Posting link in to petition regarding Gita Sahgal. Sign up or I’ll mangle your firkins!
An excellent website, often described by the liberal left as “far right”. Try this article, from which I publish an excerpt:
These NGO claims misstate the law as it applies to Israel and deliberately ignore violations by Hamas. Under article 51(7) of the First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions, civilians “shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations.” Hamas is in direct violation of this rule, yet few if any NGOs mention it.
At this moment, Israel is about to cave into Hezbollah and Hamas on virtually every demand made by those two groups in return for the bodies of two soldiers (and probably Gilad Schalit’s body too). There is a malaise of defeatism in the West that has been spread by the left-leaning intelligensia and sourced back to the religious pacifists, the collaspe of cultural identities (see Natan Sharansky) and the continued efforts of the communist and fellow-traveller groups in western academia to demoralize and disempower the west in favour of an assumed “revolutionary” movement from Islam.
The model for the current time can be found in the late 1970s and the collaspe of Iran from a forward looking state (admittedly a tyranny) to a backwards, anti-progressive Islamist tyranny that outdid the Shah’s regime for physical and mental butchery. At the time the western elites refused to believe what the Islamists led by Khomenei were both writing and proclaiming in public speeches, prefering the safety of their own assumptions and wishes. Michel Foucault slobbered over a man who would have put him to death faster than if one could say “Jack Robinson” if he had been an Iranian subject. Why? Because they were following what they wanted to see, not what was in front of them.
Now we find the same path being trodden again. We have a growing Islamist movement in the west that is emboldened by appeasement and accomadation, a left-leaning intelligensia whose imagined enemies are the working class, the right wing and apostates from a pseudo-communist correct line of thought (mulitcultural political correctness) and who see virtue as inherently located outside of their own culture. A negative, plaintive attitude has emasculated and embarressed the west and left it soft and weak.
We need a new idea of ourselves and the best people saying what this might be are the left-wing apostates such as Christopher Hitchens, Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch. We need to mobilise the huge economic potential in the west and reawaken our shared values of equality before the law, the importance of the individual against the group and the humanisation of our society. What I mean by the last statement is that throughout history, we as human beings, as a species have slowly in parts and places moved from a tribal and group based identity that excluded, punished and was demarcated by taboo, towards a state of awareness that comes out of the fallout from the European religious wars and the Enlightenment.
Today, the Enlightment is under attack and accused of being the root of 20th Century fascism and 19th Century racist ideologies, ignoring the fact that the values at the centre of the fascist and communist movements were anti-modern, anti-intellectual and anti-individual (as opposed to the group). These were movements against the Enlightment and modernity – and today, so is Islamism.
Islamism and it’s left-wing fellow travellers in the west seeks to impose a new order of racism, genocide and tyranny on the world. There is no place in Islamist philosophy for free-thought, free-speech, or the mere existence of difference beyond that mandated in a collection of thoughts and sayings from the 7th and 8th Centuries AD. Why do the left-wing affect to believe more in the virtue of this fascist creed than in their own culture?
Because they have abandoned reason and logic as their own beliefs have attained the trappings of religion, since reason and logic (those gifts of radical Christianity, but above all the Greeks) can be used to question and dismantle those beliefs. By finding nothing but fault in the west for the last half-century, by despising the working classes of the west for not being good revolutionaries or humble new-age serfs, the left-wing intelligensia (and here I use the word in a derogotary sense) have been left with nothing of value inside themselves, excepting their own sense of absolute virtue. They recognise the wickedness of the Islamists, but fool themselves into believing that the wickedness is a product of western mistakes, rather than a poison nutured outside of themselves. Far easier to blame the west for being attacked than to defend it.
So we now have winter solstice festivals, instead of Christmas. We now no longer teach our history, except for those bits where our ancestors can be painted as devils attacking angels out of spite or greed. We blame assaults on us as the result of our political opponants or yesteryear, or increasingly the result of wicked and greed machinations by secret elites, which leads rapidly into conspiracy theories and the revival of anti-Jewish rhetoric.
We have an intellectual culture that is so anti-militarist, that it would deprive us of the means to defend ourselves or prevent harm against others in the world, while the BBC tells us to weep crocodile tears as one tyrant or movement massacres the helpless in the name of fascist ideologies – or sometimes out of greed.
