The facts that pro-Palestinian demonstrators need to know
The writer below sees a knowledge of the full facts as an antidote to the present upsurge of antisemitism. I think he is being far too optimistic. What the pro-Palestinian demonstrations reveal is how deeply runs the river of antisemitism in the West, a river that has now burst its banks.
Memories of Germany's Nazi horror have long kept antisemitism from being expressed in Western societies but that historic hatred has always been there and the Gaza conflict has caused it to burst into the open.
The big fault in Jews that causes them to be hated is their success in all sorts of ways -- particularly financial. And that provokes envy, a powerful destructive force that is such an ancient human folly that it is expressly forbidden in the Ten Commandments. It is a huge mental affliction that seethes in the minds of many unbalanced people.
And if Jewish success generally is offensive, Israel is REALLY offensive. Israel is not only succesful at building prosperity in what was once desert, it is TRIUMPHANT. It has repeatedly defeated attacks on it despite all odds against it. And that triumph provokes burning rage. A triumphant Jew is the very antithesis of what Jew-critics want. It is a towering insult to the envier mind
And where a towering rage is what is driving antisemitism, reason, rationality and facts are of no effect. What the pro Palestinian demonstrators say is founded in rage only, with the facts being completely irrelevant. The facts will be rearranged to suit the rage
And where does the rage come from? It comes from the Left, for whom rage is basic. The eruption of hate that emerged when Trump was elected reveals what drives Leftists. Rage and hate are the drives of most Leftists. So, where I see Israel as admirable in its success, the Leftist sees it as outrageous and deserving of total hate.
The divide over the Gaza war is a window into the ghastly reality of what drives the Left/Right divide in modern Western societies. Its "pro-Palestinan" motive is just window dressing for Leftist hate. It is not "pro" anything. It is just a demonstration of deeply-rooted hate.
During a call-in show with the late Christopher Hitchens, many years ago, a lady asked a simple but discerning question. After praising Hitchens for his insight, she asked how much of that insight came from talent and what rested on simply ‘knowing about stuff’.
While few can attain the knowledge, experience, and wit of Hitchens, knowing a few basics facts is surely considered the bare minimum to be a member of a society who wishes to participate in the marketplace of ideas… Or, if you don’t know ‘stuff’, you should at least be open to learning.
In our self-censorious age, it is more fashionable and pseudo-sophisticated to regurgitate the prefabricated phrases of the ‘bien-pensant’. It saves the effort of learning and thinking. Given this, we should not be surprised to find so many spouting propaganda without knowing the depth of their ignorance. Nothing illustrates this better than the Israel-Gaza conflict.
Hamas’s surprise attack on Israel, beginning on October 7, killed around 1,200 Israelis, mainly civilians, making it the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. One mustn’t forget that many Israeli Arabs also perished. One of these inconvenient facts forgotten by pro-Palestinian placard-wavers (who are really pro-Hamas, even if they don’t know it), is that some 20 per cent of Israelis are Arabs and 17 per cent are Muslim. Documents found on the bodies of Hamas terrorists show that the intent of Hamas was to kill as many civilians as possible, including detailed plans to target elementary schools. Another note, recovered by the Israeli Defence Force, read as follows:
‘You must sharpen the blades of your swords and be pure in your intentions before Allah. Know that the enemy is a disease that has no cure, except beheading and removing the hearts and livers. Attack them!’
Video footage, gathered from bodycams of the terrorists, shows them torturing their victims. The bodies found of Hamas’ victims bear the scars of the inhuman suffering they were subjected to before they were killed. There is a recording of a Hamas terrorist calling his parents with the phone of his victim, bragging with glee that he killed 10 people. Another is of terrorists boasting of having cut off the heads of their victims and playing with them.
This is the conduct of Hamas, an organisation designated as a terrorist group by, among others, the US, the UK, the European Union, and Australia. Remember, Hamas was voted into power in 2006 by a slim margin over Fatah in the Gaza Strip, they never allowed another election.
