When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Earlier today John Aravosis decided to rightly tear the bark off of Waleed Shahid:
You’re not a Democrat, you’re a self-proclaimed socialist & former Bernie staffer who works for an organization founded by the Young Turks. An organization that specifically targets Dems. So it’s no wonder you think Dems are bad. It’s in your self-interest to bash Dems, & you do. https://t.co/Zaz9UkItMk
— John Aravosis 🇺🇸 (@aravosis) April 13, 2019
The far-socialist left exists to get rid of the rest of us actual progressives and actual Democrats. So when folks wish that we wouldn’t attack each other, maybe take your concern to people like Waleed Shahid & the Young Turks, whose life mission is to attack Democrats.
— John Aravosis 🇺🇸 (@aravosis) April 13, 2019
Justice Dems, the socialist organization founded by a Young Turk, has already openly declared war on the Democratic party & expressed a desire to rip the party apart. So if folks are worried about why we can’t play nice, have a chat with Waleed Shahid, the guy who wants a war.
— John Aravosis 🇺🇸 (@aravosis) April 13, 2019
Since I don’t tweet, I thought I’d link to and reprise some of my takedown of Shaheed’s attempt to misrepresent Senator Feinstein’s actions back in February, which was fresh on the heels of his attempt to do the same thing to Senator Harris. In both cases he barbered video footage until he got the out of context material he wanted and then weaponized it on Twitter. And I’d appreciate it if those of you who do tweet would tweet this at Aravosis.
Anyhow, as I wrote back in February:
Earlier today Waleed Shahid, fresh off of getting dragged for posting barbered and highly edited clips of Senator Harris from her town hall on his twitter feed several weeks ago, decided it was time to set his sights on the senior senator from California. As I suspected in the comments to an earlier post, Shahid had once again posted heavily edited videos on his twitter feed to go after someone that doesn’t measure up to his purity fanaticism. Fortunately, just like the last time, someone came along to set the record straight.
Shahid was once again full of shit, imagine that!!!!
Unfortunately, for all too many, Shahid’s lies will have already been taken as the gospel truth. It is bad enough that Democratic candidates and Democratic officeholders, as well as the organizations and individuals who support them, are going to be subjected to influence operations from the Russians, as well as a host of other state and non-state actors as we move into the 2020 elections, they shouldn’t have to also worry about being targeted by ideological fanatics like Shahid.
And as for the Justice Democrats, apparently they are running a protection scam where they require the candidates they endorse to send them funds rather than raise funds and send them to the candidates they’re endorsing!
These fanatics aren’t interested in making things better, they are interested in promoting themselves, fleecing their donors, and ultimately tearing down the people that have the only real chance of ending the current President’s reelection chances and then beginning the long, hard, slow, and frustrating work of fixing all of the messes that the President, his administration, and his Republican Party and conservative movement enablers have created. I’m all for opening up the debate and pulling the center back somewhere closer to where it should be from where the Republicans and the conservative movement have pulled it for over the past 40 years. Waleed Shahid, the Justice Democrats, his fellow travelers, and their attempt to create an ideological inflexible Tea Party and Breitbart of the left is not the solution to any of these problems.
As I’ve been writing here for almost three years, we were attacked and are still being attacked by a hostile foreign power! We are at war! But rather than everyone that isn’t supporting the domestic beneficiaries of the ongoing attacks – the President, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement that supports them – pulling together to fix our problems, Shahid and his fellow travelers would rather do the enemy’s work for them and pull us apart. With “friends” like these, Democrats, liberals, progressives, the center left to left of center Americans don’t actually need enemies.
I wish that headline was hyperbole, but it isn’t. And I wish I didn’t have to write it, but somebody does. And I want to make it clear that it is unacceptable that there are several men, all of them white, who self describe themselves as “patriots” and good “Christians”, and unfortunately, probably a few who self describe as “good Jews”, who are right now thinking about assassinating Congresswoman Omar, including how they would personally go about doing it. Unfortunately the simple truth is that in the United States, in 2019, this is most likely happening. The only good news, if you even want to call it that, is that the vast majority of these political snuff fantasies are just that: snuff fantasies. They will never be attempted. Unfortunately, there will be at least one, if not more than one, of the men who are fantasizing about striking a blow for America, the flag, mom, apple pie, and God in order to cleanse the Republic of the Islamic menace that they believe Congresswoman Omar poses who will actually try. And unlike Patrick Carlineo, the self described “patriot” and lover of the President, they won’t call in a threat first and, because they’re considerate in regard to the busy lives of the US Capitol Police Department, give their names to whichever staffer happens to answer the phone.
