.jpg)
.jpg)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
by Conservatives Daily ++++++++++++++++++++ What is the ‘Proportionate’ Response to Terrorism? Only Israel is expected to meet this fake standard of warfare. by Mark Tapson Posted by Ruth King On October 7th, 2023 – a date that will live in infamy – an army of bloodthirsty Hamas jihadists swarmed into Israel and laid waste to a reported 1400 innocent, unarmed civilians including women, children, the disabled, and old people, committing war crimes of a sickening nature that historian Victor Davis Hanson has labeled “pre-civilizational.” In response to the terror assault, the Jewish state justifiably declared war on Hamas, with Israeli leader Bibi Netanyahu vowing that every single member of the terror organization is now a dead man walking. And right on cue, the mainstream (read: left-wing) media, left-wing politicians, and globalist institutions like the farcical United Nations Security Council that are packed with enemies of the Western world, demanded that Israel exhibit “restraint” in its response and refrain from “disproportionate violence.” This curious notion of “proportionate response” comes up every single time Israel is hit with a terror attack. Has a single one of the aforementioned talking heads or politicos or global entities ever called for Hamas terrorists to show “restraint”? What retaliation is “proportionate” to the burning alive of families, the gang rape of female prisoners, the beheading of babies and toddlers, the torture of old people, and the kidnapping of hundreds more who live in terror that their beheading will be live-streamed on the internet? What would the anti-Israel Left consider an acceptably “proportionate” response to those atrocities? Would they be satisfied if the Israeli Defense Force limited itself to a surprise invasion of Gaza, burning Palestinian families alive, raping Palestinian women, beheading Palestinian infants, torturing Palestinian grandmothers, and kidnapping hundreds of Palestinians? Because technically, that would be proportionate. Of course not. The same Western leftists who celebrated the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th would have apoplectic fits of outrage if Israel ever perpetrated a single one of these war crimes. The revulsion and shock these hypocrites should have felt over Israel’s victims are reserved only for the “oppressed” so-called Palestinians. Let’s be real: the only response to Hamas terrorism which the Left considers appropriate for Israel is for the Jewish state to sit on its hands and submit to its own extermination. Wednesday on MSNBC’s The Last Word, to name the most up-to-date example, host propagandist Lawrence O’Donnell stated that the Israeli government in the 21st century “seems to have deliberately and publicly abandoned the notion of proportionate response” and is using a response that is “in effect, disproportionate,” by taking an approach towards Hamas that “we will hit you even harder than you’d ever expect.” During an interview with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who criticized Israel’s military response to the October 7th attack, O’Donnell stated, “Nick, the phrase that used to frame these events in the 20th century was proportionate response. Whether it be the United States, whether it would be Israel responding to some kind of attack, the response was supposed to be, in theory, proportionate.” According to whom? Since when is a response to sneak attacks or terrorism “supposed to be” proportionate? According to what “theory”? “Proportionate response” has never been an international wartime agreement or standard, 20th century or otherwise. No one during WWII ever cautioned the Allies to limit their response to Pearl Harbor or to other Axis aggression “proportionately.” In wartime, just as in sports, the only reasonable expectation is that each combatant is fighting to win, to batter the enemy so hard that they stop fighting and surrender, or die. Did anyone ever suggest to Mike Tyson that he pull his punches in a “proportionate response” to his opponent? Why on earth would a combatant hit back only hard enough to allow his opponent or enemy to keep fighting? This notion of “proportionate response” is entirely bogus. It is nothing more than a fake moral demand from Israel’s left-wing enemies to prevent her from defending herself. Only Israel is expected to respond “proportionately” to ongoing terror attacks from an organization whose commitment to eradicating the Jewish state is enshrined in its own charter. “The 21st-century Israeli government seems to have deliberately and publicly abandoned the notion of proportionate response, into, in effect, disproportionate, saying we will hit you even harder than you’d ever expect,” O’Donnell continued. “This seems to be the deliberate framing that they want.” Yes, it is the deliberate framing Israel wants, and why shouldn’t it be? Especially in the wake of the 9/11-level October 7th attack on Israel, Israel is justified in destroying Hamas to the last man, for the good not only of the civilized world but of the Palestinians themselves, whom Hamas exploits as cannon fodder. It is a terror organization that deliberately shields itself behind Palestinian non-combatants and embeds its headquarters and weapons caches in hospitals and schools