The Atlantic’s David Frum reminds us that on Tuesday

 the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT were caught in a trap in front of a House committee. Each was asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated rules at their university. Each president refused to answer directly, insisting that everything depends on context.

The reason 3 university presidents had trouble with the genocide question is not because of an over-zealous commitment to free speech. Universities punish people all the time for First Amendment protected speech. They had trouble because anti-Jewishness is baked into the ideology… https://t.co/gp7FpRoM5j

— David Frum (@davidfrum) December 7, 2023

 

By contrast, The View's Sunny Hostin (as seen at 5:12 below) contends "the codes of conduct must adhere to the law," then interrupting a co-host, "no, it really can't go against the Constitution of the United States."

                

A lawyer, Hostin is a master manipulator (not liar) of the truth, hence neglecting to explain- as does The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)-

With limited, narrowly defined exceptions, the First Amendment prohibits the government—including governmental entities such as state universities—from restricting freedom of speech. A good rule of thumb is that if a state law would be declared unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment, a similar regulation at a state college or university is likewise unconstitutional.

However

The guarantees of the First Amendment generally do not apply to students at private colleges because the First Amendment regulates only government conduct. Moreover, although acceptance of federal funding does confer some obligations upon private colleges (such as compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws), compliance with the First Amendment is not one of them.

 This does not mean, however, that students and faculty at all private schools are not entitled to free expression. In fact, most private universities explicitly promise freedom of speech and academic freedom in their official policy materials.

Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology all are elite private universities, hence are not subject to the same standards of free expression as are public colleges.  Thus, in a strictly technical (and lawyerly) sense, the codes of conduct are Constitutional. However, as Hostin undoubtedly knows (and very likely approves of)

On university campuses and in many other places, anti-Semitic speech regularly crosses the line into threats, intimidation, and outright violence against Jews. University rules and local laws are intentionally violated because everybody knows that the rules and laws are selectively enforced. 

This is why Representative Elise Stefanik was wrong in this portion (at :56 of the video below) of her exchange when interviewing Harvard president on Tuesday

Stefanik: Calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard's code of conduct, correct? 

Gay: Again, it depends on the context. 

Stefanik: It does not depend on the context. The answer is "yes" and this is why you should resign.

The context is that standards change depending on whose ox is being gored.  Brett Stephens recognizes

But the problem with their testimonies was not fundamentally about calls for genocide or free speech. It was about double standards — itself a form of antisemitism, but one that can be harder to detect.

The double standard is this: Colleges and universities that for years have been notably censorious when it comes to free speech seem to have suddenly discovered its virtues only now, when the speech in question tends to be especially hurtful to Jews.

Or as Frum would put it, "anti-Jewishness is baked into the ideology." Hence

The word for all this is hypocrisy. Gay, Kornbluth and Magill may not be personally to blame for it, because they only recently took over the helm of their schools. But there’s an institutional hypocrisy that they at least have a duty to acknowledge.

They also must decide: If they are seriously committed to free speech — as I believe they should be — then that has to go for all controversial views, including when it comes to incendiary issues about race and gender, as well as when it comes to hiring or recruiting an ideologically diverse faculty and student body. If, on the other hand, they want to continue to forbid and punish speech they find offensive, then the rule must apply for all offensive speech, including calls to wipe out Israel or support homicidal resistance.

Republican and Democratic politicians of either Jewish or Christian faith have emphasized the insufficient sensitivity toward anti-Semitism of the three university presidents. But given the importance of free expression and the complexity of university codes of conduct, an argument over "context" and whether the college president should resign is peripheral.. 

Hostin disingenuously remarks ".... and what this entire hearing should have been about it free speech." It's a safe bet that Hostin would have been appalled if the hearing actually had been about how the principle of free speech is applied unevenly on college campuses. In The Atlantic's note to Frum's article,  "progressives who once argued that free speech is violence now claim that violence is free speech."