Congresswoman Omar is a target right now because one of her colleagues, Congressman Dan Crenshaw, decided to retweet a fake imam who both took Congresswoman Omar’s quote out of context in order to amplify and weaponize it against her and other Muslims and who, because he does this type of thing regularly, has become a darling of hard right politicians who would normally not give him the time of day.
First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as “some people who did something”.
— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) April 9, 2019
Mohamed Tawhidi never completed his clerical training, he isn’t even a Hujat al Islam, which is the lowest rank of cleric within Twelver Shi’ism, but he does have a really big turban* He is, however, a self righteous fraud used by non-Muslim politicians to beat up on Muslims. Basically, Mohamed Tawhidi is the Candace Owens of Stephen Millers. (emphasis below is mine)
In the space of just 12 months, a man called Mohammad Tawhidi has come out of nowhere to become one of the most prominent Muslim voices in the Australian media.
Imam Tawhidi claims to be a Muslim leader — and a brave Muslim reformer.
Through his appearances in the mainstream media, Imam Tawhidi has warned that Australia is being “infested by extremist Muslims”.
“When I am worried about what I see is happening from my community and religion, trust me that there is something going on,” he told the Seven Network’s Today Tonight program on February 27, 2017.
On social media, his supporters, some from right wing groups, support his calls to shut down Muslim schools and ban Muslims from the Middle East coming to Australia.
But strangely for a Muslim leader, he has very few supporters in the Muslim community.
He has no mosque, and only a handful of followers. And just as curiously, he only appeared in the media for the first time just over a year ago.
So who was he before he became a media star?
This is what Imam Tawhidi claims about his educational qualifications:
“I travelled to Iran, to the holy city of Qom, in 2007, and I engaged in my Islamic studies from there. I received my bachelor’s degree and my master’s degree in Islamic theology from the Al-Mustafa University.”
– Mohammad Tawhidi, 2GB, May 25, 2017
But Al-Mustafa International University in Iran says Imam Tawhidi has no bachelor’s degree from their university, let alone a master’s.
He started at the university, but dropped out.
In a letter, Al-Mustafa International University said:
“In spite of given warnings and notifications, the above-named person did not take heed of them each time and had not satisfactory academic record in his courses … he was placed on probation and [dropped] out on March 27, 2012 … the aforesaid person has no educational degree (or any given score) in his profile … Al-Mustafa University does not recommend Mohammad Touhidi for lecturing in any way. Accordingly, he has no competency to do religious activities or to preach sermons.”
His own teacher seems to contradict his teachings
Imam Tawhidi says he is a moderate Muslim reformer — but his very recent past shows he has connections to a religious leader who is anything but moderate.
After Imam Tawhidi dropped out of university, he fell in with a fringe seminary school in Iran, run by a controversial religious family known as the Shirazis.
Imam Tawhidi studied under its senior cleric, the Grand Ayatollah Sayid Sadiq Husseini Shirazi, and later went to work in one of the Shirazi-run TV stations in Iraq.
In February 2016, when Imam Tawhidi set up his Islamic Association of South Australia in Adelaide, Ayatollah Shirazi put out a press release in Iran claiming a connection with Imam Tawhidi and this new Australian-based organisation.
However, the beliefs of Ayatollah Shirazi are not at all aligned with the moderate brand of Islam that Imam Tawhidi calls for when he appears on Australian television.
For example, central to Ayatollah Shirazi’s teachings is the insistence on an Islamic system of government, not a secular democracy.
Ayatollah Shirazi also teaches that women should be covered head to toe, and are not suited to holding positions in government, and that it is permissible for a girl to marry from the age of nine.
