Posts

Islamo-Leftism [Part 8]

Editor’s note: The following is a translation by Ibn Warraq and Robert Kerr of Michel Onfray’s L’Art d’Etre Francais (The Art of Being French, Bouquins, 2021), published here for the first time. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here. Part 4 is here. Part 5 is here. Part 6 is here. Part 7 is here.


This essentialization finds its theory in long discourses on “the Other” (p. 141) with a capital letter… One can’t do more essentializing than with this hollow, empty, pretentious concept, redolent of the philosophical jargon of phenomenologists! What is this Other that some people who quote Levinas go on about? What though is the ‘Other’ than the ‘same entity’ (Même), repeatedly recast from the same mould, duplicated ad nauseam for the particular needs of the cause on hand. The Other is nonexistent, just an idealized figure, a notion, a Platonic ideal that can never become manifest because there are only multiplicities, diversities, otherness. Plenel writes at one point: “This Other who, in our societies, has taken the figure of the Muslim” (p. 143). There can be no better proof that this Other is nothing but a ‘Sameyness’ (Même) conceptualized as an archetype, allowing for all possible journalistic and pamphleteering variations.

Plenel is a realist, in the medieval philosophical sense of the term, in other words someone who believes in the reality of ideas more than in the truth of multiplicities. He does not believe what he sees, but he sees what he believes. And there is little difference between the realist in this sense and the ideologue, for whom reality never materializes because the idea imposes the law in its place. Plenel’s Muslim does not exist, except as an allegory by means of which all ideological variations are possible.

Secondly: godwiner. I propose this neologism based on Godwin’s observation[16] which describes the tendency of people to invoke the Holocaust [or Nazis] to prevent any subtle analysis in order to preclude any complex reflection. This criminalization of the interlocutor forbids us to debate with him. He is de facto a monster comparable to the Nazis.

Edwy Plenel’s title is not by chance: Pour les musulmans. Since Émile Zola published Pour les juifs (p. 67) during the Dreyfus affair, Edwy Plenel, in response to this new Dreyfus affair, namely the assertion that there is “a problem with Islam in France” (p. 39), must take up the torch and be the Zola of his time.

Muslims are allegedly stigmatized, despised, hated and persecuted in France, just as the Jews were in the course of the 20th century. They are seen as an “enemy from within (the Jew yesterday, the Muslim – or, indiscriminately, the Arab today)” (p. 54) – the upper and lower case letters are the author’s.

If today’s Muslims are yesterday’s Jews, then where are the Drumonts[17] and Maurras[18] of today? Finkielkraut[19], answers Plenel…  Where is the media in which hatred against Muslims is spewed out every day? Plenel can produce no culprit worse than France Inter, specifically the Matinales program of this radio station, which by all accounts supports most of his theses – the book opens with a denunciation of this state broadcasting station, as it serves “lark’s pâté” every day, inviting an Islamophile horse[20] and [what offends Plenel] a lark critical of Islamophilia (p. 39). There was even a time, on France Inter, under the leadership of Patrick Cohen, when there was a blacklist of people not to be invited, most of whom could have played the role of the lark in a pâté that was then frankly more horse, with the blessing of the management of this public service that lives on taxpayers’ money and that declined to comment when this became known…

Is there a newspaper that would be the equivalent of L’Action française?[21] Yes. It’s Libération… No laughing matter… First, Edwy Plenel points out “the responsibility of the media” (p. 60), which itself is then essentialized, he claims that they construct, convey, and trivialize “the stigmatization of a population of men, women and children, on the pretext of their religious, spiritual or community identity” (p. 60). Libération? Le Monde? L’Humanité? L’Obs? L’Express? France Inter, France Culture, France infoFrance 2? Media that propagate a bad image of Muslims – yea right, get real.

But where then are the anti-Muslim laws, such as those passed by Vichy on October 3, 1940, antisemitic laws which prohibited Jews from being judges, teachers, doctors, civil servants, soldiers, journalists, film-makers, directors, administrators or theater managers? What is the counterpart of the law of June 2, 1941, which racialized Jews on the basis of their ancestry? Which forbade them from receiving decorations, including the Legion of Honor? Which expanded the work bans to [Jewish] craftsmen, merchants, industrialists, librarians, bankers, advertisers, real estate agents, traders, brokers, foresters, publishers? Which civil service is working to concretely discriminate against Muslims, as did the General Commissariat for Jewish Questions created by the law of March 29, 1941?

The proposal to revoke nationality (of Muslims) following the attacks was indeed foolishness intended to produce a media effect, but that is not enough to conclude that the Muslims of today are the Jews of yesterday. To which I should not be so presumptuous to add that, even among the most vehement opponents of Islam, Jean-Marie Le Pen, no one has envisioned or proposed the equivalent of the Vel’d’Hiv Roundup,[22] of a mass deportation of Muslims to concentration camps, let alone extermination. Just as one would look in vain for a massive plan to destroy Europe’s Muslims in gas chambers, which, need we remind you here? alas yes, remains synonymous with the Jewish people. That is why this moment in history should not be invoked or referred to so lightly.

COLUMN BY

 

REFERENCES:

[16] Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a saying made by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states: “As a discussion on the Internet grows longer, the likelihood of a person‘s being compared to Hitler or another Nazi, increases.” That means that as more people talk on the Internet for a longer time, it becomes more and more likely that someone will talk about Hitler or the Nazis.”

[17] Édouard Drumont [1844 -1917] was  a journalist, writer and right wing politician, who was an antidreyfusard and antisemite.

[18] Charles-Marie-Photius Maurras [ 1868 – 1952) was a French author, politician, poet, and critic. He was an organizer and principal philosopher of Action Française, a political movement that was monarchist, anti-parliamentarist, and counter-revolutionary. Maurras’ ideas greatly influenced National Catholicism and integral nationalism.

[19] Alain Finkielkraut [born 1949] philosopher, whose parents were Polish Jews, defines himself as being “at the same time classical and romantic”. Finkielkraut deplores what he sees as the deterioration of Western tradition through multiculturalism and relativism.

[20]   “To make a lark pie, take a horse and a lark …”. In this list of ingredients, the size disproportion between horse and lark is striking. The contrast makes us say that it would have been intellectually more honest to name such a dish (if we had to find a name for it), paté of horse with lark.

This exaggerated imbalance between two substances “packaged and sold” together under the same name, a disparity that the lark pie idiom perfectly highlights. Lark pâté is a Machiavellian trap in the place of a product or a proposition that has been misleadingly highlighted. The recipe is well known to advertisers and politicians. It consists of highlighting one of the secondary characteristics of a product, a law or a proposal, in order to present it in its best profile; the goal being to make up, minimize or even make people forget the dominant, uninteresting, harmful or liberating characteristic of the object in question.

[21] Action française is a French far-right monarchist political movement. The name was also given to a journal associated with the movement. The movement and the journal were founded by Maurice Pujo and Henri Vaugeois in 1899, as a nationalist reaction against the intervention of left-wing intellectuals on behalf of Alfred Dreyfus. Charles Maurras quickly joined Action française and became its principal ideologist..

[22]  The Vel d’Hiv Roundup (an abbreviation of Rafle du Vélodrome d’Hiver) in Paris was a mass arrest of Jewish families who were herded into this stadium, used for cycling tournaments during the winter, by French police and gendarmes on the orders of the German authorities in July 1942. Over 13,000 Jews were arrested, including more than 4,000 children. They were all later sent to Auschwitz.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NYC: Muslim arrested for brutal attack on man wearing IDF sweatshirt

Taliban Defense Minister Threatens to Put 2,000 Jihad Suicide Bombers at Afghan Embassy in Washington, D.C.

France: Muslim screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ injures three police officers

UK: Christian nurse bullied by hospital staff over small cross while Muslims wore hijab, went to mosque 4Xs daily

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Ocasio-Cortez: Comes the Moment to Decide

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the infamous group of four Congresswomen known as the “Squad,” which includes two Muslims — Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American, and Ilhan Omar, a Somali-American – and Ayanna Pressley. Tlaib and Omar are consistently, virulently, anti-Israel; Ocasio-Cortez just a tad less so in her public pronouncements. She did not vote “No” with Tlaib and Omar on a bill to provide extra funding to Israel for its Iron Dome anti-missile defense, but after voting “Present,” she proceeded, in a fit of remorse, to have a good cry in Congress about that very vote.

Now it turns out that a recently-hired legislative assistant in her office, one Hussein Altamimi, has made some outrageous and false claims about Israel on Instagram.. Ocasio-Cortez has been asked to discharge him. Robert Spencer discusses the case here, and an additional report on Altamimi’s accusations against Israel, and the call on Ocasio-Cortez to fire him, is here: “ZOA calls on Ocasio-Cortez to fire staffer who called Israel ‘racist European ethnostate,’” JNS, January 7, 2022:

…”Hussain Altamimi has made false, hateful, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel accusations on Instagram,” ZOA national president Morton Klein said in a letter sent to Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday [Jan.5}. He added that Altamimi’s “vitriolic posts are likely to add to the atmosphere of anti-Semitism and hatred that has fueled increasing, frightening, violent attacks on Jews in New York and throughout the United States.”

Fox News reported that Altamimi, who joined Ocasio-Cortez’s office in November, shared on his Instagram story on Dec. 24 a post from an account called “Let’s Talk Palestine,” which falsely accused Israel of “apartheid” and of having a “racial hierarchy.” Altamimi accompanied the post by writing: “Israel is a racist European ethnostate built on stolen land from its indigenous population!”

In his letter to Ocasio-Cortez, Klein insisted that “the racist dictatorship in the area is the Palestinian Authority.”

As he explained, “the Palestinian Authority states that no Jews will be allowed to live in their entity; condemns Arabs to death for selling property to Jews; and pays Arabs’ lifetime pensions to murder Jews and Americans. The P.A. also names schools, streets and sports teams after Jew-killers.”

Klein said the ZOA urges Ocasio-Cortez to fire Altamimi, as well as “publicly condemn these hateful odious remarks” made by him.

