should be heard in Washington by a specialized court that considers claims related to money. Harvard, which has said that Burroughs should keep the case because it involves constitutional questions that go beyond dollars and cents, suggested in court filings that the government was presiding over a jumbled assault. In one this month, the university told Burroughs that even after the government said it was terminating many grants to Harvard, the Defense Department paid the university hundreds of thousands of dollars for a grant that had supposedly ended. The government's attempted hardball tactics against Harvard have a fan in Trump. After all, the president himself mused in April: 'What if we never pay them?' Linda McMahon, the education secretary, told Trump during a Cabinet meeting July 8 that the administration was 'negotiating hard' with Harvard and Columbia University, another elite school that the White House has targeted. 'It's not wrapped up as fast as I wanted to, but we're getting there,' McMahon said as the cameras rolled. ICE's subpoenas arrived in Cambridge later that afternoon. Harvard made no secret of its disdain the next day, openly eschewing any talk of reconciliation and decrying the subpoenas as 'unwarranted.' 'The administration's ongoing retaliatory actions come as Harvard continues to defend itself and its students, faculty and staff against harmful government overreach,' the university said. Harvard, it added, was 'unwavering in its efforts to protect its community and its core principles against unfounded retribution by the federal government.' Advertisement This article originally appeared in .
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
The exodus from New York City will only get worse under Mamdani
Much has been written about America's largest city edging closer to electing a socialist mayor. Zohran Mamdani recently won the Democratic primary, which is likely enough to secure the mayoralty of New York City. He still has to get through a general election that includes incumbent Eric Adams, now running as an independent. But Mamdani is in a strong position. How did Mamdani rise to the top of the ticket over Andrew Cuomo, a well-known but scandal-plagued former governor? He ran a calculated campaign focused on New York City's affordability crisis. He's promised free bus rides, city-run grocery stores, a $30 minimum wage, and rent freezes — all to be funded by the, in Mamdani's eyes, evil billionaires of the city. So have at it. If you're old enough to remember New York City before the 1990s, you've seen what can happen under dysfunctional leadership in one of the world's most important cities. But if Mamdani is indeed successful in implementing his policy ideas, expect one noticeable trend to continue and likely grow: the number of people leaving New York for greener pastures. While we may criticize bad ideas or bad policy, that's the beauty of the American federalist system. We often look to Washington for answers, but that's the wrong approach. State and local governments retain significant control over many aspects of our daily lives, including education, criminal justice, infrastructure, elections, and taxation. This decentralization creates a unique environment in which cities and states are free to innovate and compete. One of the most powerful aspects of federalism is that it allows states to serve as 'laboratories of democracy,' a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. States can experiment with new laws, policies and regulations tailored to the specific needs and preferences of their populations. When those policies are effective, they may be adopted by other states, and occasionally even by the federal government. When they fail, the impact is limited to that one jurisdiction. This system naturally fosters healthy competition among the states. Policymakers are incentivized to make their states more attractive for residents, workers, and businesses. That often means pursuing lower taxes, fewer regulations, safer communities, and better educational options. Much of the South, including Georgia, has benefited by adopting policies aimed at growing their economies, cutting red tape and reducing taxes. In doing so, they've attracted new residents and companies fleeing high-tax, high-regulation states like California, Illinois and, yes, New York. Partisans may put out rankings on who is the best or worst, but there is no more measurable sign of success (or failure) than people voting with their feet. This competition is real. States vie for jobs, investment, and talent. They actively court small and major corporations, touting their state's tax climate, workforce, and quality of life. When a company relocates its U.S. headquarters, or a family moves for a lower cost of living, that's federalism in action. Federalism also serves as a check on the national government. When Washington overreaches or fails to act, states can step in. During COVID-19, for example, states made widely varying decisions about lockdowns, mandates, and school closures. That diversity of approaches allowed for comparisons, corrections, and accountability — and, it turns out, it was one of the biggest drivers of out-migration from states like New York over the past five years. Ultimately, federalism ensures that no single ideology or governing model dominates the entire country. It gives Americans the freedom to choose where they live based not just on geography or climate, but on values, opportunity, and public policy. This freedom of movement and choice reinforces liberty and drives continual improvement. In the last five years of available Census information, 78,000 residents have moved from New York to Georgia. That wasn't because numerous families happened to break down on Interstate 95. It was intentional. If Mamdani is successful at putting socialism into action in New York City, expect those numbers to continue growing.
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Harvard is hoping court rules Trump administration's $2.6b research cuts were illegal
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's. Advertisement Harvard's lawsuit accuses President Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force. The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus. Advertisement Harvard President Alan Garber pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Advertisement Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.'