There is much more exposing the fraud that is Mohamed Tawhidi at the link. Unfortunately, all Congressman Crenshaw saw was someone claiming to be a Muslim cleric bashing Congresswoman Omar for saying something she didn’t say, which gave him both an excuse and a rhetorical weapon to go after Congresswoman Omar to score political points. This was, unfortunately, all Congressman Crenshaw was actually interested in.
So what did Congresswoman Omar actually say? Not the barbered clip taken out of context, but the actual remarks? I’m glad you asked. Here are the full set of the remarks before the barbered clip put out by Tawhidi and then amplified by Congressman Crenshaw. This portion of her remarks begin around the 12 minute mark of her speech and immediately follow Congresswoman Omar discussing how Muslims, in regard to fully claiming their civil liberties, can liberate themselves.
Muslims for a really long time in this country have been told that there is a privilege. That there is a privilege in that we are given and it might be taken away. We are told that we should be appropriate. We should go to school, get an education, raise our children, and not bother anyone. Not make any kind of noise. Don’t make anyone uncomfortable. Be a good Muslim. But no matter how much we have tried to be the best neighbor people have always worked on finding a way to not allow for every single civil liberty to be extended to us.
(Aside to someone in the audience: you can clap for that…)
So the truth is you can go to school and be a good student. You can listen to your dad and mom and become a doctor. You can have that beautiful wedding that makes mom and dad happy. You can buy that beautiful house. But none of that stuff matters if you one day show up to the hospital and your wife, or maybe yourself, is having a baby, and you can’t have the access that you need because someone doesn’t recognize you as fully human.
It doesn’t matter how good you were if you can’t have your prayer mat and take your 15-minute break to go pray in a country that was founded on religious liberty. It doesn’t matter how good you are if you one day find yourself in a school where other religions are talked about, but when Islam is mentioned, we are only talking about terrorists. And if you say something, you are sent to the principal’s office. So to me, I say, raise hell; make people uncomfortable.
Because here’s the truth — here’s the truth: Far too long, we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen, and frankly, I’m tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it. CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties. So you can’t just say that today someone is looking at me strange, that I am going to try to make myself look pleasant. You have to say, “This person is looking at me strange. I am not comfortable with it. I am going to go talk to them and ask them why.” Because that is a right you have.
And here’s the video so you can watch the entire speech and draw your own conclusions:
It is well documented that Muslim Americans, as well as those mistakenly identified as Muslims in America, such as Sikhs and non Muslim Arab Americans and non Muslim Americans whose families originated on the sub-continent/southeast Asia and from parts of sub-Saharan Africa, faced serious threats to and violations of their civil rights and liberties from all levels of government and law enforcement after 9-11. The NY Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights actually conducted an investigation into these issues. Among their conclusions were (emphasis mine):
1. In the aftermath of 9/11, it was important that law enforcement authorities at all levels of government take steps to respond to the threat of terrorism. However, some actions have adversely affected the civil rights of immigrants and nonimmigrants, particularly members of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities. Policies of particular concern are the federal government’s expanded authority to detain nonimmigrants without charge, to hold detainees with no possibility for release on bond, and, when final deportation orders have been issued, to subject detainees to prolonged confinement. Other policies of concern are the federal government’s Call-In Special Registration program and sharing of national databases on immigration status with state and local police.
2. There are parallels between the racial profiling of Japanese Americans during World War II, pre-9/11 profiling of African Americans and Hispanic Americans, and post-9/11 profiling of Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians. Racial profiling has been statistically proven by government studies, including the New York State Attorney General’s 1999 study of stop-and-frisk practices, to be an ineffective law enforcement tool for identifying criminal conduct. Much racial profiling of African Americans and Latinos continues unnoticed in the post-9/11 law enforcement environment. Beyond law enforcement acts of racial profiling related to drug prevention and street crime, racial profiling has taken on new dimensions targeting Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians regarding business license violations, financial transactions abroad, and international travel at airports.
3. There is a perception that local law enforcement authorities did not take seriously the complaints of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian residents who were subjected to hate crimes in acts of misplaced retaliation for the events of September 11. This has been an issue in the taxi industry, where many drivers are South Asian in origin. In the immediate months following 9/11, South Asian taxi drivers found themselves particularly vulnerable to attacks and in need of police protection.
4. The federal Call-In Special Registration program requiring male nationals 16 years and older from predominantly Muslim countries to register is seen by some as a form of racial profiling, targeting Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians. The program ceased after nationals from predominantly Muslim countries had registered.
5. In New York City, implementation of the Call-In Special Registration program was marked by a lack of community education on the program’s requirements, excessive processing times lasting 14 hours or more, lack of sufficiently trained interviewers and translators, and inconsistent application of policies.
6. Persons required to undergo special registration in New York City were deprived of the right to counsel while interrogated by the investigations unit of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service), when they were most vulnerable. If registrants were placed in detention, families were not informed of their whereabouts.
In sum, the law enforcement policies and practices described above pose a threat to civil rights and civil liberties, especially within New York’s Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities. These programs may be counterproductive. They fuel distrust of law enforcement authorities among many members of affected communities, hinder local reporting of crimes, and diminish the cooperation between local police and community members necessary to identify and thwart future terrorists.
Unfortunately Congressman Crenshaw’s political and rhetorical attack was picked up and transmitted by Brian Kilmeade, the left boob of Fox News’ morning show A Blonde with Two Boobs on a Sofa, which is also doing business as the President’s Daily Briefing. And that’s how it got to the President who then decided to take the gasoline pump, turn it on, pump gasoline all over, light a match, and throw it in. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post decided that wasn’t a visible enough conflagration, so they threw a crate of fire crackers onto the pyre.
All of this, from the fake imam who conservatives and extremists on the right love to quote to Congressman Crenshaw doing exactly what you’d expect him to do in amplifying and weaponizing Tawhidi’s rhetorical hit job to the President finding a way of making it all about him because he cannot stand it if anyone else is getting any coverage to Rupert Murdoch’s minions making it worse, the die has been cast. Right now, somewhere in the United States, at least one white man who most likely describes himself as both a “patriot” and a “good Christian”, but possibly a “good Jew”, is planning to assassinate Congresswoman Omar in order to save the Republic from her. And at least one of these white men will be smart about what they are doing. They will hold their planning close. They will not make a threatening phone call and leave their real names with a staffer. They won’t tweet that they’re going to shoot her or cut her throat or whatever other snuff fantasy gets them off. They will, instead, quietly plan all while stewing in their own juices until their own internal pressure has built to the point where they decide to take action. And that day, which will, unfortunately, eventually come, will be a very, very, very bad day for America.
Finally, this is the creed of the Navy Seal. The creed that Congressman Crenshaw adopted professional fealty too as a Navy Special Warfare Officer. It might be a good idea for Congressman Crenshaw to reread the creed and take it to heart. (emphasis mine)
In times of war or uncertainty there is a special breed of warrior ready to answer our Nation’s call. A common man with uncommon desire to succeed. Forged by adversity, he stands alongside America’s finest special operations forces to serve his country, the American people, and protect their way of life. I am that man.
My Trident is a symbol of honor and heritage. Bestowed upon me by the heroes that have gone before, it embodies the trust of those I have sworn to protect. By wearing the Trident I accept the responsibility of my chosen profession and way of life. It is a privilege that I must earn every day.
My loyalty to Country and Team is beyond reproach. I humbly serve as a guardian to my fellow Americans always ready to defend those who are unable to defend themselves. I do not advertise the nature of my work, nor seek recognition for my actions. I voluntarily accept the inherent hazards of my profession, placing the welfare and security of others before my own.
I serve with honor on and off the battlefield. The ability to control my emotions and my actions, regardless of circumstance, sets me apart from other men. Uncompromising integrity is my standard. My character and honor are steadfast. My word is my bond.
We expect to lead and be led. In the absence of orders I will take charge, lead my teammates and accomplish the mission. I lead by example in all situations.
I will never quit. I persevere and thrive on adversity. My Nation expects me to be physically harder and mentally stronger than my enemies. If knocked down, I will get back up, every time. I will draw on every remaining ounce of strength to protect my teammates and to accomplish our mission. I am never out of the fight.
We demand discipline. We expect innovation. The lives of my teammates and the success of our mission depend on me – my technical skill, tactical proficiency, and attention to detail. My training is never complete.