In his classic Animal Farm, George Orwell cynically wrote "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others."  The preference of colleges for groups perceived as marginalized over other groups has now been fully exposed.   Whether landing on the side of free expression or of crushing offensive speech, they should apply equally to all.

Share |

The Real Person of the Year

They've done it again, as expected. Wikipedia explains

Time's Person of the Year for 2001, immediately following the September 11 attacks, was Rudy Giuliani, who served as mayor of New York City during that time. The stated rules of selection—the individual or group of individuals who have had the bigger influence on the year's events—made Osama bin Laden the more likely choice that year; however, Giuliani was selected for symbolizing the American response to the attacks, in the same way that Albert Einstein was selected Person of the Century for representing a century of scientific exploration and wonder instead of Adolf Hitler, who was arguably a stronger candidate.The selections were ultimately based on, as the magazine describes it, "who they believed had a stronger influence on history and who represented either the year or the century the most."

The ironic aspect of Giuliani as Person of the Year as that he did deserve it- but not in 2001, rather in 2020, when he appears to have played a major role in the election of Donald Trump. He received the award in 2001 in large part because of the mistaken notion- assumption- that the New York mayor reacted valiantly to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, instead of having laid the seeds (here and here) of a terrible response. 

Giuliani's selection in 2001 reflected the (false) representation of the Mayor as an heroic figure. Elon Musk was selected in 2021 as Time swooned he "has spent a lifetime defying the haters; now, it seems, he's finally in position to put them in their place. As the overworked saying has it, you can't buy publicity like that. 

In 2023, the publication lucked out. Vladimir Zelenskyy was (still is) both an influential and courageous leader. In 2023, there was no such option, with the finalists being Hollywood strikers and Trump prosecutors, who are not one individual but a collection; Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, who were no more influential this year than in years past or in years to come; Sam Altman, who left one employer for another, then returned, which is not unprecedented; Barbie, not a real person, nonetheless glorifying anorexia; King Charles III, who had no influence upon anyone- and what's up with the love of royalty we rejected 250+ years ago, anyway?

And then there was Fed chairperson Jerome Powell, tasked with reducing inflation, preferably without sparking recession. So far, so good but we don't know where it goes from here, and no one cares about Jerome Powell. 

Then, to no one's surprise, TIME selected Taylor Swift, because of course it did, and who would look better on its cover- Taylor Swift or Jerome Powell?

Nevertheless, there would have been a better- meaning "more honest"- choice than Taylor Swift or any of the others.

He was released from an Israeli prison in 2011 with 1,000+ other Palestinian prisoners for one Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, In Tel Aviv's fiendish and downright devilish scheme to cover up its genocidal plot to exterminate Palestinians. My choice, then, would have been Tahya Sinwar, the ex-inmate largely unknown but both extremely influential and quite popular. .On November 3, NPR noted

The deadly Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel, dragging Israeli hostages back to Gaza, and high-stakes negotiations for their release could not have happened without the approval of one secretive man.

 Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, is widely believed to have helped mastermind the unprecedented Hamas attack that changed the course of Israeli-Palestinian history.

 He spent more than two decades behind bars in Israel, before being freed 12 years ago in a hostage ransom deal his brother helped negotiate. In early October, Sinwar outsmarted Israel with the same hostage-taking tactic — resulting in Israel's deadliest day on record.

Sinwar will likely keep holding onto Israeli captive soldiers as a bargaining chip for his bigger goal: to secure the release of all Palestinian prisoners. Israel currently jails 7,677 Palestinian "security" inmates, according to the Israeli legal aid group HaMoke. Sinwar will likely keep holding onto Israeli captive soldiers as a bargaining chip for his bigger goal: to secure the release of all Palestinian prisoners. Israel currently jails 7,677 Palestinian "security" inmates, according to the Israeli legal aid group HaMoked.

And now

"We are ready to conduct an immediate prisoner exchange deal that includes the release of all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails in exchange for all prisoners held by the Palestinian resistance," Sinwar said in an Oct. 28 statement.

 Opinion polls in October showed large Israeli support for such a comprehensive prisoner swap.