Well, let’s see. Hussein Altamimi’s remarks are certainly unpleasant – “hateful” and “odious,” according to Morton Klein – but are they true? Altamimi first posted, with evident approval, a statement he came across at the site “Let’s Talk Palestine,” that accused Israel of being an “apartheid” state and of having a “racial hierarchy.” So forgive us the need to repeat, endlessly, the same rebuttal as we have posted a dozen times before.

In Israel, Arabs sit in the Knesset, serve on the Supreme Court, go abroad as ambassadors for their country. An Arab party, Ra’am, is part of the current governing coalition. The chairman of Israel’s largest bank, Bank Leumi, is an Arab. Jews and Arabs study together in universities, work in the same offices and factories, provide care to Jewish and Arab patients, and receive treatment from Jewish and Arab doctors and nurses, in the same hospitals. Jews and Arabs play on the same sports teams and in the same orchestras. They act together on the stage, on television, and the movies. None of that would be possible in a real “apartheid” state as South Africa was until the 1990s. There is only one difference in the treatment of Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. Jews must, while Arabs may, serve in the military.

Is there a “racial hierarchy” in Israel? Do Jews lord it over Arabs? Nowhere, and in nothing. There is complete legal equality between Jew and Arab, Muslim and non-Muslim. There are no professions in Israel that Arabs cannot practice, unlike the Palestinians in many Arab lands, such as Lebanon, where they are shut up in camps, and prohibited from practicing dozens of professions.

Altamimi accompanied that post from “Let’s Talk Palestine” by writing in his Instagram: “Israel is a racist European ethnostate built on stolen land from its indigenous population!” Is Israel a “European ethnostate”? This is one of the staples of Palestinian propaganda – that “the Jews” all came to Israel from Europe, and are not indigenous to the Middle East; they have no business laying claim to any part of Israel. But we know that Jews have been living continuously for 3000 years in the Land of Israel; there is extensive archaeological evidence – pottery, coins, scrolls from the Dead Sea, ancient synagogues, mosaics, and so much more – of that Jewish presence. And Jews were not only in Eretz Israel, but spread from there across the Middle East and North Africa and into Europe. The Jews who remained in the Middle East and North Africa are called Mizrahi Jews; there is nothing “European” about them; in 2005 61% of Israeli Jews claimed Mizrahi or part-Mizrahi ancestry.

Less than one-third of Israeli Jews claim Ashkenazi or part-Ashkenazi ancestry, which would link them to Europe. Of course even those Ashkenazi Jews did not originate in Europe; like all Jews, they originated in the Land of Israel; through the centuries some Jewish populations appeared in Europe The only reason for Hussein Altamimi to make his preposterous claim that Israel is a “European ethnostate” is that he wants to deny the indigeneity of the Jews, the claim that they originated in the Land of Israel,, and are not outside invaders who came as European conquerors to the Middle East. There are whole museums of archaeology and anthropology that offer incontrovertible evidence that Altamimi has it wrong. But his narrative depends on the “white, European, colonial-settlers” coming from outside, arriving in Palestine where, in his narrative, the Muslim Arabs have been living for thousands of years, and proceeding to “steal their land.” No one has been able, for obvious reasons, to find any evidence of that Muslim Arab presence before the seventh century A.D., about 2300 years later than the Jews first appeared in the Land of Israel.

Hussein Altamimi claims that “Israel is a racist European ethnostate built on stolen land from its indigenous population!” Which is the indigenous population – the Arabs who came out of Arabia in the seventh century and conquered large swathes of the Middle East and North Africa, or the Jews who since 3000 B.C. had been living uninterruptedly in the Land of Israel? The Jews did not “steal [the Arabs’] land. It was the Jews who were dispossessed of their land by various conquerors – Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman Turk – but who finally, in the 20th century, were encouraged by the ideology of Zionism to return to the Land of Israel, not to “steal land,” but to buy it from Arab and Turkish landowners. The sums the Jews spent in this effort were exorbitant: in 1941, Jews buying scarcely arable land in Mandatory Palestine were paying more to their Arab owners than was then being charged for the richest farmland in the world, in Iowa. The Palestine Mandate, Article 6, calls on the holder of the Mandate, Great Britain, to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage “close settlement by Jews on the land.” In addition, “state and waste lands” were to be made available for Jews to settle on. The only time that Israel took land that it did not buy, or inherit as “state and waste land,” was in the immediate aftermath of the 1948 war. Arabs who had left the area, having been encouraged to do so by Arab broadcasts that promised that if they left the places where fighting was taking place in Palestine, they would soon be able to return with the victorious Arab armies. They left, but the “victorious Arab armies” never appeared. Israel saw no reason, since the Arabs who left were clearly not going to return, not to allow Jews to settle on these lands deserted by their owners. The Israelis did not “steal land” but put to use land that had been permanently abandoned. There is a difference.

Hussain Altamimi has made a series of damning charges. He claims that Israel is an “apartheid” state, but provides no evidence for this preposterous claim, for there is none. He insists there is a “racial hierarchy” in Israel, but again, offers no evidence for Jews lording It over, whether in law or in custom, Israeli Arabs. He calls Israel a “European ethnostate,” though almost two-thirds of Israel’s Jews are Mizrahis, descended from people who never left the Middle East and North Africa. He charges Israel with “stealing” land from the Arabs, ignoring the fact that all the land the Zionists acquired before the 1948 war was bought at very high prices from Arab and Turkish landowners. The land left by Arabs who fled just before, during, and after that war, was taken by the State of Israel and settled on by Jews. Those same Jews in many instances had fled for their lives from Arab lands, leaving them bereft of tens of billions of dollars in property. Israel put t use the land abandoned by Arabs. What else should Israel have done? Left those lands forever empty?

Hussain Altamimi has made a series of accusations against the Jewish state that are false. He has maligned the State of Israel. What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez plan to do? Will she shut her ears to those who have complained about Altamimi, or will she do the right thing, and look into his claims, and If she finds them to be false, say so publicly? Or will she remain silent, which will be interpreted as constituting an endorsement of his statements as true? The only honorable course for her is to investigate the truth or falsehood of his remarks, and when she finds them — as she surely will — to be false, both to denounce Hussain Altamimi’s lies, and to let him go. He won’t remain unemployed for long. Even now they are ready to take him on board as a “legislative liaison with Congress” at that samaritan institution, CAIR, where Israel-bashing is never out of style.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Afghanistan: Taliban defense minister threatens to put 2,000 jihad suicide bombers at Afghan embassy in DC

Iran: ‘Hard Revenge’ for Soleimani Killing Will Come From ‘Within’ the U.S.  

Canada: Arabic-language publication praises jihad terror groups, calls for destruction of Israel

Khamenei: ‘The factor of saving the country in different trying times is the religious zeal of the Iranian nation’

UK: Man converts to Islam, screams ‘Allahu akbar, we cut people’s heads off,’ threatens group with knife

UK: Muslim cleric tells woman not to report rape claim to police, says she will need four witnesses as per Qur’an

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Islamo-Leftism [Part 6]

Editor’s note: The following is a translation by Ibn Warraq and Robert Kerr of Michel Onfray’s L’Art d’Etre Francais (The Art of Being French, Bouquins, 2021), published here for the first time. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here. Part 4 is here. Part 5 is here.


Let us note in passing that this gratuitous and rather unscientific association of the working classes of yesterday with xenophobia remains to be demonstrated: on the other hand, we know that many journalists, intellectuals, publishers, writers, philosophers, academics, actors, comedians, lawyers, academics, and composers were certainly not latecomers in endorsing Vichy’s xenophobia, racism, and antisemitism. When de Gaulle launched his appeal of June 18[10], it was modest sailors who were the first to respond, not academics.

The sociologist refuses to use the term “Muslims” claiming that it is a fiction, a “phantasmatic category”. However, he has no difficulty in talking about the French, the Germans and the English by reactivating the old theory of the character of peoples. The French woman will do this, the English intellectual that, the Russian thinker something else…

Moreover, the book uses and abuses this rejected concept. Essentially, one may therefore not use the term “Muslims” if one has misgivings [scil. about Islam], but if one speaks well of them, one may. Muslims are thus all followers of a “minority religion adhered to by a disadvantaged group” – the italics are the author’s…

Of course, another platitude of the Islamo-leftist method, is that the young people (largely of North African descent) who burn cars in the Parisian banlieues cannot be considered delinquents; they ransack the property of the poor out of love for France and its republican values, since this is how they can reclaim the equality that the motto of the Republic promises them. An unprecedented patriotism indeed…

Another cliché of Islamo-leftism is the criticism of secularism, which is said to be a covert weapon of war to attack Muslims alone. Our sociologist then passes from secularism to laicism, which he presents as an intolerant religion. The right to blasphemy is for him “the right to spit on the religion of the weak” – nevertheless, in his conclusion he defends it all the same…

The researcher having discovered this additionally decrees that atheism necessarily accompanies “a world devoid of meaning and a human species without purpose”. It is therefore “a generator of anguish”. The Marxist thesis of religion as the opium of the people is no longer valid: the Muslim religion is understood as the ideology of legitimate salvation to which poor Muslim victims are forced by evil capitalism…

To the question: what is the seductive appeal of Islam? Emmanuel Todd answers: “The existence of an ideal combining individual morality, a collective project and the possibility of a beautiful future can help people in their effort to become something more than frail animals let loose in a world devoid of meaning. That is why we must consider the possibility that Islam contributes positively, in certain circumstances and in some of its manifestations, to the psychological equilibrium of individuals, to good school results and to successful integration into French society” (emphasis of Onfray).  Let us recall that this ‘demonstration’ is found in a book that condemns those who marched to denounce the attacks…

If Islam provides for an ideal, a morality, a project, a beauty, a balance, good school results, successful social integration, this would merit more than peremptory assertions: we would like to see the reputed figures, those indispensable tables, the incontrovertible statistics that would validate the scientific nature of what, otherwise, is just showmanship! Unfortunately, we have a lot of figures that rather tend to prove the opposite.

If Emmanuel Todd believes that the category “Muslim” is phantasmatic, he also thinks that Islam has little to do with the Qur’an! Which is why he can turn a religion whose founding text reveals itself to be misogynistic, phallocratic, anti-Semitic and warmongering, in more than one place, into an ideology that is… egalitarian! In Indonesia, it is even an opportunity for women!