precisely for the purpose of drawing Israel into the narrative trap of attacking civilian targets. The IDF, for its part, makes a greater effort than any fighting force in history to avoid civilian casualties. This is never acknowledged or appreciated by the pompous anti-Semites of the media or the United Nations, who shrug off any number of Israeli casualties but who treat a single Palestinian death as a tragedy of epic proportions. There is no negotiating with or appeasing Hamas. Ghazi Hamad of the Hamas political bureau said on October 24 on Lebanese TV that Hamas is prepared to repeat the October 7th “Al-Aqsa Flood” Operation over and over again until Israel is destroyed. He added that Palestinians are willing to pay any price because they are “proud to sacrifice martyrs,” and “everything we do is justified.” What is the proportionate response to such relentless evil, to an entity so devoted to your annihilation that they will sacrifice any number of their own people to carry it out? If you are Israel, the only proportionate response the world finds acceptable is to sit back and welcome your own slaughter. For her sake and for the sake of the civilized world, Israel must ignore these subversive demands and exterminate her jihadist enemies once and for all. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  Israel's 15 ceasefires By Don Surber Palestinians broke each one. Former AP reporter says the media enables them. Hamas-shielding AP inadvertently drew attention to the history of Israel’s ceasefires with Palestinians — pauses in a 76-year war. Palestinians use ceasefires to reload before breaking the truce by attacking Israel again. Israel reloads as well as it plans counterattacks. AP has sided with the Palestinians for as long as I can remember. For over a decade, its bureau in Gaza City provided cover for Hamas — the latest name for Palestine’s terrorist army. Hamas governs Gaza. The continuing war against Israel has brought Shi’as (who back Hezbollah) together with Sunnis (Hamas) to fight a common enemy — Jews. In 2021, Israel finally unveiled the ruse, called AP, gave them an hour to pack up and leave, and then destroyed the building. The warning sadly allowed Hamas terrorists to escape as well. On May 21, 2021, the New York Post reported, “The Associated Press is taking heat for claiming it had no idea Hamas militants operated at the news agency’s Gaza headquarters destroyed by an Israeli airstrike — as US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said Monday he has seen no evidence presented by Israel of the group’s presence in the building.” Blinken’s words reminded me of Curly saying, “Moe, Larry, I can’t see.” Asked why, he replied, “I got my eyes closed.” AP president and CEO Gary Pruitt, at the time AP’s president and CEO, disavowed any knowledge of these actions. The Post said, “But a 2014 article in The Atlantic written by a journalist in the region described a history between the news agency and Hamas and critics took to social media to cast doubt on Pruitt’s assertion.” AP continues to shield Hamas and not very well. It did a fact-check on a tweet because pseudonymous twits are easier to hold accountable than Hamas terrorists. AP’s fact-check said, “British newspaper headline about a ceasefire is old and not related to the latest Israel-Hamas war.” Thank you, AP, for pointing out Israel gave the terrorists a ceasefire in 2006 — the 11th of the 15 ceasefires Israel has granted since 1949 after its two-year battle with the Arab League. Palestinians have broken each one. But AP continues to side with Hamas and mislead. The one-time respectable news agency said, “Since Israel’s latest war with the Palestinian group Hamas began in early October, Israeli soldiers and Hezbollah militants have traded fire across the Lebanon-Israel border.” Israel did not start this war. Palestinians did by attacking Israelis on October 7. Every single target was civilian. Terrorists even attacked a Rave for Peace as Palestinians raped women, tortured the elderly, beheading babies and burning people. The violations of international law make every single member of Hamas liable and its leader war criminals. But leave it to Barack Hussein Obama to side with the war criminals. He said, “Put yourself in their shoes — look at the world through their eyes. It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of her own, and lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements of her parents every single day.” But Gaza is a Palestinian state. Israel gave it to them. They are autonomous. They choose a terrorist war against Israel. Ed Morrissey reported, “Gaza was not occupied and hasn’t been since 2005. Israel and Egypt have sealed its border, but that took place after Hamas won the election in Gaza in 2006 and then defeated Fatah in a quick civil war to seize all power. The border got sealed in order to prevent Hamas from committing acts of war and receiving arms from abroad, while at the same time receiving billions of dollars in aid and water and power from the Israelis.” There is no rationale — no excuse — no justification for the war crimes of Palestinians but anti-Semites like Obama toss their word salads peppered with words like genocide and colonialism. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Daughter of long time friend married a Tisch family member and they have an historic second home in Savannah. Her uncle is a very dear friend and fellow memo reader. +++ Tisch family members project faces of Israeli hostages on NYU building after students caught ripping down posters on campusBy Katherine Donlevy+++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Israel at War: Volunteers Teaching Inspiring Online Classes for Israeli Students By Sherwin Pomerantz Everyone is aware of what happens when Israel goes to war. Thousands of volunteers give of their time to engage in activities to help our troops, provide them with necessities and help house and feed those who are temporarily displaced. But in addition, there is a huge cadre of professionals in multiple disciplines who give of their time to augment the gaps in education that develop during these periods. The events of October 7th were a major shock to many Israeli government ministries with most not knowing how to respond. The initial response of the Ministry of Education, for example, was to issue an order not to teach for at least two weeks. Their thought was that the horrific events of that day would prevent students from studying and make it difficult for them to focus on learning But, in fact, many students and their parents as well, felt the need for that void to be filled and wanted to maintain some semblance of routine during this challenging time having, during Covid, experienced the negative effects of the children not having a fixed routine. A worrisome phenomenon which developed as a result was that both children and teenagers had no scheduled plan of what to do, so they spent their time watching different social media outlets which included non-stop news and horror videos of the Hamas attack. To address this emergency an assortment of volunteers, entrepreneurs and organizations composed of hi-tech people who love education started to organize. Very soon they were giving inspiring lessons on line, drawn from the best academics in multiple fields (e.g., computers, writing, the arts, cinema, the sciences, history, cooking and more). Most of these people were engaged professionally in their chosen fields but did not normally teach. The program was organized by Roni Zedek, the Community Manager of the Tech4Ed program and former Group Facilitator for MASA Journey, who also established a school to deal with the emergency. She said "I established the school I always wanted in response to the attack, but I had planned it several years earlier." On the terrible Shabbat of October 7th, she was in Mexico as part of a Jewish Agency Project when someone declared "There are sirens in the south of Israel". Watching the incoming news, she understood that something very big was happening. Given the enormity of the attack, she felt like she was in mourning and cancelled all her plans for the week and headed back to Israel. She then contacted her colleagues and several leaders of the Tech4Ed community who agreed to lead the project of recruiting famous performing artists to appear in online shows to ease the pain of the Israeli people during this stressful time. Roni manages the school which includes many professionals who teach specialized courses on request outside their regular schedules. The motto of these online lessons is: “The children’s interests are central, so the lessons must be fascinating for their minds, not just informative.” Among these entrepreneurs was Dr. Yael Epstein, who founded the start-up "The Book Screen" which specializes in improving literacy skills among elementary school students. The technology encourages them to read books and engage in creative writing using an updated digital model in both English and Hebrew. Epstein says, "I felt I needed to volunteer and teach creative writing in order to relieve the stress and panic that many children feel nowadays because of the war and make them understand that the power of creativity and imagination helps, in many situations, to make them feel better thereby giving them the opportunity to stimulate their minds and generate hope as well". Yael was flattered when one group of thirty school students asked her to continue teaching the online creative workshop at the end of the course. She continues teaching online creative writing lessons because she believes in the therapeutic value of having Israeli children write fantasy stories which can help neutralize their feeling of living in a state of continual trauma. At the same time, the kids and teenagers, being young in heart, feel they can be optimistic. In a time of crisis and need many Israelis volunteer and contribute to society that shows the beautiful face of Israel. Statistics show that since the start of the war here, 50% of the population not in uniform have been engaged in volunteer activities supporting the war effort. In addition, 200,000 Israelis who were abroad at the time the war began returned to Israel over the next two weeks, some even sitting on the floor of specially arranged ELAL flights. No other country can claim that kind of total commitment by its population. Former US President Bill Clinton once said: “Volunteering is an act of heroism on a grand scale. And it matters profoundly. It does more than help people beat the odds; it changes the odds.” We here in Israel can be rightly proud of our volunteers and the