Another ignored fact is the fundamental difference between Israel and Hamas in how they treat their citizens and civilians during conflicts. While the former has made sure that every one of its citizens have access to shelters from the random rocket attacks, Hamas shelters their rockets in schools and hospitals, using civilians as human shields for weaponry and combatants, knowing that Israel will hesitate to attack due to humanitarian reasons. For Hamas, this is a win-win situation – either its civilians will prevent Israel from attacking, or if Israel does strike, the civilian casualties will be used for PR and engender sympathy among the gullible.
The actual welfare of the civilians has never been a consideration for Hamas, underscored by a report that said Hamas is hoarding 200,000 gallons of fuel for its militants, who hide in hundreds of kilometres of tunnels, while hospitals and water treatment plants are running low. Hamas openly calls for the destruction of Israel, and yet Israel is the one providing clean water to Gaza.
Even after the slaughter of Israelis, the Israeli military sent advice to residents in Gaza to move to the south in anticipation of their ground offensive in an attempt to reduce civilian casualties. Which other country will tell their enemies in advance of their combat strategy to avoid civilian casualties? The Hamas leadership, on the other hand, has ordered the civilians in the north to stay.
Around the world, mindless mobs have gathered and marched in support of Hamas and in condemnation of Israel, as if there is any moral equivalence. It is petulant and self-righteous. In Victoria, protestors saw fit to storm the office of Defence Minister Richard Marles. In Sydney, protestors were shouting ‘F*** the Jews!’ Elsewhere, the language reveals the callous nature of pro-Hamas protesters, with one man in London saying that ‘Hitler knew deal with these people’.
One might be tempted to say, and many do, that the slaughter of 1,200 Israelis is the culmination of Israel’s occupation of Gaza. But Israel does not have any presence in Gaza. In 1967, during the Third Arab-Israeli War, Israel occupied the then-Egypt-controlled Gaza (which is seldom mentioned), only after being fired upon from positions within Gaza. In 2005, Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza, forcibly removing the few thousand Jews who settled there.
But Israel has cemented the borders of Gaza, meaning that it is an open-air prison, others might pipe up. Perhaps Israel wouldn’t need to if the Hamas Charter didn’t specifically say that it intends to obliterate the state of Israel. But Gaza also has a border with Egypt, which the Egyptians have kept closed without any condemnation. Is it not morally worse for Egypt, an Islamic country that had occupied Gaza for years, as well as all the other Arab states in the area, many of whom very wealthy, not to open their doors to their brother and sister Muslims? The reality is that the Arab nations, like Hamas, care not a jot for the citizens of Gaza, whom they see only as a useful chess piece in the game of international relations against Israel.
The moral confusion over the Israel-Hamas conflict stems from not knowing ‘about stuff’. For if people knew a little more, there would be mass pro-Palestinian protests against Hamas. As such, in the utter moral confusion, antisemitism of the crassest kind is allowed to flourish again in the West, decades after ‘never again’ was promised.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/revelation-of-ignorance
***********************************************Medical antisemitism
If we want to understand why medical professionals are drawn to acts of antisemitism despite their advanced levels of education, we need to look at what their medical associations and schools are teaching them. Those institutions not only advance an ideology that facilitates Jew hatred, they demonstrate by the example of their public statements that they hold Jews and the Jewish state to a different standard.
Assuredly, the great majority of medical practitioners have made no public statements or made benign remarks that did not warrant news coverage. Still, Stop Antisemitism, an organization that calls attention to public displays of antisemitism, has recorded many medical practitioners whose speech or conduct related to recent events clearly demonstrate untrammeled Jew hatred. The fact that some of those health professionals were subsequently disciplined by their employers is reassuring. But the fact that so many would feel the urge and freedom to engage in overt Jew hatred despite their advanced professional training is alarming.
Several doctors publicly celebrated the savagery that Hamas inflicted upon Israel, which featured barbarism that rivals some of the darkest episodes of human history. Dr. Shiraz Farooq took to social media to post a Palestinian flag with the caption “about time!!!” As of today it appears he is still leading the ColoWell proctology clinic in Tampa, Florida. Dr. Majd Aburabia, the medical director of a cancer center in Dearborn, Michigan, posted on social media: “What a beautiful morning. What a beautiful day,” referencing the musical Oklahoma! to express joy about the Hamas assault. An update posted by Stop Antisemitism claims that her employment at Beaumont Hospital was terminated, but as of today she is still listed as an employee on the hospital’s website.
The unbridled adoption of extreme progressive political orthodoxy (and particularly identity politics) raises the specter that a field entrusted with healing is instead becoming a vehicle for hatred.
Dr. Abeer Abou Yabis, a physician at the Emory Winship Cancer Institute, similarly took to social media to celebrate Hamas’ attack, writing “They got walls we got gliders glory to all resistance fighters.” She is no longer employed at Emory. Dr. Dana Diab commented on Instagram that “Zionist settlers” got “a taste of their own medicine.” She was subsequently fired from her ER physician job at Lenox Hill. Raeda Saeed, a registered nurse in the Chicago area, sent a direct message expressing her desire that a Chicago-area mother and daughter who were kidnapped be “burned alive and fed to Israel dogs.” It’s unclear if she has faced any professional consequences. Zaki Massoud, a medical resident at NYU Langone Winthrop hospital, commented on Instagram, “Let them call it terrorism. Extremism. Barbarianism. We call it liberation. Decolonization. Resistance. Revolution.” He was relieved of his position.
Other doctors made grotesque remarks in characterizing Israel’s military response to the massacre that Hamas perpetrated. Alaa Ramadan, a Houston-based pediatrician, posted an Instagram image claiming that the “only” difference between children murdered in Israel as part of Hamas’ genocidal campaign and Palestinian children killed during Israel’s war to eradicate Hamas is that “you won’t find Youtube ads for the death of these (Palestinian) children ... Because they have no hidden agenda or propaganda to spread—just raw images.” Her employer, Pediatrix, sheepishly commented that “we find all forms of racism and antisemitism abhorrent. Individuals commenting on their personal social media pages do not represent an official statement on behalf of the company. We will not be commenting further on this matter.”
In other cases, health care providers landed in hot water not for their own speech but for attempting to stifle the speech of others. Zena Al-Adeeb, a Boston-based endodontist, was filmed ripping down posters of Israeli civilians. Her employment was terminated. Dr. Mohammed Alghamdi, a physician and professor at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, also ripped down posters of kidnapped Israelis. As of today he is still listed as an employee of the school.
Many health professionals were eager to endorse hateful messages crafted by others. More than 3,000 health care providers worldwide (including hundreds from the U.S.) signed an open letter making numerous demands of the Israeli government but none of Hamas. Worse, it originally demanded the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza but explicitly stated that this demand was removed after internal deliberation. The doctors who signed the letter apparently do not see the release of hostages as a priority the way that they see an “immediate cease-fire” with Hamas butchers as a moral imperative.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/antisemitism-medical-institutions
****************************************************After Hamas Pogrom, Qatar Must Finally Pay For Its Sponsorship of Terrorism
The Iranian regime is the "head of the snake," as Israeli intelligence is known to refer to it, when it comes to state-funded Islamism and jihadism across the Middle East. But often absent from the discussion is Iran's chief Sunni ally, a fabulously wealthy tiny emirate that funds and houses Hamas and disseminates Muslim Brotherhood-style Islamism throughout the region via its state-owned network, Al Jazeera: Qatar.
In the aftermath of the single largest slaughter of Jews since the defeat of Nazi Germany, as well as the single biggest American hostage crisis since Tehran in 1979, Qatar cannot be allowed to get away with its duplicity any longer.
Along with Iran, Qatar is one of the primary state bankrollers of Hamas. It is also the physical home of Hamas' organizational leaders, who live lavishly in five-star luxury hotels in Doha, far removed from the mayhem in Gaza. The Qatari regime has provided material aid and comfort to myriad other Islamist outfits, once even offering banking services for the branch of ISIS responsible for the brutal on-camera beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff in 2014.