Of course, our sociologist, even if he is not specialized in religion, is aware that there are verses that frankly endorse the inequality of men and women or that theorize that a woman’s testimony is not equal to that of a man, in addition to the fact that in the case of inheritance, the shares are unequally distributed depending on one’s gender. How does one get out of such a conundrum? By denying outright – contrary to all that we know to be true and against all evidence – that these verses are still in force in the modern world.

Thus Emmanuel Todd writes: “Nowhere in the Muslim world are the rules of inheritance found in the Qur’an applied.” I doubt that in Afghanistan or Yemen, in Qatar or Saudi Arabia, to mention only two or three countries that come to mind, the Qur’an is trashed in favor of Olympe de Gouges’[11] Declaration of Women’s Rights.

In the same way, young people in the suburbs are also, according to our sociologist, more devoted to the feminist revolution than to Sharia law. Todd goes so far as to assert that the beurs[12] of the suburbs have gone “nine or ten tenths of the way towards an egalitarian conception of the status of men and women.” One can appreciate the scientific character of such an assertion: one can imagine that Max Weber would not have been satisfied with a method that could be described as “give or take”, the notorious “nine or ten”; Libération, on the other hand, even more so! Emmanuel Todd proposes a genealogy of anti-Semitism that is really something else: for him, there is no point in questioning the quranic text itself, which is full of anti-Semitic passages, or even consulting the Hadiths that confirm hatred against Jews, for whom Allah ordains slaughter, or indeed the wars waged against the Jews by the Prophet himself – anti-Semitism rather is the product… of Islamophobia!

COLUMN BY

REFERENCES:

[10] The Appeal of 18 June (FrenchL’Appel du 18 juin) was the first speech made by Charles de Gaulle after his arrival in London in 1940 following the Fall of France. Broadcast to France by the radio services of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), it is often considered to have marked the beginning of the French Resistance in World War II. It is regarded as one of the most important speeches in French history. A part of the speech goes like this: “I, General de Gaulle, currently in London, invite the officers and the French soldiers who are located in British territory or who would come there, with their weapons or without their weapons, I invite the engineers and the special workers of armament industries who are located in British territory or who would come there, to put themselves in contact with me…“

[11] Olympe de Gouges [1748-1793] In her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen (1791), she challenged the practice of male authority and the notion of male-female inequality. She was executed by guillotine during the Reign of Terror [1793-1794].

[12] Beurs: Beur (or alternatively, Rebeu) is a colloquial term, sometimes considered pejorative, in French to designate European-born people whose parents or grandparents are immigrants from the Maghreb [NWAfrica]. The equivalent term for a female beur is a beurette.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Islamo-Leftism [Part 5]

Editor’s note: The following is a translation by Ibn Warraq and Robert Kerr of Michel Onfray’s L’Art d’Etre Francais (The Art of Being French, Bouquins, 2021), published here for the first time. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here. Part 4 is here.


Virginie Despentes also confesses that she doesn’t know how to “make the connection between what happened and Islam”… Should we cry or laugh? It is thus easy to see why so much nonsense can be uttered: the attacks of September 11? No connection with Islam. The Bataclan massacre? No connection with Islam… The murder of Jewish children by Mohamed Merah? No connection with Islam… The twelve dead and eleven wounded members of the editorial staff of Charlie Hebdo? No connection with Islam… The murders of Jews in the kosher supermarket by the Kouachi brothers? No connection with Islam…

She added: “I just saw the absurd irony of the whole thing: these Charlie guys [sic] turned into martyrs, and the extreme right-wing UMP-FN alliance pissing on their graves. Yes, it was weird for us Judeo-Christians – me, a blond white girl with pale eyes in the lead – to see that not all civilizations are going to collapse at the same time, and especially Muslim culture seems to be on the first note while we’re playing the last notes of the score. After having despised them, humiliated them, and having been born convinced of our superiority – even if it meant feeling a bit guilty, but so superior –, yes, it felt strange to understand that we won’t be part of the forces that count tomorrow. It’s not uninteresting, but it’s strange to experience the twilight of a civilization.”

Once she understands, Virginie Despentes gives her explanation of the reasons for hatred: “What we shoot at is the proof that we are responsible for our own failures.” So the criminal is a victim and the victim a criminal.

An example for those who do not understand this subtle theory: when Mohamed Merah put the barrel of a gun to the head of a Jewish child and killed him, the guilty party was not Mohamed Merah but the person who made his act possible – most of the time a middle-aged white male, Judeo-Christian… When Merah shoots, it is a white man who should be hung.

Virginie Despentes’ lesson is that these attacks are really reprehensible for one reason only: they have generated an image of terrorism being linked with Islam (remember that the rebellious, award-winning author who was then a member of the Goncourt jury didn’t see the connection…) and of Islam being linked with all Muslims, which is very damaging for the corner grocer where the author of Baise moi (Rape me)[9] does her shopping.

Let us add that, perhaps, a second reason could be found that would make this terror a bad thing: these attacks have indeed generated authoritarian police legislation that is more serious, in the end, than the death of the journalists of the satirical weekly. The idea that a police patrol could stop Virginie Despentes’ car and ask her to open her trunk was indeed a sign that we were now living in a far more dangerous State than the threat posed by those who, shouting “Allah Akbar!”, cold-bloodedly killed Jewish children in a school, Jewish customers in a kosher store, journalists in a newsroom.

In the end, the real issue, as the Saint-Germain-des-Prés intellectual discovers, is “masculinity”! “I believe that this regime of weapons and the right to kill will forever be what defines masculinity,” she writes.

Killers are men? This proves indisputably that men, all men, are killers: “Since they don’t give birth, they kill,” she asserts in an aphorism that sounds like it came out of some Sunday School where ladies sermonize about good and evil.

She concludes, this time as the Mother Superior who chaperoned the catechetical meeting, “When and how do we close the arms factories?” Indeed. How could I not have thought of this earlier: if only the arms factories were closed, there would be no more murders! For it was at arms factories that the Kouachi brothers bought their weapons with their credit cards. What was I thinking?

The left-wing intellectuals therefore walked on eggshells to explain that, in the end, the guilty parties were poor victims and the victims were miserable culprits!

Thus, in Who is Charlie? subtitled Sociology of a Religious Crisis (2015), the French academic Emmanuel Todd, attached to the National Institute of Demographic Studies (INED) in Paris, explained that the millions of people who took to the streets to condemn the terrorism that had just spilled blood were… Islamophobes! It takes a certain skill, if not a certain talent, to produce this kind of paradox, but in Paris, this sleight of hand is common enough.

While Todd claims to follow the sociology of Max Weber, he takes the statistics published by Libération seriously. The analyses seem judicious, but they are not scientific, contrary to what the maps, tables and statistics might lead one to believe. This book is a political and militant work, we wouldn’t want to hold that against him, but it is by no means a scientific production. Therefore, we can question the claim that he is a researcher who objectively interprets the facts as he claims.

The thesis of this book is simple: the dechristianization of France has left the country without bearings. The middle class then looked for an en­emy. He writes: “Xenophobia, yesterday reserved for the working classes, is migrating up the social ladder. The middle and upper classes sought a scapegoat” – and they have found one in the Muslims.

COLUMN BY

REFERENCE:

[9] A controversial French novel published by Virginie Despentes in 1994, the English edition entitled Baise moi (Rape me) appeared in 2003.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mufti of Aleppo: Soleimani was ‘model of resistance, jihad and faith,’ he ‘defended genuine Islam and true faith’

Vermont: Opportunities Credit Union developing a lending program that complies with Islamic law

Thailand: Muslims set off six bombs on New Year’s Eve, attack military checkpoint

DR Congo: Muslims storm village and open fire, murdering seventeen people

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Islamo-Leftism [Part 3]

Editor’s note: The following is a translation by Ibn Warraq and Robert Kerr of Michel Onfray’s L’Art d’Etre Francais (The Art of Being French, Bouquins, 2021), published here for the first time. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here.


Foucault went on a second trip in November of that year, and a new series of articles appeared. On February 13, 1979, when Khomeini left for Iran, the philosopher, who had made the trip to Neauphle-le-Château, was present at the airport.

What arguments do the articles he published in the Italian newspaper at the end of 1978 make?

That Islam is the answer to the Shah’s westernization of Iran; that, for want of justice, the Mullahs provide charity in response to the regime’s imperialism; that a Muslim killing another Muslim is scandalous – which is however to ignore the history of Shiite-Sunni relations for almost a millennium and a half; that Israel backed the Shah along with the United States and France (but then so did the Soviet Union); that, paradoxically for a normalien, modernity is archaism – and thus tradition is the true modernity; that the regime was corrupt and that the Shah was imposing on his people “a regime of occupation” comparable “to all colonial regimes” (III, 683).

– therefore, to oppose this is to resist; secularism and industrialization are no longer relevant

-and consequently, theocracy and feudal economy represent the true modernity; the Shah’s regime stands for archaism while that of the Mullahs  is modernity; that the traditional life defended by the Mullahs is preferable to the modernity advocated by the Shah; that “Islam, which for so many centuries has so carefully regulated daily life, family ties, and social relations” (III, 685), is most capable of offering “protection” against the regime – “didn’t its rigor [sic], its immobility [re-sic] determine its success?” Accordingly, “the Islamic government” and the left make common cause without any difficulty  (this is the genealogy of Islamo-leftism); that the Qur’an legitimized the struggle against the Shah, the Americans, “the West and its materialism”; that Islam is fascinated by death and martyrdom (and it is understandable that this proved irresistible to Foucault, who shared this fascination); that the Islamist sermons broadcast in the streets by loudspeaker reminded him of Savonarola – who headed the Catholic theocratic dictatorship in Florence without our philosophy professor being troubled about it; that the Shiite clergy disregards hierarchy, but that one must follow ‘the great ayatollahs’ because they crystallize the will of the people; that Islam is opposed to state power (a notion that a thousand years of Islamic politics refutes); and “that one fact must be clear: By ‘Islamic government’ no one in Iran means a political regime in which the clergy would play a leading or supervisory role” (III, 691) – Everyone will appreciate the philosopher’s immense foresight; that Islam once in power would protect freedoms, minorities, the equality of men and women, that the people could hold those who govern them to account; that this same political Islam would make it possible to reinsert spirituality, that is to say religion, into politics – which means abolishing secularism and restoring the theocratic order that the French Revolution had suppressed in order to favor the democratic order; that a ‘political spirituality’ (III, 694) is a project that ‘impressed’ (that’s his own word) Michel Foucault.