value they bring to our country and our people. We are blessed by their efforts. Sherwin Pomerantz has lived in Israel for 40 years, is CEO of Atid EDI Ltd., a international business development consultancy. He is also the Founder and Chair of the American State Offices Association, former National President of the Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel and a past Chairperson of the Board of the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bye Bye Britain? So goes America? Obama cheers! +++ Has Dawa Conquered Britain, as a Muslim Brotherhood Icon Foretold? A form of stealth jihad and faked assimilation have powered the rise of sharia-supremacist Muslims in the U.K. Read Maddy Kearns’s superb and alarming column on the surrender of British police to pro-Hamas mobs. With it, effectively and inexorably, we find the enforcement of Islamic sharia strictures at the expense of British liberties. This put me in mind (as many things have over the past month) of the late Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood jurisprudent who, when he died a year ago at 96, was the most influential Sunni Islamic scholar in modern history and, for Hamas (the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch), the polestar. Qaradawi, whose weekly Al Jazeera program Sharia and Life routinely drew an audience of tens of millions, was notorious for many things — not least fatwas approving Hamas suicide bombings as well as the killings of American soldiers and support personnel in Iraq. His most lasting mark, however, is the vision that sharia-supremacist Muslims could “conquer” Europe and America, not by violence — or, at least, by violence alone — but by dawa, fundamentalist Islam’s extortionate form of proselytism. I described this strategy in The Grand Jihad (2010). It was a profound threat to the West even then. A few years later, we found ourselves asking how the Tsarnaev brothers could ostensibly assimilate in the United States, yet maintain their sharia-supremacist convictions and, when they decided the time was right, execute a barbaric jihadist attack at the Boston Marathon. As I tried to explain, they were just following the plan, which was to resist real assimilation. That was a decade ago. As Maddy illustrates, the challenge is now far more daunting, so I’ll repeat what I said in 2013 about the strategy and its Brotherhood roots: The Tsarnaevs seemed well assimilated, at least until recent years. Thus the pressing question: How did this happen? The answer begins with that simple, chilling admonition from Muslim leaders: Integrate but do not assimilate. For those Muslims who have begun assimilating, there is this corollary: Turn away from Western wickedness and embrace the cloister of Islamic piety — as construed by Islamic-supremacist leaders, whose ideology glorifies violent jihad even as it pretends to moderation. The strategy has been called “voluntary apartheid.” The idea is to provide Muslim immigrants in the West — particularly, energetic young Muslims like the Tsarnaevs — with cultural, psychological, and even physical insulation from Western mores, traditions, and institutions. It was the bedrock of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna’s framework for ground-up revolution. In every city and town, the Egyptian academic taught, Muslim leaders must establish a mosque–cum–community center. These, he explained, would become “the axis of our movement,” serving as the “House of Dawa” — that is, of Islam’s particularly aggressive form of proselytism — and providing “the base for our rise . . . to educate us, prepare us, and supply our battalions.” “Our battalions,” indeed. “Battalions of Islam” was the honorific applied by Omar Abdel Rahman, the Egyptian intellectual, Banna admirer, and convicted terrorist better known as “the blind sheikh,” to the jihadists who answered his summons to savagery in Cairo and New York. That these battalions will emerge from the dawa mission stressed by Muslim leaders is inevitable. It is why atrocities such as the rampage in Boston are bound to happen. Robert Spencer, a sharp critic of Islamic supremacism, fittingly describes dawa as “stealth jihad.” Dawa can include charitable fundraising (part of which is, under sharia guidelines, quite intentionally diverted to jihadist groups), intimidation of detractors, cultivation of sympathizers in the media and the universities, exploitation of legal systems and religious liberty, infiltration of political systems, and the portrayal of any scrutiny of Islamic doctrine as “Islamophobia.” The defining feature of dawa in the West, though, is resistance to assimilation. “One cannot expect you to assimilate,” Turkey’s Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told a throng of Muslim immigrants to Germany in 2008. “Assimilation,” he exclaimed, “is a crime against humanity!” The Brotherhood’s leading sharia jurist, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who boldly promises that it is through dawa that “we will conquer Europe, we will conquer America,” is perhaps the most influential champion of the “integrate but never assimilate” principle. The key to “our quest for an Islamic state,” he instructs, is to “convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith.” Of course, the right to live according to one’s faith is a fundamental guarantee in the United States. When Qaradawi and other Islamic supremacists say “faith,” however, they are not talking merely about what we would understand as religious tenets; they are talking about sharia’s socio-political strictures, its suffocating regulation of human life’s every detail. What the supremacists demand is something quite the opposite of an Islamic seat at America’s ecumenical table. It is the establishment of autonomous Muslim enclaves within a society to which they are irrevocably hostile. The supremacist’s interpretation of sharia rejects liberty and equality, casting women as chattel and non-Muslims as contemptible. It thus instills in young Muslims the animating belief that Western culture is not just to be resisted as corruptive but disdained as beneath human dignity. It is true enough that most adherents to this ideology will not become terrorists; but it is equally certain that some will — and many have. Though Brotherhood leaders and Islamist intellectuals in the West purport to renounce violence except in self-defense, they concurrently beatify violence and preach that Islam is always under attack. The Hamas terrorist organization, one should never forget, is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch; raising global alarms about supposed tidal waves of anti-Muslim bias and aggression is the supremacist’s stock in trade. The young Muslim who hears terrorism occasionally condemned also hears it constantly rationalized, excused, and endorsed — by revered role models. For Banna, there was no contradiction in this. Combat, including terrorism, was something young Muslims had to train and be prepared for. The revolution, he taught, could not ultimately succeed without it. But though violence had its place, that place was not necessarily central. Like strategic deception, it was one option on a very extensive dawa menu, resorted to only when its benefit to the movement outweighed its drawbacks. Decades later, it has become the fashion to abide, even to admire, Muslim leaders who temper their effusive praise for jihadist violence in the Middle East with vague denunciations of attacks in the West. This explains Sheikh Qaradawi. With a huge international television following courtesy of his weekly sharia program on Al Jazeera, Qaradawi is probably the most influential Islamic scholar alive today. Consequently, despite his infamous fatwas endorsing suicide bombings against Israel, terror war against American troops in Iraq, and the death penalty for homosexuals, he is a darling of Western chancelleries and academics, who present him as a leading “moderate” intellectual. In practice, the dawa “voluntary apartheid” strategy has worked as follows. Muslims from more-fundamentalist regions emigrate to the West, at first in modest numbers and often to attend universities. Their immigration is championed by a network of Islamist organizations that the Muslim Brotherhood has built for over half a century — beginning with the Muslim Students Associations that first sprang up in the 1960s and now have multiple chapters at most American and Canadian universities. At first, everyone — particularly in the progressive political elites — maintains that Islam is “the religion of peace” and that the immigrants, just like the Islamist organizations, are unfailingly moderate.(Just don’t ask them about Israel and Jews — a blind eye has always been turned to unabashed antisemitism.) The immigrants gravitate to local mosques and Islamic centers, where they are annealed in the “do not assimilate” spirit even as they effect the outward signs of assimilation. When the immigrant numbers reach critical mass, non-assimilating Muslims put pressure on the host jurisdiction to be permitted to live under sharia standards, and they become gradually more aggressive in challenging the police and other authorities of the state when they attempt to enforce the laws. (Some areas in and around European metropolises have thus become “no-go zones” for state authorities.) In Qaradawi’s vision, as the Western governments appeased Muslim activists, the local areas under de facto sharia jurisdiction would expand and knit together, eventually overwhelming the Western nation-state. In 2016, Londoners elected a Qaradawi admirer, Sadiq Khan, as their mayor (which he remains to this day). At the time, I noted the observations of the insightful British journalist Daniel Johnson: Indeed, what has emerged before our eyes in Britain is a kind of Islamist state within a state. . . . A new survey by ICM with the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, for Channel Four and the Sunday Times confirms that Salafists are fast becoming the dominant influence on British Islam. Nearly a quarter (23 per cent) of a sample of 1,081 adult Muslims want to see “areas of Britain in which sharia law is introduced instead of British law”. Nearly a third (31 per cent) of them think “it is acceptable for a British Muslim to keep more than one wife”, even though polygamy is in theory punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Wives should “always obey their husbands”, according to 39 per cent; the survey did not ask about the Koran’s injunction to husbands to “chastise” their wives, but Trevor Phillips sees it as “a clear invitation to legitimise domestic violence”. About 5 per