Qatar, via both diplomatic support and Al Jazeera's fanning of the flames of Islamism, was also the tip of the spear of the tumultuous Arab Spring uprisings a decade ago. Today, Qatar's state-sponsored Islamism makes it a convenient ally of Iran -- although the emirate's non-Islamist Gulf Cooperation Council neighbors, such as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, view it with skepticism, if not outright disdain.
Qatar manages to evade Western scrutiny for its sundry malign activities via a multifaceted strategy, centered around Al Udeid Air Base, strategic Western investments, and a sprawling, deeply sophisticated information operation.
Al Udeid Air Base is the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, and Qatar looks the other way when the U.S. launches strategic operations, such as the January 2020 assassination of Iranian arch-terrorist Qasem Soleimani, from the base. The fact that Al Udeid is shockingly close to the Doha penthouses where Hamas leadership physically lives seems not to bother top U.S. military brass. On the contrary, Qatar's cynical loaning of Al Udeid has been so successful in duping Americans that the emirate is on "our side" that the Biden administration even formally designated Qatar a "major non-NATO ally of the United States" in March 2022. The administration is also currently indulging the farce of Qatar "mediating" hostage negotiations with Hamas in Gaza -- the equivalent of enlisting the arsonist to put out the fire.
Qatar, which sits on the world's third-largest natural gas reserve and is one of the wealthiest per-capita countries in the world, also attempts to indoctrinate and strategically buy out gullible, venal Westerners. The Qatar Investment Authority, the emirate's sovereign wealth fund, invests in many key assets, such as the Empire State Building in New York City and Heathrow Airport in London. Qatar has also been the single largest foreign state investor in American universities since 9/11, investing considerable sums in such prestigious institutions as Cornell, Georgetown, Northwestern, and Carnegie Mellon -- many of which now have branches in Doha.
Qatar invests heavily to promote its image as sleek and "forward-looking." It quite literally bribed its way to hosting the World Cup last year, and state-owned Qatar Airways is one of the most visible and ubiquitous sponsors of Formula 1 racing across the world. Al Jazeera's English-language outlet, AJ+, is also overtly progressive in its political slant.
Unfortunately, the Qatari information operation is multilayered, complex, and quite effective. It has duped successfully many Western elites in both North America and Europe. But no matter how much money Qatar sinks into its global P.R. campaign, and no matter how much the U.S. benefits from Al Udeid, the emirate cannot escape the fact that it is one of the leading sponsors of Islamism and jihad the world over.
The U.S. State Department currently only lists four State Sponsors of Terrorism: Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Qatar should be added to the list, but stripping it of its ludicrous "major non-NATO ally" status would be a fine place to start.
***************************************************
UK: Liberty fought tyranny in a barely noticed court hearing last week, in what I believe is one of the most important cases of our time
By PETER HITCHENS
Liberty fought tyranny in the High Court in London last week, in what I believe is one of the most important court cases of our time. The issues were simple. Is it permissible to disagree publicly with the British Government's foreign policy?
If not, how much do you have to disagree with it to be in trouble? And can you then be severely punished without a proper trial?
I have a strong personal interest in this, since I often (in fact, almost always) disagree with British foreign policy. This frequently seems to have been made by bomb-happy teenagers who have never looked at a map, opened a history book or done any proper travel.
These are surely huge issues for any country. Apart from anything else, if foreign policy cannot be criticised, how long before domestic policy is protected in the same way?
Yet this titanic and principled struggle has been taking place all but unnoticed in one of the smaller courtrooms at the Royal Courts of Justice.
The case dates back to July 2022 when the Foreign Office imposed sanctions on a video blogger called Graham Phillips, a UK citizen and former civil servant living in Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine.
Described in Parliament as a 'pro-Russian propagandist', Mr Phillips was made the subject of an 'asset freeze' and is challenging the sanctions decision.
Although most people would find his views repellent and believe he has behaved badly in other ways, as the great US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once said: 'The safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.'
The High Court heard how sanctions mean Mr Phillips is 'experiencing hardship'. He cannot be paid for work, pay bills or his mortgage on a London house or even his Council Tax. Although he can apply for licences to be allowed to do so, he refuses on principle to live by Government permission.
Does the Government’s power breach the right of free speech
Unable to afford a lawyer, a young barrister, Joshua Hitchens (no relation to me) believes the principles behind the case are so important he has taken it on without a fee.
During last week's two-day hearing before Mr Justice Swift, lawyers for the Foreign Office argued that some material produced by Mr Phillips, which has been widely shared on social media, was created in collaboration with Russia. They also pointed to an interview with Aiden Aslin, a UK national captured by Russians after travelling to Ukraine to join the fight against Russia.
Joshua Hitchens told the court that the UK Government's action was an unlawful encroachment on the right to free speech.
He argued it is an unprecedented power with serious implications for free speech and that the sanctions could not fulfil their stated aim, which is 'to prevent Russian attempts to destabilise Ukraine and undermine its territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence'.Lawyers for the Foreign Secretary argued that the 2019 Russia (Sanctions) Regulations specified a broad range of activities. This could include speech or communication, such as propaganda or disinformation, that supported Russia's war aims.
Joshua Hitchens was arguing for liberty, with a solitary solicitor to help him. On the other side, a large and costly Foreign Office team was headed by a distinguished KC, Maya Lester. Behind her sat three other barristers, supported by about half a dozen assorted aides and assistants.
Graham Phillips (at one point accompanied by a black and white cat) watched via video link from his home somewhere in Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine.
His lawyer had a simple but big point. Does the UK Government have the power it has used to punish Mr Phillips? And, if it does, is that power lawful, or does it breach the fundamental rights to free expression? The sanctions against him are a punishment, a 'draconian measure which prevents a person from living his life'.
They are penalising Mr Phillips, it was argued, for exercising his freedom of speech and they discourage him and others from exercising that right in future. It is impossible to know, Mr Phillips' barrister argued, if such rules will, in future, be applied to others. There is also no telling when they might end if they are applied. They are not like a fine or a prison sentence which, once paid or served, are over and done with.
Ms Lester had lots of small points. She argued that the expression of support for ('glorifying') the Russian invasion, of which Mr Phillips is accused, was itself some sort of material help to Russia or did damage to Ukraine.
She did not accept Mr Phillips's lawyer's point that the expression of an individual view was utterly different from the paid-for pushing of propaganda out of an official broadcasting station or pro-government newspaper. This was linked to Mr Phillips' opinions on Ukrainian military action in its eastern districts, and his attacks on neo-Nazis in Ukraine.
Mr Phillips is also accused of having been present at battles, observing them from the Russian side.
Well, this is certainly unusual. But, during the 1930s Spanish Civil War, in which Britain also did not take a direct part, British journalists covered it from both the government and rebel sides.
The BBC has reported on neo-Nazis in Ukraine, who very much exist. And Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens have suffered at the hands of Ukrainian troops.
Ms Lester is plainly a fine lawyer with a brilliant mind, but does she know much about the history of Ukraine? Does anyone in the FO? What did they think they were doing when they sanctioned Mr Phillips, who is probably unknown to anyone important in Moscow?
Ms Lester argued that he had received payments from the Russian state broadcaster RT, (which very few people watch) but did not mention anything very recent.
The real point of the case, in which the judgment has been reserved until a later date, is this: If a British subject chooses to say things which could be said to be 'destabilising' or otherwise upsetting the Republic of Ukraine, so exactly what?
If Britain was at war with Russia in alliance with Ukraine, then no doubt such statements might be deemed some sort of treason.
But the UK, for whatever reason, has not declared war on Russia. The British Government supports Ukraine and even I, who think this policy is mad, deplore the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
But Graham Phillips is entitled to disagree with the British Government and with me.
We may not like this, or like him. But if the British Government has the power to ruin people's lives merely for disagreeing with their opinions, or for sympathising with a country it does not like, then we are not free and our own cause is polluted.
We should all be hugely grateful to barrister Joshua Hitchens for taking on this unpopular case.
In the long run, our liberty depends on people like him.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment