To distract the world from how he’s been massacring his own people, Bashar al-Assad opened up the Israeli-Syrian border to rioters on Sunday, hundreds of whom infiltrated Israel. In Lebanon, Hezbollah—a recognized terrorist organization and a proxy for the Iranian government—organized protesters, ensuring that enough Palestinian flags were distributed. Israeli soldiers watched as Syrian, Lebanese, and United Nations soldiers stepped aside to let hostile mobs rush their border, and only when rioters were at the fences—or had climbed over them—did they react.

Naturally, then, the UN is condemning Israel.

“I am shocked by the number of the deaths and the use of disproportionate, deadly force by the Israeli Defense Forces against apparently unarmed demonstrators, which I condemn,” said Michael Williams, UN’s Special Coordinator for Lebanon.

Amnesty International is also calling for an investigation into Israel’s actions, although for some unknown reason they are not calling for a similar investigation of the Lebanese Armed Forces, which also opened fire on protesters. No surprise here. A little chagrin on the part of the UN, though—perhaps even some retincence to condemn Israel—might have been expected, given how UN forces’ severe dereliction of duty enabled the rioters to rush the Israeli border. Apparently not.

In other Israel-related UN news, it’s now apparently a thing to shout down the Israeli Ambassador while he gives speeches. The Iranian representative interrupted Meron Reuben to insist that “everything Israel says is a lie meant to divert attention from what is being done to the Palestinians,” with the aforementioned “what is being done” later clarified to be a “holocaust” by the Syrian ambassador.

All of which brings us to this link from a few months ago, where Susan Rice explains how the United Nations “provides a real return on our tax dollars.” Seems reasonable.

The tension between supporters of public and parochial schools is never far below the surface in many communities. But the divide in East Ramapo, New York, also has the potential to exacerbate tensions among Jews and African-Americans and Hispanics in a way that is setting off alarm bells among those concerned with smoothing over community relations.

As the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, the situation in the East Ramapo School District in Rockland County, 35 miles northwest of New York City, is one that is almost guaranteed to start a fight between the two communities. The majority of the population in the area is Orthodox Jews, many of them either Hasidic or belonging to the category of Jewish belief that is commonly labeled “ultra”-Orthodox. They send their children to Jewish day schools. Over 20,000 students attend yeshivas in the area, a number that dwarfs the 8,100 mostly African-American or Hispanic kids who attend the public schools.

The problem arises from the fact that the Orthodox Jews in the township have exercised their franchise and elected members of their own community to the district’s School Board. A majority of the board now represents a sector of the population that has no use for the public schools. That majority has closed some public schools and the district has facilitated special-education services for Orthodox children at private Jewish schools outside East Ramapo rather than at the local public schools. This has angered the minority in the area who lodged complaints with the federal government about possible civil-rights violations. The Anti-Defamation League is also expressing interest in the situation with a view to opposing the decisions of the majority.

Read More

Crony capitalism at its most basic. Create onerous regulations and then give out exemptions to allies and constituents. The only wrinkle in this case is that the demographic subsection unburdening itself of ObamaCare is the same demographic subsection that has been most pointedly exuberant in advocating health care reform, with California Democrats even passing symbolic health care laws just like the ones that their most liberal supporters are now opting out of.

On the federal level, of course, Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi was instrumental in securing ObamaCare’s passage. And now, for a disproportionate number of businesses in Pelosi’s San Francisco district, ObamaCare is not their problem, not any more. As if having entire states get waivers wasn’t enough of a debacle, now there’s this nonsense. The process is making the original passage of ObamaCare, which the President himself admitted was insufficiently transparent, seem like a model of good governance:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs, and decadent hotels in Pelosi’s district. These are in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved. Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms, and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants, and hotels getting a year-long pass from ObamaCare.

The Daily Caller does a nice job covering the kinds of businesses in question. These are not exemplars of populist simplicity. The phrases “four-diamond luxury in the heart of the city” and “timeless Parisian style brasserie” come up. An ungenerous critic might even tag the entire spectacle as unseemly limousine liberalism, with San Francisco Democrats getting to retreat into four-diamond luxury while restaurants that cater to everyone else collapse under ObamaCare’s weight. Presumably those restaurants’ former customers can just eat at home from now on.

Still unanswered: whether waivers run afoul of Sheila Jackson Lee’s insistence that an ObamaCare repeal would be unconstitutional on 5th and 14th amendment grounds. “Must I die, must my child die, because I am now disallowed from getting insurance,” Ms. Jackson Lee asked from the floor of Congress, reasoning that not mandating employer coverage was equivalent to “taking away rights.” And if waivers do constitute Equal Protection violations, will the Justice Department be pursuing cases against the Department of Health and Human Services? Seriously. If we’re going to get stupid about this, let’s at least be consistently stupid.