"When they end the war, they will make negotiations to release all the prisoners, and then it will be the biggest picture of victory in Palestinian history," says Mansour, Sinwar's former prison mate.

If Israel is foolish enough to release all the prisoners, it will be a big moment and one of tis biggest mistakes since the Jewish state released the more than 1,000 prisoners, including the immensely successful Sinwar, in 2011.

Already, though, the war engineered by the man known as the "butcher of Khan Younis (a reference to where he was reared in southern Gaza), has resulted in the violent deaths of several thousand Gazans, in addition to the slaughter and kidnapping of over 1,000 Israelis. He has exposed Israel as the only nation that has to defend itself for defending itself. In response, one research group has estimated that there were approximately 1869 "pro-Palestinian" protests in the USA alone from 10/7/2023-11/23/23. There have been similar events in dozens of nations.

That is a heady accomplishment, one larger in impact than even Taylor Swift or Barbie. The Butcher has made popular the torture and mass murder by militant and extreme fundamentalist Muslims against Jews.. Tahya Sinwar has made terrorism cool again.

.

Share |

Surprised, Not Surprised

CBS News- Philadelphia has reported

Hundreds of pro-Palestinian protestors made their way through the streets of Philadelphia Sunday night as they demanded a permanent cease-fire in Gaza. What they did outside of a Jewish restaurant drew harsh criticism from local and federal leaders....

The pro-Palestinian protestors gathered in Rittenhouse Square and marched through the area and University City, including the University of Pennsylvania campus.

In a Facebook post, the Philadelphia Free Palestine Coalition had urged supporters to "flood the streets" Sunday night.

Video posted on social media showed demonstrators also made their way to Samson Street, where they gathered outside the Jewish restaurant Goldie, one of several restaurants in the city owned by Philadelphia-based Israeli chef Michael Solomonov.

The group of protestors is accused of shouting antisemitic remarks, and stickers with pro-Palestinian slogans were reportedly left on the doors, though when CBS Philadelphia checked back early Monday morning they had been removed.

 

It figures that some people actually would defend this. Get a load of one such individual, who allegedly has over 45,000 followers:

On what basis are people including "Jewish" here? He's Israeli, the restaurants are branded as Israeli, he's used them to fundraise for Israel, it's about Israel. Where does Jewish come in? https://t.co/h4eMo4Hrch

— Malcolm Harris (@BigMeanInternet) December 4, 2023

Protest leaders had learned on October 12 that

Philadelphia-based Israeli Chef Michael Solomonov is helping to raise money for those injured in the war in Israel. Solomnov owns four restaurants in Philadelphia under the banner CookNSolo, including Zahav, Goldie, Laser Wolf and K'Far Cafe. Zahav was awarded the James Beard Foundation "Outstanding Restaurant" in 2019.

Solomonov said he would be donating 100% of all sales Thursday to Friends of United Hatzalah. The nonprofit emergency medical service responds to emergencies across Israel free of charge.

This seems to be confirmed by Wikipedia, which indicates that United Hatzalah's "mission is to provide immediate medical intervention during the critical window between the onset of an emergency and the arrival of traditional assistance."

This is what this character Harris darkly suggested is activity to fundraise for Israel, it's about Israel." It's not about "genocide," that which is not being committed by Israel. It's about providing medical service. 

Those of us old enough remember a time when the left supported health care. There is little attention paid to that now. And when it is Israelis whom a wealthy restaurateur wants to provide emergency medical care to, it is "genocide."

Share |

Commonality of Principles

In a world increasingly populated bt individuals such as Geert Wilders and Rashida Tlaib, there is nonetheless some good sense.

An ardent supporter of Brexit, Wilders has hinted at taking the Netherlands out of the European Union but is known primarily as a foe of immigration.. A member of the Dutch legislature, Wilders leads the country's Party for Freedom (PVV), which recently picked up many seats in the Dutch legislature. Consequently, he will lead talks to form the next coalition government and possibly become Prime Minister.

At 7:08 into the Overtime segment of Friday evening's "Real Time with Bill Maher," the host read the question "is the rise of anti-immigration politician Geert Wilders... a warning to liberals in America that they need to take our immigration crisis more seriously?'

Though the obvious and simple answer is "yes," Maher explained

So, if you don't follow the story, Geert Wilders has been running forever in Holland. Of course, the New York Times calls him a far-rightist- they call these people, I mean Meloni in Italy is another one,Viktor Orban is kind of a far rightist in Hungary. But I believe some of them are just- Brexit in England was a part of this- people are feeling, uh, they are not welcome in their own home because of the kind of immigration that these people are fighting against. So-

Guest panelist Dave Rubin then contended

Most of these people are not far right by- in that they're racists. I actually met with Orban in Budapest and I talked to him for a little while and all he kept saying was (imitates Hungarian accent, whatever that is) "I love Hungary, that's all. I love my people. I love my country, that's it. I don't know what kind of accent that was but that basically.... All of these guys- Geert Wilders wants Holland to be for the Dutch, right? That's what he wants. When we see- that's racist, that's what they would tell you, right? 

Then Maher finds the sweet spot between xenophobia and embrace of open borders, between Wilders and the Tlaib crowd, as he remarks (emphasis his)

I was just going to say "Dutch for the Dutch." Uh, I would amend that if it was me- Dutch values. You don't have to be actually Dutch, you don't have to be white. That's what I think is great about America- the ideas. As long as you subscribe to our idea, which again, to your point, and what I was saying at the end of the show, we're not a Christian nation. This is a country where we have the First Amendment, then everybody should be welcomed.

 

The First Amendment doesn't apply to immigration but it does pertain both to freedom of religion, the right to worship as one pleases in a nation with a wall of separation between church and state.   Maher was referring to comments at the end of the show in which he noted the Constitutional admonition that  "no law respecting an establishment of religion" should be enacted and that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office."

Nevertheless, in a larger sense, the call to acceptance by Americans of an American set of values is based in part to what George Orwell termed the "Judeo-Christian scheme of morals." It is vague and flexible but nonetheless real, and (absent to a religious test) should be fundamental to any consideration of immigration policy in the USA.

Notwithstanding the temptation of having "Dutch for the Dutch," an individual need not be Dutch or white but should accept such traditionally liberal values as freedom of expression, religious liberty, and pluralism, which are not universal. Nor should there be America for Americans," especially because there is no one American ethnicity (And yet, "Palestinian" is assumed to be an ethnicity, wherein it becomes conflated with religion.)

Last night, as he is wont to do, Maher criticized the impact of religion and religious thought upon government and politics. However, he remained faithful to the notion that a nation is most likely to survive when its citizens of whatever religious faith "subscribe to our idea." The United States of America, as Joe Biden has put it, is an "idea."  Thus are many other nations, including the Netherlands, which will prosper if its scheme of values prevails.

Share |

Martydom

These guys may be correct about one of these things:

One of the more high profile supporters of Ilhan Omar’s primary opponent shares his thoughts on Palestinian children: https://t.co/dIIVPXqk0j

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) November 30, 2023

It is not "incredibly racist," except in the literal, unintended sense. It is not credibly racist because it is not racist.  Minnesota State Senator Ron Lutz did not imply the innate inferiority of any race and did not even characterize individuals as a race, but as inhabitants of Palestine.

It is not why six-year-old children are killed. Israel cares little about what one state senator says. The Israeli counterattack against Hamas/Gaza was a response to a brutal and sadistic attack upon its innocent civilians.

It is not "why college kids are shot."  The assailant who shot Tahseen Ali Ahmad, Kinnan Abdalhamid, and Hisham Awartani probably did so because, wearing kaffiyehs and reported speaking "a combination of Arabic and English," they did appear to be Arabs. 

However, that has not yet been confirmed- and the crime was committed on November 25, several days before the state senator spoke. If old enough, you remember a time that voices on the left were concerned about firearms being in the hands of individuals who should not possess them. However, that was before, or in the absence of, the left's obsession with race reared its ugly head. This may have been a hate crime, in contrast,, I suppose, to becoming victims of gun violence in a "love crime."