In speaking of this “political spirituality” as something we had forgotten “since the Renaissance and the great crises of Christianity” (though all counter-revolutionary thought was full of it in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, one only has to read Joseph de Maistre[4], Louis de Bonald[5], Blanc de Saint-Bonnet[6]), Foucault writes: “I can already hear the French laughing, but I know they are wrong” (III, 694).

The philosopher, however, was also wrong on this subject: many French people did not laugh, many of them even subscribed to this reactionary and theocratic thinking, since it came from a man who called himself a leftist. I am thinking of Serge July in Libération or Jean Daniel in Le Nouvel Observateur, who also thought along these lines. The same applies to the Parti socialiste. Or with Le Monde, which, since the war in Lebanon in 1975, pitted the “Islamo-progressivists” against the “conservative Christians”. This has since become the dominant ideology of what presents itself as the Left and claims to be progressive.

Islamo-Gauchism was thus born in the wake of this Iranian revolution when Foucault believed that Islamic traditionalist thought, that is to say its anti-Semitism, its phallocracy, its misogyny, its theocracy, its homophobia, were susceptible to become the truth of the future.

He was certainly not wrong to write: “The issue of Islam as a political force is a crucial matter for our time and for the years to come” (III, 708). But why on earth did he think that abolishing secularism, suppressing democracy, renouncing progress, that is, restoring the power of the religious, rehabilitating theocracy, and re-establishing tradition, were the political answers to the crisis of the Western world? The ghost of Foucault hovers over European decadence.

COLUMN BY

REFERENCES:

[4] Joseph de Maistre [1753-1821] was a key figure of the Counter-Enlightenment. He regarded the monarchy both as a divinely sanctioned institution and as the only stable form of government. Maistre argued that the rationalist rejection of Christianity was directly responsible for the disorder and bloodshed which followed the French Revolution of 1789.

[5] Louis de Bonald [1754-1840], was a monarchist who opposed the French Revolution, and wished France to return to the principles of the Roman Catholic Church.

[6] Blanc de Saint-Bonnet [1815-1880] was a counter-revolutionary, anti-liberal who favored social Catholicism. He wrote, “You who separate reason and religion, know that you destroy both. Religion is the health of reason; reason is the strength of religion. Religion without reason becomes superstition. Reason without religion becomes disbelief” (L’Unité spirituelle)

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Islamo-Leftism [Part 1]

Editor’s note: The following is a translation by Ibn Warraq and Robert Kerr of Michel Onfray’s L’Art d’Etre Francais (The Art of Being French, Bouquins, 2021), published here for the first time


The words…

Sartre, again and again…

This man is a compass that points south! Sartre, deluded as he was, missed out on the perilous rise (as a professor in Le Havre, he found virtues in Hitler, according to Philippe Dechartre who was his pupil at the time – I have this information from his son Emmanuel…) of the Popular Front (he did not vote and despised the masses marching in the streets…), on the catastrophic defeat in 1940 (Beauvoir found the Germans who took her under their wing very sympathetic…), of the Occupation (in 1944, he found the German officers in the subway very polite and wrote about it….), the Resistance (he later claimed to be in the Resistance, but probably in the same group as Marguerite Duras, who was sleeping with a lout from the Gestapo…), the Liberation (he repeatedly concealed people as compromised as himself, including his publisher, whom he whitewashed and who whitewashed him in return…), he calls de Gaulle all manner of names (“fascist” being the most courteous, but there are also “reactionary pimp”, “pig”, “bloody bastard”, or “shit”, see his Interviews with John Gerassi between 1970 and 1974), he gave the Soviet kiss to all the Marxist-Leninist dictators the World has ever known (Stalin, Mao, Che Guevara, Castro, Kim Il-sung), he supported the Palestinian terrorists who killed Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, he defended the Baader-Meinhof gang, he asked people to vote François Mitterrand… One wonders why, in Le Siècle de Sartre, in the year 2000, Bernard-Henri Lévy undertakes to praise such a man!

Of course, Sartre is also on the side of the Ayatollah Khomeini! Never late for an infamy, Jean-Paul Sartre supported this man exiled in Neauphle-le-Château in the Yvelines where France had granted him hospi­tality. From October 1978 to February 1979, the Iranian dignitary spent 114 days there; Sartre joined his support committee! It is not surprising that this episode is mostly concealed. In fact, it is not mentioned either in his authorized biographies, nor in the Dictionnaire Sartre, nor in the Album Pléiade, nor in the chronologies which accompany the three volumes of philosophy in this collection, nor in La Cérémonie des adieux that Simone de Beauvoir brought out in 1981, to give an account of the last years of her companion.

Sartre’s political thinking was as superficial as a teenager’s petulance: a bourgeois had stolen his mother, whose affection he had enjoyed alone since her widowhood, the child was then fifteen months old, and this remarriage, when he was twelve years old, had triggered in him an unquenchable hatred of the bourgeois. At least the idea he had of them. From then on, anything and everything that attacked the bourgeoisie acted as an absolute ideal for him. The left was his family, since his mother’s remarriage had robbed him of it. Les Mots describes this neurosis between the lines. The existential psychoanalysis elaborated by the philosopher justifies this genealogical, biographical, and psychological reading of his political commitments.

Like Stalin or Mao, Guevara or Castro, Mao or Kim Il-sung, Khomeini is a kindred spirit of Sartre. Nationalism, imperialism, colonialism – these are the enemies since they embody the law of the father for this cultured man who ingenuously admits he has no subconscious… An Ayatollah who opposes the Shah of Iran – who was portrayed as an agent of American imperialism, also having good relations with Israel – is a new kinsman! It doesn’t matter that the Shah was dropped by the United States, which worked to replace him with the Ayatollah – by no means the least of the follies of American policy, which was also allied with bin Laden for a time, anticommunism makes for strange bedfellows Sartre was happy to support a man who proposed to do away with the bourgeoisie. There is no point in looking a gift horse in the mouth!

The same neurosis animated Sartre when he belatedly became an ally of the FLN in Algeria: the progenitor in this case was General de Gaulle, the aforementioned “reactionary pimp”. His zeal remained undiminished as the aim was to establish a socialist regime on the other side of the Mediterranean. It doesn’t matter that this change of regime ushered in the return to the traditional patriarchal values promoted by Islam. If the paternal demiurge were killed, the bloodshed would be without consequence, even acting as a catharic ablution.

This period of Sartre’s support for the Ayatollah Khomeini, between the end of 1978 and the beginning of 1979, is recounted by Beauvoir in La Cérémonie des adieux (published in English as Adieux: A Farewell to Sartre in 1981). The philosopher died a few months later, on 15 April 1980. She recounts the end of the life of this man who had smoked and taken drugs more than he should have for decades. Now half-blind, half-deaf, he was no longer himself, drooling, drinking, suffering from memory loss, having a peeled tongue from swallowing amphetamines, he rambled, taking two days to read Le Nouvel Observateur (in 1973), and furthermore he had diabetes, etc. This is this man whom his courtiers cast into the arms of the Ayatollah Khomeini, in the aftermath of which Pierre Victor (alias Benny Lévy; his last personal secretary) obtained from him, in March 1980, interviews for Le Nouvel Observateur in which he, who had justified Palestinian terrorism, converts… to philosemitism! These interviews were published under the title L’Espoir maintenant.

Let’s leave Jean-Paul Sartre there. He wrote nothing about this companionship with the Ayatollah, which is to say that he was no longer himself, having hitherto made a headline out of everything he did. While he gave the impetus to Islamo-leftism, the rest came to pass without him.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Islamophobia’ prof Hatem Bazian claims ‘the Muslim is presumed guilty’ on American campuses

From Minneapolis to Vienna, projecting weakness invites aggression

India: Muslim who slit the throats of a dozen civilians is killed in Srinagar

France: Muslim screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ riddles car with bullets, threatens female jogger

Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps top dog: Enemies of Iran are in stage of surrender to coronavirus pandemic

Afghanistan: Intelligence agents dump 3,000 litres of liquor into Kabul canal

Why the UN Human Rights Council Has Outlived Its Usefulness

Turkish judge: ‘Women should not demonstrate against femicide’

Kenya: Muslims murder six people and torch homes

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Muslim staffer for AOC calls Israel ‘racist European ethnostate’ built on ‘stolen land’

AOC and her friends and allies won’t care about this. They believe the same thing. Get the truth in The Palestinian Delusion.

Ocasio-Cortez staffer calls Israel a ‘racist European ethnostate’ that was built on ‘stolen land’

by Houston Keene, Fox News, December 30, 2021 (thanks to Henry):

FIRST ON FOX: A staffer for “Squad” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., referred to Israel as a “racist European ethnostate” on social media.

Hussain Altamimi joined Ocasio-Cortez’s office in November as a legislative assistant, posting shortly after a picture of him and the congresswoman on Instagram with the caption “New beginnings.”

Then, last week, Altamimi targeted Israel in an Instagram story calling the U.S.’s key Middle Eastern ally a “racist European ethnostate.”

“Israel is a racist European ethnostate built on stolen land from its indigenous population!” Altamimi wrote on Christmas Eve, according to a screenshot obtained by Fox News Digital.

Altamimi’s comments were in response to a post he shared from an account with the handle “Let’s Talk Palestine,” which claimed there is a “racial hierarchy” in Israel.

“This reveals the principle underpinning Israeli apartheid: It’s not about where you’re born,” the shared post reads. “It’s about whether you’re Jewish or non-Jewish. Your ethnicity determines your rights [and] level in the racial hierarchy.”