cent of British Muslims sympathise with stoning adulterers. That may seem a small percentage, but only 66 per cent completely condemn such executions. This suggests that about a third would go along with such punishments under certain circumstances. The most striking of all the ICM statistics concern homosexuality. Only 18 per cent of Muslims think it should be legal in Britain, while more than half (52 per cent) would ban it. Up to half of the latter group, it is fair to assume, also support sharia law, which prescribes the death penalty for homosexuality. If most British Muslims hold such hostile attitudes towards same-sex attraction, it is not surprising that — to take one example — a recent gay participant on the TV reality show First Dates explained how he had been beaten up by other Muslims so badly that he was in hospital for months. . . . . . . Like many other Londoners, I have Muslim friends and neighbours who have embraced Western values. Often, they have married non-Muslims. But that makes them untypical: fewer than 10 per cent of Muslims live in mixed relationships and just 3 per cent of Muslim children grow up in mixed households. While more than half of Muslims do mix with non-Muslims at work or in college, friendships do not always result: a fifth of them never enter a non-Muslim home. Many have hostile attitudes to non-Muslims. A Pew survey in 2006, for example, found that 47 per cent of British Muslims held unfavourable views of Jews; unfortunately, the ICM poll shows that up to 44 per cent are still anti-Semitic. . . . The ICM poll shows that eight out of 10 Muslims here do feel British. But with mass immigration from more illiberal Muslim cultures, higher birthrates in more segregated communities and a growing number of non-Muslims who are converted to Salafism [a sharia-supremacist construction of Islam], liberal Muslims are a shrinking minority. Here in London, which is home to about a third of British Muslims (including thousands of migrants who live below the radar of the authorities), we have already seen the assertion of power by political Islam. The takeover of Tower Hamlets by a corrupt Islamist politician, Lutfur Rahman, may be a harbinger of things to come. Last year he was removed from office by special commissioners, but for five years Rahman and his cronies ran a borough of nearly 300,000 people, distributing a budget of more than £1 billion. It is worth noting that after being ousted from the Labour Party, he was able to replace it with a notionally “independent” but in practice sectarian group, even though Muslims officially make up only a third of the population. The Muslim “block vote” is such a formidable electoral force that for Islamists to dominate a city it does not need to have a Muslim majority. Johnson pointed out that the Muslim vote is crucial to Britain’s Labour Party because, for example, “at least ten London boroughs have large, mainly conservative Muslim communities, where children grow up in an Islamic monoculture and women are covered or veiled.” About the prospects of London under Khan, he added: We now know that in the past Sadiq Khan, who as a left-wing human rights solicitor represented Muslim extremists, was happy to make compromises with the Salafist attitudes that prevail in many London mosques. In 2004, he supported incorporating sharia law into the British legal system: “There are some . . . uncontroversial areas of Islamic law which could easily be applied to the legal system . . . in the UK.” What Khan had in mind by “uncontroversial” was the legitimisation of polygamy, by altering inheritance tax law to allow husbands to divide their estates between several wives while enjoying the tax exemption normally applicable to a single spouse. He called this “applying common sense”, but it was yet another step towards de facto recognition of polygamy by the law. Muslims have long been claiming welfare benefits for multiple wives; the only condition is that they must have married them abroad. In 2007, Khan questioned the need for the criminal law to be used to stop forced marriages, claiming that such “ghetto” legislation would stereotype Muslims. Of course, he glossed over the fact that forced marriage was almost exclusively a Muslim problem in Britain. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Khan is a typical left-wing cultural relativist — and they are a big part of London’s problem. Despite having made his career as a human rights lawyer, Khan has never challenged the conspiracy of silence about certain offences — such as forced marriage and abduction, female gentile [sic] mutilation and “honour crimes” — that are committed mainly by Salafist and other fundamentalist Muslims on a huge scale, yet are rarely or never prosecuted in Britain. Nor did he expose grooming by Muslim gangs. Under Mayor Khan, London will undoubtedly deserve more than ever the ironical nickname it earned a decade ago among European intelligence services: “Londonistan”. It is hard to imagine Khan taking the tough measures to root out Isis cells hidden inside Muslim ghettos that have been forced on French and Belgian police forces since the attacks on Paris and Brussels. Even in the aftermath of a similar attack on London, it is inconceivable that Khan would risk the accusation that he had turned his back on his Muslim heritage. His opinions change according to need; his allegiance doesn’t. That was seven years ago. Since then, immigration has increased and dawa has become predictably more aggressive. Muslims now make up approximately 7 percent of Britain’s population — about 4 million. But the population is not evenly dispersed; about 1.3 million Muslims live in London, about 15 percent of the city’s population of 8.1 million. If the police appear overmatched, it’s because they are. As Maddy says, all eyes ought to be on November 11, as traditional England seeks to honor its war dead and contemporary London champions Hamas. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Israel will win. The West is over Support for Hamas originates in the heart of darkness of Western consciousness, There are more fans of Hamas in the West than in Gaza. By Giulio Meotti What is this strange evil that afflicts the West and for which the war in Gaza is both a pretext and a revelation? Self-hatred? Fascination with collective suicide? Hamas is an Islamo-Nazi sect that intended to destroy Israel and its people before attacking the West when the time comes. But it found million of helpers among Western people. Sorcerers' apprentices, new converts and useful idiots... Their brainwashing is effective. Newsweek polls say that among young Americans, 48 percent are with Hamas. More than half – 51 percent – believe that the October 7 pogrom in which 1,400 Israelis were massacred was somehow justified. If we did the same survey in Europe we would get the same results. Of 67 million "Generation Z" Americans (those born after 1996), 52 percent want racial reparations for blacks, 60 percent believe systemic racism is "widespread" in society, 51 percent that the "gender binary" (male and female) is "obsolete", 41 percent are in favor of censoring "hate speech" (unless it encourages destroying Israel), 66 percent are in favor of silencing speakers they consider "offensive" and 61 percent have positive views of socialism. This is where support for Hamas originates: in the heart of darkness of Western consciousness in full decadence. Meanwhile, from Al Azhar in Cairo - the "Vatican of Islam" - to the International Union of Muslim Scholars in Doha, the large Islamic organizations launch their fatwa against Israel: "There are no Israeli civilians, they are all targets". And we talk about the institutions with which the West has a dialogue and with which the Vatican signed the document on "Human Brotherhood". On the London Review of Books - one of the most renowned literary magazines in the world - hundreds of writers attack... Israel. The intellectual James Lindsay in Le Point explains: “There is an intellectual complicity between them and they share the same objective: to inflict maximum damage on the West and Western values. I'm not saying that Hamas shares all the values of the North American and European left, but it uses the woke left to advance its agenda. The United States and Canada, due to woke infiltration at all levels, are experiencing a cultural revolution like that experienced by China in the 1960s." Fortunately, positive news is also arriving from America, such as the new organization Catholics against anti-Semitism. A demagogic left, pacifist squares, corrupt universities and degenerated media meanwhile are playing with matches. And for the electoral reasons that we know, now we have this great left that has in its eyes, instead of stars, only veils, crescents, minarets. An example of this sick left are the Belgian socialist leaders André Flahaut and Jean-Pascal Labille, who have just compared Israel to Nazism. André Flahaut is the former Minister of Defense and former President of the Chamber, among others, today a federal deputy of the Socialist Party. Jean-Pascal Labille, a former federal minister, shared a drawing allegedly showing Israeli soldiers firing on what represents Gaza, surrounded by a barrier on which a swastika appears in a Star of David. “Since the end of the Cold War we have found ourselves, with the exception of the period following September 11, in a sort of end-of-history and permanent carnival atmosphere” American scholar Walter Russell Mead tells Le Figaro. “We were excited by the idea of all the possibilities, of a 'win-win' world. Debt also seemed insignificant as interest rates were at zero. We were living in an illusion. But the world does not allow this for a long time. Today we return to earth, we will see how quickly." Israel is fighting for its survival. The question is whether Western civilization understands that this is a turning point and really wants to be saved, since its weak and nihilisticleaders seem to have concluded that it is inherently evil and not worth fighting for. This week, Israeli President Isaac Herzog issued a warning to Europeans in an interview with Die Welt. “You have to understand: if Israel no longer exists, Europe will be next.” Israel will win this battle – sadly, at a very high cost – because it is determined to survive. But there are more fans of Hamas and Jihad in the West than in Gaza. The barriers of Western civilization, such as Israel's southern border, have to be defended and we can rely only on Israel's determination to do so. We in the West are in grave danger. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
No comments:
Post a Comment