Yet, it is not clear "Palestinian youth (typically) dream of the opportunity to achieve glory and martyrdom by killing as many Jews as possible."  Last December, in the midst of violence between Israeli soldiers and Arab/Muslim residents of the West Bank resulting from terrorist attacks by "Palestinian assailants"

The high Palestinian death toll has cast a fresh light on the practice of armed and political Palestinian groups claiming as members or publicly honoring all those killed by Israel, one that blurs the distinction between civilians and armed fighters. It is a tradition that some families object to, saying they don’t want loved ones used for political purposes.

Mr. Abu Naise said he raised his two sons to stay away from the armed Palestinian resistance groups fighting against Israeli occupation. His eldest, Muhammad, spent his days working as a civil servant in city government and nights as a barista, to support his wife and two young children.

Now he was dead, killed on the street by Israeli troops conducting a raid in Jenin, according to the Palestinian authorities.

“The Israeli army doesn’t distinguish between civilian or fighter. This year we’re all at risk of a bullet striking us,” Mr. Abu Naise said.

Every Palestinian killed by Israel is considered a martyr by the community, reflecting a widespread view that each Palestinian is part of a resistance to decades of occupation by Israel. But the rush by armed groups to claim those killed as martyrs worries some Palestinians, who feel it is being used by Israel to justify raids even when civilians are the victims.

It seems to be a mixed bag. At least as of late last year, some Arabs of the occupied territories did view dead terrorists as martyrs; others didn't, or at least believed they should not be publicly proclaimed as martyrs. The Times did not explore whether youth were being educated to accept the "widespread view," preferring its readers to assume that it is due to "a resistance to decades of occupation by Israel."

More significantly, no mention was made of "Islam" or "Muslim" or even "religion," as if martyrdom were common in bloody confrontations throughout the world. The media clearly is unwilling even to consider the possibility that the religious faith, properly interpreted or instead wildly distorted, by Muslims, may play a role. Besides obscuring a possible contributing factor to the ongoing conflict, it robs the public of the opportunity to assess the impact of legitimate religious belief versus religious extremism.

Ironically, this unwillingness by reporters sympathetic to terrorists (as responding to ongoing occupation) bears a resemblance to the broad stroke cast by the Minnesota state senator in arguing "Palestinian youth dream of the opportunity to achieve glory and martyrdom by killing as many Jews as possible."  We don't know whether Palestinian youth are taught that and if so, whether in Gaza, the West Bank or elsewhere. Nor do we know the extent to which religious fanaticism contributes to the murderous intent. 

Instead, we are left with a Midwestern politician implying that all Palestinian youth are the same, while much of the left believes any suggestion of any blame toward Palestinians is inherently racist. It's a sad state of affairs. However, unlike some of his critics, at least Ron Lutz believes that, if true, children being taught to hate Jews and to kill them is an actual bad thing..

Share |

Laid Out for All to See

The leading candidate for the Republican nomination for President earlier this month referred to his political enemies as "vermin," thus continuing a long tradition of GOP politicians who vilified Democrats personally, usually in less crude or less blatant terms. Steve M notes that (parentheses mine) Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6), George HW Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich were perhaps the most consequential Republicans whose delight in ad hominem attacks were generally dismissed as being within the boundaries of political norms.

The No More Mister Nice Guy guy cites Media Matters statistics demonstrating that the Big Three broadcast TV networks, the three major cable news networks, and the five highest circulating U.S. newspapers all gave far more coverage to Hillary Clinton's 2016 "basket of deplorables" comment than to Donald Trump's "vermin" comment.

Media Matters could have reinforced that point by noting that the "vermin" remark is disturbingly consistent with the authoritarian state the ex-President plans to form if he is able to remove the "ex" in fourteen months. In July, we learned from Government Executive

Former aides close to President Trump are working to revive and expand his signature proposal to upend the federal civil service, according to a new report, and are working in conjunction with the former commander in chief to quickly purge thousands of federal employees if he were to return to office.

The plan, as detailed to Axios and confirmed by Government Executive, would bring back Schedule F, a workforce initiative Trump pushed in the 11th hour of his term to politicize the federal bureaucracy. The former officials and current confidantes are, through a network of Trump-loyal think tanks and public policy organizations, creating lists of names to supplant existing civil servants. They have identified 50,000 current employees that could be dismissed under the new authority they seek to create, Axios reported and Government Executive confirmed, though they hope to only actually fire a fraction of that total and hope the resulting “chilling effect” will cause the rest to fall in line.

In October 2020, just before the presidential election, Trump signed his controversial executive order creating a new class of federal employees excepted from the competitive service.

Last December, slamming the election he had lost two years earlier, Trump tweeted on his ironically-named Truth Social "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution, Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

In possibly (the day is still young) his most recent rant, Trump charged

MSNBC (MSDNC) uses FREE government approved airwaves, and yet it is nothing but a 24 hour hit job on Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party for purposes of ELECTION INTERFERENCE. Brian Roberts, its Chairman and CEO, is a slimeball who has been able to get away with these constant attacks for years," Trump wrote. "It is the world's biggest political contribution to the Radical Left Democrats who, by the way, are destroying our Country. Our so-called 'government' should come down hard on them and make them pay for their illegal political activity. Much more to come, watch!"

Did I say "rant?" It is less a rant than a statement of intent and warning.

Steve M. believes one of the primary reasons tasteless GOP cracks about Democrats are largely ignored while the media obsessed over Hillary Clinton's "deplorable gaffes" is that the media is, contrary to widespread opinion, not liberal.

However, there is another major reason that insults by Donald Trump, who regularly condemns his perceived opponents in the harshest, most extravagant ways, are given so little coverage. It is, ironically, that it is not an aberration, but rather in character.

Hillary Clinton's politically inept gaffe surprised, and shocked because it was so unlike a sane and sober and mainstream politician to say such a thing about a group of voters, even if, as we've learned from the 1/6/21 insurrection and its aftermath, is largely accurate.

By contrast, Donald Trump's remarks and statements of intent are part of a pattern. Nevertheless,  the attention paid to his plans is diminished by the attention paid by CNN and other outlets to the four criminal indictments lodged against the former President.

The fascination these matters hold for MSNBC is the most extreme example. The seemingly endless commentary  from pundits, and especially lawyers, about gag orders and other relative minutiae should merely highlight the twists and turns, turns and twists, which render such speculation immaterial.

All of which serves to reinforce the instinct to slam Trump as stupid, demented, self-destructive, unhinged, or out-of-control rather than dangerous. The 45th President probably is none of these, and two of his main advisors, Steve Bannon and Steve Miller, are surely none of these.  Donald Trump may be unable to produce a doctoral thesis describing in full his plans and schemes, but the will is there and the loyal confidantes he would bring in, coupled with those he would embed to replace current civil servants, would put into place the lawless autocracy he relishes.

But whatever the reasons, the media is generally neglecting Donald Trump's master plan, In an exception from a journalist I've bashed a few times, CNN's Dana Bash (beginning at 2:16 of the video below) states

You talk to historians like The Washington Post did and we just need to say for the record that the term "vermin" was really effectively used by Adolph Hitler and by Mussolini, who dehumanized people and encouraged heir followers to go after their opponents.

That was only a start, but it was a start.  With less than 12 months to go before the next presidential and congressional elections, much more is needed.

  .

Share |

Netanyahu's Blind Spot

The day after the world's foremost and now most popular terrorist group massacred Israelis, The Times of Israel noted

For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.

The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.

Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products.

Israeli officials said these permits, which allow Gazan laborers to earn higher salaries than they would in the enclave, were a powerful tool to help preserve calm.

The number of work permits granted Gazans ballooned prolifically through Netanyahu's five stints as Prime Minister and

Additionally, since 2014, Netanyahu-led governments have practically turned a blind eye to the incendiary balloons and rocket fire from Gaza.

Meanwhile, Israel has allowed suitcases holding millions in Qatari cash to enter Gaza through its crossings since 2018, in order to maintain its fragile ceasefire with the Hamas rulers of the Strip.

This was no way to commit genocide and nothing an apartheid society or government would do. Moreover, the policy of propping up Hamas while undermining Fatah and the people it governed (on the West Bank) not only stoked the conditions which led to the 10/7 slaughter but also reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Islam. 

Aayan Hirsi Ali was raised as a devout Muslim in Kenya, escaped the culture of religious extremism to become a member of the Dutch Parliament, and is now an American citizen.  Seven years before the butchers of Gaza attacked Israel and tried to wipe out Jews and take other Jews as hostage, she described radical Islamism in a short, balanced video.  Yet its prescient message was completed ignored, with devastating consequences, by Prime Minister Netanyahu. She explained

If the Jihadists win and the hope for a reformed Islam dies, the rest of the world will pay a terrible price. The terror attacks in New York, London, Madrid and Paris and many other places are only a preview of what's to come. For this reason I believe that it's foolish to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name of Islam can somehow be divorced from the religion itself. For more than a decade, my message has been simple: Islam is not a religion of peace. 

Individuals respond to their religious faith in various ways, so

When I assert this, I do not mean that Islamic belief makes all Muslims violent. This is manifestly not the case. There are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world,. What I do say is that the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. Moreover, this theologically sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offenses including, but not limited to, adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, and apostasy- that is, to leave Islam. Those who tolerate this intolerance do so at their peril.

That would be all manner of countries and political leaders globally. They have included, ironically, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose obsession with the Palestinian Authority has blinded him to the far greater danger always posed by the religious fanatics of Hamas. Evidently observing irony, Ali continued

As someone who has known what it is to live without freedom, I watch in amazement as those who call themselves liberals and progressives- people who claim to make common cause with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threats to that very freedom and those very minorities.

She recognized years ago, back during the Obama Administration, what virtually the entire world refuses to recognize even now.  Citing an example from her own experience, 
Ali emphasizes 

By labeling critical examination of Islam as inherently "racist," we make the chances of reformation far less likely. There are limits on criticism of Christianity at American universities or anywhere else, for that matter; why should there be of Islam?

There should be few if any restraints placed on criticism of any religion. Yet, even now- maybe especially now- criticism of Islam is suppressed as symptomatic of white supremacy or Western colonialism.  Further

Instead of contorting Western intellectual traditions so as not to offend our Muslim fellow citizens, we need to defend both those traditions and the Muslim dissidents who take great risks to promote them. We should support these brave men and women in every way possible.... These are the Muslims we should be supporting for our sake as much as for the sake of Islam.

Netanyahu defied this argument by propping up Hamas and squelching the less extreme leaders on the West Bank. If he had done otherwise, such as by realistically accommodating Fatah and isolating Hamas, the latter would have been weakened.

Ali concludes

If we do in fact support political, social and religious freedom, then we cannot in good conscience give Islam a free pass pass on the grounds of multicultural sensitivity. We need to say to Muslims in the West: if you want to share in our societies, to share in those material benefits, then you need to accept that our freedoms are not optional.

"Islam is peace," lied President George W. Bush six days after a terrorist attack killed nearly 3,000 Americans in New York, New York.  Now, after a terrorist attack responsible for approximately 15 times as many individuals on a per capita basis, the myth that "Islam is peace" lives on, with no one permitted to mention the words "Islam" or "Muslim" in anything remotely related to the Middle East. 

But while Islam is not peace, it's not war, either, or at least as it's interpreted by peaceful Muslims.  Putting his lot in with the most fanatical individuals, Bibi Netanyahu decided not to distinguish violent Muslims from the millions of non-violent Muslims on the West Bank. It was a fundamental, unforced error which helped expose Israel to an unprecedented attack and severely undermined the safety and security of his country.

Share |