“Israel is an exclusive ethnostate, established to serve one ethnic group at the expense of another,” the post continued….

RELATED ARTICLES:

AOC Claims Republicans Criticize Her Because Of ‘Deranged Sexual Frustrations’

Hardcore Harpy Ocasio-Cortez Blasted After Being Caught In Miami Beach As NYC Sets Pandemic Record: ‘AOC Loves DeSantis’

Iran: Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps simulates launch of missiles and suicide drones at Israeli targets

Nigeria: 16 Christian orphans abducted, abused and forcibly converted to Islam

Iran: IRGC’s Salami warns ‘Zionist regime’s officials’ that ‘if they make mistakes, we will cut off their hands’

Pakistan: 70,000 Arabic teachers hired for compulsory teaching of Quran

EDITIORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Palestinian’ flags lead at New York City protests against acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse

What does the “Palestinian” jihad have to do with Kyle Rittenhouse’s right to defend himself? Supporting the jihad and opposing Rittenhouse amounts to being in favor of violent actions against innocent people, and denying those people the right to self-defense. It’s an axis of evil.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Palestinian’ flags lead at New York City protests against acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse

Biden Proposes Lifting Sanctions on Iran in Exchange for ‘Interim Nuclear Deal’

Imagine If the FBI Hadn’t Targeted Parents, But BLMers or Muslims with ‘Threat Tags’

Der Stürmer: Media Hides Democrats’ ‘Historic’ Migration Expansion

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Should Academic Departments Have Foreign Policies?

When did academic departments decide they had to declare themselves on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute but on no other foreign policy question? And why are they so eager to express their visceral hatred of the Jewish state? A report on this disturbing phenomenon is here: “Academic departments must steer clear of anti-Israel activism,” by Richard L. Cravatts, Israel Hayom, November 12, 2021:

The obsessive loathing of Israel by large swathes of academia was evident this past spring as Hamas showered Israeli population centers with more than 4,000 rockets and mortars. Instead of denouncing genocidal aggression on the part of Hamas, these woke, virtue-signaling moral narcissists took it upon themselves to condemn – in the loudest and most condemnatory terms — the Jewish state, not the homicidal psychopaths intent on murdering Jews….

There is a difference between an individual expressing an opinion on, say, social media. That opinion is his alone. No pressure has been placed on him to express it. But when academic departments put out what are presented as that department’s — presumably unanimous — opinion, those who may not agree with the majority seldom dare to express their minority opinion in the daggers-drawn atmosphere of current academic life, where dissent is only for the tenured, and even they must be very brave, to express solidarity with, or sympathy for, the embattled Jewish state that has been so demonized in the swamps of academe.

At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Cary Nelson, former president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and professor emeritus of English, challenged the propriety of departments authoring statements of support for the Palestinian cause while vilifying and denouncing Israel in the process. Four academic units at Illinois had issued anti-Israel statements in the spring – the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Asian American Studies, and the Department of History – prompting Nelson and 43 of his fellow faculty to write a letter to Chancellor Robert Jones and Provost Andreas Cangellaris.

In that letter, the faculty noted that “the statements in question were not issued by individual faculty or groups of faculty. They were subscribed to by departments … [and] have been placed on websites and disseminated through social media and email, which created the impression that the unit was speaking for all or most of the faculty within it. This represents a worrisome development. And it is worrisome irrespective of one’s views on the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.”…

These “departmental opinions” are the result of an atmosphere of intellectual intimidation, with those not subscribing to the majority view nonetheless being “spoken for.” Did absolutely every faculty member, for example, in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, agree that Israel is an arch-villain? Or was such an opinion presented by a handful of anti-Israel activists, without the agreement or even, possibly, the knowledge, of all of that department’s members? Did the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies decide, as in the Soviet Union, that “for the good of the Party” no dissent could be allowed and simply rode roughshod over those who dared to even mildly disagree with the kind of hysterical language that is used to blacken Israel’s image? And did the members of that same department not know, or not care, that it is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience”? It is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their menfolk, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often receive no punishment at all. It is Israel that guarantees the legal equality of men and women, and it is the Palestinians who violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it rages against those who defend their rights.

Academic life is supposed to be dedicated, among other things, to the pursuit of the truth. Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife, professors have the great privilege of time – time to investigate matters of interest to them, time to weigh competing claims, time to analyze, to praise and to blame. The May conflict was only a few days old when academic departments issued their summary judgments against Israel. There is a rush to judgment when it comes to Israel. What led these departments to think they had to express the “department’s” opinion, instead of letting individual faculty members have their say, or if they wished, choose to say nothing at all? Why this insensate urge to force a false consensus, through veiled threats of retribution if someone fails to toe the anti-Israel line – threats that too often are successful? Those who disagree with the consensus find it more prudent to simply remain silent, rather than make enemies of fellow members of the department. For non-tenured faculty, it’s obvious why such a choice is made. But even tenured faculty may want to keep their heads down, avoid trouble, concentrate on their own work, and hope that the madness passes.

For academic departments to pronounce with such authority, on things they know so little, or nothing, about, is intolerable. Academics who have no special knowledge of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict presume that their opinions deserve special respect. They should be heeded simply because they are professors, no matter how distant their field may be from what they pontificate about. As an example, let’s look at how four departments at the University of Illinois presented what we were to assume were the collective views of its members.

Let’s start with the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois, which denounces Israel in hysterical terms, charging it with the “illegal occupation of Palestinian land”; a “siege, indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza”; “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people”; and, echoing the venomous blood libel promoted by Rutgers professor Jasbir Puar, among others, the “deliberate maiming of Palestinian bodies.”

First, there is no “illegal occupation of Palestinian land.” Israel, in a war of self-defense started in May by Gamal Abdel Nasser, won by force of arms both Gaza and Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the West Bank). The victory in the Six-Day War did not create Israel’s claim to these territories, but allowed it to exercise its preexisting claim. Israel has a right, under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 6, to establish “close settlement by Jews on the land.” What land? All the land from the Golan in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean in the west – the land that the League of Nations intended to be part of the future Jewish National Home. Have these professors of urban planning read the Mandate for Palestine? The San Remo Treaty? Article 80 of the U.N. Charter? U.N. Security Council Resolution 242? Don’t be silly.

Israel gave up Gaza in 2005, pulling out all 8,500 Israelis who had been living the Strip. There is no “siege” of Gaza, as the Department of Urban Planning at the University of Illinois insists. Electricity, water, and natural gas are all supplied by Israel to the people of Gaza. There is no attempt to keep out any medicines or food. There is a blockade, but that is on goods that can be used by the terror group Hamas, which has run Gaza since 2007, in attacks on Israel. Thus, the supplies allowed into Gaza of some building materials, such as cement, are limited. For they are deemed to be “dual-use” materials, because they can be used innocuously to build apartments, but can also be used to build such things as emplacements for rocket launchers and terror tunnels.

There are no “indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza.” Israeli pilots pinpoint their targets; there is no carpet bombing. Hamas places its weapons, its rocket launchers, its command-and-control centers, in or next to schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, even mosques. Israel tries very hard to minimize civilian casualties. When a target has been chosen, the Israelis warn inhabitants to leave the building, through various means – telephoning, leafletting, emailing, and use of the “knock-on-the-roof” technique. Ordinarily the Palestinians have between 15 minutes and two hours to leave. There have been no “massacres in Gaza.” In the 11-day conflict this past May, of the 260 Palestinians killed, 225 of them were determined, through the tracking of death notices, to have been Hamas fighters; 25 of them were senior commanders of the terror group. Only a few dozen of those killed could have been civilians. And there were no reports of any “massacres.” The professors in the Department of Urban Planning were simply throwing in Israel’s direction whatever grotesque charges they could fabricate against the Jewish state, counting on some of it to stick.

Similarly, there has been no “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people.” The IDF, as British Colonel Richard Kemp has noted, is the “most moral army in the world.” It makes heroic efforts to protect civilian lives through every possible method of warning inhabitants in or near buildings soon to be hit. Israeli pilots have been known to call off their mission if they spot children too near to the target; this happened several times during the May war.

Let’s look at the less extreme statement of the History Department at the same university.

The Executive Committee of the Department of History issued a briefer statement by email that condemned “the state violence that the Israeli government and its security forces have been carrying out in Gaza” and “standing in solidarity with Palestine and support for the struggle for Palestinian liberation” – “liberation” being a euphemism for the Middle East without Israel and free of Jewish sovereignty on Muslim land.

The statement was put out in an email, as if all members of the History Department agreed to its contents. By what right did the “Executive Committee” presume to speak for the whole department? And why does it describe as Israeli “state violence” a war that began on May 10, when Hamas launched hundreds of rockets at civilian areas of Israel, and Israel did what any nation-state would do – it fought back in defense of its people, hitting in response Hamas rockets, rocket launchers, command-and-control centers, fighters, and a network of terror tunnels? What should Israel have done? Simply let those 4,500 rockets that Hamas flung toward Israeli cities such as Ashdod and Ashkelon land without trying to hit back, in self-defense, at Hamas – its weapons depots, its rocket launchers, its fighters – so that it could no longer launch those rockets? Why is this self-defense described as “state violence”? Would America have done differently?

As for that claim of “standing in solidarity with Palestine , and support or the struggle for Palestinian liberation,” as Richard Cravatts, correctly notes, that is code for the replacement of Israel, “from the river to the sea,” by a Palestinian state. That’s what the History Department’s members – all of them – are made to seemingly endorse. How many of them are happy with that?

Immersed in the ideology of multiculturalism and the intersectionality of oppression, the Department of Asian American Studies condemned “the ongoing 73 years of settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people” and “the exploitation, theft and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine. To this, we say no more.”