We train for war and fight to win. I stand ready to bring the full spectrum of combat power to bear in order to achieve my mission and the goals established by my country. The execution of my duties will be swift and violent when required yet guided by the very principles that I serve to defend.
Brave men have fought and died building the proud tradition and feared reputation that I am bound to uphold. In the worst of conditions, the legacy of my teammates steadies my resolve and silently guides my every deed. I will not fail.
Congressman Crenshaw: you have failed!
* Having a really big turban is a common insult within the Twelver Shi’a community regarding clerics who have an overinflated sense of themselves and their authority. Drawings of Twelver Shi’a clerics with enormous turbans are often used in political cartoons lampooning them and their pronouncements.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) today authorized the Utah Department of Health (UDOH) to expand its Medicaid program to approximately 70,000-90,000 Utah adults. The newly eligible individuals can begin applying for coverage on Monday, April 1.
Under the newly approved plan, Utah residents who earn up to 100% of the federal poverty level, about $12,492 for an individual or $25,752 for a family of four, will be eligible to receive full Medicaid benefits. The federal government will cover approximately 70% of the cost (emphasis mine) of the new program; the State of Utah will cover the remaining 30%.
Utah is spending more money to cover fewer pepole with a partial expansion. Right now they have received a waiver to expand to new voluntary populations at the current standard federal match rate. If the legislature had expanded Medicaid to 138% FPL the federal government would have paid 90% of the costs.
Yet, this is an improvement on coverage in the state of Utah as adults who earn between 100-138% FPL are being made no worse off as they still don’t have access to Medicaid unless there is a significant medical qualifying status but they still have access to premium tax credits and CSR-94 Silver plans.
Sometime over the summer, Utah will be asking for a second waiver from CMS. That waiver will ask for the Federal government to pay the enhanced ACA 90% match for only people earning under 100% FPL. The 100-138% cohort would remain on the exchanges.
There are some complex interactions with subsidies, differential morbidity and silver loading which can lead to some fascinatingly unusual results on a distributional basis if there is a partial expansion to only 100% FPL. But at the base, tens of thousands of people will have health insurance starting next week.
Earlier today Jonathan Chait wrote something particularly stupid. It wasn’t particularly stupid because he wrote it. Rather, it was particularly stupid because it is based on misreading someone else’s reporting. Here’s what Chait wrote:
But at an event last night, Omar went much farther, reports Laura Kelly. After an audience member shouted out, “It’s all about the Benjamins,” at which, according to Kelly’s reporting, she smiled. (Jeremy Slevin, Omar’s press secretary and strategist, denies she acknowledged that line from the audience.) Later she stated, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”
This is much worse. Accusing Jews of “allegiance to a foreign country” is a historically classic way of delegitimizing their participation in the political system. Whether or not the foreign policy agenda endorsed by American supporters of Israel is wise or humane, it is a legitimate expression of their political rights as American citizens. To believe in a strong American alliance with Israel (or Canada, or the United Kingdom, or any other country) is not the same thing as giving one’s allegiance to that country. Omar is directly invoking the hoary myth of dual loyalty, in which the Americanness of Jews is inherently suspect, and their political participation must be contingent upon proving their patriotism.
Here’s what Laura Kelly actually reported from the event (emphasis mine):
“It is about the Benjamins,” shouted one audience member to laughter and acclaim, referencing Rep. Omar’s now-deleted tweet linking Congressional support for Israel to Jewish influence and lobbying. To this, Reps. Omar and Tlaib both smiled along furtively.
Rep. Omar elaborated that when she hears her Jewish constituents offer criticisms of Palestinians, she doesn’t automatically equate them as Islamophobic but is “fearful” that people are painting her as anti-Semitic because she is a Muslim. Omar continued, “What I’m fearful of — because Rashida and I are Muslim — that a lot of our Jewish colleagues, a lot of our constituents, a lot of our allies, go to thinking that everything we say about Israel to be anti-Semitic because we are Muslim,” she explained.
“To me, it’s something that becomes designed to end the debate because you get in this space of – yes, I know what intolerance looks like and I’m sensitive when someone says, ‘The words you used Ilhan, are resemblance of intolerance.’ And I am cautious of that and I feel pained by that. But it’s almost as if, every single time we say something regardless of what it is we say…we get to be labeled something. And that ends the discussion. Because we end up defending that and nobody ever gets to have the broader debate of what is happening with Palestine.”