We have become complacent, self-loathing and corpulent. Our intellectual culture has been labelled as worthless by its’ own practitioners and instead of treating the ideas of our enemies as anything like better, we opt for a standard of “difference” that implicitly makes them better while seeming “equal”.
As Lord Lawson put it in another context, I leave the last words with Euripides (or rather his 19th Century admirers). “Those whom the gods wished to destroy, they first made mad.”
Has anyone noticed the open alliance between that British group of lunatics (sorry, liberals) known as Liberty, headed by Miss Smarmy Marxist (sorry, Shami Chakrabati) and the Islamists (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood)?
Liberty and the British Muslim Initiative (headed and organised by Hamas operatives) have co-hosted an event campaigning against various issues (guess, go on, guess)…(alright, Islamophobia and anti-terrorism measures).
That’s right! Liberty are now endorsing Hamas, sorry, BMI, sorry, the British Muslim Association, sorry, the Muslim Brotherhood! So how much can we rely on Liberty’s principles? None, because they have none. I suspect these are bloody marxists aiming at undermining the British state. After the Islamic revolution here, at least I will have the satisfaction of seeing them shot by the Hamas “resistance” fighters.
I’ve just heard that the Conservative government of Canada will not be attending Durban II… My god, they do have balls…
Bravo, Canada! I do hope that other western nations stay away from this ridiculous charade of a conference. Let’s rescue human rights from the worst abusers… how on earth did Libya, Cuba, Iran and Pakistan end up chairing the preparatory committee drawing up the agenda?
An except from the legal preamble to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or better known in Russia as the KGB.
Under Section 7.1 … innocent intent is not a defence, nor is truth, nor is fair comment or the public interest, nor is good faith or responsible journalism.
Mark Steyn (with whom I do not always agree) is currently on trial in a non-court for offending the Islamists in Canada – two years ago. First of all, we should all agree in the West that free speech is one of our fundamental protections against tyranny, yet here it is being tossed out the window. I cannot believe we are actually seeing the end of the Enlightenment at the hands of the PC-tyrants of the left.
It is time to act, to publicize this disgrace and end it now: “nor is truth”, so you cannot actually tell the truth or the facts if it crosses someone else’s path, so long as that person is not white, nor heterosexual or in the slightest bit Christian (they might feel a little guilty about Jews though…).
People of Canada wake up! Fascism has arrived and it wears a paternalistic face.
Growing in nascent form but taking a fuller shape since September 11th has been the refusal of Western intellectual elites, mostly liberal but not exclusively so, to recognize the state of war declared by radical Islam on the West. Counter-arguments on the state of affairs have varied from “It’s not our war”, “It needs a police action, not a war” to “this war was started by the (insert shadowy Jew-related group here)”. All of which betray an essential flaw in the thinking that has come to dominate the mainstream of the intelligentsia, that is to say that the Western intelligentsia cannot bring themselves to recognise an enemy from outside of their own society. Motives other than malign are arrogantly attributed to our enemies in order to remove the possibility from their minds that these people might not have a legitimate grievance against the West that we can safely acknowledge.
The aims of the Islamists are declared and publicly so. The aims are to dominate the West and eradicate the culture of freedom, to spread a fiery and intolerant faith to all corners of the world, and though they differ as to the ultimate timing, the elimination of all Jews (oh, and Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims who don’t do exactly as they are told by the Islamists, Sikhs, and any other faith or lack of it or lack of sufficient Muslim piety…). This is not an enemy with which one can reason but rather an enemy that interprets anything other than military action as weakness allowing further aggression.
This does not mean that the Islamists are stupid – far from it. Crazed sadists, yes, but they know how to exploit the malaise of the intellect in the West. Notice that each act of aggression is marketed to the West as an act or revenge or protest, most often dressed up as a “protest” about the “occupation in Palestine” but also aimed at foreign policy, cultural outlook and policy or anything where the appeal will fall to guilt and create inertia or retreat. The Madrid bombings were in reality about punishing Spain both for contributing troops to Iraq but especially to begin the Muslim reconquest of Spain by putting the Spanish on notice as to their fate for daring to be independent in the 15th Century. The Islamist problem is with Israel, not with the location of its borders; in their world, Israel must not exist at all.
And furthermore, by our refusal recognise their aims, by refusing to recognise them as enemies that must be fought and killed until they surrender, we facilitate that aim. There is no backing away from this fact; the Islamists have been emboldened by each retreat and compromise, each time treating the terrorist movements and states as normal entities and insisting on applying the rules only to ourselves.
There is a saying: We can only bend the rules so far before they come around and stab us in the back.
Phillipe Karsenty has won his case against France 2 television. One small step in exposing the complicity of the western media in the propaganda of the Palestinians and the enemies of the west.
Let us bloggers try and get this news into the media and start challenging the dangerous assumptions and corrupt journalists who side with the enemies of freedom.
A very useful tool in analysis of either media or political rhetoric on Israel is Natan Sharansky’s Three D’s, which when present alert the reader or listener to the presence of anti-semitic content.
Demonisation, Deligitimisation and Double Standards.
This week’s coverage of the birth of Israel was of course morally neutralised in the mainstream media by the inclusion of the “Naqba”, the narrative of Palestinian Arab loss in the War of Independence. Yet this stream of reporting is in itself taking an anti-semitic slant.
The demonisation comes from the myths and lies and comparision with genocidal regimes, the Double Standards stem from the continued regard of the Palestinian Arabs as “refugees”, even over several generations. The Deligitimisation comes out of the “Naqba” narrative itself, indeed it is central to the narrative.
One cannot say simply that the Arab states and religious leaders, backed by a majority of the population launched a war of genocide against the fledging state of Israel aimed at the annihilation of the Jews and that they were backed by ex-Nazi soldiers. No, Israel has to be responsible for the Arabs choice in fleeing, Israel has to be responsible for the Arabs wishing to murder Jews and ultimately we can blame the Jews for their own misfortunes.
To compare the founding of Israel with the “Naqba” is about as explicitly anti-semitic as you can get these days.
For many years now, the human rights industry in the West has been consistantly anti-Israeli in outlook and output. Organisations such as B’tselem, which began by documenting routine breaches of Israeli law and human rights by the IDF and the Border Police in the territories taken in the 1967 war, have now shifted to a position placing undue blame on Israel for each incident and relying uncritically on the Palestinian Arabs. This practise extends to both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch where Palestinian Arab reports are taken at face value and not investigated.
These groups seem to have a great deal of naivete about the enemies of Israel, which one suspects to the result of an “anit-colonial struggle” mindset in the activists of those groups. In this mindset, the Palestinians are not just oppressed but are inherently virtuous, hence the reliance on propaganda. However, the Palestinian terrorist organisations have consistently taken advantage of this naivete to spread propaganda and false reporting around the world, while remaining certain in the knowledge that their own genocidal propaganda and declared intentions will remain unreported, falling as it does outside the anti-colonial paradigm.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, the human rights groups have adopted a political approach, choosing one side over another, rather than investigating all offences. Humanitarian law is now used as a tool with which to attack the West (in this I include Israel), the outcome sought being to undermine our moral sense and leave us open to attack from the enemies exploiting this stupidity.
Another part of this question leaves me slightly disturbed, which is how does one purposefully criticise a terrorist group? One cannot appeal to the good conscience of the leaders, since they are already politically committed to murder for a political aim, nor can one take them to court. Naturally, democratic countries are the ones most affected by the accusation under international or humanitarian law, so one wonders if a bias has crept in over the years from the simple measure of ease of access and the ability to gain results. One cannot travel to Gaza or southern Lebanon and lambast Hamas or Hezbollah to their faces without the risk of either being laughed at or simply shot and dumped over the border. It is easier and safer to attack the West and more rewarding in the number of middle class professionals who will be sympathetic to your words.
One suspects that at their hearts, the human rights groups despair of their ability to actually change the world outside of the West, armed terrorist groups and totalitarian regimes shrug off words because of their use of violence as political argument. At least the human rights groups might admit this if they were not blinded by a politicised mindset, sorting the world into groups of the virtuous and wicked, while believing in that misnomer “fighting for Peace”.
How can one fight for peace when the terrorist will kill you?