According to the Department of Asian-American Studies, then, since its very founding in 1948, Israel has been engaged in “settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people.” But there were no “settlers” in 1948, or 1958, or 1968. There was “violence” in 1948, but it was the violence started by five Arab armies that attacked the Jewish state on May 15, 1948, ignoring Israel’s offer of peace, as they tried to snuff out the young life of the nascent state of Israel. Israel was fighting for its survival, as it would have to again do so in the wars of 1967 and 1973. Those people denounced as “settler-colonials” in 1948 consisted of the following: Jews whose families had been living uninterruptedly in the Land of Israel for centuries; Zionist pioneers who had, beginning in about 1900, been making aliyah, buying land from Arab and Turkish landowners and settling on it; Jews who had fled Arab lands where they had lived for centuries, with many more of them –some 850,000 in all – fleeing in the late 1940s and early 1950s, with most of them choosing to settle in Israel; Jews who had managed to escape from Europe just before World War II; Jews who had survived the Nazis and arrived in Israel from DP camps after the war. These were the people, so many of them survivors of terrible ordeals in Europe and in Arab lands, who are now being denounced by this all-knowing “Department of Asian-American Studies” in Illinois as “settler-colonials,” for managing to find refuge in what would become, in 1948, the tiny Jewish state, and then for helping to rebuild that ancient Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel.

Another point to consider: the Asian-American Studies Department statement includes this: “the exploitation, theft, and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine.” So, we are told, this “exploitation, theft, and colonization” by Jews goes on everywhere, including Palestine. Isn’t this a statement that would not be out of place in Mein Kampf?

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies signed a statement, “Gender Studies Departments in Solidarity with Palestinian Feminist Collective,” along with some 100 other gender-studies departments. With the characteristic pseudo-intellectual babble that currently dilutes the scholarly relevance of the social sciences and humanities, the “solidarity statement” pretentiously announced that “as gender-studies departments in the United States, we are the proud benefactors of decades of feminist anti-racist, and anti-colonial activism that informs the foundation of our interdiscipline” [sic] and that “‘Palestine is a Feminist Issue.’”…

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies asserts that “Palestine is a Feminist Issue.” And so it is, but not in the way the good professors in the department seem to think. To repeat what I wrote yesterday on the subject: It is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience,” it is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their husbands, fathers, brothers, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often, receive no punishment at all. It Is the Palestinians who enforce dress codes on “their women,” who value the testimony of females as half that of males; who have girls and women inherit half what a male inherits. Israel, by contrast, guarantees the legal and social equality of men and women, while the Palestinians violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it inveighs against those who defend their rights.

Three points suggest themselves:

First, let every man and woman speak for himself or herself. Don’t force people into letting their Department speak for them. Not even professors should be made to suffer that.

Second, academics, like cobblers, should stick to their last.

Third, “whereof we do not know, thereof we should not speak.”

Come to think of it, the third point is really just the second one, expressed less succinctly. But it bears repetition.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Labour MP claims Muslims are ‘suffering racial hatred’ after Liverpool jihad suicide bombing

Austria: Muslima had hundreds of images of ‘executions of unbelievers,’ wanted to sacrifice her life for ISIS

Nigeria: Muslims have murdered over 137,000 people in Benue state

France: Muslim prisoner screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ stabs two guards

Austria: Public broadcaster deletes report on persecution of Christians and Jews in Europe, without explanation

UN envoy: Taliban ‘unable to stem’ Islamic State growth as it spreads to ‘nearly all’ Afghan provinces

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

North Carolina: Anti-Israel ‘Progressive’ Muslim Congressional Candidate Hopes to Become New ‘Squad’ Member

In 2015, the semi-demented Craig Hicks shot three of his neighbors because he believed they were using parking spaces to which they were not entitled. All three were Muslims. But he had a history of berating non-Muslims, too, over both parking spaces and making noise. His wife of seven years testified that  he had never spoken ill of Muslims, never denounced them, never expressed hostility to the ideology of Islam, on social media or anywhere else. In fact, he was anti-Christian, and on his Facebook page wrote: “Knowing several dozen Muslims…I’d prefer them to most Christians.” The police said there was no evidence of a “hate crime.” The prosecutor could come up with no evidence of a “hate crime.” But none of that mattered, or matters, to North Carolina Congressional candidate Nida Allam.

Allam has been  milking this non-existent hate crime for all it’s worth. Her website Nida For Congress includes this: “After three of her dear friends were murdered in 2015 — a case that drew national attention and triggered calls for stronger hate crime legislation — Nida Allam took to politics.”

She was spurred to run for office  because of the “hate crime” against “three of her dear friends.” Allam is not in the race to further her own wellbeing. Not at all. Personal aggrandizement, power and money and fame — these hold no attractions for the self-effacing Nida Allam. She has girded her loins and entered the political arena in answer to a higher call.  She wants to fight against the “hate crimes” that she insists took her friends’ lives.

She has a video at her Nida For Congress website, about her decision to run. Here’s a transcript of part of it:

I was 21 years old when three of my best friends were killed.

Deah, Yusor, and Razan, brutally murdered in a hate crime that shook our community to the core. My lie was shattered but I knew I couldn’t let their legacy die. I looked for ways to fight against the  hate that took my friends  to make sure that no one would have to experience the pain that we [Muslims] endured , to make sure that we [Muslims] could live with dignity and without fear.

I never set out to make history, but sometimes life has different plans [inshallah fatalism]..  It wasn’t just racism and hate that we faced….my service was born out of tragedy…I’m ready to take my passion and my experience [one year as County Commissioner] to the halls of Congress. I’ve been told that I don’t belong, that I ought to wait my turn, but North Carolina can’t wait….I’m Nida Allam, and I’m running for Congress because Congress can’t wait.

Goodness me. So Congress “can’t wait” for the appearance of Nida Allam, who is just like Mighty Mouse, “Here I come,  to save the day/That means that Mighty Mouse is on the way.” She does have a whole list of what she intends to accomplish. Most impressive. Nida Allam has a jobs program because  “everyone deserves a good paying job.” She wants to fight climate change, because “Black, brown, and working class communities are on the front lines of this crisis.” She has a health care platform: “Everyone deserves comprehensive high-quality healthcare coverage that includes primary care, vision, hearing, dental, mental health care, reproductive health care, and more.” Sounds good to me. She has a housing plan: “Housing is a human right, and all of our neighbors deserve a safe and stable place to live.” “Education? “Every child deserves a quality public school education.” And so on and so mindlessly forth. Foreign policy? “We need to end our ‘so-called war on terror.’”

She never mentions Israel in her “Nida Allam For Congress” website. A curious but understandable admission – Nida may be a fool, but she’s “no fool,” given that this past May, amid escalating violence between Israel and Hamas, Allam participated in a pro-Palestinian rally where protestors chanted slogans such as “Israel is an apartheid state” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” the latter of which is correctly understood to be a call to eliminate Israel. In a live video she posted to her Facebook page on May 22, Allam appears to have been chanting that line along with her fellow protestors.

A week earlier, Allam attended a May 15 demonstration in downtown Raleigh marking the annual date of the ‘Nakba’ when Palestinians mark the war of 1948.

Following the May 15 rally, the Jewish Community Relations Council and the Jewish Federation of Raleigh-Cary released a statement identifying alleged instances of “antisemitic rhetoric” used by some demonstrators, including “posters combining Israeli and Nazi imagery.” One poster, the statement said, featured then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Benjamin “wearing a Hitler moustache,” while another declared, “Israel, Hitler would be proud of you.”

For her part, Allam denounced what she described as “ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and murder of children” in comments to a local newspaper reporter at the event.

Near the beginning of the May conflict, Allam released a statement of her own calling for a wholesale cessation of U.S. military aid to Israel, which is guaranteed in annual installments of $3.8 billion through a memorandum of understanding between the two countries. “We must end this negligent spending that is being used to oppress the Palestinian people,” Allam wrote, echoing the sentiments of a handful of far-left lawmakers in the House who have argued in favor of conditioning or eliminating aid to the Jewish state.

“I condemn all violence in this conflict and urge the United States to acknowledge our complacency in the continuing Israel-Palestine conflict,” Allam argued at the time.

In June 2018, after reports that the U.S. had quietly frozen aid to the Palestinian Authority, Allam weighed in with an incendiary Twitter comment. “This is the United States of Israel.”

Peter Riezes has reported on Nida Allam’s candidacy here:

Nida Allam, a 27-year-old progressive activist and Durham, North Carolina County Commissioner, announced last week that she will run for the Congressional seat of retiring Rep. David Price (D-NC).

I first researched Allam during her 2019 campaign for County Commissioner, due to her anti-Israel positions. What I found was a history of abhorrent statements that extended far beyond Israel.

In 2018, Allam tweeted, “This is the United States of Israel,” which is consistent with centuries-old antisemitic propaganda that Jews seek to dominate the world.

In 2013, Allam tweeted, “F*** the police,” and she has made many offensive and hateful posts over the years.

I spoke with award-winning Durham columnist and Black minister, Carl W. Kenney II, who told me that Allam’s use of the N-word in a 2014 tweet is “appalling.”

When asked if it matters that Allam’s tweet is from 2014, Kenney responded:

I think it speaks to character issues. I think it speaks to a lack of sensitivity. We have a person who has a desire to run for US Congress at 27…What has she done in building relationships with the Black community to help soothe the pain connected to making that type of statement? … I’m not comfortable that she’s learned a lesson.

When asked about Allam’s “F*** the police” tweet, Kenney told me that while he understands the anger, “In Durham, we’re not one to say ‘f*** the police.’ We want to say we want to work with the police.”

Allam was at the time pressuring  the Durham police to end their training arrangement with the Israeli police, falsely claiming that such training “militarized” the Durham Police Force.

“I met with Kenney via Zoom and asked if it is acceptable that I — someone who is not Black — cite Allam’s N-word tweet in this column as a warning to the public. Kenney responded, “You have an obligation to do that. … For people to fully understand what we are talking about, they need to have it in its original form.”

Here’s Allam’s unseemly tweet: “Kid in front of me is in a group text called “United N*gga Network.’ Where do I apply?”

In 2019, Allam tweeted a picture of herself standing with a Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) sign. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) describes JVP as “a radical anti-Israel activist group that advocates for a complete economic, cultural and academic boycott of the state of Israel.”…

Allam has repeatedly promoted her close ties with noted antisemite Linda Sarsour, calling Sarsour “my shero, role-model, mentor, and so much more.”

Sarsour has been widely criticized for advocating for the destruction of Israel via the BDS movement and other means, saying “Nothing is creepier than Zionism,” and advising Muslims not to “humanize” Israelis.

Earlier this year, Black constituents and politicians strongly criticized Allam and two other Durham commissioners for what was viewed by many as racially divisive policies.

“There is a sense in the Black community that she [Allam] is among the politicians here who doesn’t really talk to Black people” Kenny [sic] told me. “They have an idea of what is best for Black people without actually engaging in the conversation. That’s a problem.”

On his widely read blog, Kenney warns: “If Allam has her way, the race for Congress will not be determined by local Black voters. It will be won by the support of the national media and progressive politicians desirous of an addition to The Squad — joining Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).”…

Just hours after Allam announced her run for Congress, Ilhan Omar tweeted, “Let’s go Nida!”; Keith Ellison tweeted, “Great Candidate”; and Linda Sarsour retweeted Allam’s campaign announcement….

Nida Allam’s campaign received $115,000 in donations in just the first day it opened. Muslims from all over the country sent money, eager to add one more anti-Israel voice to Congress,  provide  another potential collaborator of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, another member of the Squad. No doubt CAIR is out fundraising for her, raising money among Muslims across the country who are relentlessly focused on increasing Muslim power in Washington. This would-be squadette needs to be stopped in her tracks, or headed off at the pass, preferably by an African-American candidate who will make good use of Allam’s “United N*gga Network” tweet,  and of her palpable want of interest, according to the columnist and black minister Carl Kenney II, in African-Americans.

According to her website, the essence of Nida Allam is that she is “working for a brighter future.” What a fantastic idea. Really, who could disagree?

COLUMN BY

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s handlers remove Nigeria from list of countries blacklisted for ‘engaging in violation of religious freedom’

‘State of Palestine’ builds 100 embassies globally, funds jihad terror prisoners while begging the world for cash

Italy: Muslim migrant mother and brother beat 14-year-old girl for refusing to wear the niqab

UK: Liverpool ‘Christian’ jihad suicide bomber was at mosque ‘all day every day’ in weeks leading up to attack

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Hamas-linked CAIR accuses College Democrats of America of ‘Islamophobia’

Democrats supporting Israel’s self-defense against the “Palestinian” jihad? That isn’t allowed. Hamas-linked CAIR is ensuring that the miscreants get back in line, and pronto. Independent thought? Pshaw! That’s only for “right-wingers.”

Muslim advocacy group accuses College Democrats of ‘Islamophobia

by Sean Salai, Washington Times, November 12, 2021:

A Muslim advocacy group is accusing the College Democrats of America of “Islamophobia” for harassing one of their officers on social media over pro-Palestinian comments she made online as a child.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) this week called in a letter for the Democratic Party-affiliated group to open an “independent investigation” with the intent of disciplining or expelling the unnamed members who “repeatedly harassed” Rollins College senior Nourhan Mesbah on social media when she ran successfully for national vice president in August.

The harassment includes the members’ “liking” a social media comment that read in part: “Boot this jihadist out, no room for racist totalitarianism,” CAIR says.

In the letter sent this week to College Democrats President Jalen Miller, CAIR’s national deputy director Edward Mitchell also accuses the CDA members of “weaponizing” an “anti-Muslim” political ad against Ms. Mesbah over the pro-Palestinian comment she said she regretted making online as a 13-year-old.

“Anti-Muslim bigotry is not unique to any particular party, and no party is immune to it,” Mr. Mitchell told The Washington Times on Friday.

“The perception is that only the Republicans have a problem with Muslims, but the truth is that you find Islamaphobia [sic] on the Democratic side, too,” he added.

Ms. Mesbah declined to discuss the incident, which erupted after the ad featuring her childhood comment prompted fellow College Democrats to accuse her of antisemitism and push for her censure.

The letter includes testimony from several Muslim members of the organization, including College Democrats Muslim Caucus Chair Tyrese Rice, who complained on Ms. Mesbah’s behalf about the “bigoted and imbalanced implications of the organization” at both the state and national levels.

“There was a lack of Muslim representation and an underlying stigma against discussion [of] related topics and concepts,” Mr. Rice said about the College Democrats when he first joined them.

Another comment in the letter from an anonymous student says CDA perpetuates a culture of hostility toward “Palestinian liberation” and silences Muslim students who speak up about it.

“By creating a space to allow Muslim members to be called ‘jihadist[s]’ among other names, we have abandoned our progressive ideals,” the student writes.

The College Democrats have not responded to Mr. Mitchell’s letter, and their spokesman did not respond Friday to telephone and email requests for comment.

Reached Friday afternoon, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee declined to comment on the dispute….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Police conceal face of Muslim migrant rapist of 15-year-old girl in asking people to watch for him

Bangladesh: Hindu population steadily declining in the face of Muslim persecution

Burkina Faso: Muslims murder at least 19 people in jihad raid on military police post

UK taxpayers to back solar project in Turkey up to $291,000,000

Turkey: No Budget from Government for Schools Run by Armenians, Jews and Greeks

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Republicans Introduce Bill to Stop Jerusalem Consulate for Palestinians

In the face of the Biden administration’s lack of support for Israel — from its open rebuke of Israeli settlement policies in Judea and Samaria, to establishing a Jerusalem consulate to Palestinians — some Republicans have introduced a bill to stop the latter, which is welcome news.

Although Biden has said he won’t reverse Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, he proceeded with a move that would in effect symbolically neutralize Trump’s gesture. Reopening the Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem is inappropriate, given the Palestinian goal to annihilate Israel. It provides a further opportunity for the Palestinians to target Israel and exacerbate divisions in Jerusalem. We can hope that Israel will block Biden’s plans.

Biden’s overall stance on Israel has far-reaching implications; he is encouraging the jihad and antagonism against Israel. America’s stance will likely have an adverse impact in the next round of Palestinian jihadist rocket fire against Israel, which is inevitable, so that when Israel defends itself, pro-Palestinian protests, accompanied by antisemitic flareups, will likely gain even more momentum, as was already seen in May during Operation Guardian of the Walls.

Also, last month, the Squad “forced Iron Dome funding to be pulled from a bill to keep the United States government funded.” The Iron Dome intercepts incoming rockets on Israeli territory, thus saving many lives, while Palestinian leadership has no problem with using their own people as human shields.

GOP bill seeks to stop Jerusalem consulate for Palestinians

by Lahav Harkov, Jerusalem Post, October 26, 2021:

US Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, along with 33 other Republican senators, introduced a bill on Tuesday meant to block the Biden administration from opening a consulate serving Palestinians in Jerusalem.

The Upholding the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Law Act of 2021 is meant to ensure the full implementation of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act and stop what Hagerty views as the Biden administration’s attempted subversion of that law.

US President Joe Biden has said he will not reverse former president Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

However, Biden promised in his election campaign that he would reopen the consulate to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, which was merged into the US Embassy to Israel in 2018, when Trump implemented the 1995 law and moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other US officials have said they will reopen the consulate, which was historically in a building on Agron Street in downtown Jerusalem.

The US would need Israel’s approval to open a consulate, and the current Israeli government opposes the move.

Hagerty said: “It is regrettable that the Biden administration insists on making moves that divide the United States and Israel when our two nations should be laser-focused on stopping Iran’s terror-sponsoring regime from going nuclear, on countering growing threats from Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Iran-backed terrorist groups, and on strengthening and expanding the historic Abraham Accords that truly have increased peace in the Middle East.”

“The Trump administration kept its promise to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish State, and Congress must do everything in our power to strengthen our posture,” he added.

The new act quotes the 1995 law, which states, “Jerusalem should remain an undivided city,” and calls for it to be recognized as the capital of Israel and the relocation of the US Embassy.….

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLE: Impeach Kamala Harris for Afghanistan Betrayal

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Squad: Foiled For Now, But Determined to Carry On

The Squad is the name given to four far-left members of Congress, distinguished particularly by their anti-Israel views and votes. Toward the end of September, three of the four squadrettes – Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alanna Pressley – helped to block a budget bill because it contained an aid item they opposed: $1 billion for Israel to replenish its store of Iron Dome missiles, which had been depleted during the 11-day war with Hamas this past May. Their efforts ultimately did not succeed, because two days after they held up the budget bill until the Iron Dome funding was stripped from it, a stand-alone bill providing that Iron Dome funding was passed, overwhelmingly, by a vote of 420 to 9.

A report on the Squad’s efforts, ultimately unsuccessful, to block funding for Israel’s missile defense system, is here: “The Squad keeps the dream of dead Jews alive,” by Clifford D. May, Israel Hayom, September 30, 2021:

In case you missed it: Last Wednesday [Sept. 22] members of the “Squad,” far-left House Democrats including Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Alexandra [sic] Ocasio-Cortez, blocked a bill to keep the federal government operating until it was stripped of funds to replenish Israel’s Iron Dome.

Actually it was Ayanna Pressley, the fourth member of the Squad, who voted “No,” while Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez voted “Present,” then dissolved in tears, apparently overcome by having to vote, or so some claim, against her beliefs so as to not alienate Jewish voters in New York should she, as expected, run for the Senate.

To be clear: The Iron Dome is not a weapon. It is a shield. It intercepts and destroys short-range missiles before they can reach their intended victims.

Developed through a blossoming partnership that produces next-generation military technology for Israeli and US warfighters, this miracle of engineering is now used to protect American troops as well.

Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system intercepts incoming rockets. The missiles do not kill people; they prevent people – the civilians who are targeted by Hamas — from being killed. That is their sole function. The missiles Israel needs to replenish those spent in the May war, the missiles that the Squad and its willing collaborators — Jamal Bowman (D-NY), Pramila Jayarpal (D-WA), Cori Bush (D-MO), André Carson (D-IN), Marie Newman (D-IL), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Chuy Garcia (D-IL), and Thomas Massie (R-KY) (Massie is an odd man out in this group, for he is not anti-Israel but was concerned about the expense) — all voted against, are purely defensive.

The Iron Dome also defends Israelis who are not Jews. Say a missile strikes an Israeli hospital. Those inside will likely include Israeli Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Druze and other minorities. They may be doctors, nurses, or patients, because Israel has no laws separating by race, ethnicity, or religion.

In other words, Israel is not an apartheid state, although that’s the slander you now incessantly hear from the Squad and others intent on demonizing, delegitimizing and, ultimately, destroying Israel.

Clifford May points out that both the medical personnel, and the patients, in an Israeli hospital, include not just Jews, but also Muslims, Christians, and Druze. There is no apartheid in the medical system.

What he might have added, had he had more space, was that there is no apartheid anywhere in Israel. In this so-called “apartheid state,” Arabs sit in the Knesset, serve on the Supreme Court, go abroad as ambassadors for their country. The chairman of the largest bank in Israel, Bank Leumi, is an Arab. Jews and Arabs study together in universities and technical institutes. Jews and Arabs work together In factories and offices. Jews and Arabs receive medical care in the same hospitals, where they are treated by both Jewish and Arab medical personnel. Jews and Arabs play on the same sports teams and in the same orchestras. Jews and Arabs own businesses – from high-tech start-ups to restaurants – together. The only difference in treatment is that Jews must, while Arabs may, join the IDF.

The Squad needs to be read the riot act – and the paragraph just above – so as to shame it into silence, if such is possible with such shameless liars, on the subject of Israel’s so-called “apartheid.”

The Iron Dome saves the lives of Gazans, too, because, without this missile defense system, Israelis would not sit quietly as Hamas, which rules Gaza, rained death on them. They’d counterattack hard and fast, which would make it difficult to minimize civilian casualties to the extraordinary extent Israelis have managed in past conflicts.

The Iron Dome defense system keeps Israeli casualties low. If the Squad were to have had its way, and the $1 billion funding to replenish Israel’s stock of interceptors had not passed, the result would not only have been more Israeli civilians dead, but more Palestinians in Gaza would be dead as well, for Israel would have to launch more deadly attacks, with less warning time, to try to destroy as many of the rockets and rocket launchers as possible. Since both the 15,000 rockets Hamas possesses, and its rocket launchers, are deliberately hidden inside or beside civilian buildings, including schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, Israel would have no choice but to hit these buildings where weapons are hidden.

Clifford May further notes:

And since Hamas routinely employs Palestinians as human shields – an egregious violation of American and international law but beneficial for its public relations efforts – Gaza would soon resemble Syria, Yemen and Libya (countries from which, incidentally, millennia-old Jewish communities have been “cleansed”).

Returning to the apartheid slander: It’s a twist on the “Zionism is racism” resolution first promulgated by Israel-haters at the United Nations General Assembly in 1975. Repealed overwhelmingly in 1991, it was revived at a UN conference in Durban in 2001.

Zionism implies nothing more than the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in part of their ancient homeland. And, as anyone who has walked down a street in Jerusalem knows, Israelis come in all colors, including black Jews from Africa and brown Jews from India and Pakistan.

Last week, the United Nations sponsored another Durban conference. Three dozen nations boycotted rather than participate in one more festival of Israel-bashing and anti-Semitism. Many of the nations that did attend are egregious abusers of fundamental human rights.

38 nations boycotted the Durban IV horror, more than twice the number of countries – 14 – that boycotted Durban III in 2009. These were Albania, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, UK, US and Uruguay. The European Union also did not participate or speak at the commemoration.

Many of the boycotters were among the most important states: the U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K. France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden. One wonders whether, with so many states having boycotted Durban IV, will there be a Durban V?

The UN General Assembly was in session last week, too, and among those speaking was the newly appointed foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hossein Amir Abdollahian. He utilized both new and old slanders, saying he was “honored to announce that my nation’s willpower is dedicated to the total elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, including apartheid and Zionism.” In other words, Tehran’s goal is the “elimination” of Israel. Its nuclear weapons development program is the means envisioned to realize that goal.

Like Tehran, Hamas is not coy about its genocidal goals. “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors,” the Hamas Charter proclaims. “Muslims will fight the Jews,” and even those Jews who “hide behind rocks and trees” will not escape, because the rocks and trees “will cry: Muslim: There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”

May might have noted that the prediction quoted by Hamas, about Jews in the end times vainly trying to avoid being killed by hiding behind rocks and trees that then give them away, is one of the best-known hadith, the fons et origo of the anti-Jewish genocidal impulse that is to be found in the immutable texts of Islam, and it cannot be removed, or changed. That hadith will last as long as Islam itself.

Claims that Hamas has moderated over recent years are untrue. “We support the eradication of Israel through armed jihad and struggle,” Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar said in May. “This is our doctrine.”

Here’s the rest of the story that unfolded last week: On Thursday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer brought Iron Dome up as a standalone bill. There were 290 [sic for 420] votes in favor and nine opposed – eight from members of the Squad plus one Republican (who says he opposes all foreign aid). Just before the vote closed, Ocasio-Cortez changed from “nay” to “present” – and then broke into tears.

One plausible explanation: She plans to run for the Senate and calculates that many New York voters may prefer not to be represented by an ideologue eager to help terrorists murder Jews and kill off the Jewish state.

Perhaps she’ll counter that she favors a two-state solution. Fine, but it’s impossible to imagine Hamas or the Palestinian Authority (which rules the West Bank) accepting such a compromise until and unless they conclude that the dream of exterminating Israel is unattainable. People such as Abdollahian and Ocasio-Cortez keep that dream alive.

By the way, The New York Times asserted that she’d been diverted from her “principles” by “influential lobbyists and rabbis.” Those darn lobbyists and rabbis!

Yes, who were all those sinister “rabbis,” no doubt black-clothed haredim, whom the New York Times claims were threatening poor helpless Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, emailing or telephoning threats, or perhaps even visiting her in the Rayburn House Office Building to make those threats in person, that she’d better vote for the replenishing of Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile missiles – “or else.” Most likely their numbers and power to intimidate have been exaggerated, or even made up out of whole cloth. But it’s the kind of story that the New York Times, that has so often been caught spreading misinformation about Israel, or attacking Jewish organizations that support Israel, of course would have no compunction about publishing.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jihad bomber responsible for Kabul massacre was arrested in India five years ago for plotting jihad attack on Hindus

UK: Islamic charity website praises Taliban and encourages Muslims to fund jihadis

France: Muslim who quoted Qur’an while raping his victim takes two prison guards hostage

Fatah top dog: ‘The battle will only be over when the occupation is removed from Palestine in its entirety’

Hamas-sponsored conference plans for time after ‘liberation of Palestine,’ discusses which Jews to kill and not kill

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON STATE: High School Claims Being White Male Christian Heterosexual Brings One Extra ‘Privilege’

As we have documented here many times, just the opposite is true. Victimhood is so much of a currency that Muslims not infrequently fake hate crimes so as to be able to claim victim status. In American culture today, Muslims, non-white people, women, and gays are focused upon, coddled, celebrated, and again and again cast as victims when it is those who aren’t in these groups who are really marginalized.

Teachers Force-Fed a Slice of ‘Privilege Pie’ at Washington High School

by Ryan Mills, National Review, September 27, 2021 (thanks to Darcy):

It’s still two months until Thanksgiving, and already one school district in Washington is serving up pie to its staff. Not pumpkin pie. Not apple or cherry. Rather, teachers at Tumwater High School recently were force-fed a big slice of “privilege pie.”

According to one employee, teachers in the district were required to attend diversity training where they were asked to examine their privilege. As part of the training, the teachers were instructed to color in a “privilege pie” – a pie chart with several so-called privileges, including being white, cisgender male, Christian, heterosexual, and U.S. born.

“The more we colored in, the more privileged we were,” the teacher, whose name was not released, told Parents Defending Education, a nonprofit that fights classroom indoctrination and activist-driven agendas in U.S. schools.

“I was so upset because we have so much to do and I would really prefer to use that time to design effective instruction or communicate with families,” the teacher said, according to a quote released by Parents Defending Education. “Instead, I’m sitting there for two hours learning about how I am privileged because of my skin color and about micro-aggressions.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

German Journalist: Police Classify Anti-Semitic Attacks Committed by Muslims as ‘Right-Wing’

Then politicians bemoan a rise in “right-wing extremism.” It’s quite an impressive house of cards they’ve built.

German newspaper complains that crime statistics on anti-Semitic attacks are manipulated to hide Muslim perpetrators

Medforth, September 25, 2021:

German politics misses the point when it comes to anti-Semitism. Journalist Lennart Pfahler is convinced of this. As he writes in the early edition of the newspaper “Welt am Sonntag” ( September 26), Muslim anti-Semitism is still taboo in Germany.

Whoever names it must fear being called a “right-winger” or a “fig leaf” if they are Muslim themselves. This is a “criminal failure of discourse”: “Apart from the police crime statistics, which have been blatantly misleading for years and which automatically classify alleged anti-Semitic crimes as ‘right-wing’ motivated if they cannot be attributed to anything else, there is little to support the convenient thesis of the marginal phenomenon.

In a survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 41 per cent of Jews in Germany said they felt most threatened by Islamic anti-Semitism.

Conservative politicians and Jewish associations regularly pointed out the problem. Too often, the response from “left-liberal columnists and Muslim activists” was appeasing. The debate about the broadcaster Nemi El-Hassan shows how much the fight against anti-Semitism has degenerated into a political question of opinion.

Background: German public broadcaster WDR wanted to hire the journalist as a presenter. After protests – among other things because of El-Hassan’s participation in an anti-Israel Al-Quds demonstration – WDR suspended its decision. Prominent voices now wanted to stall the reappraisal of the case, Pfahler writes. Especially for those Muslims who tried to address the issue in their own community, this defensive attitude was a slap in the face….

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York Times Caught Spreading Fake News…AGAIN

Nigeria: Chief Imam for prisoners was Boko Haram jihadi, aided jailbreak with assault rifle

Democratic Republic of the Congo: Muslims murder eleven people in jihad massacre at shopping mall

Pakistan: Muslim murders his two sisters in the name of honor; they were angry at their in-laws

Iran denies IAEA access to site where cameras were damaged, after previously agreeing

India: Muslim cleric plots to murder Hindu who converted to Islam for marriage and later returned to Hinduism

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.