“So for me, I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Rep. Omar exclaimed, seeming to suggest, as Tlaib had in a tweet of her own, dual loyalty among a particular group of Americans. Loud rounds of applause and shouts of affirmation punctuated the event’s heavy focus on Israel.
You notice the nuance, I’m not even sure it’s nuance to be honest, that Chait either missed or elided? First, Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib smiled furtively when someone interrupted and shouted “all about the Benjamins” at them. My read of that is that they smiled awkwardly because they knew exactly what would happen when it was reported. Second, do you notice that Congresswoman Omar didn’t state any specific group of people pushing for allegiance to a foreign country. Is it possible that she’s talking about Jewish Americans? Sure, it’s possible. But given that the largest American demographic in support of Israel is actually the Evangelical Christians referred to as Christian Zionists*, she could have been referring to them. Or she could have been referring to both. Or just to anyone who thinks that whatever Israel’s leadership says should be done in the Middle East is what the US should do. You know, like every Republican presidential candidate in 2012 and 2016 – none of whom were Jewish! In fact I briefed the command group and senior staff of III Corps at FT Hood on the Middle East the day after the 16 January 2012 GOP primary debate and one of the colonels actually asked me, during the Q&A, about Governor Perry’s response to a question about what he’d do to respond to a crisis in the Middle East at the debate the night before. Perry answered the question by stating that before he took action on any problem in the Middle East, he’d ask Bibi Netanyahu what to do and then just do that. It also wouldn’t surprise me if she was just referring to the Republican caucuses in the House and the Senate, who are overwhelmingly, to the point of unanimity, supportive of whatever the Israeli government does, despite not having a single American Jew in the Republican Senate caucus and only two in the Republican House caucus.
This may shock some people, but Congresswoman Omar has a point. There are Americans, some Christian, some Jewish, who are so attached to Israel that they’ve made it into a political fetish object. And Netanyahu has certainly gone out of his way to turn Israel into a major political and religious issue in the US beyond just the American Jewish community and then into a partisan issue. It is not an accident that Ron Dermer, the American born, former Republican political operative from south Florida, is now Israel’s ambassador to the US, nor was it an accident when he served as Israel’s economic envoy from 2005-2008. Bibi’s appointments of Dermer were done specifically to weaponize Israel as a partisan issue. And, to be perfectly honest, this is ultimately going to come back to bite Israel on the tuchas.
Chait’s analysis and criticism of Congresswoman Omar’s response to a member of the audience’s shout and to her remarks is disingenuous. He assumes intentionality that cannot be determined from the primary reporting. And he asserts in the absence of evidence specifying who she is talking about, that Congresswoman Omar was obviously talking about Jewish Americans, despite more American Evangelical Christians being supportive of Israel than American Jews. If the concerns about Congresswoman Omar being anti-Semitic are actually founded, it will become obvious soon enough. But her remarks last night, specifically where she made clear she’s not trying to just bash Israel, but to raise the issues pertaining to the treatment of the Palestinians, were not anti-Semitic. Whether they are actually the beginning of a long overdue expansion of the narrow limits that American domestic politics places on our discussion of issues pertaining to Israel and the Palestinians is something yet to be seen. And only time will tell whether Congresswoman Omar is able to thread the needle to actually open up the space to begin a broader, deeper, and more nuanced discussion. But the current relationship between the US and Israel is not good for either state. It is co-dependent, it is abusive, and having it turned into just another partisan issue is ultimately dangerous for the long term viability of Israel.
* Full disclosure: Liz Oldmixon, who is interviewed by Sean Illing here, is an old – as in we went to grad school together – friend. She’s an excellent political scientist and a wonderful person. I highly recommend her scholarly work for anyone interested in that sort of thing.
More full disclosure: I served as a Subject Matter Expert with the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Security Dialogue and Middle East Peace assigned to US Army Europe from June through August 2014 and served as the Cultural Advisor (Temporary Assigned Control) to the Commanding General of US Army Europe from December 2013 through June 2014 to assist US Army Europe with issues pertaining to the US’s 2014 Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative.